ML20141F724

Responds to Requesting That NRC Conduct Timely Review of Utah Agreement State Program.Nrc Reviewed Specific Concerns & Addl Info from State of UT Contained in Ltr from Sinclair,

ML20141F724
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/25/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Marcus C AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICIANS
References
NUDOCS 9707030149
Download: ML20141F724 (11)

Text

1 um .

_p \ UNITED STATES j- j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 1

WASHINGTON. D.C. 30006 4001

.g%,

June 25, 1997

)

l Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.

President, California Chapter American College of Nuclear Physicians P.O. Box 31 Los Altos, CA 94023

Dear Dr. Marcus:

' This in response to your letter dated January 21,1997, requesting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct a timely review of Utah's Agreement State Program with respect to issues raised in your letter to Mr. Robert Hoffman, Chairman, Utah Radiation Control Board. NRC reviewed your specific concerns and reviewed additional information from the State of Utah contained in the letter from Mr. Sinclair dated March 28,1997 (Enclosure '1), and the copy of the response from Mr. Sinclair to you dated April 15,1997

n. (Enclosure 2). NRC also evaluated the previous Utah Agreement State program review conducted in 1994 and concluded the review findings were not biased by decisions or information documented by the previous Director, Utah Division of Radiation Control, in addition, NRC considered that Utah is conducting an ongoing review and analysis of Envirocare's license renewal application and their limited reliance on information contained in the application .for the current license.

Based on the information described above, NRC staff concludes'that Utah is properly implernenting Agreement State program compatibility requirements. NRC is aware of an ongoing investigation of payments made to the former Director, Utah Division of Radiation Control, by the former President of Envirocare and will assess information from that source, as it becomes available, as well as knowledge obtained from our normal exchanges of information and Agreement State oversight responsibilities, for potential NRC action. If adequacy or compatibility concerns are identified by NRC, appropriate additional reviews of the Utah program will bo conducted.

In a more recent matter, the State conducted an inspection of the facility on May 15, 1997. As a result of this inspection, the State found that Envirocare was in possession of more than 350 grams of uranium-235 in the form of waste received from other persons, which violated the possession limits imposed in its license. The license limits the amount of special nuclear material (SNM) that Envirocare can possess, undisposed of, at any one time to the quantities specified in 10 CFR Part 150.11 (e.g.,350 grams U-235). The State issued an Order to Dispose Radioactive Material License # UT 2300249 to Envirocare on May 27,1997, to dispose of all radioactive waste containing SNM in order to reduce quantities of SNM 1997, and thereafter maintainin possession compliance at the with its license site to those authorized by its lice limits.

9707030149 970625 PDR STPRC ESQUY jh N(v '

lilillllIlljllljl!Illllllll Seerg pg~p gEiWER c@y 4

.

• I l

Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D. 2 OUN 2 51997 l

Because possession of SNM in excess of quantities specified in 10 CFR 150.11 is regulated by NRC, NRC staff has conducted an independent inspection of the facility and

, will take follow-up actions, as necessary (e.g., NRC staff issued a confirmatory action )

l letter on June 12,1997 (Enclosure 3).

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340.

Sincerely, l[ Al -

t Richard L. Bangart, Direc[ r Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated l cc: William J. Sinclair, Director Division of Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Quality 1

1  !

i 4 l

l 4

a 1

h

1 Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D. 'JUN 2 51997 i l

Because possession of SNM in excess of quantities specified in 10 CFR 150.11 is regulated by NRC, NRC staff has conducted an independent inspection of the facility and I will take follow-up actions, as necessary (e.0., NRC staff issued a confirmatory action letter on June 12,1997 (Enclosure 3).

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340.

Sincerely, M

RICHARD L Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Enclosures

• I As' stated l

cc: William J. Sinclair, Director Division of Radiation Control  ;

Utah Department of Environmental Quality l

~

l l

i Distributiqn:

DlR RF DCD (SP08) l EDO RF (G970052) PDR (YES V')

SDroggitis M. Federline HLThompson, DEDR l California File T. Harris l

Utah Fi!e J. Kennedy DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\MARCUS.KNS *See previous concurrence.

Ts ,eceive e copy of this document. Indicate in the boa: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure *E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copp OFFICE OSPl i OSP:DD NMSS OGC l l OSP:D[l Q NAME KNSchneider:gd:nb PHLohaus JGreeves FXCameron RLBangart'4" ,!

DATE 05/28/97* , 05/28/97* 06/18/97* 06/24/97* 06/J{/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-4, SP-AG-28

')bA*d) 0Gf

t

, n l ..

. From: Francis Cameron To: WNP9(KXS)

Date: 6/24/97 7-56am

Subject:

Concurrence on the Marcus lette -Reply i

Kathy - I think this fixes our problem, so ok from ge  !

l CC: WND1.WNP9(RLB2),  !

1 1

l l

i l

l I

) ,

i I

I

l .

! C[rol S. [Aarcus, Ph.D., M.D. 9ecause possession of SNM in excess of quantit es specified in 10 CFR 150.11 is regulated 'oy NRC, NRC staff has conducted an ndependent inspection of the facility and will take follow-up actions, as necessary (e.g., RC staff issued a confirmatory action letter on June 12,1997 (Enclosure 3).

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340.

Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: William J. Sinclair, Director Division of Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmen al Quality Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP08)

EDO RF (G970052) PDR (YES V)

SDroggitis M. Federline California File T. Harris Utah File J. Kennedy

! DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\ MARC S.KNS n ,.cs . copy or eni. nocum.nt. indic.i. in th. b. c - copy without attachment /enclosy *E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure 'N" No copy OFFICE OSP l / OSP:DD f4(Sf , OGC l OSP:D NAME KNSchneider:gd:nb fpilohaus JGr @ Q FXCameron RLBangart DATE 05/28/97* / 05/28/97* //06//6/97 06/ /97 06/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-4, SP-AG-28

C rol S.'M rcus, Ph.D., M.D.

Prssid;nt, California Chapt:r American College of Nuclear Physicians P.O. box 31 Los Altos, CA 94023

Dear Dr. Marcus:

J This in response to your letter dated January 21,1997, requesting ihe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct a timely review of Utah's Agreem.eret State Program with respect to issues raised in your letter to Mr. Robert Hoffman, Chairman, Utah Radiation Control Board. NRC reviewed your concerns and reviewed additional information from the State of Utah contained in the letter from Mr. Sinclair dated March 28,1997 (Enclosure 1), and the copy of the response from Mr. Sinclair to you7dated April 15,1997 (Enclosure 2).

/j NRC is aware of Utah's ongoing review and analysis of Envirocare's license renewal application and their limited reliance on information' contained in the application for the current license. NRC also evaluated the previous Utah Agreement State program review conducted in 1994 and concluded the review findings were not biased by decisions or information documented by the previous Director, Utah Division of Radiation Control.

Based on this information and the information in Enclosures 1 and 2, NRC staff concludes that Utah is properly implementing Agreement State program compatibility requirements.

NRC is aware of an ongoing investigation of payments made to the former Director, Utah Division of Radiation Control, by the former President of Envirocare and will assess information from that source, as it becomes available, as well as knowledge obtained from our normal exchanges of information and Agreement State oversight responsibilities, for potential NRC action. If adequacy or compatibility concerns are identified by NRC, appropriate additional reviews of the Utah program will be conducted. if you have any questions, please contact me at 301415-3340.

7

,/ Sincerely,

/ Richard L. Bangart, Director

/ Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated

/

,/

cc: William J /Sinclair, Director Divisiory/of Radiation Control Utah epartment of Environmental Quality Distributio .

DlR EDO RfRF /(G970052) DCD (SP08)

SDropgitis PDR (YESf) l Calfornia File Utah File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\MARCUS.KNS Ta receive e copy of this document, indicate in the hon: 'C' = Copy without ettschrt.eN 'onclosure *E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure 'N' = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD hMSS l OGC l OSP:D ITAME KNSchneider:gd PHLohaus JGreeves FXCameron RLBangart DATE 05/28/97* 05/28/97* 06/ /97 06/ /97 06/ /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-4, SP-AG-23

1 Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.

President, California Chapter Americcn College of Nuclear Phy icians P.O. Box 31 Los Altos, CA 94023 l

Dear Dr. Marcus:

This in response to your letter date January 21,1997, requesting NRC to conduct a timely review of Utah's Agreement S ate Program with respect to issues raised in your letter to Mr. Robert Hoffman, Chairm n, Utah Radiation Control Board. NRC reviewed your concerns and reviewed additional info mation from the State of Utah contained in the letter from Mr. Sinclair dated March 28,199 (Attachment 1), and the copy of the response from Mr. Sinclair to you dated April 15,1997 (Attachment 2).

Based on the review of the submitted in rmation, and the State's ongoing review and analysis of Envirocare's license renewal, RC sta,ff concludes that Utah is properly implementing Agreement State program c mpatibility requirements. Thus, NRC will continue to assess any new information ob ained from the ongoing investigation, the Utah Radiation Control Program, or other sources If adequacy or compatibility concerns are identified by NRC, appropriate additional rev ws of the Utah program will be conducted. If you have any questions, please contact me a 301-415-3340.

Sincerely, chard L. Bangart, Director O fice of State Programs Distribution:

DIR RF (7E52) DCD (SP08)

SDroggitis PDR (YESf)

California File Utah File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\MARCUS.K n e.e.tv. . copy et this docum.nt. indic.t. in ts. box: 4 ' y opy without attachment /.nclosure 'E' = py with .tt.chment/.nclosur. "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP gf4  %}RD NMSS i OGC OSP:D l 'NAME KNSchneidsr:gd PH aus' JGreeves (XCameron RLBangart DATE 05/ /p97 05/d/97 05/ /97 \ 05/ /97 05/ /97 O P FILE CODE: SP-AG-4 SP-AG-28 1

\

l

7--

,,  ! Q.

i . . s t u . s,

- , f :"k :;. .

p DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY c j . DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL sainedo.g let N e e 1950 Won P.o.Bos1440$0 amme N; 1 E4250 sies  !

e-m wmmitanni e {>

is01) < son)SnoonP 344414 7.D.D. a March 28,1997 .$

m; a

Richard L.Bangart, Director c5 Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 5 Washington, D.C. 20555 Q -

m

Dear Mr.Bangart:

I As requested, the following information is being provided to assist you in responding to the letter from Dr. Carol Marcus, President of the California Chapter of the American College of Nuclear Physicians. We are answering the three questions in the order in which they were presented.

1. Ion exchange resin disposal was approved through changes in the Envirocare Operating Procedures Manual and Waste Management Plan (required by License Condition 51). These types of operational changes are routinely made by changing the plan and do not require a license amendment. We are providing a series ofletrers (attachment A) from Envirocare which initiated the approval process. Envirocare believed that no approval process was necessary because of exi, sting license requirements. De Division disagreed with this assertion and subjected the resins disposal proposal to a technical review and approval process. The process consisted cf an exchange of a number of letters and interrogatories conceming technical issues regarding resin disposal. We have also enclosed the final approval letter, the Information Notice (Attachment A) which was prepared and distributed to recipients of the Envirocare Mailing List. The Information Notice illustrates the primary issues and concerns which the Division staff and our consultants, Rogers and Associates Engineering, identified. nose issues were satisfactorily resolved by Envirocm. If requested, copies of the interrogatories and other correspondence regarding technical evaluations, will be provided.

2. The Radiatiori Control Act, Utah Code 19-3-105 (Attachment B) requires legislative and gubernatorial approval of certain license amendments or other licensing actions. Specifically, Utah Code Annotated 19 3-105(1)(CXiii) provides that any request for a storage or disposal facility to receive class B or ricas C low-level radioactive waste is included in the requirement for gubematorial and legislative approval. Envirocare has never requested or submitted a license amendment for receipt and disposal of class B or class C waste. Although the Envirocare license does not mention the receipt of class B or class C waste,I assure you, the licensee is aware that under Utah law, they are not authorized to possess class B or C wastes at any time. As you know, the Envirocare License is undergoing renewal review. For clarity purposes and in accordance with Utah law, the license f

UN

)Y

/T ENCLOSURE 1

- _~ . - . . . - . - .. . - - - - .. -. -- - - - - -

March 28,1997

1. Page 2 issued to Envirocare, subsequent to completion of the renewal process, will contain a specific License Condition expressly prohibiting the receipt of class B and C low-level radioactive waste.

3. De current area used for low-level radioactive waste disposal was approved, by license amendment in March 1991. De volume capacity of that area is approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of waste. NORM wastes and low level radioactive wastes are authorized to be disposed of in that area and consist of contaminated soil and soil-like materials and various types of contaminated debris. Since then, the Envirocare license has not been amended to increase capacity.

L in 1991, coincidental with the license amendment, the surety was funded by including all identifiable closure costs for the entire site, including the costs of disposal of all types of waste in the low level waste disposal area. The surety funds have been routinely increased to include the cost of inflation and increased to cover decontamination and decommissioning (closure) costs associated with new operations buildings and a large number of support facilities such as railroad track, roadways, evaporation ponds, waste storage and handling structures, and numerous other items. Dere are l ' literally hundreds of items that have been identified and are accounted for in computing the surety i amount.

In December 1991, the surety funds available were approximately $1,100,000.00. Currently, the surety is funded at approximately $ 5,800,000.00. His a five fold increase, which represents not only growth in Envirocare operations but also demonstrates the Division's vigilance in maintaining the necessary funding level.

In summary, the surety is adequately funded and provides the State, if necessary, the financial resources to close the facility to final specifications and requirements and to monitor the site after closure. Sufficient funds are available to unload, haul, dispose any and all types of wastes. Please contact Dane Finerfrock or me, if you need additional information or would desire to discuss any of the issues in greater detail.

'ncerely, Y ,

William J. Sin r Director c: Denise Chancellor, Utah Attorney General's Office Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D., Executive Director, UDEQ Utah Radiation Control Board members Myron Bateman, E.H.S., M.P.A., Health Officer / Department Director, Tooele County Health Department

! Milt Lammering, EPA Region VIII I

Dennis Downs, Director, UDEQ/DSHW Charles Hackney, NRC Region IV l

1 1

l.

1 i..

e.

l l

r f

1 l

1 1

i f

1 e

1 I

ATTACHMENT A l

l l

l i

t I

l 9

1 i

1 i

l ..

g .

s

. i r Bill:ll ' 01 L..)l fill 4

• ^2 5  !

ii, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY o o DIVISION OF RADIADON CONTROL 8/gb,

(

Mieheel O. taevis I 168 Nonh 1950 Wut o=' F.O.Bos144850 i

Dierow it. Nieleen. PhD. Seh tah City, thab 84114.4850 88"""' 8'""

(801) 33&4250 Veie WalJimm L Sinclair (801)SS4097 Fax 8'"

j (801)$364414 T.D.D. l l

l April 30,1996 Vernon E. Andrews Corporate Radiation Safety Officer Envirocare of Utah,Inc.

l 46 West Broadway, Suite 240 '

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Re: Ion Exchange Resin Disposal; Radioactive Material License # UT2300249 -

Dear Mr. Andrews:

The staff has nviewed the information provided by you relating to the disposal ofion exchange resin at the Clive facility. We have concluded that the disposal of the resin mixed with unspecified native soils is consistent with the disposal of other debris authorized for disposal in the Envirocare license, specifically by License Conditions Nos. 38 and 40. Therefore, receipt and disposal of resin is permitted in accordance with all general operating procedures. license conditions and specific procedures developed for ion exchange resin disposal.

Although this approval does not require a license arnendm:nt, due to widespread interest, the Division is preparing a safety evaluation and public notice for distribution to the Utah Radiation Control Board and others on the Envirocare mailing list. Please contact Dane Finerfrock if you require additional information.

4 cerely. '

William J. Sinclair, l Executive Secretary l Utah Radiation Control Board i

l c: Dennis Downs', DSHW Myron Bateman, Tooele County Health Department

( 47 i

\ -

e, e

May'7,1996 DIVISION of RADIATION ONTROL UTAH DEPARTMEIR of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENVIROCARE of UTAH MAILING LIST INFORMATION NOTICE Radioactive Material License No. UT2300249 Summary:

The Division of Radiation Control has determined that the disposal of ion exchange resin by Envirocare of Utah (the licensee) will not result in adverse enviromnental or public health impacts at the licensee's disposal site at Clive, Utah. De ;icensee has received Division approval to dispose of ion exchange resins.

By lener dated September 11,1995, Envirocare requested Division approval for the disposal of ion exchange resin in the facility embankment. Envirocare stated that "it has been determined...that these materials can be handled in accordance with all requirements and will act as other materials already placed." However, the Division had not previously evaluated the acceptability of ion exchange resin as a waste form. Therefore, the Division and its censultants developed a series of questions for the licensee's evaluation and response.

Technical Evaluation:

Envimcare's response stated that the types and concentration of radionuclides contained in the

{

ion exenange resins would not be different than those currently authorized in their radioactive materia license. Furthermore, the resins would be thoroughly mixed with native soil at a ratio of 9 parts soil to 1 part resin, by volume, befo.re disposal in the embankment. Therefore, the soil / resin mixture would not be substantially different from other radioactive contaminated 1 debris-like wastes already authorized for 9:1 blending with soils and disposal by License  ;

Conditions Nos. 38 and 44. License Conditions 38 and 44 were developed after previous license amendment requests and subsequent evaluations identified debris disposal could cause differential settlement of the embankment and cover system. Condition 38 defined debris for the purpose of waste disposal. License condition 44 requires a 10% debris to 90% soil ratio be mainiained. This permits the licensee to meet specified compaction requirements for disposed waste. Meeting the compaction requirements minimizes differential settlement, thus maintaining the integrity of the waste embankment cover system.

I Envirocare also made arguments that 9:1 blending of soils and ion exchange resins would i have no adverse impact to performance assessments provided previously to justify the cover  !

desigi. and engineering containment systems. These arguments focused on the fact that

T j 4 .$. * * .

.g .

previously approved contaminant transpon models were, conservative, because they used the lowest soil-water partitioning coefficients (K, values) available from technical literature. In panicular, the approved mortels used the lowest K, values for both simulation of contaminant j leaching from the waste form and transpon through the unsaturated and saturated groundwater environments. Hence,leching of nuclides from the embankment was conservatively over-estimated, as was ths simulated transpon to the compliance monitoring wells. As a usult, any blending of ion exchange mains with native soils should mal make the radiocontaminants more nadily leached from the waste form, nor more mobile in the groundwater domain, than already simulated. To the contrary, even if the plastic matrix of the resins were to instantly deteriorate upon disposal, their prior blending with native soils could fix or stabilize the radioisotopes in the embankment, thus making them more difficult to leach than previously l simulated.

Another imponant point considered by the Division was the fact, that ion exchange resins from some sources are likely to contain fission and activation products which are readily leached and mobile in the groundwater environment, including: carbon 14, technetium 99, i and tritium. However, a review of the current Radioactive Materials License shows that all the radioisotopes anticipated to occur in ion exchange resins are already authorized for disposal at Envirocare, each with their corresponding maximum concentration limits.

Funhermore, the License requires mobile nuclides such as carbon 14, technetium 99, and tritium to be disposed only in the Mobile Waste Area, an area of the disposal embankment i

designed to contain highly mobile radionuclides. As a result, sufficient conditions exist in the '

uicense to adequately control and oversee disposal of ion exchange resins in the embankment; both from a perspective of engineering stability and perfomunce assessment. Hence, no amendment to the License is needed to accommodate this proposal.

Funher information regarding this issue can be obtained by contacting Bill Sinclair or Dane Finetirock of the Division of Radiation Control, telephone 801 536-4250.

A. .

ENVIROCAREorum.w s THE SAFE ALTERNATIVE &ps2saa ,

4 y^g  %>

October 26, 1995 4

• g SP c, Utah Division of Radiation Control e e Attn: Mr. Dan 6 Finerfrock P.O. Box 144850 f'Qf,ggok Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 Re: Ion Exchange Resin Stability

Dear Mr. Finerfrock:

Mr. Al Stengel of Industrial . Water Systems has prepared a review of the technical issues regarding the suitability of ion exchange resins for disposal in a landfill disposal operation such as that conducted by Envirocare of Utah (Envirocare). Mr. Stengel concludes that the resins are. well suited for disposal at Envirocare, exhibiting structural stability, strong chemical bonding to the resident radionuclides and desirable physical properties for mixing with soil to achieve co'mpaction.

Envirocare believes that ion exchange resins are ideally suited for disposal when handled as compactible debris and mixed in a ratio of 10 percent by volume with soil. Disposal of structural debris such as wood, which is less resistant to biodegradation and does not bind the contaminating radionuclides as strongly as ion excha.nge resins, is now permitted under conditions 38, 42, and 44 of Er.virccare's radioactive materials licanse. Envirocare is currently conducting studies to determine the leachability of co-60 and Cs-137 from radionuclides resinsite in Clive materials clay. We and the Kd values for those will provide the rc7ults of this study to the Division as soon as they are available.

review, If you have any questions or comments please call me at 532-1330.

regarding Mr. Stengel's Sinperely, b5R:%E.hkN cW. -

Vernon E. Andrews Corporate RSO cc: Mr. Don Ostler, Division of Water Quality J6 Il'EST BRO 4DiI:lY

• SL7TE 240

• S4LTl.-INE CITY. LT4H Mitil

• TELEPilONE 1801) .U2-1.Ud

.. -.. -- __ - .. - =_.--- - - - .--._- -.. _ .. - -..- - - -.-

. ;- o ION EXCEANGE RESIN , STABILITY Al Stengel, Pre'41 dent ,

Industrial water systems ,

Prepared For .

ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.

September, 1995 ABSTRACT Technical issues relative to ion exchange resin stability are discussed in this paper. This information supplements materials presented in the previous paper entitled " Radioactive Rosin Disposal *', August, 1995; prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

With respect to synthetle resins used at commercial nuclear reactor feel 11 ties, the physical and chemical composition of the material provides a basis for stability. Resin design, _ structure and stability are considered for environmental suitability within ,a landfill disposal site.

RESIN DESIGN l

Commercielly available ion exchange resins (resins) used for treatment of aqueous solutions are synthesized from a polystyrene copolymei sulfonated with an ion - active group. The polymerization process results in small spherical beads (<1.0 inm) each containing thousands of exchangs sites throughout the structure. In order for the resin to perform its ion exchange function, its design features include: extremely low solubility in water, physical and chemical stability, high total capacity to exchange ions, reversible equilibrium in the presence of strong regenerants, and kinetic properties to support ion exchange within the entire resin bead structure. The manufacturing process for resins allows highly '

uniforn' product yields within stringent tolerances by t specification.

In aqueous solution, resin is also designed to shrink and swell in the presence of various ionic species. This capability allows the structure to vary in size without causing structural breakage.

Depending on the degree of porosity within the resin bead structure, as much as thirty percent of the bead can retain water.

a w

. w e *e ee e $

q

.. e , .

• x *, -

RESIN STRUCTURE 7

Conventional resins consist of two basic parts; the structural part (polymer the matrix) and the functional part (lon-active group) . During sulfonation step of the resin synthesis process, the polystyrene structure undergoes a chemical substitution of an ion-acti.ve group or functional group. Chemical bonding or attachment of the functional group to the structural snatrix is designed to be irreversible. The functional groups are typically amines i

l or  !

- sulfonate radicals having either a positive or a negative charge. l Positively or negatively charged ions in solution are exchanged at the active functional groups withir the resin.

RESIN STABILITY Rosin is synthesized under controlled conditions to yield uniform product with specific properties including both physical and chemical stability. The operational life span for resin can be as long as five to ten years depending on its application and treatment. During the life span, resins can be deliberately exposed to strong chemicals for the purpose of their regeneration for reuse. The chemical regeneration process is a controlled sequence which exposes a specific type of resin to a specific regenerant chemical. Such processes cause variations in pH, resin bead size and chemical composition of the functional group which  !

allow the resin's reuse for ion exchange. Following the chemical '

regeneration process, the resin is rinsed to remove residual chemicals from the resin mixture but without altering the ionic  !

form of the regenerated resin. Depending upon the volume of resin and the geometric configuration of the resin's container, rinse flow rates can range from several gallons per minute to hundreds of gallons per minute. During the service life of the resin, beads can experience breakage to result in non-spherical shaped material. The physical strength of resin is known as friability and is measured by subjecting individual whole resin beads to physical pressure when placed on a hard surface. Friability values are specific to the operating application for the resin. Also, depending on the product production specifications, undersized beads or fractured beads (fines) can be present in the resin mixture. Notwithstanding the size or shape of the resin structure, functional groups are present to allow lon exchange to occur. However, in applications

. where high purity water is produced, optimum resin performance and handling is supported by the use of whole, spherical heads.

Chemical stability of resins is evidenced by operating performance history since 1935 when the first synthetic organie ion exchange resins were produced. Resin manufacturers have subjected a number of resins applied.

to a wide variety of tests where strong chemicals were Published literature indicates that extremely strong oxidizing agents such as nitric acid will degrade the polymer i

matrix. Oxidant attack for cation resin is primarily on the polymer l

1 %- ,

a *'s *

. t j

4 i'

i structure while attack for arion resin is primarily on the i

j functional groups. The pH of '.he s6fution is also a factor for chemical cation; +50 Dog.

bond stability at h)gh temperatures (+150 Deg. C for j

i C for anion). Also the degree of polymer j crosslinkage plays a role in structural stability. More highly crosslinked polymers have more exchange sites which equates to

{

greater tolerance to attack. The needed to alter chemical bonding. presence of a strong oxidant is 1

)

mania SUIT 1*2LITY FOR vp nFILL DIWF9 M 4

i Used resin is discarded from a number of operations. The physical and chemical properties of the resins remain intact as long as 3 i

j there has been no exposure to strong oxidants, high fields of gamma radiation, excessive temperature, or forces sufficiently large to break the chemical bonds within the polymer structure. The i

polystyrene (plastic) structure of the resin matrix is highly i

resistant to attack as discussed above. Ionica11y, cationic and l anionic radionuclides precent with the resin are chemically bonded.

} An environment of extreme pH caused by a strong acid (oxidant) or j g

a strong base would be candidate for resin degradation. In casee i i

i where biological species have been reported to interact with resin, presumably it is only interaction with tho' functional groups of the l

resin without affect on the polymer structure. In any case, the

{ biological species would need to be of sufficiently high strength (i.e. similar to that of oxidants, etc) to alter the resin structure or to elute the radionuclides from the resin functional i groups. Also, resin selectivity or preference for one ion over l

another plays a significant role. Cases have been reported where i

certain organic materials were found to be present with resins.

i Upon further investigation, it appeared that the organic or l biological materials were part of the contained volume delivered from the generator and not necessarily an attachment to the resin i or a byproduct of decomposition. Often times, and

! lubricants used in industrial facilities become solvents mixed with materials en route for disposal. The detection of substances similar to these or sanitary wastes can lead to speculation on resin condition.

j Resin disposal in a landfill designed'to contain compacted soils j

and debris is an option under consideration. The physical stability of resins or fractured resin beads which also contain the

• functional groups are amenable to mixing with soil in preparation i

. for compaction and placement. The nominal size of a renin bead is less than a millimeter in diameter. Nixing resin beads with soll

) would be similar to mixing fine aggregate such as sand with soil.

} The mixing ratio and moisture content values used can be optimized j

j for resin disposal. The physical stability of the resin structure j,

(polystyrene) and the chemical stability of the resin functional groups (chemical bonding) to which the radionuelides are :hemically I'

"' '~

w i

4 .

,' bonded by lon exchanye preferences must be challenejed by an environmental force within the landfill in order to create an altered form of the material. Landfi11 permits typically require that materials be within a specifiefpH range as a condition of l

'. placement. The p'd range exclusive of either high or low extremes '

j v j would, preclude the presence of a solute of sufficient strength to i attack resin structure or resin functional groups. A minimal flow of liquid within the layers of the embankment would be ineffective  !

j for purposes of transporting chemically bonded ions from the resin. l stresses imposed due to material compaction after blending and mixing would be expected to alter the physical characteristics of resin beads if insufficient mixing ratios and moisture content were l used. However, as previously discussed, fractured resin beads  !

retain their chemical bonding with respect to Ion exchange and the polymer crosslinkage bonding, etc.

!)

j In summary, at least four protective barriers can be identified to 1

support low level radioactive resin placement within a landfill: 1

1. . Resin design - chemical bonding of the radionuclides 4 2. Use of minimum mixing ratios and moisture content for qtbum 3 compaction.

3.

I,andfill design characteristics for long term environmental ,

i stability.

4. Disposed material condition - pH limits 1

Although other disposal methods are in operation at commercial

facilities, ion exchange resin disposal under controlled landfill conditions is also an option. Technically, the properties of resin should allow stable placement within compacted, moist soil without

] a need for containers or bonding materials.

i References The Dow Chemical company; manufact :rers of ion exchange resins and chemicals used for resin processing.

j EPRI Low Level Radioactive Waste Conference Minutes; misc.

papers related to waste processing and disposal.

Chemical Extraction of Radioisotopes from Resins; 1995 lab tests at a commercial radioactive waste processing center.

U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Facility Experiences; staff assignments and contract work at numerous reactor facilities using resin processas.

Process Equipment & Nethods; suppliers and research institutes.continuing interface with Patented Technology; ongoing consultation to licensees on resin processing technologies and their commercialization.

, _ ~ . - , .

e

... ~

s c

@s o4u n g'h ,6 v

=c ,.

sa w ENVIROCARE or vun.me.  :=::;.,  !?

THE SAFE ALTERNATI5'E

(\ r.. e cck:u-

?.,

Neraged' September 11, 1995 Mr. William J. Sinclair Executive Secretary Utah Radiation Control Board '

168 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144850 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850

Dear Mr. Sinclair:

A contract will be completed between Customer # 0~/11 and Envirocare of Utah for 23,000 cubic feet of contaminated low-activity waste material. The waste material originated in the state of Arizona and will be transported in containers by rail to Envirocare's f acility in Clive, Utah, with the first shipment to arrive by October 1, 1995.

The waste material is described as absorbed residues for a cleaning process and bead resins. In the past, Envirocare has not received this form of bead resins, however, after research of the situation it has been determined by Envirocare that these materials can be handled in accordance within all requirements anci will act as other materials already placed. To support this, Envirccare has attached a complete report on resin disposal. The isotopes and concentrations present in the waste are Cobalt-60 at less than 360 pci/g, disposed.

Sincerely, Charles A. Judd Vice President CAJ/kk Jn It'llhT liRO lull *lY e hTi7l .'atI

• S il.71. IKl; (*l7Y. l Till '. In! * *ll.l.1:l*llt > \1 r.vilo .<. .'.13 A

y -.- .

j..=

i .-

4.*

i u

RADIOACTIVE RESIN DISPOEAL 4

!' Al Etengel, President

, , Industrial Water systems J .

q ,

Prepared For ENVIROCARE OF IPEAB, INC.

l 4 Angust, 1995 1 . .

aaqTEACT i

i This paper provides technical information relative to ion exchange resins (resins

at commeercial nuclear p)ower facilities.and their applications A general in the operations discussion. of j,

resin structures and functional capabilities is included to support j

specific resin performance for radioisotope treatment. Finally, eeveral resin . disposal options for radioactive resias are discussed. Disposal options include uncontained material placement

?

at licensed'landfille.

f RESTN PROPERTIES Synthetic , resins are designed for the treatment of aqueous j

solutions containing dissolved or ionised solids. Ionised solide can be present in solution with either a positive .or a negative charge. Resins are designed to exchange with either positively or negatively charged dissolved solids. For example, cation resin in i the hydrogen form le designed to exchange the hydrogen held to the l resio's functJ.eual group for available cations in the solution.

Available cations can be such elements as calcium, cobalt, sodium,

cesina, copper, nickel, potassium, etc, Anion resin is designed to 4

exchange its functionally exchanged hydroxide for other available l anions.or negatively charged solids present in the solution. In i practice, water treatment by ion exchange results in highly purified water du'e to enrichment with hydrogen and hydroxide ions froun the resins.

. r Resins by desigri have a defined order of prefe.srence for various

{ epecies in solution. For example, a cation resin can be designed to i exchange its hydrogen with an availabis cobalt ion in preference to

an available sodium ion in the same proximity within the solution.

3 This exchange pre'forence is referred to as resin selectivity.

j Resins are miso designed to be chemically regenerated or recharged i

for smitiple reuses. Regeneration is performed with strong solutions of acid or base. A strong acid is rich in hydrogen ions i

which exchange with the cationic ions on the cation resin to result in hydrogen rich cation form resin. Anion resins are regenerated 4

with strong bases which are rich with hydroxyl ions. Under normal I

circumstances, lonic displacement of a highly selected cation or anion from its respective resin occurs in the presence of an

)

j 09-11-1995 10:554t1 P.03

f' .,

t 4

l .

1 2

appropriate strong acid or strong base.

i j

Today's synthetic resirs used in commercial applications to treat aqueous solutions are typically manufactured to similar standards.

In most cases, the greatest population of resins is manufactured from a copolymer of styrene divyn1 benzene. Cation resin is menally a otrongly acidic, sulfonated form of the copolymer. Amion resin is 1

usually a strongly basic, quarternary ammonium form of the copolymer. Both resia structures are highly stable with roepect tq i

the base copolymer and functional groups as is evidenced in a wide j

variety water treatment applications at operating temperatures as high as 135 degrees P. In some applications 3 integrity is frequently challenged during, the operation resin'swhen structural it is einrried through pipes between process tanks or when solution pH variations stress the physical strengths of the resin beads. There are different types of resin forms to suit particular applications.

j EESIN &PFLICATIONS AT -Z -:-GAL Ntuma manygg i

cr==mial nuclear reactor facilities use resime for a number of applications to treat solutions. some of these applications are condensate make up to the condenser hotwell, condensate demineralisation to purify water for reuse as feedwater, steam generator blowdown treatment to allow reuse of water, reactor clean up water treatment to reduce radioactivity and remove solids, j

anclear fuel pool cleanup, liquid radioactive waste treatment to reduce activity levels, liquid sample treatment prior to i

sample analysis, and others depending on the specific facility design.

3 Most if not all reactor facilities generate volumes of spent resin that is only slightly contaminated. Typically, PWR facilities have secondary plant spent resin with peaks of Cs-137 or co-60 at levels on the order of E-8 pC1/gm. Nonetheless, the resin is segregated j

for radioactive vaste disposal. The predomine.nt radioisotopes found j

in spent resins from commercial PWR's include Co-60, C0-58, Fe-55, j

Cs .134, Cs-137, and Mc-54. The B8fR facilities generate spent resins with predominant species including: similar isotopes to the PWR's and En-65. The radioactivity levels associated with a spent resin charge can be correlated to the type of facility, the application or system where the resin was used, and the length of time that the t resin was in operation. As an example, some operations renovo resin i from service when activity levels or the decontamination factor i

1-reaches a predetermined value. Other operations allow the resins to reach considerably higher activity levels which ultimately leads to j

higher activity levels within the facility as well as higher resin die sal coste due to higher curie content, etc. PWR condensate i d p

neraliser resins are typleally removed from operation when chemistry is no longer sustained or when the resins can no longer

~ be properly regenerated.

i 1

2 i

i 1

j re-a-ms n:e e.u 4

1 i .

~

1 a

4 l

i

~./

etsmTom oprrt=s rom ==aranavz ===Im ersant i

{ coessercial nuclear reactor facilities have become more efficient in i recent years with respect to generation of solid radioactive waste i volumes. One of the largest contributors is opent resin. There are

a anasber of options available to generators for disposal of spent

resias. These include

interim storage on site, incineration, dowater and bary, filler with other unste 1 medias, chemical l decant ==4== tion and free release, and disposal via soil compaction i at licensed landfills, sach of these options has associated

cesssereial, technical and political advantages /

which are disposal site speelfic as well as reactor site specifs.c.disadvantaps sEsrs sur-II.rrr rom hm. ma2-v misF ;*l a2 A Li - ;-= **-nr1LL 8 i

! seed form resins with activity levels within the limits of a l j disposal site license are candidates for uncontained disposal. The i i physical stzveture of the copolymer matrix lends to a high I i stability with respect to decomposition. The envira-ant within the i landfill would be considered to be significantly less aggressive j than the environment to which the resin is designed to operate at

the nucisar power facility. Chemically, the resin will retain its

bonding with the ionic species removed from the reactor facility

! process water. Depending on the order of species selectivity, less

selected ions would not displace more selective species unless a -

j strong chemical (acid, bene, oxidant, etc. ) was introduced to the resin.

Optimum ion exchange occurs under flowing conditions.

1 j f.xposure under static conditions yields poor results at standard tamperature and pressure. Cationic species such as Co-60 and Cs-137 would not be raadily displaced by a salt such as Nacl because of l the lower selectivity by the cation resin for sodium (Na) . Anionic 1 species such as Iodine would not be displaced by chloride due to i the lower selectivity of chloride. As long as the ionized redioisotope is bound to the resin by ion exchange or adsorption, there is no potential for leaching into surrounding environments.

Porous forws o d. bend resin can contain i

Depending on the license requirements for the site, the moisture 30 4 - 50 t moisture.

content in the resin con be reduced'without altering the ionic fern of the resi.n . Numerous ionized and suspended species can bo effectively removed from resin to reduce activity levels where 1 necessary. These decontamination methods are normally required when the resin mixture contains varying amounts of non -

resinous 1 material or when t.he resin mixture contains sufficiently high leve2s of activity to prevent dispossi within landfill limits.

The physical forces which can alter a resin i

exchanged ions includes excessive pressure, .bcads ability excessivo to retain temperature, and interaction with a strong chemical. A process to mix resin with soil to maxinize compaction is not considered to be detrimental to j

resin stabilit

! resin matrix, y. Due to the design and inherent stability of the j' disposal in soil bead form resins should be considered suitable for landfills.

i

• s~

3 I

1 i -

i 09-11-1995 11: 01r41

4 4., ,

References:

The Dow chemical company; manufacturers of ion exchange resins and chemicals used for resin processing.

EPRI Law Level Radioactive Waste Conference Minutes; mioc.

papers related to waste processing and disposal. -

i -

chemical Extraction of Radioisotopes :from mesins; 1995 lab tests at a cassnerelal radioactive waste processing c, enter.

U.S. coassercial Nuclear Power Facility Experiences; staff assignasnts and contract work at numerous reactor facilities j ,

using resin processes.

Process Equipment & Nethods; continuing i.nterface with' suppliers and research institutes.

1, .

Patented Techuelogy; ongoing consultation to licensees on 4

1 resin processing technologies and their commercialization.

Radioactive waste Processors; prior and ongoing interface j

with leading waste handling service groups.

i 5

1 i .

a I

i i

k i

i 1 .

4

}

1 i

4

, iI l

3 i

4 I

{

09-11-1995 11:01AM

,- a n. ._,. _ . a s._ _, -. ..u - .n- .s_ - e a - , & a .w __n.--.a- . ,a a._ _

am g 9

,e O

1 l

ATTACHMENT B O

i l

l J

I i

i 1

i 1

I

u l

l .. -

.a , .

1 s.

' t - 1

-]i

[-

i l

i u

t l

t .

i ,

1 l

1 1

1 1

i 1

1 1995  !

, RADIATION CONTROL ACT Utah Code il 19-3-101 through -301 l

i 1

i 4

I l

l

. . . . ~ . . . . ~ . .~ - *.

4 4

./s- ,e *

., c -

+t 1/*

l

,,,,,, Chapter 3. Radiation Control Act l

address the same circumstances. ne iNJ aneident si es.112. gaive jury 1,1991 (b) In adoptag those rules, the board may '"""*"d di' sema. adice Armerly appeared as i 261 27 acorporate . . :,- n--federal resu,,,w,ij admaned *seerd*Ar sparnmew nreus seur, deleraa j 7 @ seJutsecuien2g h & S.3h h e gg

. - by reference. dadeta s,e.,.,n pp.

! (7) (a) he board may adopt mies more stringent Iban 2he 3#1 amendesar by at JM, gehe January 1. JN2. added i

seriesponding federal regulations for te 8'"swassema al dredenensudAnne, sense , a; 4

a i Purpose described in Sebasetion (6) only if it drenge

,p,, gas.y (P)as 4, presser satseedsm,.f,;.3, am g,;,,,, a maass m. deamed *m makes a wrinen $mdang after public comment ei Amtsselen NNs).

i and bearing and based en evidence in the De IN8ansadesir @che Way 2. IMt. addstidseason

! record that i, ."" g federal regulations O #"I"#d '#8 " ** **# I'"""'#'*' ***'8'

J Anser8 d **y Pufe'in Iss'seen"es @ist andrewrote 3dstaien (9).

l- are not adequate to protect public health and n r 1 93 - ey en.as, p ,w,,u ,y f,jegy, ,,,,g,,,,,

i Ibe enviromnent ofIbe state. *&J8 3.2*A, *G38 3* hi 3dsraion (d)(bl.

l (b) Those fladsgs shall be accompanier', by an D' IFPI *ncedesar by c4. 90. @erive #sy J.1993, added seseases (3)(es. sheiget se code refreence in subseaien tsub)

, opinion referring to and evaluating the public p,,,, gy.jg,y, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,g,,g, ,u,,,,,,

j bealth and environmental information and nis staim is ser sur as ear.icdet ey me opce gz,gistars,

.atudies contained in the record which form the Researc4 and General c s,t.

l basis for the board's eccelusion.

! (8) (a) De board may by' rule establish criteria for 19 3-105.14gislative and gubernatorial approval

! siting commercial low-level radioactive waste required.

i treatment or disposal facilities. (1) (a) / person may not own, constmet, modify, or (b) Any facility for which a radioactive material operate any facility for the purpose of i license is required by this section sha!! comply commercially transferring, storing, decaying in

with those criteria. storage, treating, or disposing of radioactive j (c) A facility may not receive a radioactive waste without first submining and receiving the j material license until siting criteria have been approval of the board for a radioactive material i established by the board. The criteria also license for the facility.

i apply to facilities that have applied for but not (b) A person may not construct a new

received a radioactive material license, commercial radioactive waste transfer, (9) The board shall by rule establish fmancial storage, decay in storage treatment, or

assurance requirements for closure and postclosure disposal facility until

I care of radioactive waste land disposal facilities, (i) the requiremenu of Section 19 3101 have i taking into account existing financial assurance been met;

! requirements. (ii) in addition and subsequent to the approval required in Subsection (a), the governor

+

1. istoryr c. 1933. 26 1 27 esected by L. INI, ch. nd, i 2 and the Legislature have approved the i am. ch. I2. I 1: 1968. ch.168. I 1; 1909. ch.180. I 1: facility; and l renicarrd h L 1991, cA.112. Il 69, 242 1991, ch.126. I 1 1 1994. c4 186, i 4: 1993. ch. 28. I 8; 1993, ch. 90, i 2. (iii) local plannmI and ZoninI has authorized Atwustrative Rules. . nis section is iniplemented by, interpreted Iht $3CISifY by, or cued as aur4erity Ar a4e Attenvg asinustrative ride (s): (c) For purposes of this section, the following b R31312. R31313. R313-16. R313-18. A31319. R313 22.

1 R313 23. R313 28. RJ)3-30, R313 32. R313 36. R313-38. items shall be treated as submission of a new gyjpg, gyjja,, , license applicat. ion:

Anicidaient Nores. . ne 1987mmeneneer desigasted the Armor (i) the submission of a revised application j preemu s/ dis senien as sdscerien (1) midaddeeJasecnoru specifying a different geographic site than enradment. efterive jury 1,19sa, diWeedpene, a Previously submitted application;

$dsettien (1) into Subsectioru (1) sid (3). added Subsectioru (2)

(ii) an appliCatton for amendmtnt of a and (4), and redesignairdformer 36seaieru (2) sid (3) as coMatrCial radioaClivt wastt license for 3dseca*v (J) and (61- transfer, storage, decay in storage, j De 1989 emendment, eferrive April 2d.1989, deleted %i no' i Arnured to *followung *includung

• in 3dsecsion (2); inuerred the treatment, or disposal facilities, including j subJeff40rt designations (c) and (b) in Subsection (3) and vi inCineTators, if the constrVClion would cost i Substaion (6); added Subsection (7); and made grplistic thanges. $Ofr or more of the Cost of ConstruClion of

, 5

~.

F .

./ ,; .

,s 4 -

(&

Chapter 3 Radiation Centrol Act

.d l be crisma? transfer, storage, decay in Mawy: C. m3. 5127.2. m erud by L i m , ca. 297, g 3; l

storage, treaunent, or disposal facility or '"""*'rd by L mi. ca.112. I see im. ca. las. I s.

I

' the modification would result in an *'#' #"' ## ""'*"'* 8'"" # 4 # NI-

'uma6*redmis sesnm. =4 ice Aamert appearedas a"2s.t.27.2' inersaae in capseny or throughput of a adsmanet a.sn( p 4p.,se v m, ,4.,, e u,,,,

canulative total of 50% of the total #>#18)sesshed *Jamini sH.lorp sesse 2s.t.27,* A capacity or1,4i which was ""*" #18'8'"'d "E r 2 W**WA N "*

approu in the incilnylicense as of " # W W "*d an.ur i, w90. - e heio a,,rovs N,',.,".,#

,.w,u-facilny hesase if the initial hesase %s==nedsey .- N, aswks. dresswig a seerste* h approval is subsequent to Janumy 1' 1990-* #d'" '### '""'# *""* 8*8' d*7 " "'*8' ' "

26secxion (I)O) and k suo pieces k Suheresien (t)(c)pi): anweg i 360,ssien (1)(c)Cii); med naani, reisted thenges.

l (iii) any request for approval for a Wreww antes. Jews sm, ca. 297eecen, ecvin a dra commercial radioactive waste transfer, U IN 7"*"" 88 8484 C*8' d" Yl. <5't. U.

storage, decay in storage, treatment, or disposal facility to receive class B or 19 3106. Fee for commercial radioactive waste -

class C low level radioactive waste, diBPosal or treatment.

including the submission of a new license (1) An owner or operator of any commercial

! application, revised license application, radioactive waste treatment or disposal facility that i or major license amen &nent. primarily receives waste generated by off site I (2) A person need not obtain gubernatorial or sources not owned, controlled, or operated by the l legislative approval for the construction of a facility or site owner or operator that is subject to i

radioactive waste facuity for which a license the requirements of this chapter shall co!!ect from

! the generator of the waste-application has beca approved by the Department l of Health or subraited to the federa! Nuclear (a) on and after July 1,1992, through June 30, Regulatory Cor.imission and to the Depanment of 1993, a fee of 52.00 per ton or fraction of a Health for approval before January 1,1990, and ton on all radioactive waste received at the which has been determined, on or before October facility or site for disposal or treatment:

31.1990, by the Depanmem of Health to be (b) on and after July 1,1993, through June 30, complete in accordance with state and federal 1994, a fee of $2.25 per ton or fraction of a requirements, ton on all radioactive waste received at the

0) The board shall suspend acceptance of further faciliry or site for disposal or treatment; and applications for commercial radioactive waste (c) on and after July 1.1994, a fee of 52.50 per facilities upon a ftnding that they cannot ton or fraction of a ton on all radioactive adequately osersee existing and additionaj waste received at the facility or site for radioactive waste facilities for license compliance, -disposal or treatment.

monitoring, and enforcement. The board shall (2) (a) The owner or operator shall pay the fees repon the suspension to the Legislative imposed under this section to the depanment Management Comminee. on or oefore the !Sth day of the month (4) The board shall review each proposed radioactive following the month in which the fee accrued.

waste license application to determine whether the (b) The depanment shall deposit all fees received application complies with the provisions of this under this section into the restricted account chapter and the rules of the board, created in Section 19 1108.

(5) (a) If the radioactive license application is (c) The owner or operator shall submit to the determined to be complete, the board shall depanment with the payment of the fee under issue a notice of completeness. this subsection a completed form as (b) If the plan is determined by the board to be Prescribed by the depanment that provides incomplete, the board shall issue a notice of information the department requires to verify deficiency, listing the additional information the amount of waste received and the fee I-to be provided by the applicant to complete amount for which the owner or operator is

! the application. liable.

6

? State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OFRADIATION CONTROL M '*

5.Ui44as "

-amana gir, mig,,"""" l wams.am am"' (son)s u.4on m 901)s3H414 TSD.

April 15,1997

• 4 5O r.n Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D. E' Director,NuclearMed. Detpt. Chnic ,,,3 L.A. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center e Department of Radiology -

Division ofNuclearMedicine N-P.O. Box 2972 1000 W Carson Street, Bldg N-2 Harbor Mailbox #494 Torrance,CA 90509-2972 Re: Follow up to the Utah Radiation Board's action on Rulemaking Petition

Dear Dr.Marcus:

The Utah Radiation Control Board accepted the Division of Radiation Control recommendation at '

their March 7,1997 meeting that we respond to the information items contained in your rulem petition and supplement. The purpose of this letter is to answer the questions you raised about

• financial assurance, ion exchange resins, waste classification and points of compliance.

Financial Assurance ~

The low-level / NORM waste area is funded through a trust agreement secured by U.S. Treasu Bonds, with the Utah Radiation Control Board being designated as the recipient of funds to close the siti. The Board does not require Envirocare's permission to access the fund nor does Envirocare have the ability to raise objections to the Board's acce s to the fund.

'The volume capacity of NORM wastes and low-level radioactive wastes, authorized under license amendment in March 1991, is approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of waste. Currently the surety

, is funded at approximately $5.8 million (contrasted with $1.1 million in March 1991). In addition.

Envirocare has separate trust fund agreements with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the 11c.(2) cell amounting to 53.2 million and the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste for the

^

j mixed waste cell area amounting to $1.1 million. The total trust funds for site closure are currentlyi

$10.1 million. As new facilities are developed and/or capacity increased, the closure funds will be increased accordingly by the appropriate regulatory agency. <

9 @ ENCt.050RE 2

+ i

o April 15,1997 Page 2 Envirocare's license places limits on undisposed waste volumes. License condition 1I specifies that no more than 300,000 cubic yards of waste can be in the disposal embankment but not disposed to final design specifications at any time. Funding for this amount of waste is provided for in the trust agreement. In addition, the State requires Envirocare to close areas within the cell that are open to  !

final specification within two years of an area being opened. Consequently, the majority of the LARW/ NORM cell is already closed to final specification and will not require further maintenance.

l Ion Exchange Resins Envirocare receives waste in bulk orprepares waste to be disposed ofin bulk and then the waste is '

placed in engineered lifts in a landfill cele-not in trenches as assumed in the rulemaking petition.

Iiners, infiltration / radon barriers, and final cover components allow the disposal system to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61.

The procedure in the waste management plan specifies the conditions under which ion exchange resins may be disposed of and involve mixing or blending of resins with soils and then the material is compacted in an engineered lift. Resins, are not the sole wastes that have to be mixed with soil prior to disposal. The license specifies a 9:1 ratio of dirt to debris to achieve the necessary compaction within the landfill cell.

Envirocare handles mostly contaminated dirt and debris from cleanups across the United States, therefore, most waste is received in bulk and disposed of as such. The waste stability requirements of 10 CFR 61.56 are met as containerized waste is removed and compacted into lifts after mixing with dirt or other waste at the appropriate ratios.

Waste Classification  :

i Under Utah law any request for approval for " transfer, storage, decay in storage, treatment or disposal of Class B or C waste" must first receive approval from the Governor and the legislature prior to the Division reviewing such a license application.(See Utah Code Ann. I 19-3-105(1)].

Envirocare has not applied for such an approval and thus is prohibited by statute from receiving Class B or C waste.

Unlike the NRC, the State does not rely on the A, B, C waste classification system in the Envirocare license. Instead, the terms of the license commit the licensee to receiving only the radionuclides (at the specified concentration) listed in the license. The radionuclides that Envirocare may receive are a subset of Class A waste.

April 15,1997 Page 3 Points of Compliance ALARA. We are awn of and enforce the principle of ALARA throughout the site during waste '

management activities. The concentrations of waste received at Envirocare are magnitudes of order different that waste received at the Richland/Barnwell sites. The Division reviews occtipational exposure records on an annual basis to assess any possible upward trends or overexposures. Site radiation safety records (available for review at our office) indicate no exposures above the current l 10 CFR Part 20 standards.

l l

Liquid Waste. Utah applies the RCRA free liquids test to incoming waste shipments. No liquid waste is allowed by the license. In the event free liquids are found which may have become unbound during shipment, provisions are in effett4at allow sclidification of such liquids prior to storage and/or disposal. Envirocare is also required to notify the Division and, in the case of mixed waste the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, of free liquids found in shipments and take the necessary steps with the generator to preclude future reoccurrence.

Shielding. Because the concentration limits in Envirocare's license will severely limit the ability of Envirocare to accept any type of resin except secondary cooling water resins, shielding is not required.

Dispersion oflightweight debris. Procedures in the cunently approved waste management plan restrict the blending of resins to an engineered blending pad. Envirocare is evaluating through a i

demonstration project, enhancements to the current procedures that will address all aspects of the '

disposal operation including wind dispersion. No resin waste will be disposed until the Division is assured that all necessary controls are in place.

Compliance concentration limit. Envirocare's' license requires concentration limits to be met at disposal. Thus, the concentration compliance limit occurs at the lift and is determined by representative samples of waste in the lifts. The State has the ability to independently verify any sample result By limiting the concentration at receipt to 10 times that of the concentration limits at disposal, the placement and compaction of disposed waste makes " hot spots" unlikely.

Additional questions. Some of the questions you ask are being addressed as part of the Division's review and analysis of Envirocare's license renewal. For example, the Division will be reevaluating pathways analysis, performance assessment, radionuclide concentrations as presently constituted, and biomedical was;e as part of the license renewal.

---w- - . - .

• O

[' April 15,1997 Page4 {

We have added your name to our Radiation Control Board and Envirocare mailing lists so that you I will receive notification about the public comment period for the license renewal. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or Dane Finerfrock of my staff.

Sincerely.

- i William J. Sinel Executive Secretary Utah Radiation Control Board -

4 c: Denise Chancellor, Utah Attorney General's Office i Dianne Nielson, Ph.D., Executive Director, UDEQ l

. Dennis Downs, UDEQ/DSHW j Milt Lammering, EPA Region VIH j Charles Hackney,NRC Region IV Richard Bangart, NRC OSP l Joe Holonich, NRC Division of Waste Management, Uranium Recovery Branch i

American College of Nuclear Physiciar.s - Califomia Chapter 1

J k

l i

l .

UNIT,f D E T ATEs I [j,easse  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mf otoN IV l h# 411 RV AN PL AZA oMIVE suit t a00

%, .V ARLING1ON, 3 E xA5 76011 a064 a...*

CAL 97-001 d N I 2 997

! Charles A. Judd, President l Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

. American Towers Commercial 46 West Broadway, Suite 240 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 ,

SUBJECT:

CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER ,

1

Dear Mr. Judd:

1 l

This refers to our inspection at your facility near Clive, Utah, on June 9 10,1997, during -

which we reviewed your possession of special nuclear material (SNM) in regard to the provisions of 10 CFR 150.10 and 10 CFR 150.11. The inspection revealed that you have received and have been in possession of SNM in excess of the limit defined by the formula in 10 CFR 150.11 en that you received and possessed more than 350 grams of '

uranium-235 in weste materials that had not been placed in a disposal cell at your site. At i the conclusion of the inspection, we estimated that you had in excess of 2,400 grams of uranium 235 in your possession which had not been disposed of.

Pursuant to a telephone conversation between you and Ms. Linda Howell of this office on June 11,1997,it is our understanding that you will take the following actions:

1.

Effective June 11,1997, Envirocare will discontinue receipt of SNM at its facility, except as described below, until such time as Envirocare has disposed of sufficient quantities of SNM materialpresently at the site such that it is able to accept additional material without exceeding the limit in it* Agreement State license and 10 CFR 150.11. This applies to mixed and non mixed waste containing SNM.

2. For shipments of SNM currently enroute to the Envirocare facility, those which are already in transit may be received at the facility. I' 3.

l Envirocare will submit to the Region l'! office for approval, by June 16,1997,a written plan for the removal from, or disposal at, your site waste materials containing SNM to the end that the sum of all SNM at the site not placed in the disposal cell ws!! not exceed the formula quantity prescribed by 10 CFR 150.11 and your Agreemenit State license. The plan will specify the sum of SNM currently on site and will be calculated to include all waste materials that have been offloaded

' from vehicles that delivered the materials to the site and materia) which remains on vehicles at the site but which is under Envirocare's control and within the restricted area. The plan willinclude provisions to ensure that further receipt of waste materials at the site will not result in your possession of SNM in excess of the formula quantity at any time. This plan willinclude a timetable providing for completion of these actions no later than June 25,1997.

a CERTIFIED Malt. - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ENCLOSlJRE 3

[

))C3'W - ff0

Charles A. Judd 2 The hRC Region IV Office will review the plan upon receipt and will notify you in writleg if the plan is approved.

4 Envirocare will submit to the Region IV office, by June 25,1997, written confirmation that the actions prescribed by the approved plan have been completed.

Pursuant to Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. 2232, you are required to:

1. Notify me immediately if your understanding differa from that set forth above;

2. Notify me if for any reason you cannot complete the actions within the proposed ,

schedu!c and advise me in writing of your modified schedule in advance of the )

change; and l

3. Notify me in writing when you have completed the actions addressed in this Confirmatory Action Letter.

Issuance of this Confirmatory Action Letter does not preclude issuance of an order formalizing the above commitments or requiring you to take other actions; nor does it preclude the NRC from taking enforcement action for violations of NRC requirements that may have prompted the issuance of this letter, in addition, failure to take the actions addressed in this Confirmatory Action Letter may result in enforcement action.

The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96 511.

I in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, l and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent i possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards l information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, ,you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public, t ,-

,

• N

Charles A. Judd -3 l

l Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Ross Scarano of my staff at (817) 860-8106.

Sincerely, 1

i 1

Ellis W. Mersch Regional Admi trator cc:

I NRC Public Document Room Utah Radiation Control Program Director I

4 e

e l

l

j' ee

- ~

5 ACTION  !

l l

1 l

EDO Principal Correspondence Control l

l MON: DUE: 02/07/97 EDO CONTROL: G970052 DOC DT: 01/21/97 holS.Marcus l

N:

Chairman Jackson f0R SIGNATUkE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 97-0085 Bangart

{

j' ESC: ROUTING:

PETITION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED AGREEMENT STATE Thompson PROGRAM COMPATIBILITY REVIEW Jordan Norry Blaha

, Paperiello,NMSS l l

Cyr, OGC l MTE: 01/24/97 i i

MiSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

l SP Bangart

@PECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: '

t

! l l l l

1 $

L

=

c~ O

' en

> 7

="

i e

s h

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-97-0085 LOGGING DATE: Jan 23 97 ACTION OFFICE: EDO/OGC AUTHOR: CAROL MARCUS AFFILIATION: CONNECTICUT ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE: Jan 21 97 FILE CODE: IDR-15

SUBJECT:

PETITION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM COMPATIBILITY REVIEW ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, COMRS SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

NOTES: OCM #6909 DATE DUE: Feb 7 97 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

i EDO -- G970052

- , - - . . _ , . - .~ . - - - . - - - - . - . . - _ . - _ - - - . - - _ .

Ja. n- 22.-97 P.14

,- 03:52A j

9 ,

1 i

4 .

I January 21, 1997 gTTo --

! The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson '*

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission College Of j

washington, D.C. 20555 Ntn: lear

Physicians i Re: Petition to Conduct Expedited Agreement State ,

Program Compatibility Review California Chapter j

Dear Chairman Jackson:

gDMO*

Attached is a petition-submitted by the American l"2[ umwn College of Nuclear Physicians California Chapter

(" California ACNP") to the Utah Radiation control lji yll[7lgj l Board and Utah Department of Environmental Quality j seeking reasonable and prudent protection from what we l are concerned may be significant deficiencies in the '

state's regulation of the Envirocare disposal facility.

By copy of the petition, prepared consistent with 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart H, s.2802 (c) , California ACNP hereby petitions the NRC to conduct a timely review of Utah's Agreement State Program with respect to the issues raised to ensure that Agreement state compatibility requiraments are properly implemented. Petitioner seeks your particular attention to implementation of financial assurance requirements.

With Utah in the nidst of reviewing a license renewal application based on receipt of up to 10.5 million cubic feet of waste per year, California ACNP respectfully requests your personal involvement in resolving the nationally important lesued raised by our petition. In our view, a thoughtful and substantive '

response to the situation in Utah is critical to maintaining  ;

NRC's credibility as the federal entity responsible for regulating the management of low-level radioactive wastes.

Sincerely, ,

[jZl644 Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D. I Director, Nuclear Med. Outpt. Clinic l Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and i Professor of Radiological Sciences, UCLA and President, American College of Nuclear Physicians, California Chapter cc: Honorable Lauch Faircloth

_ lbll

- _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . -

Jan-22-07 03: 58A

• P.O TO January 21, 1997 4 b American College of Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Nuclear Utah Radiation Control Board Physicians Department of Environmental Quality los North 1950 West California P.o. Box 144850 Chapter salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 Dorothy DwNy Prico E=.cutive D'

, cter

Subject:

Petition for Rulemaking [,"M ,c uon l

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

y y **y jg The following petition is submitted to the Utah Radiation Control Board in accordance with the State of Utah's responsibilities as an Agreement State under Section 274 (b) of the federal Atomic Energy Act as amended. Petition format and content is based on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10 CFR Part 2, subpart H, section 2.802 (c) rule. We request that you inform us immediately if Utah law or regulations require us to follow an alternate procedure so we may take the necessary steps to resubmit it. By copy of this letter, we request that the Department of Environmental Quality undertake any related actions which are reserved to it or the Division of Radiation control consistent with its Agreement State responsibilities and authority. We further request, by copy of this letter, that the NRC appropriately consider all Agreement State compatibility. questions including the posting of sufficient financial assurances.

I. General Problea statoment and Proposed Solution

1. Problem statement: Envirocare is not currently required to post substantial financial assurances, a circumstance we consider directly inconsistent with the state's earlier decision to exempt Envirocare from 10 CFR Part 61 institutional control requirements for land ownership. This concern is compounded by Utah's recent authorization to dispose of non-containerized nuclear power plant ion exchange resin vastes.

Envirocare is now actively pursuing a state license renewal based on acceptance of up to 10.5 million cubic feet of radioactive vaste per year from combined private sector and l government sources. (For comparison purposes, Ward Valley is licensed to receive a total of 5.5 million cubic feet of j waste over the site's entire 30-year life) . of this total, hohes

_ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _____- _ _ ___ _ - .._ _ __ .___.._ _ _ __.. _ _._ _ _ __._..._____m__.

'$nn-d'2-C7 03i57A P.03 January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman  ;

and Members Page for Envirocare, more than 1 million cubic feet would be comprised of nuclear reactor-related low-level wastes, of which 30,000 cubic feet may conprise resin and other nuclear power plant cleaning wastes. An additional 3 million cubic feet of annual capacity is proposed for unspecified radioactive wastes containing naturally occurring and man-made isotopes falling within the 10 CFR Part 61.55 Class A concentration limits. When compared to the detailed source term analysis and relsted safety evaluation performed by California for Ward Valley, Envirocare's request to take an unidentifiable source term of 3 million cubic feet / year raises serious questions about the level of detail used for pathways analysis and performance assessment.

2. Pronosed solution: The following petition components are respectfully submitted in the intere.st of obtaining reasonable and prudent protection from liability which may arise as a result of what appear to be significant deficiencies or potential deficiencies in the State of Utah's regulatory program for the Envirocare facility.

(a) The California Chapter of the American College of-

Nuclear Physicians (" California ACNP") , whose members or member employers have shipped or vill ship low-level radioactive waste to the Envirocare of Utah disposal facility in Tooele County, hereby file this petition for rulemaking with the Utah Radiction Control Board to obtain an indemnification from the State of Utah and/or its licensee for contingent environmental liability costs related to the disposal of low-level waste disposed at the Envirocare facility.

(b) California ACNP petitions the Board to consider promulgation of an energency rule to prohibit the continued, non-containerized disposal of nuclear power plant ion exchange resins at the Envirocare facility.

Petitioner does not understand why the Division of Radiation Control chose to authorize this apparently extraordinary practice in the midst of its ongoing review of Envirocare's radioactive materials license renewal application. Accordingly, an immediate order rescinding the Division's 1996 authorization pending '

Board action on this petition and completion of the Division's license renewal review process also appears to be appropriate.

==

m

, _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ - _____ _._- . _ _ .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~ _ _ _

Jan-22-07 (MB : 57A e . P,Od" '

January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hcffman, Chairman j and Members Page (c) California ACNP petitions the Board to evaluate the potential need to order the timely removal,. packaging and off-site disposal of such waste consistant with ALARA principles and other occupational radiation safety considerations.

The purpose of petition components (b) and (c) is to minimize the liability and related harms of practices we are concerned may be incompatible with the 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory framework and inconsistent.with generally accepted worker radiation protection

. standards.

II. Petitioner's Grounds for and Interest in the Action m.gu.st.d Due to delays in the State of California's efforts to establish a commercial low-level waste disposal facility to service the four southwestern Compact member states'and california's loss of access to the Northwest Compact's low-level waste site in Washington state, certain members of California ACNP or member employers have utilized or may l utilize the Envirocare disposal facility. In the context of the potential regulatory deficiencies described herein, such utilization gives rise to contingent liabilities for which our members now seek timely protection. As physicians with specialized expertise in radiation protection, we also have a professional concern with worker protection related to the safe handling of nuclear power plant ion exchange resins.

III. Statement and Analysis of Specific Issues:

1. California ACNP believes that financial assuranca reauirements for closure and nostclosure monitorina and maintenance at the Envirocare facility may be inadeauate. We understand that the funding levels now set aside to carry out these activities at the Envirocare facility are considerably less than those in place for south Carolina's Barnwell disposal facility and Washington's Richland disposal facility.

As envisioned by $61.63(a), NRC anticipated that no license would be issued prior to submittal of "a binding arrangement, such as a lease, between the applicant and the disposal site owner that ensures that sufficient funds will be available to cover the costs of monitoring and any required maintenance during the institutional control period." Utah's decision to exempt Envirocare from the 61.59(a) land ownership requirement and forgo the ability to

P.05 Yn.n-[2-07 03f57A' 1

January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members )

Page  ;

1 l

enforce funding adequacy through a revocable leasehold- l interest would be understandable had the state been fiscally l conservative in establishing Envirocare's financial ,

assurance requirements and otherwise stringently applied l Part 61 requirements. As discussed below, this does not appear to be the case.

As of January 1997, the Washington Department of Ecology's dedicated accounts for site Closure ($24.2 million) and Perpetual surveillance / Maintenance (also $24.2 million) for its Richland low-level radioactive waste disposal site exceed $48 million. According to South Carolina officials, approximately $87 million is set aside for its Barnwell site. Of this amount, $12 million is designated for closure and stabilization and $75 million is available for long-term care. Based on a January 16, 1996 discussion with Dane Finerfrock of the Utah Radiation Control Division, only $5 million has been deposited with a custodian for both closure and long-term monitoring and maintenance of Envirocare's radioactive materials facilities.

We are quite concerned about this financial assurance differential within the overall context that Envirocare is operating on private land, accepts far greater waste volumes and more diverse waste types than either the Richland or Barnwell commercial sites, and carries out storage and processing operations in addition to disposal. Unlike the Washington and South Carolina facilities, Envirocare also disposes of " mixed wastes". Moreover, we understand that large volumes of undisposed waste are often present at the Envirocare site.

In the event this site were ordered closed prior to disposing of all of the wastes present at the facility and/or remedial actions involving buried wastes were required, it appears that very limited fu3ds would be available. CERCLA experience teaches us c' hat a private site owner / operator may be unwilling or unable to respond effectively necessitating government-funded actions which may later be recovered from the waste generators.

A final question, which we hope can be affirmatively answered, is whether the State of Utah (as in Washington and South Carolina) controls the $5 million closure and long-term monitoring and maintenance fund. In other words, does the state have the ability to access the fund over the licensee's potential objections? If not, there is added reason for concern about the comparatively meager available funds.

Jgn-22,-07 CC:57A P. 0 6I' "

January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members i Page l The liability exposure to petitioner's members and member employers appears to be magnified by Utah's 1996 authorization to dispose of unpackaged ion exchange resins, an authorization based on a unique practice under which radionuclide concentrations present in containerized waste arriving at the site are emptied and diluted with soil in the disposal trench to meet _ applicable license limits (see

' attached Utah Division of Radiation Control Information

, Notice). According to Appendix P (November 1996) of Envirocare's license renewal submittals, the company is nov seeking state approval to dispose of up to 80,000 cubic feet

} e year of nuclear power plant resins and solidified cleaning i

[

agents.

2.

california ACNP is concerned that the Division of Radiation i

control's authorization to dilute and dianosa of non-f containerized ion archance resins may be contrary to the intent of the C61.55 waste classification system, invitas violation of the E61.56(b) waste stability recuirements. and j may violate ALARA worker ernosure nrincioles. The $61.55

! classification system for commercial low-level wastes is based on isotope concentration limits calculated on a per-

unit-volume basis averaged across the size of the container.

i Utah's decision to base license compliance on isotope j concentrations achieved within the disposal trench, after j diluting the waste with soil at 9:1 ratio, appears

inconsistent with $61.55 provisions for determining j concentrations in the waste itself. In concept, it appears j

' that Utah's approach allows Envirocare to accept waste at its gate which exceeds its license limits and may even exceed the $61.55 Class A limits. In the latter instance,

, $61.56(b) would require specified waste form stability i . measures which appear to be inconsistent with Utah's requirement regarding containerized waste. Moreover, we i understand that Utah's regulatory authorization to accept

!~ the resins was based on existing license conditions

! applicable to debris waste posing little or no radiological hazard, and that no separate state-enforced license

1. conditions exist to protect against the radiological hazards I

' involved in emptying resin containers and mixing the waste within the trench.

I.

i j Since the technical requirements of 10 CFR part 61 are a matter of rather strict compatibility for Agreement states, j we do not understand how Utah was apparently able to

! redefine the application of 561.55 without formally j receiving approval from the NRC. Compatibility issues are

also raised by the non-containerized disposal of commercia)

.u i

i ia

Jan-Ei2-DT 03:50A . P.07 -

t January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman end Manbers '

Page low-level vaste, a practice prohibited by all other commercial low-level waste sites and seemingly in conflict with the intent of the 561.56 war te characteristics requirements. Now, for example, in the $61.56(a) (3) 1%

volume limit on free-standing liquids currently enforced in the absence of containers? Is this requirement applied?

Utah's practices raise a series of practical concerns due to tho inherent nature of ion exchange resin waste. Used to  ;

fil.ter strontium-90, cesium-137, cobalt-60 and other fission products out of the reactor's primary coolant loop, discarded resins often require shielding to minimize worker radiation exposure. (Petitioner notes that license renewal ,

application Appendix P makes no mention of Sr-90 and other fission products). Is the 80,000 cubic feet of resin and other cleaning wastes reflected in Appendix P an established limit? Was performance modeling performed prior to the authorization? What effect did the assumed source term increase have on the modeling? How were the resins assumed to be distributed within the disposal units?

Assuming for a moment that these matters have been fully and properly-resolved, it is difficult to understand why such potentially dangerous wastes were administrative 1y approved i under existing license conditions developed for relatively innocuous debris materials. How will Utah regulators and Envirocere ensure that applicable waste concentration licits and potential waste form stability requirements are met? How are shielding considerations during package unloading and solid mixing addressed? What measures are in place to prevent unintended dispersion of the uncontained, lightweight resin beads? Is the entire trench volume used to calculate concentration limit compliance? If so, how is this accomplished and how are potential " hot spots" accounted for? What quality assurance program requirements and facility operating procedures are in place to address each of these considerations? The import of these questions is underscored by the seemingly minimal regulatory review and public process which accompanied the state's approval of this major change in the facility's waste acceptance criteria.

Beyond the site-specific regulatory and safety considerations noted, petitioner is also concerned that the availability of comparatively inexpensive disposal capacity for large volumes of commercial nuclear power plant residues and other commercial low-level wastes will have a lethal effect on current efforts to license and open new Compact l

l - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - -

i dan-22-B7 03:EOA P : 0+3

.>- .> '\

I i

i L

January 21, 1997 i Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman e

and Members

} Page <

l

! disposal facilities pursuant to the federal Low-Level i

Radioactive Waste Policy Act. Since the Barnwell site has a finite remaining capacity, and the Richland site is only open to the Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compact states, Envirocare seems poised to emerge as the nation's main i disposal site.

!~

Perhaps our greatest fear is that Envirocare's cheap prices, expanding waste acceptance criteria and vast unused capacity

, will lead to abandonment of the new facility siting efforts j now underway, and that Envirocare will indeed become 12Hs main national disposer just long enough to develop i

problems which force its unexpected closure. This scenario

' would leave our members and many other waste producers

' across the nation with no place to take their waste and an undesired share of potentially significant environmental j restoration costs. In many ways, this fear lies at the crux l 4 of the issue.

1 i We look forward to the state of Utah's formal reply and stand l i ready to help answer any questions you, the Department of '

2 Environmental Quality, or other state officials may have in considering this petition.

j sincerely, i

i l Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.

Director, Nuclear Med. Outpt. Clinic .

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and

Professor of Radiological Sciences, l

J UCLA  !

and I President, American College of Nuclear Physicians, California Chapter 1

4 l

4 Y

1 l

1 4

NNM

't

0315:A P.09

'$c.n-E2-c7 January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page

Attachment:

May 7, 1996 Information Notice (

Subject:

ion exchange resin disposal) cc w/ attachment:

i Covernor Michael O. Leavitt Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Diarine R. Nielson, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality William sinclair, Executive Secretary, Radiation Control Board and Director, Radiation Oontrol Division Don Womeldorf, Executivs Director, Southwestern Compact Members, California ACNP Board -

l 1

l l

l l

l

.h. ri- 22 -D7 08:5DA P.10' "

/

AFFDfDIX N-PSDJECTEDWASTESTREABO I Desenemasise a(1) pen Elada, and Queselties erWasee 4

Wess to be sensiusd 341 eensis ofnumq essasslag and aanslemer gradused endosage amatusial

$4 ARM, semes sessanal, speed neslear messief ed'typreams (lle,(IH musial. The 'esame of .

sesadinden aavisles has abanged udsk time and k is espeesd thes dis pean d a==ai==

Eseposse has sumustm64be ~' '-

aswens af sateestive end adued weses and tas.

dauetured the 65sedag wese elssammensten. The redessewhy and sehens are en.beus eushname a this

.. ~ slas, .: - bel' any tesy weR shap wuer . ., ._the _ n pened'ef the __ immes.

Li. _ _

_ _ C i'_..-."_ _ u-~:

_ . . . y2

,A _ , , . _ _

_,._.-.a - ._ -

.* .*A_ J_ A, ^ .

nin A_n __ . A mL _ L n- -

.__w. . . _ . __ ._ . a . -. _7_- - _. .

._ s x _ . . _

u____.

_ w.

+ -

M ,

-shed er a,=si e hs= a spessus sapia es en e=ene asase stes .eas aguend er on e.

Weemess. ,

~

i Eminumar's maldasi Esamer man kanad an maddas ahit assh5&nd ummer limits as na . .

%. - n, _ _ m u ..

dqasmIRe ruespuhden ki unna W asemen, mmmates amemdas. the ammmamap

. . - , g, _ m _ _ > _ = _ , , . _. _

and Ad.dem smaamme na omnimasased manimpdma asemanhdav med.ammuni maanan radinism na ihm annar eres dammaal amit udhaus anmadmunan ene anidena menudad hv ama pus. The mamaman j ammamammaans dur sammel am5 des uma hamad as gegdummer armammsian Imusla &&amsamudr.

' addenaal adesmashdas anta added he the Essana essh aanemannena Ends Adartalaad ta aretida es sans levd er unenemp ammamma ansed ma nat -p hv the annamal madd Chamundminar j kanaamat medaEna maq used as assenai6st thaan amagnadaan unum also ammanadiva af aseandannar.

The aanahamam o ihm emaal anddu uma thss ammaal ahamid ans mamand ska ammalanas asemanwslam based an alsher werkar ammasare er smaamdwesar

=--'-ha^ at ~ " " " en- -

'"- ~~ " -= ~

^h m a amenad ma--- .;

I '

'Easman Emainamass dann assinda mamminparv summadas en medusa medsmamme quemma ampmamm he e . g _. . . _ . _ . . . __

m _m y _m

. ,, g_

amnis usehma mandenBr ammesana ammaal mamma ammmamandaan thsnd ens samassaan an uma af fansman werk aanmas Mswmunr. In Asamms4mtypeansdar up smarr pinnahuasar arameslast avamme i ammaanneapues afimewisaal satamasEdna uden g Eq qras we mar sumand nba ammmassanian ihnen af Table an amp sten uman.

4. A]d ama is didnad as the vehema effuserial tata hr 100 hatamasaM$na banen haar

{

e 8 4

l i P1 - -

s .

1 .

g . .

i i

\

d

}

I 1

n 9

I 1

s - - - - . - . . _ -. ,- _

. - . - . - - . . . . . . . - . - . . - . . . - - . . - - . - - - - . - - . . - - - - . ~ - _ _ _ _ - _ . . - .

.Scri-C2-97 03 59A ,

, P .11 - ,

.s .

Wadsipess'esundsme erdeadagedde:

1

3. Massak essess seesessue messed 9408LDO amas * *supsedesud emis sad teses dese, i.m es. see ,ae <

• I -

medsm,ttseunaseLandasmuszweennepee.mtskupunkman.

. . 1

- 38 Lote aubloansperyser(aWW ,

~

. 2. Sammt unne. NCBh4 ensamesess asse web semp mesi, M weed ase l

. masseyn(W esagsassenessies ,, _ ' r_',40 C :"_ _ --

siesmssumuusemeidsbememitsee7 04

. 3S00$004 k shepm, minnes er mm6mm een hemmist ==ses seamme essesins we=* N08ed auseisis. Omsas and terium deny shals minds 50 - 5,000 pG% e46 weigband

=surassimauhassassumsysespas  ; .

, adgenosey .

4

4. OM dMM NNNN bypseems nessimis amusiassi ett med seemism hiaior ^^ me Fe 5$.

Coet, Cede and C>1M uhaddadAsway assimandnes dapyrushuse% 100 .

scMn4= cat esme mus emmik , ww pot dansh medids' esLoeoasy .

i s. Nom.mapsents asum een emeninamens d reamer esinam asuminand wth j aar e(es bypsodes mesmah asemansed wie ad speasses. heqier ademnedes l se ps.ss, Coas, cedo and ca.in *de andest peep emmesunmess d appeasimen$ too scWha.ade amas ame grammes -

w ameno a s g dass a suhda and Dep eseressa her ammh my muss, synds muher er typreemt ausmist musuem Mas amedes se in Ihn Nap W s Apr ame #pCbt tot C-14 and ethan may be as hip as 100,000 pQt in asme messa and Co SS, Co 80, CD 137 er End5 saysume % 800pG h.

. ssgenosh -

( *

• l

, .F 3 - '

t t

y .

-onn-22-07 o3:59A .

P 12' * -

i 1 .. . .- .

d . .

l .

7. Emis ad needed sismus nosso ammishs bypseemst masench Sam auder i pseer pies. Mas mahdus use a a ser sus of pC1/g, be Ce40 and Co.117 =61 be es4as4000 pCWgis mussmussmesse. ,

M400 spy i s. Shaloss, milhos, des e unens suas henrud mens seemas sensadas

• l l sewes, knusent er spesid esiser sh AEgheipung esamusase tem

. thm 50pcit

.i .

I '

j , 2.804a00sh ,

I $. N M M M hp' M d M M P4 6 M l l Daphand wenium mandsestididammes 1.000 pt% h 200,000 pC4 j Cel37 swagles 300 pC% summwn 4000 pCa$ amms may asseps mea 36 at t oppr====ner100 3,s00pog ,

l

%m4 * '

10. - Depland wahm toutes Dupemmes dpsesus targpa man almumps er eens ,-

Di,=mes sammy ymmes esbana phan. Tops === mammanser suished -

3 mason ese m pot ememm esiosa pies = = tisk m 2 moosce 4

. i-i ,,,,

' 400,000ofy .

t .

4 .

2i. amme dheemu ness ues esse gasusen ersense pseemm er amew aus pes-i abssessedumbs . .

1 .

f h ', , ,

12. AcashrmerW sesesehe meetsis sus neD sudsas Map lessein ao masamos poems, pdumey os40 est same wah wesammises appresimmask 100 p@g. -

I3. Themd m6med wees essaans any am spesid ansher w trysemat summeds in s.sppsedessysoopCiv. .

i so>mes#

. 6 g 4

, bl v . . .

. 8 l

~..-~-.._.~..~--._..~~..-.. .-- - ~~--.-- ---.. . -. -

1 j # *'

j *Jan-02-Q*r ODiS9A P.13

. . \

. j u - .

. w . g w e,, c  : \

3 maa In&da m amma amppsa ammaar at W wemma Weisimed merama j . mammmuniimma to acumin ihm unshe and shashan damer desa.mmenan. nem aan l

-prwp an am nah  ;

i , i i

nananas, a

343 Beanse des asase erEwisusents opsumesa k is ansipsed est udweesus noms spesas we to idealtad 4 es.tase as sumatstem, mens messmans und wome- 1 guessehs pseemme esishop6 RensesHy sound instude asy or es seawah asamhg er maands sedamediens Camassaulnes weals as sensed 8,ases A j hade sad en evenps sensammenes in a aE3 osm uusiddl am h grosserDas noss

. erTubes4. -

l 3.000A00 sfy -

l - les Amy of abs abous sans suemus suar amass same hisesdeus mandsk sad, esadbeg l i

heahesidad a.misseaussa l

.f - -

\

smosssh 1

l ,

i i An es h of d'apent amissess s es sist k b samenible e answee thee alt to esens j emmendmand ads es6 mass gammess of redsasMy est slE neul en k vussuend sad i plesed h as au6amissaat Ak dummaEas of adming haemiss ses gemenes N i wuse oceaug er haut send mesuhin, esphak passg, sensuem unansen s suas edst,  !

! butensestais and pundllena .

I

- 1

) .

1

2 ComponenPndmainserwegetusenesem  ;

2.1 Wtevensey - - .

l N W' erall semEds .h memos er dipased a es and af1993 h sieme in Tahls 1. Tim

! uruptsu sud absdman damir shmia assEdes suspee es suissier of radioam6miqr is 'asseauy.

}

This suAsem es imperuses of andrumse a a N0the espumal anday, e ed as the.

i senadenen afinen presum isueNets W senses unsulel wasm spessu. His inuessary -

she dessmamos es tsu eems sensammmen et M in =ema sessmed by 1

1 1

i i

i 1 '

i j -

1 1

i

)

i i

i I k

- _ - .