CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE

NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL

Nuclear plant's safety rating takes hit

...Increased risk of cancer, birth defects, and infertility are just a few of the harmful effects caused by nuclear waste....If humans become exposed to nuclear waste, their cells may become damaged, and repair themselves incorrectly, resulting in biophysical damage that more often than not results in cancer. Different types of cancer than have resulted from radiation exposure from nuclear waste include leukemia, breast, bladder, lung, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, and stomach cancers (Harmful Effects). Humans become exposed to nuclear waste radiation when nuclear waste is disposed of improperly..
http://www.personal.psu.edu/klh362/nuclearwaste.html

• 30 people were killed instantly, including 28 from radiation exposure, and a further 209 on site were treated for acute radiation poisoning.
• The World Health Organization found that the fallout from the explosion was incredibly far-reaching. For a time, radiation levels in Scotland, over 1400 miles (about 2300 km) away, were 10,000 times the norm.
• Thousands of cancer deaths were a direct result of the accident.
• The accident cost the former Soviet Union more than three times the economical benefits accrued from the operation of every other Soviet nuclear power plant operated between 1954 and 1990.

According to the US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC2) for US Nuclear Power Plants” (1982, 1997), an accident at a US nuclear power plant could kill more people than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

Source:  http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/start/fact-sheet_ne&w.htm

Low Level Waste (LLW) is being shipped for disposal to the Nevada Test Site. Low Level Mixed Waste (LLMW) with transuranic activity of less than 10 nanocuries per gram is being sent to Envirocare, a mixed waste repository in Tooele County Utah. A disposal pathway for LLMW with activity greater than 10 nanocuries per gram has not yet been identified. The only hazardous mixed waste disposal facility able to accept LLMW with activity greater than 10 nanocuries per gram is the Hanford Site. However, Hanford is currently not able to accept off-site generated LLMW. Transuranic Waste (TRU) is being shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, NM. The amount of radioactive waste shipped off site for disposal during the past three calendar years is tabulated below. For the past three years Rocky Flats has been the top shipper of TRU waste to the WIPP.
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/co/rkyflatsindustrial/

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life - the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia [5]. Some elements, such as I-131, have a short half-life (around 8 days in this case) and thus they will cease to be a problem much more quickly than other, longer-lived, decay products but their activity is much greater initially.

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

In 1957, the graphite moderator of one of the air-cooled plutonium production reactors at Windscale (now Sellafield), had a fire which resulted in the first significant release of radioactive material from a reactor. The reactor served a second purpose at the time - production of Po-210 (polonium) from bismuth. Po-210 was also released. These gas cooled reactors were operated by the British government at the time.....

....On the fourth day, there were indications of radioactivity release through the offgas stack. Graphite temperatures also started to increase. Suspecting a ruptured fuel rod, the operators used a remote scanning device but the operating mechanism gear was jammed. Donning protective clothing, workers opened a plug on the front of the reactor and found the fuel was red hot. This was the fire indication of a fire that had been smoldering for about 2 days. Attempts were made to extinguish the fire which did not work. Finally on the 5th day, the reactor was flooded with water and the fire was extinguished....

....Radioactive analysis of milk over a larger area showed that the ban on milk distribution had to be extended to a total area of 200 square miles, beginning 2 or 3 miles north of the plant, extending over a strip 7 to 10 miles wide to a distance of 30 miles from the plant. The use of milk by the population in the restricted area was prohibited for 25 days. For the most highly contaminated areas, the prohibition was maintained for 44 days.

....The Medical Research Council Committee concluded "that it is in the highest degree unlikely that any harm has been done to the health of anybody, whether a worker in the Windscale plant or a member of the general public." Except for the restrictions on milk usage, no other environmental action was required.

_Reference 
Descriptions of Selected Accidents that have occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities, H.W. Bertini and members of the staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center, April 1980, pp 93-95

Source:  http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/windscal.htm

The fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield have the capacity to reprocess spent fuel from part or all of western Europe's 152 nuclear power plants. These reprocessing facilities create huge volumes of liquid high-level radioactive wastes and highly toxic mixed wastes; the current plan to dispose of most of these wastes in geological formations underlying the Sellafield facility have the potential to create a radioactive plume as large as any Russian or US weapons production plume of the 1960's.

The nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at Sellafield, formerly called Windscale, has been the source of enormous releases of radioactivity to the environment since it became operational in the early 1950's.

With the 1994 opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) at Sellafield, which is now reprocessing more than 200 tons of nuclear fuel from Japan and European countries annually, Asker Aarkrog's summary needs further updating, as what was a trend of declining discharges to the Irish Sea appears to have been reversed. A recent report by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has noted a sharp increase in levels of Technetium 99 in seaweed collected along the east coast of Ireland in August of 1994, according to a November 1, 1996 article in the Irish Times.

source: http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad8d.html

Shocking! This is not good! This is going to take some work! (March 5, 2007)  

They want to put a nuclear (radioactive) waste processing plant 40 miles from Roswell!

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Site Near Roswell Studied for Nuclear Waste Reprocessing

Associated Press
ROSWELL — Roswell's mayor says relying on foreign oil is dangerous, and the nation needs nuclear power.

Sam LaGrone spoke Tuesday night to several hundred people attending a U.S. Department of Energy hearing on the possibility of a nuclear waste reprocessing center near Roswell....

The owners of a hazardous waste site between Roswell and Tatum, Gandy-Marley Inc., in partnership with EnergySolutions (Envirocare), are receiving $1.1 million to study the site for a spent fuel recycling facility. A site near Hobbs, proposed by Eddy Lea Energy Alliance, was awarded $1.5 million for a similar study.
    That funds were among more than $10 million awarded by the DOE for detailed site studies on 11 areas nationwide for so-called integrated spent fuel recycling facilities..........

http://www.epa.gov/region08/news/news97.pdf

EPA document dated March 6, 2006

http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/pdf/TSCA0820060002QRS.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/TSCA0820060005COMPLAINT.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/TSCA0820060005CAFO.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/pdf/TSCA0820060002COMPLAIN.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region08/news/news98.pdf

• Stipulation and Consent Order (SCO) of May 13, 1998, Envirocare of Utah.

  Bill Sinclair reported that the SCO settles all enforcement actions against Envirocare relating to special nuclear material. Notices of Violation (NOVs) were issued in May 1997 and September 1997 relating to possession of special nuclear material over the allowable limits. As a result of these NOVs and concurrent action by the NRC, Envirocare was required to initiate certain actions to get back into compliance with the possession limits. Currently, Envirocare is maintaining compliance with the possession limits.

  Settlement terms involve Envirocare agreeing to pay a $100,000 civil penalty with $20,000 deferred pending no more violations for one year (until May 14, 1999). As a result of this settlement, all hearing requests pending before the Utah Radiation Control Board regarding special nuclear material have been withdrawn.

• Notice of Violation of May 14, 1998 - Envirocare of Utah.

  John Hultquist reported as a result of routine inspections at Envirocare, several items were noted to be in noncompliance and a Notice of Violation prepared and issued. The violations included improper distribution of debris on a lift, improper disposal of special nuclear material, improper storage 

  of waste, exceedance of the winter blanket requirements, failure to properly manage wastewater, not following resin blending procedures, and failure to control wind dispersed litter. Severity Levels for these violations ranged from Severity Level IV to III. A total civil penalty liability was calculated to be $14, 850. Envirocare has thirty days to respond to the NOV.

http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/MINUTES/JUN_MIN.HTM

http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/BNC/opencel1.pdf

How much are they getting paid to jeopardize the health and safety of people in southeastern New Mexico?  It is bad enough having a nuclear waste dump a hundred miles south of Roswell.

Letters of support came from

Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M.

Republican state Reps:

Nora Espinoza

Candy Spence Ezzell

Dan Foley

Keith Gardner

Republican state Sens.:

Rod Adair

Gay Kernan.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/apnukewaste02-28-07.htm

EnergySolutions Campaign Contributions in Santa Fe 2006

Nuclear Industry (energy and weapons) Campaign Contributions in Santa Fe 2006

http://www.nukewatch.org/watchdawg/newsletters/vol4issue2.pdf

New Mexico lawmakers united to praise the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the issuance of a license for the proposed uranium enrichment plant in Lea County, New Mexico. U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (left), U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (center), and U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce (right).

http://www.stockinterview.com/newmexico2.html

I am having a hard time believing that Jeff Bingaman would have anything to do with this.

Gov. Jon Huntsman took a powder on EnergySolutions' plan to pile low-level nuclear waste higher and deeper at its dump in Tooele County...
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5335581

1/29/07           Low-Level Waste in Utah to Rise?

Utah's Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee unanimously passed a bill that would allow a low-level radioactive waste dump in the state to change the volume of waste it may accept at the site without seeking the legislature's or governor's approval.

EnergySolutions owns the commercial radioactive waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah that accepts nothing higher than Class A low-level waste, which holds the lowest concentration of radioactive materials.  The site is currently limited to one square mile, but the company seeks to increase acceptance of waste by stacking it higher on that allotted one mile (from its current 54 feet to 83 feet).  SB155 would allow the company to make changes to its Section 32 site within its current legal operations without needing legislative or gubernatorial approval.  The state's Department of Environmental Quality, however, would still need to review and accept any amendments to EnergySolutions's current license.

The bill was reported favorably out of committee on January 24^th by the committee's chair, Senator Darin G. Peterson, also the lead sponsor on the bill.  Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble is a co-sponsor of the bill, which he believes merely places into law one of the recommendations the state's hazardous and radioactive materials task force, which he sat on, proposed when originally considering the site.

Last year, Utah's statehouse prepared for another struggle regarding the EnergySolutions facility.  When the company proposed expanding the site to two-square miles, the governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr., announced his intention to reject it outright.  A commercial waste review process had been enacted in 1990 that requires the approval of local and state environmental regulators, the legislature, and the governor to establish or expand waste facilities in the state.  A bill was introduced giving the legislature the right to veto the governor's ban on waste issues, a right they have with virtually any other piece of legislation.  The bill, SB70, passed both houses and was subsequently vetoed by the governor.  It returned to the Senate, which overrode the veto, but was not reconsidered in the House.  By that point EnergySolutions had withdrawn its plans for expansion given the negative political climate, and the legislature adjourned for the session without resolving to the matter.

The current SB155 could be seen as a consensus bill to appease all parties, but opposition is still apparent.  A former county commissioner and member of the state's Radiation Control Board, Patrick Cone, stated his concern that this bill would mean, "no public oversight, no elected accountability, and nothing from the legislature" as to what transpires at the site.  But the three commissioners from Tooele County, where the disposal site resides, support the bill, which has fairly broad bi-partisan backing.

Source: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/cleanup/newsmenu.htm

Source: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/cleanup/newsmenu.htm

2006

source: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/envirocare_of_utah_llc_pac.asp?cycle=06

...But the name "EnergySolutions" is controversial to Vanessa Pierce.

"We don't want to be branded as the nation's nuclear waste dump," said Pierce of Heal Utah. “Some people have called it the 'Glow Dome' or the 'Glow Arena.' Others call it the 'Energy Pollutions Arena' or 'Radium Stadium.' You know, we got to have some fun with this too, because if you can't laugh at this, what can you laugh at?'"

EnergySolutions, formerly Envirocare, runs the west desert's low level radioactive waste landfill.

In 2001 the state says the site took in 13-million cubic feet of radioactive waste. Last year waste received there nearly doubled.

source: http://kutv.com/local/local_story_333190750.html

Order To Exempt Envirocare of Utah, Inc. From Certain NRC Licensing Requirements for Special Nuclear Material  

[Federal Register: May 21, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 98)]
[Notices]               
[Page 27826-27828]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21my99-119]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-8989]

 
Order To Exempt Envirocare of Utah, Inc. From Certain NRC 
Licensing Requirements for Special Nuclear Material

Background

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
issuing an Order pursuant to section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act to 
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) from certain NRC regulations. The 
exemption will allow Envirocare, under specified conditions, to possess 
waste containing special nuclear material (SNM), in greater mass 
quantities than specified in 10 CFR part 150, at Envirocare's low-level 
waste (LLW) disposal facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining 
an NRC license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. NRC has previously published 
an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact 
in the Federal Register. In addition, a description of the operations 
at the facility and staff's safety analysis for the exemption are 
discussed in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which is available in 
the public docket room.

Order

I.

    Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) operates a low-level waste 
disposal facility in Clive, Utah. This facility is licensed by the 
State of Utah, an NRC Agreement State, under a 10 CFR part 61 
equivalent license (UT 2300249). In 1988, Envirocare began accepting 
naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) waste. In 1992, 
Envirocare began accepting very low activity, low-level waste (LLW) 
primarily generated during the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. 
Envirocare's State of Utah radioactive materials license (RML) has been 
amended to permit disposal of other types of LLW. Envirocare is also 
licensed by Utah to dispose of mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes 
(MW). In addition, Envirocare has an NRC license to dispose of waste 
containing 11(e)2 byproduct material. The MW and 11(e)2 byproduct 
material are disposed of in separate disposal cells from the LLW. The 
MW and LLW streams may contain quantities of special nuclear material 
(SNM).
    Envirocare receives wastes by rail and truck. Separate storage and 
disposal facilities exist for the LLW and MW. Envirocare's method of 
disposal is to remove the waste from its container or dump bulk waste 
into lifts and compact the material. Subsequent lifts of material are 
placed above completed lifts. The waste streams are diverse and vary 
from contaminated soils and debris from decommissioning facilities to 
dry active waste (DAW) and resins from operating facilities.
    In addition to disposing of mixed waste, Envirocare also has 
capabilities to treat mixed waste prior to disposal. This treatment 
typically includes chemically stabilizing of hazardous constituents by 
mixing the waste with various reagents, and micro- and macro-
encapsulation of waste with low density polyethylene plastic. The 
applicable hazardous waste regulations require bench scale treatability 
studies prior to treating the bulk of the waste.

II

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, ``the Commission may * * * grant such 
exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it 
determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property 
or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public 
interest.''
    Section 70.3 of 10 CFR Part 70 requires persons who own, acquire, 
deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer SNM to obtain a license 
pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 70. Section 10 CFR 150.10 
exempts persons in Agreement States, who possess SNM in quantities not 
sufficient to form a critical mass, from Commission-imposed licensing 
requirements and regulations. The method for calculating a quantity of 
SNM not sufficient to form a critical mass is set forth in 10 CFR 
150.11. Therefore, Envirocare is currently limited by regulation and 
its State of Utah license to possess SNM in quantities set out in 10 
CFR 150.10 and 150.11. The SNM possession limits in the regulation and 
license, as they relate to LLW disposal facilities, apply to above-
ground possession prior to disposal. Therefore, once the SNM is 
disposed of, the possession limits no longer apply.
    In response to an inspection by the State of Utah which determined 
that Envirocare had exceeded its Agreement State license limits for the 
possession of U-235, NRC conducted its own

[[Page 27827]]

inspection of the facility. As a result of this inspection, NRC issued 
a Confirmatory Order (Order), dated June 25, 1997, which required 
Envirocare to reduce its possession of SNM to the amounts prescribed in 
10 CFR 150.11 and Envirocare's Agreement State license, and to submit a 
compliance plan (CP) for meeting 10 CFR 150.10 and 150.11 to NRC for 
approval. Condition 3 of the Order required Envirocare to include all 
SNM in the restricted area at the site in applying the limitations in 
10 CFR 150.10 and 150.11. Envirocare submitted a CP dated July 23, 
1997, which was approved by NRC in a letter, dated August 1, 1997. 
Under the provisions of the CP, all waste containing SNM with the 
exception of waste ``in transport'' which is located within the 
restricted area at Envirocare's site is subject to the limitations in 
10 CFR 150.10 and 150.11. However, trucks containing SNM waste can 
proceed directly to the disposal cell and would be considered ``in 
transport'' and not in Envirocare's possession. This condition is 
applicable provided that the waste was disposed of on the same calendar 
day as arrival, and that the amount of SNM in any individual truck did 
not exceed the limits in 10 CFR 150.11. When NRC approved the CP on 
August 13, 1997, Condition 3 of the Order was revised to incorporate 
the terms of the CP.
    When Envirocare submitted its July 23, 1997, CP, it noted that 
application of the ``in transport'' approach to rail shipments and 
shipments disposed on the same day they are received would greatly 
assist operational flexibility at no risk to public health and safety. 
Based on consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 
the NRC has concluded that the ``in transport'' approach would not 
apply to rail shipments. However, the staff believes the circumstances 
warrant some action to provide Envirocare the needed flexibility 
without undue risk to public health and safety. The NRC staff has been 
informed that, in order to accommodate possession limits, rail 
shipments containing SNM waste are being transferred to trucks in Salt 
Lake City, Utah, for transport to the Envirocare disposal facility. In 
response to questions raised in a letter from the State of Utah, NRC 
accompanied DOT on an inspection of the Salt Lake City rail yard and to 
the carriers facilities. DOT concluded that the process observed met 
DOT's requirements; however, NRC staff concluded that the process 
resulted in an increased number of trips, leading to a slightly higher 
probability of a transportation accident. Prior to the Order and CP, 
these shipments were transported by rail directly to the site. Thus the 
Order and CP have led to increased waste handling and the increased 
possibility of container rupture and resultant spillage in a 
metropolitan area.

III

    NRC staff has reviewed the current shipping practice and considers 
it to be less desirable from a health and safety standpoint than having 
the rail cars proceed directly to the site. However, Condition 3 of the 
Order and the CP, as they now stand, effectively preclude many rail 
cars containing SNM from being brought onto the Envirocare site. 
Envirocare would need to obtain a license or an exemption from the NRC 
under 10 CFR part 70 that would permit it to possess the SNM in the 
cars on the site. Such SNM might well exceed the limits in 10 CFR 
150.10 and 150.11, as well as the limits of the State of Utah license.
    In this instance, the staff believes that the appropriate action is 
to issue Envirocare an exemption. Specifically, Envirocare would be 
exempted from the requirements of 10 CFR part 70, including the 
requirements for an NRC license in 10 CFR 70.3, for SNM within the 
restricted area at Envirocare's site, provided that:
    1. Concentrations of SNM in individual waste containers must not 
exceed the following values at time of receipt:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Maximum     Measurement
                Radionuclide                  concentration  uncertainty
                                                 (pCi/g)       (pCi/g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-235<SUP>a</SUP>......................................         1900           285
U-235<SUP>b</SUP>......................................         1190           179
U-235<SUP>c</SUP>......................................          160            24
U-235<SUP>d</SUP>......................................          680           102
U-233.......................................       75,000        11,250
Pu-236......................................          500            75
Pu-238......................................       10,000         1,500
Pu-239......................................       10,000         1,500
Pu-240......................................       10,000         1,500
Pu-241......................................      350,000        50,000
Pu-242......................................       10,000         1,500
Pu-243......................................          500            75
Pu-244......................................          500           75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a</SUP> For uranium below 10 percent enrichment and a maximum of 20 percent
  MgO of the weight of the waste.
<SUP>b</SUP> For uranium at or above 10 percent enrichment and a maximum of 20
  percent MgO of the weight of the waste.
<SUP>c</SUP> For uranium at any enrichment with unlimited MgO or beryllium.
<SUP>d</SUP> For uranium at any enrichment with sum of MgO and beryllium not
  exceeding 49 percent of the weight of the waste.

    The measurement uncertainty values in column 3 above represent the 
maximum one-sigma uncertainty associated with the measurement of the 
concentration of the particular radionuclide.
    The SNM must be homogeneously distributed throughout the waste. If 
the SNM is not homogeneously distributed, then the limiting 
concentrations must not be exceeded on average in any contiguous mass 
of 145 kilograms.
    2. Except as allowed by notes a, b, c, and d in Condition 1, waste 
may not contain ``pure forms'' of chemicals containing carbon, 
fluorine, magnesium, or bismuth in bulk quantities (e.g., a pallet of 
drums, a B-25 box). By ``pure forms,'' it is meant that mixtures of the 
above elements such as magnesium oxide, magnesium carbonate, magnesium 
fluoride, bismuth oxide, etc. do not contain other elements. These 
chemicals would be added to the waste stream during processing, such as 
at fuel facilities, or treatment such as at mixed waste treatment 
facilities. The presence of the above materials will be determined by 
the generator, based on process knowledge or testing.
    3. Except as allowed by notes c and d in Condition 1, waste 
accepted may not contain total quantities of beryllium, hydrogenous 
material enriched in deuterium, or graphite above one percent of the 
total weight of the waste. The presence of the above materials will be 
determined by the generator, based on process knowledge, physical 
observations, or testing.
    4. Waste packages may not contain highly water soluble forms of 
uranium greater than 350 grams of uranium-235 or 200 grams of uranium-
233. The sum of the fractions rule will apply for mixtures of U-233 and 
U-235. Highly soluble forms of uranium include, but are not limited to: 
uranium sulfate, uranyl acetate, uranyl chloride, uranyl formate, 
uranyl fluoride, uranyl nitrate, uranyl potassium carbonate, and uranyl 
sulfate. The presence of the above materials will be determined by the 
generator, based on process knowledge or testing.
    5. Mixed waste processing of waste containing SNM must be limited 
to stabilization (mixing waste with reagents), micro-encapsulation, and 
macro-encapsulation using low-density polyethylene.
    6. Envirocare shall require generators to provide the following 
information for each waste stream:
Pre-Shipment
    1. Waste Description. The description must detail how the waste was 
generated, list the physical forms in the waste, and identify uranium 
chemical composition.

[[Page 27828]]

    2. Waste Characterization Summary. The data must include a general 
description of how the waste was characterized (including the 
volumetric extent of the waste, and the number, location, type, and 
results of any analytical testing), the range of SNM concentrations, 
and the analytical results with error values used to develop the 
concentration ranges.
    3. Uniformity Description. A description of the process by which 
the waste was generated showing that the spatial distribution of SNM 
must be uniform, or other information supporting spatial distribution.
    4. Manifest Concentration. The generator shall describe the methods 
to be used to determine the concentrations on the manifests. These 
methods could include direct measurement and the use of scaling 
factors. The generator shall describe the uncertainty associated with 
sampling and testing used to obtain the manifest concentrations.
    Envirocare shall review the above information and, if adequate, 
approve in writing this pre-shipment waste characterization and 
assurance plan before permitting the shipment of a waste stream. This 
will include statements that Envirocare has a written copy of all the 
information required above, that the characterization information is 
adequate and consistent with the waste description, and that the 
information is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with conditions 1 
through 4. Where generator process knowledge is used to demonstrate 
compliance with conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4, Envirocare shall review this 
information and determine when testing is required to provide 
additional information in assuring compliance with the conditions. 
Envirocare shall retain this information as required by the State of 
Utah to permit independent review.
At Receipt
    Envirocare shall require generators of SNM waste to provide a 
written certification with each waste manifest that states that the SNM 
concentrations reported on the manifest do not exceed the limits in 
Condition 1, that the measurement uncertainty does not exceed the 
uncertainty value in Condition 1, and that the waste meets conditions 2 
through 4.
    7. Sampling and radiological testing of waste containing SNM shall 
be performed in accordance with the Utah Division of Radiation Control 
license Condition 58.
    8. Envirocare shall notify the NRC, Region IV office within 24 
hours if any of the above conditions are violated. A written 
notification of the event must be provided within 7 days.
    9. Envirocare shall obtain NRC approval prior to changing any 
activities associated with the above conditions.
    Considering that this exemption will permit Envirocare to exceed 
the SNM possession limits in 10 CFR part 150 which will be in direct 
conflict with the Confirmatory Order dated June 25, 1997, the 
Confirmatory Order is hereby rescinded when this Order becomes 
effective. Moreover, the provisions in Envirocare's CP will no longer 
be in effect.
    The licensing requirements in 10 CFR part 70 apply to persons 
possessing greater than critical mass quantities (as defined in 10 CFR 
150.11). The principle emphasis of part 70 is criticality safety and 
safeguarding SNM against diversion or sabotage. The NRC staff believes 
that criticality safety can be maintained by relying on concentration 
limits, under the specified conditions. Section 150.11 establishes the 
quantities of SNM considered not sufficient to form a critical mass. 
The concentration limits in this notice are considered as an acceptable 
alternative to the definition provided in Sec. 150.11, thereby assuring 
the same level of protection. Moreover, storing the SNM within the 
Envirocare restricted area will increase the security and safeguarding 
of the SNM.
    Therefore, the Commission concludes that this proposed exemption 
will have no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental 
impacts.

IV

    Based on the above evaluation, the Commission has determined, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, that the exemption of above activities at the 
Envirocare disposal facility is authorized by law, and will not 
endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are 
otherwise in the public interest. Accordingly, by this Order the 
Commission hereby grants this exemption. The exemption will become 
effective after the State of Utah has incorporated the above conditions 
into Envirocare's RML.
    Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the Commission has 
published an EA for the proposed action wherein it has determined that 
the granting of this exemption will have no significant impacts on the 
quality of the human environment. Copies of the EA and SER are 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, located at 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Dated at Rockville, MD., this 7th day of May 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 99-12905 Filed 5-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/1999/May/Day-21/i12905.htm

At the RPM meeting on February 11, 1998 I specifically raised the issue 
of the long-term liability of disposal of LEHR site wastes at the EnviroCare 
facility in Utah. When I asked about whether the long-term, i.e. for as long 
as the waste residues represent a threat, ability of this disposal firm and 
facility to protect public health, groundwater resources and the environment 
from waste residues for as long as they represent a threat, I was told by 
J. McNeal that UCD has sent a "team" of experts to review the appropriateness 
of this facility for receiving UCD's wastes. When I asked about receiving 
the results of this team's evaluation, J. McNeal claimed that this was 
privileged information that could not be made public....

...I suggest that DSCSOC formally request to examine the information obtained 
by UCD that caused the L. Vanderhoef administration, through J. McNeal, to 
conclude that the EnviroCare facility was a facility that provided true 
long-term, i.e. for as long as the wastes represent a threat, protection to 
public health and the environment. It is my position that if any firm will not 
make this type of information available for public review, then there is 
substantial likelihood that there are significant long-term problems that could 
cause the facility to ultimately become a Superfund site, where those who 
deposited waste at the facility would be named as Responsible Parties and help 
to pay for clean-up.
http://members.aol.com/dscsoc4/1998/rpmdocs.html

August 28, 2001

ENVIROCARE

In 1987, Envirocare received a land ownership exemption from the State of Utah to become a landfill facility for naturally occurring radioactive wastes. Envirocare is the first and only exception to a federal law that requires the Government to own the land where a radioactive waste landfill is developed. In 1991, their exemption was broadened to allow them to accept Lower Level Class A Radioactive Wastes and Mixed Wastes (which may contain both toxic chemicals and radioactive materials).

Court documents reveal that Envirocare owner (Khosrow Semnani), and the Director of the Utah Bureau of Radiation (Larry Anderson), were involved in a bribery/extortion scandal. Reports in the paper indicate that between !988 and 1992, Anderson helped Semnani to acquire cheap land and used his powers as director to endorse a dozen of regulatory exemptions to benefit the establishment of Envirocare.*

As sole shareholder, Semnani receives all the net profits of Envirocare. (According to the paper, about $100 million/year in gross revenues since 1995.)...

...Thus the question: how reliable is Envirocare? Every year they have been cited 
for numerous violations, from minor to very serious ones. The papers have reported 
the large fines incurred in the past (including this year).**

...HEALTH HAZARDS. Immediate direct contact with the radioactive substances in Class B & C will lead to death within a short time. However, what is of concern, is the low level radiation damage which is not immediately apparent. It can occur as the results of accidents, poor packaging, leaking at disposal sites, contaminated water, inadequate monitoring, inadequate employee protection, etc. Our best understanding comes from studies of the survivors of the atomic bombing at the end of World War II and the Chernobyl disaster. From these studies, health effects due to low level radiation have been categorized as "Somatic Damage" which often lead to cancer 20 to 30 years after exposure (Utah's Uranium miners and down winders) or "Mutation Damage" which are transmitted as birth defects in future generations. Scientists do not agree on what is an acceptable minimum threshold.

* Semnani only had to step down as president of Envirocare, plead guilty to a federal tax charge in the Anderson scandal, agree to pay $100,000 fine and promise to testify against Anderson.

After a week long trial last August, exposing the charges and countercharges between Semnani and Anderson, the federal jury convicted Anderson of cheating on his taxes but cleared him of charges of extortion and misusing his position as director. While still Semnani retains ownership of Envirocare, Charles A. Judd is now its president.

** On October 9, 2001, the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste ( DEQ), placed a public notice in the Tribune, as follows "... to enter into a Stipulation and Consent Order with Envirocare of Utah, Inc. to resolve a notice of Violation ...issued on June 6, 2001. The Violations incurred by Envirocare between January 1 and March 31, 2001, have been calculated to carry a potential penalty liability of $30,260. One of the seven violations listed, was labeled "Major" as "Potential for Harm" and "Major" as "Potential of Deviation".

Last year's the tribune reported $160,000 of fines. Some violations cited "... failing to properly dispose of radioactive and hazardous wastes, or to monitor groundwater purity,..." (In 1999 they were even fined for employing unlicensed engineers.) Once they were fined for excess radiation which they blamed on the shipping Co. What will they do in the future when they are handling hundred times larger levels of radiation?

*** On October 19, 2001, the Division of Radiation Control issued a license amendment to Envirocare of Utah Inc. which allows them to dispose of "Containerized Class A " low-level waste in their facilities. Although, the "Containerized A" wastes are considered more highly radioactive and with longer half-lives than the radioactive soils the Company had been accepting, Envirocare only required a simple amendment to their present license.

This amendment, however, expands the company's reaches across the country and will help them develop new disposal technology. During the public comment period, the Division of radiation Control received some 250 comments from the public. The summarized comments (with good technical questions) together with the officials responses can be found on the Division's web. (Public Participation Document.) Appeals to this amendment had to be sent by November 19.

On September 18, 2001, a public notice appeared in the Tribune that the Division of Solid and Hazardous Wastes planned to approve a "Treatment Variance Request" for the disposal of a waste containing the toxic element Barium. Envirocare proposes to macroencapsulate this hazardous waste and dispose of it in their mixed waste facility. The public was given 30 days to send comments. No hearings. No indication was given as to Envirocare's experience with the new process?

On September 28, the same DEQ Division placed a 60 day notice to inform the public that Envirocare was asking for a change in the Barium concentration limit in Utah's Groundwater. Although not stated, this was obviously connected with the new Barium wastes they applied to process and store. A Division's official implied that the increase was simply to bring up the current Barium value listed in Envirocare's permit to Utah's accepted limit. ( The public notice was less precise.) We could not verify this.

source:  http://www.xmission.com/~lwvut/envirocare.html

NRC inspectors learned June 10 that more than 2,400 grams of uranium-235 had been held in temporary storage at the Envirocare facility near Clive, Utah. Conditions of the State of Utah license under which Envirocare is permitted to dispose of mildly radioactive waste material allow only 350 grams of which includes uranium-235, to be held at the site without being placed in a permanent disposal cell. Possession and processing of more than 350 grams of special nuclear material before burial in a disposal cell would require an NRC license. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps11598/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/1997/97-097.html

Envirocare was recently issued an NOV for failure to receive results from the independent laboratory within 45 days as required by the license. Inspectors also found that Envirocare had not sent samples from 44 shipments to the independent laboratory for analysis. DRC management amended Envirocare's license to allow 90 days for results from the independent laboratory.
http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/ad8_92.htm

Director's Decision Issued Denying Petition to Envirocare

By letter dated February 7, 1997, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards issued a Director's Decision denying a petition filed by Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, Director of Nuclear Programs, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. In Dr. Cochran's petition, filed in a letter dated January 8, 1997, he requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take immediate action to revoke all licenses held by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. NRDC asserts, as a basis for this request, that a December 28, 1996, article in The Salt Lake Tribune reported that between 1987 and 1995, Envirocare's President made secret cash payments to the Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control. NRC review of the petition concluded that no substantial health and safety issues had been raised regarding Envirocare that would require the immediate action requested by the NRDC. The NRDC did not provide any information in support of its requests of which the NRC was not already aware. NRC inspections of the Envirocare facility have not revealed the existence of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant immediate suspension of the Envirocare license. Further, NRC staff review of the technical basis for its issuance of the license and subsequent amendments found no evidence of the existence of any substantial health or safety issue that would justify the actions requested by the NRDC. The NRC will monitor the investigations and actions being conducted by the State of Utah. If NRC receives any specific information indicating there is a public health or safety concern as a result of these actions or from any other source, including NRC ongoing Agreement State oversight activities (Utah is an Agreement State), NRC will evaluate the information and take such action as is warranted.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/1997/secy1997-043/1997-043scy.html

Utah Official Got $600,000, Says He Is Owed Millions For 'Consulting Services'

Company Calls It Extortion

By Bill Richards

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

CLIVE, Utah-Larry Anderson figured he had a deal - actually, an extraordinary deal for a public official - and he wants a court of law to uphold it.

For 10 years, Mr. Anderson was a top Utah environmental regulator, ultimately earning about $60,000 a year to oversee the disposal of nuclear waste in his state. During much of that time, he says, he was quietly accepting $600,000 in cash; gold coins and real estate from Khosrow Semnani, whose company runs a huge nuclear waste disposal site 15 miles west of Salt Lake City..

Mr. Anderson' s beef is this: The payments stopped in 1995, two years after he lost his government job in a political shuffle. That, Mr. Anderson, says in a lawsuit, is a breach of his verbal agreement with Mr. Semnani. And given all the site application and consulting services he performed while a regulator, he says, Mr. Semnani and his company, Envirocare of Utah Inc., owe him $5 million more....
http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/articles/art51.htm

Senate subcommittee examines opening DOE contract process

The Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee held hearings on September 3 about opening DOE low-level radioactive waste disposal contracts to companies that are not state-licensed. The hearings are an outgrowth of complaints by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) about DOE’s contract awards to Envirocare of Utah Inc. for low-level waste disposal; WCS believes Envirocare has a monopoly on waste disposal. (Envirocare is licensed by both Utah and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—the NRC license is a special one that specifically pertains to nuclear materials; Texas statutes prohibit WCS from receiving a license to accept radioactive waste for disposal.)

Although WCS staff has pledged to work with the National Governors’ Association (NGA) to clarify the state oversight role for DOE facilities and private facilities that provide services to DOE, the company still argues that states lack the legal authority to directly regulate the disposal of DOE wastes. WCS argues that DOE should develop a formal program and agreement with states to provide a regulatory role. WCS argues that "individual states should not have veto power over the use by DOE of a commercial facility within their borders."

WCS is interested in contracting with DOE to dispose of low-level and mixed waste at its hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility in Andrews County, Texas. DOE’s current policy requires all commercial disposal facilities to comply with applicable federal, state and local requirements—including the necessary permits, licenses and approvals from the host state and the NRC. NGA and Envirocare—among others—argue that DOE is attempting to move from self-regulation to external regulation by independent state and federal authorities. To allow commercial facilities to accept federal waste without independent oversight would be a step backward for this policy.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/cleanup/hlrwjanu.htm#misses

Some of Envirocare’s former “sins,” as reported by Judy Fahys of The Tribune were: conspiring with Radiation Bureau director Larry Anderson (who received gifts, both cash and condo worth more than $600,000 from then Envirocare CEO, Khosrow Semnani) to convert school trust-lands into a radioactive waste dump in the 1980’s; belligerently suing local environmental groups; and using their financial might to squelch initiatives that would raise taxes on radioactive waste. To be clear, all of this took place under Semnani’s watch, but Envirocare/EnergySolutions’ new chief, Steve Creamer, doesn’t exactly come to Utah with a clean slate. In1989 he sold the state an experimental concrete overlay called Syn-crete, which failed to hold up even through the course of construction on Interstate 15, a booboo that cost Utah taxpayers an estimated $3 million to fix.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/delta...

Notice to Envirocare on its Employee Protection Policies

On December 8, 1997, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards notified Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) that its company policies are inconsistent with the employee protection provisions of the statutory requirements of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 40.7. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's letter to Envirocare indicates, among other concerns, that the company's policies are limited in scope, since its employees are protected when raising alleged violations of state or federal environmental laws but are not afforded the same protection when raising nuclear safety concerns. Additionally, the staff stated in the letter that Envirocare's policies should be amended to indicate that: (1) employees are permitted to bypass company management and refer their concerns directly to government officials, and (2) that employees are free to bring their concerns, whether "substantial" or not to the attention of federal regulatory officials. Envirocare is requested to amend its employee protection policies in order to be consistent with both statutory and regulatory requirements and to submit the amended policies to NRC for review no later than January 8, 1998.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/1997/secy1997-292/1997-292scy.html

...Creamer & Noble engineered the Quail Creek earthen dam near St. George which burst Jan. 1, 1989. No one was injured, but the disaster cost the state more than $11 million....

....Then came Syncrete. Creamer & Noble officials were consulting engineers to Hodson Chemical, which developed the experimental concrete overlay the state used in 1989 to resurface a 4-mile stretch of Interstate 15.
   After the material started breaking into chunks and hurtling into motorists' windshields, the federal Office of Inspector General and the Utah Attorney General's Office conducted a criminal investigation into the project, which cost taxpayers nearly $3 million.
    Active politically in advancing his interests, Creamer is a familiar figure at the Utah Statehouse.
   State election records show he contributed more than $80,000 to candidates in the 2004 gubernatorial election, including $45,000 to Karras, $20,000 to Gov. Olene Walker and $15,000 to Gov.-elect Jon Huntsman Jr. Creamer's wife, attorney Jeannine Bennett - whom Creamer described as "a screaming Democrat" - contributed $10,000 to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Matheson Jr.
   Creamer said the donations were made before his purchase of Envirocare was on the table.
   He said regulators have called Envirocare a "national resource," a notion he likes. But to watchdog and ferocious Envirocare critic Claire Geddes, it is a status Utah can do without.
   "Utah's been targeted enough. There's no way we should be asked to be the sacrificial lamb for the rest of the nation," she said.
   As for Creamer's promise to run a facility without problems, "that's an impossibility," she said. "It's a nice theory to say everything will be run top notch, but I don't believe it."
   Creamer urged patience. "Give us a chance to tell the whole story," he said. Envirocare ''needs to be managed well, it needs to be managed without controversy, and we think we can do that."...
http://nuclear.bfn.org/SLT-12-18.htm

UTAH) The criminal investigation into the secret financial relationship between a former state regulator and the owner of a Tooele County disposal site for low-level radioactive wastes has been turned over to the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI.
http://www.wasteinfo.com/news/stories/archives/1997/04/WE/W97422.htm

Anderson, the former state radiation-control director, sued Semnani, alleging that the dump mogul hadn't paid him for services rendered under a secret agreement while he was with the State Division of Radiation Control. Semnani sued back, saying Anderson had extorted $600,000 from him, with the threat of shutting down his Tooele County low-level radioactive dump — Envirocare.
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/1998/city_980219_b.cfm

The Envirocare case has been turned over by the State of Utah to the FBI, who says they don't know when criminal charges will be filed. (Note they are saying when, not if.) The full text of the Salt Lake Tribune article reporting this latest development is reprinted below.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9702/msg00669.html

Monday, February 5, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 25

                             Headlines

ADAPTEC INC: Contests Securities Suit in CA Re April 1997 to Jan. 1998
ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Judge Rejects Murphy's Bif for Land Value Reassessment
ENVIROCARE: Settles Antitrust Dispute in TX, Seeks Utah Permit Amendment
ESSO: Fed Ct Postpones Suit Seeking More Than $1 Bil over Longford Blast
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals Court Decides Formula for Class Action Fees...

...Envirocare has applied to amend its state permit for storing class A
low-level radioactive waste. If approved, Envirocare would be able to
begin accepting class A waste that is prepackaged in containers. The
stuff is more concentrated in radioactive materials than the loose waste
it disposes at the site 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Envirocare would
use a portion of the landfill that is already taking class A waste.
In another development, Envirocare announced it is quitting its existing
operations and expansion plans in West Texas.

The move is part of a settlement by Envirocare and Waste Control
Specialists, a Texas waste company that filed a billion-dollar antitrust
lawsuit against Envirocare in 1997. Neither side would discuss terms of
the settlement, but Envirocare president Charles Judd told the Odessa
Texas American that his company would sell its two West Texas facilities.
One was proposed as a long-term nuclear waste storage facility, and the
other as a disposal site that included radioactive and hazardous wastes.

          The Permit Amendment Envirocare Is Seeking in Utah

The amendment differs from Envirocare's controversial class B and C waste
proposal. To accept even hotter waste, Envirocare must get a new license
to open a new landfill at its current Tooele County site so it can
dispose of containers of waste in classes A, B and C.
By using the amendment to piggyback on its existing license for class A
waste, the company can begin part of the expansion it is seeking with its
new license application.
Of the 400,000 cubic feet that Envirocare hopes to dispose under its new
license application, 380,000 cubic feet is the class A waste Envirocare
can begin putting into its existing landfill if the amendment is
approved.

A legislative budget committee has approved the state Department of
Environmental Quality's plans to have four people oversee the expanded
Class-A facility and to levy fees on those who send waste to the Utah
facility, such as medical-waste disposal companies.

Since the proposed amendment is considered an extension of Envirocare's
current business, it only will require a limited regulatory review,
rather than the approval by regulators, the Legislature and the governor.

A hearing was conducted on February 1 on the Class B-C proposal. "The
proposal is for a dump site, a truly hazardous one," said Anne Sward
Hansen of Citizens Against Radioactive Waste, adding that four out of
five Utah residents surveyed oppose the new license. Jay Elkins, a Tooele
County resident, represented supporters. "I want this board to know I'm
all for this license," he said, declaring the landfill safe and well-run.
Bill Sinclair, director of the radiation division, already has given
tentative approval to Envirocare's plans to take on the hotter waste at
the facility.
The class B and C waste would be hundreds - and sometimes thousands of
times more contaminated than material currently disposed at Envirocare.
Opponents say the expansion puts Utah and Envirocare workers at greater
risk.

Supporters say Envirocare's plans offer a way to safely dispose of the
contaminated wastes that include old smoke detectors, medical treatment
waste and medical research waste as well as nuclear plant refuse.
"These wastes are a fact of today's life," Envirocare radiation officer
Art Palmer told the hearing. "We have them on our hands. Our real
challenge is ensuring that they are cared for safely." (The Associated
Press, February 2, 2001)

source: http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/010205.MBX

	Help - Help for Webmasters
« back to results for "envirocare criminal fbi" Below is a cache of http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/petitions-2-206/monthly-reports/edo199805.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web. We've highlighted the words: envirocare criminal fbi The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page (without highlighting) or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.

Source:  http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=envirocare+criminal+fbi&ei=UTF-8...

www.frankmckinnon.com