ML20138C729

Addresses Listed Concerns in Re Status of Utah Agreement State Program

ML20138C729
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/04/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Cochran T, Finamore B National Resources Defense Council
Shared Package
ML20138C736	List: ML20138C729 ML20138C741 ML20138C765
References
DD-97-02, DD-97-2, NUDOCS 9704300186
Download: ML20138C729 (20)

Text

--

\

,~ J

jg

• 0pces% *

" yf

• , UNITED STATES

[3U S E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20$fM001 April 4, 1997 1

i Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D. l Director, Nuclear Program  !

Barbars A. Finamore, Esq.

~

Senior Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

Dear Dr. Cochran and Ms. Finamore:

This is in response to your letter to the Commission dated February 21,1997. You have been informed in a March 10,1997 letter from John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission, that the Commission has determined not to undertake a formal review of Director's Decision DD-97-02. The purpose of this letter is to address other concerns in your letter regarding the status of Utah's Agreement State program.

Essentially, you indicate that the controversy surrounding the relationship between Khosrow Semnani, President of Envirocare of Utah, Inc., and Larry F. Anderson, former Director of the Utah Bureau of Radiation, should cause the NRC to initiate action under Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, to terminate or suspend Utah's Agreement State program. You cite as a basis for this request that this controversy demonstrates that the Utah Agreement State program is not compatible with the NRC's 10 CFR Part 0 regulations concerning conduct of employees.

Agreement States are not required to have conflict of interest regulations identical to those in 10 CFR Part 0 to be compatible with NRC's program. Prior NRC program reviews determined that Utah had conflict of interest requirements. While Utah's rules may not be literally identical to NRC's, there is no indication that the bileged misconduct would have ,

been sny less of a breach of Utah's regulations than it would have been of NRC's regulations had NRC been the licensing authority.

In any case as a general matter, a violation of an Agreement State's conflict of interest ,

regulations by a specific individual does not necessarily warrant NRC initiating the process to either suspend or revoke an agreement with a State. If, however, NRC determines that a particular State's administrative rules (e.g., conflict of interest restrictions) may adversely f '

affect radiation safety in that State, NRC will raise such issues with the State and seek to resolve them. In addition to considering a State's rules and procedures, NRC will also consider the conduct of Agreement State officials if it believes that such conduct may be affecting the adequacy of the State's program. The NRC is currently following this approach with the course of events in Utah.

_ , _ _ , qM in.9 " T P {"{ h S p. u;-n 9704300186 970404 ,

PDR STPRG ESGUT l PDR

1

} ,.

• \

Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D. -2 APR - 4 1997 l Barbara A. Finamore, Esq.  !

l Your letter further requested that the NRC conduct a new, independent review of Utah's-  !

, program in light of this information. As stated in the NRC staff evaluation of the NRDC request to suspend the Section 274 agreement with the State of Utah, the staff has determined that it does not have a basis to initiate such action at this time. The criminal investigation initially undertaken by the Utah State Attorney Generalis now being l conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NRC staff intends to follow this investigation closely.' if at any time NRC receives specific information of public health and safety concerns during the conduct of the investigation or upon its completion, or receives

. such information from other sources, including NRC ongoing Agreement State oversight activities, the staff will evaluate this information and take such action as is warranted. For -l your information, NRC's Office of Investigations has been provided the information you ,

have submitted.

l l

Sincerely,

( (M !w #^

Richard L. Bangart, Director /

Office of State Programs L cc: W. J. Sinclair, Director ,

Division of Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Ocality l J

4 4

t 4

4 i

j  %

Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D. APR - 41997 Barbara A. Finamore, Esq.

Your letter further requested that the NRC conduct a new, independent review of Utah's program in light of this information. As stated in the NRC staff evaluation of the NRDC request to suspend the Section 274 agreement with the State of Utah, the staff has determined that it does not have a basis to initiate such action at this time. The criminal investigation initially undertaken by the Utah State Attorney Generalis now being j conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NRC staff intends to follow this investigation closely. If at any time NRC receives specific information of public health and safety concerns during the conduct of the investigation or upon its completion, or receives such information from other sources, including NRC ongoing Agreement State oversight activities, the staff will evaluate this information and take such action as is warranted. For your information, NRC's Office of Investigations has been provided the information you have submitted.

Sincerely, OriginalSigned By RICHARD L. BANGART l Richard L. Bangart, Director I Office of State Programs cc: W. J. Sinclair, Director Division of Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Quality .

l I

l f

Distribution:

DIR RF ED0 RF (G970146) DCD (SP08 )

Utah File SECY (CRC =97-0179) PDR (YES v' NO )

OCUMENT NAME: G:\SCD\NRDC.SCD j

r. c*. . e.,y oe thi. oocum.ni, indicate in the bos: 'C" = Copy without atta '

_e losure *E' = Copy with attachment /ynclosure "N* = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD l 4 JOGC' OSP:Dg/ p f NAME SCDroggitis:nb PHLohaus FXCameron RLBangart; '

DATE 03/18/97* 03/18/97* 04/J. /97 04/( ff 97

'sso previous concurrence OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-28

~

't .~.

m.

Tho as B. Cochran, Ph.D.

• Barba A._ Finamore, Esq.

requireme s, hearing procedures and conflict of interest regulations) that differ from those required by e State's administrative law system.

However, if N determines that a particular State's administrative rules (e.g., conflict of interest restricti s) may adversely affect radiation safety in that State, NRC will raise such issues with such State and seek to resolve them. in addition to considering a State's rules and procedur , NRC will also consider the conduct of Agreement State officials if it believes that such c duct may be affecting the adequacy of the State's program. The NRC is currently folio 'ng this approach with the course of events in Utah.

Your letter further reques ed that the NRC conduct a new, independent review of Utah's program in light of this inf mation. As stated in the NRC staff evaluation of the NRDC request to suspend the Sect n 274 agreement with the State of Utah, the staff has determined that it does not h ve a basis to initiate such action at this time. The criminal investigation initially undertake by the Utah State Attorney Generalis now being conducted by the Federal Burea of Investigation. NRC staff intends to follow this investigation closely. If at any ti e NRC receives specific information of public health and safety concerns during the conduc ,of the investigation or upon its completion, or receives such information from other sources including NRC ongoing Agreement State oversight activities, the staff will evaluate this i formation and take such action as is warranted. For j your information, NRC's Office of inve igations has been provided the information you have submitted.

Sincerely, I l

l R hard L. Bangart, Director Of e of State Programs Distribution:

DIR RF 7E146 DCD (SP )

Utah File PDR (YES_ NO_)

i OCUMENT NAME: G:\SCD\NRDC.SCD Ts ,eceive a copy of thee docu,nent. Indicate in the boa: "C' > hout attachmenttereclosure 'E' - Copy with atta ment / enclosure *N' = No copy OFFICE- 30 OSP OSf:0Q)f OGC OSP:Q NAME SCDroggitis:nb PHLohtu( ' ' FXCameron RLBangart \

DATE 03//1/97 03/) f/97 03/ /97 03/ /97 OSP FIL E CODE: SP-AG-23

bk

- - BE; G%dM ~

PHL -

E baR' li' & & LL sco so

.. Callan Jordan gg Thompson Norry Blaha Cyr, 0GC Goldberg, 0GC Paperiello, # MSS Caputo, 01 JKennedy, NRR Burns, 0GC Attached is the enclosure to the 2/3/97 letter to Jack Goldberg that is a part of G970146. Please attach to your copy.

OED0 O

m 2 O up f,. 'U W

U l

i

9 R 3ULATORY

SUMMARY

9 FOR

,\.f.

ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.

4 i

t 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, Utah Code Annotated,1953, as amadM, and the Utah Adminictrative 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

{ through 268,270 and 124.

4 HSWA Permit - Issued by Region VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency under the provisions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) of the i j 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 - hsued by Utah Division of Water Quality under Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.

Radioactive Materials License - Issued by Utah Division of Radiation Control as an 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 11e.(2) Materials License - Issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93'-438), and Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30, 3 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, and 70.

i Air Discharge Approval Order - Issued by the Utah Division of Air Quality under the Utah Air Conservation Regulations pursuant to the Utah Air Conservation Act and under authority of the Utah Administrative Code 1953, as amended, Code 307. -

5 1

! Also regulated by Utah Tax Code, Utah Occupational Safety and Health Rules, subject to zoning ordinances, etc.

Exhibit No. 1 )

- - - - s e ..u <.

J1 8F9.984 " .

U L'i.1) w 3 DEPARTMENT j ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

• DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL dchici O. Zeeviu 168 Nonh 1950 Weu

, G "'"'

P.O. Boa 148so R'. Nielson. PhD.

t=en > g Sah Lake city. Uus 54114 48s0

/Llaam J.sinclair D=" f ((801) 533-ofTT ag 12301) 536 4250 voice

, j (sol) 536 4414 T.D.D.

MEMORANDUM TO:

Dianne R. Nielsen. Ph.D.

Executive Director Utah Depanment of Environmental Quality FROM:

Bill Sinclair. Director 3 Division of Radiation Control Utah Depanment of Environmental Quality

SUBJECT:

Review of Envirocare licensing actions DATE: January 28,1997 Staff members of the Division of Radiation Control have reviewed all licensin c:mmencing 12,1987. with the submission of the application for NORM waste by Envirocare o Attached is a compilation of past licensing actions. This chmnology commence a status repon of nil Envirocare licenses. Items 7-10 of the review focus on disposa and the Nonhwest Interstate Compact Resolution and Order. The next area of ta the criginal NORM license and all twenty-two subsequent amendments

. Finally, other actions affecting the license are noted.

From our review of these various actions, we have not identified any major proble with past licensi'ng actions accomplished by the Division. However, these licens be reviewed during the license renewal review process currently underway.

outlines which licensing actions am cunently undergoing review as a result of the li process. We continue to encoura be resolved in a timely manner. ge everyone with questions to contact us so their issue (s) may W2 will maintain this license chronology from this point forward. If you have do n:t hesitate to contact me. ,

~

Exhibit No. 2

O  ; .,mej Wie id Envirecers Prrmits/Licrnua Chronolegy une Public R a-vi.

P&rmit Action Submittal ! Approval Expiatior Reviewed Approved Participation R e-16 No. No. Description Date Date Date By By Psovided?

1 1 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials License Ac0 2 10/12/87 2/28/88 2/28/93 DRC LFA No Yes 3

Comtuned with the Low-LevelRaducactive Materials License on 3/21/9I -

~

4 9

2. Low-Level Radioactive Materials License 5

• 7/27/90 3/21/91 2/28/96 DRC LFA No Yes

! 6 ' 3 Groundwater Discharge Perrnit a

7 10/1/90 3/21/90 9/10/98 DWO :DAO Yes Yes, rd Pennit espiration was extended dunne majorpermit modification 13 o/

8 9/10f93 license 9 .

requara i 10 permit u i

11 lication !

12 4 Mixed Waste Permit 13 4/21/89 11/30/90 11/30A)0 DS/HW DRD Yes Yes uA 14 going Sl I5

- review. (

16 3 modif%

l 17 submittel

_18 5 Uranlurn and thorium mill tallings (11e.(2) License) 12/23/91 11/30/93 11/304)3.NRC 19 NRC Yes No j

, 20 6 Hazardous and SoRd Waste Amendments (HSWA) permit 8/95

_21 10/3/96 10/3/01 EPA Yes No -just '

[ 22 Region recently i 23 Vill issued 24 7 Audit of radioactive waste disposal fees, lo ensure State is being paid the

_25 appispisswiate amount of fees. No 26 Financialaudit to be conducied by the Office of 9samt Services, DEQ '

El Estimated 2/97. ,

28 --

29 8 Northwest interstate r;M - Resolution and Order - Superseded by

30 S/2/94 R & O ~

1991 LFA.KA, LFA, Yes- No i 31 -

FN NWIC Compact a) Original R & O h which Utah reserved the right to ma~ove each disaasal 32 .

meetings are.

arrange,T.6nt invcMng scag +M-authorized material, all federal and -

i 33 opento state laws must be csir5":j with, no low-level waste from states that

• i 34 ,public and have been denied access to sited states facilities could accepted 35 have without tr=T-- approval from NWIC. cot-st reserves the right to I 36 n=M ori rescind the authorization at any time.

designated .

37 public i

38 comment 39 times during

, :40, '. . -

meetirq ,_.

l -

Meclino was

.p- _, m _, _, . - . . _ - . , . _ _. - __ .. .-_- ._ - _ _ - m .m. m.._ .-_.. . _ _ _ ._. _ . . . _ __m.m.,

i

' ' 194 6/9 l

I Envircerto Psrmits/Lictneca Chrennit:gy ' '

Wfiu :

Line Public Ra-vis l Permit Action Submittal ' Approval Epiratior Reviewed Approved Participation Re-Is ;.

! Re. No. Description 41 Dale Dale Date By By Provided?

l Acts :

.42 I in Honoiulu, 43 . Hl.

44 9 j, ,45 Northwest interstate Compact - Resolution and Order - Superseded by BS FN, - WJS,

. 46 4/20/95 R & O ___ 5/2/94 BC8 NWIC Yes - same AE.

a) Amendments to the term

• reactor *. as above.

47 DRN Meeting was

' b) Clarification that resolution was intended for cleanup and not operational 48 wastes. in Seattle,

49 WA.

c) Approval by mT,,act or state of origin required g Wed by NWIC) 50 .

51 10'. Northwest interstate Compact - Resolution and Order 52 4/20/95 BS,FN, WJS, 53 a) Delerred rer=W of material to Utah RMt_. Yes sam 5 'Yes-Id!

BC8 NWIC as above. license b) Utah license condillon added that requires State / cst 5+M export =p~ oval.

54 DRN

• c) Review of R & O on a three yearbasis.by NWIC. Meeting was definitiord 55 in Seattle, j 56 d) Contract notifications are reviewed by DRC stall for appropriale export ,

soil, soil- (

=== eval Volumes, per R & O, changes are reported at each C=%-act WA. debris. t -

57 meeting by Envirocare.

58 at mandt!

l. 59 Compact i submissii !

60 DRC.

j 61 Consider ,

$2

, requiring '

j3 l copy of '

44

! 65 NWIC sut !

i r6 imission tc!

DRC.

_ '.7 l L I

I 9

s c 4

+

.g N, O 9

' 9. .

c .. - - . _ , , . -, - _. . . . , , . . .. . . ..

1/?8

! t l.

Will ism Envirccara Redierctiva Mirl:Is Liccnsn Chronology Public Ra-visiti Lhe Permit Action Submittal ' Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Re-lin tao. No. Description Date Date By By Provided? Actio7 l 1 1 Submission of NORM Application 10/12/87 2/2/88 DF, CJ, l 2 LFAI No Yes JF, GG,

~

4 BS, MD 5 2 Amendment #1 - Adopticn of Quality Assurance Program 2/17/88 2/25/88 DF,CJ, I

6 LFA No Yes 7 ' JF, GG, 8 BS, MD 9- 3 Amendment #2 - Letter / Phone Call- Addition of Conditions 8/1/88 8/11/88 DF, CJ, LFA No 10 a) Cond 38 - Requirement for Annual Monitoring Repor1 Yes 11 'JF, GG, b) Cond 39 - Requirement for Annual Waste Disposal Report 12 BS. MD 13 4 Amendment 53 -Instrument Calibration Requirements 14 10/13/88 CJ, DF, LFA No Yes a) Letter dated 9/2 t/88 - Quarterly to 6 months 15 9/21/88 RN, JH b) Letter dated 10/8/88 - Stagger Calibration Date 10/6/88; 16' 17 5 Amendment 84 - 300,000 cubic yards Possession Limit 18 1/6/89 1/12/89 CJ, DF, LFA No Yes (Revised from 17,000 cubic yards) 19 1/11/89 RN, JH 20 6 Amendmesit RS - Administrallve Amendment-Specified Changes Allowed j 1/8/89 1/18/89 DF 21 Without invoking Amendrnent Process LFA No Yes 22 23 7 24 Amendment 86- Administrallve Amendment- Addition of Conditions 2/24/59 DF, JH, LFA No a) Generator to Certify Waste Concentration Yes 25 RN,CJ, b) Conoentration Limits Defined .

26 LM, DWO c) Receipt of Waste for Storage 27 1 28 8 Amendment #7-Change of Address Letter 29 1/26/90 1/28/90 DF LFA No Yes 8

30 9 Amendment 88-Request to delete Air Monitoring Station A-3 31 6/28/90 7/28/90 DF, JH, LFA No 'Yes RN,CJ 10 Amendment 89-NORM Mixed Waste Approval 12/3/90 12/3/90 :DSHW, 34 LFA Yes - DSHW Yes 35 DRC, 36 DWQ 37 11 Amendment sto- Low Level Waste Disposal Amendment 38 a) LARW, Mhed/LARW 7/27/90 3/21/91 DF, RN, LFA Yes - DSHW Yes _

39 CJ,JH, _

b) Release Procedures 40 LM, DWO c) RAE Performance Assessment Report l __ __ OSHW _ i

F l 112 8/9 l

Envirectra Radit:ctivs Mat:rirls License Chronology 1 wilitssu une Public Ra-visite Permit Action Submittal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Re-ficer rio. No. 1 Description 41 Date Date By By Provided? Action 42 12 Amendment #11 - New Landitions 9/20/90 3/16/92 DF, RN, J LM, JH, LFA Yes - DWO/ Yes 44 No 45 46 a) Exempt from Land Ownership 'DWO 47 DF, RN, No Yes 48 b) U-235 Poss Limit LM,JH s 49 DRC No c) Define Decontaminated Debris for Disposal Yes 50 DRC No d) Nolity DRC of Lift Completion in writing Yes 51 e) Paint Filter Liquid Test 'DRC No 'Yes 52 DWO, Yes - DWO Yes 53 CC, LM, g

54 DF I) ChanDe As-Built Submission Date 55 DWO, Yes - DWO Yes 56 ~

CC,LM, 57 g) OA-OC Program requirement RN,DF 58 DWO, ,

Yes - DWO . Yes CC, LM, 60 h) Compaction Test Adjacent to Debris RN,DF 61 DWO, 'Yes - DWO Yes 62 DSHW, 63 i) Debris Limits for Lifts , CC, LM, 64 DWQ, Yes - DWO .. Yes 65 DSHW, 66 j) Placement Volume Umits CC, LM,

, 67 DWO, Yes - DWO Yes 68 DSHW, 69 k)ID Chelating Agents CC, LM, 70 DWO, Yes - DWO Yes 71 DSHW, t 72 , CC, LM, 73 13 Amendment 812 - Release Criteria for Equipment 74 10/27/92 11/20/92 DF, RN, LFA No Yes 75 JH 76 14 Amendment #13 - Change of Address 77 5/14/93 5/24/93 DF LFA No Yes 78 15 Amendment #14 - Entiralty 79 5/15/93- 9/10/93 RAE, DF, WJS Yes Yes {

,y LtA 80 . la) Fourteen Radioactive isotopes Approved for Disposal RAE,WM lyes W* - -

~

f

.sem f '~l Envirocrra FEdleretiva M:t:rirls Licensa Chren:l gy Wm issy une Public R>visita Prrmit Action _S_ ubmittal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation No. No. Description Re-ficeji, 81 Date Dale By By Provided? Action 82 LM, DWO l

~

83 b) Transuranic Addressed DSHW 84 RAE.DF, Yes Yes 85 c) Re-write Release Criteria LM 86 RAE,DF, Yes Yes '~'

87 d) Mixed Wasle Storage LM 88 RAE,DF, Yes iYes 89 - LM, DWO '

90 e) Additional Clay Liner Protection DSHW 91 RAE,DF, Yes Yes 92 LM, DWO 93 DSHW 94 16 95 Amendment 815- Twenty-Three Radioactive isotopes Approved for Disposal9/30/93 2/22/94 DF, LM, WJS Yes Yes 96 RAE 97 17 98 Amendment #16 - Approval by Compact for Out of State Waste to E.C.

5/17/94 8/10/S4 DF WJS Yes Yes 99 18 Amendment 917 - Oversize Debris /CLSM Option

_100 6/21/94 8/26/94 DF, LM, WJS ,No Yes 101: a ) Oversize Debris Acceptance SH 102 103 b) Use of Flowable Flow (CLSM) -

104 1 9 Amendment #18 - Eliminate Wildlife Sampling 105 9/30/94 DF, JH, WJS No Yes 106 LM,RN a) Amend Environmental Monitor Plan ,

~107 9/S 4 108 BIT >3 109 20 Amendment 819 - (Executive Secretary talflated) - Revised Conditions 8/19/94 110 a) Flequire Waste Manifest (E-100) 11/9/94 DF WJS No Yes til b) Require Comply w/ R313 15-1006, (New CFR) 20 112 c) Re write Conditions 6,7,8 113 114 21 Amendment #20- Re write Entiretty 115 6/28/95 DF, LM, WJS Yes Yes 116 a) As-Bulli Requirements RN, JH 117 b) Comply with new R31315 changes 118 c) Reduce some Radionuclide Concentrations 119

, 120 *

-32 Amendment 821 - Five New Nuc!! des Added 6/5/95,11/15/95lDF, LM, j'US )Yes {

Willissua lEnvirectra Radi c::tiva Mr.tcrirls Lic:nu Chrcn:l gy Line! Pc:rmit Action Public R: visita th No. Submittal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Re licen Description Date 121 Date By By Prosided? Actian':

122 a) Bismath 207 RAE .

I 123 b) Smarium 151 ___

124 c) Tantalum 182 __

125 d) YT 183 126 e) Tl 204 12z 128 23 Amendment #22 - Wind Blown Litter 129 (Executive Secretaryinitiated) 8/16/96 RN, DF, WJS No Yes 130 , JH LM 131 24 lon Exchange Resin 132 5/7/96 DF, RAE 'WJS Yes Yes a) Notice of New Contract, letter from Envirocare to DRC, Contains Resin Bead 9/11/95 133 Material DF, LM, 134 JR RN, 135 b) DRC Request for Information, letter sent 9/11/95 RAE 136 1) ActoalProcedure 9/21/95 RAE 137 2) Break down 138 3) MixingL'Olending 139 140' c) Submittal of letter from Envirocare to DRC, regarding Stability Compaction, 10/28/95 end B!o-degradability. RAE 141 d) Request for more information, input from RAE, letter from DRC to Envirocare12/20/95 142 e) Stability Analysis, letter from AGRA to Envirocare to DRC 143 2/22/96 DF,RAE f) Final Stabluty, letter from AGRA to Envirocare to DRC 144 2/27/96 DF,RAE g) TCLP Analysis, letter from Bingham to Envirocare to DRC 145 3/15/96 h) Response to Comments, letter from Envirocare to DRC 146 1) Properties of Resin 3/19/96, 147 2) Specifications

'148 3) Kd Resuits, Settlement 149 l} RAE Response to letter dated 3/19/96, letter from RAE to DRC 150 4/26/96 RAE DF, 151 LM j) Permission to Accept Waste Resin - Granted, letter from DRC to Envirocare 152 Amendment not needed. 4/30/96 5/7/96 DF,RAE WJS 153 k) Sent to all on Envirocare Mail loformation List 154 5/7/96 DF WJS Yes Yes 155 25 DAW Dry Active Waste 156 i .

Yes Yes a) Suggest Drum Counter for Packaged Waste, Request ALARA review, 12/8/95 157 11/5/96 letter from DRC to Envirocare 158 b) Submission for DAW Sampling Plan, letter from Envirocare to DRC 159 1) Protocals to be used by Envirocare 1/29/98 DF, RN, e .

_160 ,j 2) Procedure for Operation LM,JH,

~ -

JR. WC ._

i 1/28/9'.

l ] 8 Envirocaro fledinactivo Mnt:rlais Lic nsa Chrcnol2gy W

_ _ill is su une Public Re-visite ;

Permit Action Submittal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation No. No.

Description Re ficer.

161 Date Date By By Provided?

c) DRC Response to 1/29/96 Submission from Envirocare Action 1 162- 1), Agree ALARA Review 2/9/9G l 163 _2) Amend Operating Procedures ,_

164 _ d) DR,C request letter _

165 1) DAW - Disposal Plan 10/17/96 _

166 2) DAW - Address Wind Dispersal 167u

3) DAW - Uniform Distsibution 168

4) DAW - Waste Char. Plan Modification 169 e) Submission of Info Requested by DRC on 10/17/96 170: 11/1/96 DF, RN 171 1LM. JH, 172  ; WC

!) Approval of DAW Procedure, letter from DRC to Envirocare 173 11/5/96 11/5/96 WJS Yes Yes 174 26 Waste TCLP 175 a) Request to Eliminate TCLP, letter from Envirocare to DRC Yes Yes 176 b) Envirocare agrees to Eliminate TCLP 6/20/95' 177 6/27,TS c) Notice from DRC to the Public 178 1) Newspaper Agency 179 8/8/95-

2) Tribune - Deseret News,30 day notice for week of 8/14/95 180 8/14/95

3) Transcript Bulletin (Tooele),30 day notice 181 4) Internet,40 day notice 8/14/95 182 8/8/95 d) Draft Memo of Agreement to Fund DRC during TCLP 183 8/95 e) AG's Office Review of MOA, retumed to DRC 184 8/11/95 f) MOA, signed by Dianne R. Nielson and Chartes Judd 185 8/11/95

'186' g) Agreement to implement TCLP, Testing by DRC, Agreement Valid to 6/30/97 8/95 8/11/95

[187 27 Waste Blending 188 .a) DRC gets RAE opinion for review Yes Yes 189 4/21/95 RN,DF, 190 LM.BS b) Request to increase Concentration Umit CS-137 & Co-60 191' 7/5/95 192

.c) Request to Avg Concentration over Disposal Cell, letter from Enviroca.e to DRC 8/1/95' d) Compact Supports idea, letter from Compact to Charles Judd to DRC ,

193 8/7/95 e) Re-Define Shipment-ChanDe to Average over " Shipment', letter from EC 194 8/9/95 IDS f) Defines areas of concem, letter from RAE to DRC, Possible Conflict of Interest8/10/95 g) DRC agrees to Ship Definition 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, letter from DRC to Envirocare 196 8/15/95 h) Notify - Public Notice for Change is needed, letter from DRC to C. Judd 197

1) Requirements for Blending, Sampling, Pad, letter from DRC to Envirocare 198 _,

.j) Meeting with Envirocare and DRC conceming:

I55 8/22/95 _

20q .

Letter of Outlining Resu:ts cl 8/22/95 meeting. Class A. SNM, GWTP, etc. 8/23/95 i

k) Letter spelling out Plan to Place, Average. Disposal, from Envirocare to DRC _

8/31/951 I I

rt g l ' Will isst Envirectro RadicCetivs M:tnrirla Licenzo Chron:ltgy .

• Public the .

Re-visier Parmit Action [Submilial Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Relbe No. No. Descrip*ian Date Dale By By Provided?

201 i) ApprovalLette, Actior.

202 9/6/95 _l _

, 203 28 Request for Confidentisilly ~

No 204 Yes [

a) Letter Requesting Total Confidentially (*C*), letter from Envirocare Ic BRC

• 3/8/88 205.

b) Envirocare Directed to Provide Redacted Copy (BRC Maintains "C") 8/1/88 _ __

206 LFA LFA c) Request for Un-Redacted Cgy of Envirocare F#e, requested by UMETCO 9/1/88 __

l 207 d) Letter 9:pp 1:rs Envirocare Claim for "C', letter from Poulenc to BRC

208 10/25/88 e) DSHW Denies *C" for DSHW File Pertaining to Envwocare l 209 7/17/90 I) Envirocare Claims Perminant *C', letter from Envirocare to BRC

) 210' 8/11/90 g) BRC Requested More Justification to 1.Tylement *C', letter lo Envirocare j 211 8/14/90 h) Claim Re-Stated, letter from Envirocare's Attomey to BRC l 212 8/25/90

' i) *C' Claim by Envirocate's Allomey dated 8/25/90 denied by AG.

213 8/27/90 j) BRC and AG U i t, eld 'C' of Name and Address for Private Generators Only.

214 10/2/90

Alt others Public Record.

215 k) Envirocare Agrees with BRC E= Mon of 10/2/90 j 218 10/25/90 i 217 29 Trust e

] 218 a) NORM i = .se Ag-;+;eal - Trust: $233,582 i

219 3/3/88 DF, CJ LFA No bl increase Stora9e NWay New Trust Value increases by $583,519, N/A 220 Trust: 8779,000 12/3/88 1/11/89 DF LFA .No N/A 221 l c) Fund Storage of RiiGr.; ."c:er.c Wastes. Approved for Storage Only. 11/13/91 11/13/91 222 Cost: $704,000 LFA No

• N/A 223 d) Envirocare " ==est $710,000 of Excess Surety Funt.rq because Rhone-

224 12/17/91 1/28/92 LFA No Polenc wastes are M-

-ed Final Trust Value: $1,098,000 N/A 225 e) Trust L'E-f=;e, Final Trust Value: $1,231,000

! 228 f 7/8/92 7/21/92 RN,DF LFA No

) Trust Lt-sele, Char-:=s to Accomodate Final closure Costs: 3153,000 N/A i

1227 Final Trust Value: $1,394,404 6/25/92 10/19/94 RN,DF WJS No N/A 228 g

) Trust Lt-1Eo, New Facihties Funding, Final Trust Value: $4,041,000 N/A 229 11/10/95 RN,DF, WJS No N/A

. 230 h) Trust UpdWe, Final Trust Value: $4,173.000 . WJS 231 N/A - 4/17/95 RN, DF WJS No i) License Renewal, Current Arnount Pc--rM: $4,988,000 N/A -

232 1/24/96 under RN,DF N/A Yes Yes 133 Review I

, 234 .

i l

4 g e

. g s ,

-,,n - - -- ' '

exterd, it;v. I r i l xxhodxx = unr solved belote next perma cych

' Will isS Envir cfra Gr undwzirr Dischrrga P;rmit: Permit Chrcnnl gy M.'; Y - cuoenuy unresorved Public Re-visi una Permit Action Subrnitial Approval Reviewed Approved Participation Re fict E No. Description Date Date By By Pr3vided7 Acth 1 1 Conditional GW Permit (inillat) [ Safety Evaluation Report avaliable] Oct - Nov. 3/21/91 LBM DAO YES no 2

Conditions Pre-requisite to Constructicn - submittal & appmval required 1990.

3 a) Final Engineering Design and Specifi:.alions  ? l 2/14/92 CCP/LBM DAO 4

b) Construction OA/OC Plan YES 5 4/26/91 A/10/92 CCP/LBM DAO ;YES c) Groundwater Monitoring We!! Network Completion 5/12/93h 0/1,0/93'LBM 6 d) Groundwater Monitoring OA/OC Plan fDAO no L 4/26/91 12/5/91 LBM DAO no e) Contingency Plan s

5/17/91 9/24/91 LBM DAO no f) S;te Hydrogeologic Report (geology, hydrology, GW quality) 10/9/91j 9 3/20/92 LBM DAO !YES g) Dackground Groursdwater Quality Sam iling Report 10 h) Post-Closure Monitoring Plan 7/15/93P5/id/94LBM DAO :no it 5/17/91 d9M/94 LBM DAO YES i) Determination of Indicator Radionuclides Report 4/26/91 12 10/2/91lLBM DAO YES k) Groundwater Flow Modeling Report (unsa!. & sal !!aw) 13 i) Buffer Zone Determination i

S/31/911$_1d~/#3' LBM DAO YES e4 m) Waste Liquid Content Testing and Control Plan

?  ! 2/14/92 CCP/LBM DAO YES ts 4/26/91 10/22/91.LBM DAO -YES n) Engineering Plans / Specifications for Various Related Facilities  ?

la 10/23/91 LBfNCCP .DAO no o) Waste Characterization Plan (approval reg'd prior to waste receipt) 4/26/91 10/22/91 LBM/DLF DAO 17 YES la 2 Permit Modification No.1 (major) 19 (Statement of Basis availablel n/a 3/20/92 LBM/CCP DAO YES :no a) Original Conditions Resolved see 1.a.1.d.1.e,1.I,1.m. and 1.o, above 20 n/a New Permit Requirements or Changes _

2 b) Determination of Groundwater Class n/a 22 3/20/92 LBM DAO no c) Determination of groundwater radiologic Indicator parameters 23 4/26/91 10/2/91 LBM DAO d) Addition of BAT performance standards -YES 24 n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO e) New waste restrictions (isotope inventory and TCLP limits) no 12s n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO I) Discharge Minimization & Prevention Plan YES 28 , 3/13/91 12/16/91 LBM DAO YES g) Suction fysimeter destgn, installation & monitoring requsements 27 h) Provisions for winter storage of waste in cell 3/20/92]l,!@Jldij LBM .no 2e

? 3/20/921LBM DAO i) Statistical methodology for groundwater compliance YES 2a

? 3/20/92 LBM DAO

'j) Historic Ground Water Quality Report no 30 7/27/92 9/10/93 LBM "DAO no k) Accelerated Background Groundwater Quality Report (monthly sampling) 7/15/93 9/10/93 LBM 3 ,

1) Additional Groundwater Compliance Wells DAO no 32 5/12/93- 9/10/93 LBM DAO no m) Modification of Groundwater Monitoring OA/QC Plan 33 3/20/92 @ ji,$![.LBM no n) J year deferral of waste characterization requirements (gov't generators) n/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO i4 o) On-slie meteorolegical monitoring no 35 in/a 3/20/92 LBM DAO YES p) Co!!ection fysimeter design / specification / O&M Plan 36 9/15/92 11/27/92 LBM/CCP DAO no g) Identification / apptoval of liMer bortow source 37 9/30/92 10/9/92 LBM DAO YES r) Contaminant Transport Modeling Report Arsenated NORM Wastes 8/17/92 9/10/93 LBM/DKS DAO as YES s) Relocation of wastes in unauthorized storage (Rhone Polanc) .n/a 9/10/93 DLF

, 33_ , I DAO no _

, . i

.4.,

i d 40/ 3 l

l xx/n/xx . unresolvcd before next p*rma cycle Wi!i Iss Envir carc Groundwat r Discharge P5rmit: Permit Chrodoiogy i -

- cuneag umsowed Public Rs-visi une Permit Action Submittal Approval Reviewed Approved Participation' Re-fic.

~

rE.' No. Description Date Date By By Provided? Actic 40 3 Permit Modification No. 2 (minor) 4/10/92,LBM 'DAG no 41 a) Approval of Construction OA/QC Plan (1.b, above) _

4/10/92 CCP DAO 4T _ b) Correction ol!ntemal references & typographic errors YES 43 "no _

?4 4 Permit Modification No. 3 (major) 45 (Statement of Dasis available] 9/10/93 LBM DAO YES a) Previous Conditions Resolved (3/20/92 Permit): see 2.j, 2.k. 2.l. 2.q, 2.r. and 2.s, above ;LBM/DKS DAO 4T New PermtlRequirements or Changes l n/a 47 b) Well-by Well background groundwater Concentrations determined n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO 'no 49 ,

c) Change groundwater monitoring frequency (monthly to quarterly) n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO 43 no d) Well by-well groundwater protection limits (mean + s) n/a 9/10/93 LBM so DAO no e) Removal of Sum-of-Fractions rule for Groundwater protection limits n/a 9/10/93 LBtNDLF :DAO si f) Suction lysimeter ipstallation & "As Built

• Report no 32 . g) Waste Characterization Plan - transferred to DRC License 11/4/93. h. a.LEM

_ no 53 n/a  ! 9/10/93 LBM/DLF DAO i

'YES h) Mobile Waste Area - approved location & engineering design n/a 9/10/93 LBM 54 DAO YES ii) New groundwater compliance parameters (organics & mobile rads) n/a 9/10/93 LBM ss DAO no j) Addition of Cu & Zn to TCLP limits (Waste Characterization Plan) n/a 9/1G/93 LBM 36  !DAO YES k) Discharge Minimization & Prevention Plan, etc. transferrect to DRC License n/a 9/10/93 LBM/DLF DAO si l) Cover soil moisture monitoring requirements LYES n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO 'no sa n) Two year *Open Celf time limit n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO i 59 o) Additional statistical methods for groundwater compliance determinations YES n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO 60 p}_Re-designation of wells al " Future

• LARW Cells to background wells no 61 n/a 9/10/93 LBM DAO no

_ q) Groundwater monitoring at well GW-3 (in response to 3-party allegations) n/a 9/10/93 LBM 62 DAO no lr) Raise GW Probable Out-of Compliance limit (1 to 2 consecutive samples) '< 7/30/93 9/10/93 LBM DAO 63 s) Meteorological Monitoring QA/OC Plan no 64 t) Unsaturated Flow Post Model Audit Plan 7/16/93diW2//9$DLF/LBM DAO YES Ss 12/14/93JrjQdlf LBM no ss 5 Permit Modification No. 4 (major) 67 ' IStatement of Basis availablel < 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM DAO YES New Permit Requirements or Changes 6a a) Change Non-Moblie Waste Cover Design higher permeability (radon barrier) 6/30/93 4/29/94 LBM/DKS DAO 63 YES b)

• Future' LARW Cells redesignated for 11e.(2) waste disposa! c 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM 70 DAO no c) TCLP waste limits for 11e.(2) wasta disposal n/a 7J 4/28/94 LBM DAO no d) General stormwater management requirements n/a 4/29M4 LBM 72 DAO YES e) In-cell storage for 11e.(2) waste

< 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM DAO no 73 f) Determination of GW background conditions prior to 11e.(2) disposal n/a 9/7/94 LBM DAO 74 no g) New GW parameters for 11e.(2) Cell wells < 4/29/94 4/29/94 LBM 75 DAO 'no h) Frost Damage Evaluation Report and Prevention Plan 6/9/94 8/26/94 LBM/SH 76 DAOiBS no i) Final 11e.(2) Cell Engineering Plans / Specifications 3/29/94 4/28/94 LBfNSH 'DAO no

_77 j) Revision of Waste Characterization Plan for 11e.(2) waste Mar-94

'7e _ 4/29/94[LBM/SH DAO no k) 11e.(2) Waste Performance Assessment Report (submital before disposal) n/a -

LBM e YES

. Msc -

1) LARW /11e.(2) Bottom Uner Compatbility Report 3/9/94; i L@M L JfE4

' 1/28/

l

'xx/XX/XX - unt: solv:d trefors nexperries cycle Will is Envirccaro Grcundwiler Disch rga Permit: Pumit Chrcnoingy Wh@ Public une Pstmit Action = cun:n y unrzsolved Re-vis No. No. Submittal AJproval Reviewed Approved Participation Re Ik Description Date Date 80 By By Provided? Acti m) 11e.(2) Construction OA/QC Plan 2/16/94 3/24/94 LBM at DAO no n) Revised LARW Design & COA /QC Plan (non-mobile area radon barrier)

E o) Revision of GW Monitoring OA/OC Plan for 11a.(2) parameters 3/28/94 4/20/94 LBM/SH DAO/BS YES a3_ p) LARW Ce!! Perched Leachale Potential Report LBM DAO no 84 _

5/17/94 @@'LBM 8/1/94 0 3/10/95 .DAO YES ,,l 85 , 6 Permit Modification No. 5 (minor)  ? 9/7/94 LBM 86 a) Redesignation of I te.(2) wells as compliance monitoring wens (5.l. above)

DAO no 87 no 88 7 Permit Modification No. 6 (mafor) (Statement of Basis available] 11/1/94 LBM Le a) Resolution of Previous Conditions: 'DAO YES 90

1) Frost Damage Evaluation Report and Prevention Plan (5.h. above) see dates above 91

2) DRC resolution of GW-3 allegations (4.q above) LBM DAO no 91 n/a 1 11/1/94. LBM DAO

' NewPermil Requirements or Changes no 93 b) Raise GW protection levels (GWPL = mean + 2s) a4 < 11/1/94 11/1/94 LBM DAO c) Change GW Drobable out-of-compliance sampling frequency (monthly lo<gr1rly) no ss 11/1/94 11/1/94 LBM DAO d) Retum to previous GW non-compliance thresholds (1 sample > GWPL) no 96 n/a 11/1/94jtBM DAO e) Addition / update of GW quality standards (new paramclers & concentrations) no 97 f n/a 11/1/94jlBM DAO

) Beryllium and molybdenum GW bac!4 ground report no 9a g) Revision of collection fysimeter design (to allow video logging)

@M@j!LBM no 99 11/1/94 LBM no h) New BAT design. performance, and best management practice standards n/a 100 i) Stormwater drainage performance requirements 11/1/94 LBM DAO no 101 n/a j 11/1/94lLBM DAO j) 11e.(2) temporary stormwater drainage ditch construction required YES 102 k) BAT monitoring requirements FjdfTj7fLBM DAO YES 103 n/a 11/1/94 LBM DAO no

)104 8 Permit Mod!!! cation No. 7 (major) 10s l Statement of Basis a sallatele) 2/24/95, 4/5/96. LBM DAO

' New Permit Requirements or Changes YES p06 a) Change GW sampling frequency (quarterly to semi annual) 6/8/95 107  !

b) Minimum filter permeability: 11e.(2) Cell 4/5/96 LBM DAO ino tea n/a 4/5/96 LBM DAO c) Bulk waste storage BAT changes: design /gerformance/ monitoring /O&M "no 109 2/24/95 4/5/96 LBM DAO no d) GW monitoring changes: qttfy head meas. & freshwater eq. calculations ;n/a tio 4/5/96 LBM DAO i no

, e) Annual GW usage survey & report n/a 4/5/96 LBM DAO tii l) Plugging and Abandonment of GW-3 YES tt2 6/13/96 ME-@ LBM no 113 9 Permit Modification No. 8 (major) \

1u (Statement of Gawla available] 9/12/96 LBM DAO YES New Permit Requirements or Changes t15 a) Modify bulk wasta storage BAT requirements (allow 2 yearin-cell storage) 3/13/96 9/12/96 LBM DAO 18 YES b) New BAT design / performance / DAM 1 monitoring requirements: in-cell storage 3/13/96 9/12/96 LBM DAO 117 .c ) Re-instatement of contaminant contalnment/ spill prevention BAT standards YES n/a 9/12/96.LBM DAO no

, c_ < _ g , , YES Count: 7

. _ } no Coun89 '

h January 31, 1997 Is Found.

To Be Safe-But Regulator Distuded By Financial Dealings .

avm/ wool.r

.s n CLIVE - The Envirocare of Utah dis..

n

• posal site in Tooele County "has fo; thi '

n:n part a good satety record." an official

, tion (NRC) sata Thursday.! '!

-* . s. rom the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryC nimis L !

But Charles L. Cain. acting deputy diree-t:r of NRC's Division of Nuclear Materials lafety, conceded during a meetin Envirocare ulated by state agencies.

xen aochs. iende, of the NaC that ag:ncy ofilcials are "distuibed"gby here re- inspection team, said "no signifl.

cent revelations Gets C'<.ean - *** -=-rd bet about a secret Nnda1 re. during site visits in November lationshibmn=

Ehosrow . ween Envirocare .oiner'. ' ' -

and this week, but two minor vlo.

nf and former Utah rgdla.

tion control director Larry F. Anderion. -

BL of Healt:1 iauens . re fcond. Cne was for NRC is ravlWing lis recorda in deter- Procenuralchanges made without

!:nine how heavily the agency relied ch in.' N Continued from B 1 Priorapproval from NRC.and the

' formation provided by Utah reghlaton ,

. other for failing to comptete 14 of when a permit was issued in 1994 allowing . 168 quality-assurance audits that Envirocare to build a special disposal cell have found the company to be in had been promised. These are in-

. for uranium and thorium mill tatings. 8enud compliance with the law, ternal reviews to assure regula-So far. said Cain.11' appears NRC made tory compliance.

"What we do, we do safely."

caly ' limited" use of Utah data, and there said Copeland."We are one of the The NaturalResources Defense

' is no reason to question the basic informa. most regulated facilitiesin the na.. Council on Jan. 8 asked NRC to tio2 used in granting the permit. revoke Envirocare's disposal per.

, tion."

NRC is waiting for the results of a crimi- mitsandstrip the state ofits regu-

nalinvestigationinto the tlas between Sem- The NRC inspection focused latory control over the company.

nani and Anderson before deciding wheth- only on the disposal cell that han- Cainsaid that request stillis be-er it will take any enforcement netton. he dies the mildly radlemettre waste ing reviewed by NRC staff in

. nid. ' from old uranium and thorium Washington. D.C. Meanwhile, he Corng Capeland, director of operation mills. Envirocure has two other and his staff are maintaining their

f

r Envirocare, said the disposal site has disposal cells for different types normal day to. day oversight of

. been the subject of 25 " major te

• atory of radioact!re wastes that are reg. the company.

audits" during the past 13 mon This NRC inspection is just one of them. All See ENVIROCARE, Page B-3 Exhibit No. 3

1,3

?.

ENVIROCAREoeuun.mC.  :

THESAFEALTERNATIVE a

4 FORIMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 31,1997 i

Salt Lake City, Utah - On January 30,1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor6 mission J ,

("NRC") completed a compliance audit of Envirocare of Utah, Inc., ("Envirocare") and '

1 l announced that the overall facility operation is well run. Envirocare is licensed by the NRC to receive and dispose of mildly radioactive waste from uranium and thorium mills. This week's l four-day review was a follow-up and continuation of a regularly-scheduled compliance audit

)

which NRC began at Envirocare in November 1996. Six officials from NRC Headquarters in l e

Washington, DC, were involved in reviewing Envirocare's operational compliance at its South I Clive Facility. The audit included a comprehensive review of the documentation and I r

procedures associated with the original licensing process for Envirocare. No significant l

violations were identified during the November 1996 audit, and only two minor violations i

were identified this week, involving paperwork and internal compliance review. The NRC indicated that Envirocare has a good safety record and operates in compliance with the law.

i i XXX

\

en WESTMROADWAY

• NIIITE 240

• SALTL4KE CilY. UTAllMint? TFl.F M in arl'< woe *t e n

• n n