DRC-2024-007184

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com

October 15, 2024 CD-2024-200 Mr. Doug Hansen, Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Subject: Radioactive Materials License UT 2300249; Responses to Request for Corrected Information – High Rad Area and Public Dose Apparent Violation
Dear Mr. Hansen:
EnergySolutions is responding to a request for corrected information (Request)1 from the Director of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control concerning the self-identified non-compliance with Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R313-15-
301(1)(a).2 To ensure a correct and comprehensive administrative record on this issue, the Director requested that EnergySolutions provide detailed responses and the hereto attached findings from a root cause investigation into a non-compliance. EnergySolutions acknowledges the non-compliance and values the opportunity to improve its waste operations. EnergySolutions hereby responds individually to the Director’s three specific
issues of concern:
Director’s First Concern: High-Rad Area Management: The disposal of ion exchange resins outside the boundaries of the approved CWF, without Director approval for each shipment including compliance with all applicable License
conditions including Condition 37.D.
EnergySolutions’ Response: EnergySolutions disagrees with the Director’s assertion that EnergySolutions is required to obtain the Director’s approval for disposal of ion exchange resins outside the boundaries of the CWF. The Director’s non-compliance citation does not address the approved methods for resin disposal in the LLRW and 11e.(2) Construction Quality Assurance / Quality
Control Manual (CQA/QC Manual), and fails to consider the narrative provided

1 Hansen, D.J. “Request for Information – High Rad Area and Public Dose Apparent Violation Radioactive Materials License UT 2300249” (DRC-2024-006695) Letter from the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control to Vern C. Rogers of EnergySolutions. September 16, 2024. 2 Anderson, Jon. “Radioactive Material Licenses No. UT2300249 and UT2300478” (CD-2024-081). Letter from EnergySolutions to Mr. Doug Hansen of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. April 10, 2024.
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 2 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
in the Director’s Statement of Basis for Amendment 25 of Radioactive Material License UT2300249.3
Over time, the Director’s update to the CQA/QC Manual, intended to reflect
approved changes to individual construction specifications, had significantly lagged, limiting its effectiveness for EnergySolutions and the Director in ensuring construction compliance. In 2019, EnergySolutions and the Director agreed that a comprehensive review and revision of the CQA/QC Manual was necessary,4 leading to its authorized adoption (via revision 28c) as part of Amendment 25 to
Radioactive Material License UT2300249,
“As a part of the on-going Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) license
renewal submittal EnergySolutions (ES) and the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (the Division) have identified reasons to revise the 11e.(2) and LLRW Construction Quality Assurance / Quality
Control Manual, Revision: 28b (the CQA/QC Manual). ES submitted their
requests for revision in writing. The Division has reviewed the submittals
pertaining to this request and resolved questions through issuance of a marked-up CQA/QC Manual and follow-up meetings to which ES has responded. At the conclusion of the interim meetings the Division has
concluded that it can issue approval of the proposed revisions with
reasonable confidence that the proposed CQA/QC Manual will serve to
protect facility workers, members of the general public, and the environment. The Division concludes that the document will satisfy applicable regulatory requirements and meet expected standards of
quality.”5
As part of the CQA/QC Manual revision efforts associated with Amendment 25, an evaluation was conducted on the effectiveness of the following three authorized options that had governed resin disposal since 2001:6
1. In Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) grouted packages within
bulk placement areas as described in Specification 90.

3 Howard, T.L. “Radioactive Material License No. UT 2300249: Statement of Basis for Amendment 25; Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.” (DRC-2019-015782) Report by the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. December 6, 2019. 4 Orton, T. “CQA/QC Manual Revision Request.” (CD18-0046). Letter from EnergySolutions to Mr. Scott Anderson of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. March 12, 2018. 5 Howard, pg B-1.
6 Sinclar, W.J. “Final Executive Secretary Decision, Envirocare containerized Class A low-level radioactive waste amendment request of January 29, 2001.” Letter to Charles Judd of Envirocare of Utah from the Utah Radiation Control Board. October 19, 2001.
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 3 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
“A few minor revisions were made within Specification 90–CLSM Pours with Resin-filled Containers. Text was added to confirm the applicability to resin-filled containers and that certain containers are to be pierced
with ‘a minimum of’ one hole prior to CLSM placement. Text was also
added to improve the filling of headspace voids of containers with
diameters less than three feet with CLSM up to the highest point of a container.”7
2. In the Containerized Waste Facility (CWF) as authorized by Work
Element, CWF Waste Placement (Specifications 104 through 115) of the CQA/QC Manual. “EnergySolutions requested that Subsection 108.B be clarified to make a
distinction that caissons without waste in them can be removed without
notifying the Director. This was acceptable to the Division because the
distinction between filled and unfilled caissons was previously unclear.”8 3. In bulk soil lifts (un-containerized) in accordance with Specification 83 of
the CQA/QC Manual.
“In initial discussions with [EnergySolutions], Specification 83 of the CQA/QC manual was agreed to be removed as it had not been used in a number of years and the Division [and EnergySolutions] [were] concerned [with] how it could be implemented safely. However, before the
change was finalized, [EnergySolutions] requested that Specification 83
be reinstated in the CQA/QC manual. The Division then proposed changing License Condition 37.D to allow Director approval for each shipment using this specification. The ES agreed.
The proposed amended License Condition 37.D [is]:
37.D. Only after receipt of written Director approval for each shipment
and then Disposed disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of the Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Manual.”9 [emphasis added]
Since 2001, EnergySolutions has been authorized to and has successfully disposed
of containerized resin in both bulk and containerized waste placement zones, in accordance with Specifications 90 and 108 of the CQA/QC Manual. Resin placement is documented on the CWF and CLSM lift approval forms archived

7 Howard, pg. B-12. 8 Howard, pg. B-15.
9 Howard, pg. B-1.
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 4 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
and available for the Director’s review at the Clive Facility. However, no resin has been disposed of using the method outlined in Specification 83 after 2001, due to EnergySolutions’ aim to minimize elevated occupational exposures and
address complications with contamination control associated with that method.
Consequently, Condition 37.D was amended to require Director approval specifically for shipments to be managed specifically using the method outlined in Specification 83. This change did not affect the ongoing disposal of resin managed successfully in accordance with the methods authorized in
Specifications 90 or 108. The Director's application of Condition 37.D, as revised
with Amendment 25, to all resin disposal methods appears to be incorrect. It is EnergySolutions’ understanding that it is authorized to continue resin disposal in accordance with the process and requirements contemplated CQA/QC Manual.
Director’s Second Concern: Public Dose Exceedance: In the Report, the Respondent demonstrated that for the year 2023, the public’s Total Effective Dose Equivalent at Air Sampling Station A-28 was 160.7 mrem/year assuming a 25% occupancy factor. This reported value is an exceedance of Public Dose Limits set forth in Utah Admin. Code R313-15-301(1)(a).
EnergySolutions’ Response: As recognized in its self-identification,
EnergySolutions acknowledges the exceedance and confirms that it conducted a root cause analysis. EnergySolutions has implemented corrective actions and will continue to do so to prevent this from happening in the future. However, it should be clear that no member of the public received an annual dose more than the limit. To be exposed to a dose of 160.7 mrem/year, an individual would have had to be
continuously present within the immediate vicinity of the fence for approximately 3.5 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 12 consecutive months. EnergySolutions monitors the fence lines and can attest that that did not occur.
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 5 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
Director’s Third Concern: Incorrect Report re Dose Exceedance: The License directly and indirectly requires the Respondent to perform regular surveys of its compliance with applicable dose limitations, including weekly fence-line surveys. The Report demonstrates that Respondent, in fact, took such measurements and analyzed such data. Yet, not only did the Respondent fail to bring the out-of-compliance situation to the Division’s attention, the 2023 First Semi-Annual Report incorrectly and explicitly represents that the Respondent was in compliance with dose requirements. But for the Division’s vigilance in performing independent surveys and reviewing the Report, the matters addressed in this RFI may have gone undetected. The Division specifically requests that the root cause analysis (discussed below) address the failure of the Environmental Monitoring Program to identify, in a timely manner, dose issues relating to the High-Rad Area.
EnergySolutions’ Response: EnergySolutions has acknowledged that it did not act
on the elevated fence line dose rates and emphasizes that corrective actions have been implemented (see attached Root Cause Analysis). EnergySolutions is committed to preventing this non-compliance from recurring.
Root Cause Analyses:
As required by the Director in DRC-2024-006695, EnergySolutions has
conducted root cause analyses for the Director’s non-compliance issues identified (attached). This report, initiated under Tracking Number RCA-CR-2024-0336, details findings from a comprehensive analysis conducted from September 17,2024 to October 3, 2024. The analyses include a summary of corrective actions already taken, results that have been achieved thus far, and any applicable dates.
Where the analyses recommend future corrective actions be implemented, the specific corrective actions, feasible milestones, and feasible completion dates are reported. Finally, the root cause analyses describe how proposed corrective actions are expected to prevent similar non-compliance issues from recurring.
Problem Description: Exceedances were identified in the 2023 First and Second
Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports submitted to the Director,
indicating a TEDE greater than the permissible threshold at monitoring station A-28.
Causal Analysis Summary: Utilizing the TapRoot® method, the analysis identified six causal factors contributing to the exceedance. Root causes
associated with the identified casual factors include:
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 6 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
• Causal Factor 1: Facility continued to add higher dose radioactive material to the disposal area without being able to completely in-fill the
area with CLSM/grout. Root Causes associated with this factor include:
o Communication Issues: There was a lack of timely communication regarding the disposal process of radioactive materials in the high radiation area. Operations personnel were unaware of the implications of continuing to place materials without using
CLSM/grout, leading to concerns about approaching fence line
dose limits.
o Additional Factors: The inability to produce CLSM/grout due to raw material shortages and unexpected equipment difficulties also contributed to the situation.
o Human Engineering Factors: Issues related to the work
environment and the complexity of the system were identified but did not yield further root cause insights upon deeper investigation.
• Causal Factor 2: Failure to act upon concerns related to fence line dose issues communicated in early 2022 and 2023 Radiation Safety Committee
Meetings. Root Causes associated with this factor include:
o Communication Failures: There was a lack of timely communication, and no further root causes were identified.
o Management System Issues: Standards, policies, and
administrative controls (SPAC) need improvement. They were
found to be not strict enough, confusing, or incomplete. A review of Radiation Safety Committee minutes revealed concerns about increasing dose rates as early as Q1 2022, but recommendations were limited to continued monitoring. Employees interpreted this as sufficient, leading to a lack of ownership for necessary
additional actions.
o Additional Cause Categories: Issues related to procedures and work direction were identified, but further investigation did not yield additional insights.
• Causal Factor 3: Lag in presenting quarterly fence line dose information to applicable personnel. Root Causes associated with this factor include:
o Management System Deficiencies: Standards, policies, and administrative controls (SPAC) need improvement as they are not strict enough and are often confusing or incomplete.
o Communication Issues: There was a lack of timely communication
regarding fence line data. Reports, which compile this data, were typically delayed by at least one quarter as they waited for all data to be collected. Operations leadership acknowledged that communication regarding halting waste placement was inadequate.
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 7 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
o Procedural Gaps: A review of relevant procedures indicated insufficient guidance on data sharing and on actions to take in the event of a potential or actual exceedance.
• Causal Factor 4: Location chosen for disposal was close to disposal facility boundary. Root Causes associated with this factor include:
o Indeterminate Root Cause: The TapRoot system was used to investigate the causal factor, but a definitive root cause could not
be established. The analysis ruled out categories like Human
Performance Difficulty, Equipment Difficulty, and Natural Disaster/Sabotage.
o Lack of Confirmation: Interviews with the EnergySolutions Clive Facility Radiation Safety Officer suggested that the former Site
General Manager made a conscious decision to designate the high
radiation area against Radiation Safety guidance. However, since the former General Manager is no longer with the company, this information cannot be confirmed or refuted.
• Causal Factor 5: Breakdown (or lack) of equipment needed to adequately
infill CLSM/grout material. Root Causes associated with this factor include:
o Tolerable Failure: The mixer trucks at the Clive facility were nearing the end of their operational life. While some repairs were
made to keep them functional, the cost of overhauling them for
reliable service was deemed not cost-effective. As a result, a decision was made to procure newer, more reliable equipment.
• Causal Factor 6: Inability to procure needed resources to manufacture CLSM/grout material to infill the higher radiation debris. Root Causes
associated with this factor include:
o Indeterminate Root Cause: The TapRoot system was used to analyze the causal factor, but a definitive root cause could not be identified. It was ruled out under categories such as Human Performance Difficulty, Equipment Difficulty, and Natural
Disaster/Sabotage.
o Nationwide Fly Ash Shortage: The most likely root cause identified through interviews with EnergySolutions Operations and Disposal Managers is the nationwide shortage of fly ash needed for
producing CLSM/grout. This shortage resulted from changes in
environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions from coal-burning power plants, leading to a significant decrease in fly ash production. As a smaller consumer, EnergySolutions lacked priority access to suppliers, hindering their ability to produce the
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 8 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
necessary mixture for encapsulating radioactive material and managing radiation dose levels.
Actions to Correct Non-Compliance: Actions taken to correct the immediate non-
compliance conditions include:
1. Sea Van Shielding Installation: In December 2023, 20 Sea Van shielding containers were installed between the high radiation waste disposal area and the west fence line. Although this reduced dose rates, they remained above required levels, averaging 60 to 70 µR/hr.
2. Concrete Barrier Wall Construction: A concrete barrier wall made
of 146 dense, mobile blocks was completed in January 2024. However, this did not significantly impact the fence line dose rates, which averaged 68 µR/hr.
3. Earthen Berms Construction: Two 8-foot-high earthen berms were
completed in February 2024. This action effectively lowered the fence line dose rates from an average of 61 µR/hr in February to 33 µR/hr in March, with no readings exceeding 40 µR/hr.
4. Revised Monitoring Procedure: The operating procedure CL-EV-PR-012 was updated to require the Environmental Monitoring
Program Manager to review and report dosimeter and radon detector results to the Radiation Safety Team, effective September 13, 2024. Effectiveness is still to be assessed.
5. Accelerated Monitoring: Enhanced monitoring was implemented at three locations (A-28, A-35, and F-14), adding an additional
thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) at each site. One TLD is read
monthly and the other quarterly.
6. Replacement of Mixer Trucks: Unreliable mixer trucks were retired and replaced with newer, more reliable units in May 2024, resulting in significantly reduced downtime at the Clive Facility.
Extent of Conditions: Two additional areas at the Clive Facility—the bypass track
near the rotary dump facility and the Mixed Waste south storage pad—could face similar issues if higher dose railcars or containers are temporarily stored there before unloading, due to their proximity to the restricted area fence line. The new East Side Rotary Facility, once operational, may also present elevated risks.
Following the lessons learned from the fence line exceedance at A-28, Radiation
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 9 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
Safety is particularly vigilant about keeping doses as low as reasonably achievable, especially at facility boundaries. Operations are notified if routine weekly fence line surveys detect higher readings that could negatively impact
TEDE levels at the fence lines.
Suggestions to Prevent Recurrence: The report suggests that the following actions be implemented to address each identified root cause and prevent non-compliance recurrence:
1. No or Not Timely Communication: Update the language in CL-EV-
PR-012 to improve communication and require that a condition report (CR) be written when doses reach 75% of a regulatory threshold, enabling formal identification and tracking of corrective actions to prevent exceeding limits. Establish a procedure to promptly provide quarterly fence line gamma dose (CEDE) data to relevant individuals
or teams, instead of waiting for all data to calculate TEDE, as gamma dose represents about 99% of TEDE.
2. Improving Standards, Policies, or Administrative Controls: Revise CL-EV-PR-012 to improve site communications and mandate the creation of a condition report (CR) when doses reach 75% of a
regulatory threshold. This will formalize the identification and
tracking of corrective actions to prevent exceeding regulatory limits.
3. Remove Ambiguity of License Condition 37 and Specification 83 of the CQA/QC Manual: Submit a request to the Director of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to amend
License Conditions 37.C and 37.D, and revise Specification 83 of the CQA/QC Manual, clarifying that Director approval for each shipment of resin outside of the CWF is only necessary if the resin will be disposed of in soil. Approval is not required if the resin is managed within containers using CLSM (Specification 90).
Mr. Doug Hansen CD-2024-200 October 15, 2024 Page 10 of 10

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
EnergySolutions appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Director’s request for corrected information. Please contact me at [phone] if you have questions regarding this information.
Sincerely,
Vern C. Rogers Director of Regulatory Affairs enclosures

Vern C.
Rogers
Digitally signed by Vern C. Rogers DN: cn=Vern C. Rogers, o=EnergySolutions, ou=Waste Management Division, email=[e-mail],
c=US
Date: 2024.10.15 12:48:08 -06'00'

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
EXHIBIT A Root Cause Analysis RCA-CR-2024-0336 of High Radiation Management (Concerns from DRC-2024-006695)