ML20147F375
| ML20147F375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1996 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Egan J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147D618 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-68 NUDOCS 9703200382 | |
| Download: ML20147F375 (5) | |
Text
. s l e
/
k,\ ib --
,4- '
UNITED STATES , (,
,l /g me cog'o, ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C 20555-0001 y f ; g
~
k.....,/ Novenber 21, 1996 OFFICE OF THE cENEAA6 COUNSE6 I
Joe Egan, Esq.
Egan & Associates, P.C.
2300 N Street, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Mr. Egan:
4 This responds to your inquiry about NRC licensing authority under the Atomic Enetgy Act (AEA) and NRC regulations over a private entity disposing of Department of Energy (DOE) low level radioactive waste under DOE contract, on a non-DOE site. As we discussed, under NRC regulations the need for a license in this case would depend on whether DOE would exercise sufficient safety oversight over disposal activities so that the site could be regarded as a DOE controlled site. If the oversight were sucn that the site would be i controlled by DOE, the disposal would be license exempt. E.g.10 CFR 30.12. We express no opinion regarding how or whether DOE should choose to exercise such control but it seems conceptually feasible, from the standpoint of NRC regulations, for sufficient ,
DOE control to be manifested by an agreement between DOE and a State whereby the !
State would exercise sufficient safety oversight on DOE's behalf without issuance of any '
State disposallicense (in the case of an Agreement State) but with DOE assuming ultimate safety responsibility. Of course, we also express no view whether a State should enter into such an agreement with DOE or whether DOE could or should availitself of such private disposal capacity. :
in an Agreement State one would need to examine the State's statutt,s, regulations, and policies on licensing of low level radioactive waste disposal. However, as a general I matter, Agreement States have regulations regarding DOE contractor licensing exemptions which are similar to those of NRC's. Were an Agreement State to reach an agreement with DOE along the lines of the above, there would be no problem, from NRC's viewpoint, i
about the adequacy or compatibility of the State's AEA section 274 program so long as the other aspects of tt.e State's licensing and regulatory program are not unduly affected from the standpNot of resource availability or otherwise.
~ d htl C O32003 O - d
.= . - - ._
l
- a. .
t
} 2 l
l This letter is not a formal opinion binding on the Commission within the meaning of the j NRC regulations. E.g.10 CFR 30.5.
. Sincerely,
~
l l 1 '
l . . . . . . .
l l
).
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel cc: Susan White, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission Marianne Sullivan, Department of !
Energy '
Richard Ratliff, Chief l Texas Department of Hea;th
- b j
e 1
i l
l l
d l
1 1
o 81/E3/97 14:47:58 Via Fox -> 381+415+35B2 SPIROS DROGGITIS Page HH1 s
[O l i-l s , , ,r l o >
LLWForum l
l News Flash 2.009M. ESrJanuary3.1997 ty ta: simile transmnston to Forum Participwls/ Alternates. Federal YaIsons/Allernales l
Andmon u Snnnani Former Utah Regulator Sues Envirocare Owner Claims Ex-Official Extorted Money l The Complaint Answer and Counterclaim On October 18. 1996 Larry Anderson and Ahhough Envirocare denies having paid or owing Lavicka, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Third money to the plaintiffs, Semnan has stated in District Court of Sah 1.ake CountyaUtah, Judicial Khosrow Semnani and Envirocare of Utah.The gainstof6cial court documents that he personally agreed to make payments to Anderson and 'that he suit alleges that the defendants owe to the personally gave Anderson cash, gold coins, and plaintiffs in excess of $5 million for site real properry totaling approximately $600,000 in application and consulting services related to the value over an eight-year period. According to the licensing and operation of the Envirocare low- documents, Semnani denies. however, tTiar the level radioactive waste disposal facility. payments were for consulting services and instead alleges that they were made in respone to According to the complaint, payment is due Anderson's ongoing practice of extorting monies under an oral contract allegedly entered into between the parties in 1987 after Andenon from Semnani by using his official posinon with the state of Utah. Semnani contends that he made approached Semnani about siting such a facility in the payments because he feared that Andenon Utah. At the time, Anderson served as director of would otherwise use his regulatory authority to the Utah Bureau of Radiation Control. Kenneth create problems for Envirocare.
Alkema, who is the former Director of the Utah Division of Environmental Quality, was in early November 1996 Semnani 61ed a Anderson's immediate supervis,or. Alkema currently serves as Envir ocare's Director of counterclaim against Anderson seeking $1.8 million in puniuve damages plus the return of all Governmental Affairs.
monies and property that he had previously given The plaintiffs claim that, under the tenns of the to Anderu>n. In addition, Semnant and contract, Semnani agreed to pr consultin f Envirocate together Gled a counterclaim seeking
. .ation ol'gfiveee an award of attorneys fees, of $100,000 and ongoing ten percent of all direct and mdirect revenues realized from the operation of the Envirocare facility, should siting prove successful. The plaintiffs contend that only a portion of the money owed has been paid to date.
Pa0e 1 of ?
LLW Forum clo Afton Assochtten inc . 403 f ul CapHol Strett. Wash *0100 D C 20003 (202}54L2620. sc (20215471668. *u livorumcation.com . enno http nwww.a' ton comWorum s/j J/7
a 81/b3/97 14:40:35 Via Fax -> 381+415+3582 SPIROS DROGGITis Page BBZ Former Utah Regulator Suos Envirocare Background /Related issues State of6cials are in the midst~ . ..e,marly scheduled review of Envirocare's operating l During the time when Anderson claims to have worked as a consultant to Envirocare, the license, which comes up for renewal every Sve i years. Envirocare submitted its renewal comp storage ca was increased signib,any's cantly. In addition,pacity Envirocare's license has application in January 1996. According to Sinclair, the state is currently reviewin > responses been amended several times over the years, to the Grst set of interrogatories. inclair is substantially expanding the nature of the uncertain as to how long the entire license review radioactive waste that the facility may acce disposal. Andenen approved the majorn,pt for will take. In the meantime Envirocare is these amendments, and his signature appears y of on operating under
- timely renewa.l," meaning that Envirocare's original license. its current license remains in effect until a 6nal decision is made on the renewal application.
According to William Sinclair, who replaced Anderson as Director of Radiation Control, the Additionalinformation will be provided at a later Q.,h Department of Environmental Quality date.
conducted an intern =1 investigation into the ie ationship between Semnani and Anderson several years ago. The investigation, however, did -Toddiovinger not turn up an General's Omce,y improprieties. The Attorney from which Anderson claims to have previously obtained " informal advice," is now conducting a cnminal investigation imo the matter. In addition, it has been reported that Dianne Nielson, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, is calling fer Semnani's resi Radiation Controk,. nation from the Utah Board oT Utah's ethics laws prescribe that no public of6cer or public employee shall knowingly receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit. directl any gift, compensation,yoror loan, indirectly,himself for or another if: (a) it tends to innuence him in l the discharge of his of6cial duties: or (b) he recently has been, or is now, or in the near future may be involved in any government action di'rectly affecting the donor or lender ...
l l
l t
l I l
Page 2 of 2
- 3
t &
MEETING
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD - UTAH ,
PARTICIPANTS: H. L. THOMPSON, DEDR R. BANGART, OSP P. LOHAUS, OSP F. CAMERON, OGC D. MURPHY, 01
- 8. O'CONNELL, NMSS R. SCARANO, REGION IV (BY TELEPHONE /817-860-8106)
DATE AND TIME: JANUARY 10, 1997 11:00 - 12:00 ROOM: TWFN A-1 i
! l CONTACT: RICHARD BANGART (415-3340) 1
)
I 1
)
s
-_