ML20138C765
| ML20138C765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1997 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Julian E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138C736 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, DD-97-02, DD-97-2, NUDOCS 9704300195 | |
| Download: ML20138C765 (2) | |
Text
__.
'. . 1 February 28,1997 Note to: E nile Julian, SECY From: . ack Goldberg, OGC
/
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DD 97-02 (RE: ENVIROCARE)
Attached is a request dated February 21,1997, from the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) for Commission review of the director's decision pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
I 2.206 issued on February 5,1997,in response to the NRDC's petition regarding Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (DD 97-02). OGC recommends responding to the NRDC's February 21 letter with a short letter explaining that, in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. I 2.206(c)(2),the Commission will not entertain a request for review of a -
director's decision. Please refer the NRDC's le.tter to the Office of State Programs for response to the concerns the NRDC raises regarding Utah's status as an agreement state.
In your letter to the NRDC, you should inform them f. hat OSP will be responding to these concerns, i
Attechment: As stated cc w/ attach.: R. Bangart, OSP F. X. Cameron, OGC j
C. W. Reamer, OGC i
I
)
i 1
l l
i 1
1
+ :
4 -
1 i
9704300195 970404 ;
PDR STPRC ESQUT , !
, _ s- -
a .. .
a OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-97-0179 LOGGING DATE: Feb 25 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: BARBARA FINAMORE & COCHRA AFFILIATION: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADDRESSEE: . CHAIRMAN JACKSON & COMRS LETTER DATE: Feb 21 97 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DIRECTOR AND STAFF DECISIONS DENYING NRDC 19 CFR 2.206 PETITION REGARDING ENVIROCARE OF UTAH ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, OGC, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT:
NOTES: OCM #7392 DATE DUE:
SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
l l
l 4
l l
i l
2 J. ., , dN 00CKETED 1200 Nau' M h, NE USHRC Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005
. Natunal hum g R' 90 9] yfp -6 g10;3) 202 289-6868 7,,go,2g9. gogo Defense Council 0FFICE OF SECRETAR,Y February 21,1997 DOCKETING & SERVLE BRANCH The lionorable Dr. Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman The Ilonorable Dr. Kenneth C. Rogers The !!onorable Greta J. Dieus The lionorable Dr. Nils J. Dias The lionorable Edward McGaf6gan, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 RE: Request for Review of Director and Staff Decisions Denying NRDC 10 CFR b 2.206 Petition Recardine Envirocare of Utah. Inc.
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to request that you review in part, and take action with respect to, the February 7, 1997, decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Staff and the Director of the Ol6cc of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards' to deny the petition submitted under 10 CFR
{ 2.206 by Dr. Thomas B. Cochran on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
("N RDC").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 ilugh L. Thompson, Jr., NRC Acting Executive Director for Operations, to Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D., Director. NRDC Nuclear Program (Februmy 7,1997).
Enclosure I: NRC Staff Evaluation of Natural Resources Defense Council Request to Suspend Section 274 Agreement With the State of Utah (undated)("NRC StafTEvaluation") '
Enclosure 2: In the Matter of Envirocare of Utah. Inc.,(Docket No. 40-8989) Director's Decision Under ;0
' C.F.R. 5 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. l 2.206 (copy of notice filed fbr publication
- with the Office of the Federal Register)(February 7.1997). ,
' Letter to ilugh L Thompson, Jr., NRC Acting Executise Director for Operations, from Thomas B. Cochran.
Ph D. Director, NRDC Nuclear Program (January 8.1997).
0110 San Vicente Bhd Vunt u< at' IM ksG~~w 40 West 20th street 71 Stavnwn Street Suste 250 h"r:l l . a,e rtrdcarg
- " Nese Wrk. Neu' York itM11 Suste 1825 '
San trancuv:o. CA M105 im Angeles. CA %tW
- A>* 212 727-2700 415 777-0220 2 0 M H 900 Fat 212 727-1773 r~lws s~ ~ 2n ~2w
,qicjoy
the participation oflicensees, or employees oflicensees,in Bureau of Radiation oversight roles;
- 2. Immediately revoke or cause the state of Utah to revoke Envirocare's license or licenses i to receive low level radioactive waste and mixed waste; and
- 3. Immediate revoke the NRC 1le.(2) byproduct material license under which Envirocare is currently permitted to accept uranium mill tailing 3 for disposal /
The NRC Staff evaluated NRDC's first and second requests above and determined not to take the actions requested by NRDCf The Director's Decision denied NRDC's third request above?
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 based, provide undisputed evidence that both the State of Utah and Envirocare have violated a host of NRC regulations designed to ensure the integrity of the licensing process and prevent 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 for 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 Envirocare's license to receive low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste. Moreover, Envirocare's willful violation of NRC regulations is grounds for immediate license revocation of its I le.(2) byproduct materials license.
j As provided in 10 CFR s 2,206(c), the Commission has 25 days from the issuance of the Director's Decision to review this decision, in whole or in part, to detennine if the Director has abused his discretion. We assume 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 you do so nonetheless. The reason we feel so strongly about this matter is aptly stated in Part I of Executive Order 11222:
- NRDC also requested the NRC to immediately resoke any other NRC or Utah license held by Emirocare, its ow ner, or related entities: 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 review 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.T.R. # 2.206 process. NRC StafT Evaluation at note
- 1. Yet in 1995, NRC issued a Director's Decision with respect to another petition t'or resocation of Utah's Agreement State status. In the Matter of State of tItah, DD 95-01. Director's Decision Under 10 Cl R 2.206 j (January 26,1995). NRDC will consider any denial ofits petition for suspension of Utah's Agreement State status to be fmal agency action for purposes of resiew.
1
' Director's Decision, surita note I.
I
.t 3 j Where government is based on the consent of the governed, every citizen is entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of his government. Each individual officer, employee, or adviser of government must help to earn and must honor that tru'st by his own integrity and conduct in all official actions.
(emphasis added). The NRC has included this policy statement in its own regulations at l0'C
@ 0.735-20(a). These regulations further state: (10 CFR Q 0.735-20):
- 9) The elimination of conflicts ofinterest in the Federal service is 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 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 l his Government duties and responsibilities: or (2) engage in, l
directly or in directly, a financial transaction as a result of, or primarily relying on,information obtained through his Government employment. ,
l (emphasis added). As noted in 10 CFR } 0.735-1(a):
The Atomic Energy Act requires the Commission to assure itself that the character, associations, and loyalty of workers in atomic I
energy are of a high order Conduct and self discipline, both on j
and off the job, must measure up to unusual standards.
J 1
Thus, when the Commission hands over its regulatory responsibility to a state--in this case the l state of Utah -the Commission has a legal obligation to ensure that the state maintains the same l l
high standards of conduct in all official actions that the Commission maintains on behalf of the U.S'. Government. Agreement States must have, and enforce, regulations fully compatible with those in 10 CFR Part 0. We believe there has been a breakdown in this NRC oversight responsibility. Nowhere in the decisions of the Director or the NRC Staffis there any reference ,
l to the extensive employee code of conduct set forth in 10 CFR Part 0. Aside from these legal l requirements, as n matter of good government it is equally, if not more, important for the Commission to ensure that Agreement States have and enforce compatible standards of employee conduct, than it is t6 ensure that the states have and enfhree compatible health and safety regulations.
~~ *
- 4 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: ,
"(1) 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)." j (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 enforcing 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 Radiation Control are incompatible with the following.NRC regulations:
10 CFR s 0.735-20(a)-(c) 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 0.735 '!5(a) Compensation to employees in matters affecting the Government (based on 18 U.S.C. 203) 10 CFR s 0.735-28(a) Confidential statements of employment und financial interests.
10 CFR 0.735-28a Financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in government Act.
10 CFR # 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 particular significance:
Except as permitted by paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section. ,
l 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 l etherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for l I
a ruling or other determination...or other particular matter in which, to the employee's knowledge, the employee, , or any l 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 ef1'ect.10 CFR s 0.735-21(a) l 1
- - . _ -- = .- -. - .
- .. i q
t 5 i
Except as provided in paragraph (b) or (e) of this section, an employee should not solicit or accept,' directly or indirectly, any l gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of j monetary value, from a person who:
(l) lias, 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 ,
I or by an applicant for a license from the NRC; or (3) lias interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of his official duty.10 CFR Q 0.735-42(a) i i
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 Envi,rocare, about how to license a low level radioactive waste site in the state of Utah.' hir. Anderson further alleges that Air. Semnani, 1
President of Ensirocare, agreed to pay a consulting fee of 100,000 dollars and an ongoing l remuneration of 5 percent of all direct and indirect revenues that hir. Semnani would realize !
from such a facility,if the site were successful.' in his counterclaim, Afr. Semnani stated that '
Mr. Anderson requested the above fees while Mr. Semnani's application was before the Utah 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 hir.
Anderson's participation in any matters concerning Envirocare were therefore incompatible with these NRC requirements.
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 permit Envirocare to accept low-level radioactive waste.' We believe this conduct is incompatible with at least two NRC regulations, namely 10 CFR Q 0.735-21(a), discussed above, and 10 CFR Q 0.735-49a, which 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
- In the Matter of I arry F. Anderson and I asicka v. Khosrow H Semnani and Envirocare, Cisil No. 96090727, 2
Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County at l 10 and 11 (October 12,1996).
' M. at s 14. t s
- M, Defendants' Answer and Counterclaim at p 18.
bge US Fcolott inc v Northwest Interstme Compact on I.ow-t evel Radioactise Waste Manacemgnt, No. C92- l 509111(W.D. Wash.), Plaintift's Memorandum in Opposition to the Utah Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, at 3 (Noted for; Aug. 20.1992).
i
?
6 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 abuses, are incompatible with NRC program requirements designed to ensure the integrity of the 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.
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 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 conflict ofinterest in two respects. First, Ms. Jan Graham, the current Utah State Attorney General,is alleged to have accepted $2,750 in political contributions from Mr.
Semnani, President and owner of Envirocare. Second, Larry F. Anderson claims that he received ,
l infbrmal approval from the Utah State Attorney General's office to set up a corporation by which I he could advise Mr. Semnani about how to license a low level radioactive waste site in the of Utah."'
Finally, the NRC StafT 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 oflicensecs, in an oversight capacity. The Staff bases its ,
denial on a belief that Utah has adopted satisfactory con 0ict-of-interest procedures, and on the fact that Mr. Semnani has taken a two-month leave of absence from the Utah Radiation C 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 lloard, despite the fact that he is the President and owner of a major licensee of the Board. If so, either Utah's conniet-of-interest regulations are inadequate or they have not been applied properly to Mr. Semnani, in either case, the State program is clearly incompe.tible with that of
'the NRC.
" in the Matter ofI arry F Anderson and t.asicka v Khosrow it semnani and Ensirocare. Civil No. 960907271, at g 10 tThird Judicial District Court of Salt t.ake County)(October 12,1996).
II. Revocation of Envirocare's Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Mixed Waste License The NRC Staff denied NRDC's petition that it revoke, or cause the state of Utah to revoke, the license or licenses under which Envirocare is currently permitted to accept low-level radioactive ete and mixed 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. Ilowever, if the Commission were to suspend Utah's Agreement State status, a.; discussed above, it would then 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 has inappropriately foreclosed any consideration of this licensing issue.
III. Revocation of Envirocare's Byproduct Materials License The Director of the Office of Materials Safety and Security denied NRDC's petition to revoke Envirocare's Ile.(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 Enfbrcement Policy provides that Revocation Orders may be used for any reason for which revocation is authorized under Section I86 of the Atomic Energy Act, including any condition that would warrant refbsal of a license on an original application. The Director noted that "this matter involves potential issues 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 suflicient 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 regulations specifically provide an alternative ground ibr revocation in cases uhere the conduct causing the violation was willful.10 C.F.R. s 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 ensure 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 tbr 10 C.F.R. s 2.206 Petitions?' Finally, we request the Commission to conduct an informal public hearing on this matter.
" thrector's ()cci3 ion on NRI)C l'etition, surra note 1. at 8 1
l
- s. .
' S We thank you for your immediate consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
-tf4 W V v
Thomas fl. Cochran, Ph.D.
Barbara A. Finamore Senior Attorney Director, Nuclear Program cc. Ilugh L Thompson, Jr., N.RC Acting Executive Director for Operations Carl J. Paperiello, NRC Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 1
l j
i
. .w w a u . as - . ~ ~ - . ,
o .. .
DOCKETED USNRC JONATHAN P. CARTER ATTORNEY AT LAW W W -6 A10:34 .
FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER ,
877 W MAIN STREET, SUITE eto BOISE.tOAHO 83702 Om0E' f;:'s';r Ehsay DOCXF.i M /.' nf;c.F TELEPHONE (206) 3361776 FACSNILE (200) 3364003 [14/S.?'
March 4,1997 VI A FACSIMILE (301) 415-2162 AND U.S. MAIL r
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
NRC Acting Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Conmiission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike ,
Rockville, MD 20852-2738 l Re: NRDC's Request for Review of Director and Staff Decisions Denying NRDC 10 C.F.R. Q 2.206 Petition Regarding Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Dear Mr. Thompson:
I am writing on behalf of Envirocare of Utah, Inc. in regard to the above-captioned matter. The NRDC's request for review asserts legal arguments that Larry Anderson violated ethics and conflicts provisions of the NRC's regulations. The NRDC has not set forth facts to substantiate any allegations of health and safety violations or environmental problems at Envirocare's facility. The matters raised by the NRDC in its request are not appropriate matters t' tat are the subject of a 10 C.F.R. {2.206 petition. Thus, the NRC's decision should stand as no facts or evidence have been offered by the NRDC on pertinent issues. ;
As the NRC pointed out in its decision, this matter is the subject of a criminal investigation. That investigation is being conducted by the United States Attorney for the l District of Utah. The United States Attorney's Office and its criminal prosecutors and '
investigators have a better ability than the NRC to assess and make determinations as to any violations of law by Mr. Anderson. Moreover, Mr. Anderson has not been employed by the State of Utah for over three years, and the State of Utah has determined that there are no significant issues with past licensing actions involving Envirocare. (See my letter to Jack i
~N
^~~^ ~~' g ; " - --;
. - . . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ , . , _ '"-**'*-+=c+-.. _., , _ -
au.s A111A,s' crat ta
-93/94/97 14:54 020s 336 000s '
- t Goldberg dated Febnsary 3,1997.) Even assuming that the NRDC's allegations of misconduct against Larry Anderson are correct, there is nothing in the NRC's regulations the law that indicates withdrawal of Utah's State Agreement Program with the NRC or the withdrawal of Envirocare's licenses is an appropriate remedy. Accordingly, the issues rais by the NRDC's request for review are better addressed by the criminal investigatio Based upon the foregoing, it is inappropriate for the NRC to further address this -
matter, and the NRDC's request for review should be denied. ,
t Very truly yours,
- f. ,
Jonathan P. Caner Enclosure l
)
JPC:rmb f
I
~.s...<-n y e Us/U4(vo a n . .n u.ua aou uuve d ' s . *.. u v
. v b
JONATHAN P. CARTER ATTORNEY AT t.AW FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER 877 W. MAIN STREET. SulTE 610 soisE.ionso m02 TELEPHONE (208) 3361no FACSIMILE (20s) 3364003 Febmary 3,1997 VIA FACSIMIIR AND U.S. MAII. .'
Jack Goldberg, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: 10 CFR f 2.206 Petitions /Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
I am writing on behalf of my client, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., as a follow-up to my conversation with Susan Schidakel of your office. As I indicated to Ms. Schidakel last week, Envirocare is concerned about the allegations raised in the National Resources Defense Council's ("NRDC") 10 CFR { 2.2% Petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC"). Apparently, the American College of Nuclear Physicians ("ACNP") (California Chapter) has filed a " petition" with the state of Utah and the NRC raising certain questions, and we are currently reviewing the allegations in that petition. However, we do not believe either of these petitions have set forth sufficient facts that constitute a basis for a 10 CFR 62.206 petition. In fact, I understand the NRC has rejected the ACNP's petition. We would like to maintain an open line of communication with the NRC on these matters and provide whatever information you require to fully evaluate the issues.
The NRDC petition concerns payments made by the President of Envirocare, Khosrow Semnani, to the former Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control, Larry Anderson. Our investigation to date indicates that Mr. Anderson left his position with Utah's Division of Radiation Control in June 1993, and he has not participated in any regulatory or other decision-making capacities relative to Envirocare in the three and one-half year time period since then. Mr. Anderson had no authority over the regulatory activities of other state and federal agencies responsible for issuing licenses and permits to Envirocare includ'mg 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. Attached is a " Regulatory Surnmary" that identifies Envirocare's licenses and pennits and the issuing agencies. Exhibit No.1.
M Ca u a 2.c w ye.
GfP-
evud-
' d Un ' 336 '0u04
' suMann wu g 03/04/97 .'14:55 ,
.u. . . , :
.,. a
. .v.
Envirocare submitted a license renewal application to the state of Utah in January 1996 for its radioactive materials license. For almost one year that license has been l
' undergoing a renewal review by the Utah Division of Radiation Control. On January 28, l
'1997, the current Director of the Division reported to the Director of the Utah Department of '
Environmental Quality that Ms staff had conducted a review of past licensing actions of .
Envirocare, and "we have not identified any major problems associated with past licensing l actions accomplished by the Division." Attached is a copy of that memorandum from Bill: ,
Sinclair to Dianne Nielson which includes a listing of all licensing actions that are bemg reviewed pursuant to the renewal process. Exhibit No. 2.
i Envirocare's Director of Operations, Greg Copeland, is responsible for ensuring the company's compliance with all applicable health and safety and environmental laws and - l regulations. Envirocare has an extensive internal environmental auditing program that !
addresses the full range of environmental and health and safety issues associated with its l 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 l permits.~ Envirocare's site operations are governed by the procedures outlined in its Quality Assurance Manual, Internal Procedures Manual, and Operations Manual. Please let us know if you would like copies of these manuals. l External audits of Envirocare's site operations were conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in August of 1994 and in July and November of 1996. Audits were j
j conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency in September 1994 and January 1996 and by the Department of Energy in March 1994, October 1995 and July 19%. These audits j have not been fully reviewed, but we do not believe they identify any significant )
I environmental or beahh 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 inspections. Notices of violations have been issued by various regulatory agencies with authority over Envirocare's operations. At this juncture we do not believe that any of those violations are significant, and all of them have been resolved or are being resolved. Attached are copies of a news article from last Friday's Salt Lake Tribune and a press release that discuss the most recent external audit of Envirocare's facility. Exhibit No. 3.
In 1992 the Utah 1.cgislative Auditor General's Office reviewed the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's regulation of commercial waste disposal facilities. The audit found, in part, that the Division of Radiation Control's " compliance 'mspection program
- appears to adequately compel Envirocare to meet all regulations established by the legislature and the NRC." Please let us know if you would like copies of any of these audits.
At this juncture, we have not identified any evidence that Mr. Semnani's payments to 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 significant 1
2
- ~ s-- ., - , , _ _ _ . , , d
m.. ;
Juuluaa can4t.n
%* 403/,04/97 14:56 'd206 35ti 0003
, y. <*
v ,
l I
l health and safety or environmental problems associated with Envirocare's facility. In l particular, we have not identified any inappropriate licensing or regulatory actions of the Utah Divi'sion of Radiation Control with respect to Envirocare. l i
Based on our investigation to date, no basis exists for granting any of the relief requested by the NRDC. The NRDC petition fails to establish any supporting facts of h and safety or environmental problems related to Envirocare's operations. :
In addition to the materials referenced hereinabove as attachments, we will provide !
you with copies of audit reports, licenses, permits, audit manuals, and other documents you i may requite relative to your inquiry into this matter. I trust you will find this information
~
belpful as you consider these matters 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.
"Ihank you.
Very truly yours, -
f.
Jonathan P. Carter f l
Enclosures i cc: William Sinclair w/ enclosures l Harold leFevre w/caclosures Craig Thorley w/ enclosures ,
JPC:rmb i
J
?
d u
i l
J 3
i
.