ML20217D650

Discusses Info Re 2.206 Petition,Filed by Natural Resousces Defense Counsel Re Envirocare

ML20217D650
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/05/1997
From:	Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20217D567	List: ML20217D581 ML20217D593 ML20217D609 ML20217D616 ML20217D636 ML20217D650 ML20217D679 ML20217D701 ML20217D718 ML20217D731 ML20217D740
References
FOIA-97-105 2.206, NUDOCS 9710060049
Download: ML20217D650 (1)

Text

_ _ . _ _ _ _. _. . _ _ . . . _

l, ,

February 5, 1997 .-

Carl Paperiello, NMSS Note to:

From: k Jack Goldberg, OGC

SUBJECT:

/m INFORMATION RELATING TO 2.206 PETITIO RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL kEGARDING ENVIR On February 4,1997, I received a copy of hdocuments, w

! by Jonathan P. Carter, Esq., on behalf of Envirocare You should consider d send a in resp petition filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 2.206 by NRDC. ting

, this information prior to issuing the decision on th that it was considered. i I

I The cover sheet to the documents contains at from "boilerplate* G their confidential or privileged nature.

with the requirements in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790 for withholding determine if hedocumen s public disclosure, we are attempting to contact Mr. hCarter to is requesting that these documents be exempt from public disclosu t

Accordingly, you should not now reference them documentin room.

your these decision o l

l petition, nor should you place those documents in cocuments may be referenced and made publicly available.

l b cc w/att: R. Bangart, OSP [

3 tLJ

/ l( Ww

{q (pl It '

n t

%) E '.y r ! 7'/G Jo  ; . ( u / s/c[

/

/

h $/Ly s d

9710060049 970929 x,

', hB9 5 PDR t _.

'30/E0*d 600'oN iS: P! 26.SI Jdd OE!S-SIP-102:131 HJNOME aqdl/0ID3 JdNSO

'y (

4 1 '

j~ seg\ UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

WASHINGTON. D.C. 3000H001 _q February 5,1997 '

MEMORANDUM TO: Richard L. Sangart, Director Office of State Programs FROM: Kathie.n N. Schneider b Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs

SUBJECT:

1994 UTAH RADIATION PROGRAM REVIEW in 1994, I was the team leader for the Utah Agreement State Program Review conducted in accordance with the 1992 NRC Policy Statement " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreeme. ! State Radiation Control Programs." This review was conducted in connection with the pilot integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), however the findings of record for this review are those in accordance with the 1992 Policy Statement.

The review wks held during the week of June 1317,1994 in Salt Lake City, Utah and audited the State's actions during the period of April 12,1992 to June 13,1994, in a letter dated December 6,1994, the Utah program was found to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the regulatory programs of the NRC, As a result of the recent information about payments made by Mr. Semnani, owner of 1

Envirocare of Utah (Envirocare) to Mr. Anderson, former radiation control program director, '

I was asked to review the 1994 Utah assessment and to meet with the members of my team who audited the low-level radioactive y aste portion of the Utah agreement programs to determine if there were any areas in the 1994 Utah Radiation Program Review where the te(1 relied on statements or information from Mr. Anderson which needed further examination or review by NRC.- Early 1993, Mr. Anderson was replaced as the Radiation Program Director. More broadly, in light of the Semnani to Anderson payments, I was also rerpested to evaluate whether there is a need to perform additional near-term Utah program review activities for any reason associated with my evaluation of the 1994 Utah program review.

4' James Kennedy, Division of Waste Management, NMSS, assisted during the week'of June 13,1994, witn those portion? ot de review dealing with the low-level radioactive waste regulatory program. Fred Aw.- rivision of Waste Management, NMSS, reviewed and discussed outstanding issues fri,.o tne provicus review and lettars dated December 24,1992, June 28,1993, and March 31,1994 on the Envirocare license with Utah staff on June 14-15,1994. As team leader, I coordinated the team members' i

act vities and also reviewed the status of the legal autilority for the program with special emphasis on the 1992 amendment which established the Radiation Control Board.

I met on January 14,1997 with James Kennedy and Fred Ross and we reviewed and discussed the findings of the 1994 Review and our racollection of the audit we performed.

In 1993, Mr. William Sinclair had been appointed to replace Mr. Anderson and was the

$l.$O Y

c

'\

R. L Bangart 2-Radiation Control Program Dir6ctor during the review. My recollection and that of the team members was that Mr. Sinclair appeared to be both dedicated to assuring public health and safety and objective in his program implementation. Our interactions with the staff in the low-level radioactive waste area and the other program areas were professional and we did not have any concems that the reviewed information and the intsrections that occurred in 1994 were biased or otherwise inaccurate as a result of the alleged payments made when Mr. Anderson was program director. There were differing opinions between NRC and the Utah staff on several technical and administrative lasues in the materials area, but these issues were discussed and either resolved or were included in the comments on the program.

Eleven comments had been identified during the 1992 review of the Utah program under the indicator of Technical Quality of Licensing that were applicable to Utah's review of knvirocare's license application. The land ownership exemption was an issue addressed separately from the 1992 review in SECY 93-136, " Update on the Resolution of the Utah Land Ownership Issue" dated May 18,1993. The Commission agreed with the staff's recommendation to find the exemption acceptable and a letter was sent to Utah on June 28,1993 transmitting this finding. The team performed confirmatory reviews on severalitems associated with the 'and ownership exemption, such as updates of the Trust Agreement and revisions to supporting calculations to remove inconsistencies previously noted by NRC staff and the comment was closed. Eight comments on operating procedures, waste averaging, placement of waste, definition of lift, leachate collection system, engineering inspection during construction, hydraulic conductivity of clay liner and disposal of heavy metals in the low level radioactive waste cell were closed, during the .

1994 review. Our determinations were based on examination of records and actions taken by the State. The review team verified actione taken by the State such as verifying Utah's policy and Envirocare's procedures were consistent with NRC guidance on waste averaging and hiring staff by the State of Utah with civil engineering / construction experience. -Our determination of the satisfactory resolution of these comments is not

..under question based on tha present knowledge of the activities between Mr. Anderson and Envirocare,

' Two issues from the 1992 review were not closed during the 1994 review and they are as follows:

Completion of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER)

' Air Pathways Analysis in support of Envirocare amendment fu additional radionuclides.

The completion of the SER, to include the ground water discharge permit statement of basis, was considered partially addressed, but not closed at the time of the review. The State was in the process of ongoing licensing actions and preparation of a draft revised ground water discharge permit. 5,e report stated that NRC would continue to monitor Utah's continual actions with regard to the inclusion of the ground water discharge permit statement of besis in the SER and that NRC requested a copy of Utah's draft permit for comment when issued. Fred Ross has received information from the Utah staff during the past year, howe r, there has been no formal request for the State to submit the draft

R. L. Bangart 3 FEB 0 51997 permit and no document in Office of State Programs' files indicated that . State requested an NRC review of the draft perrr.it. I believe that NRC should request this information now. NRC recommended a pathway analysis to include C 14 and tritium, in ,

response to NRC comments, the State required Envirocare to perform the analysis. The

State supplied the results in the response to the review of the methodology used by the licensee and the results for C-14, When I evaluated the response to this item, I did not realire that tritium had not been addressed in the response. This item should also be followed up and should be included in b written request to the Stata, in addition to the items from the 1992 review, the team evaluated the Radiation Control Board, that provides direction for the Radiation Control Program. -The Board was established in 1992 with further revisions in 1994. The Executive Secretary of the Radiation Control Board is the Radiation Control Program Director (presently Mr. Sinclair) who carries out the day to-day responsibilities for the program. The team was concerned with the Board due to the four licensees serving as members of the 11 member Board. I discussed with staff existing procedures for handling conflicts of interest, interviewed the Assistant Attorney General knowledgeable on State ethics laws and requirements for the various Division Boards, and examined meeting minutes for the Radiation Control Board.

Mr. Semnani, Envirocare, was a member of the Board during the period of Board activities I reviewed; Mr. Anderson served as Executive Secretary until his retirement in 1993. The team made a recommendation under the Legal Authority Indicatar that the Radiation Control Board establish a written policy consistent with policies of other Divisions to recuse themselves from discussions on particular items or issues that create conflict of interest for them in my raview of the Board minutes. I dd not find any incidence of Mr. Semnani, Envirocare, int?.:encing the Board in discussions or decisions concerning the Envirocere license. The State did adopt and send to NRC written procedures addressing conflict of interest that were consistent with the other Divisions in response to this comment.

- A recommendation was effered under Contractual Assistance that the State should have procedures in place to avoid the selection of contractors associated with the development or operation of the site. Only one contractor was involved in the specific instance and we accepted the Utah response that no conflict was involved. Utah committed to modify their procedures as appropriste. The team did not recall the name of the contractor involved

= nor was it documented. For completion, the name of the contractor involved should be obtained, the modified procedure should be reviewed, and the Utah contractors supporting the review of the Envirocere license renewal application should be evaluated to assure no conflict of interest is present.

. In addition, we made one recommendation for the State to fill the funded vacancy in the low-level radioactive waste area. The State response was that funded positions would likely not be filled, but that management intended to use available trained staff to supplement when needed in appropriate areas.

Although there are three areas that NRC could gather further information, based on my review, no information evaluated by the team suggested that any of the State of Utah's

R. L Bengart ,4 FEB 0 51997 activa ;3garding Envirocare during the 1992 to 1994 period were inappropriately influenced by Mr. Anderson or resulted in a biased regulation of Envirocare.

I also reviewed the 1992 program review report and the 1993 review visit report, although I did not participate in either review. In addition to th3 comments previously discussed that were developed during the 1992 review, two inspections conducted by the State of Utah resulted in 48,500 and 45,000 civ:1 penalties against Envirocare. Based on the information in these two reports, there did not appear to be any signs of biased regulation.

In hindsight, I would not have reviewed or directed the team to review any additional areas or reviewed the same areas differently during the 1994 review, in light of the knowledge of Semnani's payments to Anderson. I do not recommend any additional review at this time bassd on my review, in advance of obtaining more information from Utah's investigation, the Utah Radiation Control program, or the NRC evaluation efforts that would call for additional review. I do recommend that a letter be sent to Utah requesting information on the above three areas to complete NRC's assessment.

3

\

EEB 11 gr Carol S. Mercus, Ph.D., M.D.

President, California Chap;er i American Colle9e of Nuclosr Physicians P. O. Box 31 Los Altos, CA 94023

Dear Dr. Marcus:

This is in response to your letter dated January 21,1997, requesting 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 is presently requestine information from the State of Utah on the issues you raised. We will inform you of our decision whether to conduct a review of the Utah program. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415 3340.

Sincerely, Ori;Y SW D/

ROlARD L D.WGT Richard L. Bengart, Directcr Office of State Programs cc: Mr. R. J. Hoffman, UT Mr. W. J. Sinclair, UT Distnbution:

EDO RF (G970052)

SECY (CRC 97 0085)

DIR RF DCD (SP08) PDR (YES)

HLThompson

. RLBangert PLohaus SDroggitis h ,OGC KSchneider JGreeves, DWM Utah File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\MARCUSUT.KNS *See previous concurrence.

w .. -- w e 3 c - r . c , e _ o w.%

0FFICE OSP M LI OSPEKy , DWR:0 l OGC [ OSP:(X'/ 4 r Q4I$ l NARE KSchneider:kk "* PLoh4RDirv JGreeves FCameron RLBangart. W1R4h#gison DATE 02/0'f /97 ' 02//6 /F7 02/06/97* 02/JS /9?' 02/:(, /97 '

07/ 7 /97 OSP FILE CD)E: SP-AG-28

- Mr. William J. Sinclair, Director -

Division of Radiation Control Q

i

• Department of Environmental Quality FEB 111997 ;J I

l 168 Nortt.1050 West l Post Office Sox 144850 i Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850

Dear Mr. Sinclair:

We are in receipt of the January 21,1997 letter to Mr. Robert J. Hoffman, Cleairman,

- Utah Radiation Control Board from Dr. Carol S. Marcus, President of the Califomia Chapter of the American College of Nuclear Physicians (CAACNP). She has requested, in her letter to Chairman Jackson, dated January 21,1997, that NRC conduct an expedited Agreement State Program review of Utah based on the issues raised in the letter to Mr. Hoffman.

We will reply to Dr. Marcus' letter. To accomplish this we request a copy of the 1996 license amendment application for disposal of resins and any DRC safety evaluations or other information that supports the license amendment. Based on Dr. Marcus' letter, we specifically request information on the decision by the DRC to authorize dilution and disposal of non containerized lon exchange resins. Additionally, please indicate whether the Envirocare license authorizes receipt of any waste that, before dilution, weuld be categorized as class B or C, pursuant to 10 CFR 61.55 and the guidance in the January _17,1995 Branch Technical Position on Concentration and Encapsulation of Weste, enclosed. Also, we specifically request information on your assessment of the adequacy of the amount (s) of financial assurance required to be established by Envirocere as each amendment to the Envirocare license was issued to increase the volumes and types of waste received for disposal.

Since Dr. Marcus addressed the same concerns to the Utah Radiation Control Board and the f.'3C, I request that you keep us informed as to the State of Utah's response to the

(.;AACNP letter to Mr. Hoffman. You will be informed of our actions to respond to i Dr. Marcut, if you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415 3340.

Sincerely, OTH SpM B/

R!CHNCLh.2 M Richard L. Bangart, Director Offico of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution:

EDO RF DIR RF (G970052) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES)

RLBangart - HLThompson PLohaus JGreeves, DWM SDroggitis : hon, OGC -

KGehneider JHornor, RIV/WC Utah File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\7E52.KNS 'See previous concurrence.

n .. - e . c , ~ r - c w - .

OFFICE =OSP l OSP:DD 1 DWR:D l OGC l OSP:D DEDR I NARE KSchneider:kk PLohaus JGreeves FCameron RLBangart HLThompson DATE 02/04/97* 02/05/97* 02/06/97* 02/05/97* 02/06/97* 02/07/97*

OSP FILE C0)E: SP-AG-28 W D ?vu a iP .

.Jen-22-D7 03:5CA '

• 14

.. t hTT0 January 21, 1997 RJ'1 The Honorable-shirley Ann Jackson .Anlerican U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission College of Washington, D.C. 20555 hhlCl68r Physicians Re: Petition to Conduct Expedited Agreement State ,

Program compatibility Review Califortua Chapter

Dear Chairman Jackson:

M $*

Attached is a petition submitted-by the American U ca **on College of Nuclear Physicians California Chapter w

(" California ACNP") to the Utah Radiation control "d"@g,Q Board and Utah Department of Environmental Quality seeking reasonable and prudent protection from what we 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 requiremente are properly implemented.-Petitioner seeks-your particular attention to implementation of financial asaurance requirements.

With Utah in the midst 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 issued 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, k"'.

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

Director, Nuclear.Med. Outpt. Clinic Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Professor of Radiological Sciences, UCLA and President,.American College of Nuclear Physicians, California Chapter cc: Honorabte Lauch Faircloth mun -

, n -

e

.Jon-22-07 03:56A . P.02

T0 January 21, 1997 s2).k_

I American College of Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman Nuclear and Members Utah Radiation Control Board Physicians Department of Environmental Quality 168 North 1950 West Californie P.O. Box 144850 Chapter salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 p.,,,3, oot,, ,,,,,

Emecutive Drecto, subject: Petition for Rulemaking U,'U. ca s4eu

Dear Mr. Hoffnun:

Nill$'j@ll T!.e following petition is submitted to the Utah Radiation Control Board in accordance with the State of Utah's responsibilities as an Agreemsnt State under Section 274 (b) of the federal Atomic Encrgy 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 immediate3y 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 consistant with its Agreenent 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 Probles statement and Proposed solution

1. Problem statenent: 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 requiremerts 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 government sources. (For comparison purposes, Ward Valley is licensed to receive a total of 5.5 million cubic feet of waste over the site's entire 30-year life). Of this total,

~

I

-AnnL22-07 03:57A P.M January 21, 1997

_ Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page -2=

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 comprise 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 conctatration limits.-When compared.to the detailed source ters analysis and related 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 assesament.

2. Prono==d solution: The following petition components are respectfully submitted in the interest 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 will ship low-level radioactive waste to the Envirocare of Utah disposal

-facility in Tcoele County, hereby-file this petition for rulemaking with the Utah Radiation 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 emergency 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 immediste order rescinding the Division's 1996 authorization ponding Board action on this petition and completion of the Division's license renewal review process also appears to be approprjate.

2.Jon 22-07 02:57A.

~

e J . 0 4 -

s i

January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, chairman 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 consistent with ALARA principles and other occupational radiation

safety considerations.

r The purpose of petition components-(b) and (c) is to ,

minimize the liability and related harms of practices -

. we aru concerned may be incompatible with the 10 CFR i- Part 61 regulatory framework and inconsistent with i generally accepted worker radiation protection standards.

! II. Petitioner's Grounds for and Interest in the Action Requested i 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 l California ACNP or member employers have utilized or may utilize the Envirocare disposal facility. In.the context of 4

-the potential regulatory deficienciv> described herein,-such

utilization givcs 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 assurance raauirements-for closure and nestelosure monitorina and maintenance at the-Envirocare facilltv may be inadeauate. We understand that the furiding levels now set aside to carry outlthese, 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 561.63(a), NRC anticipated that no license would te 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 wpm

--a

._ v - ,- -- n-.w-=, -- - - - , - - - -

,Jan-22 07;o3:57a " US 4

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

l l enforce funding adequacy through a revocable leasehold interest would be understandable had the state been fiscally conservative in establishing.Envirocura's financial assurance requirements and otherwise stringently applied Part 61 requirements. As discussed below, this does nat 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 $4s million. According to south Carolina officiels, ,

approximately $s7 million is set aside for its Barnwell site, of this amount, $12 million is designated for closure and stabilization and $75-dillion is available for long-term care. Based on a January 16, 1996 discussion with Dane Finerfrock of the Utah-Radiation control Division, only $5 millior 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 funds would be

-available. CERCLA experience teaches us-that 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 potenuial objections? If not, there is added reason for concern about the comparatively meager available funds.

L~,Jon-22-07 03:574

" 06 4

I January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman

-and Members Page 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 now

-seeking state approval to dispose of up to 80,000 cubic feet a year of nuclear power plant resins and solidified cleaning.

agents.

2. california ACNP is concerned that the Division of Radiation control's authorization to dilute and disoona of non-containerized ion exchance resins mm.v be contrary to the intent-of the 461.55 waste classifitation nystem. invites violation of the 461.56 fbi waste stability recuirements. and may. violate ALARA worker exoomure orinciples. The $61.55

- classification system for commercial low-level vastes is based on isotope concentration limits calculated on a per-unit-volume basis averaged across the size of the container.

Utah's decision to base license compliance on isotope concentrations achieved within the disposal tronen, after diluting the waste with soil at 9:1 ratio, appears inconsistent with $61.55 provisions for determining concentrations in the waste itself. In concept, it appears that Utah's approach allows Envirocare to accept waste at its gate which exceeds its lic6nse limits and may even exceed the $61.55 Class A limits. In the latter instance, 561.56(b) would require specified waste form stability measures-which appear to be inconsistent with Utah's requirement regarding containerized waste. Moreover, we 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'oeparate state-enforced license conditions exist to protect against the radiological hazards involved in emptying rasin containers and mixing the waste within the trench.

Since the' technical requirements of 10 CPR part 61 are a matter of.rather strict compatibility for Agreement States, we ao not understand how Utah was apparently able to redefine the application of 561.55 without-formally receiving approval from the NRC. Compatibility issues are also raised by the non-containerized disposal of commercial-

-Jan-22-07 03:53A P.07 t

January 21,-1997 l

Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page low-level waste, a practice-prohibited by all other commercial low-level vaste sites and seemingly in conflict with the intent of the $61.56 waste characteristics requirements.-How, for example, is 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 the inherent nature of ion exchange resin waste. Used to filter 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 Tenewal application Appendix P makes-no mention of Sr-90 arx 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 administratively approved under existing license conditions developed for relatively innocuous-debris materials. How will Utah regulators.and Envirocare ensure that applicable waste concentration limits 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 wach 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 f

availability of comparatively inexpensivo 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

Ann-22-07 O'3: S O A ,

F.OB _

January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page disposal facilities pursuant to the federal Low-Level 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 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 now underway, and that Envirocara will indeed become the main national disposer just long enough to develop 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 restoration costs. In many ways, this fear lies at the crux of the issue.

We look forward to the State of Utah's formal reply and stand ready to help answer any questions you, the Department of Environmental Quality, or other state officials may have in considering this petition.

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

Director, Nuclear Med. Outpt. Clinic Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Professor of Radiological Sciences, UCLA and President, American College of Nuclear Physicians, California Chapter l

,Jon-42-07 C3:CCA "

a January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page ~4-

Attachment:

May 7, 1996 Inforzation Notice. (

Subject:

ion exchange resin disposal) cc w/ attachment:

Governor Michael 0. Leavitt Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality William Sinclair, Executive secretary, Radiation Control Board and Director, Radiation Control Division Dor. Womaldorf, Executive Director, Southwestern Compact Members, California ACNP Board s

eena.

__.______--_]

,Jan 22-97 08tSOA P.'A

/

AFFENDfX P PROJECTEDWASIE STREAMS I W af Typen,IQada, and 4)mandeias e(Wases we ep a be een.Wed was essen vnennemy enmanig sad massimmer p emed radiosase annasai CNARM, emme msnmal, speaf modser mesiel ad hypeana (1140) mannai. The 'amew, of sesonamen newees has shamped ukh ties and k is esposed ther dis psmem W eamaism Entposers has russemHhe - W. . newees et neoussevs and asked wenn sad has de=eispes me adeedcs nesse senaremensalan no , M ".'r, and websens are es.best asemans a this mas, but any wry muB canage puer the pused dihe immes. O- i . - '. _ '.

-- ' ~^

T~ -

L_, - _ . .- _c . . . . ... .. . - n _c . . - u

. m_ _ .. .v_.

m____. , _ m

_m---

__m.

.,.7---

_ _ _ _ . .. . i m . - m .

- i

. __ 1,_ .-_,w. .. a ~ . 1 -

,- ..__u-. _ __u_,___.,s___ _.~ ,g,._,,,.,--_

.-_.m __

maahed er M wE have a sydsam sepast es eis suoral asase af to wees anyoemd or en the esteemment.

.a- _., _m. c_____,,,,<___,,_,._ma___.,.____.1 - _

, g, . , ,

ensammannammitsemita o - _. - .-"- rasene.hdem in unna Aasr m% mumanEstr. assmadas the aussadma ,

air- -

am xw - - m -- =

w aa -- _- __ _ . ___m__., ,_ _> m.

a _ __ _. _ _ _ ,c ; __ , s ariha e --

-i u 5' amendsemaan air q pmunded hv g he mamamsm m _ h -- - rh - -

• ma - >

'-- u ^ '_

>=-

-a_n- _m>______ _u.a b ,' -__ _

an"_ b

._,_u

.,_g_,,3,,,1_ a

,,,,, 3,,, g 7 m . - _ _ _ _ - - - _

,, % u o , g , _ . _. ; a .g ._ ,

t irmanage medalima man wme as smaam shst thans emagemnansieme also ananame af anaandemnet.

.n,. ____' g g,,

m i _ _ _ --_ 6,_ . _ _ _

_ _ _ - g,

. , , .. m_ -.__-_---. .___ _m. _,

, m __

,,,,a-. _c- -.

_ .m .

, amated usaskar ammaatama g p- -i,_.--- , , _ _ .

__= h_ _ % ___ _ .,__, , p_,

anals innahnam aanmaamBr ammramar sammi mapman ammamandaan emaak ash annamaan rs iam af r ' % week __ - Mswimar. in _^ - f_ ; _ '_ , __ u - % . - _

ramaammmpus st adiimm 4 - " ^ - a au, aem---'e- - '- m g Th 4 Ala asen la ' as the .' g(M M hs 100 h@ baskus haar enesp dabanamn.

P.1 -

6 9

4 Jan-E2-97 08:59A F.11 ~

- +

O '

WemWo==smodsad ereq,med sensdr. .

1

1. Maest m s. sam somw (Noemo essessusned mils ad -

hadas eers, les een M6 PCWs eI urness usess.ase6 ve nans zas samleed w hah agestrum - '

l .

30eLoes.44etaperyss(cey) 1 M.

• h N

.met mulhassamm e m emeNdelminua lteso sm.,s CP4

. _ :. . a = =

3,00060o0 adly 3 sheen, % or umbus tem hemadst name mesa essasies wome NomM mammsis. Unusam and em6sm demy shain andda 30 5p00 pCW ud6 weighead

= esp a ss===nanspeedmsmirs copc 4 -

100g000 sey .

4. sob tem densaminisse of numer faslNes emmehused =th egy W ts bysseem nesmans ammamed =46 mash W Meier seessuida er 7,.55 ceda, ce.m sad c>tn witammempieiy esammamenes dappsedsmuly 100 .

9cHr'=t.auh === suas emmahm , w Moo

• pot etend ==dk

-ga,,4

5. L 1.- m dunes een esseemssmomas afnemer masten M whh aer e(es bypsedan samah assammast meet assh opeusses. Mqsar -m

== re.ss, cosa, com and co.in =m unenes neign mensemaness d appressenty 100 pC44W att asme'aust q w so 40,000 pOg etensk subes 20 soar >sey A Dry ambe umas tums W ad smaammes er ander summen, assi proomsing -

sad nep esennsm near enum my mesa essid ander w worm masaw masMa Ms.t andens me is en rey of e Apr amm of pCbt tus C-14 esd ethan may be as high as 100.000 pC%t b same mamms and Co.St. Co do, Co.137 er Em45 mayfusst 40,000 pCW3

. sseAnesey -

• ,9 t g . .

h

,Jon*22-97 03:59A P.12 _

, a '. ,

7. Asmas ad astedad damag aguas esmalaba bypment mensues Som sudar l power plasm nema makes we e a is- mas espcW ha C*** ud an7 willk

! es,$as M000 pCWg's smeemenssenses. ,

%NO d$

a. shadess, mihees dag er amens tem hedsmal wepe suumas cessmedes

• I sawen, bygressa a special = rant assensis. AWashed agmes sommemnhises

. thus 50pC4 -

t

$ s dur a ens essesdassed by imemendes er sealed essess a emmen mead' l Deplead wusinas 61,000 pc%, sansman'300,000 4 ce-in censka soo pcMn; m m moos pog asas sisy asons m.aas a gWloo tasepot .

SmA 8

h n= Winney pasmus ehmus phau. Tagst aus amassatanoas amidad -

eengs shest 400 pQ$ geesus ddResen phus wenns a thh a 284,oGD p0$

v 400.088 ery .

. . hpoedasung , ,

A000eer .

u. Acadmeerm meansmo nessMs sus nan assies.s usy:esmain ne annen pedmas, penssey es,40 and ensum wah tessummium appresem$

toepag. .

sue '

eessammesesappremmesdy100 pG4 escoesy

. El 9

O

On n' '2 2 - D 7 03:59A F- 13

,= .

14 Mansummmandieman hussema messsial amamed tasa haul renda and tem buena shna In&dma a umas nessmaa mannar at lemnaarr 1 mamma Weistand mamma

, ammmasanian 10 nog in ihm innsaan and shasham desar daba smandan less than m pfMa hr mR anhasm 11Goaapr 143 Besmas af the asars #Ns opereness, k e anhelpened est vdoassen e areams 4 to idended it *.hs Anne as - easts messman and wesm-sensehs psesamme W Radiossowy souW Insinds any of de samenfy sensung er asaamada M Cameers&ses moung aus suased Class A lbsde sad es ogsps ennusmusses is a es48 are soulddl aos be poseer them those

, efTels 4.

3,459 afy '

24 Amr af the absue =uss name sur esema seen heardam mesmak sad, mandhn, I beelnamend e mi-deuse,

, MW4 .

At she ammissess etdupeed amnesse a the she, k b seassable as asasse ihme alt be soms amassessed sets =ie summe gemeens of vesseaMy ihm wls nous en k vesmemd sad plesed h as Na Abe, dummeAns etenase heilulas esa ymenes amamenstle wusw easemag et Imul seed mesmiula, asphab peng,,eenmens em send edsts, butdag duksis sad pond Enem

.~

2 Compasan Festessium afWasse busesseets .

2.) alshbr tsummary -

h immusury of all masEds .in seesgo a dispsund as es sud et1995 b shone in Tahls 1. The urueen and thessa dessy aheim ausEdes amepes he medessy of radionssetqr is invenary.

This seAmes es impertmus of Esdresso as a N1364 etiposal andsy, u well as ihn.

sammasslan aflugs ssesses IsustuMg wedeus seuse smedel seness spamme. This invesury -

alas esmanness k low emme sneemmenen et sedleenhdir in =ame sessmed try s

e G

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _