Title: Teledyne Wah Chang v. Energy Fac. Siting

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

692 P.2d 86 (1984)
298 Or. 240
In the matter of the Application by TELEDYNE WAH CHANG Albany, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., for a Site Certificate.
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, Petitioner,
v.
ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL, Respondent.
Lloyd Marbet, Petitioner,
v.
ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL, Respondent,
Teledyne Wah Chang, Intervenor.
Forelaws On Board, Petitioner,
v.
ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL, Respondent, Teledyne Wah Chang, Intervenor.
SC 29334; SC 29343; SC 29344.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted June 8, 1983.
Decided December 4, 1984.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Motion for Clarification January 23, 1985.
Rehearing Denied January 29, 1985.
*88 Richard H. Williams, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner-intervenor Teledyne Wah Chang Albany. With him on the briefs were Spears, Lubersky, Campbell, Bledsoe, Anderson & Young, Portland.
Daniel Meek, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner Forelaws on Board. With him on the brief was Linda K. Williams, Portland.
Lloyd Marbet argued the cause and submitted briefs in propria persona.
James E. Mountain, Jr., Deputy Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent Energy Facility Siting Council. With him on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Stanton F. Long, Deputy Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
PETERSON, Chief Justice.
Lower River Pond consists of 115,000 cubic yards of industrial waste called sludge, located near Albany, Oregon. This case comes to us on direct appeal, ORS 469.400, from a decision of the Energy Facility Siting Council granting a license for the storage of the sludge.
The Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) is a public body of seven members charged with the responsibility of designating areas that are suitable or unsuitable for use as sites for energy facilities for *89 which the council determines such designations are necessary. ORS 469.450, 469.470.
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (Teledyne) manufactures zirconium and other rare metals at a plant located in Millersburg, near Albany, Oregon. The principal raw material used in the manufacturing process is zircon sand. Zircon sand, like most earth materials,[1] contains naturally occurring radioisotopes, including radium-226.
During the manufacturing process, elements used to make rare metals are extracted from the sand, and the radioisotopes and other unused components of the sand become waste products. This case concerns such semi-liquid waste products. Until October, 1979, they were pumped to two locations, Lower River Pond and Schmidt Lake, both located near the Willamette River on Teledyne's plant grounds. The sludge contains large volumes of water as it comes from the manufacturing process. As the radium disintegrates, an inert radioactive gas, radon, is formed. The extent of evaporation is an important question in this case because radon release increases as the sludge dries.
Beginning in the 1970's, members of the public and state agencies became concerned about the Teledyne sludge. At that time, state law prohibited the disposal of radioactive materials but the law did not define "radioactivity." The 1979 legislature considered the Teledyne situation and enacted Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 283. That law modified the total prohibition against the storage of radioactive waste and directed the Health Division to contract for an independent study of the hazards posed by the storage of low level radioactive wastes in Oregon. The Health Division was then to report to the 1981 legislature on options for dealing with such wastes. After receiving the Health Division's report, the 1981 legislature enacted Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 587. That law permits the storage of specified radioactive wastes "at sites approved by the council." ORS 469.525.
No energy facility may be constructed, expanded, or operated in Oregon unless a site certificate has been issued by EFSC. ORS 469.320(1).[2] Applications for site certificates must be made to EFSC. ORS 469.350.[3] ORS 469.330(1) requires each applicant to file a "notice of intent to file an application for a site certificate," which notice "must describe the proposed site with sufficient detail to enable the council to identify the proposed site." EFSC has the responsibility to conduct public hearings on the proposed siting of an energy facility, ORS 469.470(4). ORS 469.370(1) provides that "[a]t the conclusion of its hearings the council shall either approve or reject the application."
Teledyne filed an application which begins:
The application sets forth the proposed site with a metes and bounds description. The application also contains a map showing the proposed site.
Teledyne's application states in part:
Thus, this case involves an application for a license that the applicant claims is not required under the law. This unusual situation poses no particular problem in this case other than in connection with the burden of proof discussed below. The issue whether any site certificate is required loomed large before the agency and does here, as well.
After the application was filed, other parties intervened, including three departments of the State of Oregon (the Health Division, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Water Resources Department), Friends of the Earth, the Survival Center of the University of Oregon, Forelaws on Board (Forelaws), and Lloyd K. Marbet (Marbet). Forelaws and Marbet are also petitioners on this appeal.
EFSC found that a site certificate was required and ordered that a site certificate issue. The order satisfied neither Teledyne nor Marbet and Forelaws. Their specific claims relative to the order granting the site certificate will be discussed below.
On its appeal Teledyne makes three claims:
1. Teledyne claims that EFSC erred in finding that the radiation emanating from the sludge was sufficiently high to require a site certificate. In this connection, Teledyne also claims that EFSC erred in placing the burden on Teledyne to prove that the radiation fell within an exempt level of radioactivity.
2. Teledyne claims that if a permit is required, EFSC (a) erred in failing to grant a permit for storage of the sludge on the site location requested, and (b) erred in granting a license to store the sludge instead on nearby land owned by Teledyne, a site location not requested by Teledyne.
3. Teledyne's final claim is that EFSC erred in deciding, on its own motion, that sludge stored at a location called "Arrowhead Lake" was radioactive and by conditioning the site certificate issuance on inclusion of those wastes in the disposal facility.
Forelaws and Marbet raise a number of points on their appeal, including these:
1. They claim the violation by EFSC of a number of Oregon procedural statutes concerning the notice of intent to apply for a site certificate and the notice required to be given to the public and state agencies of the application. They also assert that a temporary rule was adopted in violation of law; that the application was granted too early, without permitting the statutorily-prescribed period to run; that EFSC failed to adopt meaningful standards to implement various statutes; and that the hearings officers were guilty of misconduct.
2. They join Teledyne in the assertion that EFSC erred in granting a site certificate at a different location from that for which the application was made.
Teledyne's first assignment of error is:
We first examine the relevant statute and rule. As stated above, a license is required for a disposal facility for radioactive waste. The term "radioactive waste" is defined in ORS 469.300(17)(a):
The parties are agreed that the sludge is "radioactive waste" unless it comes within those radioactive materials identified in OAR 345-50-035.
OAR 345-50-035, the rule adopted by reference in ORS 469.300(17)(a), provides:
Regarding the levels described in the first paragraph of OAR 345-50-035, EFSC found that the sludge generates gamma levels below the standard of 500 millirems per year and that the water contamination would be less than the levels set forth in Table 3 to OAR 345-50-035. Teledyne does not contest those findings. It does contest EFSC's ultimate finding that "sludge will likely create radon levels above three picocuries per liter of air."[5] Before we discuss that question, however, we must first decide Teledyne's related second assignment of error.
The hearings officers assigned Teledyne the burden of proving that the annual average concentration of airborne radon would not exceed three picocuries per liter of air. Teledyne claims that EFSC had the burden of proving that the sludge was "radioactive" (within the definition of ORS 469.300(17)(a)), and that the sludge did not *92 meet the exemption of OAR 345-50-035. We hold that in a proceeding on an application for a site certificate, the burden of proving that the sludge came within the exemption properly was imposed upon Teledyne.
Teledyne, albeit a reluctant applicant, is nonetheless the applicant. In its application, it seeks (1) an adjudication that it need not have a license because the sludge is not sufficiently radioactive and, alternatively, (2) the issuance of a license to store the sludge, should the EFSC find that the sludge is "radioactive" under ORS 469.300(17)(a).
This is not an enforcement proceeding.[6] Teledyne is the party asserting these claims. The burden of proof was properly imposed upon it for these reasons:
Teledyne's position throughout the EFSC proceedings was that its wastes were within the pathway exemption and, therefore, outside EFSC's jurisdiction. It based this position on factual allegations that its wastes did not emit certain levels of radioactivity. As the proponent of these positions and these facts, Teledyne had the burden of production pursuant to ORS 183.450(2).
OAR 345-50-035 states that "naturally occurring radioactive materials shall be exempt * * * if it can be demonstrated that accumulation of material will not result in [specified radiation exposures nor the release of effluents into the air and water in certain annual concentrations]." (Emphasis supplied.) This rule, made a part of ORS 469.300(17)(a), clearly requires demonstration by somebody, but the statute does not expressly allocate that burden. The legislative history shows, beyond doubt, that it was contemplated that Teledyne would have the burden of showing that it met the exemption.
The legislative history reveals that the controlling statute, ORS 659.300(17)(a), was enacted with specific reference to the Teledyne sludge. Bob Godard, then the administrator of the Siting and Regulation Group of the State Department of Energy (who also was one of the hearings officers in this case), testified at a hearing of the House Environment and Energy Committee on February 20, 1979, that "the intent [of the legislature in incorporating OAR 345-50-035 into ORS 469.300(17)(a)] was that the burden of proof be on Wah Chang to show that they were indeed in compliance and should be further exempted." The burden of proof properly was imposed on Teledyne.[7]
The issue which generated major concern at the EFSC hearing herein was whether the annual average concentration of released radon exceeded three picocuries per liter of air. The key language in OAR 345-50-035, insofar as this case is concerned, is this: In order to meet the exemption, it must be demonstrated that the airborne radioactive release, in annual average concentration, did not exceed three picocuries per liter of air. The statute, incorporating OAR 345-50-035(a), requires that such measurement be made with reference to a hypothetical measuring chamber built above the sludge, described as follows:
There was much discussion at the hearing regarding the "hypothetical house" within which the measurements were to be made. Did the house have a floor? Did it have a vapor barrier? What type of foundation did it have? Were there openings or vents in the foundation?[8] Earlier in this opinion, we referred to the study which the legislature required to be performed. This study, performed by Science Applications, Inc., (herein referred to as the SAI study) concluded that "* * * it is possible that the OAR 345-50 (EFSC rule) limit of 0.033WL[[9]] would be exceeded indoors."[10] (Emphasis added.)
EFSC's specific findings of fact included these:
Based upon these findings, EFSC made this ultimate finding:
There is evidence that the annual average concentration of radon-222 in the air turns on the moisture content of the sludge. In turn, there is evidence that the amount of radon-222 in the air of the hypothetical house turns, in part, upon the nature of the floor above the sludge, and upon other factors referred to above.
ORS 183.470(2) requires that a final order be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the "findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the agency's order." In order for this court to exercise its judicial review function it is necessary that there be a rational connection between the underlying findings of fact and the ultimate finding of fact derived from the underlying facts. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or. 266, 271-72, 639 P.2d 90, 94 (1981).
The hearings officers (and ultimately, EFSC) determined that the annual average radon concentrations would exceed three picocuries per liter of air. In its brief, EFSC mainly relies upon two studies to support that conclusion. We quote from the EFSC brief:
The SAI study involved the taking of ambient air samples. Some of the measurements exceeded the standard; most did not. EFSC stated in its order, "[o]n balance, the levels were below the standard."
*95 To determine the effect of evaporation, EFSC drew upon a table in a Battelle report offered by Teledyne. We quote EFSC's brief:
Figure 3, Curve C is a crude graph, offered for illustrative purposes only, and is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the moisture content under a house would fall between 10% and 60%. The most that can be concluded from the specific facts found by EFSC is that the radon concentrations in the ambient air would range from .018 working levels to .18 working levels. Because of the fluctuation of radon emissions, the specific findings relative to the range of emissions do not support the conclusion that the annual average concentration would be exceeded. That the radon-222 concentration at certain times exceeds the allowable annual average concentration does not prove an annual average concentration in excess of that allowed by law.
Our conclusion on this point is fortified by a colloquy which occurred at an EFSC hearing on December 9, 1982. In November, 1982, the hearings officers submitted the hearings record and a proposed order to the members of the EFSC. On December 9, 1982, EFSC met to consider the matter. The first question put to one of the hearings officers by Ms. Mater, a member of EFSC, was as follows:
Mr. Ostrander deferred to Mr. Godard who, in answering the question, gave this explanation:
EFSC's responsibility was to make its determinations on the facts in the record, not upon the recommendations of another department.
An agency deciding a contested case must demonstrate for the contestants and this court that its findings lead to a reasoned conclusion. Specific findings of fact must lead to and support the ultimate findings. ORS 183.470(2). There must be a rational connection between the specific findings and the ultimate finding and the ultimate conclusion. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or. 357, 370, 657 P.2d 188, 195 (1982).
A remand is in order because the specific findings quoted above do not support EFSC's finding that the annual average radon concentration exceeds three picocuries per liter of air. On remand, all parties should be permitted to offer further relevant evidence addressing this question.
Teledyne and Forelaws assert that EFSC erred in approving a waste disposal facility site at a location other than that for which a license had been sought by Teledyne.
Although EFSC found that the Lower River Solids Pond was a "suitable" site, it found on its own initiative that property owned by Teledyne approximately one mile north of its plant was a "preferred option," a "more suitable" location for the facility. The final order required that groundwater studies be performed. The order stated that if groundwater studies confirmed that the northerly location groundwater impacts were less than or equal to the groundwater impacts at Lower River Pond, Teledyne must move the sludge and construct the facility there. The order further provides that if the groundwater studies show that the northerly location is not an acceptable site, Teledyne may construct the facility at the Lower River Pond.
The northern site eventually selected was first mentioned as an alternative in the hearing officers' draft of a proposed order issued on November 22, 1982. The EFSC approval of the northern site apparently contemplates no further public participation after the groundwater studies and no provision for participation of other state agencies. EFSC, in overruling exceptions to the proposed order, stated:
ORS 469.330(1) requires that an applicant file a notice of intent to file an application for a site certificate. The statute requires that "[t]he notice of intent must describe the proposed site with sufficient detail to enable the council to identify the proposed site."
ORS 469.300(2) defines "application" as "a request for approval of a particular site or sites for the construction and operation of an energy facility * * *." ORS 469.300(19) defines "site" as "any proposed location of an energy facility and related or supporting facilities." Teledyne's application contained a metes and bounds description of the proposed site and a map and a scale drawing of the specific location. ORS *97 469.370(1) provides that "[a]t the conclusion of its hearings the council shall either approve or reject the application."
Applicants for licenses are entitled to a decision on their request based upon the application of the appropriate standards to the facts. As stated in Marbet v. Portland Gen. Elect., 277 Or. 447, 460, 561 P.2d 154, 162 (1977):
OAR 345-50-040 is consistent with the quoted statement. It provides:
The parties operated on the assumption that they were addressing a proposal for in situ disposal; that was the only site considered. The parties did not present evidence addressed to, and the public did not have an opportunity to comment on, disposal of the wastes at the northern parcel.
ORS 469.375 states:
This standard does not permit the Council to reject a proposed site because it believes another location is better. EFSC was obligated to accept or reject the Lower River Pond on its own merits, rather than engaging in a comparison.
EFSC's decisionmaking was improper because the site suitability standard does not call for comparisons; a location either satisfies the standard or it does not, and if it does  and the other standards are met  the applicant is entitled to a certificate for that location. By employing a comparison, EFSC exceeded its statutory authority, violated its own rules and employed a previously unarticulated standard  namely, whether there was a site which it thought "more suitable."[11]
EFSC found that Teledyne's industrial plant site, "as a whole, is a related and supporting facility." The term "related or supporting facilities" is defined in ORS 469.300(18) as follows:
EFSC misapplies ORS 469.300(18). Even if the term "related or supporting facilities" includes the Teledyne plant and related structures which create the waste, the term would not include all land owned by Teledyne at the plant site.
Teledyne's final point is that EFSC erred in deciding, on its own motion, that wastes stored at a location called "Arrowhead *98 Lake" were radioactive, and by conditioning the issuance of the site certificate on inclusion of the Arrowhead Lake wastes in the wastes to be consolidated at the northern site.
On its own initiative and over the objections of Teledyne and other parties, EFSC introduced evidence concerning Arrowhead Lake. Arrowhead Lake was not mentioned in the Teledyne application and Teledyne did not ask for a license to store those wastes.
The effect of EFSC's action is to convert a license application proceeding into an enforcement proceeding. EFSC erred in conditioning its approval on the inclusion of the Arrowhead Lake wastes.
Forelaws asserts (1) that EFSC lacked jurisdiction because Teledyne failed to file a notice of intent as required by ORS 469.330(1) (quoted above at pages 89 and 96); (2) that if Teledyne's letter of January 18, 1982, is deemed a notice of intent it is legally insufficient because it does not identify the proposed location in sufficient detail; (3) that a temporary rule adopted in June of 1982 is invalid because required notice of the adoption of the temporary rule was not given; (4) that EFSC failed to "cause public notice to be given" as required by ORS 469.330(2);[12] (5) that copies of the notice of intent were not sent to other state agencies as required by ORS 469.350(3)[13] and (6) that the required review period was not observed.[14]
Although EFSC is guilty of some procedural violations, none of the alleged defects divest EFSC of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Because the case is being remanded to EFSC for further proceedings, questions relating to additional notice to be given upon the remand can be addressed to and considered by EFSC.
Forelaws also asserts that EFSC failed to adopt meaningful standards to implement ORS 469.375. It attacks OAR 345-50-060, 345-50-070 and 345-50-080, rules promulgated to implement ORS 469.375(1)-(7). These rules appear to be specific enough to satisfy the demands of Marbet v. Portland General Electric Co., 277 Or. 447, 561 P.2d 154 (1977).
Marbet requires that standards under the Energy Facilities Siting Act be "available to applicants and to persons opposing applications in sufficiently meaningful terms to guide them in deciding whether and how to submit or oppose an application." Marbet v. Portland Gen. Elect., supra, 277 Or. at 460, 561 P.2d  at 162 (1977). The above-cited rules satisfy the requirements of Marbet.
Forelaws also claims that EFSC failed to establish standards under ORS 469.470(3) concerning the financial ability of site certificate applicants to construct and operate the disposal site.
ORS 469.470 provides in part:
EFSC points to OAR 345-50-120 as its rule implementing the financial standard of ORS 469.470(3). OAR 345-50-120 provides:
The above-quoted standard is sufficient under Marbet. If anything, the standard at issue here is more informative than the standard at issue in Marbet. See Marbet, 277 Or. at 464-66, 561 P.2d  at 165. OAR 345-50-120 adequately implements ORS 469.375(7) and ORS 469.470(3).
Forelaws also asserts:
OAR 345-15-027(1) provides that EFSC "may appoint a presiding officer to conduct hearings on a site certificate." The Council appointed Frank Ostrander, Assistant Attorney General, and Don Godard, of the Oregon Department of Energy, co-presiding officers. At a public hearing held April 6, 1982, Mr. Ostrander said:
Although OAR 345-15-027(1) literally calls only for the appointment of "a presiding officer," there is no prohibition against the appointment of more than one.
Forelaws also claims that Godard was biased because he had been employed by Teledyne six years earlier. Forelaws points to no other evidence of bias.
One claiming that a hearings officer is biased has the burden of showing actual bias. See Boughan v. Board of Engineering Examiners, 46 Or. App. 287, 611 P.2d 670, rev. den. 289 Or. 588 (1980). Prior employment six years earlier, without more, is insufficient to establish actual bias.
Some of Marbet's claims have already been discussed. He also asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support EFSC's findings relating to six of the seven statutory standards of ORS 469.375. There is evidence to support the EFSC findings relative to availability of alternate sites, ORS 469.375(2), federal compatibility, ORS 469.375(3), adjacent state compatibility, ORS 469.375(4), deed restrictions, ORS 469.375(6) and surety bond, ORS 469.375(7).
*100 Marbet also asserts that EFSC's "determination that [the OAR 345-50-060] standard has been satisfied is not supported by substantial evidence in the record." We have examined the record and conclude that EFSC's findings under OAR 345-50-060[15] are supported by substantial evidence.
Several other claims are asserted by Marbet and Forelaws. They either lack merit or are moot because the case is being remanded to EFSC.
On remand, EFSC should decide whether a site certificate is required and if so, to either grant or deny the application sought by Teledyne. EFSC should consider all evidence heretofore offered and such further admissible evidence the parties may wish to offer concerning the suitability of the Lower River Pond site, and specifically, evidence concerning whether the release of effluents to air, in annual average concentrations, exceeds the values in Table 3 of OAR 345-50-035 in the chamber described in OAR 345-50-035(5)(a).
Remanded to EFSC for further proceedings.
[1]  OAR 345-50-010(1), states that "virtually all materials contain some measure of radioactivity."
[2]  A waste disposal facility for radioactive waste is an "energy facility." ORS 469.300(10)(b), (14).
[3]  ORS 469.300(2) defines "application" as "a request for approval of a particular site or sites for the construction and operation of an energy facility * * *." A "site certificate" means "the binding agreement between the State of Oregon and the applicant, authorizing the applicant to construct and operate an energy facility on an approved site * * *." ORS 469.300(20).
[4]  A picocurie is one trillionth of a curie. A curie is a unit of radioactivity equal to 3.7 x 10[10] disintegrations per second. Webster's Third International Dictionary 556, 1711.
[5]  Table 3, referred to in OAR 345-50-035, sets the three picocuries level. Table 3 establishes the acceptable radon-222 level in air as 3 x 10[-9] microcuries (uCi) per milliliter. A microcurie is 10[-6] (one millionth) of a curie. This equates to 3 x 10[-15] curies per milliliter. There are 1,000 milliliters in a liter. 1,000 x(3 x 10[-15]) = 3 x 10[-12] = 3 picocuries per liter.
[6]  EFSC has authority to enforce compliance with ORS 469.300 to 469.570. ORS 469.550 authorizes the director to halt the operation of a nuclear installation, to impose safety precautions and to seek revocation of site certificates. Judicial relief is obtainable under ORS 469.550 and 469.570.
[7]  We express no opinion as to who would have the burden of proving that the sludge did or did not come within the exemption were this an enforcement proceeding by EFSC against Teledyne. See footnote 6.
[8]  The parties appear to assume that this "hypothetical house" would have a floor, foundation, walls, and ceiling. The EFSC order makes reference to such variables as:

 "The attenuating effects of vapor barriers"
 "Venting of the crawl space"
 "The floor"
 "The effectiveness of a plastic vapor barrier"
[9]  The term "WL" refers to "working level," which is the level of concentration of radioactivity in the air, not a measure of how much radioactivity a person actually receives. Footnote 3 to Table 3 of OAR 345-50-035 states:

"A working level is defined as any combination of short lived radon -222 daughters, polonium -218, lead -214, bismuth -214 and polonium -214, in one liter of air, without regard to the degree of equilibrium, that will result in the ultimate emission of 1.3 X 10[5] ME V of Alpha particle energy."
[10]  OAR 345-50-035 uses the term "nor in the release of effluents to air and water in annual average concentrations exceeding the values in Table 3." Three picocuries of radon per liter of air is the equivalent of .033 working levels.
[11]  EFSC found that "disposal at Lower River Solids Pond is suitable if the dikes are modified as described above, including the deep toe or rip rap placed along the river bank."
[12]  ORS 469.330(2) provides:

"The council shall cause public notice to be given whenever a notice of intent is filed and provide a description of the proposed site in sufficient detail to inform the public of its location."
[13]  ORS 469.350(3) provides:

"Copies of the notice of intent and of the application shall be sent for comment and recommendation within specified deadlines established by the council to the Department of Environmental Quality, the Water Policy Review Board, the State Fish and Wildlife Commission, the Health Division, the Water Resources Director, the State Geologist, the State Forestry Department, the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon, the State Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Economic Development Department and any city or county affected by the application."
[14]  On this point, Forelaws claims that OAR 345-50-006 required a 12-month waiting period before an application could be filed. Compare ORS 469.350(1). EFSC adopted an emergency, temporary rule to eliminate the 12-month period.
[15]  OAR 345-50-060 provides:

"In order to issue a site certificate for a waste disposal facility, the Council must find that the site is suitable for disposal of such wastes, and the amount thereof, intended for disposal at the site. A site will be considered suitable if it can be designed to prevent dispersal of the waste due to a 100-year flood, as estimated and mapped by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the wind and water erosion to be reasonably expected at the site."