Public Comment on Waste Facility Radiation Protection Plans

What?: DEP has released for public comment a document called:

Guidance Document on Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities

(document nubmer 250-3100-001). This is an example of what is called a Technical Guidance Document (TGD). “The rules” for how environmental issues work are a kind of layer cake. The top level is the statutes passed by the PA General Assembly and signed by the governor; next down is the code of regulations (for environmental issues this is 25 PA Code); and at the bottom are the TGDs. 25 PA Code is formulated by a process called Rulemaking, overseen by the Environmental Quality Board. It is an elaborate process that typically takes at least a year and a half. Rulemakings are subject to review by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, and when they take effect have the force of law. TGDs are policy documents that explain how a department will implement the laws and PA Code. DEP can create and modify a TGD entirely on its own authority. A TGD must be submitted for public comment, but DEP’s only real obligation is to “respond”; this is typically done via a Comment Response Document, in which all similar comments are lumped together and responded to as if they were a single comment.

This document explains for industry what the requirements are for the Radiation Protection Plan (“RPP”) which is required for some permits.

Deadline: Monday, November 18, 2019

Why Does It Matter?: It is well known that waste material from Marcellus Shale drilling and fracking can be seriously radioactive. The current rules for unconventional oil & gas wells now include a provision that require an RPP for well pad on-site waste processing, 25 PA Code § 78a.58(d). This TGD updates the RPP requirements for on-site waste processing at well pads. Meanwhile, there are gigantic holes in how waste processing of Marcellus Shale waste is being handled across the board. This public comment opportunity is our chance to alert DEP to the many and massive problems of its handling of Marcellus Shale waste radioactivity issues.

What Does An Actual RPP Look Like?: For an example of an actual Radiation Protection plan for a facility in Fayette County called the Dogbone Central Water Facility, click here:

<https://www.faymarwatch.org/documents/Dogbone_Central_Water_Form_X.pdf>

Major Problem Areas:

RPP Requirements are oblivious to the reality of waste pipelines.

250-3100-001 is chock full of references to trucks, and says nothing at all about waste that may be delivered via pipeline. This is a huge hole. When a radiation alarm goes off, a waste processing site is supposed to “reject the load” and quarrantine the truck. How is the load supposed to be rejected if it arrives via pipeline? Are there even alarms for this?
There is no requirement for local government to be informed that a project will require an RPP (e.g. via the Act 14 notification process).

Here in Fayette County we have a provision in our zoning code that prohibits emission of radioactivity “at any point”. The whole leglisative purpose of Act 14 is to give local government a heads-up about permits that might conflict with local government provisions such as zoning requirements. But Act 14 notifications are silent on permit requirements for an RPP. This needs to be fixed!
There is no requirement for remote monitoring of radiation alarms.

What happens if a waste load arrives in the middle of the night and the radiation monitor has been turned off?
The public must be provided access to RPP-related documents.

All logging and reporting under an RPP must be done electronically and the public must be given access to these documents.
Well pad on-site waste processing is being authorized without permit numbers.

Here in Fayette County we have seen numerous authorization records from DEP’s eFACTS system of type ALT RW where the permit number is blank. This should be prohibited.

Please Ask for an Extension!:

The problem areas shown above do not even begin to address actual radiation standards. We need outside expertise to help us with this. Please ask for an extension of the comment period. This is a hugely complex document, and a 30 day comment period is not sufficient.

How?:

Via DEP’s eComment System: Use this link:

<https://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eComment/Agreement.aspx?system=2&period=311>

Via E-mail: Use this E-mail address:

ecomment@pa.gov
(The PA Bulletin Notice doesn’t mention a subject line; putting in 250-3100-001 would probably be a good idea.)

Via US Mail: Use this postal address:

Technical Guidance Coordinator, Department of Environmental Protection, Policy Office, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 2063, Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063.
(US Mail documents with a postmark by the deadline are supposed to be considered timely, but using one of the electronic methods above is recommended.)

Background:

TGD 250-3100-001 is available here:
<http://www.depgreenport.state.pa.us/elibrary/GetDocument?docId=1507609&DocName=GUIDANCE%20DOCUMENT%20ON%20RADIOACTIVITY%20MONITORING%20AT%20SOLID%20WASTE%20PROCESSING%20AND%20DISPOSAL%20FACILITIES.PDF>
The PA Bulletin notice is available here:
<https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol49/49-42/1559.html>
An example RPP is available here:
<https://www.faymarwatch.org/documents/Dogbone_Central_Water_Form_X.pdf>
DEP’s TENORM study is available here:
<http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OilandGasPrograms/OilandGasMgmt/Oil-and-Gas-Related-Topics/Pages/Radiation-Protection.aspx>.