State of Utah; Agreement Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as Amended; Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

[[Page 6570]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

State of Utah; Agreement Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic

Energy Act, as Amended; Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of State Programs,

has issued a decision concerning a Petition dated September 21, 1992,

submitted by US Ecology, Inc. regarding the State of Utah Agreement

State program. The Petition requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) revoke or suspend the State of Utah's Agreement State

program for failure to require Federal or State land ownership at the

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal

facility. Petitioner alleged that: Under both Utah's Agreement State

program and the Federal LLRW regulatory program, LLRW may not be

disposed of on privately-owned land unless the State in which the site

is located or the Federal government has formally expressed a

willingness to accept title to the facility at site closure; the

Envirocare site is located on privately-owned land; and neither Utah

nor the U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to or expressed any

willingness to accept title to the site.

By letter dated October 26, 1992, the NRC staff acknowledged

receipt of the Petition and notified the Petitioner that this matter

would be considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The NRC staff published a

notice of receipt of the Petition in the Federal Register on November

13, 1992 (57 (FR 53941).

The Director of the Office of State Programs has denied the

Petition. The reasons for this decision are explained in a Director's

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-95-01), which is available for public

inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room located at 2120 L

Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.

A copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.

As provided by this 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 own motion institutes a review of

the Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of January, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard L. Bangart,

Director, Office of State Programs.

I. Introduction

By a letter dated September 21, 1992, and supplemented in a letter

of December 8, 1992, to James M. Taylor, Executive Director for

Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission), US Ecology, Inc. (petitioner) filed a ``Petition of US

Ecology, Inc. for Review and Suspension or Revocation of Utah's

Agreement State Program for Failure to Require State or Federal Site

Ownership at the Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Facility.'' Petitioner alleges that--

(1) Under both Utah's Agreement State program and the Federal low-

level radioactive waste (LLRW) regulatory program, LLRW may not be

disposed of on privately owned land unless the State in which the site

is located or the Federal Government has formally expressed a

willingness to accept title to the facility at site closure;

(2) The Envirocare site is located on privately owned land; and

(3) Neither Utah nor the U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to or

expressed any willingness to accept title to the site.

The petitioner requested that in view of these allegations the NRC

initiate appropriate proceedings, including relevant hearings, to

suspend or revoke Utah's Agreement State status under Section 274j. of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The receipt of this

Petition was noticed in the Federal Register on November 13, 1992 (57

Fed. Reg. 53941). For the reasons set forth below, petitioner's request

is denied.

II. Background

Section 274 of the AEA, as amended, provides the statutory basis

under which the NRC can relinquish portions of its regulatory authority

to the States. This makes it possible for States to license and

regulate the possession and use of byproduct material, source material,

and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a

critical mass.

The mechanism for the transfer of NRC authority to a State to

regulate the radiological health and safety aspects of nuclear

materials is an agreement between the Governor of the State and the

Commission. Before entering into such an agreement, the Governor is

required to certify that the State has a regulatory program that is

adequate to protect the 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

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

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

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

the NRC periodically review Agreement State programs to determine the

adequacy of the program to protect the public health and safety and

compatibility with NRC's regulatory program. Section 274j. of the AEA

provides that the NRC may suspend or terminate its agreement with a

State if the Commission finds that such suspension or termination is

necessary to protect the public health and safety. As mandated by the

AEA, NRC conducts periodic, on site, in-depth reviews of each Agreement

State program. The results of these reviews are documented in a report

to the State. The report indicates whether the State's program is

adequate to protect the public health and safety and also whether the

program is compatible with NRC's regulatory program. (In some cases,

the State is informed that the findings on adequacy and compatibility

are being withheld pending further review by NRC and the resolution of

outstanding issues.)

The State of Utah originally became an Agreement State on April 1,

1984. At that time, the State chose not to include authority for

commercial LLRW disposal in the Agreement. However, on July 17, 1989,

Governor Norman H. Bangerter of Utah requested that the Commission

amend the Agreement to provide authority for Utah to regulate

commercial LLRW disposal. As part of the amendment process, the

Governor certified that the State had a program for control of

radiation hazards with respect to LLRW disposal that is adequate to

protect the public health and safety. The NRC conducted an independent

review of this program 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 the public health and safety. The amendment to

the Utah Agreement became effective on May 9, 1990. 55 FR 22113 (May

31, 1990).

Part of the State's program involved the adoption of regulations

compatible with the NRC regulations for the licensing of land disposal

of radioactive waste (10 CFR Part 61), including Sec. 61.59

(Institutional requirements). Section 61.59 states:

(a) Land ownership. Disposal of radioactive waste received from

other persons may be permitted only on land owned in fee by the

Federal or a State government.

As part of its regulation of LLRW, Utah also adopted a provision

similar to

[[Page 6571]]

the exemption provision at 10 CFR 61.6, which states:

The Commission may, upon application by any interested person,

or upon its own initiative, grant any exemption from the

requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines is

authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common

defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest.

In September 1990, Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) requested

the State to amend its license to authorize receipt of LLRW for

disposal. On March 21, 1991, Utah granted the request authorizing LLRW

disposal. In granting this authorization, the State extended a

previously-granted exemption from the State's land ownership

requirements for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and

Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material

(NARM) disposal to LLRW disposal at the Envirocare facility. (NORM and

NARM are outside the NRC's regulatory authority.) Utah issued the

exemption pursuant to its regulations, which provide that the State may

grant ``such exemptions or exceptions from the requirements of these

regulations as it determines are authorized by law and will not result

in undue hazard to public health and safety or property.''

On September 21, 1992, US Ecology, Inc. filed this petition with

the NRC requesting that the Commission revoke or suspend the Utah

agreement program for regulating the commercial disposal of LLRW

because of Utah's failure to require State or Federal government land

ownership. The petitioner requested the NRC to review the adequacy and

compatibility of Utah's Agreement State program in light of this

failure and alleged that the State had not adequately justified the

granting of an exemption from the land ownership requirement.\1\ In a

letter of October 26, 1992 acknowledging receipt of the petition, Mr.

Carlton Kammerer, Director, Office of State Programs, informed the

petitioner that the NRC staff was in the process of reviewing the

licensing action of Utah as it related to the granting of the exemption

in the course of NRC's periodic review of the Utah Agreement State

program pursuant to Section 274j. of the AEA. Furthermore, the NRC

staff's review of the Utah program would of necessity address the

issues raised in the US Ecology petition. As will be set forth in

greater detail below, the NRC has determined that the State of Utah's

rationale of exercising effective control of the waste disposal site

without State or Federal ownership is not unreasonable and would not

warrant revocation or suspension of the Utah agreement.

\1\On December 8, 1992, the petitioner also submitted a

supplemental legal analysis in support of the petition.

III. Discussion

The NRC staff has examined the petitioner's claim in the original

petition of September 21, 1992 and the supplement dated December 8,

1992:

Petitioner requests that the NRC begin proceedings to revoke or

suspend Utah's Agreement State status under section 274 of the

Atomic Energy Act because of alleged flaws in Utah actions on the

licensing of Envirocare of Utah, Inc., to receive LLRW for disposal.

Pursuant to Section 274 of the AEA, NRC relinquished its regulatory

authority over the licensing of LLRW to Utah and therefore has no

direct authority over licensing of LLRW facilities in Utah. However,

NRC does have authority to terminate or suspend Utah's Agreement State

program under Section 274j. of the AEA. Section 274j. states:

The Commission, 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

Commission finds that (1) Such termination or suspension is required

to protect the public health and safety, or (2) the State has not

complied with one or more of the requirements of this section. The

Commission shall periodically review such agreements and actions

taken by the States under the agreements to insure [sic] compliance

with the provisions of this section.\2\

\2\As required by this section, the NRC staff has conducted

periodic reviews of the Utah Agreement State program since Utah

became an Agreement State in 1984. The purpose of these periodic

reviews is to determine the adequacy of the State's program to

protect the public health and safety and the compatibility of the

State's program with that of the NRC.

Based upon these periodic reviews, or upon special reviews

conducted for cause, the Commission must find that (1) Termination or

suspension of a State's program is required to protect the public

health and safety or (2) that the State has not complied 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).

The revocation of Utah's Agreement State status, as requested by

the petitioner, hinges on whether Utah's regulatory scheme of providing

an exemption from State or Federal ownership of the site was compatible

with NRC's regulatory requirements and whether Utah's action in

granting the exemption provided for adequate protection of the public

health and safety. The NRC regulations contain an exemption provision

in 10 CFR 61.6 that allows the Commission to grant any exemption from

the requirements in Part 61 provided that the exemption is authorized

by law, will not endanger the public health and safety or the common

defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. The land

ownership provision in Section 61.59 is subject to this exemption

provision. Although NRC has not exercised its authority under the

exemption provision in Part 61 as Utah has exercised, Utah's regulatory

scheme contains an exemption provision similar to the NRC's. Although

NRC has not granted (nor has any person requested) any similar

exemption, it has not adopted any particular policy or practice

precluding this that might be identified to the States as a matter of

strict compatibility. In this regard, Utah's regulatory program is not

incompatible with the NRC.

The issue then becomes whether the exercise of the exemption

provision poses a sufficient safety problem as to require the NRC to

revoke or suspend Utah's Agreement State program. The reasons for the

exemption Utah issued for LLRW originally were derived in part from the

reasons for the exemption it had issued for NORM and NARM, which the

NRC staff found not to be sufficient. Upon the NRC's request, Utah

provided additional explanation of the reasons for the exemption with

regard to LLRW (described below), and also imposed deed restrictions on

Envirocare's title to the site, as explained below. Specifically, the

State of Utah provided the following justifications for its concept of

providing for a degree of State control of the disposal site that would

be equivalent to the control provided by the requirement in the

regulations for the disposal site to be located on State or Federal

land:\3\

\3\From a letter dated February 12, 1993 from Dianne R. Nielson,

Ph.D., Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality,

to Mr. Carlton Kammerer, Director, Office of State Programs, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

* Tooele County has zoned the area that the Envirocare site is

in as heavy manufacturing-hazardous (MGH) designation. * * *

* Because of the mixed waste licenses held by Envirocare,

Envirocare has recorded in the public records of Tooele County an

[[Page 6572]]

Affidavit which refers to and incorporates the land use restrictions of

40 CFR 264.117(c) which controls post closure activities at the

site.

* Envirocare is required under License Condition 36 to provide

``as built'' drawings every six months. Because of Envirocare's

construction techniques, each generator's waste is segregated from

other waste, and site records to be provided after closure will be

detailed.

* The transfer of site records is specifically directed by UAC

R313-25-33, particularly subparagraph (4).

* To be licensed, radioactive waste disposal facilities must

meet siting criteria established in UAC R313-25-3, previously R447-

25-3.

* Utah regulations require that after closure there be a 5-year

post closure and maintenance period by the licensee until the site

is transferred to the site owner for institutional control.

* Utah's regulations require licensees to establish a financial

surety in the form of a trust agreement which gives the State

exclusive control of the trust fund. The State requires that

``financial or surety arrangements shall remain in effect until the

closure and stabilization program has been completed * * * and the

license has been transferred.'' Until a transfer of the license

occurs, the surety arrangement remains in effect and will continue

to be reviewed to determine the amount necessary to protect public

health, safety, and property.

* The State and Envirocare entered into an Agreement

Establishing Covenants and Restrictions which identifies the site

and the purpose of the licensed operations at the site.

The license ``Transfer and Termination'' sections of the State

regulations indicate that the site operator will transfer and/or

terminate its license and turn over the site to a governmental agency

for the active institutional control period. The exemption in

controversy here is an exemption from those sections of the

regulations. Since Envirocare is the site owner and operator and no

governmental agency is or has been authorized to take title to the

site, transfer and termination of the Envirocare license would not

occur prior to the active institutional control period. Therefore,

Envirocare would remain responsible for the site under the license and

the institutional control phase would be implemented by Envirocare.

In order to determine the adequacy of the Utah regulatory framework

for protecting the public health and safety, the NRC staff analyzed the

control of the disposal site for the three major phases in the life of

a low-level waste disposal site (operations, closure, and post-closure

observation and maintenance; active institutional control; and passive

institutional control). This analysis was conducted to determine which

mechanisms, if properly constructed, could provide adequate control in

lieu of Government ownership of the land. In addition, the NRC staff

considered the special circumstances posed by the Envirocare site.

Operations, Closure, and Post-Closure Observation and Maintenance

Period

Envirocare has title to the land and, therefore, is responsible for

all activities on the site. The licensee has provided a Trust Agreement

with the State of Utah that provides funds for closure and the post-

closure period and the active institutional control period in the event

the licensee is financially incapable of closing the site or abandons

the site. The license limits the accumulation of undisposed waste to a

specific amount that can be disposed of through the use of the trust

funds.

One Hundred-Year Active Institutional Control Period

The State proposed that it is exercising control and can continue

to exercise control of the site in such a manner that land ownership is

not necessary to protect the public health and safety from the material

that is being disposed of at the site. In particular, the State points

to its control of the trust fund that includes the money for the active

institutional control period. If the site owner is not capable of

conducting the activities required during the active control period,

the State will carry out the activities by using the money in the trust

fund. Under the control mechanisms, the State would not need to own the

site to carry out these activities.

Passive Institutional Control Period

The State proposed the use of deed annotation as a method of

informing individuals who may wish to use the site in the future that

the land was used for waste disposal and should not be disturbed.

The staff found that the mechanism submitted by the State lacked

specificity needed to implement the requisite degree of control because

the land annotation did not provide sufficient restrictions on the

future use of the site. As a result of this deficiency, the staff

suggested a proposed ``restrictive covenant'' that the State of Utah

could use to implement the requisite degree of control.

In brief, the provisions of the restrictive covenant suggested by

the NRC staff were in addition to any restrictions on the title already

recorded in the Tooele County records, and, inter alia, proposed to

restrict Envirocare and its successors and assigns with respect to the

property as follows: (1) No excavation or construction, except as

necessary to maintain the premises, shall be allowed after the LLRW is

disposed of and the facility closed; (2) No uses of the property shall

be made which may impair its integrity; (3) Any change in use of the

property following closure of the facility shall require the prior

written consent of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality; (4)

Envirocare and its successors or assigns, shall erect and continuously

maintain monuments and markers, approved by the Department, to warn of

the presence of radioactive material at the site; (5) Envirocare shall

not convey the property without the prior written approval of the

Department, nor shall Envirocare consummate any conveyance of any

interest in the property without adequate and complete provision for

continued maintenance of the property; and (6) Any State or Federal

governmental agency affected by any violations of these restrictive

covenant may enforce them by legal action in the District Court for

Tooele County. As the proposed restrictive covenant made clear, the

State of Utah will have the power to control the ownership, use, and

maintenance of the Envirocare property after closure of the facility to

a degree equivalent to ownership of the site. Moreover, both Utah and

the NRC, in particular, would have the right to enforce the covenant.

The Commission, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion

that the institutional controls, such as the proposed restrictive

covenant, could be used in this case to achieve the same safety result

as site ownership by State or Federal authorities. The Commission's

decision was conveyed to the State in a June 28, 1993 letter from Mr.

Kammerer to Dr. Nielson. The purpose of the Federal or State government

land ownership requirement is to provide a higher degree of assurance

that through State or Federal government ownership of the site,

institutional control of the site will continue to exist for longer

periods of time than under private ownership. Regarding the similarity

between land ownership and a restrictive covenant, in each case there

is an entity in existence to take action to remedy any on site

difficulty. With land ownership, the State can take action with regard

to its ownership of the land, and with a restrictive covenant, the

State can take action to enforce the restrictive covenant. The State of

Utah executed a restrictive covenant with the terms

[[Page 6573]]

described above with Envirocare on June 29, 1993.

In addition, the NRC is required by law to continue to review the

Utah Agreement State program for adequacy and compatibility. If at any

time in the future during these reviews the NRC determines that the

public health and safety is not being protected, the Commission will

begin proceedings for taking necessary action, including, if

appropriate, the suspension or termination, of the Utah program.

In summary, the requirement in 10 CFR 61.59(a) regarding land

ownership specifies that disposal of radioactive waste received from

others may only be permitted on land owned in fee by the Federal or a

State government. The State of Utah issued an exemption from its State

or Federal land ownership requirement pursuant to Utah's regulations,

which provides that the State may grant ``such exemptions or exceptions

from the requirements of these regulations as it determines are

authorized by law and will not result in undue hazard to public health

and safety or property.'' This Utah exemption provision is similar to

the Commission's exemption in 10 CFR 61.6. One June 28, 1993, the

Commission approved this approach as acceptable, with the proper

implementing mechanisms put in place. On the day of the Commission's

decision, the State was informed that the Commission decided that the

State's rationale of exercising effective control of the waste disposal

site without State or Federal land ownership was acceptable and was

equivalent to the control that would be provided by State or Federal

ownership. The letter to the State also attached a suggested

restrictive covenant intended to provide sufficient restrictions on the

future use of the site. On June 30, 1993, the State of Utah provided

the NRC with a recorded copy of the executed restrictive covenant

between Envirocare of Utah, Inc. and the Utah Department of

Environmental Quality.

A follow up review of State actions and documentation was performed

by the NRC staff during a review visit of the Utah Agreement State

program on August 30 through September 2, 1993. The question of control

of the site after the period of post-closure observation and

maintenance was addressed by the State's extension of the license term

through the institutional control periods. The authorization to receive

and dispose of waste will expire at closure of the disposal facility,

but the responsibility of the licensee to maintain the site will

continue through these control periods. As a result, the trust funds

required for the license now and in the future will not be released to

the licensee until the licensee has satisfied the license termination

requirements. The amount of surety as of September 30, 1994 was

approximately $4.1 million. The surety is reviewed and adjusted

annually. The Commission expects that Utah will require an amount of

funds necessary to ensure protection of the public health and safety

through the active control period.

An additional issue identified as part of the NRC staff review of

this petition relates to liability for remediation and corrective

measures in the event of an off site release of radioactive materials

from the disposal facility. The NRC staff requested the State of Utah

to identify actions that the State could take to identify and compel a

responsible party to perform remediation and necessary corrective

measures in the event that no licensee exists and significant off site

releases occur. The State responded that it has the authority to

identify and compel responsible parties to perform remediation and, in

defined circumstances, the State may perform cleanups. Specific

measures identified by the State were:\4\

\4\From a letter dated September 6, 1994 from Dianne R. Nielson,

Ph.D., Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality,

to Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

*The Radiation Control Board has the authority to establish

rules and issue orders to enforce laws and rules [Utah Code

Annotated (UCA) Section 19-3-104(9)]. Additionally, the Executive

Secretary of the Board is authorized to enforce rules through the

issuance of orders [UCA Section 19-3-108(2)(c)(iii)].

*To the extent that the release is of a ``hazardous substance

(under CERCLA) or hazardous material'' as defined in UCA Section 19-

6-302, the Executive Director of the Department of Environmental

Quality may issue an abatement order if there exists a direct and

immediate threat to the public health or the environment and may use

environmental mitigation fund monies established by the Utah

legislature to investigate and abate the release (UCA Section 109-6-

309).

*The Executive Director of the Department of Environmental

Quality may issue mitigation orders where conditions exist which

create a clear and present hazard to the public health or the

environment and which requires immediate action [UCA Section 19-1-

202(2)(a)].

*The Attorney General or the county attorney has authority to

bring any civil or criminal action requested by the Executive

Director of the Department of Environmental Quality or the Utah

Radiation Control Board to abate a condition which exists in

violation of or for enforcement of laws or standards, orders, and

rules of the Department [UCA 19-1-204].

*The Governor is authorized to respond to technological hazards

which include radiation incidents under the Disaster Response and

Recovery Act [UCA 63-5a-1 to 11].

IV. Special Considerations

The Envirocare LLRW disposal facility (co-located with the NORM

disposal facility) is located in Clive, Tooele County, Utah,

approximately 85 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah. This facility is

located adjacent to: (1) The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) South

Clive disposal cell containing uranium mill tailings from the former

Vitro South Salt Lake facility that was cleaned-up and moved to this

site pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of

1978; (2) an NRC-licensed facility operated by Envirocare to receive,

store, and dispose of uranium and thorium byproduct material [as

defined by Section 11e.(2) of the AEA, as amended]; and (3) Envirocare

facility licensed under the State of Utah's authority for disposal of

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) material as delegated by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for those radioactive

wastes which have been mixed with, or contain, hazardous material.

These facilities are located within the Tooele County Hazardous Waste

Zone, approximately 20 miles from any residents. On January 12, 1988,

the Tooele County Commission established the West Desert Hazardous

Industry Area, which limits the future uses of land in the vicinity of

the site by prohibiting residential housing. The facilities are located

in the extreme eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert which is

part of the Basin and Range Province of North America. The groundwater

quality at these disposal sites is extremely poor due to a very low

annual precipitation, high evaporation, low infiltration, and an

abundance of evaporate materials in the near surface sediments in the

Great Salt Lake Desert. According to EPA classifications, the two

aquifers beneath the site are considered Class III since they both have

a total dissolved solids content in excess of 10,000 mg/L. The NRC

staff has concluded that the groundwater in the disposal site area is

of a poor quality and is not suitable for most known uses without

significant treatment.

Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Utah

regulatory program for the Envirocare site, including the control

periods, surety provision, restrictive covenant, and Utah remedial

action powers fails to provide adequate

[[Page 6574]]

protection of the public health and safety. Moreover, the NRC's

governmental site ownership provision is directed at assuring control

over potential releases over very long periods of time (in excess of

100 years), and the Utah program, especially the restrictive covenant

and remedial action powers, should likewise achieve an adequate level

of control. NRC staff recognizes that, under other circumstances, a

State's ownership of a site as contrasted with private land ownership

of the site might, in theory, carry with it some greater legal or

``moral'' obligation by the State to take affirmative action to assure

safety. However, given the nearby presence of the RCRA facility, the

proximity of two other radioactive waste disposal activities under

Federal land ownership requirements, and the remoteness of the site,

the Commission does not believe private site ownership poses a

sufficient real safety issue to warrant revocation or suspension of the

Utah regulatory program.

V. Conclusion

The NRC has carefully reviewed the issues raised by the petitioner

in the staff's review of the Utah program. For the reasons discussed

above, I find no need for taking such action. Rather, on the basis of

the review efforts by the NRC staff, I concluded that the petitioner

has not raised a sufficient issue of Utah's compliance with one or more

requirements of Section 274 of the AEA or any substantial health and

safety issues to warrant the action requested. Accordingly, the

petitioner's request to suspend or revoke the Utah Agreement State

program for failure to require State or Federal site ownership at the

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. LLRW disposal site is denied.\5\ A copy of

this decision will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room,

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555. A copy of

this decision will also be filed with the Secretary for the

Commission's review as stated in 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's

regulations. The decision will become the final action of the

Commission twenty-five (25) days after issuance unless the Commission

on its own motion institutes review of the decision within that time.

\5\In a letter of July 8, 1993 to NRC Chairman Ivan Selin, the

petitioner claimed that the Commission's decision of June 28, 1993

denied the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing on its petition

for the revocation of Utah's Agreement State status to argue the

policy issues associated with the land ownership exemption. Neither

the AEA nor the Commission's regulations provides for a hearing on

the evaluation of an Agreement State program. The Commission's

review of the Agreement State program incorporated a review of the

issues raised in the petition.

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of January, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard L. Bangart,

Director, Office of State Programs.

[FR Doc. 95-2578 Filed 2-1-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7950-01-M