ML20136H520

Transmits State Agreements Program Info SP-97-012 Re Requests for Review of Utah Agreement State Program

ML20136H520
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/27/1997
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	GENERAL, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
Shared Package
ML20136H527	List: ML20136H520 ML20136H658
References
SP-97-012, SP-97-12, NUDOCS 9703190177
Download: ML20136H520 (4)

Text

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

_ _ .__ 7 _ .. _ . , .; .. _ _ _7 . .

FEB 2 71997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES MASSACHUSETTS, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-97012 )

~

Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspon'dence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION................. XX TWO REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF UTAH'S PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION........... AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION.....................

TECH NICAL INFO RMATIO N. ...............................

OTH E R I N FO R MATI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sunnlemmtary Information: The Natural Resources Defense Council and the American College of Nuclear Physicians have requested a review of Utah's Agreement State Program. Specifically, the organizations are concerned with the State's policies ,

involving the regulation of the Envirocare disposal facility. Both organizations have requested the NRC's involvment in resolving this issue. Enclosed is a copy of the Director's decision relating to the NRDC petition and a copy of our letter to the ACNP on their request.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.

POINT OF CONTACT: Kathleen Schneider TELEPHONE: (301) 415-2320 FAX: (301) 415-3502 INTERNET: KXS@NRC. GOV OdginalSigned By:

PAUL H. LOHAUS '

9703190177 970227 Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director PDR STPRG ESGG Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated ,

Distribution: l DIR RF :DCD (SP03)'

4

- RLBangart - ;POR (YES'V) 1 Q $j PLohtus .

~

SDroggitis LRikovan RSAOs ) E-Mailed RSLOs ) : 3/3 /97 ^

hkif 7""1NO . 9 -e M mg bdk, All A/S File INTERNET'  : ' 3/3/97. -

. Utah File ,

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\SP97012 T3 s . "P = Copy with .tt. chm.nt/.nclosur. "N" = No copy

,y .e iu. a t.we. m in. 6.m cf h whout .et. chm.nU.ncio.ur.

OFFICE OSP O OSP:DMK o , [, l

(( Ccd V' $ R

'~

NAME LJRakovan:gd/nb PHLo aus ' RLBangart' DATE 2/12/97* 4 /dy97 []/fy97

' Srs Previous Concurrence. 05R. FILE CODE: SP-A-4 SP:AG-2f

ALL AGREEMENT STATES i MASSACHUSETTS, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA j

TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION P )

Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which con ains:

~

/

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION................. XX TWO REQUESTS FOR j REVIEW OF UTAH'S i PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION........... AGREEMENT STATE l PROGRAM l TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION.....................

i

TECHNICAL IN FORMATIO N........................... ...

OTHER I N FO R MATI O N.. . . . . . .. . . ... . .. . . . . ...... . . . .. . . ... . . ,

T

\

{ Sunclementary information: The Natural Reso rces Defense Council and the American College of Nuclear Physicians have requested review of Utah's A0reement State

.' Program. Specifically, the organizations are oncerned with the State's policies i involving the regulation of the Envirocare dpposal facility. Both organizations I

have requested the NRC's involvment in r solving this issue.

'If you have any questions regarding thi correspondence; please contact me or the

~ '

individual named below.

i .

POINT OF CONTACT

athleen Schneider

• ' {;

TELEPHONE: (301) 415 2320

~ *' '

FAX: (301) 41_5 3502 - -

lNTERNET: KXS@NRC,. GOV . , y

]

Paul H. L'ohaus, behuty Director Office of State Programs ~

^

i

Enclosures:

j As stated j Distribution

DIR RF DCD (SP03)

RLBangart / PDR (YESf)

PLohaus /

SDroggitis RSAOs ) E-Mailed LR:kovan- RSLOs ) / /97

• All A/S File -

Utth File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\UTAHLTR.LJR n . n .e w. 4 me w m. wn: c - cov mow .et.ch nu.new.w. r - cov e .it. chm.nu.nck.w. T - No con OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD l OSP:D l NAME LJRakovan:gd/nb PHLohaus RLBangart l DATE 2/12/97* kt" / /97 / /97

' Sem Previous Concurrence. OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4 SP-AG-2 7

j. . .

I 1

I ALL AGREEMENT STATES i MASSACHUSETTS, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA ,

TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP 97- )

Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION................. XX' TWO REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF UTAH'S

. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION.......... AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM -

TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION................ ...

TECHNICAL INFORMATION....................... ........

OTH ER INFO R MATIO N..... . . .... ..... . .. . .. . .. . /.... .......

/

Sunclementary information* The Natural Res/ources Defense Council and College of Nuclear Physicians have requesteif a review of Utah's Agreeme,The America nt State Program. Specifically, the organizations are concerned with the State's policies involving the regulation of the Envirocare/ disposal facility. Both organizations have requested the NRC's involvment in' resolving this issue.

/ .

/

if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.

POINT OF CONTACT: Kathleen Schneider --

TELEPHONE: (301) 415-2320 "

- FAX: (301) 415-3502:

INTERNET: KXS@NRC. GOV.

r -

n i s Paul H.'Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Progranish s ,

Enclosures:

r t: '

7" '

/ g , ,4 ,

As stated / ,

t l,

/ , -

Distribution: ' \

DIR RF /

DCD (SP03) N -- j RLBangart / PDR (YESf) ,

PLohius / -

SDroggitis / RSAOs ) E-Mailed LRikovan / RSLOs ) / /97 '

t All A/S File /

Utah File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\UTAHLTR.LJR Ta seeelve e copy of tede deeunient. Indcate la the ben: "C" = Copy w6thout ettechment/encloews *E* = copy with attachment /encloewe *N* = No copy OFFICE QSpif( OSP:DD OSP:D l NAME LJRal66thFgd PHLohaus RLBangart DATE 2 //t/97 / /97 / /97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4 SP-AG 27

_ __ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ . _ _ . . _ _ - .-__.-m . . _. __ ~

54 "'0 p=

%g% UNITED STATES j

s-

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

$

• WASHINoToN, D.c. 2066H001

)

i

%gg# february 27, 1997 J

l ALL AGREEMENT STATES I MASSACHUSETTS, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-97-012 )

!. Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION................. XX TWO REQUESTS FOR  ;

REVIEW OF UTAH'S l PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION........... AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION.....................

TEC H NIC AL IN FO R MATIO N............................... .

' OTH E R I N F O R MATI O N... . ... .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....

j Sunnlementary Information: The Natural Resources Defense Council and the American

~

College of Nuclear Physicians have requested a review'of Utah's Agreement State

} Program. Specifically, the organizations are concerned with the State's policies involving the regulation of the Envirocare disposal facility. Both organizations have requested the NRC's involvment in resolving this issue. Enclosed is a copy of the

, Director's decision relating to the NRDC petition and a copy of our letter to the ACNP on )

their request, s

l If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the l

j individual named below.

c POINT OF CONTACT: Kathleen Schneider

TELEPHONE: (301) 415-2320 .

i FAX: (301) 415-3502 INTERNET: KXS@NRC. GOV

/

hW( )

Paul H. Lohaus, be,puty Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated

1-Jm. 9.1997d10:Otm FRIUSNRC MSG CENTER 5 TON 202 289 0990 NO.072 P. 2/8 P. 2 l l

1 . .

1200 Neto York Ave.. N.W. l

. snite 400 -

,' 'ygm . %kshkigton, DC 20005_' ,

Councu - 20238*868 '

Fez 202 209 2060 .

+. . . .

~

. January 8,1997 -

JamesIITaylor -

. Executive Director'for Operations .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission' , , .

, Washington, D.C. 20555 .

t

] ., ,

4 RE: Request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. -

Dear Mr. Taylor:

4 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, I am writing on behalf of the Natural Re' sources Defense

' Council, Inc. (hereafter "NRDC')to request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereafter "NRC") take action to revoke all licenses held by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (hereafter i

"Envirocare") for the possession and disposal oflow-level radioactive and mixed waste and uranium mill tailings, and take.other '

remedial steps. The basis'for this request and the relief .

?

requested are set forth below. .

. Basis for Request

.Envirocare accepts for disposal at its facilit/' in Clive, Utah: a)16w-level ra'dioactive waste and -

mixed waste (a combination ofradioactive and. hazardous constituents that.are subject to the ,

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) under an operating license issued by Utah (an agre'e ment State with,the NRC); and b) uranium mill tailings under aille.(2) byproduct material disposal license issued in November 1993 by the.NRC. Envirocare is a private, company owned by Khosrow Semnani, who also serves as its president. Mr. Semnani also is a membei of Utah's Board of Radiation Control which oversees the activities of the Division of Radiation Control, '

which in turn has regulatory authority over Eiwirocare's license. ,

On December 28,1996, The Salt Zake Tribune reported on page one that between 1987 and

, January 1995, Mr. Semnani made secret cash paymchts totaling $600,000 to a state official who regulated his facility, namely, to Larry F. Ariderson, who was director of the Utah Bur'eau of RadiatioiControl from 1983 until 1993 (See attached article). Accordmg to the article there are 8es h*Cs==w 40 'Weef 20th street 72 Steueruen stml 6320'sen Vicenic 8tod. Vient we 84 .

• New Yod. New Yad 20021

• sisatt 250 herp./ /wwie.ntd**3 salle1823 W

212 72r2700 sen Frontiero. CA 94105 las Antries. CA s0048 Fox 212 7271773 415 777 0220 213 s34-6000

. Fox 415 4ss.5996 Fet233 s34-1210 h jj 71 h b i

] . 1-d_AN s.949P7M30!08AM FRCUS%f']SG. C.ENTUSTON 202 289 0990 NO.072 P. 3/8p. 3 1.

James Taylor

January 8,1997

'4

) Page 2 i

court records that substantiate this claim. There is also evidence that these payments were in j

violation of Utah state law. The Utah State Attorney General's Office has initiated a criminal investigation.

d j

Envirocare stands to profit enormously by this illegal action. Br example, the U.S. Department

! of Energy has placed a five-year Basic Ordering Agreement with Envirocare for disposal ofits i

Iow-level mixed waste generated as a result ofits cleanup activities, nia greement has an j estimated market value of $350 million.

This issue is clear and straight forward. The president of this company illegally paid the regulator to get his license to store radioactive waste. The license was obtained through a totally cormpt process. Under these extreme circumstances, all of the company's licenses must be i revoked. The public integrity of the NRC would be severely undermined if the Commissioners did nothing more than direct the staff to investigate whether errors of a technical nature were made in the license application, or whether the waste is currently stored in comp! lance with NRC l technical requirements.

ne burden should be on the applicant to obtain a license through a lawful process. Moreover, i

neither the NRC, nor any agreement state, should grant a license to, or continue to license, a i company that is owned, managed or controlled by someone who has made illegal payments to Federal or state regulators responsible for the license. Nor should NRC permit a licensee to j serve on a board that oversees the state agency responsible for regulating the conduct of the

licensee.

ReliefRequested NRDC hereby petitions the NRC to take the following actions:

1) Immediately revoke the license or licenses, or cause the state of Utah to revoke its agreement state license or licenses, under which Envirocare is currently permitted to accept low level

' radioactive waste'and mixed waste for permanent disposa!.

4 l 2) Immediately revoke the NRC 11e.(2) byproduct material license under which Envirocare is l currently permitted to accept uranium mill tallings for disposal.

, 3) Immediately revoke any other NRC license, or agreement state license, if such license exists, held by Envirocare, Khosrow Semnani, or any entity controlled or managed by Khosrow

! Semnani.

j i 4) prohibit the future issuance of any license by the NRC, the State of Utah, or other NRC agreement state, to Khosrow Semnani or any company or entity which he owns, controls, I manages, or has a significant affiliation or relationship.

i

, . ____ _. -. - - - - - ^ - - - - - - ^ ' '- ^ ^ ' - ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~

. . 1,wJm. 9.19974410:01m FliKUStRC MSG CENTERTON 202 289 0990 No.072 P. 4/8 p, 4 ,

s James Taylor January 8,1997 Page 3

5) Suspend the agreement with the state of Utah under which regulatory authority has been transferred from the NRC to the Utah's Bureau of Radiation, until the state of Utah can demo strate that it c'an operate the Bureau of Radiation in a lawful reanner, and without the participation oflicensees, or employees oflicensees, in Bureau of Radiation oversight roles.

Thank you for you consideration of these matters.

Sincerely, a -+, b Thomu B. Cochran, Ph.D.

Director Nuclear Program B

s

1

, 1 --iJ AN. 9.19974510:02AM FR(USNRC f1SG CENTERTON 202 289 0990 No.072 P.5/8P. 5 j

VIRGN _ MARY VISITING EARTH MORE;.BhuEVERS SAY / D 1 1

he$attfakeBribune t

Utd's Independent Yelce Since 1871 a .

t ghm.4=w BATURDAY/ DECEMBER 28,1996. esees.msan w mwm i

- sU"J* 'aW Etah Dump Owner Says N=

~ ~~ = " = _ ,

lEx-OfficialExtortedCash '. -

i . _ ,. _. ;_rg_ u-

~

- :s.,3o pe y i 1.?, 47

\ww%f'*. ~ '"J.T

1. .. 7.E".f.'"J lume.: 9 3 h .k

. ,,y em~. _b= ce 1a gc

~'

e.2lT."'L*J.'"t.a"'

e:

.v-

4.._w.-w .c::::r.E.Ew,ar: + ~2

-L - -

c:==xm .r .a r ar.m wne=m

= =.=:=a :: n m - am. ?*.e emM -

r:w.=, a=_ exh. =Mm =amr.=.ra me.:n== ~ . ~m~.~o.~..~m~

_v N

g . p~

,.,,, Ethics Panel

.M 8 D.;, g gd

~

Pushes Vote r

%w (,7 *R x%

- Somein 00P ht Result:

M Before Backing Speder

, + 8

~

3 l '. + -

O

.' ~

' s l $*?E E l 2 'u ? % %

g7, O.J.r::%'tu".n%nT' 2*%2c;;t!

1 P -

2

.. ".. ,.T._.f.7.M &

l

)* ,

j t ym. 9.1997d(10:02m F".RtUSrRC MSG CENTERiTON 202 289 0900 y0.072 P. 6/8 P. 6

! . Dump. Owner ' * " The Sal!Z 4ke Tribune UTAH / N t

1 i

,r, ,,s,m," , , _ ate",e* 'ss/:iany

,Says. Regulator ~ -

1 -!$xtorted Cash M~r rew,6*-aEd$ -

I

'E Contimand.hm A.g en omm .e e,.1,e.n a,,,esaw l tea Ahma, forener direstar of

) tha UtahDivisten of Ravsraemse.

aftar'recorvtag %*mmal sdike" -- tal Quality, A!koma was Ander. -

' ***t frota b Utah Attarney Generan tlans. **d3*'* **P*r't**r at the -

1 .

Offles.

sature af Hethatsetles, sees not desertis taie 'these were appearances that

{ ,

Larry was too eless to Ravirocare j ,

j Criminal lovestigatore for b and maybe not uslag b Hght Utah Attarner General's Offles IWd@s'nent la kasging a proper

' i- last week were questias i '

e

• - ipeoIn ets involved with the in. casejaz . feuad notatag/*arn length," sal Alkema. We

- 8-= = land Aadason, After 4GIlWDs kla stata job, A1 i

. "We reestved sense.dwaments 8%h,1

! sad have been latervlewtar for a pr*ivate cenaulting Era ink'** 8P nt tht** T* .

F**rs w*rklag

' peopla," eosarmed Todd Ut. .

i

. . sager, spokesman for the seter. Clacianati and Denver. In Atail T' -

e

' Iney general. he returned to Utah to escept a

~

j

.  ! D1aane Nielsen, director of the relations for $4anant's Enviro. Job as director af go i

• ; utah DefertmentofEaviroensa. sare, a tal Qutut

, ' concerns"y, said she has "arove "I had as idea bi :.asey wee I

But about b allegations, receivlag may mon from Khos I

streated that Enviro, until he (Saamam told me to.

i a.

, cats is " operating eerrectly right day? A!1ema said day. "I nat.

l , now." Savirocare isas bed eerwat er received anythlag from Khos i . Imtaer violations ductag theyears - -

I but its overa11 reeerd ts asespers.,untilI yearawent te work for blaa this lble with saast other waste.dispee.

Semanal aald Anderson is the g Oq M Katrina, fret!t. a U.yearold Wier s j i

$aeren wh hhretlawdto **

1 - . Nevada, dactland Friday to an.

.swer quee43 ens "I heve beso talg 60 miles west of Salt Laka City abeet # atha NdC N da(

and erverat anu south at tatar. Sea World's Shemu Stadium -a f

' y sty attatte it. not to talk to any. stata 50. It was designed erfstaal.

i .

y abest i

I l ly to headla large volumes of l emanal coneados thet bo mumy raenactae a:rtand debrts I . l agreed topay Anderson $100,000 fromelsan projeetr. Itlatar re.

i

} 1 imenia band on enher vease reindps or'lu advance to handlewuste and,Ice Storm Tttrns Seat staketegularpay,

. profits - he doesn't resa!! whish. ut tasethmildtrradioatte.and epatzins hazardeus chetnical mto Virtual Ghost Tc i

But he claims ha had no alterna, wasta. Most of the materW te.

live if he develop wasted the site. to esecaegfutty train' eepted at F.avirocure arrires by 5 Continued from A.1 '

5 -

! "There is not a trace of evi. State officials arein the middle

! ;desee that Larry did anything!st eta regutarty scheented review at sties Olympia to buy batteries, (fra logi and et ime." he etressed,

• tasireeare's o attag 11eense, for,hir hemu.

i Itlaned 14Re said the $100,000 said and Bm con.Sta Seeresof aytravelen and skiars wari

, who retteced

asents during meks 17 regular b newsalght years.pay. Andarren as diraefar of raalatica ed wtwo at lamet two feet et saaw closed After the first peyment, Semmar.1 control We are denble checking major toutes across the casende Itaner in N that thlags dcas in the past were tes. !sterstate So over Snoquelante fass s seid ho felt trapped and iamable te OK,"he aald.

step for fear bt Andersanwould over 8tevens Fan. A tatte metatatn route.

if Semaan! la convicted of ille- Pase meer Mount Raisier - was intatt

• s pse public their secret rotation. sal activities te!sted to the ette, Opcand, andlaterstate 90 was espectad to t u=Lil today.

anneta4r uld tederal rules wevid l When he f.laally eut oilthe pay. per1nithis license to be revoked.ra part orchard, aeroes Puget Sound wesi i menta Andersos s attorney wrets

!semaa,ni's itserney thmtening a --

tit. snew caused a marina roof to coUsP88

• towswit. *! would resumt that you

.1, .t .

1 -

inform y.our client of his options,  ;*

V U 6.- ( y -

so that he might govera httnself *

..; f v , . . Q. a"g+ ib!.

j

and the course of his aetlaa om 2

. eh ,.  ;.

thue issues. I vovld hope that ,** , ,

.... ,- 35y, ,, i

..s -

4 N ., , i

. . . 'b f .A.

, n , , , . , , ,,,., h

'Q g k

d l

1-17.44..,9.19974610!O3W. FRCUStitC MSG CCNTERTON 202 289 0990 (40.072 P.7/8p.7 l'

i

. . . ~ . . . .. . . .

Iillj j j i .'

Meij i l i. Ql jl

! a lj i .. 1A i p d.lt n

....n.

i .! ,

E i "I j" jj

~

jj ji i l!ijhi!lk NOil a n ,li i .e #i -a uite i l ce !qn l a u 11 n 4 in; ,

l .Ik.!lll,ll l hj i m a aa milli

. . i. e . t. m u m e m mws_m.serm =2 as esse

. NO.072 P.8/8p,g

! 1 I l

' mvasur. .ramn s. mr n msatt%%ssane now '

l l

U Dinion

....,,E j -

OUR VIEW -

l The Salt Lake Tribune's Editorial Position l Semnani Must Step Down i

It doesn't maner whether Rheurow Seamael's aroject in 1988. Sensamt Sepanaal is a vtetha of astodies er was elsans thath feared that if he didn't hhaself a of latbes. Etter agr. make "" '~ ~ .

he must kammediately frem the ese his a Andereen would Utah Board Radisuou Centrol.

as a stor to'ere-ese problems sempear.

{ In a greed Jay sheeM be Anderson b In to to the flasacial lawsuit that hyhad clales is a

to heel. ~

to own. messeelatleaship with er of a la Tooele Coen. saltant and that Seamaai's is m

ty that accepts radiesetive feu stort of whathe ows ., /

. wastes, and Larry F. A n, the for-l mer direstor of the Utah Bureau of 54 Utah 'stics law preMbks a public afAcer C 3")

distima Centrol. from assepEag T %

eifittoads toinflu.

! the cesse of ce coures, it saattars to ggitser and t he ease the of dettesplant peopleelitetal la the diesberge of  %-

or if the reelpient W !a-i Utah wh semanal was snaken volved la say government action that dewa by Andersen whether be bribed affects the desor. -

j [g ls f l Anderson erwheth,erme two had a ses. ,

?*

! . tu Anderses elefasin courtdoenments E j meus to but unethlent busi- that he enteredtuto the buslases R 1

Bewever ment with 5esnaan! efter "ta.

( yeereforin , it take meaths or forsnel advlee" from the Utsk A reey rs and the coorts to Geners!'s Offlee. Ken Alkema, israer

! east out who ha ed, whether director of the Utah Divisjes af Eavi. a es were *-ai .ed and by whom. reatmental Quality and Aasereen's fer-g

• 13 meantime,8essaanl's coattatsed mer immedate superviser, she een. a >

! C presence on the Estre of Radiatten' toads the A.G.'s olfles coedseted an i Centrolis fatalerable, state the heard laternal Investigation of the bestates

'g ,

i I

}

e eversees the regunsters of Semanad's relatieceht between teamseland As.

business Davirecers of Utah. Sesn- darsen. " 9 stud nothing." Alkema -

3 *f E I i

asal's ea,stfaued servies se the board told the TW6use, k j crodes its credibWty 84d pubUe trast. The attorney tenerers etSee now is 1

Semasal's amaslag story is that he once agada investigating the affair.

i j

paid Asterson 5400 000 over eight However, since the A.O.'s etGee saay be years. Dettag a perue,o of that period, e-e- ' ed by its prertees invet o.

i Aederses was director el the state's Bu. meal.with this matter, as independent i reau of Radiatlas Centrol and approved greed jury lavestigation is appropriate. i s

]

l 1

1 1

. 202 289 0990

. . 1-09-1997 3:08PM FROM PRDC CASHINGTON 202 289 0990 P.1 G970017 Paperiello, NMSS

. Cys: Thompson Jordan Norry Blaha NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL cyr, Osc -

D00 NEWYORKAVENUE,NW, SUITE 400 eBangart, SP WASHINGTON, DC20005 Kennedy, NRR Tel: 202-289-6868 Fax: 202-289-1060 email: tcochran@nide.org FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Acting Executive Director for Operations FAX #: 301-415-2162 FROM: Thomas Cochran DATE: January 9,1997 TOTAL PAGES (including cover): 8 NOTE: The attached letter replaces a previously faxed version addressed to James M. Taylor, dated and faxed January 8,1996, from Thomas B. Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council, re: Request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

l,Jan-22-Q7 03:5CA P.14 j ,

l

! TT0 January 21, 1997 s[)1L 4

The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson

] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission College Of l Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear i Physicians

} Re: Petition to Conduct Expedited Agreement State i Program Compatibility Review California i

Chapter

Dear chairman Jackson:

$[N,7*

i l Attached is a petition submitted by the American ((2[,c uen

College of Nuclear Physicians California Chapter

(" California ACNP") to the Utah Radiation control lfi ['j"7lgj i

Board and Utah Department of Environmental Quality seeking reasonable and prudent protection from what we 3 are concerned may be significant deficiencies in the state's regulation of the Envirocare disposal facility.

i By copy of the petition, prepared consistent with 10 CFR

Part 2, Subpart H, s.2802(c), California ACNP hereby petitions j 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 requirements are properly 1 implemented. Petitioner seeks your particular attention to j implementation of financial assurance requirements.

l 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 4

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 l response to the situation in Utah is critical to maintaining i

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

Sincerely,

{kWALK4 '

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 cc: Honorable Lauch Faircloth um--

-q%Ob C 'b ?- /3ff'

Jun-22-07 03:5CA P . 0 2' *

• l . .

5((0 '

January 21, 1997 4 i

American College of Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Nuclear Utah Radiation Control Board Physicians Department of Environmental Quality 4

' 168 Worth 1950 West California P.O. Box 144850 Chapter salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 Devothy Duffy Price Esecutive Directo, subject: Petition for Rulemaking llMe.. case 2

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

$ l*['g' 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 CF2 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 i State compatibility questions including the posting of sufficient financial assurances.

I. General Problem statement and Proposed solution

1. Problem statement: Envirocare is not currently required to post substantial financial assurances, a circumstance we l 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 radior.ctive waste 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,

. Jon-22-07 03: 57A P.03 I*

j January 21, 1997 j Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page 1 i' i

}

4 for Envirocare, more than 1 million cubic feet would be f comprised of nuclear reactor-related low-level wastes, of which so,000 cubic feet may comprise resin and other nuclear l 1

i -

power plant cleaning wastes. An additional 3 million cubic feet of annual capacity is proposed for unspecified l i

radioactive wastes containing naturally occurring and man-i j

made isotopes falling within the 10 CFR Part 61.55 Class A concentration limits. When compared te the detailed source term analysis and related safety evaluation performed by

! California for Ward Valley, Envirocare's request to take an l unidentifiable source term of 3 million cubic feet / year raises serious questions about the level of detail used for i pathways analysis and performance assessment.

I i 2. Pronomed 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 l Utah's regulatory program for the Envirocare facility.

l 1 (a) The California Chapter of the American College of

! Nuclear Physicians (" California ACNP"), whose members I

or member employers have shipped or vill ship low-level radioactive waste to the Envirocare of Utah disposal j

facility in Tooele 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 licenses for contingent environmental liability i 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 i plant ion exchange resins at the Envirocare facility.

Petitioner does not understand why the Division of

, Radiation control chose to authorize this apparently i extraordinary practice in the midst of its ongoing j review of Envirocare's radioactive materials license

renewal application. Accordingly, an immediate order j rescinding the Division's 1996 authorization pending j Board action on this petition and completion of the J

Division's license renewal review process also appears j to be appropriate.

i d

l i

9

)

I - . _ _ .. . _ _

-. - - - .---. . . - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - . =

4 Jan-22-97 OS:57A P.04 *

• N January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members page i (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.

The purpose of petition components (b) and (c) is to l i 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 worXer radiation protection standards.

II. Petitioner's Grounds for and Interest in the Action Requested 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 utilize the Envirocare disposal facility. In the context of the potential regulatory deficiencies described herein, such I 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 assurance 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 561.63(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 nonitoring 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

i.Jnn-22-07 03:57A P.05 l.-

January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, chairman )

! and Members

! Page !

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

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

i 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 i exceed $48 million. According to South Carolina officials, approximately $s7 million is set aside for its Barnwell j

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 i

million has been deposited with a custodian for both closure i 1

i and long-term monitoring and maintenance of Envirocare's j

4 radioactive materials facilities.

We are quite concerned about this financial assurance j

differential within the overall context that Envirocare is i operating on private land, accepts far greater waste volumes and more diverse waste types than either the Richland or j

Barnwell commercial sites, and carries out storage and processing operations in addition to disposal. Unlike the Washington and south Carolina facilities, Envirocare also j disposes of " mixed wastes". Moreover, we understand that j large volumes of undisposed waste are often present at the l

Envirocare site. ,

j In the event this site were ordered closed prior to l disposing of all of the wastes present at the facility 3 and/or remedial actions involving buried wastes were j required, it appears that very limited funds would be a

available. CERCLA experience teaches us that a private site l 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 1'

the state have the ability to access the fund over the licensee's potential objections? If not, there is added j reason for concern about the comparatively neager available funds.

MB4m i

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

l Jan-22-07 03:57A P.ON * * . i

1 1

January 21, 1997

! Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman i and Members j Page !

i i

i 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 j

radionuclide concentrations present in containerized waste arriving at the site are emptied and diluted with soil in j the disposal trench to meet applicable license limits (see i attached Utah Division of Radiation Control Information Notice). According to Appendix P (November 1996) of i Envirocare's license renewal submittals, the company is now i

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

2. California ACNP is concerned that the Division of Radiation i l Control's authorization to dilute and dianose of non- l l containerized ion exchance resins may be contrary to the j intent of the 461.55 waste classification system, invites

violation of the 461. 56 (b) waste stability recuirements, and

! may violate ALARA worker exoosure nrincioles. The $61.55 l classification system for commercial low-level wastes is l

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 trench, after

! diluting the waste with soil at 9:1 ratio, appears i inconsistent with $61.55 provisions for determining

concentrations in the waste itself. In concept, it appears 4

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 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 i applicable to debris waste posing little or no radiological j hazard, and that no separate state-enforced license j conditions exist to protect against the radiological hazards involved in emptying resin containers and mixing the waste 7

within the trench.

s i Since the technical requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 are a

, matter of rather strict compatibility for Agreement States, we do not understand how Utah was apparently able to i 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 commercial

. _ _ _ _ _ _ ____. _ .._ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ ._.~ _ _ _ ___.-.. _ _ . _

,J n-22-D7 03:53A P.07

(*

l 5 .

. January 21, 1997

! Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman and Members Page ~6-

{

1 I

l i

low-level waste, a practice prohibited by all other I

commercial low-leve) waste sites and seemingly in conflict with the intent of the $61.56 waste characteristics requirements. Now, for example, is the $61.56(a)(3) 1%

j volume limit on free-standing liquids currently enforced in i

the absence of containers? Is this requirement applied?

j Utah's practices raise a series of practical concerns due to i the inherent nature of ion exchange resin waste. Used to l

filter strontium-90, cesium-137, cobalt-60 and other fission

! products out of the reactor's primary coolant loop, 4

discarded resins often require shielding to minimize worker l radiation exposure. (Petitioner notes that license renewal

application Appendix P makes no mention of Sr-90 and other i

i 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 l_ increase have on the modeling? How were the resins assumed

i. to be distributed'within the disposal units?

i Assuming for a moment that these matters have been fully and properly-resolved, it is difficult to understand why such-l potentially dangerous wastes were administratively approved under existing license conditions developed for relatively i innocuous debris materials. How will Utah regulators and j Envirocare ensure that applicable waste concentration limits i and potential waste form stability requirements are met? How j

are shielding considerations during package unloading and solid mixing addressed? What measures are in place to l 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 potentiel " hot spots" accounted

! for? What quality assurance program requirements and l facility operating procedures are in place to address each i

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.

i Beyond the site-specific regulatory and safety I considerations noted, petitioner is also concerned that the 1 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 j

effect on current efforts to license and open new compact i WMe 5

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

Jan-22-D7 OS:58A P . 06 ' '*

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

and Members Page ~7-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 Envirocare 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 I 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 Rsdiological Sciences, UCLA and President, American College of Nuclear Physicians, California Chapter i

l

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

j.Jon-22-37 C3: 50A ,

P.OC l i

l' I' January 21, 1997 Robert J. Hoffman, Chairman

and Members Page -a-i a

1 l

Attachment:

May 7, 1996 Information Notice (subject: ion exchange a resin disposal)

A cc w/ attachment:

}

Governor Michael 0. IAavitt Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

' Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality j

! William Sinclair, Executive Secretary, Radiation Control Board l and Director, Radiation control Division Don Womaldorf, Executive Director, Southwestern Compact )

j Members, California ACNP Board t

l l

{

2

?

i I

l 1

I 4

8 i

l ama.

i 4 Ja.n-22-D7 03:5DA P.10

/

l APPENDR P-PROJECIEDWASTE STREAMS 1

i i Daewusmaales ofTypen,Elada, and Quamenies orthmes a

1 w es o as be sospived me ennes ofnamen% osuusing and aandseer pedesed radossem manadal

@ARhe, semes munanal, speed undant muesdal and Wpohst [h(0) menesL The 'assaw of .

sessendas essendes has abanged ide tiens and is is apesand ther dis panssa 44 ammaW=

Dstesem has squusesHbe assualphasen anwess af seesesem and udend wome sad bas.

dewisped the hepatag mesa ehmtemunden. The subassIMey and websens ese $3.best esimmes a titis

.._: ,shes, bus'say very Z

. . . web.. chegs

. ... weer the pesod'ef to bases.1_L ,- -f; '"7 ' ~ -

_____A AL

.E A*

k. 2 . .

_y,_

__J- A.

_-_.,n _

F A

~- u

=

A_m____A -

aa C a .2mm C m _ _ "7M _ MM w M =

___a = m .* _ a.. _g *._ ___ - e a i _ aA & _a_e. n m

, - - _ -- - 3 -- ,m - -- - ~ m - --

l - _ _ ,-

V M

_ _, N _ - " - -V --

1 j names m anpend eins.e a syssam mpest en es enens annse afee mans egeend er en te

- Wietuigus.

i Eandnumsn's addaal lisauna uma based an saadeiam ahnh asuhEdad ummer limita na es . .

} ammmmmmmensa stamanian manpuhnma h q Aamr meda, mamamma asemanna ihm amanniana .

l & mar missed er and musden una dann m en an ender. aanmana an amma'ssant a ammansnaa

and Addam maamma en snaimasensa gardades edinambint med ammuni amanna vndinalem as tha amener ershe demanal adlindemus mammenem6mm h saidanap psamaded hv amammapa. Ma mammmmmm l ammaammaman er asummt mandslam - hamad an @ nemenuden lanala &&ammaamabr, j addmanal sadamasadas sama added to the Raman edah annaammedan Ende datannimad na eredda es man aus er mennen amamma ammma na ama anspend hv en m.m ni mean m i

amamamast madmEma man und as namnen saa shaan ammmmmmdama namm alas mammashe af annandemner. I f' The amadaman af &m mimaal amedap mas ess ammmal samaps amasammanna la mesma fanamed shedd mas esamed saa adaulsmed ash hamed an abhar washar amannare er unendommer M '

-C"- ~

h &"-- -

^h e m massahlinseriter sammesma l J

heinman ihn den meme ta alman naammedar na mesam ammmmel mastier damma een he m em At AELA j

ansia 1ssahans ^

namadenEr amaraEma aaq assenga amammensmalana Q mesh mamanaama as tamm af 7"^ Ilmamer. In W to manra asamademmar armaalea aussman ammmmmmmmmme atahmeal menamanEdna h p lia anna me una smamed she ampspansian ihnen af i

Talpa 4 A idt ana ls dened an en vehms e(M enth das 100 Anstammsm@ bastaan haar an aan den mamm,

. 0 9

d P1 -

• a e

1 i

, . , . , ~- - , ,-

, Jan-22-D7 OS: 59/p , , p,11

.. i .

• O 4 -

e 1 . .

f*

. . M 'abandmedbrdgede @ .

l

h. M* h '

i '

indes ews, um em m pas w mah I ' -

l t

undam, y ad naammans asespas a tsin a,dansm -

I b '

WhWWW& .

h . .

a massey n4Ms. weiglass eenes unnameeden appusandy e Pt "- n ,

metammumeansenestisbessamaspak l W $0y

• i l

! 3.- men, mine,.r-messemanemaw.ans ana. eesws wosed '

ammhle. Unasse and endes deny ahda anden 30 - 5,000 pGt ud6 unistand

, moussamammedangeadmentsessans. -

l usans .

l ' . .

4. sob som W d momer adhies asummhused win any W es i typseena nasadels ammaissed ede sash seemism Wier sensemMs em M$.

Co4e, Code and C>137 utkh assummedoms etuppnadassah 100 -

l sc44=tailh ame. smag emeins , m w ,at atesd ameda 4

~'

1. 4em4 -

J . a l

• M l ,any s(es hypsedom sammb ammessed utet ase spescuss. M6er ademnedas

! m foss, coas, Cod 8 and ceast wth usesL.meses memuneess W l appamiums8y 100 pCMpees. net same sees emmehs w e 40L000 put erese

, am .

. . y ,,, .

! 4. Day adwe woes tem dessup ad useimmunes erseder sammart, Es( pressasing sad cap eessissa ney esmah my seen, symbs ander w wondum mesanas assgen Man mundas are is es ness ete Apr som of 30% ter C-14 and uttum j may be as hp as 100,e00 pCl4 h same semns and Code, Co dt, Cs.137 er 5e45

, 8aIF8essh44800 7 04 l .

ssuaeans .

i .

l

. p.3 t . .

. O I

1 I

s' f

a

~,n. -

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

_____._._._____._.________._.y l Jg ri- 22 -97 03:59A P.12

j. -

s. *

] .-

• l 7. Esim ad anesed shsmus agues esashhg bypseemst masmists Gem

• j poner plass. Mas ambem me e a tw suas etpCW6 tut Code ami Os417 =4 he j asSm Rose pCWhis amnemensseemas. ,

i

SMD0805 .

4 I

s. shadens, amihmet dag er amens gun teesssed sens suuses asesudes

• i l mann, bypadat a spes'el aminar ascensin AWagend amusy esmesumeme nous l . shar 50 pCWs -

l -

s,s0Q0sepy .

1 9 smasher ase esa enemmimmed by innetasdser er aanled esesses er umman mand i

l Digined usumiusa h h006 m masingen 30@00 4 Co 837 siendes 300 pCyg sammum 4000 pCWg asma may esmem amass a appusammesqr 100- 1,800pCh$ .

2 .

4QGDa01 .

I 10. - Daghand wedme temHke Dayamens of psemme suget was desaps er eum ,

D,menene erummy emess amisa plume, tags uma mesmannom emidsed -

! ==uessheadoopo t smanesednes simi ne m ushm asasos ,cs>

i.-

NMk

• 1 .

l tif Champ ofledesets mass uth unse gematism ardamse pseemse er egend gun pse

. . abssepoundash6 4000 spy ,

t

11 Amsehsestpedumd mesenho nessists $ma StD pn$sms . Map lesusan se eenseen poems, pessmey c e and einen wah tessummises spesuminsm4 tooacts .

manossy ,

t3. hemmi mhed wees ===at may esm apasid smeter'er by.pseems emmednis in

.a memeseappsudem4toopCiv m.oso ser 6

. M v . .

.4 g

4

, , . v_..___.__._.__.- _ _ _._._ _ __,_ _. _ _ __. -

. la , h immuna imdaemy mesmini mummend Amsm heel renda med Amma haamma' sessa Insensa a.mma maammen mensar at lemruient imamma Weinhed asemes

. ammmmmandsen te nGaAmr em nummhme med shashua dammt datammedas. Imma ihan ama pGly hr at anhasm 34 N die Reses hWs opmWin9E I W @ lbst WIdifesBM # ems spues ine to itsmand & es Samic Gs h eases messames and wesse- '

1 -

suusuhs psessme deselsp Radoes6dy souW Indses my of the seemsfy emmahe = semands e cessaouisas modds en mdead Chas A

! tats and es enemy eenesumisse is a agg man usuW aos be penser esa toss ervees 4. .-

l .

i .

I. M 4 ,

4 .

• Id$ %d8s 8susM mIMWayeMSem h M M N l

. neehesidadmalademna sewa* **r . .

l .

. msmi.esha.c.,,esd es.u.es . miss es.u. . s.s e s w s.s enneminand sets ei6 mens guesiese of sedesmMy en als asms so k W and simme h as estensensa 4 diummens etassise mesia e e summans ensidades j w ees as esu s et in d sees s e nhh, mynsk p a u s .esum as maam m med edst, j buedhsdeedssudsendsama .

l .

i .

g .

t l

I ,MMNM WM 2.]. .

I i m W ereu nusem a ssay e mpeand m es ed dasei k she=m as tenk l. 'n.

erwesi ad smhun doesy samis suddse suspio she nudesby of renomah4y is issueury.

this ssessu es impenses of mudsomse a a ) toped dipend ammy, e was e es.

semedades et Ames pesas lateMas tensus seses meanist ause speams. This imemesry -

em esamenom es he eams asesumansa et maisenhey in .ese assied by l

l

• l g 2 . .

1

• l i

i l

i  !

__ _-._.____.__._._.__.____._.__._.._..m._ . . _ _

1...

'. . 1 UNITED STATES j*'  !

N j

a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C, M565-0001

)

% ,, ,. February 7,1997

); Dr. Thomas B. Cochran,.Ph.D.

Director, Nuclear Program j Natural Resources Defense Council i

1200 New York Ave., N.W.

Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005

SUBJECT:

DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL'S j- 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION

Dear Dr. Cochran:

! By letter dated January 8, 1997, you submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Comission, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Petition, j pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, requesting that NRC take action regarding Envirocare

! - of Utah, Inc. Specifically, you requested that NRC immediately revoke any i license or licenses, or cause the State of Utah to revoke its Agreement State license or licenses, held by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare), Khosrow

'. Semnant, or any entity controlled or managed by Khosrow Semnant; prohibit the future issuance of any license by NRC, the State of Utah, or other NRC Agreement State, to Khosrow Semnani or any entity with which he has a

significant affiliation; and suspend Utah's Agreement State status until the State of Utah can demonstrate that it can operate the Utah Division of i Radiation Control in a lawful manner. As a basis for this Petition, you asserted that an article in the December 28, 1996, Salt Lah Cfty Tribune reported secret cash payments made by Mr. Khosrow Semnani, p  ! dent of Envirocare, to Larry F. Anderson, then Director of the Utah F ision of Radiation Control, and the State of Utah's subsequent initt u.un of a criminal investigation into the matter.

l

NRC's response to~your request regarding the Agreement State program is l provided in Enclosure 1. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and i Safeguards, has completed his review of the other issues raised in your

Petition. For reasons explained in the enclosed Director's Decision 00-97-02, i dated February 5, 1997 (Enclosure 2), your request has been denied. Although i the NRC is concerned about the implications raised by the issues identified in i your petition, at this time we do not believe that specific information exists l to take the action requested in the petition. We will be closely monitoring t the investigations of this issue being conducted by the State of Utah to i ensure that we are aware of any information that may warrant action on our part. In addition, you are free to submit another petition when additional

facts may be available to you on this issue.

1 As provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for the Cosmiission's review. As provided by this t regulation, the. Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of issuance of the Decision unless the Commission, on its i

I i

s

/'~t R r.

PI /Uuksv v 1 L

~ .

@p

'. T. Cochran 2

• own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time. In addition, a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register is also included as Enclosure 3 for your teformation.

Sincerely,

]' . . .

l 2

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

. Acting Executive Director for Operations l

Enclosures:

As stated (3)

, cc: W. Sinclair, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Utah j C. Judd. Executive Vice-President, Envirocare 4

a l

1 J

j

l '

1  ;

l I

d i

NRC STAFF EVALUATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL REQUEST TO SUSPEND SECTION 274 AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF UTAH I. INTRODUCTION i

In a letter dated January 8,1997, Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, of the Natural i l Resources Defense Council (NRDC), requested under 10 CFR 2.206 of the i

Consiission's regulations, that, among other things, NRC suspend its 1

... agreement with the state of Utah under which regulatory authority has been i transferred from the NRC to the Utah's Bureau of Radiation [ Division of l- Radiation Control), until the state of Utah can demonstrate that it can operate the Bureau of Radiation [ Division of Radiation Control] in a lawful ,

i manner, and without the participation of licensees, or employees of licensees, l in Bureau of Radiation [ Division of Radiation Control] oversight roles." In addition, NRDC requested that the NRC immediately cause the State of Utah to revoke its licenses to Envirocare, Khosrow Semnani, its President, or any

entity controlled or managed by Mr. Semnani and prohibit the future issuance 1

of any licensa by the State of Utah to Mr. Semnani or any company or entity that he owns, controls, manages, or with which he has a significant l affiliation or relationship. As a basis for NRDC's request, Dr. Cochran ,

j asserted that a December 28, 1996, article in The Salt Lake Tribune reported

that between 1987 and 1995 Nr. Semnant made secret cash payments to Mr. Larry i F. Anderson, who served as Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control j' from 1983 until 1993. The article also reported that the Utah Attorney General's office has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter.

Although NRDC's requests that NRC suspend its agreement with the State of Utah, or cause the State of Utah to revoke licenses that it issued, do not squarely fall within the scope of matters ordinarily considered under NRC's' i 10 CFR 2.206 process, the staff has evaluated the merits of NRDC's request.

j The staff's evaluation of these aspects of NRDC's request follows.

i II. BACKGROUND Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Mt (AEA), as amended, provides the statutory basis under which NRC can relinquish certain of its regulatory j responsibilities to the States. This makes it possible for States to license e and regulate the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, 4 and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The mechanism for NRC to discontinue and a State to assume authority to l

l ' NRC Manual Directive 8.11, " Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions,"

t issued September 23, 1994 (revised December 12,1995), states that the scope i of the 10 CFR 2.206 process is limited to requests for enforcement action i against licensees or entities engaging in NRC-licensed activities. But see l State of Utah (Agreement Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended), 00-95-1, 41 NRC 43 (1995).

i.

1

__..-_.7_.

j.*. -

7

!. regulate the radiological health and safety aspects of nuclear materials is an

! agreement signed by the Governor of the State and the Chairman. Before

! entering into such an agreement, the Governor is required to certify that the

State has a regulatory program that is adequate to protect public health and safety. In addition, the Commission, by statute, must perform an independent evaluation and make a finding that the State's radiation control program is

] compatible with NRC's, complies with the applicable parts of Section 274 of

the AEA, and is adequate to protect public health and safety.

i .

, The AEA was amended in 1978 to require, among other things, that NRC

periodically review Agreement State programs to determine the adequacy of the

program to protect public health and safety and compatibility with NRC's

regulatory program. Section 274j. of the AEA provides that NRC may suspend or terminate its agreement with a State if the Commission finds that such j suspension or termination is necessary to protect public health and safety.

4 As mandated by the AEA, NRC conducts periodic, onsite reviews of each

{ Agreement State program. The results of these reviews are documented in a j report to the State. The report indicates whether the State's program is j adequate to protect public health and safety end also whether the program is compatible with NRC's regulatory program. In some past cases. the State is

informed that the findings on adequacy and compatibility are being withheld 4

pending further review by NRC and the resolution of outstanding issues.

Currently, concerns identified in Agreement State program reviews that do not

! result in program suspension or termination, result in. findings of adequacy,

with improvements needed, and a finding of compatibility or incompatibility.

i i The State of Utah originally became an Agreement State on April 1,1984. At j that time, the State chose not to include authority for commercial low-level i

radioactive waste disposal in the Agreement. However, on July 17, 1989, I Governor Norman H. Bangerter of Utah requested that the Commission amend the i Agreement to provide authority for Utah to regulate commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal. NRC conducted an independent review of Utah's

! program for control of radiation hazcrds with respect to low-level radioactive j waste disposal and determined that the State met the requirements of Section 274 of the AEA and that the State's statutes, regulations, personnel, licensing, inspection, and administrative procedures were compatible with those required by the Commission and were adequate to protect public health i and safety. The amendment to the Utah Agreement became effective on May 9,

1990, 55 FR 22113 (May 31, 1990).

III. DISCUSSION NRDC requested suspension of the Agreement with the State of Utah based on

! newspaper reports that Mr. Anderson, Director of the Utah Division of l Radiation Control from 1983 to 1993, received secret cash payments from Mr.

Semnani, President of Envirocare. The relationship between Mr. Anderson and l Mr. Semnani is being investigated by the Utah Attorney General's office. In

! addition, Mr. Semnani was appointed by the Governor of Utah as a member of the

[ State's Radiation Control Board. NRDC requested that licensees should not be j allowed to serve on State radiation control advisory boards.

j-e i 2 i

l

Pursuant to Section 274 of the AEA, NRC relinquished its regulatory authority for the licensing of the use of certain radioactive material to Utah and therefore has no direct authority over licensing of these activities in Utah, However, NRC does have authority to terminate or suspend Utah's Agreement State program under certain conditions pursuant to 274j. of the AEA. Section

274j. states

! The Comission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice

! and opportunity for hearing to the State with which an agreement under subsection b. [of this section) has become effective, or upon request of the Governor of such State, may terminate or suspend all or part of its agreement with the State and reassert

the licensing and regulatory authority vested in it under this

Act, if the Comission finds that

(1) such termination or L suspension is required to protect the public health and safety, or l l (2) the State has not complied with one or more of the

! requirements of this section. The C:mmission shall periodically

, review such agreements and actions taken by the States under the

] agreements to insure [ sic] compliance with the provisions of this

! section.

Based upon these periodic reviews, or upon special reviews conducted for

! cause, before suspension or termination of an agreement the Commission must

{ find that: (1) termination or suspension of a State's program is required to j protect the public health and safety, or (2) that the State has not complied j with one or more requirements of Section 274 of the AEA (e.g., the requirement for the State program to be compatible with the NRC program). Section 274j(2) j of the AEA, as amended, grants the Commission emergency authority to i temporarily suspend all, or part, of its agreement with a State without notice i or hearing if an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to protect public health and safety and the State has failed to take steps to j contain or eliminate the cause of danger within a reasonable time, i NRC has conducted six reviews of the Utah Agreement State program since Utah a became an Agreement State in 1984. The most recent review of the Utah program I was conducted on June 13-17, 1994. In fact, two separate reviews were

conducted at that time. The routine Utah radiation control program review was

! conducted in conjunction with a pilot program entitled the Integrated l

Materials Performance Evaluation ".ogram (IMPEP) in which comon performance indicators were used to evaluate both the NRC Regional Office and the

' Agreement State programs. The review team consisted of six staff, including two NRC staff from the Division of Waste Management to participate in the j review of Utah's low-level radioactive waste management regulatory program.

The most recent reviews of the Utah program were conducted after Mr. Anderson j had left the program.

l The most recent review included evaluations of program changes made in response to previous review recomendations (includir.g recomendations

~

4 concerning the State's low-level radioactive waste disposal program), review of the State's written procedures and policies, discussions with program management and staff, technical evaluation of selected license and compliance

files, accompaniment of a State inspector, review of the State's incident and 3

l l

f . . . . . -

a t ... .

J.,

i l

J allegation files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review. In

! addition, portions of the review covered the Utah low-level radioactive waste i regulatory program and included review of open items identified in NRC staff

! correspondence sent to the State following dispatch of the previous NRC review i'

letter. Based on these reviews conducted in 1994, the Utah program for agreement materials was found adequate to protect public health and safety and was found to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 274 of the AEA.

i

In light of the foregoing, the issue now is whether the controversy j surrounding the relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani poses a safety concern of such significance as to require NRC to begin the process to i revoke or suspend Utah's Agreement State program. NRC has determined that it i does not have a basis to initiate such action at this time. NRDC has not j provided NRC with any information that would suggest that an immediate public 4

health and safety issue exists. As Dr. Cochran notes in his request, the Utah State Attorney General has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter of the relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani. Absent specific information suggesting a public health and sa'ety concern, NRC believes that it would be premature to initiate the requested subject action pending completion of this investigation. NRC intends to follow the investigation closely. If at any time NRC receives information of public health and safety concerns during the investigation or upon its completion, or receives such information from other sources, including NRC's ongoing Agreement State oversight activities, NRC will evaluate this information and take such action as is warranted. NRC is required by law to continue to review the Utah Agreement State program for adequacy and compatibility.

Envirocare currently has a radioactive materials license from the Utah Division of Radiation Control (formerly the Bureau of Radiation) and is authorized to receive waste under the conditions of that license. In accordance with State rules, the license is currently undergoing review by the State for.a five year renewal. The license renewal application was submitted to the State on January 29, 1996, by Envirocare. The Utah Division of Radiation Control has indicated it is reviewing responses to the first set of interrogatories on the application, and it continues to inspect and monitor the Envirocare site. The State of Utah has offered, and NRC has accepted, a briefing on the status of the license renewal re' view. NRC intends to follow the State's license renewal review.

NRDC also requested that NRC suspend the agreement with the State of Utah until Utah demonstrates it can operate its radiation control program without the participation of employees of licensees in an oversight capacity.

Mr. Semnani was appointed by the Governor of Utah to serve as a member of the State's Radiation Control Board. In previous Utah program reviews, NRC has recommended to the State that it develop formal conflict-of-interest  !

procedures in coordination with the Attorney General's office. The staff is satisfied that the State has adopted conflict-of-interest procedures consistent with those of other division boards within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, NRC has recently learned that Mr. Semnani has taken a two-month leave of absence from the Utah Radiation Control Board pending the completion of the criminal investigation.

4

allegation files, and the evaluation of the State's responses to an NRC questionnaire that was sent to the State in preparation for the review. In addition, portions of the review covered the Utah low-level radioactive waste regulatory program and included review of open items identified in NRC staff correspondence sent to the State following dispatch of the previous NRC review letter. Based on these reviews conducted in 1994, the Utah program for agreement materials was found adequate to protect public health and safety and was found to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 274 of the AEA.

In light of the foregoing, the issue now is whether the controversy surrounding the relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani poses a safety concern of such significance as to require NRC to begin the process to revoke or suspend Utah's Agreement State program. NRC has determined that it does not have a basis to initiate such action at this time. NRDC has not provided NRC with any information that would suggest that an immediate public health and safety issue exists. As Dr. Cochran notes in his request, the Utah

. State Attorney General has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter

of the relationship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Semnani. Absent specific j information suggesting a public health and sa'ety concern, NRC believes that it would be premature to initiate the requested subject action pending completion of this investigation. NRC intends to follow the investigation closely. If at any time NRC receives information of public health and safety i concerns during the investigation or upon its completion, or receives such

, information from other sources, including NRC's ongoing Agreement State

~

oversight activities, NRC will evaluate this information and take such action as is warranted. NRC is required by law to continue to review the Utah Agreement State program for adequacy and compatibility.

Envirocare. currently has a radioactive materials license from the Utah Division of Radiation Control (formerly the Bureau of Radiation) and is authorized to receive waste under the conditions of that license. In a

accordance with State rules, the license is currently undergoing review by the 1

State for a five year renewal. The license renewal application was submitted to the State on January 29, 1996, by Envirocare. The Utah Division of Radiation Control has indicated it is reviewing responses to the first set of interrogatories on the application, and it continues to inspect and monitor 1

the Envirocare site. The State of Utah has offered, and NRC has accepted, a

, briefing on the status of the license renewal review. NRC intends to follow 4

the State's license renewal review.

NRDC also requested that NRC suspend the agreement with the State of Utah until Utah demonstrates it can operate its radiation control program without

, the participation of employees of licensees in an oversight capacity.

Mr. Semnani was appointed by the Governor of Utah to serve as a member of the State's Radiation Control Board. In previous Utah program reviews, NRC has 4

recommended to the State that it develop formal conflict-of-interest procedures in coordination with the Attorney General's office. The staff is satisfied that the State has adopted conflict-of-interest procedures consistent with those of other division boards within the Utah Department of

Environmental Quality. In addition, NRC has recently learned that Mr. Semnani has taken a two-morth leave of absence from the Utah Radiation Control Board pending the completion of the criminal investigation.

4

, IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, NRC has determined not to take the action requested by NRDC at this time. NRC will continue to review the Utah Agreement State Program as required by law as well as to follow the investigation being conducted by the State's Attorney General and the State's review of Envirocare's license renewal application. If at any time termination or suspension of the Utah Agreement is required to protect public health and safety or the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of Section 274 of the AEA, NRC will initiate the proper actions.

4 4

4 4

1 4

i i

4 4

5