State officials maintain nuclear particles that will emit from a proposed incinerator in Idaho are less than one percent the amount of radioactivity that the average human receives per year.

But, even if only a small amount of radioactive material and hazardous waste enters the atmosphere, it is likely to flow over Jackson Hole and may settle into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, according to a local meteorologist. Despite government assurances, some valley residents are questioning whether even the smallest amount of radioactivity is too much.

Hundreds of Jackson residents disseminated comments in May and June regarding the proposed incinerator, according to Idaho Department of Environmental Quality officials.

Yet, three Jackson residents filed a petition last week requesting that the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality extend a public comment session on an air permit to construct an incinerator, maintaining they were not informed of the proposal.

A decision has not been made whether to extend the public comment session, said Steve Allred, DEQ administrator.

The Department of Energy expects the incinerator to emit roughly 19,000 cubic meters of nuclear and hazardous waste - 22 percent of the 85,000 cubic meters of mixed waste at the facility - during a 13-year period, a DEQ spokesman said. The remaining waste will be repackaged and shipped to a treatment facility in New Mexico.

Valley residents maintain the Jackson community is downwind from the incinerator. What's more, a local meteorologist said the average wind pattern at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab will flow over Jackson Hole, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. In other words, particles from the incinerator will make their way into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

"Any particles it puts out, we're going to eat," said meteorologist Jim Woodmency.

Exactly how much radioactivity will get into the atmosphere each year? A small amount, according to one DEQ spokesman. In fact, the company responsible for managing the incinerator is restricted to emit only a fraction of one percent of the radioactive particles which humans receive on average per year, said Mike Simon, DEQ air quality engineer.

Moreover, Simon said the filtration systems on the incinerator will contain more than 99.99 percent of the radioactive particles. Many concerned citizens, however, maintain they oppose any amount of radioactivity going into the atmosphere.

By the numbers

Humans receive more than 350 milirems (a measure of radioactivity) per year through natural and artificial radioactive particles, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (reported on the Idaho State University website).

In contrast, BNFL, Inc. - the company that has been awarded the contract to treat the nuclear and hazardous waste - is required under federal regulations to emit less than 0.1 milirems per year, Simon said. And the entire INEEL facility must emit less than 10 milirems per year, which is the same amount of radioactivity one would receive by obtaining a chest X-ray, according to the air quality engineer.

Officials considered what BNFL, Inc. plans to put in the incinerator and studied how many milirems would emit into the atmosphere provided no filtration was used.

The findings: Only 3.9 milirems would flow into the atmosphere over a 13-year period, according to Simon. Furthermore, an analysis was conducted to determine how many milirems would emit into the atmosphere - in the worst case scenario - using a filtration system. Scientists found that 0.0067 milirems would flow into the atmosphere, Simon added.

Yet, even though 0.1 milirems seems insignificant, residents should also be concerned about the effects of other particles such as organics which may pose more of a health risk than radio nuclear particles, according to Richard Graham, toxicologist for the Environmental Protection Agency in Colorado. Moreover, he sympathized with local residents' concerns, adding that people are, in fact, externally exposed to certain radioactive materials from the earth and artificial sources, "but I don't choose to have an incinerator at my back door."

Simon said equipment is required to regularly detect the amount of radioactive particles and other elements emitting from the incinerator.

"It could take months of monitoring before they detect radioactive elements," he said.

Jackson concerns

Last week, Jackson Hole attorney Gerry Spence and valley residents Dr. Brent Blue and Berte Hirshfield filed a petition requesting that DEQ expand its public-comment period on an air permit which officially ended on June 28. DEQ already extended the public-comment session in late May upon the request of Idaho residents and conservation organizations.

"I don't want my kids or grandkids (breathing) 3/100s of one percent of nuclear waste," Spence said last week. "The citizens of this county have to get up in arms and do something about it."

Those who filed the petition said they were not officially informed of the proposal to burn nuclear and hazardous waste.

However, DEQ's Allred said his agency received more than 400 comments from people in Jackson Hole during May and June.

"It would be inappropriate for an Idaho agency to hold hearing in Wyoming," the administrator said, adding that Wyoming's DEQ has copies of the air permit and would be responsible for holding a meeting in this state provided the public comment session was extended.

Residents are concerned that since Teton County is downwind from the treatment facility, the incinerator will "spew certain hazardous particles into the air ... all of which will potentially endanger the lives and health of the people of the county," the petition states.

Woodmency affirmed that the average wind direction across eastern Idaho in western Wyoming comes from a southwesterly direction. That means many particles emitting out of the incinerator will be dispersed into the flow and blown over Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks.

Whether the particles will blow over and miss the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem depends on weather variables, Woodmency said. Also, the EPA's Graham said particles are diluted as they move further away from the source.

Will 0.1 milirems (assuming BNFL, Inc. meets the Environmental Protection Agency's mandates) enable the federal government to treat nuclear waste while protecting the health and safety of residents here?

Yes, according to Simon, who maintained thus far state and federal agencies have complied with all regulations.

Still, Woodmency asked: "Is a little bit (of radioactivity) too much? Should we be accepting that?"