RAE-42157-002-1
Rev. 1 – Draft
SITING EVALUATION REPORT
(SiER)
FOR PROPOSED DISPOSAL UNDER
URCR R313-25-3
OF CLASS B & C
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
AT ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.
March 16, 2000
Rogers & Associates Engineering
Unit
Dames & Moore Inc.
515 East 4500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84107
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION 1
FINDINGS
EU-S01 3
EU-S02 4
EU-S03 5
EU-S04 6
EU-S05 7
EU-S06 8
EU-S07 9
EU-S08 10
EU-S09 11
EU-S10 12
EU-S11 13
EU-S12 14
EU-S13 15
EU-S14 17
EU-S15 18
EU-S16 19
EU-S17 20
EU-S18 21
EU-S19 22
EU-S20 23
EU-S21 24
EU-S22 25
EU-S23 27
EU-S24 28
EU-S25 29
EU-S26 30
EU-S27 31
EU-S28 32
EU-S29 33
EU-S30 34
EU-S31 35
EU-S32 36
EU-S33 38
EU-S34 39
EU-S35 40
EU-S36 41
EU-S37 42
EU-S38 & EU-S39 43
EU-S40 44
EU-S41 45
EU-S42 46
EU-S42a 47
EU-S43 48
EU-S44 49
EU-S45 50
EU-S46 51
REFERENCES 52
APPENDIX A: UTAH RADIATION CONTROL RULES A1
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria and
Pre-Licensing
Plan Approval for Commercial
Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facilities
1.
INTRODUCTION
Section 105 of the Utah Radiation
Control Act (the Act) provides that no person may construct a new commercial
radioactive waste treatment or disposal facility until, among other things, the
requirements of Section 104 of the Act have been satisfied. By authority of Section 104 of the Act, the
Utah Radiation Control Board has established criteria for siting commercial
low-level waste treatment or disposal facilities. These regulations are contained in the Utah Radiation Control
Rules (URCR), Section R313-25-3 entitled “Siting Criteria and Pre-licensing
Plan Approval for Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities.” The requirements of URCR R313-25-3 address
site-related topics such as:
·
Land
Use Designations;
·
Geology;
·
Groundwater
Hydrology;
·
Surface
Water Hydrology;
·
Transportation
Systems;
·
Emergency
Response Plans; and
·
Projected
Risks of Facility Operation.
The complete text of the R313-25-3
regulation is presented in Appendix A of this SiER.
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
(Envirocare) has commenced the process of obtaining the necessary approvals to
construct and operate a new disposal cell for containerized Class A, B, and C
low-level radioactive wastes at its existing facility in Section 32, T1S, R11W,
SLBM in Tooele County, Utah. In
response to the requirements of URCR Section R313-25-3, Envirocare submitted
its “Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application for a License Amendment Allowing
Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste” (Env00a) on January 5,
2000.
Under provisions and authority of
the Act, the Utah Division of Radiation Control (the Division) has reviewed
Envirocare’s application. The Division
employed its contractor, the Rogers & Associates Engineering Unit of Dames &
Moore, Inc. for technical assistance with the review. The Division followed the following approach for review of the
application:
1.
Prepare
draft and final Regulatory Findings that must be addressed in the review of the
Application.
2.
Review
the Envirocare Application.
3.
Prepare
Interrogatories, as necessary, to obtain further information or clarify
information in the Application.
4.
Review
Interrogatory responses, assuming that all required information is contained in
either the initial submittal or responses to the first round of
Interrogatories.
5.
Prepare
draft and final Siting Evaluation Report (SiER).
6.
Attend
and support the Division in related Public Hearings.
7.
Review
and prepare draft and final responses to technical comments received during
Public Comment.
As the work was carried out, the
Division and its contractor prepared and transmitted one round of
interrogatories to Envirocare.
Envirocare prepared and submitted responses and revised text for the
interrogatories (Env00b). The Division
and its contractor reviewed and evaluated Envirocare’s responses to the
interrogatories and found most of them to be adequate for a positive
finding. Several required additional
documentation, however, which was addressed in a teleconference call between
the Division, its contractor, and Envirocare.
Envirocare responded to the remaining items (Env00c) and these responses
were found to be adequate by the Division and its contractor. Envirocare submitted a revised
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application for a License Amendment Allowing
Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste” (Env00d) on March 15,
2000.
Upon resolution of all technical
issues to the satisfaction of the reviewers, the Division prepared this Siting
Evaluation Report (SiER) to summarize the information Envirocare submitted in
its initial submittal and in its responses to interrogatories. The information summarized in this SiER
demonstrates that each individual siting criterion is satisfied. This SiER is the vehicle by which the
Division shows its rationale for concluding whether the applicable regulatory
requirements are satisfied and that a particular licensing action is
justifiable under provisions of the Act and the regulation (URCR R313-25-2).
The Executive Director of the
Radiation Control Board is ultimately responsible to determine whether all
applicable regulatory requirements are satisfied and to recommend a licensing
action to the Radiation Control Board. This required recommendation appears
under separate cover. Copies of this
SiER are available to interested parties upon request to the Division.
FINDING:
EU-S01: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within a national, state, or
county park. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(i))
BASIS:
The Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Site is
located in Section 32, about 2.6 miles south of Interstate-80 and 7.5 miles
east of the Knolls interchange on I-80, between Wendover and Salt Lake
City. The application lists and
includes the following materials in Appendix A:
(A1) a 1998 map of land ownership for
a 1-mile distance around the Envirocare site;
(A2) a 1988 USGS 1:500,000 scale
topographic map of Utah;
(A3) a 1995 Utah “Official Highway
Map” from the Utah Department of Transportation;
(A4) a 1994 1:100,000 scale Bureau
of Land Management map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A5) a 1979 1:100,000 scale USGS
topographic map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A6) sections B-3a(1) and B-3a(2) of
Envirocare’s 1990 RCRA Part B permit application; and
(A7) a March 3, 2000 letter from J.
Raymond Johnson, P.E., Director of Tooele County Department of Engineering.
The 1995 Highway Map (A3) gives
adequate authoritative evidence that the subject site in Section 32 is not
located within a National Park, based on the map’s lists and locations of
National Parks, none of which is at or contiguous with the proposed
facility. The letter from J. Raymond
Johnson verifies that the site is also not located within a state or county
park, the nearest of which is located more than 35 miles from the Envirocare
Property.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995.
(copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
Letter from J. Raymond Johnson,
P.E., March 3, 2000, to William Sinclair, DEQ (copy in Appendix A,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
FINDING:
EU-S02: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within a national, state, or
county monument. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(i))
BASIS:
The Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Site is
located in Section 32, about 2.6 miles south of Interstate-80 and 7.5 miles
east of the Knolls interchange on I-80, between Wendover and Salt Lake
City. The application lists and
includes the following materials in Appendix A:
(A1) a 1998 map of land ownership
for a 1-mile distance around the Envirocare site;
(A2) a 1988 USGS 1:500,000 scale
topographic map of Utah;
(A3) a 1995 Utah “Official Highway
Map” from the Utah Department of Transportation;
(A4) a 1994 1:100,000 scale Bureau
of Land Management map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A5) a 1979 1:100,000 scale USGS
topographic map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A6) sections B-3a(1) and B-3a(2) of
Envirocare’s 1990 RCRA Part B permit application; and
(A7) a March 3, 2000 letter from J.
Raymond Johnson, P.E., Director of Tooele County Department of Engineering.
The 1995 Highway Map (A3) gives
adequate authoritative evidence that the subject site in Section 32 is not
located within a National Monument, based on the map’s lists and locations of
National Monuments, none of which is at or contiguous with the proposed
facility. The letter from J. Raymond
Johnson verifies that the site is also not located within a State or County
Monument, the nearest of which is located more than 35 miles from the
Envirocare Property.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995.
(copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
Letter from J. Raymond Johnson,
P.E., March 3, 2000, to William Sinclair, DEQ (copy in Appendix A,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
FINDING:
EU-S03: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within a national, state, or
county recreation area. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(i))
BASIS:
The Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Site is
located in Section 32, about 2.6 miles south of Interstate-80 and 7.5 miles
east of the Knolls interchange on I-80, between Wendover and Salt Lake
City. The application lists and
includes the following materials in Appendix A:
(A1) a 1998 map of land ownership
for a 1-mile distance around the Envirocare site;
(A2) a 1988 USGS 1:500,000 scale
topographic map of Utah;
(A3) a 1995 Utah “Official Highway
Map” from the Utah Department of Transportation;
(A4) a 1994 1:100,000 scale Bureau
of Land Management map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A5) a 1979 1:100,000 scale USGS
topographic map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A6) sections B-3a(1) and B-3a(2) of
Envirocare’s 1990 RCRA Part B permit application; and
(A7) a March 3, 2000 letter from J.
Raymond Johnson, P.E., Director of Tooele County Department of Engineering.
The 1995 Highway Map (A3) gives
adequate authoritative evidence that the subject site in Section 32 is not
located within a National Recreation Area, based on the map’s lists and
locations of National Recreation Areas, none of which is at or contiguous with
the proposed facility. The letter from
J. Raymond Johnson verifies that the site is also not located within a State or
County Recreation Area, the nearest of which is located more than 35 miles from
the Envirocare Property.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995.
(copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
Letter from J. Raymond Johnson,
P.E., March 3, 2000, to William Sinclair, DEQ (copy in Appendix A,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
FINDING:
EU-S04: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within a designated
wilderness or wilderness study area. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(i))
BASIS:
The Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Site is
located in Section 32, about 2.6 miles south of Interstate-80 and 7.5 miles east
of the Knolls interchange on I-80, between Wendover and Salt Lake City. The application lists and includes the
following materials in Appendix A:
(A1) a 1988 USGS 1:500,000 scale
topographic map of Utah;
(A2) a 1995 Utah “Official Highway
Map” from the Utah Department of Transportation;
(A3) a March 6, 2000 letter from
Ronald K. Gaynor, P.E., to Kenneth Alkema with a USFS map; and
(A4) pages from BLM’s Utah
Wilderness Inventory for 1999.
The (A1) and (A2) maps show
Designated Wilderness Areas as of 1988 and 1995, none of which include the
proposed facility. The March 6, 2000
letter and map show that the closest Wilderness Area designated by the U.S.
Forest Service is the Deseret Peak Wilderness Area in the Stansbury Mountains,
about 25 miles from the Envirocare Site.
The BLM Utah Wilderness Inventory for 1999 shows that the nearest
Wilderness Area or Wilderness Study Area designated by BLM is the Cedar
Mountain Wilderness Study Area, which is located about 5 miles east of the
Envirocare Site.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Surface Management Status, Utah,
Bonneville Salt Flats”, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
1:100,000-scale topographic map, 1994 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
Letter and map from Ronald K.
Gaynor, P.E., March 6, 2000, to Kenneth Alkema, Envirocare (copy in Appendix A,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“Utah Wilderness Inventory – 1999”,
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1999, pages i, iv,
“Northwest Region”, 4, and 4M (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
FINDING:
EU-S05: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facility is not located within a wild and scenic river
area. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(i))
BASIS:
The Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Site is
located in Section 32, about 2.6 miles south of Interstate-80 and 7.5 miles
east of the Knolls interchange on I-80, between Wendover and Salt Lake
City. The application lists and
includes the following materials in Appendix A:
(A1) a 1998 map of land ownership
for a 1-mile distance around the Envirocare site;
(A2) a 1988 USGS 1:500,000 scale
topographic map of Utah;
(A3) a 1995 Utah “Official Highway
Map” from the Utah Department of Transportation;
(A4) a 1994 1:100,000 scale Bureau
of Land Management map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”;
(A5) a 1979 1:100,000 scale USGS
topographic map, “Bonneville Salt Flats”; and
(A6) sections B-3a(1) and B-3a(2) of
Envirocare’s 1990 RCRA Part B permit application.
The (A2), (A4), and (A5) maps
indicate that the closest water feature is an intermittent stream that ends
approximately 2 miles from the site.
The maps also show that land in the site vicinity is relatively flat,
suggesting the absence of nearby geographic scenery or slopes sufficient to
induce “wild” water flows. Given the
small and intermittent nature of the nearest intermittent stream and the flat
surrounding landscape, maps (A2), (A4), and (A5) are accepted as adequate
demonstration that the facility is not located within a wild and scenic river
area, even though detailed criteria are not presented for this designation.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“State of Utah”, U.S. Geological Survey
1:500,000-scale topographic map, 1988 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
“Surface Management Status, Utah,
Bonneville Salt Flats”, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
1:100,000-scale topographic map, 1994 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
“Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah”, U.S.
Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale metric topographic map, 30x60 minute
quadrangle, 1979 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S06: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within or underlain by an
ecologically or scientifically significant natural area, including wildlife
management areas or habitats for listed or proposed endangered species as
designated by federal law. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(ii))
BASIS:
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
is continually updating threatened & endangered species listings and designating
new critical habitats. The two FEISs
referenced in the application (NUREG-1476 and DOE/EIS-0099-F) are authoritative
objective evidence of a thorough evaluation of impact on endangered species and
ecologically significant habitat through 1993.
The applicant has also demonstrated
diligence to update the FEIS information by obtaining current information from
the local office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. On March 3, 2000, the USFWS confirmed that
there are no endangered or threatened species, candidate species, habitats of
concern in that area of the Envirocare facility.
REFERENCES:
Sections 4.5.4, 5.1.5, and 5.2.5,
Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate Envirocare’s
11.e(2) Disposal Facility, NUREG-1476, U.S. NRC, August 1993.
Section 4.7.5, Final Environmental
Impact Statement Remedial Actions at the Former Vitro Chemical Company Site
South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah, DOE/EIS-0099-F, U.S. DOE, July 1984.
Letter from Ronald Gaynor relating
personal communication with Larry English, USFWS, March 5, 2000.
FINDING:
EU-S07: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within 100-year flood plains. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(iii))
BASIS:
The Utah Geological and Mineral
Survey Map 111 shows that the Envirocare site is outside of flood areas that
have become inundated by water during the past several hundred years due to
lake flooding. It also shows that there
are no dams whose failure would influence the Envirocare site. The surface water hydrology section of the
License Renewal Application shows that the Envirocare site is at the western
extremity of the watershed area from the Cedar Mountains (Figure B.7). It also indicates that the water flow from a
100-year flood is about 13-times lower than the probable maximum flood water
flow assumed for HEC-1 and HEC-2 analyses that showed negligible impacts on
disposed wastes. The Vitro EIS
indicates that stream flows from the Cedar Mountain area usually evaporate and
infiltrate into the ground before reaching the lower, flatter lands east of
Envirocare.
REFERENCES:
“Flood Hazard from Lakes and Failure
of Dams in Utah,” Map 111, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Utah Department
of Natural Resources, 1988 (Copy attached to cover, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
“Surface Water Hydrology,” Section
3.5, Radioactive Material License Renewal Application, Envirocare of Utah,
March 16, 1998 (Copy in Appendix C, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Remedial Action at the Former Vitro Chemical Company Site, South
Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah, DOE/EIS-0099-F, U.S. DOE, July 1984 (section
copied in Appendix C, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S08: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within 200 feet from a
Holocene fault. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(iv))
BASIS:
The application presents maps in
Appendix D (Figures H-19 and H-20) from Envirocare’s RCRA Part B permit
application based on Buckman et al (1980) and Slemmons (1984, personal
communication), which showed approximate 5-mile distances from the site to
possible Holocene faulting. The
application also presents section 3.4.2 of Envirocare’s License Renewal
Application, quoting Arabasz et al, 1989 as evidence that the nearest Holocene
fault is 18 miles away. Material
provided from a study by Pentacore Resources does not address faulting.
Text from the 1990 RCRA Part B
permit application indicates that young (Holocene) fault scarps are subtle and
very hard to detect even when present in the lake muds and gravels around the
site. This difficulty could conceivably
leave open the possibility that Holocene faults are present within 200 feet but
have not been detected because of inadequate studies. However, the application is judged to adequately demonstrate that
Holocene faults are not located within 200 feet because several different
studies are cited where Holocene faults are identified in the region, and none
is within 200 feet of the proposed disposal site.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
Figures H-19 and H-20 from
Envirocare’s RCRA Part B Application (copy in Appendix D, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
Envirocare License Renewal
Application, Section 3.4.2, March 16, 1998 (copy in Appendix D, Pre-Licensing
Plan Approval Application).
“Revised Hydrogeologic Report for
the Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah,” Pentacore Resources LLC,
January, 2000.
FINDING:
EU-S09: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not underlain by underground mines. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(v))
BASIS:
This application contains the
following excerpts from the 1998 license application and the 1990 RCRA permit
application relevant to this criterion:
·
“Although
the Facility has been classified as located in an area prospectively valuable
for oil and gas, no active or pending mining claims or minerals leases are
located on the Site. No oil, coal, or
other economic minerals are extracted here.” p. 3-18, 1998 license application.
·
“The
land owned by Envirocare has no known underground mines, salt domes, or salt
beds.” p. B-36, 1990 RCRA permit application.
These statements by themselves do
not provide objective evidence that the criterion is met. However, the applicant has demonstrated
recent communication with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. A March 6, 2000, UDOGM search of its
databases revealed that there were no records of active mines, abandoned mines
or mining claims in any of the sections within a 5-mile radius of the
Envirocare site.
REFERENCES:
Section 3.4.1.3, Radioactive
Material License Renewal Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 16, 1998.
Section B-3a(4), RCRA Part B Permit
Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 30, 1990.
Letter from Ronald Gaynor relating
personal communication with Vicky Southwick, UDOGM, March 7, 2000 (Copy in
Appendix E of the revised Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S10: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not within or underlain by salt domes or
salt beds. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(v))
BASIS:
A memorandum is furnished from Dan
Shrum, dated March 7, 2000, indicating there are no salt domes beneath the
facility. His opinion is based on
review of approximately 120 soil borings (some up to 100 feet deep), generation
of 8 cross-sections for the “Revised Hydrogeologic Report for the Envirocare
Waste Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah” (not included in the application), and an
understanding of the general depositional history of the facility. Mr. Shrum is a Professional Geologist in the
State of Wyoming (PG-3339) and has practiced geology in the State of Utah for
10 years.
Mr. Shrum’s observations of
interbedded clays, silts, and sands beneath the site, deposited by the Great
Salt Lake and its predecessors, are consistent with previous observations
contained in the License Renewal Application, and referenced there to Cook et
al., 1964 and Stephens, 1974.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria
Memorandum from Dan Shrum, March 7,
2000 (Copy in Appendix E, Revised Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“Geologic Site Characteristics,”
Section 3.4.1, Radioactive Material License Renewal Application, Envirocare of
Utah, March 16, 1998 (Copy in Appendix D, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
FINDING:
EU-S11: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within dam failure flood
areas. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(vi))
BASIS:
The applicant provides the map
“Flood Hazard from Lakes and Failure of Dams in Utah”, Utah Geological and Mineral
Survey Map 111, 1988, but does not indicate on the map the location of the
disposal site or facility. Based on
descriptions of the site location elsewhere in the application, however, the
proposed site appears to be well outside of any of the areas identified as dam
failure flood areas.
The applicant also provides
historical Great Salt Lake levels that are well below the elevation of the
proposed disposal site even during historical maxima.
REFERENCES:
Pre-License Plan Approval
Application R313-25-3 Siting Criteria, Section (3)(a)vi).
Appendix F, "Flood Hazard from
Lakes and Failure of Dams in Utah," Utah Geological and Mineral Survey,
1988, "Fluctuation of Great Salt Lake," U.S. Geological Survey.
FINDING:
EU-S12: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within or underlain by areas
subject to landslide, mud flow, or other earth movement, unless adverse impacts
can be mitigated. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(vii))
BASIS:
The applicant provides the
“Landslide Map of Utah”, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map 133, 1991, but
does not indicate on the map the location of the disposal facility. Based on descriptions of the site location
elsewhere in the application, however, the proposed site appears to be well
outside of any of the areas identified as subject to landslides.
REFERENCES:
Pre-License Plan Approval
Application R313-25-3 Siting Criteria, Section (3)(a)vii).
Appendix G, "Safety Evaluation
Report for Envirocare's License Renewal," Section 2.9.10 and Section 2.4,
Rogers & Associates Engineering Corporation, October 1998.
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey
Map 133, 1991, "Landslide Map of Utah."
FINDING:
EU-S13: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within farmlands classified
or evaluated as “prime”, “unique”, or of “statewide importance” by the U.S.
Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service under the Prime Farmland
Protection Act. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(viii))
BASIS:
A field investigation by the USDA
Soil Conservation Service found that the soil and groundwater at the Envirocare
site are of poor quality and the site is not suitable for farming or
agriculture. The site is not located within by farmlands classified or
evaluated as "prime," "unique," or of "statewide
importance" by the SCS under the Prime Farmland Protection Act. The SCS made this determination in 1989
based on soil pH of 8.6, sodium absorption ratio >15, and electrical
conductivity >4 Mmhos.
In addition, since the site is
located within Tooele County’s Hazardous Industries Area, which is designated
for management of industrial and hazardous materials, it is highly unlikely
that the area would ever be used for farming or other agricultural purposes.
REFERENCES:
Sections B-3a(1) and B-3a(8), RCRA
Part B Permit Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 30, 1990.
Letter from F. Allgood, USDA Soil
Conservation Service, June 5, 1989.
FINDING:
EU-S14: The
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within five miles of existing
permanent dwellings, residential areas, or other habitable structures,
including schools, churches, and historic structures. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(ix))
BASIS:
Mr. J. Raymond Johnson, a
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Utah and Director of the
Tooele County Department of Engineering stated in a letter dated March 3, 2000
and addressed to Mr. William Sinclair (Executive Director of the Utah Division
of Radiation Control) that “There are no permanent dwellings, residential
areas, or other habitable structures, including schools, churches, and historic
structures within five miles of Section 32, T1S, R11W.” Section 32, T1S, R11W is the location of the
proposed Envirocare facility.
Because of his training, experience,
and position with Tooele County, the Department considers Mr. Johnson to be an
authoritative source for information of this type. Therefore, the Department accepts his statement as definitive.
A search of the National Register
Information System operated by the National Park Service demonstrates that no
historic structures are described as being near Clive, Utah. The apparent nearest historical structure is
the GAPA Launch Site and Blockhouse located northeast of Knolls, Utah. Earlier submittals by others reveal that
this site is located in the southwest corner of Section 9, T1N, R12W. Section 9, T1N, R12W is over 8 miles
north-northwest of the proposed site. Moreover, no habitable structures exist
at this location.
Thus, the Department concludes that
the proposed facility will not be located within five miles of existing
permanent dwellings, residential areas, or other habitable structures,
including schools, churches, and historic structures.
REFERENCES:
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste”; Section 313-25-3-3(a)(ix); Envirocare of Utah,
Inc.; January 5, 2000.
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste”; Appendices A and I; Envirocare of Utah, Inc.;
January 5, 2000.
“Siting Criteria and Pre-Licensing
Plan Application; Responses to Interrogatories and Revised Text for the Grassy
Mountain Facility, Tooele County, Utah”; Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.;
Revision 1, November 10, 1997.
FINDING:
EU-S15: The
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within five miles of surface
waters, including intermittent streams, perennial streams, rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, and wetlands. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(x))
BASIS:
Inspection of USGS orthophotomaps
(topographic maps) that include all land areas within five miles of the
proposed site reveal the presence of no perennial streams, rivers, lakes, or
reservoirs in that area. These same
maps do, however, indicate several features that are either intermittent
streams or narrow washes in this area, using USGS definitions for symbols used
in its maps.
To resolve this ambiguity, the
applicant procured the services of Mr. Ronald K. Gaynor, a Professional Civil
Engineer, registered in the States of Utah, Kentucky, Ohio, and North
Carolina. He is knowledgeable of
surface water phenomena by virtue of his training and experience. By reason of his training, experience, and
professional registration, the Department judges him to be an authoritative
source and his statements to be authoritative.
On March 7, 2000, Mr. Gaynor
inspected and reported his findings of at least 22 surface water drainage
features within five miles of the proposed facility. Mr. Gaynor represented that he had inspected all surface water drainage
features in this area. The inspection
involved observation from a helicopter at low altitudes and surface walkovers
as he deemed appropriate.
Mr. Gaynor’s results are summarized
as follows:
All of the drainage channels
inspected appear to be typical erosion features created by periodic runoff from
the upgradient mountain fronts and hilly areas. Even though this inspection was
performed in the wettest season of the year, with 0.10 inch precipitation in
the previous 24 hours, all of the channels were dry. None of the channels
extended into the mountains and all appeared to be experiencing episodic
erosion at their uppermost extents as they gradually advance toward the source
of runoff. At their lower most extents, they all disappear before reaching the
valley floor as their storm induced flows dissipate into the soil and through
evaporation.
There was no evidence that flow in
any of the channels is ever sustained through bank seepage and base flow from
ground water. No significant vegetation was present in any greater density
around the drainage features than across the desert in general. It was also
observed that, although there are many cattle grazing in the area, there was no
evidence of cattle having found and used any of the surface water features for
drinking, at any time in the past.
It is my professional opinion that
all of the surface water drainage features within 5 miles of the Envirocare
site are ephemeral in nature and consist of dry washes and arroyos which may
contain water only in immediate response to episodic precipitation, or snow
melt. There is no evidence that perennial or intermittent streams exist within
this area
Accepting Mr. Gaynor’s statement as
authoritative, the Department concludes that no intermittent streams exist
within five miles of the proposed site.
Mr Gaynor also contacted Mr. Anthony
Vigil of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Bountiful, Utah to determine the
presence of any wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed site. Mr. Vigil also referred Mr. Gaynor to the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which maintains the National Fish &
Wildlife Wetlands Inventory.
The Department considers Mr. Vigil
by virtue of his position with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be an
authoritative source for information to determine whether wetlands exist within
five miles of the proposed site. The
Department also recognizes the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as an
authoritative source of the same information.
Mr. Vigil checked his records and
confirmed that no wetlands delineations had been performed in Tooele county
west of Grantsville, UT. The applicant
provided a copy of a map from the Fish & Wildlife Wetlands Inventory
database showing no wetlands data within about 10 miles of the proposed
site. Since the wetlands inventory
lacks data within five miles of the proposed facility, and based on Mr. Vigil’s
statement, the Department concludes that no wetlands exist within five miles of
the proposed site.
Thus, the Department concludes that
located the proposed facility will not be located within five miles of surface
waters, including intermittent streams, perennial streams, rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, and wetlands.
REFERENCES:
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application
for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level
Radioactive Waste”; Section 313-25-3-3(a)(x); Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; March
16, 2000.
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste”; Appendix J; Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; March 16,
2000.
FINDING:
EU-S16: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within 100 feet of uranium
mill tailings. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(xi))
BASIS:
Uranium mill tailings are disposed
in the vicinity of the proposed disposal facility. Uranium mill tailings have been imported to the Envirocare
facility from various offsite cleanup locations and placed in a designated
landfill unit. In addition, the U.S.
DOE in conjunction with the State of Utah placed uranium mill tailings in a
disposal cell located adjacent to the proposed Class B/C site.
The application provides Drawing
D-99150-CV-010 from the previous License Amendment Application to show the location
of the proposed Class B/C disposal area relative to the uranium mill tailing
disposal areas [Vitro and 11e(2)]. The
drawing adequately demonstrates that the proposed facility is not located
within 100 feet of uranium mill tailings.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Remedial Action at the Former Vitro Chemical Company Site, South
Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah, DOE/EIS-0099-F, U.S. DOE, July 1984.
Figure B.8, RCRA Part B Permit
Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 30, 1990.
Drawing D-99150-CV-010, Application
for License Amendment, Envirocare of Utah, November 1, 1999 (copy in Appendix
T, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S17: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within 1,000 feet of
archeological sites to which adverse impacts cannot reasonably be mitigated. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(xii))
BASIS:
A Cultural Resource Inventory was
performed on the square mile (Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 11 West)
including the Envirocare site by Archaeological-Environmental Research
Corporation in August, 1981. The qualifications
of the archaeological contractor to conduct the study are presented in a letter
from the Utah Division of State History in Appendix K. A copy of the archaeological contractor’s
report, including findings and recommendations, are also presented in Appendix
K. The report presents adequate
demonstration that the facility is not located within 1,000 feet of
archeological sites to which adverse impacts cannot reasonably be mitigated.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria
“Cultural Resource Inventory of One
Square Mile in the Clive Locality of Tooele County, Utah,”
Archaeological-Environmental Research Corporation, August 31, 1981 (copy in
Exhibit B.5, Appendix K, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-18: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not underlain by recharge zones of
aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved solids content of
less than 10,000 mg/L. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(a)(xiii))
BASIS:
The application presents the
following pertinent information:
There are two aquifers that underlie
the Envirocare facility:
• a
shallow unconfined aquifer, and
• a
deeper confined aquifer.
The shallow unconfined aquifer
extends no deeper than about 40 feet below grounds surface. The water quality is poor, with total
dissolved solids (TDS) in the range of 24,000 to 61,000 mg/l. The top of the deeper confined aquifer is
about 40 to 45 feet below ground surface.
The water quality in this aquifer is slightly better than in the shallow
unconfined aquifer, with TDS of about 20,000 mg/l. The state Groundwater Quality Protection Regulations classify
both the unconfined and confined aquifers as Class IV. This is equivalent to EPA’s Class III. Since both aquifers have TDS well above
10,000 mg/l, the Envirocare site is not in a recharge zone of an aquifer with
TDS of less than 10,000 mg/l.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000.
Envirocare License Renewal
Application, Section 3.6, Groundwater Hydrology, March 16, 1998 (copy in
Appendix L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S19: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located within or underlain by
drinking water source protection areas designated by the State Drinking Water
Committee. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(xiv))
BASIS:
A memorandum is furnished from Dan
Shrum of Envirocare, documenting a conversation on March 13, 2000 with Kate
Johnson, a representative of the State of Utah, Division of Drinking Water,
indicating that no drinking water source protection areas are found in Section
32, T1S, R11W, SLBM.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, January 5, 2000.
Memorandum from Dan Shrum, March 7,
2000 (Copy in Appendix M, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S20: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located in areas above or underlain
by aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved solids content
of less than 500 mg/l and which aquifers do not exceed state ground water
standards for pollutants. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(b)(i))
BASIS:
The application shows that the
levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) in both the shallow unconfined aquifer
and the underlying confined aquifer far exceed 500 mg/L. The TDS content of the shallow unconfined
aquifer ranges between 24,000 and 61,000 mg/l.
The deeper confined aquifer is also saline and has a TDS content of
about 20,000 mg/l. Therefore, the site
is not located in an area above or underlain by any aquifer with a TDS content
of less than 500 mg/l.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000.
Envirocare License Renewal
Application, Section 3.6, Groundwater Hydrology, March 16, 1998 (copy in
Appendix L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S21: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located in areas above or underlain
by aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolve solids content
between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/L when the distance from the surface to the ground
water is less than 100 ft. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(b)(ii))
BASIS:
The applicant has shown that at the
Envirocare facility the distance from the surface to groundwater is less than
100 feet, and therefore this criterion applies. The shallow unconfined aquifer is approximately 25 to 35 feet
below the ground surface and the top of the confined aquifer is about 40 to 45
feet below the ground. However, the
application shows that the levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) in both of
these aquifers exceed 10,000 mg/l. The
TDS content of the shallow unconfined aquifer ranges between 24,000 and 61,000
mg/l. The deeper confined aquifer is
also saline and has a TDS content of about 20,000 mg/l. Therefore, the site is not located in an
area above or underlain by any aquifer with a TDS content between 3,000 and
10,000 mg/l.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000.
Envirocare License Renewal
Application, Section 3.6, Groundwater Hydrology, March 16, 1998 (copy in
Appendix L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S22: The
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located in areas where water, gas, or
oil are extensively withdrawn. (URCR
R313-25-3(3)(b)(iii))
BASIS:
Mr. Dan Shrum is a hydrogeologist
for Envirocare and a Certified Geologist with the State of Wyoming. By virtue of his training, experience, and
certification, Mr. Shrum is an acceptable source of information to assess the
extent of water, oil, and gas withdrawal in the vicinity of the proposed site.
The applicant has provided a
memorandum from Mr. Shrum summarizing the results of a water rights search he
had conducted using the Utah Division of Water Rights web page and submitted to
the Department. The results indicate a
single current water right in Sections 28 through 33 of T1S R11W and Sections 4
through 6 of T2S R11. This water right
was not accessed in 1999. An additional
water right was identified 3.5 miles east of the proposed site.
Mr. Shrum states his opinion that:
“. . . extraction of groundwater from either well [identified above]
will have little of no effect of groundwater movements beneath the Envirocare
facility. This is because: 1) the wells
are screened approximately 300 feet below ground surface and the groundwater of
concern beneath the Envirocare facility is shallow (approximately 30 feet below
ground surface); 2) there are numerous silt and clay layers that separate these
two water bearing units; and 3) the wells are located at least 3 miles
northwest and east of the facility.”
The Department recognizes the Utah
Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) is an authoritative source of
information about oil and gas wells within the State of Utah.
The applicant investigated the
existence of oil and/or gas wells in the vicinity of the proposed site by
examining the files of the DOGM of March 7, 2000. In this investigation, the applicant identified no active oil or
gas wells on record in Tooele County.
DOGM records contain the following additional information of oil and gas
wells in Tooele County:
One research-only, no production
well in Section 17 of T7S R4W (many miles for the proposed site).
One well in Section 22 of T8S R3W
where operations were suspended before drilling was completed.
Seventeen wells have been abandoned
in various areas of the county, none of which are within five miles of the
proposed site.
Based on Mr. Shrum’s opinion and on
the records maintained the Utah division of Oil, Gas and Mining, the Department
concludes that the proposed site is not located in areas where water, gas, or
oil are extensively withdrawn.
REFERENCES:
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste”; Section R313-25-3(3)(b)(iii); Envirocare of Utah,
Inc.; March 16, 2000.
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste”; Appendix M and Appendix N; Envirocare of Utah,
Inc.; March 16, 2000.
FINDING:
EU-S23: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located in areas above or underlain
by weak unstable soils, including soils that lose their ability to support
foundations as a result of hydrocompaction, expansion, or shrinkage. (URCR R313-25‑3(3)(b)(iv))
BASIS:
Appendix J from Envirocare’s License
Renewal Application references soil testing and analyses for settlement, slope
stability, and liquefaction potential.
The findings of the analyses are that the ground settlement potential is
no greater than 1.1 feet, which is not considered excessive. Slope stability
factors of safety are calculated to be 2.3 for static conditions and 1.25 for
earthquake conditions (magnitude 6.5).
The evaluation of liquefaction
potential utilized the method of Seed et al., 1985, as referenced in the
“Liquefaction” section in Appendix J.
Liquefiable layers exist at depths greater than 35 feet, but are
considered sufficiently deep that they would not affect the stability of the
site.
The data indicate that the upper 35
feet of relatively dense sediments at the site are non-liquefiable. Therefore, potential occurrences of
liquefaction at depths greater than 35 feet might cause some minor ground
settlement; however, this should not result in gross site or embankment
instability because few liquefiable sediments are distributed locally and
deeply from the surface of the natural grade.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
"Slope Stability,” Appendix J,
Envirocare License Renewal Application, March 16, 1998 (copy in Appendix O,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S24: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
treatment and disposal facilities are not located in areas underlain by karst
terrains. (URCR R313-25-3(3)(b)(v))
BASIS:
The application cites previous
findings in Appendix O (containing information from Envirocare’s license
renewal application) as showing that there are no underlying karst features in
the area of the site. Section 3.4.1.3
of the renewal application cites a 1995 Utah Geological Survey statement that
the site is not susceptible to geologic hazards other than ground shaking due
to potential earthquake activity. The
1974 regional geology study by Stephens indicates the basin sediments of the
area are unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Quaternary lacustrine Lake Bonneville
deposits 800 to 1000 feet thick.
Subsurface logs from monitor well SC-1 in the center of Section 32 show
the lacustrine deposits extend to at least 250 feet beneath the facility. Deeper Tertiary and Quaternary valley fill
(clays, sands, and gravels) deposits are about 300 to 600 feet thick. None of the documents reviewed suggests the
presence of karst materials, ground water sources in karst, or surface features
that reflect the presence of karst materials in the vicinity of the site. The application therefore demonstrates
adequately that the site is not located in areas underlain by karst terrains by
showing underlayment by other, non-karstic materials.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria
Section 3.4.1.3, Envirocare License
Renewal Application, March 16, 1998 (copy in Appendix O, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S25: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that
incinerators associated with land disposal facilities are not located above
aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved solids content
below 3,000 mg/L. (URCR
R313-25-3(4))
BASIS:
This criterion only applies to
incinerators. It does not apply to
disposal facilities. Envirocare has not
applied to include an incinerator in connection with its proposed Class B and C
disposal facility.
REFERENCE:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level
Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section R313-25-3
Siting Criteria.
FINDING:
EU-S26: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that
incinerators not associated with ground disposal facilities are not located
above aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved solids
content below 500 mg/L. (URCR
R313-25-3(4))
BASIS:
This criterion only applies to
incinerators. It does not apply to
disposal facilities. Envirocare has not
applied to include an incinerator in connection with its proposed Class B and C
disposal facility.
REFERENCE:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
FINDING:
EU-S27: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that land
disposal facilities associated with incinerators are not located within a
distance to existing drinking water wells and watersheds for public water
supplies of one year’s ground water travel time plus 1,000 feet. (URCR R313-25-3(5))
BASIS:
This criterion only applies to
incinerators. It does not apply to
disposal facilities. Envirocare has not
applied to include an incinerator in connection with its proposed Class B and C
disposal facility.
REFERENCE:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
FINDING:
EU-S28: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that land
disposal facilities not associated with incinerators are not located within a
distance to existing drinking water wells and watersheds for public water
supplies of five years’ ground water travel time plus 1,000 feet. (URCR R313-25-3(5))
BASIS:
The application shows that the
groundwater flow velocity in the shallow unconfined aquifer varies from 0.02
feet/yr to about 2 feet per year (License Renewal Application, March 16, 1998). Other data in the application indicate a
maximum groundwater velocity of 13 feet per year (RCRA Part B permit
Application, March 30, 1990). The data
from the License Renewal Application are based on a series of slug tests
performed at the site. Using the upper
value of 2 feet per year, five years' ground water travel plus 1,000 feet is
about 1,010 feet. Using the older data
from the RCRA Part B Permit Application, five years’ groundwater travel plus
1,000 feet is about 1,065 feet.
A groundwater usage report by Dan
Shrum indicates that the nearest active water rights are approximately 3.5
miles northwest and east of the Envirocare facility, and are not used for
drinking water. This is well beyond the
1,065-foot criterion.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Groundwater Gradients and
Velocities, Section 3.6.2.3, Envirocare License Renewal Application, March 16,
1998 (copy in Appendix L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“Designated Drinking Water Source
Protection Areas,” Section B-3a(11) of Envirocare’s RCRA Part B Permit
Application, March 30, 1990 (copy in Appendix M, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
Daniel B. Shrum letter to Robert
Herbert, Feb. 18, 2000, and Dan Shrum March 7, 2000 memo (copy in Appendix M,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S29: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does include hydraulic conductivity and
other information necessary to adequately estimate the ground water
velocity. (URCR R313-25-3(6))
BASIS:
Hydraulic conductivities were
determined from a series of slug tests conducted in 1997 and are summarized in
Appendix L of the application. The
horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the unconfined aquifer averages about
0.0003 cm/s. The conductivity ranged
from 2.2 x 10-6 cm/s to 0.0043 cm/s. In the deeper confined aquifer the hydraulic conductivity is
about 0.0005 cm/s.
Hydraulic gradients at the site
range from 0.0002 to 0.001 in the shallow aquifer with the average gradient
approximately 0.0004. Porosity
measurements have been documented for the unconfined aquifer units. Together, this information is adequate to
estimate the groundwater velocity.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000.
“Groundwater Flow Regime,” Section
3.6.2 in Envirocare License Renewal Application, March 16, 1998 (copy in
Appendix L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“Final Slug Test Results” prepared
by Adrian Brown Consultants, June 18, 1997 (copy in Appendix LL of the
Envirocare License Renewal Application, March 16, 1998; referenced in Appendix
L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S30: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does include the results of studies
adequate to identify the presence of ground water aquifers in the area of the
proposed site and to assess the quality of the ground water of all aquifers
identified in the area of the proposed site.
(URCR R313-25-3(7))
BASIS:
The application contains Sections
3.6 and 3.7 of the 1998 license renewal application, which provided a good
summary description of the ground water aquifers and ground water quality in
the vicinity of the Envirocare site.
These sections contain numerous citations to specific studies conducted
by the applicant’s hydrogeologic contractors as well as independent studies by
DOE and others. The applicant has
demonstrated use of both historical and recent ground water characterization
data to allow for comparison over time.
While the referenced appendices and
attachments from the 1998 application were not included and full citations for
the referenced studies were not always given, the summarized information in Appendix
L of this submittal was sufficient to demonstrate that the required studies
have been performed and that the data are current.
REFERENCES:
Sections 3.6 and 3.7, Radioactive
Material License Renewal Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 16, 1998 (copy
in Appendix L, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
Sections 2.2.1, Safety Evaluation
Report for Envirocare’s License Renewal Application, Rogers & Associates
Engineering, October 1998 (copy in Appendix P, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Remedial Action at the Former Vitro Chemical Company Site, South
Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah, DOE/EIS-0099-F, U.S. DOE, July 1984.
Disposal Site Characterization
Report for the Uranium Mill Tailings Site, DOE, 1985.
FINDING:
EU-S31: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that vadose
zone or other near-surface monitoring, as required by the Executive Secretary,
has been conducted. (URCR
R313-25-3(8))
BASIS:
The application states that
Envirocare is in compliance with all environmental monitoring requirements and
that “no vadose zone monitoring requirements have yet been imposed by the
Executive Secretary on the area which is the subject of this Siting Plan Approval
Application.” This was confirmed at a
March 2, 2000, meeting with the Utah Division of Radiation Control and
Envirocare in which the Executive Secretary was present.
REFERENCES:
Notes from meeting at Utah Division
of Radiation Control, March 2, 2000.
FINDING:
EU-S32: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate the
availability and adequacy of emergency services, including those for medical
and fire response. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(a))
BASIS:
The application states that
“Envirocare maintains adequate emergency medical and fire response capabilities
for responding to any incident at the Facility.” The application and the 1997 Contingency Plan contain up-to-date
listings of emergency response organizations available should the need arise.
Copies of internal communication discuss emergency response capabilities of
some of these organizations. The Toole
County Sheriff’s Office Hazardous Material Division is confident that it is
“trained, experienced, and available for any anticipated emergency” at the
Envirocare site. In addition, the UDRC
and the UDEQ maintain capabilities to provide response to emergencies at the
site, including those involving radioactive materials.
Section B-3c(1) of the RCRA permit
application references the Site Inspection and Hazard Prevention Plan, which
likely contains some relevant information, but this document was not provided
for review.
The Contingency Plan generally
addresses emergencies associated with fires, explosions, and releases, but
lacks specifics on each types of emergency.
However, the application states that the Contingency Plan is under
revision and will be submitted with Envirocare’s license application to amend
the Radioactive Materials License to allow disposal of Class B and C
waste. Some expected changes to the
Contingency Plan, which were apparently drafted in April 1997, were provided
that discusses emergency response procedures related to medical emergencies in
more detail. The October 1997 revision
of the Contingency Plan does not contain these changes.
The applicant’s response to
Interrogatory EU-S32-1 discusses Envirocare’s on-site emergency response
procedures in somewhat more detail than provided in the 1997 Contingency
Plan. The response also specially
addresses hazards associated with Class B & C wastes. This information should also be included in
the revised Contingency Plan along with reference to relevant site procedures
and training requirements.
When the next revision of the Contingency
Plan is available, it needs to be reviewed to assure that expected changes were
made.
REFERENCES:
Contingency Plan, Attachment II-6 to
RCRA Part B Permit Application, Envirocare of Utah, revised October 17, 1997.
Letter from Vernon Andrews regarding
status of emergency response agreements and Contingency Plan changes, April 9,
1997.
Letter from Harry Shinton regarding
response capabilities of Tooele County, March 13, 1997.
Email from Harry Shinton regarding
response capabilities of Tooele County, March 3, 2000.
Section B-3c(1), RCRA Part B Permit
Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 30, 1990.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Emergency Response Plan, September 1988.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Emergency and Disaster Response Plan, March 1996.
FINDING:
EU-S33: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does provide adequate evidence that the
applicant has coordinated emergency response plans with local and regional
emergency response resources. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(a))
BASIS:
The 1997 Contingency Plan states
that copies of the plan (and revisions) will be provided to each listed
response agency. The applicant has also
provided copies of internal communication discussing emergency response
coordination efforts with AirMed, the University of Utah Hospital, and the
Toole County Sheriff’s Office. This
1997 memo also states that copies of the Contingency Plan were provided to
these agencies. Additional
communication with the Toole County Sheriff’s Office Hazardous Material
Division demonstrates that this response organizations is confident that it is
“trained, experienced, and available for any anticipated emergency” at the
Envirocare site. The pre-licensing plan
approval application itself demonstrates coordination of emergency response
plans with the Utah Division of Radiation Control, which has emergency response
resources for incidents involving radioactive materials.
The application states that “Envirocare
will provide any additional coordination details with its revised Contingency
Plan submitted with its amendment to the Radioactive Materials License for B
and C waste.” Some expected changes to
the Contingency Plan, apparently drafted in April 1997, discuss emergency
response procedures for coordinating with the University of Utah Hospital and
AirMed. These “changes” also address
the need to decontaminate victims before transport by AirMed. The October 1997 revision of the Contingency
Plan does not contain these changes.
Therefore, when the next revision plan is available, it needs to be
reviewed to assure that expected changes were made.
REFERENCES:
Contingency Plan, Attachment II-6 to
RCRA Part B Permit Application, Envirocare of Utah, revised October 17, 1997.
Memo from Vernon Andrews regarding
status of emergency response agreements and Contingency Plan changes, April 9,
1997.
Letter from Harry Shinton regarding
response capabilities of Toole County Sheriff’s Office, March 13, 1997.
Email from Harry Shinton regarding
Hazardous Materials Response Team capabilities of Toole County Sheriff’s
Office, March 3, 2000.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Emergency Response Plan, September 1988.
FINDING:
EU-S34: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address plans for
responding to emergencies at the site. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(b))
BASIS:
The Envirocare Contingency Plan
covers site emergencies in the event of fires, explosions, and releases. The plan addresses:
·
plan
implementation
·
access
to corporate resources
·
arrangements
with local response organizations
·
list
of emergency equipment
·
evacuation
plan
·
duties
of Emergency Coordinator
·
conditions
for plan revision/amendment
The plan contains a list of six
basic emergency procedure steps and the duties of the Emergency
Coordinators. The Contingency Plan
contains layouts for five different buildings that house different site
operations. It is likely that response
procedures vary depending on which building is involved because the hazards are
probably different.
Section B-3c(2) of the RCRA permit
application states that “Envirocare employs and trains facility personnel to be
familiar with properties of the material to be accepted for management.”
The application states that the
Contingency Plan is under revision and will be submitted with Envirocare’s
license application to ament the Radioactive Materials License to allow
disposal of Class B and C waste. However,
since this revised plan was not available during this review, its adequacy for
the operation of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility could not be
assessed.
REFERENCES:
Contingency Plan, Attachment II-6 to
RCRA Part B Permit Application, Envirocare of Utah, revised October 17, 1997.
Section B-3c(2), RCRA Part B Permit
Application, Envirocare of Utah, March 30, 1990.
FINDING:
EU-S35: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address plans for
responding to emergencies involving the transport of waste within the
state. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(b))
BASIS:
Neither the 1997 Contingency Plan
nor emergency response section of the RCRA permit application contain any
provisions for responding to off-site emergencies involving the transport of
waste within the state. The application
states that Envirocare is not required to provide response to off-site
emergencies and that the “responsibility for emergency response to hazardous
(including radioactive) material transportation incidents rests with state and
local emergency response agencies.”
Emergency response plans of the UDRC and the UDEQ show that these agencies
maintain capabilities to respond to emergencies involving the transport of
radioactive waste within the state. The
application does volunteer, however,
that “Envirocare is available to respond to off-site emergencies related
to waste shipments destined for the Envirocare site.”
The Contingency Plan procedure calls
for the plan to be implemented upon discovery of a fire, explosion, or release
at the Envirocare facility. This would
include emergencies involving the transport of waste on-site.
REFERENCES:
Contingency Plan, Attachment II-6 to
RCRA Part B Permit Application, Envirocare of Utah, revised October 17, 1997.
Section B-3c, Emergency Response and
Transportation Safety, RCRA Part B Permit Application, Envirocare of Utah,
March 30, 1990.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Emergency Response Plan, September 1988.
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality Emergency and Disaster Response Plan, March 1996.
FINDING:
EU-S36: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately show proposed routes
for transportation of radioactive wastes within the state. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The applicant has described in text
the proposed routes based on 1990 information for transportation of the
radioactive and mixed waste to the Envirocare site. Table B.4 identifies the highway transportation routes to Envirocare,
and the 1995 Utah highway map shows the locations of the various roads. The addition of I-215, not identified in the
original version of Table B.4 in the RCRA application, is recognized by revised
text.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
“Proposed Routes of Transportation”,
Section B-3c(3) from Envirocare's RCRA Part B Permit Application, March 30,
1990 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S37: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that weight
restriction on roads or bridges for proposed radioactive waste transportation
routes will not be exceeded. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application indicates that the
proposed routes of transportation in the state of Utah will be on Interstate
highways (I-15, I-70, I-80, I-84, or I-215) or U.S. highways (Routes 6, 191, or
666) except for the 2.5-mile segment of county road leading from Interstate-80
to the Envirocare Site. The application
further indicates (Bob English memo) that weight restrictions for Interstate
and U.S. highways and bridges will be satisfied by weight checks at Utah Ports
of Entry. Regarding the 2.5-mile county
road segment, load limits imposed by UDOT on Interstate and U.S. routes are
applicable, according to Raymond Johnson, Director of the Tooele County
Department of Engineering. The
Port-of-Entry checks will therefore assure weight limit compliance on the county
road also.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
“Proposed Routes of Transportation”,
Section B-3c(3) from Envirocare's RCRA Part B Permit Application, March 30,
1990 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“EU-S44 Transportation Routes and
Load Limits,” Memo from Bob English, March 3, 2000, and attachments of UDOT
regulations (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
Telephone conversation with Joyce
Hogan, March 8, 2000, quoting Mr. Raymond Johnson, Tooele County Department of
Engineering (referenced in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
FINDINGS:
DF-38: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately demonstrate that the
proposed facility will not pose an unacceptable impact or risk of harm to
inhabited areas. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(c))
DF-39: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address risks to
inhabited areas, including both residential and non-residential areas. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The Pre-Licensing Plan indicates
that the proposed facility will not pose significant risks to inhabited
areas. No permanent dwellings,
residential areas, inhabitants, churches, schools or historic structures are
located adjacent to the facility or in areas where Envirocare of Utah Inc. will
have primary responsibility for waste and waste shipments (i.e., Envirocare of
Utah Inc. owns its own rail spur, so no roadway is required to haul waste from
a rail siding to the site). Operational
impacts to the nearest inhabitants should be minimal, as the Plan indicates the
nearest permanent inhabitants are located 15 to 20 miles to the northeast. Projected growth for the area does not
indicate residencies will be established within 15 to 20 miles of the
site. Within five miles of the
facility, some employees of Envirocare of Utah Inc. and United States Pollution
Control Inc. (USPCI) live in temporary housing (i.e., recreational vehicles,
trailer homes and/or mobile trailer home).
These employees are located near the facility in order to oversee the
required security at the site. The land
within a ten-mile radius of the site is public domain administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
area immediately surrounding the Envirocare site was designated by Tooele
County as Hazardous Industrial District MG-H, and as such, land use is limited
to heavy industrial processes and industry dealing with hazardous wastes.
The adequacy of the plan for showing
that risks are within acceptable ranges rests on the limitation of the risk
definition to populations where the company has primary control (i.e., within
their boundaries). The Plan
appropriately does not address the broader question of risks along the Union
Pacific Rail and interstate highway transportation corridors throughout the
State of Utah, over which the Applicant has no authority or
responsibility. Transportation safety
and Utah Regulations regarding the shipping of radioactive waste in the State
of Utah have been provided.
REFERENCES:
Letter from J. Raymond Johnson,
P.E., March 3, 2000, to William Sinclair, DEQ (copy in Appendix A,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Transportation Liability and Radiological Risk, DOE/LLW-153, August 1992,
U.S. DOE (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application)
Utah Regulations for Permitted
Vehicles, January 2000 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application)
Permanent Dwellings, Residential
Areas and Incompatible Structures, Section B-3a(12),from Envirocare’s RCRA Part
B Permit Application, 3/30/90 (copy in Appendix I).
Proposed Routes of Transport,
Section B-3c(3), R450-3-23(c)(3), from Envirocare’s RCRA Part B Permit
Application 3/30/90 (copy in Appendix S).
Geography, Demography and Future
Development, Section 3.1, from License Renewal Application 3/16/98 (copy in
Appendix I).
FINDING:
EU-S40: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately identify the width,
condition, and types of roads to be used during transportation. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application indicates that
within Utah, only Interstate highways (I-15, I-70, I-80, I-84, or I-215) or
U.S. highways (Routes 6, 191, or 666) will be used for truck transport in
addition to the 2.5-mile segment of county road leading from Interstate-80 to
the Envirocare Site. By reference to
Interstate and U.S. Highways and associated UDOT regulations for transport on
the highways, the application explicitly identifies the types of roads and
implicitly identifies the standard widths and conditions designed and
maintained for these roads. For the
county road segment, the application indicates it is paved with asphaltic
concrete, it is 24-feet wide, and is maintained in good, serviceable condition.
For rail transport, existing rail
lines and Envirocare’s rail siding will be used for shipments into the
site. Envirocare considers that no
modifications are necessary with respect to the proposed Class B/C waste
shipments.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Official Highway Map”, Utah
Department of Transportation, 1995 (copy in Appendix A, Pre-Licensing Plan
Approval Application).
“Proposed Routes of Transportation”,
Section B-3c(3) from Envirocare's RCRA Part B Permit Application, March 30,
1990 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“EU-S44 Transportation Routes and
Load Limits,” Memo from Bob English, March 3, 2000 (copy in Appendix S,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“Utah Regulations for Permitted
Vehicles,” UDOT, January, 2000 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application).
FINDING:
EU-S41: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address any necessary
roadside development on proposed waste transportation routes. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application states that “Envirocare
has no plans for any roadside development on the proposed waste transportation
routes.” This statement implies that
existing roadside development is adequate.
Unless the State of Utah determines that there is a need for roadside
development to support the operations covered by this application, the
applicant’s declaration is accepted at face value.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
FINDING:
EU-S42: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address seasonal and
climatic factors which may affect safety.
(URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application refers to the design
and maintenance of Interstate routes used for truck transportation to afford
safe transport during most weather extremes.
It also identifies the use of lime on on-site roads to help prepare them
for winter travel and the availability of sufficient heavy earthwork equipment
at the site to clear away excess snow and ice if necessary to maintain adequate
access.
The application indicates that wind
dispersal is not a concern because all waste materials to be received at the
proposed facility will be containerized.
High winds are said to possibly curtail site operations due to physical
hazards involving heavy equipment such as cranes. Envirocare expects to have formal restrictions placed on
operations based on weather conditions.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Proposed Routes of Transportation”,
Section B-3c(3) from Envirocare's RCRA Part B Permit Application, March 30,
1990 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“EU-S44 Transportation Routes and
Load Limits,” Memo from Bob English, March 3, 2000, and attachments of UDOT
regulations (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S42a: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address alternate
emergency access to the facility. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application includes in the
Contingency Plan a map showing the evacuation routes from the site. The road that accesses the Envirocare
facility connects to Interstate-80 a few miles to the north, and accesses public
and Air Force bombing range lands to the south. For medical emergencies, air evacuation is available as described
in the letter from Jeffrey Gardner.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Contingency Plan,” Attachment II-6
to RCRA Part B Permit, November 30, 1990 (copy in Appendix Q, Pre-Licensing
Plan Approval Application).
“Status of Emergency Response
Agreements,” Letter from Jeffrey Gardner, April 9, 1997 (copy in Appendix Q,
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S43: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address the type, size,
and configuration of vehicles proposed to haul wastes. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application gives brief
descriptions of the vehicles that Envirocare expects to typically haul wastes
to the site. Waste will be hauled via
either highway or rail. The vehicles
will apparently be standard semi-tractor trailers, flat-bed trailers, and
flat-bed railcars, since no indication was given that over-sized vehicles would
be used. The type of waste package will
dictate the type of transport vehicle selected.
An internal memo from the site’s
Shipping and Receiving Manager states that all shipments must abide by federal
regulations governing shipping of radioactive materials. This includes US DOT requirements in 49 CFR
and NRC requirements in 10 CFR. In
addition, Utah regulations on weight and size limits for trucks must be adhered
to unless specific authorization is received from UDOT or the Utah Highway
Patrol. The memo provides excerpts from
these UDOT regulations and states that shipments of “Class B & C waste
could easily meet these requirements.”
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
Memo from Bob English regarding
regulations governing transport of radioactive materials, March 3, 2000.
Utah Regulations for Permitted
Vehicles for Operators, Drivers and Enforcement Officers, Utah Department of
Transportation Motor Carrier Division.
Title 10, Energy, Code of Federal
Regulations.
Title 49, Transportation, Code of
Federal Regulations.
FINDING:
EU-S44: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address transportation
restrictions on proposed waste transportation routes. (URCR R313-25-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application indicates that the
proposed routes of transportation in the state of Utah will be on Interstate
highways (I-15, I-70, I-80, I-84, or I-215) or U.S. highways (Routes 6, 191, or
666) except for the 2.5-mile segment of county road leading from Interstate-80
to the Envirocare Site. The application
identifies general transportation restrictions (Bob English memo) for
Interstate and U.S. highways and bridges, which should be satisfied by checks
at Utah Ports of Entry. Regarding the
2.5-mile county road segment, limitations imposed by UDOT on Interstate and
U.S. routes are applicable, according to Raymond Johnson, Director of the
Tooele County Department of Engineering.
Transportation restrictions related to radioactivity are specified in
10-CFR and 49-CFR, and are also enforced at Utah Ports of Entry.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Proposed Routes of Transportation”,
Section B-3c(3) from Envirocare's RCRA Part B Permit Application, March 30,
1990 (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
“EU-S44 Transportation Routes and
Load Limits,” Memo from Bob English, March 3, 2000, and attachments of UDOT
regulations (copy in Appendix S, Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application).
Title 10, Energy, Code of Federal
Regulations.
Title 49, Transportation, Code of
Federal Regulations.
FINDING:
EU-S45: The
pre-licensing plan approval application does adequately address the
transportation means and routes available to evacuate the population at risk in
the event of accident, including spills and fires. (URCR R313025-3(9)(c))
BASIS:
The application indicates that the
primary transportation means for evacuation of the population at risk in the
event of accidents consists of the personal vehicles of employees and
car-pooling vans provided by employers (Envirocare and Broken Arrow). These vehicles remain on-site to transport
personnel from the site at the end of the workday. Therefore, there is always sufficient capacity to evacuate all
personnel from the site in case of emergency.
The primary evacuation route from the site is north to Interstate
80. If this route were unavailable for
some reason, evacuation could proceed to the south on the same county road.
REFERENCES:
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
Application for a License Amendment Allowing Disposal of Class B & C
Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000, Section
R313-25-3 Siting Criteria.
“Contingency Plan,” Attachment II-6
to RCRA Part B Permit, November 30, 1990 (copy in Appendix Q, Pre-Licensing
Plan Approval Application).
FINDING:
EU-S46: The
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application does acknowledge that cities and
counties have authority for local use planning and zoning and that they may
impose additional requirements. (URCR
R313-25-3(9)(10))
BASIS:
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. acknowledges
the authorized role of Tooele county in setting and enforcing local use and
zoning standards. The proposed site is
located in an area designated by Tooele County as a Hazardous Industrial
District (MG-H), within an area zoned Manufacturing General (MG). These designations limit future land use in
the area to heavy industrial applications and to industries dealing with
hazardous materials and wastes. It also precludes development of residences in
the area. Uses are permitted in the
MG-H area only through Conditional Use Permits issued by Tooele County.
Envirocare must to obtain all
necessary local permits as required by Tooele County, prior to constructing and
operating the proposed facility.
REFERENCES:
“Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application for a License Amendment
Allowing Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste”; Section
R313-25-3(10); Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; January 5, 2000
REFERENCES
Env00a “Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application for a License Amendment
Allowing Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” Envirocare
of Utah, Inc., January 5, 2000.
Env00b “Response to Interrogatories.
Siting Plan Approval Application.
Proposed License Amendment for Class A, B, & C LLRW Disposal,”
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., March 8, 2000.
Env00c “Clarifying Questions - Response to Interrogatories, Siting Plan
Approval Application, Proposed License Amendment for Disposal of Class A, B,
and C LLRW,” Envirocare of Utah, Inc., March 13, 2000.
Env00d “Pre-Licensing Plan Approval Application for a License Amendment
Allowing Disposal of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” Envirocare
of Utah, Inc., Revised March 15, 2000.
APPENDIX A
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL
RULES
R313-25-3
Siting Criteria and
Pre-Licensing Plan Approval
for Commercial Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facilities
As in effect on February 1,
2000
R313‑25‑3. Siting Criteria and Pre‑licensing Plan
Approval for Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities.
(1)
Persons
proposing to construct or operate commercial radioactive waste disposal
facilities, including waste incinerators, shall obtain a plan approval from the
Executive Secretary before applying for a license. Plans meet the siting
criteria and plan approval requirements of R313‑25‑3 and R313‑19‑3‑105.
(2)
The
siting criteria and plan approval requirements in R313‑25‑3 apply
to prelicensing plan approval applications.
(3)
Treatment
and disposal facilities, including commercial radioactive waste incinerators,
shall not be located:
(1)
within
or underlain by:
(4)
national,
state, and county parks, monuments, and recreation areas; designated wilderness
and wilderness study areas; wild and scenic river areas;
(5)
ecologically
and scientifically significant natural areas, including wildlife management
areas and habitats for listed or proposed endangered species as designated by
federal law;
(6)
100
year floodplains;
(7)
areas
200 feet from Holocene faults;
(8)
underground
mines, salt domes and salt beds;
(9)
dam
failure flood areas;
(10)
areas
subject to landslide, mud flow, or other earth movement, unless adverse impacts
can be mitigated;
(11)
farmlands
classified or evaluated as "prime", "unique", or of
"statewide importance" by the U.S. Department of Agricultural Soil
Conservation Service under the Prime Farmland Protection Act;
(12)
areas
five miles of existing permanent dwellings, residential areas, and other
habitable structures, including schools, churches, and historic structures;
(13)
areas
five miles of surface waters including intermittent streams, perennial streams,
rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands;
(14)
areas
100 feet of uranium mill tailings;
(15)
areas
1000 feet of archeological sites to which adverse impacts cannot reasonably be
mitigated;
(16)
recharge
zones of aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved solids
content of less than 10,000 mg/l; or
(17)
drinking
water source protection areas designated by the State Drinking Water Committee;
(b) in areas:
(1)
above
or underlain by aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved
solids content of less than 500 mg/l and which aquifers do not exceed state
ground water standards for pollutants;
(2)
above
or underlain by aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved
solids content between 3000 and 10,000 mg/l when the distance from the surface
to the ground water is less than 100 ft.;
(3)
areas,
such as areas of extensive withdrawal of water, gas, or oil;
(4)
above
or underlain by weak and unstable soils, including soils that lose their
ability to support foundations as a result of hydrocompaction, expansion, or
shrinkage;
(5)
above
or underlain by karst terrains.
(4)
Incinerators
associated with land disposal facilities may not be located above aquifers
containing ground water which has a total dissolved solids content below 3000
mg/l. Incinerators not associated with ground disposal facilities shall not be
located above aquifers containing ground water which has a total dissolved
solids content below 500 mg/l.
(5)
Facilities
may not be located within a distance to existing drinking water wells and
watersheds for public water supplies of one year ground water travel time plus
1000 feet for incinerators and of five years ground water travel time plus 1000
feet for land disposal facilities.
(6)
The
plan approval application shall include hydraulic conductivity and other
information necessary to estimate adequately the ground water travel distance.
(7)
The
plan approval application shall include the results of studies adequate to
identify the presence of ground water aquifers in the area of the proposed site
and to assess the quality of the ground water of all aquifers identified in the
area of the proposed site.
(8)
The
Executive Secretary may require the applicant to conduct vadose zone or other
near surface monitoring.
(9)
Emergency
response and safety.
(1)
The
plan approval application shall demonstrate the availability and adequacy of
emergency services, including medical and fire response. The application shall
provide evidence that the applicant has coordinated emergency response plans
with local and regional emergency response resources.
(2)
The
plan approval application shall include plans for responding to emergencies
both at the site and those involving the transport of wastes within the state.
Details of the proposed emergency response plan shall be given in the plan
approval application and will be stipulated in the plan approval and
radioactive materials license.
(3)
The
plan approval application shall show proposed routes for transportation of
radioactive wastes within the state. The Executive Secretary will not approve
plans that propose radioactive waste transportation routes over roads or
bridges where weight restrictions would be exceeded. The Executive Secretary
will not approve plans that pose adverse impact or risk of harm to inhabited
areas. The plan approval application shall address risks to inhabited areas,
including both residential and non‑residential areas; the width,
condition, and types of roads to be used; roadside development on proposed
routes; seasonal and climatic factors which may affect safety; alternate
emergency access to the facility; the type, size, and configuration of vehicles
proposed to haul wastes; transportation restrictions on proposed routes; and
the transportation means and routes available to evacuate the population at
risk in the event of accidents, including spills and fires.
(10)
Siting
Authority. The Executive Secretary recognizes that Titles 10 and 17 of the Utah
Code give cities and counties authority for local use planning and zoning.
Nothing in R313‑25‑3 precludes cities and counties from
establishing additional requirements as provided by applicable state and
federal law.