The following responses are not a part of testimony provided by John DeOld during the draft document public hearings. Hearing rules require speakers to comment upon the draft documents and not upon other testimony provided during the hearing. US Ecology has refrained from issuing any specific responses to the hearing testimony while the hearings were underway, so as not to influence the outcome of the hearing record.

A conflict exists between the scientists hired by the Local Monitoring Committee (LMC) concerning the complexity of the proposed low-level radioactive waste site and the development of an accurate groundwater flow model. While some of the Committee's experts contend the site is too complex to be modeled, others claim to have developed accurate alternative models. The truth is that with adequate data, which US Ecology and Bechtel have collected through extensive field surveys over many years (greater quantity and greater accuracy data than that gathered by the LMC contractors) the site can be accurately modeled. The model has undergone exhaustive review by very qualified scientists on the State LLRW program review team and was found to be acceptable.

Analysis of linament zones for characterization of subsurface features is an accepted practice for limited and specific purposes. However, use of this analytical method by an LMC scientist to support the contention that the shale bedrock beneath the Butte site is fractured, is overly broad and scientifically unsupportable, relative to the extensive site specific drilling, sampling and permeability testing of the Pierre Shale conducted by US Ecology and reported in the license application. Especially troubling is the scientist's contention that, despite extensive on-site and regional field studies by US Ecology and the LLRW program, a major (30-foot) geologic upthrust went undetected on the site and that the LMC scientist was able to determine this through the use of aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

A second LMC scientist's points concerning site suitability are not new. They have received extensive study by US Ecology and the State LLRW program and have been rejected. This scientist's comments do not reflect a thorough understanding of the license application or Nebraska regulations governing disposal of LLRW. For example, the second LMC scientist incorrectly claimed US Ecology used a groundwater recharge rate of 0.04 inches per year and suggested that recharge rates of between 0.05 and 1 inch per year are appropriate. A careful reading of the license application reveals that US Ecology actually reported recharge rates of 0.048 to 0.73 inches per year - rates that are very much in line with the values suggested by the LMC scientist.

A third LMC scientist's report contended primarily that US Ecology has underestimated the amounts of some radionuclides that would be received at the Butte site. He argued that US Ecology should expect to receive Chlorine-36 at the Butte site from nuclear utilities in the Central Interstate Compact (CIC). US Ecology's review of records on waste generated by CIC utilities since 1986 (the first year a reliable national data base was available) confirned that no Chlorine-36 is known to have been generated by any CIC utility.

The third scientist also raised concerns that, based primarily on an estimate of 3,500 curies of Plutonium-239 in the license application for US Ecology's Ward Valley, California project, the estimate of less than one curie of Plutonium-239 to be received by the Butte site was too low. What he failed to mention was that the 3,500 curie estimate in the Ward Valley application was based on an erroneous value in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report. Despite the error, the figure was used in the Ward Valley application in order to provide a conservative (overly high) estimate. Also used was an alternative figure to estimate the actual expected receipt of Plutonium-239 of less than one curie. The original NRC estimate has been corrected by a Congressional Research Service study.

The third scientist also raised concerns about the regulatory guidance documents US Ecology used to develop dose conversions. The documents used by US Ecology are those currently approved for use by the NRC. The document cited by by the LMC scientist as a preferred document has not yet undergone review by the NRC and is not appopriate to use at this time. Adoption of the guidance document, if it does occur, is not likely for five to 10 years. If the new document is incorporated into NRC regulations, the Butte facility would remain within regulatory limits.

Concern was raised by some hearing presenters about the presence of Interior Least Terns and Piping Plovers (endangered species) on sand bars on the Niobrara River in the vicinity of the site. The presence of the Least Tern was noted during studies characterizing the site and surrounding area. Although Piping Plovers were not located during the studies, potential habitat of this species has always been acknowledged along the Niobrara River. The presentations appear to provide additional information on the occurance of the Piping Plover along the Niobrara River. The project will not disturb or impact any habitat of these species along the Niobrara River.

Return To Home Page