ML20137Y222
| ML20137Y222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Marcus C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137X994 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-64 NUDOCS 9704220362 | |
| Download: ML20137Y222 (1) | |
Text
_ . _ . - _ . . . _ . . . - . .._ .-. _ _ _ _. __ _ - . ,_ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .- .
h6 }
t i AR AIG
' UNITED ST ATES f
'o,',
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
W ASHIN GTON,0.C. 20555
{. E
\,.,,,,) January 29. 1997 i
I OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY l !
I 1
i i Ms. Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D. <
f !
President, American College of Nuclear !
Physicians, California Chapter
'. Box 31
- Los Altos, CA 94023
Dear Ms. Marcus:
.This is to acknowle dge rece pi t of your letter.to Chairman Jackson j 4
- dated January 21, 1997 concerning the California ACNP Petition to l
!- Conduct Expedited Agreement State Program Compatibility Review 1 for the State of Utah's Program.
A response is under preparation which will be forwarded tc you shortly.
Sincerely,
- $ k L.
John'C. Ho e Seoretary of the Commission
\
i h
%n o a 9704220362 970417 E9 6 - PDR :a , oy G L O3 [2 '
, V 4
JONATHAN P. CARTER :.
i ATTORNEY AT LAW l
FNtsr MTEAsTATE CENTER sn w. mm sTnsur. surra eso
! moisE.sWto 83702
- ruts m ous(see n se.i ns
! FAcam4LE (208) 386 0000 1
t I
February 3,1997 l VIA FACSIMTIR AND U.S. MATT.
i l Jack Goldberg, Esq.
Office of General Counsel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 j .
Re: 10 CFR f 2.206 Petitions /Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
l
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
i c I am writing on behalf of my client, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., as a follow-up to my i
conversation with Susan Schidakel of your office. As I indicatad to Ms. Schidakel last week, Envirocare is concerned about the allegations raised in the National Resources Defense j Council's ("NRDC") 10 CFR f 2.206 Petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
("NRC"). Apparently, the American College of Nuclear Physicians ("ACNP") (California j
- Chapter) has filed a "pedtion" with the state ol Utah and the NRC raising certain questions, j and we are currently reviewing the allegations in that petition. However, we do not believe j either of these petitions have set forth sufficient facts that constitute a basis for a 10 CFR .
- $2.206 petition. In fact, I understand the NRC has rejected the ACNP's petition. We would j like to maintain an open line of communication with the NRC on these maners and provide 1 whatever information you require to fully evaluate the issues.
! The NRDC petition concerns payments made by the President of Envirocare, .
- Khosrow Sawmani, to N former Director of the Utah Division of Radiarian Control, Larry F Anderson. Our invest 4gation to date indicatas tbd Mr. Anderson left his position with Utah's
- - Division of Radiation Control in June 1993, and he has not participatad in any regulatory or i other decision-makine capacities relative to Enviccare in the three and one-half year time period since then. Mr. Anderson had no authority ov r the regulatory activities of other state and federal agencies ra aaa ihle for issuing licenses and permits to Envirocare lachidian the
{ Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, Utah Division of Water Quality, Utah Division of Air Quality, Region VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Attach 1 is a " Regulatory S=am" that identifies Envirocare's
] licenses and permits and the issuing agencies. Exhihit No.1.
kN bi 4
1 i
l Envirocare submitted a license renewal ajplication to the state of Utah in January j 1996 for its radioactive materials license. For almost one year that license has been f undergoing a renewal review by the Utah Division of Radiation Control. On January 28, #
1997, the current Director of the Division reported to the Director of the Utah Department of ,
i Environmental Quality that his staff had conducted a review of past licensing actions of
) Envirocare, and "we have not identified any major problems associated with past licensing i' actions accomplished by the Division." Attached is a copy of that memnrandum from Bill Sinclair to Dianne Nielson which includes a listing of all licensing actions that are being reviewed pursuant to the renewal process. Exhibit No. 2.
i . Envirocare's Director of Operations, Greg Copeland, is msponsible for ensuring the j company's compliance with all applicable health and safety and environmental laws and mgulations. Envirocare has an extensive internal envirnnmental auditing program that
! addresses the full range of environmental and health and safety issues associated with its
- operations. In 1993 all of Envirocare's auditing procedures were extensively reviewed and
! revised to ensure Envirocare's compliance with applicable laws, regulations, licenses and
- - permits. Envirocare's site operations are governed by the procedures outhned in its Quality i Assurance Manual, Internal Procedures Manual, and Operations Manual. Please let us know-
! if you would like copies of these manunk.
4
[
External audits of Envirocare's site operations were conducted by the Nuclear Regvjatorv Commission in August of 1994 and in July and November of 1996. Audits were
! conducw by the Environmental Protection Agency in September 1994 and January 1996 and j by the Departnent of Energy in March 1994, October 1995 and July 1996. These audits
} have not been fully reviewed, but we do not believe they identify any nigni&aar j environmental or health and safety concerns relative to Envirocare's operations. The state of Utah performs an annual audit of all of Envirocare's operations, and state officials are on-site
, almost every day performing routine inW ons. i Notices of violations have been issued by
! various regulatory agencies with authority over Envirocare's operations. At this juncture we l do not believe that any of those violations are signifmant, and all of them have been resolved 1- or are being resolved. Arrachad are copies of a news article from last Friday's Salt Iake
! Tnbune and a press release that discuss the most recent external audit of Envirocare's i facility. Exhibit No. 3.
i
! In 1992 the Utah legislative Auditor General's Offze reviewed the Utah Department
! of Environmental Quality's regulation of commercial waste disposal facilities. The audit i found, in part, that the Division of Radiation Control's " compliance inspection program
!~ appears to a%=ly compel Envirocare to meet all regulations established by the )
l Legislature and the NRC." Please let us know if you would like copies of any of these l audits.
l At this juncture, we have not identified any evidence that Mr. Semnani's payments to j Mr. Anderson had any affect on environmental compliance and regulatory oversight by state or federal agencies. We have not discovered any documents that identify any signi&aat
! 2
{ I L ;
~
~~ouausi^ ~io.G ^ &as 207~^^ 2G:LG:2s~~~~ ~~~~ ~C::~ }
> j i
- health and safety or environmental problems associated with Envirocare's facility. In particular, we have not identified any inappropriate licensing or regulatory actions of the. ,- ,
j Utah Division of Radiation Control with respect to Envirocare. "'
i ,
, Based on our investigation to date, no basis exists for granung any of the relief
! requested by the NRDC. The NRDC petition fails to establish any supporting facts of health
! and safety or environmental problems related to Envirocare's operations. i
, In addition to the matenals referenced hereinabove as attachments, we will provide I
you with copies of audit reports, licenses, permits, audit maminis, and other documents you may require relative to your inquiry into this matter. I trust you will find this information helpful as you consider these mauers on' behalf of the NRC. Envirocare intends to fully cooperate with the NRC and any other federal agency interested in these issues. We look forward to meeting with you at your convenience to more fully discuss these matters and answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
I Very truly yours, AM)f.
Jonathan P. Carter Enclosures i i
cc: William Sinclair w/ enclosures l Harold LeFevre w/caclosures l Craig Thorley w/ enclosures JPC:rmb 3
u, u, , , a. ,e u a sa no - - ~ ~ - ~ ~~
- l. REGULATORY
SUMMARY
l FOR
- ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.
l RCRA Permit - Issued by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste as a EPA RCRA Authorized State pursuant to the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, 26-14-1, i Utah Code Annotated,1953, as amended, and the Utah Admini<trative Code R315-1 through R315-13 and R315-50. The RCRA Permit was also issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 260 i through 268,270 and 124.
l
}
l HSWA Permit - Issued by Region VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency under i the provisions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) of the i
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Title 40 Code of Federal
, Regulations 260 through 268, 270 and 124.
l Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit - Issued by Utah Division of Water Quality j
under Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as '
amended. '
5 Radioactive Materials I tranca - Issued by Utah Division of Radiation Control as an i
NRC Agreement State under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; under Section 19-3-104 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; and under the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Rules for the Control ofIonizing Radiation.
i i
11e.(2) Materials License - Issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commiwion pursuant to I the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amandad the Energy Reorgani'=*ian Act of 1974
! (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10 Code of Federal Paalations, Chapter I, Parts 30, 31,
! 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, arJ 70.
i j Air Discharge Approval Order - Issued by the Utah Division of Air Quality under the '
i Utah Air Conservation Regulations pursuant to the Utah Air Conservation Act and under authority of the Utah Admini<trative Code 1953, as amended, Code 307.
i Also regulated by Utah Tax Code, Utah Occupational Safety and Health Rules, subject to zoning ordinnne*=, etc.
Exhibit No. 1
, g , _ ,. r . . _ . _ __
_7_
- - - . ~ - - . - . , _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 09/03/97 16:15 G208 336 0003 JONATHAh CARIER idOO6 )
P j 5 tate of U;ga !
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY !
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL t
, Misboet O. Ime w las meik i,3o w ,
I
- P.O. haa 144330 .
! "' "* N sak h Ciar. IJish set 14.asse *
)
1 i 4801)53H250Veks williennJ.sineleir (303) 333.any7 png '
(sous3H4:4 T.n.a.
{
MEMORANDUM
}'
TO: Dianne R. Nicison, Ph.D.
Executive Director 3
i Utah Department of Environmer:nl Quality
- FROM:
- Bill Sinclair Director 3 Division of Radiadon Control
! Utah Department of Environmental Quality
SUBJECT:
Review of Envirocare licensing acdons DATE: January 23,1997 Staff members of the Division of Radiation Control haw; reviewed all licensing / permitting ne commencing 12,1987. with the submission of the application for NORM waste by Envirocare on October Attached is a compiladon of past licensing acduns. This chmnology commences with a status report of all Envirocare lic-~=
c hems 710 of the review focus on disposal fees audits and the Northwest Interstata 'y Resolution and Order. The next area of focus is in regards j to the original NORM license and all twenty-two subsequent =~adments. Finally, other actions affeedng the license are noted.
From our review of these various actions, we have not identiGed any major problems =**~ i=-d with past licensi'ng actions accomplished by the Division. However, these liccasing acdons will be reviewed during the license senewal review process currendy underway. This chronology outlines which licensing actions are currently underBoing review as a result of the beense renewal process. We cendnue to encourage everyone with quesdons to contact us so their issue (s) may be resolved in a timely manner.
Wa will maintain this license chronology from this point forward. If you have any questions."
do not hesitate to contact me.
+
-e , -
n v , ,,Ln .
' pp- -c
+ 1 , v .=, v n
1/2e/97
~
1
- wie issue Envirocara Parmita/Uc
- nsso Chron logy l8 une Permit Action Submittal Approval Empiratior Reviewed Approved Participation Putsc ~~h Re-vis I No. No.
Description Re-licen_s 1
Date Dale Date By By Provided? Ac8ian?
l 1 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials License 10/12/87 2/28/58 2/28#93 ORC 2 LEA No 'Yes Combaned with ehe Low-level flag 6enciare Aantenals License on W21)91 '~
3 -
4 2.
4 Low-Lavel Radioactive Materials License 7/27/90 ~~
! 5 __
3/21/91 2/2aS6 DRC LFA No Yes .
l 8 3 Groundwater Discharge Permit 1 10/1/90' 3/21/90 9/10/98 DWO DAO Yes Yes, re-l Permit em i=^--i was eartended duning mowp+,r,;i modlication c3 of 8 S/f0S3 license will
- - 9 require 10 permit modi
! 11 fication l: 12 4 44lmed Waste Permit
!$ 13 4/21/89 11/30/90 11/30MO DS/HW DRO Yes Yes - under jj 14 going 5 yeas 15 review. Clas ii 16 3 modificalic d, 17 submseted jj 18 5 Uranium and thortusa mal ta't;: (11e.(2) Ucense) 12/23f91 11/30f93 11/30f03.NRC NRC Yes No
, 19 20 6 Hazardous and So5d Waste Amendments (HSWA) Feis.Gt 8/95 1W3/96 10G01 EPA Yes No -just 21 22 , Region reconity re-i 23 Vill issued
,; 24 7 Audit of redleective waste d5 sal fees, to ensure State is being paid the i! 25 ==- w ,v.'.ie amount of fees. No
!o 26 Financial auc51 to be conducted by the Office of Supaart Services, DEQ '
jl 27 Estimated 2/97. <
!; 28 1
~} 29 8 Northwest interstate Compact - Resolution and Order - Superseded by 30 1991 .
LFA, KA, LFA, Yes - No 5/244 R & O 3I FN NWlC Cc.T--
- a) On0 anal R & O in which Utah reserved the iiiFit to = a==ove each disposal , meeangs are.
I $- 32 arre-- T r.:Ed.t.s cc.c : -authorized material, aA federal and j5 33 state laws must be sunyised with, no low-level waste from states that !
--;+ i lo i" p' m and 34 have been denied access to sited states facdless could accepted have
{. 35 without af,&.i'm, si,f,wal trom NWIC. Compact reserves the right to '
designaled i? 36 moddy or rescind the authorization at any time.
i2 37 putic
)j 38
-comment times during as
."40 meetins.
, j Meeting wasl l_"__-__..._.___.._....__-____.._.__._.--_,______
-J 1/28/97 I
j Envirocara P;rmits/Limnsen Chronhlogy
- l
' Wit issua i
- p une Pubsc N-visited i Permit Action
-Subesital Approval Empirakor Reviewed Approved Participahon Re-ficeE.
I No. No.,
Description Dale Date Date By By Provided? Action?' '
! il
! 42 I in Honolulu,
. M. _.
,44 9 Northwest Interstate C-:c ::t - Resolution and Order - Superseded by 5/9194 8S FN, I 45 4/20/95 R & O WJS. Yes - same No i 46 8C8 NWIC as above.
a) Amendments 10 Wie term
- reactor".
- 47 DRN Meeting was l b) Clarificatiori lhat resolution was intended for cleanup and not wahonal 48 wastes. in Seattle, 49 c) Af+ioval by c - ^ ^
- WA.
\:
_ or state of origin :== 'W '5-Aed by NWIC) 50 51 10 Northwest interstate Compact - Resolution and Order
- 52 4/20/95 8S, FN, WJS, Yes - same Yes - Look a a) Deterred re-=M of anatorial to Utah fBA
!j 53 SC8, NWIC as above license jj 54 b) Utah licensa condilon added that r=-kes State /Csir M e===t = =wal.
c) Review of R & O on a Ihree year basis.by NWIC.
DRN Meetmg was definitions o
- j. 55 In Seattle, soll. soil-like d) Contract notihcations are reviewed by DRC start ler opsvopriate export
!j 58 s- aval Volumes, per R & O, et=_ - are reported al each C-:-- -m WA. debris. ! M
- j 57 rneetag by Erwisocare. at mandatin!
4 i
2 se Cr,irpect i
59 sewnission i 60 DRC.
81 Consider 82 >iMi-i. ,ii 63 l l c4j oy
- 64 NWIC se-
- ; 85 !misson to
- , 86 DRC.
l$ 87
- 1 I
)
w k }* .
o j4
- I i
- i
,2
- e
, .s
, , , _ , _ _ , . . , - . . . - - - .~.-..--~-,-,-c ---------e~ ' ' ' ' " " " '-
! t icense, R:v. I _ _ _ _ . . . . . .
i
l- 1/28/97
! Wiu issue b.
'8 t.he Envkcctro Rrdloactive Materials License Chronology _
Permit Action Public Re-visited by j M ."'a 3 Description Submittel Af+sival Reviewed Approved Participation Re-li:ense
, 13 1 Subneission of NORM Application Date Date By By Provided? Action?
i' 2 ~10/1247 2448 OF, CJ, LFAI No lyes i 3 -- JF, GG, i 4 BS,MO 1 5 2 Amendment #1 - Adoption of Quauty Assurance Prograsn 6 2/17/88 2/2548 DF,CJ, LFA No ~Yes i 7 -
! 10 Amendenent 82 - Letter / Phone Ce5 - Addition of CondRions 8/128 8111/88 DF, CJ, LFA No a) Cond 38 - Requirement for Annual Monsorino ^-Tt Yes i _ _11 b) Cond 39 ."+=d ement for Annual Waste G=y- -' Report ~JF, GG,_
4 13 Amendment 83 -lastrument Celliwelion Requirements
!! 14 a) Leller dated Gr2148 - Quarterly to 6 months 10f1348 CJ, DF, LFA No Yes
- l. 15 b) Lener dated 10588 - St _;:: Calibration Date S/2148 RN, JH l1
' 10 104/88 17 5 Amenoment 84 - 380,080 cubic yards Possession Limit
- ! 18 {Movised from 17,000 cubic yasds) 14/89 1/12/89 CJ, DF, LFA No Yes
- 19 1/1149 RN,JH
- 20 S Amendment 88 - Administrative Amendment. Sr=-
- Mied Changes AHowed 1/8/89 1/18/89 DF
- _21 Without involdng Amendment Process LFA No Yes
{ 22 I l 23 7
! _24 Amendrnent 88- Administrauwe Amendment- Addition of Conditions 2/24/89 DF,JH, LFA No
' a) Generator 1o Certify Waste Corcentration !Yes 25 b) CG,w,;._h Limits Defined RN,CJ,
- 28 c) Receipt of Waste for Stora9e LM, DWO
!' 27 _
! ;' 28 8 Amendment #7- Change of Addsess Letter i 3 29 1/26/90 1/28/90 DF LFA No Yes
- 30 9
' Amendment 88 - Request le delete Air Monitoring Station A 3 6/28/90 7/28/90 DF, JH.
31 LFA No 'Yes 2 .
32 RN, CJ j *, 33 10 Amendment #9- NORM Mimed Wasto Approval 34 12/3/90 12/3/90.D_SHW, LFA Yes - DSHW Yes 35 C RC,
[, 36 "
DWQ i** 37 11 Amendment 818 - Low !.evel Waste Disposal Amendment i 38 74740 3/21/910F, NN, LFA Yes - DSHW. Yes a) LARW. Mixed 4. ARC 39 CJ, JH,
} 'b) fielease Procedures i
40 LM, DWO c) RAE Performance Assessment Report '
. 1 0%W
_ - -..-.- - .. - - - - -- - - ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~*
- .. . _ . ___--._e . . _ . __.
l 1/28/97
- ll Envirocara Rrdinactiva Mrteritin Licznso Chrontiggy l
Wit issua bc <
iA Line PutWic Peranit Action Re-visited by l No. No. I Subrnital Approvat Reviewsd ' Approved Participation ,
Descriptiort _ Re-license '
Date 4
41 Dale By By Provided? Action? I 4
42 12 6 Amendment #11 - New Conditions 43 9/20/90 3/16f92 DF, RN, LFA Yes - DWQI Yes
~
i 44 LM, JH, 'No i
45 I DSHW l 46 m) ExernplIvorn Land C Es4.ip DWQ j 47 DF,RN, No mYes 48 b) U-235 Poss Lirnit a u, at l i 49 c) Delane Decontanunated Debris for Ci=, DRC No. Yes al
. 50 d) MW DRC of Lift Cornplehen in writing DRC No Yes i
51 e) Paine Feter Liquid Test ORC No Yes
- $2 DWQ. Yes - DWO Yes !
1i 53 CC, LM, -
1 54 f) Change As-Built Sulunission Dale t 55 DWQ, Yes - DWO Yes
_56 CC, LM, !
{- 57 g) Q4-OC Program Sirement RN, OF '
I> 58 DWQ, Yes - DWQ Yes
- 59 CC, LM, ,
j So h)CJ; A t Test A"g =,1 to Detwis RN,DF j 61 OWQ, Yes DWQ Yes I
! 82 OSHW, l
63 Q Debas Lirnits for Lifts CC, LM,
,. 64 DWQ, Yes - DWQ Yes
]: 65 DSHW, 86 j) Plecement Volume Limits CC, LM, l! :' 87 DWQ, Yes - DWO Yes h as i DSHW, i* 89 k) ID Chalating As- e CC, LM.
i 70 DWO, Yes - DWO - Yes - ,
!i 73 13 Amendment 812 - Release Cellerie for Equipmeal 74 10/27/92 11/2032 DF, RN, LFA No Yes I
, 75 JH
^
76 14 Amendment 813 -Change of Addreae ii 77 5/14/93 5/24/93 DF LFA No Yes l 78 15 Amendmeent #14 Entireity
!j 79 .
5/15/93 9/10/93 RAE,DF, WJS Yes Yes 80 tu
, i.
Ia) Fourteen Radloactsve le Approved for Di=.===!
RAE.OF, 1 Yes Yes '
4 1-- -
y- T wp -wwwwtwt u m w w -r T- or, N ar -w --=v-e-.-mw -- em- s-- r em- .s-,e,w w - c u ,*w m-et n v v w-r - m-----*-er re m =+ +- - e m+e t-t--t -+e-e==vwwr-+-*w'*-++e-+wy-ewr-V -wwwyv v+- k* -T-'vei7 ' ' ' ' * * " - N "'""* t-
' ' ~ - -iw"* -
'4-
j - _ . . . . . . . . , i l 1/28/97
!3 Envirectra R dicactiva Mr.terilla Licensa Chrennisgy WiE Issua in
! -3 une Permit Action Public Re-visitedbi -
No. No. Submittal Approval Revien; Approved Panicipation Re-license '
- Description 81 Date Dale By By Provided? ~ Action? i i 82 LM. DWO I j 83 DSHW ~ ~ ~
b) Transuranic Addressed i 84 RAE,DF, Yes Yes i 85 c) Re-wrNo Release Criteria LM __ _
} 88 RAE,DF,. Yes Yes 87 d) Mixed Weste Storage LM i
' 88 RAE,OF. Yes Yes 89 LM. DWO i 90 e) Additional Clay Liner Protection DSHW 91 RAE,DF, Yee Yes
!< 92 LM, DWO i 93 DSHW 3
) 94 16 Amendmoni 815 - Twenty-Three Radioactive isotopes Woved for Disposal
. 95 9/30/93 2/22/94 DF, LM, WJS Yes Yes
!$ 96 RAE jj 97 17 Amendment 814 - Approval by Compact for Out of State Waste to E.C.
98 5/17/94
{j 99 18 Amendment 817 - Oversize Debria/CLSM Option e/10/94 DF WJS Yes Yes i 100 6/21/94 8/26/94 DF, LM. WJS No Yes
, 101 a) Oversize Debris Acceptance SH 102 b) Use of Flowable Flow (CLSM) 103 104 19 Amendment 510 - Eliminate WNdlife Sampilag
- $ 105 Sf30/94 DF.JH, WJS No Yes lg 106 a) Amend Environmental Monitor Plan t.M. RN in 107 9/8/94 jg 100 t/31/93 I
109 20 110 Amendment 819 - (Emecutive Sectosary Jn/tiefed) - Revised conditions 8/19/94 11/9/94 DF WJS No Yes a) P+Wre Waste Manifest (E-100) _,.
- 111 b) Raa@e CGE,,;p w/ R31315-1006, (New CFR) 20 ii 112 c) Re-wrlie Conditions 6,7,8 lj 113
, 114 21 Amendment #20- Re-write Entiretty L 115 _ 6/24/95 DF, LM, WJS Yes Yes it 116 a) As-Guill ."+;' :n: its RN. JH @ 1 17 b) Comply with new R31315 &anges is 118 c) Reduce some Radionuclide Concentrations
--19 1
s 120, 22 Amendmen1821 - Five New Nuc5 des Added 615/95i 11/15/95]DF, LM. i WJS iYes lYa* ,-,,_,,",,...,,-.-----~re" i
'^~'~~" " ~ ~ ~~~ ~
1 1/22.97
, I Envisocara Radimtive Materials License Chronology WMissue be 3 Lkm Public Permit Action _Re-visited by No. . No. Submittal Approval Reviewed' Approved _ Participation Re-ficense 121 Descrishn Date Dale By By Prosided? Action?
I25 a) Bismath 207 RAE I 123 b) Senarium 151 124 c) Tantalum 162 125 d) YT 163 . 126 e)Tl204 127 126 23 Amendment 822- Whid Blovm Lluer t29 W16/96 RN,DF, WJS No Yes (Execudve S=wetaryIrdlieted) 130 JH, Ltd 131 24 ton Eac,W.ip Resan 132 50/96 DF, RAE WJS Yes Yes 3 m) Notice of New Contract, louer kom Envirocare to DRC, Contains Resin Bead W11/95 DF, LM. 133 Material 3 134 JR, iti, 135 b) DRC Request for Iniormellon, letter sent W11/95 aAE d 136 9/21/95 RAE
- 1) ActualProcedure
{ 137 2) Break down j 136 3) 7."; .-C.ir.ii 130 c) Sutwsullal of letter from Erwirocare to DRC, rega.-t-; Slabany, Cc..- =-:4, 10/26/95 RAE 140 and Bio +' y&dabEty. 141 d) Request for more iniormation, Input from RAE, letter from DRC to Envirocase 12/20/95 142 e) Stahdity A.99,5; letter from AGRA lo Envirocare to DRC 143 2/22Als DF.RAE , f) Final Stability, letter from AGRA to Erwwocare to DRC 1 144 2/27/96 OF,RAE g) TCLP Aner,d, louer from Bingham to Envirocare to DRC '$ 145 3/15/98 h) Response to Cranients, le'ter from Envirocare to DRC 3/19/96, o 146 1) P.T-;:is of Resin 147 2) Specifications 2 148
- 3) Kd Results, Sealement e
} 149 150 l) RAE .9: ;+nse to loner dated 3/19196, leser hem RAE to DRC 4/26/96 RAE,OF, 4 151 LM j) Pennission to A-:-:e;--: Waste Resin Granted, leser kom DRC to Envirocate i 152 4/30/96 5/7/96 DF,RAE WJS Amendment not needed.
o' 153 k) Sons to an on Envirocess MaB Informahon List S/7/96 DF 154' WJS Yes Yes
,,, 155 25 DAW-Dry AcWwe Weste t 156 .
Yes Yas 2 a) Suggest Dawn Counter for Pat:f Waste, R=*st ALARA .v.t., 124/95 11/5/96 157 letter troen ORC to Erwirocare 2 156 b) Stdusussion for DAW Ss.T,;7 ,ii Plan, leser from Envirocare to DRC 159 1/29f96 DF, RN, -
- 1) Psotocals so be used by Envuocare LM, JH,
.-i100 , 2) Procedure for Operation ,
JR, WC l
- g. . - -
,,ww..,..__-,.-,,,%.. --v3 -. w.2 ,. ,,.., ,-n, ,. ,ce v._,,-y,-., - ,-, , - e-.,.i,,%,-.ww,.-
..w..w , ,a w. i - - -
m l 1/28 4 7 iE l l Willlasus be j9 une Envitaccro R:rdinactiva Mitsrigin License Chronology ' Perrmt Action Pubic Re-visited bi l No. No., Subanitial Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Description Re4:ense~ j 161 Date Dale By By Provided? i c) ORC Response to 1/29/96 Submission from Envirocate Action? ! 162- 1) Agree ALARA Rev;ew 2/W96 _ l t _ 163 2) A.T&rd 6ating Procedures i 164 .d) DRC request leIIer -" r
~
j 165 . 10/1746
~
~
f) DAW- DisposalPlan j 166 *
- 2) DAW - Address Wind th isal l 167:
- 3) DAW - Uru1orm Disisibution j 168
- 4) DAW - Waste Char. Plan Modification
! 169 e) Subtrl= hn of Info Requested by DRC on 10/17/96 j 170 11/1/96 DF,RN 171 LM JH, 4j 172 , WC f) Approval of DAW Procedure, leger itom DRC to Envirocare jj 173 1115/96 11/5/96 WJS Yes Yes u 174 26 Waste TCLP j' 175 Yes Yes
. a) Raa===8 to Eliminate TCLP, letter from E.t-2fe to DRC i 176 6/20/95' b) Envirocare aerees to Euminate TCLP $ 177 8/27/95 c) Notice trosu DRC to lho Pub'ic
.S 178 1) Newspaper Aii.r.c,y 179 8/8/95 i 2) Tribune -Deseret News,30 day nonce for week of 8/14M5 180 8/14/95
- 3) Transcript Bu8enn (Tooelo),30 day police -
l 181 4) Internet,40 day notice 8/14/95 782 8/8/95 d) Draft Memo of Agreement to Fund DRC during TCLP 183 8/95 3 e) AG's Office Review of MOA, returned to DRC l} i 2 184 145 f) MOA, signed by Dianne R. Nielson and Chastes Judd~ 8/11/95 8/11/95 g) Agreement to in,;.mont TCLP, To.;-s by DRC. Agreement Valid to 6/30t97 8/96 8/11/95 '4 186 j' 187 27 Weste Blending a Ice a) DRC gets RAE ei;nion for review Yes Yes ,$3 189 l 4/21/95 RN,DF,
- 190 LN,BS b) Request to increase Concentration Limit CS-137 A Co.60
- j. 191~ 7/5/95 c) Request to Avg Concentration over Dier==' Cet, le8er from Envirocare to DRC 8/1/95 t1 192 d) Ccw si Sur -r*s idea, letter from Ccs,act to Charles Judd to DRC 0 193 8/7/95 e) Re-Define St.l, nar.tO_..;;: to Average over " Shipment", letter frorn EC 6/9/95 l 194 f) Delines areas of concem,le8er from RAE to DRC, Possble Conflict of interest 8/10/95 s
195 lgA 196 g) DRC agrees lo Sh;p Definfilen 72 hour, letter from DRC to Envirocare 8/15/95 h) W.;.;p - Public Notee for Chsrge is needed, letter from DRC to C. Judd 197 i) Requ6tements for ." ~,drg, Sagf.;;r,;i, Pad, le8er trorn DRC te Envirocare 1 E 198 i) Meetog with Erwirocate and DRC concoming- _ 199 8/22/95 Letter of Outlining Resues of 8/22/95 rneeling. Class A SNM, GWTP, etc. 8/23/95
. . 200 k) Laner srC.c out Plan to Place, Average, Di=~=e8, from Envirocare to DRC
, . 8/31/951 1 5
, , _ m.n_ 3--v ~,v- 4= ~*P" ' * ~ "
,, l 1/28/97 l ; l W3 issue tu W '
Envirectra Radioactiva Materials Licen?a Chronology ~ une . Pubhc Re-visited in Permit Action Subminal Approval Reviewed Approved Pastreetion l No. No. Descalpelon Re-license. 201 4 Approval Leser Date Date 8y By (*rovided? Acdon? ~ 202 9#8/95 _ _ 1 203 28 Request for Conlldentielity ' ~~ No 204 205 a) Letter RegnC., Total Conlidendally (*C"), louer from Erwirocare to BRC
- 3/8/88 Yes
].
b) Envirocare Directed to Psovide Redacted Ca.=," 7T Memtains "C") 8/148 206 LFA LFA c) P+TMal for Un-Redacted Copy of Envirocase Fle, rested by UMETCO 9/148 207 6) LeNer A ;--r. Envirocare Claim for *C*, later frem Poulenc to BRC 200 10/25/B8 e) DSHW Denies "C" for DSHW File Pertaining to Erwuocare 209 7/17/90 0 Envirocers Claime Pareninant 'C', louer from Envirocere to BRC 210 Sf11/90 g) BRC Rvested More Justification to :g,.:. ment *C', leser lo Es virocare 8/14/90 211 h) Claim Re-Staled, letter from Envirocate's f 9:.- iey to BRC 212 8/25/90 3 0 'c Claim by Erwirocme's Ascara deted 8/25/90 denied by AG. 213 8/2740 D BRC and AG Uphold V of Name and Address for Pewste Generatore Only. 10/2/90 3 214 AE othere PubEn Record. 215 is) Envirocare Agrees wth 8RC posiden of 10G/90 10/25190 .fy 216 217 29 Trust i 2.18 a) NORM License Approvet - Trust: $233.582 3/3.'98 DF,CJ LFA No
'219 b) incrosse Storage Copacity New Tmet Value increases by $583,519 N/A 220 Tmst: $779,000 12/3det 1/11/89 DF LSA .No N/A _
221 c) Fund Storage el Rhnne-Polenc Waelea. Approved for Storage Only. 11/13/91 11/13/01 222 Cost: $704,000 LFA No N/A 223 d) Envirocere Request $710,000 of Excess Surely F=' .g because Rhone-3 224 12/17/91 1/28/92 LFA No N/A Poleno wastes are deemeei.". Fhai Trust Valuec $1,096,000
$ 225 e) Trust Updele, Final Trust Value: $1.231,000 226 a 7Af92 7/21/92 RN,DF LFA No N/A
' 0 Trust C' r Changes to ==antasa Final Closure Costa: $153,000 645/92 10/1944 RN, DF WJS 227 Final Trust Value:$1,394,404 No N/A S 22e a) Trust 8 ';'-- . New Facelilles FE# -2. Final Tmst Value: $4,041,000 N/A 11/10/95 RN, DF, WJS No N/A 3 229 230 WJS h) Tmst LP , Finst Tassi Value: $4,173,000 N/A 231 4/1725 RN, DF WJS LNo N/A'
$ LJoense Renewal, Current Amount Picpeeed: $4,388,000 ya 232
< 1/24/96 under. RN,DF
' Review N/A Yes Yes 233 234 -
I d' s n a -
= m.
g
Pirrrut, ftv. I 1/28/97 3 l xx/xx/xx - unresoaved beM next pema cyde j Envirocare Groundwater Discharge Permit: Permit Chronology Will issulb
; une Perrnit Action 3 !ki . cunang umosorved Public Re-visited b l Submsttal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation No. No. Description Re ficess]e Date Date By By Pravided? _ Action?
t 1 Condillonal GW Permit (inillat) [ Safety EvaluaUon Report availablej Oct - Nov. 3/21/91 LBM DAO YES no 2 Conditions Pre-requisite la Construction - submidal & approval required 1 1990 3 a) Final Engineering Design and Specificallons 4 b) Construction QA/QC Plan 7 j 2/14/92 CCP/LBM DAO VES - s c) Groundwater Monitoring Well Network Completion 4/26/91fM/M/9RCCPA.BM DAO - YEs~ ' ' 5/12/93h9/1,0293:LBM :DAO no s d) Groundwater Monitoring OA/OC Plan 4/26/91 12/5/91 LBM OAO no 7 e) Contingency Plan 5/17/91 S/24/91 LOM DAO no e f) Site Hydrogeoloolc Report (geology, hydrology, GW quality) 10S/91i 3/20/92 LBM DAO 'YEs s g) Background Groundwater Quality Sampling Report 7/15S3 W/f0 LBM DAO ino 10 h) Post-Closure Monitoring Plan 5/17/91 M1]g{LBM lg DAO YES is i) Determination of Indicator Radionuclides Repost 4/26/91 10/2/91lLBM DAO YES ] 12 - k) Groundwater Flow Modeling Repor1 (unaal & sat flow) S/31/91j$9/'jdMTLBM DAO YES j 13 1) Buffer Zone Determinallon 4
? ' 2/14/92 CCP/LBM DAO YES m) Wasta Liquid Content Testing and Control Plan 4/26S1 10/22/9t LBM DAQ YES
} is n) Engineering Plans / Speedications for Various Related FaciMies ? 10/23/91 LBM/CCP DAO no la
- c) Waste Characterization Plan (approval req'd prior to waste receipt) 4/28/91 10/22/91 LBM/DLF DAO YES
}' 17 to 2 Permit Modifiestion No.1 (major) (Statement of Baals avaldablej
~
n/a 3/20/92 LBM/CCP DAO YES :no to a) Osiginal Conditions Resolved: see 1.a.1.d.1.e.1.1, t.m. and 1.o, above n/a 20 New Pasmit Requiremente or Chan.ges 2 b) Determ. nation of Groundwater Class - n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO no 22 c) Determination of groundwater radiologic indicator paramelers 4/28/91 10/2/91 LBM DAO 'YES , 23 d) Addition el BAT perfortnance standards n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO no 24 $ e) New waste restrictions (isotope inventory and TCLP Iknits)
' n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO YES 2s I) Discharge Miniinization & Prevention Plan j 2a g) Suction fysimeter design, installatlon & mon!!oring requaements
, 3tt3/91 12/16/91 LBM 3/20/92MN,%!LBM DAO YES no o 77 h) Provis4ons for winter stirage of waste in cell ? ' 3/20S2ILBM DAO YES 4 2s I) Statist) cal methodology lor groundwater compliance _,
d ? 3/20/92 LBM DAO ' no 2s i) Historic Ground Water Quamy Report ] 7/27/92 9/10/93 LBM 'DAO no so _ k) Accelerated Background Groundwater Quality Report (monthly sampling) 7/15/93 _ 9/10/93 LBM DAO no 1 3 i) Additional Groundwater Compilance Wells 5/12/93; 9/10/93 IBM DAO no 1 32 m) Modification of Groundwater Monitoring QA/OC Plan 0 3/2W92 ?/ jj$!.)LBM no 33 n) 1 year deferral of waste characterization requirements (gov't generators) n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO no 34 o) On site meteorological rnonitoring Wa 3/20/92 LBM DAO YES 35 p) Collection Vsimeter design / specification / OAM Plan 9/15/92 11/27/92 LBM/CCP DAO no 4 as q) identification / approval of filter borrow source 9/3082- 10/9/92 LPM DAO YES _ 3 37 r) Contaminant Transport Modeling Report- Arsenated NORM Wastes 3 8/17/92 9/10/93 LBM/DKS DAO o YES 3e s) Relocation of wastes In unauthorized storage (Rhone-Potanc) .n/a 9/10/93 DLF DAO no n f - l
reinsu, nuv. a 1/28S7 lo l L suihudxx 6 urnsalved tesore ries 2*'md cycan WisiIssue b ' !g Envirt> caro Groundwet::t Discharge Permit: Permit Chronology Permit Action 1".6 - cua ae varosaeved r Public Re-visited [ t,.Ine I Submittal Approval Reviewed Approved Panicipation Re-recense No. No. Description Dale Date By By Provided? Action? 40 3 l Perml1 Modification No. 2 (minor) 4/10/92 'LBM *DAO no 41 a) Approval of Construction OA/OC Plan (1.b, above) 3 4/10/92 CCP DAO YES
- 42 b) Correction of intemel references & lypographic errors
! 43 .
"no _, l l 44 4 Permit Modification No. 3 (major) ~
(Statement of Basis avalfable] 9/10/93 LBM DAO YES ['] 45 { a) Previous Conditions Reso!ved (3/20/92 Permit): see 2.j, 2.k. 2.1, 2.q. 2.r. and 2.s, above (LBM/DKS DAO n/a es New Pesmit Requirements or Changes l 47 b) WeX-by-we5 background groundwater concentrations determmed l n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO *no 4e c) Change 9toundwater mordtoring frequency (monthly to quarteny) n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO no 4s d) Well-by-well groundwater protection limits (mean + s) rVa S/10/93 LBM DAO no
, so 'e) Removal of Sum-of-Fractions rule for Groundwater paclection limits n/a 9/10/93 LBM/DLF .DAO no i$ 5: f) Suction lysimeter instaE911on & "As-Built
- Report 11/4/93@,:SEiLBM ino
{j sa . g) Waste Characterization Plan - transferred to DRC License n/a 9/10/93 LBM/DLF DAO r YES 53 h) Mobte Weste Area - approved location & engineering <8@ rVa 9/10/93 LBM DAO YES j: }2 54 .i) Now groundwater -:c=-;"mco parameters (organics & mobile rads) n/a S/10/93 LBM OAO no
, ss j) Addalon of Cu & Zn to TCLP Emits (Waste Characterization Plan) n/a 9/10/93 LBM 'OAO YES
- 2 se k) Discharge Minimization & Prevention Plan, etc. transferred to DRC Ucense n/a
- S 9/1043 LBM/DLF DAO 8YES 57 1) Cover soil moisture rnonit#s.g requirementa n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO 1 :no i
sa ; n) Two year "Open CeH* time Emit n/a . 9/10/93 LBM OAO i YES ! se o) Additional statistical methods for Droundwater compliance determinations rVa 9/10/93 LBM DAO no i so p) Rec:".gnation of weRs at " Future
- LARW Ceas to background wens n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO no
{ si q) Oroundwater monitoring at wet GW-3 (in remnanse to 3-party allegations) n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO no
!, sz r) Raise GW Probable Out-of-Compuance I!mit (1 le 2 consecutive saiC::) < 7/30/93 9/10/93 LBM DAO no i; as s) Meteorological Monitoring QA/QC Plan 3
64 7/16/93di6M/94!DLF/LBM DAO -YES t) Unsaturated Flow Post Model Audit Plan no i4 ss 12/1483 k}.MOLBM
] se e7 5 Perml1 Modification No. 4 (major)
{ Statement of Baala available) < 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM DAO YES
>4 New Permit Requirements or Changes I
D se a) Change Non-Mobile Wasta Cover Desigir higher permeabilty (redon barrier) 6/30/93 4/29/94 LBM/DMS DAO YES 6s b)
- Future
- LARW Ceds redesagnated for 11a.(2) waste disposal < 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM DAO no
,. To c) TCLP waste limits for 11e.(2) waste disposal n/a 4/28/94 LBM DAO no !l 71 d) General stormwater management requerernents n/a 4/29/94 LBM DAO - YES 72 < e) Irwe8 storage for 11a.(2) waste < 4/23/94 4/29/94 LBM 'DAO no 73 l} Delerrrunation of GW background conditions prior to 11e.(2) disposal rVa 9/7/94 LBM DAO no i i; 74 g) New GW paramelers for 11 e.(2) Cell wels < 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM DAO - no iA 75 h) Frost Dama0s Evaluation Report and Prevenison Plan , 6/9/94 8/26/94 LBM/SH DAO/BS no
;$ re i) Final 11a.(2) Celi Engineering Plans / Speedications 3/29/94 4/28/94 LBM/SH 'DAO no 1o 77 i) Revision of Waste Characterization Plan for 11e.(2) waste Mar-94 4/29f94lLBM/SH DAO no ra k) 11o.(2) Wasta Performance Assessment Report (submital before disposal) n/a -
7'LBM e YES i
. *re I) LAPX/ /11e.(2) Bottom Uner Compatbility Report 3/9/94. ~ LBM i YES I
. - - - . - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ~ - - " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-N I
Permd. Rev.1
,, I l 1/2857
, s. xxhos/xx . .nrescevaa tietose name persed cyde Willissue I '3 Envitocare Groundwater Discharge Permit: Permit Chronology une Permit Action #6) .cunener unresches Public Re-visited I No. No. Submittal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Re-licens. Description ao Dale Date By By Provided? Action? m) 11e.(2) Construction OA/QC Plan s: 2/1644 3/24/94 LBM l n) Revised LARW Design & COA /OC Plan (non-mobte area radon barrier) 3/21W94 4/2044 LBM/SH DAO _ _ no s2 DAQERS YES o) Revision of GW Monitoring OA/OC Plan for 11s.(2) parameters . as p)_LARW Cell Perched Leachate Potenhai Report LBM DAO no 5/17s4@(tDi 44 8/144 3/1,jtBM ;DAO YES as 6 Permit Modification No. 5 (minor) es ? IW744 LBM DAO no { a) Redesignation of 11o.(2) weAs as cssp lance monilorbg webs (5.f. above) j a7 no as 7 Permit Modification No. 6 (major) an [ Statement of Basis avageble) 11/144 LBM 'DAO YES a) Resolution ofPnwious Condsons: so
- 1) Fmst Oe. ge Evaluation Report and Prevention Plan (5.h. above) see dates above LBM DAO 5 ei
- 2) DRC resolution of GW 3 a"=s=llona (4.q. above)
. no fu et es NewPermit lh-?A=, r/5 or C:;w=
Wa ! 11/184 t.BM DAO no b) Raise GW protection levels (GWPL = mean + 2s) < 11/1/94 e4 11/1/94 LBM DAQ no g c) Change GW on*=hla out of-cGai"ence sampling frequer.cy (monthly to c,idy) < 11/1/94 ., ss 11/184 LBM DAO no d) Retum to previous GW non cs,--f xe ihresholds (1 se. Tele > GWPL) Wa 11/144 LBM DAO
, 7. es no e) Addition /un, tate of GW quality standards (new parameters & concentrations) n/a 11/1/94 LBM DAO lS 87 I) Berylilum and inolybdenum GW b=4amund report no es g) Revision of collecilon lye ..aior desegn (lo afow video ic-;-pqi) $QLBM 11/1/94 LBM no se no h) New BAT design, peitormance, and best management practice standards n/a 11/1/g4 a naA j aco I) Stormwater drainage performance requirements DAO no 1
iet n/a 11/144lLBM OAO YES j) 11e.(2) lamporary stormwater drainage ditch construcleon required
, see k) BAT monite ,g requirements f%)MfLBM DAO YES n/a 11/1/94 LBM DAO no i$ '03
- ' 104 8 Permit Modilication No. 7 (major) lA 1os (Statement of Basis available) 2/2485. 45/98.LBM DAO YES NewPermit ?z#.;, Dents or Cherges
'].g tos 107 a) Change GW sampling frequency ('=4erty to semi-annual) 6Al/96 4/5/96 LBM DAO ino b) Minimum tiller pesmanhady* 11e.(2) Ces n/a 4/5/96 LBM DAO :no ! %3 1os c) Buts waste storage SAT changes: d==h--dperformance/ monitoring /OSM 2/2445 4/5S6 LBM DAO i ses no ', iso d) GW monitoring changes: qtity head meas. & freshwater oq. calculations e) Annual GW usage survey a rap <vt n/a n/a 4/5/96 LBM DAO ' no iT 11: f) Plugging and Abandonment of GW.3 4/5/90 LBM DAO YES 'S sta 6/13/96 @M*@ LBM no i
- 13 9 l Permit Modification No. 8 (major)
- y, 114 13tatement of Basta avarable] 9H 2/96 LO M DAO YES New Permit l'=?i wr. ants or Changes
!A 11s a) Moddy biA waste storage BAT requirements (a!!ow 2 year in-cell storage) 3/13/96 9/12/96 LBM DAQ YES !R tis b) New BAT design / performance /OAM/ monitoring require:nents: in-cell storage 3/13ss 'S 117 . c) Re-instatement of contaminard contair.T.er.4/spis provantion BAT standards 9/1236 LBM .DAO YES n/a 9/12/96 LBM DAO '
no y YES Coun!- 34, 1 l rs. .- e- "
._.-...__,__m
_ ~ snvirocire j..
- 1. 1ee>
i.s Found"N . ![o Be Safe
~
l ;ut Regulator Disturbed l .y Financial Dealings 1 -
- l
! svJnfwootr ,
' l l
m au.,uns, up . ; C1.!VE - The Envirocare of Utah dis.. l mal sita la Tooele County "has fog tha' ' i nst part a good safety reeerd." an ofpm *
-- s 5 i m(NRC)saidThursday.
om the U.S. Nuciant RegalatoryN.
.~ !
wt! f l l But Charles I., Cain, meting deputy dirse. ulated by state agencies. ! r ef wRC s otvissaa tn=enaar matarmia Envirocare .
,sa no.,,, iende, e, .e ,,C i dety. eencoded dursor = meetsas h re inspeeues team. said no signin-
- ciagencyofnessisam-disturbermym.
! tat reveladons about a aneras namnetaj ro. Gets Clean - *=u during site visits in November
- .tlosshi and this week, but two minor vlo.
j hasrow{between
==f andEartroeare.etaer:
formar Utah qdh. .BL1 of Health .de were found. one was for i on oomtrol direeter Larry F. Andersna. - proceduralchanges made without ! NRC b revietving Hs records la dators 3 Continued from B 1 pierapproval from MRC.and te
- las how heav0y the agency MMed on in.' etherforfaiMag tocesarlete 14of
! irmation provided by Utah 188 quality-assarance andus that
- hana perndtwasissuedla1994 had been psomisat. These am b have found me company te he la j avirocare la buGd a special W m na anum mguh.
ir uranium and thorium mH1 8',,,,g ---u--- ~ with tha law. tary compuases. So far. said Cain. It 'aspears mada "What we do, we do safely." The NaturalReneereas Defense l l sly **11mitsd" ase of Utah data, and there said Copeland."We are one of the Commeil on Jan. S asked MRC ta ! i no reason to quesden the basie informa, most regulated faedluesla the an. revoke Enviroenre's dispeeni per. i on used la granting the permit. .tloal" aus and strip the state ofitsregn. } NRC is waiting for the results of a erbai- The NRC inspection focused latory sentrol over the company. l al laveaugation into the ties between Sara- only on te disposal cou that han. Cain said that requeststulls be-i ami and Anderson before tteelding wheth* dies the mudly radioactive waste lag reviewed by NRC staff la r it wul take any enforemment action. he from old uranium and thorium Washington, D.C. Mesawh!!a. he ud. and his staff are maintainlagtheir (*. reg Capeland, directar et muls. Envirocare has two other tions disposal cells for differsat types normal day-te. day eversight of 3r Envirocare, said the alta has of radioactive wastes that are reg. the company. een the subject af 25 "sna adits" daring the past 13 This IRC inapartion is just one of them. .ut . See ENVIRCCARE, Page B-3 i i Exhibit No. 3
a ENVIROCAREorvuu.mc. . ! , THESAFEALTERNAT]VE $ ! l
\
i FORIMMEDIATE RELEASE } Jar ==ry 31,1997 7
)
Sah Lake City, Utah - On Jammy 30,1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrimission ] ("NRC") completed a complianen audit of Envirocare of Utah, Inc., ("Envirocare") and i i announced that the overall facility operation is well mn. Envirocare is licensed by the NRC to receive and dLW of mildly radioactive waste fmm uranium and thorium mills. This week's four-day review was a follow 4:p and continuation of a regularly scheduled compliance audit which NRC began at Envirocare in Novernber 1996. Six officials from h1C Headquarters in Washington, DC, were involved in reviewing Envirocare's operational compliance at its South Clive Facility. The audit included a comprehensive review of the documentation and procedures associated with the original licensing process for Envirocare. No significant violations were identified during the November 1996 audit, and only two minor violations were identified this week, involving paperwork and internal compliance review. The NRC indicated that Envirocare has a good safety reccrd and operates in compliance with the law. XXX 46 WIWiMROADWAY e SillTE 240
- SALTL4KE CITY. UTAllMint
- TELEMIONEiM01).5321330
. ~ . - - -- - _ - - - _
; -~
e enc e s k UNITED STATES j (f!j p f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHtDeGToN, D.C. 2055H001 I
, , ,h February 7,1997 ,
Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D. Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New 'ork Ave., N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 ;
SUBJECT:
DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL'S , 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION
Dear Dr. Cochran:
4 By letter dated January 8, 1997, you submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Petition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, requesting that NRC take action regarding Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Specifically, you requested that NRC immediately revoke any license or licenses, or cause the State of Utah to revoke its Agreement State license or licenses, held by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare), Khosrow , Semnani, or any entity controlled or managed by Khnsrow Semnani; prohibit the i future issuance of any license by NRC, the State of Utah, or other NRC Agreement State, to Khosrow Semnani or any entity witn which he has a significant affiliation; and suspend Utah's Agreement State status until the State of Utah can deraonstrate that it can operate the Utah Division of Radiation Control in a lawful manner. As a basis for this Petition, you I asserted that an article in the December 28, 1996, Salt Lake City Tribune 1 I reported secret cash payments made by Mr. Khosrow Semnani, president of Envirocare, to Larry F. Anderson, then Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control, and the State of Utah't. suinequent initiation of a criminal investigation into the matter 1 1 NRC's response to your request regarding the Agreement State program is ! provided in Enclosure 1. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and j Safeguards, has completed his review of the other issues raised in your i Petition. For reasons explained in the enclosed Director's Decision 00-97-02, j dated February 5. 1997 (Enclosure 2), your request has been denied. Although , j the NRC is concerned about the implications raised by the issues identified in ' your petition, at this time we do not believe that specific information exists to take the action requested in the petition. We will be closely monitoring the investigations of this issue being conducted by the State of Utah to ensure that we are aware of any information that may warrant action on our ! part. In addition, ycu are free to submit another petition when additional j facts may be available to you on this issue. i As provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. As provided by this ; j regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 l days after the date of issuance of the Decision unless the Commission, on its ) l i h p 1- kl J
T. Cochran 3 (0 b/EL
~
- own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time. In KS addition, a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register is also included as Enclosure 3 for your h)hM bl@
irformation. l 0 kb , Sincerely, i Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. ; 4 Acting Executive Director for Operations l
Enclosures:
As stated (3) cc: W. Sinclair, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Utah C. Judd, Executive Vice-President, Envirocare
- *See previous c:ncurrence g,6, p l OFC HLUR* HLUR* DWM* kNhh I NMSS*
w 1 NAME SWastler JHolonich JGreeves JCe M EKraus DATE 01/30/97 01/31/97 02/02/974 02/7/97 02/29/97 0FC NMSS Ol* OE* OSP* EDO iY l n . JLeiberman RBangart HThdfmpson l NAME CPaperiello RFortuna ! DATE 02 M /97 02/04/97 02/04/97 02/03/97 02/$/97 i 3:\ dun \pahl\slw\NROC-TL.DFT OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY l
- Distribution
- EDO G970017/NMSS 9700010 l PUBLIC i
Docket File 40-8989 ' DWM r/f DWM t/f PAHL r/f
'tiLUR r/f NMSS Dir. Off. r/f CPoland MFederline JGreeves ;
DGillen HLefevre l 1 . RFonner, OGC PLohaus, OSP l SDroggitis, OSP. $ ' JGoldberg, OGC m i GDeegan, IMNS @ JDeCicco, IMNS Schidakel, OGC m y i WBrown, RIV 2 i R0'Connell,lMNS
- DMurphy, 01 9 KStablein, EDO on J LCoblentz, OE PTressler, EDO j l
l
i i j ! I i I NRC STAFF EVALUATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
. REQUEST TO SUSPEND SECTION 274 AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF UTAH l
i l I. INTRODUCTION I i In a letter dated January 8,1997, Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, of the Natural 1 Resources Defense Council (NRDC), requested under 10 CFR 2.206 of the { Commission's regulations, that, among other things, NRC suspend its
... agreement with the state of Utah under which regulatory authority has been
[ transferred from the NRC to the Utah's Bureau of Radiation [ Division of I l Radiation Control), until the state of Utah can demonstrate that it can i operate the Bureau of Radiation [ Division of Radiation Control] in a lawful l l manner, and without the participation of licensees, or employees of licensees, i i in Bureau of Radiation [ Division of Radiation Control] oversight roles," In j addition, NRDC requested that the NRC immediately cause the State of Utah to >
- revoke its licenses to Envirocare, Khosrow Semnani, its President, or-any j entity controlled or managed by Mr. Semnant and prohibit the future issuance i of any license by the State of Utah to Mr. Semnani or any company or entity i i that he owns, controls, manages, or with which he has a significant- -
l affiliation or relationship. As a basis for NRDC's request, Dr. Cochran ! asserted that a December 28, 1996, article in The Salt Lake Tribune reported i that between 1987 and 1995 Mr. Semnani made secret cash payments to.Mr. Larry i F.' Anderson, who served as Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control l from 1983 until 1993. The article also reported that the Utah Attorney l General's office has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter. ! Although-NRDC's requests that NRC suspend its agreement with the State of d Utah, or cause the State of Utah to revoke licenses that it issued, do not
- squarely fall within the scope of matters ordinarily considered under NRC's' 1 10 CFR 2.206 process, the staff.has evaluated the merits of NRDC's request.
i The staff's evaluation of these aspects of NRDC's request follows. . I , II. MCKGROUND l ! Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Mt (AEA), as amended, provides the statutory ) l basis under which NRC can rciir.e,uhh cartain of its regulatory , responsibilities to the States. This makes it possible for States to license ! i and regulate the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, !
- j. and special nuclear material in quantities not-sufficient to form a critical t i
mass. The mechanism for NRC to discontinue and a State to assume authority to ! I f ' NRC Manual- Directive 8.11, " Review Process. for 10 CFR 1.206 Petitions,"
- issued September 23, 1994 (revised December 12,1995), states that the scope i of the 10 CFR 2.206 process is limited to requests for enforcement action
) against licensees or entities engaging in NRC-licensed activities. But see i State of Utah (Agreement Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended), DD-95-1, 41 NRC 43 (1995). 3 l
regulate the radiological health and safety aspects of nuclear materials is an ! agreement signed by the Governor of the State and the Chairman. Before j entering into such an agreement, the Governor is required to certify that the State has a regulatory program that is adequate to protect public health and 2 safety. In addition, the Commission, by statute, must perform an independent i evaluation and make a findirg that the State's radiation control program is j compatible with NRC's, com;211es with the applicable parts of Section 274 of j the AEA, and is adequate to protect public health and safety. The AEA was amended in 1978 to require, among other things, that NRC periodically review Agreement State programs to determine the adequacy of the program to protect public health and safety and compatibility with NRC's regulatory program. Section 274j. of the AEA provides that NRC may suspend or ! terminate its agreement with a State if the Commission finds that such j suspension or termination is necessary to protect public health and safety. l As mandated by the AEA, NRC conducts periodic, onsite reviews of each Agreement State pogram. The results of these reviews are documented in a report to the State. The report indicates whether the State's program is I adequate to protect public health and safety f nd also whether the program is i compatible with NRC's regulatory program. In some past cases, the State is informed that the findings on adequacy and compatibility are being withheld pending further review by NRC and the resolution of outstanding issues. ! Currently, concerns identified in Agreement State program reviews that do not I result in program suspension or termination, result in findings of adequacy, with improvements needed, and a finding of compatibility or incompatibility. The State of Utah originally became an Agreement State on April 1,1984. At that time, the State chose not to include authority for commercial low-level radioactive wate disposal in the Agreement. However, on July 17, 1989, j Governor Norman-H. Bangerter of Utah requested that the Commission amend the Agreement to provide authority fcr Utah to regulate commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal. NRC conducted an independent review of Utah's program for control of radiation hazt.rds with respect to low-level radioactive waste disposal and determined that the State met the requirements of Section 274 of the AEA and that the State's statutes, regulations, personnel, licensing, inspection, and administrative procedures were compatible with those required by the Commission and were adequate to protect public health and safety. The amendment to the Utah Agreement became effective on May 9, 1990, SS FR 22113 (May 31, 1990). 111. DISCUSSION NRDC requested suspension of the Agre .nent with the State of Utah based on newspaper reports that Mr. Anderson, Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control from 1983 to 1993, received secret cash payments from Mr. Semnani, President of Envirocare. The relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani is being investigated by the Utah Attorney General's office. in I addition, Mr. Semnani was appointed by the Governor of Utah as a member of the State's Radiation Control Board. NRDC requested that licensees should not be allowed to serve on State radiation control advisory boards. l 2
Pursuant to Section 274 of the AEA, NRC relinquished its regulatory authority for the licensing of the use of certain radioactive material to Utah and therefore has no direct authority over licensing of these activities in Utah. However, NRC does have authority to terminate or suspend Utah's Agreement l State program under certain conditions pursuant to 274j. of the AEA. Section 274j. states: The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State with which an agreement under subsection b. [of this section) has become effective, or j upon request of the Governor of such State, may terminate or - suspend all or part of its agreement with the State and reassert l the licensing and regulatory authority vested in it under this l Act, if the Commission finds that: (1) such termination or suspension is required to protect the public health and safety, or I (2) the State has not complied with one or more of the i requirements of this section. The C:mmission shall periodically l review such agreements and actions taken by the States under the l agreements to insure [ sic] compliance with the provisions of this I section. ' Based upon these periodic reviews, or upon special reviews conducted for i cause, before suspension or termination of an agreement the Commission must j find that: (1) termination or suspension of a State's program is required to ' protect the public health and safety, or (2) that the State has not complied with one or more requirements of Section 274 of the AEA (e.g., the requirement for the State program to be compatible with the NRC program). Section 274j(2) , of the AEA, as amended, grants the Commission emergency authority to l temporarily suspend all, or part, of its agreement with a State without notice 1 or hearing if an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to l protect public health and safety and the State has failed to take steps to contain or eliminate the cause of danger within a reasonable time. 1 NRC has conducted six reviews of the Utah Agreement State program since Utah became an Agreement State in 1984. The most recent review of the Utah program was conducted on June 13-17, 1994. In fact, two separate reviews were l conducted at that time. The routine Utah radiation control program review was I conducted in conjunction with a pilot program entitled the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation "togram (IMPEP) in which common performance indicators were used to evaluate both the NRC Regional Office and the Agreement State progr&ms. The review team consisted of six staff, including two NRC staff from the Division of Waste Management to participate in the review of Utah's low-level radioactive waste management regulatory program. The most recent reviews of the Utah program were conducted after Mr. Anderson had left the program. The most recent review included evaluations of program changes made in response to previous review recommendations (including recommendations concerning the State's low-level radioactive waste disposal program), review of the State's written procedures and policies, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance files, accompaniment of a State inspector, review of the State's incident and 3
.. l allegation files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review. In addition, portions of the review covered the Utah low-level radioactive waste regulatory program and included review of open items identified in NRC staff correspondence sent to the State following dispatch of the previous NRC review i letter. Based on these reviews conducted in 1994, the Utah program for l agreement materials was found adequate to protect public health and safety and !
was found to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 274 of the AEA. l In light of the foregoing, the issue now is whether the controversy l I surrounding the relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani poses a safety concern of such significance as to require NRC to begin the process to revoke or suspend Utah's Agreement State program. NRC has determined that it does not have a basis to initiate such action at this time. NRDC has not 1 provided NRC with any information that would suggest that an immediate public ! health and saf7ty issue exists. As Dr. Cochran notes in his request, the Utah l State Attorney General has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter of the relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani. Absent specific information suggesting a public health and sa'ety concern, NRC believes that it would be premature to initiate the requested subject action pending completion of this investigation. NRC intends to follow the investigation l closely. If at any time NRC receives information of public health and safety concerns during the investigation or upon its completion, or receives such information from other sources, including NRC's ongoing Agreement State 1 oversight activities, NRC will evaluate this information and take such action : as is warranted. NRC is required by law to continue to review the Utah Agreement State program for adequacy and compatibility. Envirocare currently has a radioactive materials license from the Utah Division of Radiation Control (formerly the Bureau of Radiation) and is authorized to receive waste under the conditions of that license. In accordance with State rules, the license is currcntly undergoing review by the State for a five year renewal. The license renewal application was submitted to the State on January 29, 1996, by Envirocare. The Utsh Division of Radiation Control has indicated it is reviewing responses to the first set of interrogatories on the application, and it continues to inspect and monitor the Envirocare site. The State of Utah has offered, and NRC has accepted, a , briefing on the status of the license renewal review. NRC intends to follow ! the State's license renewal review. l NRDC also requested that NRC suspend the agreement with the State of Utah until Utah demonstrates it can operate its radiation control program without the participation of employees of licensees in an oversight capacity. Mr, Semnani was appointed by the Governor of titah to serve as a member of the State's Radiation Control Board. In previous Utah program reviews, NRC has recommended to the State that it develop formal conflict-of-interest procedures in coordination with the Attorney General's office. The staff is satisfied that the State has adopted conflict-of-interest procedures consistent with those of other division boards within the Utah Department of , Environmental Quality. In addition, NRC has recently learned that Mr. Semnani has taken a two-month leave of absence from the Utah Radiation Control Board pending the completion of the criminal investigation. 4
.s.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, NRC has determined not to take the action l 4 requested by NRDC at this time. NRC will continue to review the Utah Agreement State Program as required by law as well as to follow the investigation being conducted by the State's Attorney General and the State's . review of Envirocare's license renewal application. If at any time termination or suspension of the Utah Agreement is required to protect public , health and safety or the State has not complied with one or more of the i requirements of Section 274 of the AEA, NRC will initiate the proper actions. 1 i e l i l 1 4 l I i 4 4 1 J 5
[7590-01) U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL RECEIPT OF PETITION AND ISSUANCE OF A l DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 ) l Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated January 8, 1997, l Thomas B. Cochran, on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) take imlaadiate action with regard to Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Specifically, the Petition requested NRC to take the following j actions-l 1 1
- 1) Immediately revoke the license or licenses, or j cause the state of Utah to revoke its agreement state license or licenses, under which Envirocare is currently permitted to accept low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste for permanent disposal.
- 2) Immediately revone the NRC 11e.(2) byproduct material license under which Envirocare it currently permitted to accept uranium mill tailings for disposal.
- 3) Immediately revoke any other NRC license, or agreement state licens2, if such license exists, held
. - _ - _ - . . ~. . -. . - .- . . _ _ - . . - . _ _ _ - _ . . --,
1 by Envirocare, Khosrow Semnani, er any entity , i , controlled or managed by Khosrow Semnani.
- 4) Prohibit the future issuances of any license by the :
!. a NRC, the State of Utah, or other NRC agreement state, 1 to Khosrow Semnani or any company or entity which he owns, controls, manages, or (with which he] has a significant affiliation or relationship. 1 I
- 5) Suspend the agreement with the state of Utah under which regulatory authority has been transferred from the NRC to the Utah's Bureau cf Radiation (Division of Radiation Control), until the State of Utah can l demonstrate that it can operate the Bureau of Radiation (Division of Radiation Control) in a lawful manner, and without the participation of licensees, or employees of licensees, in Bureau of Radiation (Division of Radiation Control) oversight roles.
As a basis for the request, the Petitioner asserts that on December 28, 1996, an article in The Salt Lake Tribune reported l that between 1987 and 1995 Mr. Semnani made secret cash payments to Mr. Larry F. Anderson, who served as Director of the Utah l l i
Division of Radiation Control from 1983 until 1993. The article also reported that the Utah Attorney General's office has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter. The NRC response to the Petitioner's request regarding the Agreement State program is provided in a "NRC Staff Evaluation of Natural Resources Defense Council Request to Suspend Section 274 Agreement With The State of Utah." The other issues raised in the Petition have been evaluated Ly the Director of the office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. After review of the { Petition, the Director has denied the Petitioner's requests. i 1 The Director's Decision concluded that no substantial health and safety issues have been raised regarding Envirocare that would require initiation of the immediate action requested by the l NRDC. The NRDC has not provided any information in support of ' its requests of which the NRC was not already aware. Moreover, NRC inspections of the Envirocare facility have not revealed the l existence of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant immediate suspension of the Envirocare license. In addition, the staff's review of the t.9hnical basis for its issuance of the license and subsequent amendments found no evidence of the existence of any substantial health or safety issue that would 3 i
4 $i
, justify the actions requested by the NRDC. However, NRC will ! monitor the investigations and actions being conducted by the State of Utah. If NRC receives any specific information that there is a public health or safety concern as a result of these actions or from any other source, including-the NRC ongoing Agreement State ;
I oversight activities, NRC will evaluate that information and take such action as it deems is warranted at that time, i I l The complete Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206" , (DD-97-02) is available for public inspection in the Commission's l Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, , , D.C. 20555. The Director's Decision is also available on the NRC i Electronic Bulletin Board at (800) 952-9676. 1 1 i A copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for l l I l the Commission's review, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As I i l provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final I action of the Commission 25 days after the date of issuance of the i 2 Decision unless the Commission on its own motion institutes.a ! review of the Decision within that time. i Dated at Rockville, Maryland this EU day of February 1997. 1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION r1 ,. 1 ', '1. . I [{ jth'- Carl J. Pape iello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety
; and Safeguards
- 4 i
~_ .. _ .. -- - .. .- . -- - . -
- a.
'.T
[ 8 a ARNOLD & PORTER us., oN. e e 399 PARK AVENUE O(NV[R ' NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022-4690
- NICHAEL 5. GERRARD (2121785 10 0 0 crir 7
- saiso racamt tries tis isec LONDON j WTERN(T gorromaSopo,to, com 4'
February 18, 1997 Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. Acting Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20555 Re: EDvirocare of Utah. Inc.
Dear Mr. Thompson:
On January 8, 1997, Thomas D. Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wrote to you, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, requesting that the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission revoke all licenses held by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. I am writing on behalf of my client Wayne Township, New Jersey to oppose any action that would shut down the Utah facility. Since 1971 a pile of radioactive material has sat in a residential community in Wayne Township. It poses a long-term health threat to the neighbors and it is a blight upon the entire municipality. After years of prodding, the U.S. Department of Energy, which currently has control over the site, arranged for at least some of this material to be transported to Utah for disposal by Envirocare. This work began in the fall of 1995, and at the current pace (which we hope will be accelerated) will take several more years to complete. If this facility is shut down, the inevitable result will be that this radioactive materi~al will continue to endanger its residential neighbors for more years to come. The only other licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal sites in the United States, Hanford and Barnwell, would cost several times as much as Envirocare (even if they were available for this material, which is not entirely clear). Complete removal of the material (as advocated by Wayne Township) to Envirocare would cost on the order of $100 million; we are making great efforts to try to find this sum of money, from a combination of Congressional appropriations
- 2. p b- Du b ,,n. DOM.llS!S 4_r ,oo,,v 4 , UM EDO -- G970114
o 7' / , ARNOLD & PORTER Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. February 18, 1997 Page 2 and actions against the private responsible party, W.R. Grace. There is no prospect at all'that $300 million or $500 million, or whatever it would take to dispose of this material at Barnwell or Hanford, will be available in any foreseeable decade. Thus, in reality the alternative to Utah is the continued, extended exposure of the residents of Wayne to radioactive waste. We understand there are several other communities in the United States that are 'similarly relying on the Utah facility for the disposal of radioactive waste in their midst. The allegations against individual officials of Envirocare I and of the State of Utah, as reported in the press, are quite serious. If they are true and if any laws were violated, the individuals or entities involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. If the current operator of the facility is - unsuitable, the license should be transferred to another operator. If there are deficiencies in the construction or operation of the Utah facility, they should be corrected. However, the overall public interest would not be served by shutting down the facility. From a public health and environmental standpoint, it is far better for material to be disposed in the middle of a desert, where there are no neighbors at all for many miles, than to allow it to continue to sit in the middle of a residential neighborhood, with occupied homes directly across the street, in a wet area subject to frequent heavy rains. Any imperfections in the Utah facility cannot conceivably approach the conditions in Wayne -- tens of thousands of cubic yards of radioactive waste, covered by a plastic tarp, sitting on top of tens of thousands of cubic yards of waste that is even more radioactive, buried in a wet unlined pit, across the street from where children play. For these reasons, to protect the health of its residents, Wayne Toimship opposes NRDC's petition to revoke Envirocare's licenses, if that would have the effect of shutting the Utah f acilf t) . If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to conduct further proceedings in this matter, we request notice and the opportunity to participate. Sincerely, f
-n b ,
Michael B. Gerrard
,,rr..dSUN.IIN!S
e -- 1T [e t' .
' e ,
' 1200 New York Ave.. N.W.
Sutte 400 W"*hi"S'"" DC 20003 Natural Paources 202 189~6868 Defense Council Fax 202 ?89-1060 February 21,1997 The IIonorable Dr. Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman The Ilonorable Dr. Kenneth C. Rogers The Ilonorable Greta J. Dicus The Ilonorable Dr. Nils J. Dias The Ilonorable Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 RE: Request for Revie v of Director and Staff Decisions Denying NRDC 10 CFR 6 2.206 Petition Recardine Envirocare of Utah Inc.
Dear Commissioners:
We are writinr, to request that you review in part, and take action with respect te, the February 7, 1997, decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Staff and the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards' to deny the petition submitted under 10 CFR s 2.206 by Dr. Thomas B. Cochran on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC").2 The NRDC petition requested, in pertinent part, that the NRC take the following actions:
- 1. Suspend the agreement with the state of Utah under which regulatory authority has been transferred from the NRC to the Utah's Bureau of Radiation, until the state of Utah can demonstrate that it can operate the Bureau of Radiation in a lawful manner, and without
' Letter from Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., NRC Acting Executive Director for Operanons, to Dr. Thomas 3. Cochran. l Ph.D., Director, NRDC Nuclear Program (February 7,1997).
Enclosure 1: NRC Staff Evaluation of Natural Resources Defense Council Request to Suspend Section 274 Agreement With the State of Utah (undated)("NRC Staff Evaluation") Enclosure 2: In the Matter of Envirocare of tItah. Inc,,(Docket No. 40-8989) Director's Decision Undet 10 C.F.R. 2.206 (February 5,1997)(" Director's Decision"). Enclosure 3: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Natural Resources Defense Council, Receipt of Petition and issuance of a Director's Decision Under 10 C.F.R. Q 2.206 (copy of notice filed for publication l
' with the Omce of the Federal Register)(February 7,1997).
- Letter to Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., NRC Acting Executive Director for Operations. from Thomas B. Co;hran.
Ph.D., Director, NRDC Nuclear Program (January 8.1997). Q l a f l. nn V ff ' , '1 ' ~' tevenson Street 0310 San Vvente Bhd Misst us at.
""*" New York. New York 10011 Suste 1825 Su?e 2.*W la Angeles. CA 90048 http.i iwww nrdc.org [ t San rrancusco. CA 94105
+ 212 727 2700 415 777 0220 213 934 4 400 Il rar 212 727-1773 rar 415 4 6 3 % ran 213 434-1210 3
O ., 4 the participation oflicensees, or employees oflicensees. in Bureau of Radiation osersight roles:
- 2. Immediately revoke or cause the state of Utah to revoke Envirocare's license or licenses to receive low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste: and ,
- 3. Immediate reveke the NRC 1le.(2) byproduct material license under which Envirocare is currently permitted to accept uranium mill tailings tbr disposal.
The NRC Staff evaluated NRDC's first and second requests abose and determined not to take the actions requested by NRDC.' The Director's Decision denied NRDC's third request above.' I As detailed below, we believe that the denial of NRDC s petition by the Director and the NRC Staff constitutes an abuse of discretion because the petition. and the court papers upon which it is , l baseJ. pmvide undisputed evidence that both the State of Utah and Envirocare have violated a l i host of NRC regulations designed to ensure the integrity of the licensing process and prevent l conflicts ofinterest. Given the State's egregious failure to comply with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, and the incompatibility ofits program with that of the NRC. we submit that it is an abuse of discretion for the NRC to refuse to begin proceedings ihr the suspension of the state's Agreement State Program. If after conclusion of these proceedings. NRC decides to
- suspend the state's Agreement State program. NRC would have ample authority to revoke Enviiocare's license to receive low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste. Moreover.
- Envir 3 care's willful violation of NRC regulations is grounds for immediate license revocation of its Ile.(2) byproduct materials license.
1. i As prodded in 10 CFR s 2.206(cl. the Commission has 25 days from the issuance of the ) Director's Decision to review this decision. in whole or in part, to determine if the Director has l l abused his discretion. We asrume that the Commission has similar authority to review the decision of the NRC Staff. While we recognize that under NRC regulations. the Commission does not have to consider our urgent request for such review. we ask that under the circumstances j"
,vou da so nonetheless. The reason we feel so arongly about this matter is aptly stated in Part I of Executive Oider 11222:
a d
' NRDC also n; quested the NRC t mmediately resoke any other NRC or L'tah license held by Ensirocare,its owner, or related eatities; and prohibit the future issuance of any license by NRC or the state of Utah to Envirocare's owner or related entities. NRDC is not seeking Commission resiew of the denial of these requests.
' NRC's denial of NRDC's request for a suspension of Utah's Agreement State program is in the form of a Staff determination rather than a Director's Decision, apparently on the grounds that the request does not fall squarely within the scope of matters ordinarily considered under the 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 process. NRC Staff Evaluation at note
- 1. Yet in 199$, NRC issued a Director's Decision with respect to another petition for resocation of Utah's Arycement State status. In the Matter of State of1Itah. DD-95-01. Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (January 26.1995L NRDC will consider any denial ofits petition for suspension of Utah's Agreement State Status to be final cgency action for purposes of reuen,
' Director's Decision, sunra note 1.
l l
. 3 4
i Where government is based on the consent of the governed, j every citizen is entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of his government. Each individual officer, employee, l or adviser of government must help to earn and must honor that tru'st by lus own integrity and conduct in all official actions. , l (emphasis added). The NRC has included this policy statement in its own regulations at 10 CFR ! @ 0.735-20(a). These regulations further state: (10 CFR s 0.735-20): i l (b) The elimination of conDicts of interest in the Federal service is j one of the most important . objectives in establishing general standards of conduct. A conflict ofinterest situation . may exist where a Federal employee' private interests, usually of an economic form, conflict, or raise a reasonable question of f conflict, with his public duties and responsibilities. The potential conflict is of concern whether it is real or only apparent. (c) An employee, including special Government employee, shall ; not: (1) llave a direct or indirect financial interest that conflicts substantially, or appears to conflict substantially, with his Government duties and responsibilities: or (2) engage in, directly or in directly, a financial transaction as a result of, or primarily relying on,information obtained through his Government employment.
. 1 (emphasis added). As noted in 10 CFR { 0.735-l(a):
The Atomic Energy Act requires the Commission to assure itself that the character, associations, and loyalty of workers in atomic energy are of a high order. Cor. duct and self d'scipline, both on and off the job, must measure up to unusual standards. Thus, when the Commission hands over its regulatory responsibility to a state--in this case the state of Utah--the Commission has a legal obligation to ensure that the state maintains the same high standards of conduct in all official actions that the Commission maintains on behalf of the U.S. Government. Agreement States must have, ed enforce, regulations fully compatible with those in 10 CFR Part 0. We believe tb,:re has been a treakdown in this NRC oversight responsibility. Nowhere in the decis ions of the Director or the NRC Staffis there any reference to the extensive employee code of conduct set forth in 10 CFR Part 0. Aside from these legal requirements, as a matter of good government it is equally, if not more, important for the Commission to ensure that Agreeme.it States have and enforce compatible standards of employee conduct, than it is to ensure that the states have and enforce compatible health and safety regulations. , l
4 I. Suspension of Utah's Agreement State Program As the NRC Staff Evaluation notes, the NRC has authority under 274j of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C. s 2021(j)("AEA"), to terminate or suspend Utah's Agreement State Program if the Commission finds that:
"(l) termination or suspension of a State's program is required to protect the public health and safety. OR (2) the State has not complied with one or more requirements of Section 274 of the AEA. (e.g., the requirement for the State program to be compatible with the NRC program)."
(emphasis added). In other words, apart from any question of public health and safety. the Commission must consider whether any actions of the state of Utah in establishing or enfbreing its Agreement State program are incompatible with the requirements of the NRC's own program. In this case, it is abundantly clear that actions by the then-Director of Utah's Division of l Radiation Control are incompatible with the fbilowing NRC regulations: 10 CFR s 0.735-20(aHe) General. 10 CFR s 0.735-21(a) Acts affecting a personal financial interest (based on 18 U.S.C. ; 208) 10 CFR s 0.735-22(a) Future employment (based on 18 U.S.C. 208). 10 CFR s 0.735-24(a) Receiving salary from sources other than the U.S. Government (based on 18 U.S.C. 209). 10 CFR s 0.735-25(a) Compensation to employees in matters afTecting the Government (based on 18 U.S.C. 203) 10 CFR s 0.735-28(a) Confidential statements of employment and tinancial interests. 10 CFR s 0.735-2Sa Financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in government Act. 10 CFR s 0.735-42(a) Gifts, entertainment, and favors. Two of these regulations,10 CFR ss 0.735-21(a) and 0.735-42(a), are of particuiar significance: Except as permitted by paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section. no employee, or special Government employee, shall participate personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee. though decision, approval, disapproval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination...or other particular matter in which, to the employee's knowledge, the employee, . . or any person or organization with whom the employee is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest upon which the outcome of the particular matter will have a direct and predictable effect.10 CFR # 0.735-21(a) i
5 Except as provided in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, an employee should not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of j monetary value, from a person who: J (1) Has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual or other business or financial relations with the NRC; (2) Conducts operations or activities that are regulated by the NRC or by an applicant fbr a license from the NRC; or (3) Has interests that may be substantially affected by the < performance or nonperformance of his official duty.10 CFR s
- 0.735-42(a)
In a complaint filed in Utah's Third District Court of Salt Lake County, former Director of the Utah State Board of Radiation Control Larry F. Anderson claims that while in office he set up a corporation to advise Mr. Khosrow Semnani, owner of Envirocare, about how to license a low i level radioactive waste site in the state of Utah.' Mr. Anderson further alleges that Mr. Semnani. President of Envirocare. agreed to pay a consulting fee of 100,000 dollars and an ongoing
- remuneration of 5 percent of all direct and indirect revenues that Mr. Semnani would realize j
from such a facility, if the site were successful.' in his counterclaim. Mr. Semnani stated that Mr. Anderson requested the above fees while Mr. Semnani's application was before the Utah 4 State Board of Radiation Control, and that Mr. Semnani paid the requested amounts and more. ' Under either party's statement of the facts, it is clear that the payments took place and that Mr. 4 Anderson's participation in any matters concerning Envirocare were therefore incompatible with these NRC requirements. I Moreover, in 1991, as one of eight members of the Northwest Compact, Mr. Anderson is reported to have represented Mr. Semnani's interest in seeking Northwest Compact approval to l F permit Envirocare to accept low-level radioactive waste.' We believe this conduct is
- incompatible with at le;st two NRC regulations, namely 10 CFR @ 0.735-21(a), discussed above, and 10 CFR 0.735-49a, wl
- ich requires employees to avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by Part 0, which might result in, or create the appearance of, using a a
- In the Matter of tarry F. Anderson and Lavicka v. Khosrow IL Semnani :md Envirocare, Civi! No. 96090727, a
Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County at Q 10 and i1 (October 12,1996).
' M. at Q 14.
4
' N., Defendants' Answer and Counterclaim at ! 18.
q
'
- Se,e US Ecolocv. Inc. v. Northwest interstate Comtiact on I.ow. Level Radioactis e Waste Manacemen 509111(W.D. Wash.). Plaintift's Memorandum in Opposition to the Utah Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at 3 I (Noted for: Aug. 20,1992).
8 1 , . 6 4 4 i public office for private gain, giving preferential treatment to any person. or losing complete independence or impartiality. ). ! In evaluating NRDC's petition for the suspension of Utah's Agreement State status, the NRC !' Staff abused its discretion by failing to evaluate whether the undisputed payments by Mr. Semnani to Mr. Anderson. and the failure of the State program to prevent or detect such flagrant l abuses, are incompatible with NRC program requirements designed to ensure the integrity of the i i licensing process and prevent conflicts ofinterest. The Staff merely points to routine NRC' reviews of the Utah Agreement State program in 1994. Yet these reviews took place over two ! years before any evidence ofimproper conduct came to light. They cannot serve to shield NRC ] from its obligation to conduct a new, independent review of the State program in light of this ! ! new evidence. l Nor may the NRC waive its independent obligation to enforce its own regulations on the grounds ! that the Utah State Attorney General is investigating the matter. As stated above, the Atomic Energy Act requires the Commission to assure itself that the character, associations. and loyalty i of workers in atomic energy are of a high order. Relying on the Utah State Attorney General's investigation is particularly inappropriate here since the Utah State Attorney General also appears to have a contlict ofinterest in two respects. First. Ms. Jan Graham, the current Utah
- State Attorney General. is alleged to have accepted $2.750 in poli,ical t contributions from Mr.
2 Semnani. President and owner of Envirocare. Second. Larry F. Anderson claims that he received 3 informal approval irom the Utah State Attorney General's office to set up a corporation by which , he could advise Mr. Semnani about how to license a low level radioacCre waste site in the state i of Utah."' . 3~ Finally, the NRC Staff abused its discretion by denying NRDC's request that it suspend Utah's program until the state demonstrates that it can operate its radiation control program without the participation oflicensees. or employees oflicensees. in an oversight capacity. The Staff bases its { denial on a belief that Utah has adopted satisfactory conflict-of-interest procedures, and on the fact that Mr. Semnani has taken a two-month leave of absence from the Utah Radiation Ccatrol Board pending the completion of the criminal investigation. It appears from these statements that absent a criminal indictment. Mr. Semnani will be permitted to continue serving on the Board, despite the fact that he is the President and owner of a major licensee of the Board. If so. either Utah's conflict-of-interest regulations are inadequate or they have not been applied , properly to Mr. Semnani. In either case, the State program is clearly incompatible with that of
'the NRC.
i i i
in the Maner ofI arts F Anderson and t asicka s , Khomm 11 Semnani and Ensirocare, Cisil No. 960907271. at s 10 tThird Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County KOctober 12.199M.
m
~
7
- 11. Revocation of Envirocare's Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Mixed Waste License ;
i The NRC Staff denied NRDC's petition that it revoke, or cause the state of Utah to ievoke, the ; license or licenses under which Envirocare is currently permitted to accept low-level radioactive waste and ixed waste for permanent disposal. The Staff based its denial on the fact that NRC currently has no direct authority over licensing of these activities in Utah. However, if the , Commission were to suspend Utah's Agreement State status, as discussed above, it would then j have ample authority to revoke Envirocare's licenses for low-level radioactive waste and mixed , waste. By denying NRDC's petition regarding Utah's Agreement State program, the NRC staff 1 has inappropriately foreclosed any consideration of this licensing issue. 4 IIL Revocation of Envirocare's Byproduct Materials License l f The Director of the Office cf Materials Safety and Security denied NRDC's petition to revoke l Envirocare's I le.(2) byproduct materials license on the grounds that NRDC has not provided any information that would provide a basis for immediate suspension of the license. This decision also constitutes an abuse of discretion. The NRC Enforcement Policy provides that Revocation Orders may be used for any reason for which revocation is authorized under Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, including any condition that would warrant refusal of a license on an original application. The Director noted that "this matter involves potentialissues ofintegrity, which, if proven, may raise questions as to whether the NRC should have the requisite reasonable assurance that Envirocare will comply with Commission requirements."" Yet, no further proofis necessary, since both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani admit that payments were made under circumstances that are illegal under either parties' interpretation. Surely this information would, if known, have provided sufficient cause for NRC to refuse to grant an original license to Mr. Semnani, and therefore sufficient cause to revoke the present license. The Director's Decision is also faulty in its conclusion that immediate revocation is inappropriate because NRDC's petition does not raise any " substantial health and safety issues." NRC i regulations specifically provide an altemative ground for revocation in cases where the conduct causing the violation was willful 10 C.F.R. 2.202(a)(5). Surely that is the case here, when the licensee and its owner have admitted in court to making payments that it knew were illegal. 111. Conclusion We strongly urge the Commission to preserve its own integrity, and that of the entire national radiation licensing program, by reviewing the decisions made by the NRC Staff and the Director in the matter of Envirocare. We further urge the Commission to encure that the NRC Office of { Investigations is promptly notitied of the allegations of suspected wrongdoing made in our petition, as required by Management Directive 8.11," Review Process for 10 C.F.R. @ 2.206 > Petitions," Finally, we request the Commission to conduct an informal public hearing on this matter.
" Director's Decision on NRDC Petition, supra note I, at 8.
- 8 We thank you for your immediate consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
! LC4 3 / V'
~
1,. (* Barbara A. Finamore Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D.
# Director, Nuclear Program Senior Attorney cc. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., NRC Acting Executive Director for Operations Carl J. Paperiello, NRC Director, Omce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I
i 1 l
Mr. Willi:m J. Sincl:ir, Dirrctor Division cf R: diction Control Department of Environmental Quality p g g g y )gg7 168 Nortn 1950 West Post Office Box 144850 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
We are in receipt of tha January 21,1997 letter to Mr. Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman, Utah Radiation Control Board from Dr. Carol S. Marcus, President of the California Chapter of the American College of Nuclear Physicians (CAACNP). She has requested, in her letter to Chairman Jackson, dated January 21,1997, that NRC conduct an expedited Agreement State Program review of Utah based on the issues raised in the letter to Mr. Hoffman. We will reply to Dr. Marcus' letter. To accomplish this we request a copy of the 1996 license amendment application for disposal of resins and any DRC safety evaluations or other information that supports the license amendment. Based on Dr. Marcus' letter, we specifically request information on the decision by the DRC to authorize dilution and disposal of non-containerized ion exchange resins. Additionally, please indicate whether the Envirocare license authorizes receipt of any waste that, before dilution, would be categorized as class B or C, pursuant to 10 CFR 61.55 and the guidance in the January 17,1995 Branch Technical Position on Concentration and Encapsulation of Waste, enclosed. Also, we specifically request information on your assessment of the adequacy of the amount (s) of financial assurance required to be established by Envirocare as each amendment to the Envirocare license was issued to increase the volumes and types of waste received for disposal. Since Dr. Marcus addressed the same concerns to the Utah Radiation Control Board and the NRC, I request that you keep us informed as to the State of Utah's response to the CAACNP letter to Mr. Hoffman. You will be informed of our actions to respond to Dr. Marcus. If you beve any questions, please contact rre at 301 415-3340. Sincerely, Ot
- S W El RD'E :. L E - J/ FT Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution: EDO RF DIR RF (G970052) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES) RLBangert HLThompson PLohaus JGreeves, DWM SDroggitis FCameron, OGC SSchneider JHornor, RIV/WC Ut;h File T y
/I DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\7ES2.KNS 'See previous concurrence. /
Ty e , .e w. 4 ne. mm, m w : c c y m ms.m av.nm.. r - c , m .n.*n.nv.ne.- rr - w e y 0FFICE GSP l OSP:DD l DWM:D l OGC l OSP:D DEDR NAME KSchneider:kk Flohaus 1Greeves FCameron RLBangart HLThompson DATE 02/04/97* 02/05/97* 02/06/97* 02/05/97* 02/06/97* 02/07/97* g g e tyq y g y 11 h h-
.-.-_ _ -- --- --.....-- - - - . _ . ~ . . . - - . . - - - . _ , ~ . . . - . _ . . . . . . .
J WCs i l l 1 l l
?'% _
b N .. i i ; i i i ! l l l Waste management solutions for the 21st century i are now available in Texas. i 1 s E _- _ . _ - - -- - _ -
i {~ WCs 1USTc CoxTuot M AB M SPECIALISTS LLC i I l FENTURES i i I
- Fully pernaitted 1,338-acre TSD facility located within 16,073.aere company-owned tract
- Iandfill disposal (subject to LDR's) of all 2,000-plus RCRA waste codes, i TSCA (PCB) materials, and RCRA /TSCA mixed wastes
{ - One 10,000,000 cubic-yard common hole ! - Two 637,000 cubic-yard " condo" repositories )
-
- Broad waste acceptance capabilities s
1
- On.eite waste treatment / stabilization facility j
- Warehouse storage fac.ilities for 5,000 drums of hazardous, toxic, or !
l dioxin materials i j
- Storage for 150 bins of hazardous and toxic materials l
- Drum-to-bulk and bulk-to drum materials handling and repackaging l capabilities i
!
- Oneite railcar unloading facility j
- EPA-approved laboratory l
! BENEFITS i
- Cost and operating efficiencies from state-of-the-art design and l construction under mature and stable regulations
- Broad range of permitted capabilities
- j
- Accessible from major rail and highway corridon
- Limit relative exposure at other repositodes
- Only RCRA /TSCA landfill permits issued in post-LDR era i
J i r A a )
-e
--a
O W '$ _ l
- Wtsrs CornwL l SWERIOR SrrE CHARACTERISUCS AND CIDfXTE SPEGAUSTS UC FEATURES
- Outstanding geology--solid base of Triassic red bed clay
- First usemble groundwater 800 feet below surface
- No surface water on 16,073-acre site
- Minimal annual rainfall
* % <. fteigt . t vt,: eaution rates BENEFFIY L ' g
- in Iiah.'ity protection
- f.;r,. .o th ; d s(; 'ts Pa <f-Il)R design / construction /nperation l
1 ( W ,S Cowoo CAPABHJrY
" C
.SPEGAUVT5 LLC
. 1
~
Each " condo" landfill permitted by WCS is a completely separate repository. Thus, " condo" ownership will provide a unique, once-in-a-generation opportunity to completely segmgate waste by generator, j type, or source. FEATURES
- Two 637,000. cubic-yard separate, discrete repositories
- Independent liner and teachate collection systems
- Permitted disposal (subject to LDR's) of all 2,000-plus RCRA waste codes, TSCA (PCB) materials, and RCRA /TSCA mixed waste
- Access to WCS' permitted storage, treatment, ud stabilization facilities
- Accessibility from major transportation corridors
- On-site rail capabilities l
- Access to WCS' fulllaboratory capabilities P
BENEFTTS
- Control risk associated withjoint and severalliability l
- Assure availability oflong-term disposal capacity at fixed cost i
- Provide on-site waste management personnel, if desired
- Facilitate acquisition of future needed permits due to technical correctness and community support of WCS' Andrews County project i
The advantages of a WCS condo are greatly enhanced by the facility's
- broadhsed permits, superior site characteristics, and host community support.
k 1
VCSv MAXIMUM ASSURANCE OF SAFETYMm COMPUANCE
"" ^f " '
.hPEGAllSTS f.l.C
- Superior site geology and climate
- Closure / post-closure funding mechanism in place l
- State-of-the-art design, construction, and operation in mature, stable regulatory environment
- Experienced, award-winning management team
- Financially stable ownership--co-owner Valhl, Inc. (NYSE:VHI), a multinational holding company with 1995 revenues in excess of $1.9 billion e
i WS i THE TEXAS RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT IIhSTE CRVDiot AND COMMERCIA1.17ATION CENTER SPEGAl)S73 Ll C 4 WCS' Texas Research Development and Commercialir.ation Center , ("TRDCC") will support the efforts of technology development partners 1
! and clients and will facilitate the successful commercialization of these i efforts on a most immediate basis.
i PARTNERSHIPS i l Technology development and commercialization partnerships l are now in place with major R&D institutions, including: !
- Battelle MemorialInstitute;
!
- Texa'sA&M University System; and 4
. Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center (UT Austin, Lamar, LSU and Florida State).
i i FEATURES V/CS' TRDCC will provide unique capabilities for technology development and commercialization, including:
- State-issued, facility-based R&D permit for hench , pilot ,
j and field 4cale testing of multiple technologies; )
- Siting on 14,735 acres of outstanding geology located contiguous to a fully permitted TSDF;
- Controlled release capabilities allowing " test-to-fail" technology
- research and characterization;
- Enclosed test areas dedicated to the study of stationary processes which require special monitoring or venting;
- Feedstock storage in quantities not limited by regulatory restrictions on treatability studies; and
- On site management and disposal of treatment residue, i
l (see reverse side) i k g . I
J i e BENEFirS t Innovative technologies for:
. Waste =Ini-i = tion
- Source reduction
- Rutoration of contaminated sites
- Management of ongoing waste streams 1
1 w, - - - .-
Andrews WrtyNews
~
A community of quality . . . . . and home of Bernice f. Kelly SUNDAY., MARCH 17,1996 SIXTY SECOND YEAR NUMBER 57 16PAGESi ANCREWS. TEXAS (USPS 025-500) Addition to project is leader in landfill technology . . Battelle joins WCS operation technology to work at WCS' Tops in technology in annual. revenues includes He said Battelle's role in the bY DON INCRAh! Project west of town. Battelle is considered the about $400 milhon in environ. WCS relationship is to plan and , News Editor Officials said an agreement ! e e d e r i n r~ implement advanced technology An important announcement was finalized last week between de velopmenle si e 's arc
't r eha ati n n gd mentalThe products and services.
U.S. Department of development and commercial was made Thursday by Waste WCS and Battelle Memorial hazardous waste. Energy is Battelle's largest Fograms that wt!! differentiate Control Specialists officials Institute (BMI', forjoint rese rch The agreement was reached to customer. WCS from its competitors. during a meetmg held by the and development at the site. conduct high techro4gy mearch nattelle plays major DOE roles Major player at landfill Andrews Industrial Foundation. Over 40 guests were on h.and at the hazar bus :andii't. which as manager and operator of the This will aaelude the The message will have far. for the meeting. including WCS s located 28 miles m. of Pacific Northwest National construcdos of a technology reaching efTects on the landfill president Ken Bigham anu Andrews on the Eumce lfigway Laboratory in Richland.WA.. and demonstration center co-located and future of Andiews County, representing Battelle, Dr. (Sll 1*N a:: a subcontractor to Mason & on the 16,000. acre parcel that The announcement. made to Beajamin G. Maiden s' 3MI is .'ie nation's largest Haager at Panter. .will house the WCS landfill a roomful of oflicials and out-of. Columbus, Ohio, senior vir a a o t-for. profit resea rc h. At the Amari!!o site, Battelle operations. . town guests. concerned bringing president and general manager deve l opment and technology manages the environmental Battelle and WCS offic2als the leader in hazardous waste of environmer_tal systems an( ccmmercialitation firm. .afety and health function along noted that complementary research and state-of-the art techno!ogy. The r approximately $1 bilhon wit 5 the waste management an,* capabihties and sustegic vision
. . environmental rests-ation compatibility led them to acuvaties. establish their business Battelle s second 1srgest relationship. .
Maiden said the company q customer DeGr.se. Both is the Department the of -excited about beisig m Andrews DOE and the Do 3 aie major client targets fc- and will be a " good corpoiate
! the WCS landfill operation.
Dr. Ma den sed Battelle *,s C8L8f*" g g g gm indatries are located they help
, excited a*.out being a ma cr and cierelated pl.syer at the Andrews site.
Maiden said Battelle wW work aid'elit from the corporation.saying Andrews muuld a
, closely with WCS and o'hers, ben A WCS spoke 5 man $and including universities.to develop gggs ,nvoi,e,nent with the
,the WCS site mte the lembr in See WCS Page 16 ts field.
a , m .
l 1 WCS i l Continued from front page project would start immediately with the arrival of field engmeers and other personnel. Construction ur research lebs will also begin immediately, according to omcists. Tenn /,&M Jcins prnject , Also on hand for the meeting 1 was Texas A&M omcial Dr. Dnn Dickson, essociate director for applied technology. He said the university had signed an agreement with WCS to conduct r6 search at the Ar.drews site. Dr. Dickson said A&M was pleesed tojoin WCS and thelikes of Battelle in the area of research j and development.
- Dickson said the school has received a $50 million grant to '
conduct r'esearch in the area of' treating and disposing of l hasardous military waste. He asid A&M was excited to be working with WCS and i i Battelle and a "world class outfit" destined to develop and implement research for the next century, Others on hand for the meeting inieluded James Roberts, president of the Andrews Industrial Foundatinn: Ken j Bigham, president and CEO of WCS: Kent Hanes WCS associeta; Barry McBee, chairman of the TNRCC: Geoff Connor, general council (TNRCC): and Minor Hibbs. division director, industrial and hatardaus waste (TNRCCl. Others included Jim Grover, legislative assistant for Sen. Teel Bivins; Lorenso Sedeno, legislative assistant for Sen. John Montford: State Rep. Gary Walker; New Mexico State Representative Donald
- Don
- Whitaker.
Representing Valhi were Greg Swalwell, assistant comptroller, and Andrew Louis, corporate counsel. Other WCS officials on hand were Eric C Peus. executive vice president; Ken Jackson, vice president of operations; Buddy Alford, business development: Daniel W. Bolger Jr., mas keting: Ron Hence, human resnurces and . public relations; Cus Copeland, operations manager La rry , Johnson. sales specialist; and Bill j Cook CPA. . . Still other WCS associates e attending the meeting were Cliff i Johnson, consultant: Mike 1 Woodard, etterney: Allen j Messenger engineer; and Joe Egan, consultant. 4 TNRCC regional emce staff presentwereJed Barker, regional ( manager: Alice Cone air program manager: Mike Hacan, weste > 8 program manager: Debbie l McMaryion, sir prngram { investigotar: and Clif Onburg, ' waste prns:rnm inveniicatnr. O o
E I . AndrewsChuntyNews A cornrrtunity of quality . . . . * ' and home of Roy Turnbow (TY SECOND YEAR NUMBER 61' 18PAGES ANDREWS, TEXAS (USPS 025-500) SUNDAY, MARCH 31,1996 l l l. t N I 1 I l s- { " s w # N pg" 543 i - N Wf:, w~ # #bb.::' _4Sy }~ h q; l l ("3 %%. My
~
-we~
j y
. + ::. W&
p
.x i
[upy? , %g ,X Mt.hg s m, R _ ,, f* :--pf- & q ^
!.M.*
-?w 1%L .
f.7 P
^.
4%% l (Q
. Q-ny:fy 1& Q . ;k;p,$C 1 Qg- Q %
~ '& JJ$
.- Q
-,Wpl?
b, gf . W. y j'
; ~:9 ft'g? kW %
%?L # W k . f q 3 f.
.c.
, j;,, $, ,C .E' R * -^Y * )
, e * "
W ^ ?ky
-- 4 g.. :- , .
.a
.vw?p -3
( a
.ab i
gg.>%f*yW g g,~Q.AQh . yg . " .m$ ' m ; ' W, ' N, "t W . n l
. 43 . .. . -
.~. .
+' -
#y
_,u--- l gg_ _ a \ y,c af: #g '
-4 Og
$ , / ff *
. h.
i E
- 2-
,,.,m,--,Ml~. X_
,Me *R
.3 2i;f # 4s g.. q" 17
- b. d- u
- e. a, .. f - S 'cl, A?W, ?
s f F T ].. E.e, x
.j, ,.9.a
- w.DM y.i
'. 4" t-/
' i w P
nm.e . '%,'ly
~
1
,<. f y: y '
...~, -g=pJ.ep,s p m.-~
a h- -"
- C., acg #
...,s._
Y.'I I N 7 gj}Y
/c m
*gf g ** *
,?D g f,
~ r. $ ~e w
f y c,
^ J b. # $
3 by J Qwy " 1
'g; }ff3g%b' 9
n:g4 j ;}-i.w'a}.4:;,Q[>h_ l+ 'm Rj y Y 4yh.s + 'Nb ' ,fs* 1% 'd 7[WdNhY 3 -h .' ."
. {
t, t . .r j ;, ."' ,w . 1 i6-y =flp &,. y' o -n;;;: nf s y y :- . (9 (Qy n.
- ,5 -
3,_ a { .;; -g, ,p,s t s
%: ~
e q' , ;&n. - ._ _ , pb&J~ i w. ., A, -. 1 c:(4a ' ~~
%.. ,,e
-- 4 ;
f M- af. . -pk . y Y g
. ,4 f-
.pf [h ,[*"[
b M M h p M N
- I h CONSTRUCTION CREWS are busy night and day at Waste Control another i0 or 15 feet, according to officials. The site is a hubbub of Specialists
- hatafdous landfill in far west Andrews County, Here a actwily with cement foundations being poured, trucks carrying dirt and digger / Crane machine scoops Up the Soil and rock into huge durnp sprinkling waler. crews dynamiting rock, geologists stucying samples trucks, which Carry it to another location where a rock Crusher finishes and scores of other tasks underway.
off the larger pseces This pit is about 45 feet deep and will be extended l'hoto by Don Ingram. 4 4 i - i 1 i i f i 1 4 l 9 4
. . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ , c_, _.- . _ _
l 1 - wCs 1 IYASTE C0hTROL FUTURE CAPABILFFIES AND OPPORTUNITIES Srnwsis u.c ! 4 FEATURES Expanded scope of operations willinclude: )
- Weatment and storage of low-level radioactive waste ("I1W"); l 1
- Dispocal of Federal-facility 11W; and
- Disposal of by-product materials including @ 11e.(2) mine and mill *=ilings.
3 i The 11W authorizations described above will include NARM/ NORM and by product materials ofher than E 11e.I?) f ailings. i
- The same strong host community support which characterized WCS' RCRA /TSCA permitting fTorts is now being expressed for Jme expanded capabilities, i
i BENEFITS
- M ,,r role in Federal-facility waste management and environmental restoration markets
- Unique capability for on site treatment, storage, and disposal (subjects to LDRs) of 11W and all RCRA, TSCA, RCRA-mixed, and TSCA-mixed wastes
- Adjacent tecimology center will facilitate development and deployment of innovative technologies needed for Federal-facility markets
- Synergistic teaming arrangements with technology developers l
I
4k << Si J i j@?#A[P* andrews industrial foundation, inc. !
'laWap%,.0I & '-
w:c
/ 700 WEST BROADWAY * (915)523 2695 <
4 :s f -Q W~; ANDREWS. TEXA5 79714 (gi, ^ ^ ;p g.,,: I TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: On April 11,1996 at 10:00 a.m., following a full and detailed briefing and discussion, the board of directors of the Andrews Industrial Foundation voted unanimously to endorse and approve the Class 2 Permit Modifications submitted by Waste Control Specialists, LLC. The modifications being more specificly, (1) not prohibit the acceptance of radioactive waste at the facility if a i license or other authority is received authorizing such activity , pursuant to Chapter 401 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, and (2) allow the removal of storm water diversion troughs from the facility design. The endorsement of these changes is unanimous and carries with it the full support, cooperation and participation by the Andrews Industrial Foundation. Sincerely, i l , . / _ James Roberts, President A NON - PROFIT CORPORATION
.- - a s.. , a. .a ...-.a - u - .--a - a n..-.a - a a....a - s a x x _
AndrewsCohunty Neb A community of quality . . . i
~
and home of Gladys Hudgens i UXTY SECOND YEAR NUMBER 65 16 PAGES ANDREWS, TEXAS (USPS 025 500) SUNDAY, APRIL 14,199C Waste Control holds hearing 4 concerning permit change '. by C6N INGRAM News Editor Removal of the ban in the Others were mayor Greg '
- current permit simply opens the Sweeney, Eugene Cummins, and A public heering heId door for us to apply to the proper Ricky 10dd?tmd Lloyd Eisenrich.
Thursday morning at the regulatory agencyin Teras,"said After discussion the issue at 4 chamber set in motion a request Allen Messener,projectengineer, length, the industrial board by Waste Control Specialists,Inc. 5
'tepresepting WCS were unanimouslyapprvvedsupporting !
to amend their har.ardous lar.dfill attorney Mi,ke Woodard of Austin, WCS' efforts in seeking the I permit. project rnanager Ken Jackson of additional permitting. W o r k h a s r. t a r t e d o n Andrews, engineer Allen Messenger said this action is construction of the landfill about Messenger of Austin, and only seeking to remove the 1 28 miles west of Andrews on the personneldirector Ron Henceof prohibition against seeking Eunict !!ighway. Andrews. permission to process and store The company seeks to remove Also on hand were a state of low levelradioactive waste at the s! prohibition in their current Andrews industrial Representa. site. ? 1 pennat against receiving low level tives, including president James He said since the majority of rakoactive waste. Roberta, Ervin Huddleston, Lee low level waste i, in connection l Removal would then provide McGee. Robby Rogers, O.B. with hospitals, the TDH is the l i the company with the route to file Esburn, Mike McGarrity, county regulatory ageney in charge j an application with the Texas judgeGaryGaston,citymanager instead of the Texas Naturai l Department of Health for e. Len Wilson, and chamber Re sou r.
- Con serva tion license. manager Kaeee Chandler. Commission. .. wCS Psge 16 i
i ' WCS Continued from front page l 1 ] Messenger said the amending process would occur frequently in the future regarding different j technical aspects of the 4 operations. He said because the regula-tions surrounding such operations are so strict that even minor alterations to buildings or equipment layout mean a amendment to their permit. In connection with construction of the landfill. Hence said negotiations were still underway for securing right-of-way for the railway spur from Eunice to the landfill. The spur will be about a mile long, Hance said. ,
)
wCs IVASTE Cohrnoi' FACIIITY PROFILE SPEGAllSTS LLC 4 Waste Control Specialists LLC ("WCS") presents a 21st century response to the need for:
- Cost-effective waste management and disposal options;
- Safety, compliance, and liability control; and
- Impact technologies for treatment, recycling, and source reduction.
4 FEATURES
- 1,338ecre fullypermitted TSD facility l - 'Ireatment, storage, and landfill disposal i - All 2,000 plus RCRA waste codes, TSCA (PCB) materials, and
- RCRA /TSCA mixed wastes
- Permitted TSD buffered within 16,073-acre company. owned site
- Superior site characteristics and climate
!
- Permitted " condo" disposal capacity 4
- Mmvimum assurance of safety and compliance
* 'Ibe Texas Research Development and Commercialization Center l
- One.of a-kind facility for development and implementation of l innovative environmental tecimologies
! - ' Unique R&D permit
- 14,735-acre company. owned site j - Major technology development partnerships in place
- Unprecedented support from informed host community
- Only commercial RCRA landfill permh issued in more than 10 yean
- Only broadlypermitted green field hazardous and toxic waste TSD facility l in exidence now or in foreseeable future i
- FUTURE CAPABILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES i'
* $400 billion Federal-facility restoration market;
- Unique permitted capabilities and market pos,ition; and
- Stanng host corampuity support for expanded capabilities.
i
i j General Site Plan { i f 1
~
i < f I i i
.I,
*~W
$ 5
- 0 i .i:t .
4 x b 3 a
- s. a.
- Y-
! E ! x
- ;e 1,338.21 Panutted Acres 1
i i i 2 4 i i l i i 1 1 m' 16,072.56 Acres Site r
i i j Detail Site Plan I 4 ) l l 1 Fence C 3 2 1 t-l 4 % 2 s ~~ u /* N s
.C /
4
.l 4
.s % .i
/ / ,/ / /
-i / N N N'sk, ie .
i E '% ' ' ?" e i
.e i N' ' -
x
/ g' 'q r, 'l/ /
+,,, y.,
l
! //j N
U
,. ~ ,
i i ;
, , ,i i ~; >
, ,e j
' y -{? m
~N '
,l ' ,l g';* :I* . l
'* ty%
/
s /i , 5 h \ !!!, i}* % ,'
?f f'e!, ! l j
f . e M x ,
/ j i y I
' b # n s M j une ~Z 1 E g sa s e po w, t,**y'=s i , -ui<n u .
- i. $*~ ,. .
A ~36A:;, gan & #",
- a. 5
%baammenemalsame=* l,
{ % tessis 3 4 i i 4 a 3 i I ) i i i ) unsussessur, '-
l
- l. -
i l_ Environmental Technology Research, ! l l Development, and Commercialization Center li, ,. WCs . 1 . k t l ! r 1 l l-[a i :: l I' ! o . 1 1 b. } - s - 4 i -
.. n . 3, l -
v, ' ' .
.;}
! 'b
;; - jI j ,
, y ~. ;;;. ...,,, s >. l <- - i i g? s
*. . . M.
i c:
~~ p?
M ,i ( $i
~'
l sq . ;5.gr s .
.g I
- .. T.; /.. 4rkkW5e m mc- n ,,.,
,n :
.p- s n.s -n .
ps
.< s,: E g w w - kgTJ,k , '
yx.. l V NE%Y' .. . . . . . . . . , ..
. N4 1
i 4 1 3 i' l I t I e i y--- -.- --cvm-.-7 .rm --.i-,- ---v}}