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.)
Envirocare is located about 60 miles west of SLC, just south of I-80. The area of the disposal site is approximately one square mile or 640 acres. Since Envirocare is a private corporation, Semnani and the other officers are protected from personal liability. At present, Envirocare has a license to operate for 20 years, with a possible one-time extension for another
20 years. Federal law requires that the State and/or the Federal Government eventually assume legal ownership of Envirocare's area in perpetuity.
The Class A waste they have been disposing of until now was comprised mostly of radioactively contaminated soils. In November 1999, Envirocare submitted a license amendment request to dispose of "Containerized Class A, B and C Low Level Radioactive Wastes".
Let us understand HLW and LLW: High-Level Waste (HLW) is primarily spent nuclear fuel (proposed for storage by PFS). Low-Level Waste (LLW) becomes a catchall category, namely anything that has lower radioactivity than HLW. Since this covers a broad range of radioactivity, NRC (Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission) divides LLW into three classes: A, B, and C, from the least to the most hazardous amount of radiation. Most class B and C wastes are so radioactive that they require serious shielding for transportation and disposal, as well as much handling by remote control. Class B and C wastes are hundreds to thousands of times more radioactive than what is presently disposed of by Envirocare.
LLW is generated by industry, medical and research institutions, government laboratories and by nuclear reactors. However, 99% of the radioactivity in the containerized LLW will come from dismantled , decommissioned nuclear power plants. This can include anything from irradiated clothing to segments of pipes, concrete, filters, filter sludge, equipment, instruments, etc. Since Utah does not have any nuclear power plants, Utah will become the depository of the LLW from all the other States.
Envirocare has been claiming that by accepting class B & C wastes they would help Utah dispose of their medical wastes. In fact, Utah is a member of the Northwest Compact agreement which requires, by law, that all LLW generated in Utah must be disposed of in the Richland, WA site. Thus 100% of the waste Envirocare will be receiving will come from other states.
"Low Level" radioactive waste is a very deceptive misnomer. It is Lower Level than spent fuel rods, but it is still extremely hazardous. These wastes can contain any of some 700 possible radioactive substances, emitting all three possible types of radiation (Alpha, Beta and Gamma), and with half-lives ranging from a few years to millions of years.(Half-life: time it takes for half of a radioactive element to decay)
The regulations specify that class A wastes must remain intact under adequate shielding for 100 years, Class B for 300 years and Class C for 500 years. We are talking of perfect disposal, under all conditions of weather, no shifting, heaving or settling of radioactive bundles, no deterioration, no cracking, no corrosion, no infiltration of water, no leakage of radioactive substances up to 500 years. We also must assume no human errors, no mechanical failures, and no human negligence during all the operations. 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).**
So where are they now? According to state law their request had to be processed like a new facility: i.e. First, obtain a License from the Utah Division of Radiation Control, which they received July 9, license good for 5 years. The next steps are Legislative approval and finally the Governor's signature. The day they received their license, Envirocare officials stated they will not apply for approval by the Legislature this year. According to the papers, the governor did not like to face approval of Envirocare's waste proposal at the same time he is fighting the PFS waste storage in Skull Valley. ***
Additional Comments
QUANTITY of Radioactivity. Envirocare has concurred with us that if they receive Class C wastes, ONE single shipment of this category of waste will equal in Curies of radioactivity the total amount of radioactivity received during ALL of last 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.
AQUIFERS. There is a first water aquifer about 30 feet deep below Envirocare's waste disposal; and a second one lower around 300 ft. They are reported to be saline and have a high level of suspended particles, thus not potable today. We don't believe (but are not sure) that they are being monitored for radioactive leakage at present or will be if Class B & C are added. to the wastes. If the population grows and is seriously in need of water, we may have to resort to desalting the aquifer. (Desalinization of ocean water is done today.) This would become impossible if Envirocare's radioactive leaks are present.
OTHER FACILITIES. Three of the six commercial radioactive waste facilities that were licensed in the US had to be closed because of leakage problems : Maxey Flats, KY; West Valley, NY; Sheffield, Il.. They have required millions of dollars in clean-up, remediation and monitoring.
The remaining, major LLW site, Barnwell in South Carolina, will no longer accept LLW from most States after 2008. Thus we have the immediate interest by Envirocare to take over their business. Envirocare was concerned because a competitor Co applied to open a LLW disposal facility in Texas and spent a lot of money to promote this. The Texas Legislators voted against it this summer. That will leave Envirocare and Utah as sole bidder for the nation's LLW.
TAX and SURTAX. Last Spring, the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst indicated that: ..." the State of Utah should require a tax surcharge on waste that is being stored in the State." This to be done on present wastes stored and more so if higher levels of radioactivity are added.( This to be similar to what South Caroline does.)
The 2001 Legislature finally approved H-B 370 which would raise 3.1 million in taxes in the first two years for the reprocessing and disposal of radioactive materials. This was much lower than the original 37 million the promoters of the bill hoped to raise. Many felt that the final agreed fees were too low and that the $400,000 allocated to a fund to "finance the maintenance of it (the facility) forever" is insufficient. Envirocare fought the tax and predicted it would hurt their business.
CONTRIBUTIONS. Newspapers have reported that Envirocare has contributed $ 45,000 to Legislators since 1997. (Also to support the Governor)
There have also been several mentions in the paper about consultants who worked for the Governor and also for Envirocare.
Semnani has been a member of the Utah Radiation Control Board, although he no longer is.
Update , November 15, 2001.
* 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.
On November 14, the "Natural Resources, Agricultural and Environment" interim committee
approved that the Western Zirconium Co in Ogden, be allowed to dispose of their radioactive class A waste at Envirocare instead of shipping it to Washington State as required by the Northwest Interstate Compact.. This exemption would be profitable to the Zirconium Co since Envirocare is much cheaper and the transportation costs are lower. The interim committee also saw the tax dollars coming to Utah. This is another accomplishment of Anderson, who applied pressure on the Northwest Interstate Compact to agree to the original formation of Envirocare. The latter had to promise that it would not accept any waste from Utah!
The Compacts were established by the Federal government in the 80's in order to control and coordinate Low Level Waste disposals across the country.
Watch for legislation coming though in February. This could open up the flood gates to other radioactive-waste generators.
Prepared by Reva Servoss
References
NRC / 10 CFR Part 61.12 Specific technical Information.Part 61.55 Waste ClassificationPart 61.56 Waste CharacteristicsPART020/part020-1004. html Units of radiation dose.
NRC / EDUCATE/REACTOR/ 10.Part 03.html Radioactive Waste ManagementNRC / NUREGS/SR1350/V12/part12.html App. Band C .US Commercial Nuclear Power reactors./V12/tig039.html Radioactivity by Disposal Facilities./V12/part 13.html Glossary
State of Utah /EQRAD/drc hmpg.htm
/news/info 101.htm
The Nuclear Waste Primer. League of Women Voters, 1993. Revised Edition.
"No dose too Low" by Ian Fairlie & Marvin Resnikoff. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 1997.Salt Lake Tribune articles: September 10, 2000. by Brent Israelsen.January 5, 2001. by Brent IsraelsenJanuary 20, 2001. by Judy FahysMarch 20, 2001. by Judy Fahys and Dan HarrieJuly 10, 2001. by Jim Woolf.July 12, 2001. by Russell GoldAugust 31, 2001. By Judy FahysNovember 15, 2001. by Judy Fahys
Public Notices: September 18, Treatment Variance request by EnvirocareSeptember 28, Envirocare Permit ModificationOctober 9, Envirocare to Resolve Notice of Violation.