Marion Galant, Community Involvement Manager
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
HMWMD-ADM-B2
Denver, CO 80246-1530
(VIA E-mail)
September 16, 2002
Dear Marion,
I'm writing to let you know that many in our community were "surprised" once more by a major decision of the CDPHE being announced in our local paper on Saturday, in more ways than one:
1. As you know, Doug Benevento responded by e-mail to my objections on August 19th after the community was floored with the announcement that Maywood had been approved. We subsequently learned this was an error on the part of reporter John Lemons. In that e-mail, Mr. Benevento, stated, "Also, call Marion, she will ensure that there are no surprises." I called you and thought our group and local citizens would be kept apprised of new developments. Mr. Benevento also wrote to Ken Kester and Lola Spradley on July 22, stating, "I also agree with your comment that improved communication between the State and the local citizens prior to releasing such news is appropriate. We will be working with our staff at your suggestion to ensure that public outreach is a top priority." Based on those two communications, our organization expected the department to treat our concerns with respect by informing us prior to press releases on the Cotter Corporation being sent to the media, so there would be "no surprises" as Mr. Benevento suggested.
2. I also object to the sudden change in the department's decision regarding Cotter's receipt and processing of material during a 21 day Public Comment Period on their license suspension, and prior to Cotter fulfilling all the requirements set forth by the department in the July 9 suspension notice. Just as with the Li Tungsten approval, which was announced after Cotter's license was suspended on July 9, this latest change of mind and decision creates confusion and distrust, because it was made in the middle of the public comment period, comments that were to address the issue of Cotter being allowed to receive and process radioactive waste due to worker safety violations and Cotter's response to those violations.
Both of these actions give a perception that there are forces unseen by the public, forces swaying and changing firm CDPHE decisions and requirements for Cotter, forces that have no concern in how this effects the public's trust in the department to have our interests as stakeholders taken to heart.
3. My greatest concern, and most notable of the requirements for Cotter in the July 9 suspension letter, is the request for accurate calculations of worker-exposure. If the CDPHE is truly concerned about worker safety and suspended Cotter's license because of that concern, I would think that this requirement would be the most important to be resolved before any decision is made allowing continued operations which expose people to radioactivity, since it goes to the very heart of the matter, proof that the worker is not being over-exposed. The department now intends to give Cotter 60 more days to "document the accuracy of its calculation of the worker-exposure data for both 2001 and the first two quarters of 2002." This is especially concerning since this was a repeat violation noted in October of 2000. The only conclusion someone can draw from that fact, is that the dose calculations were inaccurate in the year 2000, as well. If 60 additional days are given, that will be a grand total of two full years of time for Cotter to correct this problem.
The department's letter of July 9 specifically suspended Cotter's license until the items of Noncompliance relating to "dose calculations" were documented to the department's satisfaction. The license suspension and its firm restrictions should not be circumvented, to any degree at all, until the department has received the above data, and until Cotter has fulfilled all the original requirements related to the letter of suspension. Loosening these restrictions at this time betrays any trust the public has in the department making sure that Cotter is following regulations and will have consequences for breaking regulations.
4. Processing of Calcium Fluoride radioactive waste, "alternate feed material," should not be allowed before the license suspension is lifted, let alone before Cotter's License Renewal and Amendments have been approved, or before there are any regulations guiding such operations. Cotter's current license under renewal does not set any maximum levels for concentration of radioactivity governing how hot of "alternate feed material" they may receive. Obviously, the hotter the material, the more dangerous it is to the worker and the public, especially when processing creates so many avenues of exposure. Wanda Taunton of the EPA has even noted great concern over the license not guiding this sort of operation. Cotter's Material Acceptance Reports on alternate feed materials they've received and processed, such as from the Sequoyah Fuels Facility, do not specify what uranium isotopes (U234,U235,U238, etc.) are present, and in what quantity, or at what level of radioactivity. Correct calculations of level of activity cannot be precisely made without that information.
There should be regulations in place in Cotter's license before receiving, processing, or disposing of any "alternate feed material" such as the Calcium Fluoride radioactive waste which is already on Cotter's property from Honeywell in Illinois, or before receiving any further such material, if in fact they haven't already received it as noted in the April 22 Notice of Violations (Item of Concern F).
In conclusion, could you explain why the local citizens weren't notified prior to sending Friday's press release, and what we should expect in communication from the department in the future? Is the Public Comment Period truly going to have any effect on the departments decision making? Why should the department allow Cotter to process Calcium Fluoride, or Uranium Fluoride wastes, or any "alternate feed materials" before final approval of their license and amendments covering such operations are in place? I would also like for the department to explain why it is being lenient and changing its own restrictions in the suspension when Cotter has failed to correct a condition of the suspension for a period that will add up in 60 more days to a full two years, a failure to document "the accuracy of its calculation of the worker-exposure data for both 2001 and the first two quarters of 2002."
Sharyn Cunningham
cc: Benevento, Lola Spradley, Cole Finegan, Mark Matthews