DOWNWINDERS’ COMMENTS ON THE SiER REPORT
April 17, 2000
William J. Sinclair, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850Dear Mr. Sinclair,
Downwinders submits the following comments on the Draft Siting Evaluation Report (SiER) for Proposed Disposal Under CRCR R313-25-3 of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste at Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
- Comment 1 – Page 2 of the Introduction section states that the Division (DRC) “found most of them [Envirocare responses to the interrogatories on the Application] to be adequate for a positive finding”. Most? Are we playing a game of percentages here? This is not a risk analysis, it is a siting evaluation. If it is not 100% “adequate” in its particulars (the responses), i.e. some are inadequate, then it should not be judged to be adequate in whole. Subsequent comments all relate to this problem with the SiER.
- Comment 2 – Finding EU-SO7 (p. 9) shows the site is not within 100-year flood plains because it has not been inundated during the past “several hundred years”. We wish to point out that, while the basis for the finding under the rule appears to be correct, some of the radioactive wastes proposed for disposal have radioactive half-lives and hazardous lives well beyond the 100 year flood plain criteria and the “several hundred years” analysis. Some isotopes remain hazardous longer than the 20,000 years to 80,000 years ago when the disposal site was inundated by Lake Bonneville.
- Comment 3 – Finding EU-S08 (p. 10) states that it is possible that Holocene faults are present within 200 feet, though none have been detected because of “inadequate studies”. Adequate studies should be required before the response is deemed “adequate”.
- Comment 4 – EU-S14 (p. 16) – It is our understanding that there is one dwelling/habitable structure within the five miles of the site, occupied by a maintenance worker not associated with EC or USPCI. DRC needs to investigate and confirm or deny this.
- Comment 5- EU-S15 (p. 17) finds that there are no intermittent streams, but the Basis qualifies that by stating that there are “several features that are either intermittent streams or narrow washes in the area”, and that the consultant Gaynor found 22 such features within 5 miles. He notes that they are ephemeral in nature, but nowhere in the Rule does this qualification obviate the criteria that there be no intermittent streams within the 5 mile radius of the proposed site. Therefore, the Department’s conclusion and finding are incorrect. This is not simple nitpicking, given the potential for these intermittent streams and washes to gush with water and adversely affect the site in the future.
- Comment 6 – EU- S16 (p. 19) – The proposed cell site for B & C waste is adjacent to disposed uranium mill tailings. How is it that the DRC can rule that site is not within 100 feet of tailings? This finding is not only inadequate, it is confused and self-contradictory.
- Comment 7 – Finding EU-S-19 (p. 22) is based on rather shaky documentation relying on a memo supplied by Envirocare based on a conversation with a Division of Drinking Water representative. Though likely accurate, the documentation is, in our estimation, inadequate, and should be supplemented by an opinion issued directly by the appropriate regulatory agency.
- Comment 8 – EU-S23 (p. 27) finds that liquifiable layers exist at depths of 35 feet or more. How might this affect the acquifers beneath the site in the event of a sizeable earthquake producing liquifaction in the area? Is slumping possible in that event, and what would be the impacts? This is not addressed in this finding, and should be.
- Comment 9 – EU-S31 (p. 35) – The finding states that vadose zone monitoring has been conducted. But the basis states “no vadoze zone monitoring requirements have yet been imposed”. This appears contradictory, and should be clarified.
- Comment 10 – This comment pertains to EU-S32, 33, and 34, pages 36 through 40, which address emergency services, response, and plans (the Contingency Plan, in particular). The bases for these findings is not adequate because the findings are based in part on a Contingency Plan that is being revised. That Plan must be adequate for purposes of this siting Application Approval, but is not available. Why is the Department allowing Envirocare to submit a revised Plan with its license application rather than with this siting application. This is directly counter to the Rules, and to the Board of Radiation Control policy reiterated in its January 7, 2000 meeting. It is important that the Plan be revised prior to determining the adequacy of the application, because the Plan should address hazards, emergency responses and services specifically associated with Class B & C wastes, and should address differing response procedures for specific buildings on the Envirocare site. (The references to the DRC Plan of September 1988 and the DEQ Plan of March 1996 do not address responders dealing with B & C waste hazards.) As the Basis on page 39 states, “its [the Plan’s] adequacy for the operation of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility could not be addressed”. The Findings need to be changed to square with this Basis.
- Comment 11 – This comment pertains to EU-S36, 37, and 40, pages 41, 42, and 44, which deal with transportation. As far as we can determine, the application does not address rail routes. This is inadequate. Additionally, while the application and Basis state that the Ports of Entry will assure that no shipments by truck will exceed weight limits, nowhere is a contingency addressed wherein a shipment to Envirocare is found to exceed weight limits and what the subsequent procedure would be. We believe it is important to address this matter in the siting application.
- Comment 12 – DF38 and DF 39 (p. 43) raise two issues of concern. First, the Basis states that some employees of Envirocare and USPCI live in temporary housing within five miles of the facility (site). This appears to be in noncompliance with URCR R313-25-3(3)(a)(ix) [see page 16]. The rule does not, in our reading, make a distinction exempting “temporary” housing, as it refers to habitable structures and residential areas. While a case could be made for exempting the temporary housing for Envirocare employees, we would argue that no credible case could be made for this regarding the USPCI employees.
The risks to these residential/inhabited areas are not assessed, and the only reference to risk assessment here is the 1990 Envirocare RCRA permit application, too old to be of much use.
Regarding the adequacy of the plan for showing risks are acceptable to populations, the Basis states that the plan “appropriately” doesn’t address them, except within Envirocare boundaries. Why this is appropriate escapes us, unless the “broader question of risks…throughout the State of Utah” are to be addressed in a risk assessment analysis in the licensing application. Regardless, the Finding seems inappropriate without substantiation. Lastly, simply providing transportation safety and Utah Regulations as appendices to the application is not addressing risks.
It is our opinion that the inadequacies in the Draft SiER are so significant that DRC should correct these, reissue a second draft, and re-open the public comment period at that time before proceeding to a final SiER and approval of the siting application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Steve Erickson
for Downwinders
c/o 961 E. 600 S.
Salt Lake City, UT 84102