VALAR WATCH
Key findingsTheir claims, annotatedEvidenceTake action
374 facts · 512 sources · updated 2026-09-30

Fact loc-035

newofficial statementreported State lab director, as ETV reported, said firms must show 'no dose' at the site boundary; Valar's own analysis gives a small dose
2025-10-10 · loc-035 · Jaron Wallace, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy

ETV News (10 Oct 2025) quoted Jaron Wallace, director of the state-run Utah San Rafael Energy Lab that hosts Ward 250: 'Any nuclear company is required to show no dose at the site boundary during an accident event', adding that in the worst case 'the site boundary and thus the public will never see a dose of radiation above background'; the article also paraphrased him that Valar must prove no damage or radiation can pass the fence line of its 11 acres. Set beside the record: Valar's own Ward250 Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (revision 02, October 2025, marked draft) models a bounding 'maximum hypothetical accident' that assumes fuel-particle failures beyond demonstrated limits, a breach of the pressure boundary and stable, light-wind weather (Class F, 1 m/s) that the paper calls the most conservative. It puts the dose at the 400-metre site boundary below 0.5 rem (500 millirem) in one section and below 100 millirem in another, and below 0.1 rem at the nearest home about 800 metres away (safe-013). It measures these against a 25 rem evaluation guideline, not against zero. DOE's categorical exclusion gives natural background radiation in central Utah as about 100-120 millirem a year, and the routine public dose limit as 100 millirem a year. So the company's own analysis does not show 'no dose' at the boundary: it shows a small calculated dose in an accident it treats as a worst case, far below the guidelines it uses. Whether the lab director meant routine operation or a different standard is not in the record; this rests on one news report of his words.

In plain termsIn 2025 the head of the state lab where the reactor sits told local readers, as ETV reported it, that companies must show 'no dose' at the site boundary even in an accident. Valar's own safety paper does not say that. Its worst-case study, which assumes things go wrong beyond what testing has shown, estimates that a person at the site boundary could get a small dose: no more than about one year's worth of central Utah's natural background radiation by one of its figures, or about four to five years' worth by the other. That is well below the guideline figures the paper measures against (a 25 rem evaluation guideline, and 1 rem for emergency planning), but it is not zero. As reported, the director's description and the company's own numbers differ.
verified 2026-09-29: New in the verify pass: ETV page, Valar's safety agreement (pages 11 and 36-37) and DOE's exclusion read directly on 29 Sept 2026. A documented gap between an official's local reassurance and the company's own numbers; no intent is implied. Correction 2026-09-29 (calculation audit): weather now 'stable, light-wind (Class F, 1 m/s)' as the paper states it. Correction 2026-09-29 (wording review): the director's reported words and the paper's numbers are set side by side.

In tabs: local, safety, people, process · file local