ML19250A279

Forwards Agreement States & Industry Responses to SECY-79-88 Re Timing of Certain Requirements of U Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

ML19250A279
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/29/1979
From:	Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML19250A277	List: ML19250A276 ML19250A279 ML19250A283 ML19250A286
References
REF-PROJ-M-25 SECY-79-088, SECY-79-88, NUDOCS 7910230004
Download: ML19250A279 (26)

Text

.

f[

APPENDIX 8 UNITED STATES j '.p NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMisS;ON

4j ;

WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 g%Vff

./

ER J 1979

~

Ref: SA/J0L

% g [ h ui G d

/

MEMORANDUM FOR: Lee J.40ssic Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs

SUBJECT:

AGREEMENT STATE RESPONSES TO SECY-79-88, TIMING OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978 As requested by your memorandum of March 13, 1979, we telephoned nine Agreement States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Washington) to solicit written comments on the subject paper. These States were selected on the basis that four have currently active mills (Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Washington),

one has a pending mill application (Arizona), and four are considered to have the potential for milling in the next few years (California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon). Of those States contacted, four have provided written responses to date; New Mexico, California, Colorado and Washington; responses attached.

Please make these responses available to the Commission for their further consideration of this matter.

Some of the coments spoke to issues other than those in the Commission paper. A summary of the comments follows:

A.

Washington 1.

Washington does not believe it is appropriate for the NRC and the State of Washington to exercise concurrent licensing jurisdiction over uranium mill tailings.

Qual regulation would not iaprove the quality of control and would tend to distract and diffuse the efforts of the licensees.

2.

The procedures exercised by the State of Washington in the control of the two uranium mills are essentially the same as required in the UliTRCA of 1978.

3.

Washington suggests the Commission interpret the Act to defer the effective date of the Act until a full understanding of the Act has been achieved by the Ccemission. Such deferral will not cause a relaxation of the control procedures applied by the State to uranium mill tailings operations.

1199 136 q u enco # h

Lee V. Gossick B.

Cali fornia 1.

Although there is presently no uranium milling in California, the State anticipates significant activities in the next few years and intends to continue to exercise the authority to license uranium mills and tailings.

2.

No new State legislation is required and no modification of the NRC agreement is necessary in the State's opinion.

3.

Federal support, as provided for in the UMTRCA of 1978 is essential at the earliest possible date.

4.

California believes that environmental considerations require coverage of in-situ leaching under the Act and urges the NRC to develop comprehensive standards in consultation with Agreement States.

5.

Dual regulation would be inconsistent with the intent of Congress to implement the Act at minimum cost.

During the period through November 8,1981, NRC should review the Agreement State Program on a case-by-case basis to determine compliance with the Act.

If compliance is not evident, NRC can reassert authority over uranium mills and tailings at that time.

C.

Colorado 1.

Colorado is already implementing the provisions of Title II.

2.

NRC should consider general licensing of tailings during the interim three-year period.

3.

Notes that EPA and NRC standards for licensing of mill tailings do not exist.

4.

State licensing hearings will be required to provide "an opportunity for cross-examination" but this is not required of NRC.

D.

New Mexico 1.

There is no precedent for concurrent jurisdiction in the Atomic Energy Act.

i199 I5/

Lee V. Gossick 2.

New Mexico has regulated and continues to regulate uranium mill tailings to the fullest extent possible.

3.

Concurrent jurisdiction would violate Section 204 (h) (1) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Act of 1978.

Several States have not provided written comments but provided the following views orally:

E.

Texas 1.

Believes it currently has an adequate program for control of tailings.

2.

Recommends deferral of NRC action for three years.

F.

Ari zona 1.

Feels concurrent jurisdiction would be confusing and unnecessary dupl ica ti on.

2.

Arizona is authorized to collect monies from uranium mill licensees for long-term surveillance.

If NRC asserts jurisdiction, a resolution must be made concerning disposition of these funds.

G.

Orecon 1.

Recommends deferral of jurisdiction for three years.

2.

Recommends requesting Congress pass clarifying legislation to clean up the conflicting language in the Act.

H.

Nevada Has no views at this time.

1199 138

0 4

Lee V. Gossick I.

Idaho Wishes to regulate mills but since there are none operating at present, has no problems with NRC asserting control now over tailings.

Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne General Counsel Acting Director, Policy Evaluation Director, Congressional Affairs Director, Public Affairs i199 139

APPENDIX C Industry Comments - Index Bokum Resource Corporation Cotter Corporation Cyprus Mines Corporation Everest Minerals Corporation Exxon Minerals Company Gulf Mineral Resources Company Phillips Uranium Corporation Pio.1eer Nuclear, Inc.

Ranchers Exploration and Development Corporation Union Carbide Corporation Union Oil of California United Nuclear Corporation United States Steel Corporation Chevren Rescurces Comcany

,k!

Letter dated March 19, 1979 from William P. Biava, Manager of Milling, Bokum Resources Corcoration, Santa Fe, New Mexico Bokum Resources believes that the Mill Tailings Act "makes no new requirements for licensing of mills and mill tailings in Agreement States prior to three years from the date of the Act's encactment nor coes it require the NRC to license mill tailings within Agreement States during this three year period." Sokum feels that this was what the Congress intended, and asks that the Commission " consider the legislative intent in addition to the literal interpretation of the Act...."

1199 141

Letter dated March 25, 1979 from Edward J. McGrath, attorney representing Cotter Corcoration Mr. McGrath points out that "there is a difference between Agreement State regulation and NRC regulation which I do not believe was fully considered by the drafters of the legislation and which was not taken into account adequately in the NRC Staff consideration reflected in the position paper of February 2,1979." While the Atomic Energy Act rigidly defines the materials over which NRC has exclusive juris-diction, the Agreement States " exercise authority over radioactive materials generally without regard to the narrow definition of source material contained in the Atomic Energy Act." Mr. McGrath indicates that since the NRC discontinues its authority over materials regulated by Agreement States, the Agreement States license such materials under State (rather than Federal) authority. Mr. McGrath concludes:

" Granted that an Agreement State would have no functional regulatory authority in relation to tailings were it not for the authority con-ferred by Agreement State status to license production of source material in a mill, the anomaly is that should NRC opt to cancel Agreement State authority over source materials in a particular jurisdiction or, indeed, over the new defined by-product material, the result would not be that the state would lose authority to regulate tailings, excepting if the area were deemed preempted by the new federal act, both as to cresently existing tailings and those produced in the future." Mr. McGrath also details the administrative difficulties that would flow from dual licensing of tailings during the three-year

}

93

)k2

interim and attest to his understanding that the Congress intended to provide States three years to implement the new program. He recomends corrective legislation, and if that is not possible, close NRC-State cooperation in the three-year period.

1199 143

Letter dated March 23, 1979 fecm Paul W. Allen, Executive Vice President, Cyorus Mines Corocration, Los Angeles, California Cyprus expresses its concern that an interpretation of the Mill Tailings Act to require that Agreement States comply imediately with the new ruu' ements for milling 'icensing might delay its Hansen Project in Colorado.

"For this reason, Cyprus urges that the Commission give thoughtful consideration to the practical problems of applicants who have been working with state licensing officials in Agreement States to develop workable and safe plans for uranium mills and mines." Further, Cyprus notes that the present uncertainty regarding regulation of mill-ing poses difficulties for industry and requests that the Comission decide these issues pr0mptly and to provide guidelines for applicants and Agreement States so that duplicative procedures and delay can be avoided. Cypru. also suggests that should NRC licensing be required, the NRC should seek constructive State and Federal cooperation so that applicants will not be faced with duplicative and conflicting instruc-tions.

) \\ '-) () i$$

Letter dated March 6,1979 from Wallace M. Mays, Vice President Everest Mineral Corcoration, Corpus Christi, Texas Mr. Mays' comments are limited to the issue of the application of the Mill Tailings Act to in situ extraction of uranium.

He urges that NRC interpret the Act so as to exclude in situ leaching techniques because such techniques do not yield tailings or wastes covered by the Act, that the Congress was unaware of this methcd when writing the legislation, and that existing regulatory practices are sufficient to protect the public health and safety and the environment from any hazards associated with in situ extractions.

I199 145

Letter dated March 16, 1979 from Gerald D. Crtloff, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Exxon Minerals Cocoany, Houston, Texas Exxcn takes the position that the new Mill Tailings Act provisions pertaining both to NRC licensing of byproduct materiai and to Agreement State requirements in milling licensing should be deferred for the three year interim following enactment of the Mill Tailings Act.

Exxon contends that the issues cannot be clearly resolved by technical analy-sis of the language of the Act.

Rather, the.1RC should opt for deferral as the interpretation which most effectively and efficiently achieves the objectives of the Congress.

1i99 146

Letters dated March 15 and March 5, 1979 from F.S. Mooney, Senior Vice President, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, Denver Colorado Mr. Mooney points out that the Commission's interpretation of the Mill Tailings Act will potentially have a serious impact on a planned new mill in New Mexico "An interpretation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the above referenced act which immediately imposes new requirements on the licensing of uranium mills or tailings in New Mexico will undoubtedly prevent Gulf from commen:ing construction of the mill on schedule."

In an analysis that very closely resembles that of the NRC staff, Gulf argues that Agreement States are not required to comply immediately with the new provisions of the Mill Tailings Act concerning the licensing of uranium mills. Gulf further contends that the Mill Tailings Act does not require the NRC to license uranium mill tailings in Agreement States during the three years follow-ing enactment, because the provision preserving State authority and the legislative history provide otherwise, i199 147

Letter dated March 16, 1979 from Juan R. Velasquez, Phillios Uranium Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico Phillips Uranium Corporation believes that the Mill Tailings Act

~

" clearly gives the State of New Mexico licensing power to the extent that licenses are required over both functions [ mills and mill tailings]

until November 8,1981 [three years after enactment]." Mr. Velasquez notes that Phillips has an application presently pending which may be affected by delay and dual licensing requirements.

1199 148

Letter dated March 20, 1979 from R. B. Stewart, President, Pioneer Nuclear, Inc., Amarillo, Texas Mr. Stewart states:

" Pioneer respectfully requests that the Commission interpret that Act so as to defer both the Cormiission licensing juris-diction over mill tailings and the Agreement State licensing procedures for uranium mills until 1981." He points out that since either inter-pretation of the Mill Tailings Act is legally supportable, the ultimate issue appears to be one of policy.

Pioneer suggests '. hat deferral would result in the leas impact on and cost to the industry and to the government, while concurrent jurisdiction will cause confusion and duplication of effort. Similarly, Pioneer contends that deferral of requirements for Agreement State licensing of mills would save money and result in a better-planned licensing program.

Finally, Mr. Stewart observes that deferral would not result in an adverse environmental impact because present procedures are adequate to safeguard the environment.

1199 149

Letter dated March 21, 1979 from Maxie L. Andersen, President, Ranchers Exploration and Develocment Corocratien, Albuquerque, New Mexico Mr. Anderson observes that the staff recommendations with regard to the regulatory program in Title II of the Mill Tailings Act may delay the renedial work on old deposits provided for in Title I.

Mr. Anderson states that this approach would ignore the present hazards and frustrate Congress' intent. He adds that litigation concerning the Act may well ensue and that if corrective legislation is required, it should be sought immediately.

1119 1 f>0

Letter dated March 20, 1979 from P. C. Rekemeyer, Environmental Coordinator, Metals Division, Union Carbide Corocration, Grand Junction, Colorado Union Carbida recommends a three-year deferral of both NRC and Agreement State licensing requirements in the Mill Tailings Act because the three-year transition period would provide time for orderly completion of necessary Agreement State legislation and regulations and develop-ment of NRC regulations through publication and public comment on the generic environmental impact statenent of uranium milling.

Uniun Carbide further observes that this interpretation would avoid the problems that arise from dual regulation.

I199 iSi

Letter dated March 20, 1979 from George D. Bennett, Assistant Counsel, Union Oil of California, Los Angeles Mr. Bennett argues that the Mill Tailings Act regulatory requirements for both NRC and the Agreement States should be delayed for three years.

Mr. Bennett cites the language of the Act and its legislative nistory in support of his argument. He also states that if a State chooses to carply with the new requirements with the three year pericd by asing the consulting services of NRC, "Section 209 is authority for such consolidation into the State licensing process under a State Agreement s tat emen t. " He concludes, "In any event, Section 209 requires that the milling and mill tailing licensing process be consolidated to eliminate duplication of NRC and State efforts."

1199 152

Letter dated March 22, 1979 from Noel Savignac, Manager of Environmental Services, United Nuclear Corocration, Albuquerque, New Mexico United Nuclear takes the position that because New Mexico already licenses mill tailings, "[i]mplementation of an additional NRC licencing process will contribute little... and will only add delays to the licensing process, which is already of significant duration."

United Nuclear suggests that the NRC used tne three-year period following enactment of the Mill Tailings Act to coordinate with the State and to eliminate duplication in NRC's own licensing requirements, so that "the uranium mill and tailings licensing process will be a more efficient and effective process through the submission of fewer and more concise documentation."

1199 1S3

Let. ' r dated April 18, 1979 frcm David A. Lynch, General At-torney, International & Raw Mate ials, United Stctes Steel Corocration, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgn, Pennsylvania 15230

.. Mr. Lynch argues that no authority to license uranium mill tailings attaches until three years after the date of enactment of the Mill Tailings Act. This argument is largely based on the original NRC bill, which provided for a three-year tran-sition period; on the delaying provisions for Agreement State requirements in section 204(h) of the Mill Tailings Act; and on the new section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act, which deals with long-term maintenance and disposal of tailings and does not become effective for threa years.

Mr. Lynch contends that all licensing authority over tailings stems from section 83 and thus should be delayed for three years like section 83.

])97 154 W

L*etter dated April 16, 1979 from J.G. Turner, Chevron Resources Com-pany, San Francisco, California Chevron states that in its view, concurrent licensing jurisdiction is unnecessary.

Chevren presently operates the Panna Maria Mine and Mill in Karnes County Texas and believes that this operation's tailings pond was designed to meet expected NRC standards.

Thus Chevron urges that the Commission adopt a policy of delaying the entire regulatory program over tailings for three years.

1199 i55

APPENi>IX D Environmental Group Comments--Index Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest Environmental Policy Institute Natural Resources Defense Council Southwest Research and Information Center Pueblo Laguna99 lbb

Letter dated March 21, 1979 from Patricia A. Porter, Staff Attorney, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Phoenix, Arizona Ms. Porter reiterated the position of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (set forth in a letter of January 23, 1979 appended to SECY-79-88) that the new requirements for Agreement State source material licensing of uranium milling operations are effective immedi-ately. Ms. Porter further states that her group does not question that there is merit tc the staff's recommendation that the Commission determine that there is concurrent Federal-State jurisdiction during the three-year interim following enactment of the Mill Tailings Act, but states that crucial questions regarding the implementation of concurrent jurisdiction (such as an overall environmental impact statement and coordinated licensing covering both byproduct material and milling) have not been adequately addressed. 1199 157

Letter dated March 24, 1979 from David Serick of the Environmental Policy Institute, Washington, D. C. Mr. Berick reiterated the position of the Institute (expressed in a letter of February 15, 1979) that the procedural reforms required under the new Mill Tailings Act apply immediately to the licensing of uranium mills under source material licenses in Agreement states, and adopts the analysis of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest concerning this argument. Mr. Serick further states: "Upon review of the Commission's reasons for adopting a concurrent juris-diction regulatory approach, the Institute agrees with the Commission's view that concurrent jurisdiction is appropriate" upon the condition that the new requirements for Agreement State mill licensing be immediately effective, Agreement State mill licensing be simultaneous with NRC byproduct material licensing, and that the environmental analysis for the byproduct material take into account the milling operations. Finally, Mr. Berick observes that "[i]t is clear that both the legislative history addresses the issue of solution mining as an excluded activity and that the Act would only apply to residues created by surface processing equipment associated with solution mining operations." 1199 158

Letter dated March 20, 1979 from Helen Linker of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Washington, San Francisco, and New York NROC concurs with the NRC staff recommendation that there is concurren*. NRC-State jurisdiction over mill tailings during the three-year period following enactment of the Mill Tailings Act, but further asserts that the Act's new requirements for Agreement State source material licensing of milling operations are innediately effective. The NRDC cites the overriding purpose of the Atomic Energy Act--protection of the public health and safety from the hazards associated with the nuclear industry-- to support a broad reading of the requirements of the Mill Tailings Act. The NRDC contends that the plain language of the statute, the over-riding purpose of protecting the public health and safety, and NRC's role as the lead agency in the regulation of such tailings require the immediate exercise of NRC jurisdiction, which is not, in this context, an inappropriate intrusion upon State jurisdiction.

Further, the NRDC points out that the scope of the NRC's byproduct material licensing review must be :omprehensive, citing numerous case law to support the claim that the operation of the uranium mill and the disposal of the tailings are inextricably related projects that must be conducted contemporaneous 1y with the source material review. Finally, the NRCC contends that the plain language of the Act and its over-riding purpose of protection of the public health and safety makes it necessary for the Agreement States to comply with the new requirements for source material licensing of miliing operatiens immeciately.

1199 iS9

Letter dated March 22, 1979 from Denise Fort, Attorney at Law, Southwest Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico Using its experience in New Mexico, the Center provides a detailed discussion of mill licensing practices to support its conclusien that "we consider imediate NRC assumption of licensing responsibility for byproduct material a desirable move toward the appropriate regulation of uranium mill tailings. Without this action there is no assurance that poorly planned and designed tailings piles will not continue to proliferate, nor that license renewals and amendments will not permit irrecovable coninitments to poor practices of tailings siting and stabilization. The three year pericd will offer the states ample time to strengthen their regulatory programs in preparation for the transfer of jurisdiction." 1199 160

Letter and comments dated March 30, 1979 frcm Richard Schif ter of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Kampelman, representing the Pueblo Laauna (Indian Tribe) of New Mexico The Pueblo urge that NRC exercise its authority over both tailings ~ and mills imediately. It suggests that in addition to conducting specific mill tailings licensing prce.eedings for m mill, the NRC should, "no later than May 1981, begin specific mill tailings licensing proceedings for all existing uranium mills, including those in Agreet. cat States." The Pueblo further sutxnit that the Mill Tailings Act's new requirements for Agreement State issuance of source material licenses for uranium mills are imediately effective. The Pueblo offer numerous legal arguments drawn from the legislative history and language of the Act, analogous case law, and the overall intent of the Congress in enacting the Mill Tailings Act to support its arguments. 1199 161

NINETY StXTH CONGRE.55 U" ^ STAFF DIRECTOR 'Monals K. VOALL, Am:3. C M AIR M AN ao s= =r A ===== ..,~.m.. . c=.

• ociars= Ten oi ccTeR

"*^" g^*L',,m;, =,=,,, g *,%"^a *- COMMITTEE ON INTERloR AND insular AFFAIRS a ogg,ecw,m m.a.b $.a. n.N E.Ys"p. 0 =5~ N U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ocNamaL couwst:,. cosa. sT N s 7 y * * ' **^" "*,* 8 ",J;$**"g, 8" "'- WASHINGTON D.C. 20515 sP f "- u""."A""a. "*","#!f0..Ta. April 26, 1979 .~42i"2 ~,. "'".h*".',"."d*~',.

• ^"Jo'e'y%y*Z

="_'=::t =.","'. 0";""L.

"$.",.*

^=...

" ' ' " " ' " ~ ' ' ^ "m"".t".*."."I'":i L"'"J."2::n.h M '.;;1C':T ,.O,?A'".'.'": C" ".;,':."= "'- ,o e Honorable Joseph Hendrie Chaiman, Nuclear Regulatory Comenission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Chairman Hendrie:

During your testimony last month on the NRC fiscal year 1980 budget request before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Interior and Insular Affairs and Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committees, you referred to potential problems in implementing Public Law 95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Specifically, you mentioned that there may exist some uncertainty based upon the language of the statute regarding the date by which the _ Agreement States must meet the new requirements in the statute and the need for the Commission to exercise within the Agreement States its new licensing authority for uranium mill tailings. At that time, you indicated the Commission's continued support for the three year grace period in making these requirements effective, but expressed the view that any interpretation of the present statutory language on these points would likely lead to litigation. It is cur view that these questions should be resolved promptly, in accor-dance with the intent of the Congress, and in a manner which will not cause dis-ruptions in the ongoing regulatory programs and activities of NRC and the Agreement States. In that regard, we are concerned that the statute might be interpreted to require the Agreement States to immediately meet the new requirements of the Act in all cases or to require the duplicate licensing by NRC of all uranium mills and mill tailings in the Agreement States. Such interpretations, in our view, would be contrary to the intent of Congress and would discourage rather than encourage the Agreement States from making every effort to meet the new requirements L of the Act as early as possible. As the principal authors of the legislation in the House and the Senate, we are confident the Congress intended for NRC to exercise authority over mill tailings in the Non-Agreement States immediately, and intended to provide for a period of up to three years for Agreement States which license uranium milling cperaticss cr mill tailings to meet the new requirements of the statute. During nis :.nrse year period. an Agreement State could continue its licensing activities under previously existing authority. New standards and requirements would be acclic ele to the maximum extent practicable, and NRC is expected to make every yog II99 162 ggo J3106R e

Honorable Joseph Hendrie, page 2 effort to encour3ge and assist the States in upgrading their licensing programs to meet the new requirements as early as possible. p Thc Congress did not intend for NRC to imediately exercise licensing y authority within Agreement States which were exercising authority over uranium i milling operations or mill tailings on the date of enactment. At the expiration E of the three year interim period, howe'~er, NRC would exercise its authority in any State which did not then have in effect a licensing program satisfying all of the applicable new standards and requirements. If the Commission would benefit in future enforcement of this intent and interpretation from clarifying legislation, we would be happy to provide our assistance. J k. R Senator Jen ings andolph CongressmanJohnD.DingeYi N w a d per y G

• ary.. art Congressman Morris K. Uda.

f / p aenator Pete Domenici Congressman Robert E. Bauman 1199 163 m 9

APPEN0!X F COMMENTS FROM AGREEMENT STATES, THE f1ILLING INDUSTRY, ENVIRCNMENTAL GROUPS 1199 164

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ^ k ...' I fVAS lbGTON d k' Dexy Lee Ray Gaernor March 9, 1979 Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Ryan:

With regard to the Nuclear Regulatory Com=1ssion action paper entitled " Timing of Certain Requirements gf the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of 1978", the Stat.e of Washington of f ers the following co=ents: I do not believe it is appropriate for the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission and the State of Washington to exercise concurrent licensing jurisdiction over uranium =111 tailings. We feel the control we currently exercise o ter Washington's two existing uranium mill tailings piles is at least equal to control procedures the Commission could provide in Washington. Dual regulation would not improve the quality of control and would tend to distract and perhaps diffuse the efforts of our licensees. Except in detail, the procedures exercised by the State of Washington in the control of two uranium mills are essentially the sate as those required in the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of 1978. Until chere is a complete understanding within the Commission of all the provisions of this act, it does not seem advisable to make the provisions immediately ef f ective. We would suggest the Co= mission defer the effective date of the act until such time as a full understanding has been achieved by the Coe=1ssion, the states and the industr/. Such a deferment will not cause a relaxation of the control procedures applied by the State of Washington to uranium mill tailings operations. If I may answer other questions related to the coa'-'~n of the State of Washington with regard to this issue, please se not hesitate to contact me. n. Sincerely, 1 ~ D d .9~ / { Special Assistant.and Spokesman 1199 165 pc . 7 9043 60 W g@$QStet>M

• 3

STAft of CAL!PCaNI AM(ALIM ANO WELFA28 AC(NCY [OMUNO o.$4:WN JR., Oeverner D'EPARTMENT OF HEAL.TH SERVICES 714/744 P sittif SACIA#1NIo, CA 93414 (916)445-o931 March 13, 1979 G. Wayne Kerr, Assistant Director for State Agree =ents Progras Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc=sission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Wayne:

This letter concerns i=ple=entation by California of provisions of the Uranium Min Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. There is currently no activt ursnit=t =ining in California. Fonow-up on ru= ors of past mining ac.ivities has not, to date, disclosed signif-icant sin tailings. However, ve =ay find it necessary to conduct = ore extensive field reconnaisance on the tailings question. Significant uranium milling activities are anticipated in the next few years as the price of yenov cake continues to increase. California intends to continue to exercise the authority to license uran-tum mills and tailings which has been on the tooks in this state since 1962. Responding to your note of October 31, 1978, we have legal opinion holding that amendment of California Radiation Control Regulations vill be suffi-cient to enable us to fuuy i=ple=ent the Agree =ent State portion of the act. No new state legislation is required. No modification of the NEC-- California agree =ent is necessary. While ve have a license fee system to recover program costs, we have no licensees who could fairly be assessed the significant costs which we viu incur in develo; cent and i=plementation of regulations required by the Act. Hence, federal support, as provided for in the Act, is essential. We urge the Cecsission to =ake this =oney s.vailable to the States at the earliest possible date so that this i=portant piece of legislation can be i=plement-ed by California as soon as possible. Two issues of particular concern to California vere raised in ecc=ission pre-decisional docu=ents attached to your letter February 23, 1979. These issues involve the questions of in-situ leaching and dual jurisdiction. .t.it that environmental considerstions require coverage of in-si'tu t les,ening under provisions of the Act and would urge the coc=1ssion to de-velop cccpr-hensive standards in consultation with Agree =ent States for effective regulation of this extractive process. I199 166 c- -No@ fr0753

G. Wayne Kerr March 13,1979 Congress surely intended that imple=entation of the provisions of the Act proceed at minimum cost in te:.as of dollars and regulatory complexity. Cual regulation by both California and the NRC would be inconsistent with this intent. During the period thru Nove='cer 8,1981 when the Act becomes fully effective, the NBC should review Agree =ent State programs on a case by case basis to determine ec=pliance with the Act. If complian::e is not in evidence, the NRC could re-assert suthority over any sills and associated tailings at that time. Sincerely yours, \\ n c. }

v. ~~-

G- 'e Een D. Honey, Eupervising Health Thysicist Radioactive Materials Control Unit Radiologic Health Section Attachments 1199 167

Secbo of f.a ifornia @20'TY20t C f h*CC '.". Je."*".res Memorandum ..ms .a.....w.. 1.1,

3. - o Q

i n, 3,

m..

.e{ O n c... .....,w. .e,.. d.'" */.' a i.'. 'f' H O.'..' C.. .' b ',' 4.* C..

c..,.. o, ' '

wy ... a.$. a- ~ .d a. m.:4.a., o g.4. C . < r.:... .........i.,.. s.,. ..m .,3.. . a. 1., 1. .,...,...s... ...,.,.. u.. o. ..a 7 2 f p -1 e:,: ').r,. ; r. J.. ,1 '.'..* Nw Harold D. Feroer Office of Legal Services 3/1216 5-4H2 Back round .r.... a.,.

4. e.. c..... e, p.a :..,. a :....

.2.,... i. ......,2 .3... 6 0...., -....A cu. v. A.s.. ..n n. . a. 4.., ,.2 2a.a... ........... ;. c.. .... g.,.... a..d a d.l L..'.'.., ',. o. n e A *. c.a.... N... m. -.-

c..#

1. :.. t'..~..- a f ter the Energy ACt,. The :;ucicar Regu'.a tcr,r 7.. =. -; s io n (. e r.. - a f ter the Cctr.issice) has do no a e. r eli.*u..a :. c.c '. a,:. this .n- ,. c. 4. s.,.. n.... .,. 0. s. e.,,. n' C '. a n d... c . c. - '....: a. ". -... -.i. -., - u "... g c 3.o.m. w 3.,. a. 3 '.e.. A.. a g e 4 n a.

e. 4

. 4 3.'. w e... ^.,. ~.. ..s. ....1*~.'.. t 2-v. .c o. 4.,.e. ,.,.a .,. 4. c eya.r...,.. . t a.,.1. w c n o. .u. u

x.../....,3.

s.... QuestiOu 1

p. d r,.aa..1. c..,r

• C ^. n.#".'"~.3.
• ",,, *"O "y." *. C C C' u."..'. " ' ', '. ' '. ".. ' ' ". : 6 ;, " -

6 . n. c...., 4 n e.1 a v. 4,, n ,.o.

1..,, c.., s e e e n.

...A. c.,g,... p. ,g 3 fl .m. 4 e a,.. 4 - _. a. a section 204 (e) (1) C f the Ac t adds s ub scc t ic r. 2 4 ( c ' ' 3 ) ' A) :: 9. c .. v,..f nc.,. 3 o

• ..g.n.

3 .c. 3 *. a. .">.. a '.. a:- . ' C. u ~' ~".' ' i. a.. ..".t.' -....a. e.'.# ... a. ' '. '. ' ". - = .), (.e,,, 3 y 3 C,, 4. 4.. a..4

h. r u's "..' C S. '..

"..".e.*r.'.'.'.'*.'.','",.~ C, a.",'j " ';7'..'.. g'.. .w w. ..v... y ..a. e.. 4 3.i) . o,a c y.4.4 ,. C a. d u.- a. a-u ~.d e.- S...' *.e.'aw..~'..'..4...'.'..'..'. m y. "(i) an CppCrtunit/, af ter public notico, for writ cn c.-.:.ents and a public hearing, with a transcript, (.4 4 ) a n C,r, eo ..ni./ .s, ,..oc. G.v.a.~.4. 4..u..Cn, 3 ,a w. .a L.4 .' } y.*a..,.... d o. w s..... 4 ,. a, P. '.fr..' C. *- b.P. a d. .~y.',r..#.'"'..'..'. h .n ' ". C.' u d, e d.'.'. a' u' h d e '.a..... i "..'...i o.". .P..d ' " s9.. "..'.u' ' ' '. '.'. c..'. C a. *..'G'.".*.*.3 y 2 y 3Ur.'.".y~

• .b. a p '.' WJ. *' C C ~,..~.*.ne.*.
• y" e.*.' ^. d a..d

'..' r..' ' ..'.'a a " "s, a. ". -. '. 7 4 3 'uC Cla. r2V1CW., d 4. .J. 4 "*9..* 4.e .i og g .e......... y. 4.

b. o. -.i..a.

W, .;=.4*....c..'. ~ a n.-. ....L ..% e J.. a g s.go.

• J.a,2.I
• N. a d h 5. 8 8.r v"i T.o

$aM6.EMQ ^' ~..U 4.E I.. I ".** y.#.U..J a 4

a..

~ e .l'.g g nof g o.e A 4.m.q A. a. .b.4 = a w. 3,3, o.,= .s ..g a e* 3 i. 4 e =.. = 2.m..a. ~A.4. c, 3.. g w .f s. 1 .w ...e A.s.y.,. ....a. e a.e.e, ,,...C. U... .a. 3,v.. J C. .r ... a

c.. _

,,.s s t 1199 168

i. t Don D. Honey 2 ^c re.-'.bc r M, 1973 j ? I I Cn thC reCCrd u.oOn ~ne recuu t o' an.s r.. a .a. w w .n t... '. ' ' be 1

3. (.e. C w4 hv

• k. e. g r m.,... d. 4.. y,

w.e.. t .a.h.a.'. i s .a...'. .t.. e m.- t e. r. i..-.: i s y d.w w... .c,..w.'. e, .,gC.g..-.'..y. A'.L. a, . ~..... . **e '.. --..-.-.....Q.. h...**

• 3, S

.3.I - :. .s am -e y 8 j p. %. j w . '.,. e .,.. l.4.w a. r..s... ca....> 0.c

1. 3au.sv.

• i. t,l a..

..%.....s i .. q ,3., - ..1 .1 s.31. n.O 4gp. %... 4.e 1 3. 4.. 0.# p" u b. 1'.' "..." ^ ' '. 4'."5 "'..'4'. "'I.'.'L..~~*.l.'...' .w w+ '. A,4 n 13 4.g S .i.,g i - h. v p C c,.,,,,. ; g,p,, w,.,. .t w... y Q 4. L. a ..,,, s....., c.4.. 3..... A _.. w .3, w W.4. b. a wd ner = w 4 a. (4.i e/L3,. , h 4, 1 a 3..> c.,...s C. a' -.3'.'" *+..-.- O..C .. ' *g.i.; e ..f.. ..? 4.4 +,- w. w .f w 4~ r. t 1. C...e4 g p. .sg.1gg e.m r.o. r.J g r.4. %,. '... > u'... s (-.

o..?..

.4

1. .C

.a 6, e - a.,.a i.1' 1

• c.1...

w. C.es. y ..i .w ncod of a written determination ' ased upon evimce wnich ni ht c 7 m presented during a public Cormen: pericci. Question 2 w., c e., L :. C.,,4, c- =.n.. nw.. a w.... ~...w... - .c ~ , ~.., ~ ..,,2 :..wn tm. ........t.... .. a.. .a. e v. .u. V"s,. ;. v.. ... s & - e i ,,.*5 a P00!!, ORIGIR_.gL. .w. 4, p. .4. 0 41 (.1 'J g.# g4.p. Aw-g g L.1 e. a, 3 4, .J(), s n. *. ev... L ~*t.i s a d w".'..i m.,. .s. t o.-,./ m'... A.

..s.>.".d.

a. - ~ ') t.

~ -. ". -

• T n

'e. a. C, a,.a O.C .r=,l T d.m..,. r'. i.m..,e, y.-.*.. '. ....=.i.*

• m e,

.n~,m., ,. e. L. .4 y%.. 4 e i -. 4 m.n. . b...,. n. g.,,,.w..,3. e.4C

m. 6 e s, i. -.c, e. a - - u........

3 g o.v -, tt a,d e~.s~o. 4e o.v i gm., C.i.,1 enm..ey c: o..s c L..' t,. -i w s -t.a. .3 Ca 4 e id i, w- .1 4uw.C g %. 4 t.,i wL3 . 3 3-

g. n...

..; w t..u. 3,..a. -. - ,. 4 -.. y v ...6.,. . y 6 me .c o.m. *. 4 7a. 7 %.j3(a) yeC~.4d x..

• k.a. t.W. t,

.u.w s, 1. n . y a 'L, C..

t...:.. Lw. n-..

w w e:... 3l.7 ' S a n ('. ." & O. u.' 3 *..i n.....'.'. u. S ','. a.". *.- t.s t h...c. C."."s"'..- I '.'".*.w.e..*<..u' 8 t e m s.,. .2... ' a. in aCCCrdanCO Wi".h Chap tar 4. 3 ' CCrai. nO M.,' W bn $ 2 0 0 ".0 n.13 ' '.,, E'S c ; 1, D4 t.. e.. 3,. L *.1 3 9 e.e

• ,e Cv,V2.,

,t n,,..:., .a. -.- c..,,.&, A.3/. i-c. .a. a.- O. s

.,,,. A e c.),.

,. %.'.4. p p. ., g.4 a *. '. '..' '~.....a..'.1 <,* '.-.'w'= c. s.f,... -.. a-a -. .s.. w..a. ,,. a L. 4.ai .4. 0 %. 4..

m....a. a

.., u.,., y. _, s.. s... ~. . 1 a. 4 y.. .. s,. .. w ... g. 1.. a 4,., S. t. 64 QuestiCn 3 ,00 Ca.,.4 :.0. 4a

v...,c.,.,

.O t.,. o .,,,.Cc.....,- - - t -.4...

u..,.,.,.. 3.>. 3.,

4 4.... u-.-. .v... a....

g. e p. *,.i... e n' n.. i..C n t ^ u.*. ", i." *, * *".v.". *." a.'

T. nc'.l 'f :.' d.5 5 v ~ - r., ;. 4 C v.i '. w 't

• e.,. 4 :.

.a '.m,. ;.. 3 r 2 '.14 't e ) (.' ?

w. #...

~. 1 a. .'w-*-..y'= w.' -.e...-- ' 3.1 /, '.' 'J . o *...

.,a n.j.

.n C %... 4.,s 1.;..,.. 3 .,,.s,1*,. a a ..w y .*a "*g e,r.,.4 g 3

_eC, p n.w-h..

1 4, g n. 3 g .d...: C.".' '. '. S a ^,.' ";."..; #.iC a P. *..'.9. " d w~ ~- C P. k r.

• y

k..,"la.,A d.n....

m....,.,.. .d, 4...a.., ...1..a 3 n. -...i., h. - w i 199 169

300R ORIGIN lon D. Honey 3

c ve.Ther Jd, 1973 e:.. a.

o.. + a,a.4la.w..is.

u....

......r.._.. -... a: 1. proceedings) of the impac : of ;uc" '. t : c :. :.:, i.nc u.dr.n: :.. -. activitics conductod pursu.--nt t ;.= c. e,, c:. che envirencer., which analysis shall include: (.4 ) an a s.,e s sm..a n

• c.4.k.e r.:1

_;..a a..d, ... r n.,2 4 c,1.,. g _.. a 3 impacts to the public health of tv; activities to ha conducted pursuant to such license: (ii) an assessment of any impact on any '.ea :crway and groundwater resulting irom such activittes: (.4 4 1) cons >.a, atin.

n..a a l. n.... a... w

... u. v..u. n a - L, ... ;.,. a. v si tes a n d a n d...n. a.. 1'..u .^. b.o d o, - -"a..c. ...i.' r. conducted pursuant to such lic'.ze; a ;.c m v.-a _ _i o r. o _' w."m- 'a".; ..v.. i.v.- 2 c. - ( _;,.'.) c. n c _i A 2 'n .+ t " - dec c_. 4 - _4 o. 4 ng, de m, o n. _,.1 t_,. i m,., a, n a _. e.-,m. ~,

c..... a...,

oo .o associated with activities to be ec..duc tec scrauant te s'tch license, including the mana ;ement e t an-by,rsduct maccrial, as defined by saction 11 e (2;. " -u, .cn .irgo.3(u.) c: e. ; o

• w n

-.". ~s.' c ..e .ub.'_ .m..'c." 'o-a__ -.i.u-e - asc of environmental impact r ports (EIE'i a s ;c.r t o f the ca.. fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the railcwine..ro!2c.

.,.., gu, o s e o f a.. n..v _' -^

.e.....'....o; - _ .- 4.. c r....- _.c.....'. ... e. + c significant effects on the envirene. cat. to ident.f, alternan.,c; to the project, and to indicate tna nanner in. iicr each sim.- ficant effects can be mitigated cr avoided. Titic 14 California.idministrative Ccf.c Section 1514 ' further detail; tha contents o f an EIR. HowcVer, wh_le the requi.remeats in Section 1514 3 cover general areas of inf:rma: ton whica can be considered to in. ...auo e t.g C 4.n. _eo.e...,

• 4 c.".. '"3 u.- a.d.i.1 a a '-'^^

' ' ~ 4' '.s) i..i 'i ( C.I ..h c '; ('. ' .u w - .-...o not list these requirements with the same.'racificit; is Sect 2on 274 (c) (3) (C). Fcr e::arple Section 2 74 (o) ( 2 ) (C) requires an a.ssessment ..u. n.., c.4u,.,cg_4ca., 3.m a

,.4

..c,., s. _, _t. 3.. _ 4. r, e -, _ - .x,, e.._.<.- u.m _,1... ..s s. ~ m of the activities to be conductec pursuant o sucn licenae. Ecction 15143(a) requires "a description of direc t and indirec significant long and short term effects of the project on the envirancent. This description should include relevant specifics O f the arca, the resources involvedr c.hvsical chanc.es, altera: ions to acological sys tems..." Section 1514 3 (b) requires a description of any significant impacts r.a h an .w.ea., h.

m..w.u s, tw. e

..q,.,.4.a.,..e n - t, 45

.,. Cnc e..i

- o,.... no -a s 15143(a) and (b) call for a. kind of informatica c.encrall" which .c... 4,. 7,* t'o ) ( 3 ) 'a. ) c ' .h..e. r.n e -, ". o ....c.. a_," i. e - a e e -.i _' i. a.' _' ;- '.... ". e -r s-

.A,.-a-.v.,..,.

w. a. v3ee o.e. u.4c a C 4,,a. b y. o C, n, C. s.

n. u. A o

,, a 3... L,.. a.,.a .a ..s ,g . w. a. s e -.4.*.i c.i s #" -- h c _ s..-a..a., .".e..d ""; . a. c. 1.*.....i '.. s *..* *. o. s -  ;~ e ~ ~ ~. ..h.e d e g c a. e c. e s,.e_ _'.'.i _i v,.eq"-._-aA. .i.n a. r _ '. - w.i '..' v~, .- s. e. e. o.d.. t u- ~. e

, a. cb.,. e e o.# ae ci#4

.'.v. ..n U.^A -..'. _4..c. .c .>4..", s..i-".. .' sia. " a is cesc riced i., the EIE. " 3 action 151i einf rres the effe:. cf Section 15_43 in relating tha general cen:-.: creaa of E ?'s to the specific content area of Sectica 274 (c) ( 3) (c). 1199 170

I f. I acn ';. Menw 4 NoIcmber R, L973 i .a. a i - ..3...'- .a .. 1.. '.-. ...,,..... e 31_; o r... i - 2 a . t.....-..,... of Section 274 (o) (3) (C) l icensec a.. i.; _.. o to.x .u-nr..orice of . c q '. c n . s.c. d.i.- =..d .i.'.. *. h ^. i." E. C ' .,) .~,....,..uG..'. -, - (( n L' s W m. c. 1 6.a r.g.- a. ve L....., p e.i *, a U.hsSo-...v n { t/ L..i., ,e

3..-1

..n..a..-.. . t. su e,:.,,. 4 o. 2 7,' ( 0 ) ' ', '; ' u' ). # .. ". 7...'.-..."

i. i

-x~.'.'.' N..."i

m'.o. ~-. '. -

..c . T:.. ia*.". place to publish such notice. Question 4 ,i ...h a.. e..p. l.4 c 1. a.. ws...o 4.s an,f a, s,.

a. s

... s. o.,.... ha,c. .o n..e..:.

c..

i adequate financial suretv. arran ements he made b-. iicensees, to 3 assure comoletion of site clean-up and reclamatior pciar to te mina-t ..i o n o.'. the. l i,. c.a. a o.' '.d '..o."u.n '.'., r.<, e......... m.. i. m-s u.3 ..,..1.., y 3... .: s. u.s.4....,,. - - T.h.a. .=. a te ha o- ..o :.. e ' i - i t a u.r.c.- i ".,". .m.. .>. c.'.'^..o.... s..- c ~y" a..an., a..e n s. 1 i cL. a.1.. b. : y ~= a... a. y. ' > G.' 9: . 3 s. ,s g *. 3, q 7. A.. a., n.f. m n.......:..

1.., e.t..

.,..=.,.., -.m .u .a -o. = g.13 io . t7.- ^ .'O.", .. '..'..>.G'.~, ~, ~ c'.'.c*,..'...$... g,.. 4 eg b.. .s.-

g. 1.s 4

w;

a..r., u.,,. a.

w3 ......g.4 . a d. a.a.t

1. .i...a...'.

"v',.,'..'..i, a.. .- <-*.'.e.- A 2 ~- s .s .'.- '.. C. C..a... o-D e ".. a" '.'. " b";.' 1.i r.-' u' r.. 4. %'- 'c.' c. i.- ..'. m 1. 1,'

• 4 c.--

.^s.# u"' A.s'.c".. a" a.. ~ . w. e c n. 4 4 n a n.,

a 1 i.

,.. a. C... s... > :,,.n., u s ~ -- 1..,.. s wa. 4 3.,. .c; a. .c..

• o~

a r =>., d. ,.... o. .6 o. a n .,,.:s.1.a..a..on o# s.toa, c...-'. '...d o.~a'. .A ~4 -~ 0.**'.'e-.'.'.<.r.'.^"...*.'.- o,.o.4n c ; 'ong *ee 1 a a i... a no.,.C a. 1 w ... -,, -,. L.. t.,. .,.4

• 2 S, _....

..w. i r c....o nc mon. ,.s 3 .., s t e3 A s and equipment. u ; *.ge.

y. ts, ' t...'..a. m

'. a 6.'..". ..'.,.=.'."2,.~...ic.".". ~, e .s. 4-o no 3 u,. . r ic.. s 5300-25876 (The '.adiation Control La tf x in ".1-lc 17 Cl.C Rc.ans ,,,, v 0_3 0 3 9 7 (C1ue.,. - a,,..,, w..a... a. c.a., .2.... - c. c....,~.~ s a.,., o..., ., v. ..u .#.i.n a.n c.i. '.', p'.w"..'.a. c,a....e... s o or. %..- 'n.'.- .m. S..- ..,,.o. .-s . -.. '.. '..r w e,..a..,, :.1..a _ w a..nd 3e ....a, .g 4.. a g e. 4... 3 <.. 7.. ~

m.. s. '... *.

..,..3 %....r-m .w j

k. w,...i..f

. o r e ~. '.'.'.- a. a CF D. .# i.'1.'....'..i. '. .2.'.-'..'. ~...~..a '..*m'n.-~. .'-..i3... s. Questica 5 x.s...e o n t.w.e yn 4. e,:. 2 a. <.s. e. s... 4 - .w.e ag.. .,u. ...s -.. o. ...o. c_.;

s. -.. ao 4 a..

voe=. m. ..u... and the State of California (herea f ter ene s ta te Mreemea.:) m edied in Health and Safety Code Sections 25 8 7 5 an'. 2 C ~.76 have to ::e v. ended

• o.iico.yo..a'.e.he ~..w d a ",. a.' c c.. a..n *. s.i.a.

'e.'..'. OC. 4,3,.,. P001 DHK 1 . w 2.., ; i. ' -) .Q..

• 4.~.' a.

'/ 3. . x. a. 3.a. .-%C < n o. n.a... 4 . ?. u> " a.. 3.. a. -,i.c.s w.. ,.w

n. e s.,..

w..,a.en ..s o. .=.~. 2..d .. s e s. a..'.'.-. s ~.~a .. a.i.n. a.i.1 . c t.. y a..'." 4.?.' *. ;' a a w i (11 l l , e' e

"or D. Honey ~ .;ocerher D, '.973 .ae crogram of the comicsion" cith .cc.,u-- .2 ac t.. _ .e .. c.- c.e byproduct materials fcccsci ca

n.

• nc 1.

q,..,.n. . 5, a. w.. ..w a-l3 c.,..,.r.,,,

p...V

. - ;t d. %......~..L.... ...,.s. .8 a. .. L n t.kg e d,

6. n 7 p..sg {,. ig -.

.,..J.,. s.= L.r.b.1.,. =.; v.........c 5

1...

n,.< e p ,v. 3 o-- wa _3 a. a..Q t con. as'b.'s a ~ :.'. 4 e

• 4...v^.

. s i. ".. .... > - - n..~..... c.er.<.',.'.'...',..- e. s o f the ::uclear Regula tory Ccnmis s.:r. H :..e ve r, t h.; ne the.1 7" attaining compatibility does net recuire an am2.:decat tc : S'2:a .s~reement which is a c.encral stateme: coverine. broad are22 <s f 'v , ag.., a 4 ;.on. T o s. a.- ~ a '..e..d.'.v.. o ~...' i '.'.' ,<.-.'1.,...~.";

'. n.=.. s ~..=.. -

". ".. =. s. State Agreement would change its charact.ar and is uancces;ar -. Rather specific lec.islative chanc.e is necessary to brinc th-

te r

and Cor mission programs of re'julation irta ec. patibility. C.o v e...., t, b.i.1 4 ~. ". a. <a.. 4

s...e "...

o.' -..4..'. .s . s. 4 .. a c ,a s. . s,, .g. m... 2. n., w.e., 1 ' s e a i ~. '. s.'..' -... s c u.- ...,....2 .>. a... :3.. c I t o-a. l.*. . o. n. ~'his procedure is consistent with Sect tr :.J;(d) cf :he A : amer.ds Section.? ? ; f.j ) of the Ener';y Act is follows: "' ?.e C c- - ; 2 ic i chall periodically review such agrefmer. s and cctions car e: C. n.. S *. 3. t a. s,,..d C.,. t',.e a...3 L..,*

• o i. 3.

.. e c.c..........a.... .,,.1 n ....,,, s ....e .e

• w.-.

r. 1,..,, c ,., a

)c,.,,

e9 .e ....s. ..s. ..,e. c. .,, a. S c,.. O .t..,.3. 4 9, e.o CoCrer, 4-.c., 34.A , co, r v,. .s . w a.. .,+...i.,

o. n..

L s. ~..;. >., s a.. -w ..a,.-.. - h.. -s ,.es.

I O *

. 4..,

P00RORIBINA_ em

M e ul Cafitornia Dr'c,crtmcat cd n cish Scrvien h e m C I* O O L U Cl P.

on F.ency,.' per.

.cing I-:caith

.Ta. u - LO, 137.1 Phys ic LJ* , C.G.1Cg.: ..a.1 w .c C. 0 n vf .2 . A 2 l '.; o., ' Q q '. i s s, '^ u, r.... f . e./ / .j p /.;;;, j.;... ..r. ,',..&.'. '. e ,s. , ;, s < . i, 33c,_,,732 e, r / .o. t Earold D. Forber Office of Legal Services 3ackar,un.1 f..e Nine. y-Fi f th Congr es s b..s as.t.: 1-- R., s.: '. :. A. Ta _ l t r.i: ... u.43,.; g, c... a.,.. tc..', '.. 9 ^. ' (.-...'"..". .s'..

e. r...

.'i....; ,.a . s o..u..s.e.d. e..e. e,, 1-4. c,. c.,

a..,; aLC. ; ; O nd-,. C + il t.'

. t,.,. y. i. s.. * ?, --. c.,,,. .. ~ c w n..., a. '. c..'..;.'. = '.'.*. a.. w~ v t..~. *. ). .9.'", era 1

c. W... - 4., n -

>m...' ..'. d ' t the.tadiola'jic Health Sec. ion ccnccraing the ccr..quence.- of the Act. The legal cp inion espen '.2.ng in c.._-c

maciorn na raised ne>: questicas ar.d also i >>

1.. ac.2d e.~ cir uficatior..

Oucs lo.n. i de#ia.i" 1%' A'. " > nn, P.r a d.i..". ' ' L L' 5 s */ '.' -- h (..-.' I.', 1,- t. U, " v" u' "2 d i "..', A' e., i.

t..M.

• C "* '

v .w ; . ~ (.* u

• e d.' **. L' '.-

'.1.' .~.'..&..('.,' a..L. '. f' I

• G . '.

r..s.,.,43 1 L"'".' g p 4., w-., .. i .. ta a.12 . 4.o.. e.a m.t... a. . 7 c., 4.-

u..,. ca.. c _.. t i, 4.

2..,.. _. y,.

s.., u.,.

. o n m. m On'nioa

es.

Analymis .. y 5 . n..., c.,:.,a z. ..,a. e .. - p.~.. r..,,. < u,, c r. ~, c. s... .. - ~. s -.s.=.'.... o.. _' /. - ( + ) ( 3 ) ( 'o' u' c.'... a dm" a- ' ~.... ', .'s. r. . -..,. 2. "..... o v...,. a: ~. e. a t,. c. 2 {...- a.. ;.,.. ,. 4.. c C i-w1a . u.c. ., e. ..,, <n n - A a. w.,. ..s.. -a

s,.a p. :,, n c. : u g;

. g 3., t-4 3 4. .su

y,.,,.,,r.i r.*..

I. ..-i..* a...; v,.a ... 3 t ..,.s s. ,y.. f .o ,.. d,u,. n. S L,..d,, a-2 l a.s. 4i n v. !.. 1. L. ,V. 4 c.,) vA. ...s

y.. v,.

e.o c..- ~ un.i " 5 ',.,. %. = ,,- u.".. i '.-."." '..i ~. -, .G...- ..:t "s..> n. c...';a: n. .., ; s ,.,. t,. s and a public hearing, with a transcri;.t, (ii) an oppcrtunity for cross exactinatien,. :d (.,. 4 -./ i ,.l'.".4.b...., e.,..u A. <,.1 . a, ; b u ... C !,. a.;,.S 4 WI.- ....L. wL.. u p. .A 3 -u 4.e. p. 7..

• 4,e, d

.4..g .a ?,.,..a..b. 4.2. ga v. g6 <.4 .s 4 _4..u i..i,a, p.

p. 3

.g.. s* 1 y.%. .,... w $.e.,.* c, j,.=.s... p,4 9 b u. .A.". 4 '=..g . h.g . 1.3.1., g g e,, w.g. a.. n,.,.,.w ;.. m, d ,a o d., h i. e. -+ 'a j.q ,=, h,i Lw.a. 3 ,,A,..i f,. ; s. - e 2.. .n s v. is at.. 4 2 1 n4 4. t.. a, 3..-,. A v n, (.,.3 A

.C,,;3

, a. .i>. ,..,..n...1...

1. i.3.,

3 ,y .v .-u 4.

t. c..' S

• ^'.'; ".'.* u^..'.0.".. 9.

.s.. 1199 1/3

P00RORGNAL r...,. a p,. 4 3., .?. .. gig 3.~. .i. o,, } o. # a. .e(

.j w..

.6 '..~i.*. s. 3.. >. .u,. t..,3., C, /.3 at. ,p 4. J %,. A... ie.N L: =. ' ',.1 p. . s..).m.. 4 .. 1 .g. 3... ..g.- .J -.,,,,.6.'b..4.. 'T..SJ,L 'L t.h. e c.. m O. L .. yi-..a;...-- e - *... gt

t.., i. f..

.. (..q c.._s..-(.

m..., (

e. O.71 7, g,

_e.s,.... 4 ,.t ~ . _,.tC.i....__ _- ..4..,,. ,. 1.a, -p. .a. .A,. .d C v .;,rJ ...,n, 2 v.. v ,,43.'... (.c.' gs.1, e i.-.. @.. s. s . e M i. 4 m -, i 1.,

. '. 5 d-

.#.n'. # * ' ' ' 's' Y, ^. ...d-. .3 i- ' '.. '. '.. ~.. " ' '. ' '. ' *..* .".> d v* *.*.' '.7 .? ~) v '. ~J ( P. ', ~.* ^., V.' s'.'.^. S ".'4'.' '. '. ' '..,s.'.'".' ' ~1 . u p

1. > 'u-

..,=....*,L. P.. _ ' e. . s' i." '. u' ;(..'.-...,.r.. C. !3,, Ct c. t o.,.. ,.1 2 e, C r.... t. 'u s. i.O.. a.e.t. d 11 - .w v o. s. ......,. *. g e..

• i.1.a.

,a.7... p. p_ .e, e.. m. s.., c. s. P.

• ^-

..,e w.-... .4.=..., =, pe g..../ e, 33 .s,. {...' *. b.* *. 6 4.i.,- a g..:. 6 L1.O. - a Gt.. r.0. A.,.J. ) M b*[ ' w C w u.{.. g., = e.e g.a *...== 4. m l 4 U,.w. C, .[.,.*,2. a. 3v r w .y g p..... '. O 5] Q *v.*.I.- *) "." " (; 1J } i.l. 6.- .' L O I ] ** I..*. * ( ' a } " S. .C' ** Sa w. e.a *

• t v-s * *.,2 Q b '.I.O..5 3-,,. -

.m..==. ,a.(*..*.. fJ. s L.( (,..# f.*4.,.,g

c..'. )ps.F,3

• (v 1

w 1 v wt. a w w b,) T .e . u.S ,.,,.. u. r,.,. q w. a f..,p.e L: 3.>. j .s crn h.Td:a.inis tra tive Ccde, chapter 3,'S M r. apter 2, ..w.. U. i o r.. .s, y v..; . ~.... r The re uh-i.,nc for mia tod.sM c2 6 mmc :.O ca L.; 3 W ud..uints 'll 4.1..: .a ;. ..c.. 2, (i*i} cg 3 r.1 f i..J ) e.,.. e-w...n.. --...s..... i r. y .(,.,...., .=

r.,

w

• s v.

.ra...... ,1 . -. ~ -. -.

• .. w...e. 4,, o.

c..,.,. 6,.3 -. n. 1,. 3,,

......c.,. m. ,m,.. ...t v. c..... i... .s.r 1 .I ',s.. ...3 w a' C2 r.%. s._. L. e ,'4...<..i W 5 ..3,. s. c. C..,,. . g -t.., 3 C. L v... a. w 3 a L.,..,,.., - .ao 4 =../--.., 1,. c.. a

u..,y s.

.:. c.. s -. w., .s. m.s .i lic.....> 'o ^"-nrio. C "..-w. n'."..4....- .' o... t u-

c..-

. " "..'O N. ~> m ...u1 -c.4. t.ia.. "s,..- .." ". o o e.e. .~.#. "..'w.4...'. "..,-i, ie. ~,m . r. t. m.. l '. '. '.,^ r (nc a t. t r e.u tU a ma :n.d 'oe c o n d. '..a f o r Safety C.'.le Section.330.13

c.., g. 4. w,

.eres. ~. %.., w.,. 4s..,a.; e, c., c..... a,a... i,...,..: ..... r M. ~ ~. ~a.., r. ..~'. o,. A c.' ' c i =-.,~,; t.u-.~~~a. .. - c *.. ...v.......- ..w....' z,. ~ c y. ~ c........ a.' a_ c_ "s. -.?. i.' ". <. ' Q. 2'..'.M.* *...i. t e'...'....' ~ ~.u r..'.' L' 'w"s,.'. m .!'y.,. n. c.

4. L...

') ,5 s r... 3,; *,,A. t. > w.a.a... e.;..,..,1.. l,, *w O r.;...

c. O r. a.

1- .>w..- .6.. w .a }.i..,. g.;. e. 2 ....p.., a. ,., d w... ;t t.. .c :...3.C .u. ' e. g _4.,,3 '.. a rm... g e,

• .'m....a

.,..r.3.., v.... .w. u u .a u.-...,.<,..c r. q. 3.e.d . %., +. 1.; c Lg. m..,, w e,w. e, :..w. .H.. .. m.r.,a.. n..t . O.,. c...- ...g.. ,,?

r. a.. w 4,..., n..e. g o.,

w i *w

• L

.n i,3 L.g, A, . m 'l..,.: i l.. (.. ., 6. a... t.. e. .~.. w wv w... v ; ;,.C I. L..= > a.1d.. s C.:, t., sa. s,., o,.. L. J. 14.. !s.

4. O.e f

,..L.,'.a

i. e.,

4. .ww s V....,4.s,,,. a a

3..: g?

..i..i,.,s.,.., .. *i.. .0 ..n- ..4g... . g w.d.,..t, ...n.., m. 3..,... v.._. m - 2... .v. .w,1 -a r..,., n 2 t'.'., u' ^. '5* 1 * ^ ..v ;, L* t.5.', '.'A.' 2.. i ".. '.'.' f d '~r'L' '/. ".'. 'y'T

• '.'1.4 u.e."'-

C'^..".i"w'..-".', ~ 4 ~ s .. ~....

• L, 1, e. m.. c. h.

L,. w .A q m 1.,, '... 2.. This cuestion necessitnes a clarincation c., tM rertonce to ., u L... ' L, G

• n..... a, a.:

t. L.

a; n ,3. .c..2 c...a f m.., v) .-.L q. 5,J u,,2 S, v, e .s v. w .s. .a ew w.- w.. w

3.... ;' C.'* i ".. 'g'

. ' ". a.'.'.'.s' 1 Mv O..* ". '. '. c, "...'. " ', c r.

• *; r e. ;' t. '.." u'

'.'.~"w .q g, s.

t. i.. w

~* w.i s y .4.a ,. 3L 3 u,.%. *.., 2 w.. .a ps,.in e -.3 n. .... 3...... g n..n ~. .a w...,,..j.... o. a . v., 2 y. .s-s. -.1.. .. 4., o a,.e,,.3 .., m...;.i.

,, p.

O.4 .e ; w L .. ;. 1 , ?. G J..., 3 r. 3 . w w ...d,u..., g. ww.. .s 1 i. n e Lw.: &w w .a ...w.,a. . u...

a.,4

. n.4. u. ., c C .r3,.-.,,,-u.. x,

• O.

c... n ;..

r,, w.. a. ..-.,,u,..e w.s v .u --a s ...A- .g p m..3. c. 4

3.. u t.,.,. 4 w.f,

9., ..,... 1,.. c .g*a.. w. i . s.. 1. :, p., g e .v w 1..,. .= 1 4.,g.r..u,,,,. . s..,., e.2. 3 r, z.4 r +..... , t,

s..a

.. c:. 4 .a.

s.. c, a,,

..s ..~ w q.

o.. a.... D.

, L,.

2..,

w.1

b.. g 1-

. O,w, :.....,4 .. 1,, -s. .w C o- ...b ...s., w6... j 3, C s 2.L* .s 4 ' i g. r )b., 4. ~h.,. ., i 3..1 4 g.. w= .v w 11(9 1/4

State of California Department of Health Services Memorandum To Don D. Ecney care December 13, 1078 Supervising Health Physicis: Radiologic Health Secticn Subject : Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Telephone-ATSS ( ) ~ ( )5-5588 Frem Office of Legal Services 8/1216 Attached is Hal Ferber's opinion relating to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. This responds to those questions which you asked in your memo of Noverter 15, 1978. Please note that while it is not clearly set forth.a Hal's meno, specific legislative changes are necessary in order to bring State law into conformity with the ccamission's regulations. Therefore, it is desird le that this Department seek whatever changes in legislation are required to have State law conform with both feueral law and federal regulations in your area. We would be very happy to review and make comments upon the draf d of the legislation if you desire to proceed along that line. Richard H. Koppes Chief Counsel ~ d James R. Cutright Assistant Chief Counsel JRC:kp Attac'r.ent 1199 175

hk $ ( COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,CCLCRADO 80220 PHONE MO-8333 March 19, 1979 Joseph Hendrie, Chair =an U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmssion Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chair =an Hendrie:

The State of Colorado has received SECT-79-88, dated Febrisry 2,1979, on the timing of certain Require =ents of the Uranium Mill failings Radia-tion Control Act of 1978. Also, we have been infor=ed by Mr. G. Wayne Kerr of the Agree =ents States Branch, Office of State Programs, NRC, that the Coc:=is sion has requested ce=ments fro = the individual Agree =ent States as to the docu=ent, SECY-79-88, its conclusions and i= pact. Mr. Howard K. Shapar's a view of the =atter appears rathe: cc=prehenss and rather well stated except for a few rather small details that signt have a significant i= pact on both NRC and Cc.orado regulation programs and the industry we regulate. On page 4 of the docu= ant under Analysis item 1(b), it is stated to the effect that licensing of uraniu= milling and their associated tailings =ust =eet NRC and EPA standards. As of this writing, no such standards, regulatory or otherwise, exist. Another ite= is that PL 95-604, Title II, Sec. 204(e) requires state licensing hearings to provide "an opportunity for cross exa=1 cation." It appears that such a requirenent for Agree =ent States is inconsistent in that it is not being required of NRC, and that NRC =ust now get in step or be subject to liti-gation on the matter. Lastly, Sec. 209 requires NRC to consolidate the procedures required under Title II as much as possible. Duplicative pro-cedures by NRC and Agree =ent States would clearly not =eet this mandate of Congress. 1l99 176 q$' J TO WD)%

Joseph Hendrie, Chair =an March 19, 1979 Page 2 The State of Colorado is, in our opinion, already i=ple=enting the provisions of Title II in its entirety, including such issues as long-ter= care funds and financial sureties which the NRC and the Argence National Laboratory have not adequately addressed in the Generic Environmental Impact State =ent for Uraniu= Milling draft which we reviewed. With specific reference to the ti=ing of require =ents of the Uraniu= Mill Tailings Act, Mr. Shapar suggests that the only " safe" solution for the Commission is that NRC issue specific licenses for tailings i= pound =ents in Agree =ent States. There are two problems with this conclusion:

1) Colorado is required by statute and regulation to license and re-gulate all sources of ioni:ing radiation unless specifically exe=pted by State law.

Colorsdo has been a leader in rigorous and appropriate regulation of tailings, and the Depart =ent of Health intends to continue full exercise of its legal and = oral respon-sibilities -- whatever duplicative =easures are undertaken by NRC.

2) Given Colocado's statutes, regulations and history of enforce =ent, specific and duplicative NRC licensing ignores the =andate of Congress to consolidate procedures and not enlarge, cenfuse or ce=plicate the regulatory process We appreciate the dile==a the Cocmission is facing.

In Colorado's case, in the knowledge that Colorado will proceed with its licensing and inspection of uraniu= =111s and tailings under laws and regulations which are protective of health and the environ =ent, alternate 1 of Mr. Shapar's reviev is appropri-ate. A second alternative is to issue a general license. All of our uranium =111 license applications undergo a thororgh review of all i= pacts by no less than 22 federal, state, and local agencies including NRC and EPA, besides public hearings and co==ent periods. Therefore, such 2-aaral 11-cense is appropriate. With NRC and E?A assistance to Colorado (which is greatly appreciated) in the review of such license applications and public hearings, NRC should consider the general license alternative as viable. The practicalities of the =atter are just as i=portant as the legal censiderations. I hope that these coc=ents will be of assistance to you in reaching a rea-sonable and ratienal decision. If we nay be of further assistance in this =atter, please advise. Sincer 77 f /l 'L/ J i W : / 4 Albert J. Ha:1e,iDirector Radiatien and Hazardous Vastes Control Division AJH:bjv ec: G. Wayne Kerr, NRC. ! l l h } j.# [. Robert Siek, Colorado Department of Natural Resources

.e

• 1 A r, Smz or NEW MEXICO c'

s, 1 6. OFrtCE Cr T* C 3CV C ANC# v r 5 jr SA.m Fz \\S 875C3 'un Bauct Kma covte.ca March 22, 1979 Joseph M. iierdrie, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Caraissicn Washington, D. C. 20555 Cear Dr. F.e d ie This letter states New Mexico's position with respect to de February 2,1979 Nuclear Pegulatory Cmrission (l'C) staff paper entitled " Tiring of Cer*W FEqdrernents of the Uranitra Mill Tailings Fadiation Control Act of 1978" SECY 79-38, which adiresses tw issues: " (1) Co both the States ard de Federal Goverment (NPC) have audcrity to license uranica rill tailings (in cther w rds, exercise cencurrent licensing jurisdiction) for the three years follcwing enactnant of de Mill Tailings Act? (2) Are the requirements of new section 274o of de A*mic Energy Act pertaining to procedures *w be fol10wed by Agreerent States in issuing source raterial licenses for uraniun mills imediately effective?" In regard to issue 1, dere are tw reascns why de conc = rent jurisdiction decry is incorrect. First, dere is no precedent for cencurrent. j=isdicticn in de Atcric Energy Act. 2.e lang" age in de Atc=ic Energy M t is explicit. Ei der de MFC has authcri y cr the agreement state has it. S.ere is no middle grourd and no recrt for other interpretation. Section 274 of de Atxtic Ener71 Act 2% in te::s cf "discentinuance' of federal authority ard says "de state shall have auderity to regulate the raterials covered i'r the agreer:ent for :ne protection of the public health and safety frcm radiatien hazards." (Crderlining supplied.] MotPdng in de 1978 Act amends er changes the clear separatica of authcrity established i.n Secticn 274. i 199 178 g ope 340 ;&to}57

Joseph M. Hendrie March 22, 1979 Seccnily, the flaw in de cenc= rent jurisdiction decry is fourd in Section 204(h) (1) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Fadiation Control Act of 1978. That section provides: "On or before de date three years after the date of eractrent of this Act, notwithstanding any amendment made by this title, any state may exercise any authority under state law respecting by-product raterial, as defined in Section lle. (2) of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as permitted before the enactment of this Act." (Urderlining surplied.] In other 'acrds, the 1978 a::endrrencs insure that a state retailes its fall regulatory authority during de three-year interim pericd. Nowhere.s this authcrity divided or rade ccncurrent. Since 1971 lea Mexico has had statutory authority, under state law, over radioactive raterial, including nat= ally occ= ring radioactive matrial. Uranium mill tailings were first licensed specifically by Nea Yexico on July 15, 1975 in de SCHIO Petroleum Cccpany's urarium mill Padicactive Faterial License, which licenses "all rat =al radioisctcpes encountered in the milling of natural uranium." These ratral radio-isctcpes include all radioactive raterials in the tailings including residual uranium, therium, radium and daughter products. Condition 15 of the SOHIO license states " mill tailings shall not be transferred frcm the site without specific prior approval of the agency obtained through application for areninent of this license". A July 14, 1976 amerdment, added Cordition 19, atich states: " approved waste generating processes and mill tailings maragement practices may he subject to revision in acccrdance with the cenclusicns of the firal g.eric environmental irpact statement presently being prepared by the U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Cotmission (refer to de Federal Pagister, 41 FR 22430, June 13,19 '6) ard any related rule raking." It is clear dat "ea Mexico has regulated and centinues to reculate uranium mill *v ings to de fullest extent pcssible. Exercise of ccnc= rent jurisdiction by de NBC during the three-year interim pericd

• • culd infringe on de State's authority to regulate and wculd violate Secticn 204(h) (1) of the Mill Tailings Act of 1978.

Cn issue 2, the staff paper censidered fairly bcth sides cf the questicn. We agree with de staff reccmendaticn that it is inacgrcpriate ard cct de intent of the Mlli N 'ings Act of 1978 to require agree,ent states to follcw de precedures in new Secticn 274o in issuing scurce raterial licenses during the drcc year transition period. i199 179

Jcceph M. Hendrie March 22, 1979 Therefore, we reccume:xi that the NFC cctmly with the spirit and letter of the law by preserving the status-quo with respect to the licensing of tailings in Nea Mexico during the next three years. We appreciate the Ccumission's consideration of Nea Shxico's point of vies en this inportant : ratter. Sincara'y yours, q f } ara = mn Governor BK:gsg cc: Serator Pete Domenici Senatcr R.rrisen J. Sc'raitt Congresman Shnuel Lujan Congrescan Farold R:rt.els i199 180

} pg . * : ' '.) r r ; ' s ; g e 3 ; c:()(;t ei i; y gt 3 r.; IC 1 l .. n. ....v ..a ...,,.......e., f',.7 1s, l'117 tr.ueral1s .1. .ph ?!. I* t.4 e i e l l1 r. i I 4u. f')... i : c en Hn. T r-n r re r,e=ts t..t y cr ~ I ~e 1..n iIti !\\ ' t e s' r N.M. Lin.

• b l n r. t "n,

P. C. ? O ", 'i s ?'r a r Chaire,o !!c nd t Ic: The l' r n. I n *:> M t i l T=J1inp.s K,dtstlen Control Act cf 1018 e n r.* I n s provintons ubIch nre very irrottont to Bel:ure Recources CorporntIon ; ar t icularly in light r ut n t l on r: bcIng cade to the Corrr i s - of Nuc1 car Re gu l a t eiry Cor r-i e n t en s t a f f r u e. e. te r

a. f r n c r n.

F9kum Re sr;u rce s lec l !cve s that this Act rn, k e s no ntv :: quirrr,cznt.s for licenalng of citlla and mill i n t i j n c.r. In A g,r c r r r-n t States tor to rhree years f r e r= the date of the Act's c ri nc t a.c n t nor does.i t require the NRC to licenne r>lll tnilings within Agreement Statep v'u r i n g thfe three year perto4. In detere,!ning the ps.rpoom o f

t. h e / e t ene nus:t

-ot 'aly colely upon a literal interpretation of t.b e Act's i t.n g u a g a, bor enne nico connider the l o gi s 1 := r i ve Intent and history of the Act. Bokur, b e l t e v.> n thnt e.urh rensideratfon J e ntf s to the de t e rn.In e r t o i that Congrens did not Jntend to l'ponc any nov pubatantJve r e qu i remen t s or procedures on lleenning of nt11a and r 111 t alli ng< by Agre er,e nt States during three years follueing t.he enactr*nt date. Mokuni further fec1 s that there in authority to allow the NRC to i n t e rp r e t. the Act <uch that dont r e s.p o n s i b l.li t y racos r ended by t.bc NHC ctaff for licensing nnd autherity (N RC-A gr ee me n t S t at e) n. of r, ills and rill tailinga is not required nor was ever I n t eended by Congress du r ing the t.h ree yea r pe riod followIng enserren t. In riurea ry, Dokue Fesources requents that the Coerslecton consider the l e g i.e l a t i ve intent In additlnn to the l i t <> r a l interpretatinn of the Art. nnd find in favor of the f oreg.oi ng in t e rp re t a tion. Thank you for the epportunity of.cubrItting rtokuas Eccou rce-views o rs this Jrportant mtter. Very truly yours, '\\'J TO, h, big.s[g W11. I I A.'1 P. PTAVA 11M; AGI P. OF ?111.1. I'JG ret The Men o r nb l e John Adhentne 71 c !!oo e r.s h i c pe t e r A. Srndford ' Die 1 tono r s.b le Vi c to r Gi l.i nsky g ]g] Y ('d The Renerable Richard T. F~e nit e dy qcto@gtd .e

t -..:. :. y-: ev- --.::: ~.?v ... ~ "z -::,...,, t.~. ~- - + ' ~ '~ - ~~ ' ~ ~ s.. Q' ',is&WQi.-iYQ& *"' _* - ~-- 7 ~ o *'-^ ~'w M M.M"&&k ' ;;,L 3 W M :W59W%%*:.GE: = s _..____u_______ ~.,._4 300R O W K 4 ~ne lier s.r.,51 e Joreph ti, frentir l e F.s t,* 2 .M a r c h 19, 1979 ec: Th e !!<'t. o r.' b I e Tcta pp.r,,, g c t Tha lic': o r.* l.i c.% rite i 1.u j.ro, .J r. The J*nnotabla If.1 t r i con 5tioa l t t ~~ne i*t ov r.,b i c Ir., r ol d firnric t s 1 j () '.) ) { '[ abc t wr e : c., o e

bCIW

1. W txr en:cas EDWARD J. McCRATH 4.8 LO O R 51 MON AO E 33E ET ACCKVILLE. MAAYLAND 20050 JCli 340-0600 March 26, 1979 Mr. Ross Scarano United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission 1915 Eastern Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Dear Mr. Scarano:

The following summarizes the points which we discussed concerning implementation of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radi-ation Centrol Act of 1978, and which I believe to be of major significance in determining the best course to follow. I shall confine myself to the problems which relate to implementation of Title 2 in Agreement States. In this cen-nection, there is a difference between Agreement State regu-lation and NRC regulation which I do not believe was fully considered by the drafters of the legislation and which was not taken into account adequately in the NRC Staff considera-tion reflected in the position paper of February 2,1979. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and its predeces-sor rigidly defined the radioactive material over which the Atomic Energy Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. Three types of material are included: special nuclear material; by-product material and scurce material. The original trans-fer to Agreement States of authority to regulate source mate-rial does not limit regulatory authority. Agreement States which contain uranium milling activities have and exercise authority over radioactive materials generally without regard to the narrew cefinition of source material contained in the Atomic Energy Act. Thus, for example, Colorado in licensing a mill does not issue a source materials license. It issues a radioactive materials license which covers all of the radio-active constituents of the milling prccess, including the tailings. The situaticn in the Agreem is jurisdictionally quite distin existed in non-agreement states DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under: ANO _ [ h[ b No. of pages:

Cyprus Mines Corporation 555 South Flower Street Ca:le Secud L:sange!es Os Angeles. Canfornia 30071 Tevex 67 4601 Te'e:rece 213) 483-3700 March 23, 1979 Mr. Ross Scareno Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Standards Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7915 Eastern Avenue Silver Springs, Maryland 20555 Re Conment on Timing of Certain Require-ments of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

Dear Mr. Scareno:

We understand that the Commission at its meeting on March 7, 19 79 considered the timing of certain legal ob-ligations imposed on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 and requested comments from interested parties. Cyprus Mines Corporation welcomes the opportunity to express its views. Cyprus has uranium mining rights in Fremont County, Colorado. Exploration of this property commenced in 1974, and by September 1977 significant uranium resources were identified. Additional exploration has disclosed several small ore deposits and one large deposit, resulting in esti-mated reserves of approximately 32 million pounds of C Og. 3 In 1978 Cyprus sold a 49% interest in a portion of these properties to Wyoming Mineral Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Cyprus also leased to Wyondng a 49% interest in certain adjacent properties. These properties are known as the Hansen Project and are jointly operated by Cyprus and Wyoming pursuant to a Joint Operating Agreement, which designated Cyp us as the 4 119718f .-**]T e=-- g;_ p g ,k ', f,. - d I '* *, '. <* + 7. $... 3 I..( _} p = - - ~ ' )y ^{/ d N.a a T"." T, 907 pgod( = a 4

42 - Mr. Ross Scareno 23-79 ope ra to r. Environmental end engineering work with respect to the Hansen Project has been under way for over a year, including studies of a proposed mill and tailings disposal area. As you know, Colorado is an Agreement State under the provisions of Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and for over a year Cyprus has been working closely with officials in the Colorado Department of dealth in anticipa-tion of applying for a Radioactive Materials License. Cyprus has engaged consultants, conducted extensive testihg, and is presently compiling the data ne:essary to draft the state required environmental report, and expects to submit the en-vironmental report together with an application for a Radio-active Materials License in mid-1979. Simultaneously, Cyprus has been working with other agencies of the Colorade Depart-ment of Health and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and in mid-1979 intends to also apply for the many other state licenses and permits required for the Hansen Project. It is crucially important that the Commission recognize such ongoing efforts and the resulting relationships that have developed between applicants and Agreement State of ficials. Of greatest concern to Cyprus is the question the Commission is considering with respect to the possible imme-diate requirement for an NRC-issued byproduct material license in Agreement States and an attendant site specific Environmen-tal Impact Statement. If the Commission determines that such requirements exist, Cyprus is concerned that the involvement of another licensing authority could significantly delay the Hansen Project. For this reason, Cyprus urges that the Com-mission give thoughtful consideration to the practical prob-lems of applicants who have been working with state licensing officials in Agreement Stater. to develop workable and safe plans for uranium mills and mines. Cyprus wishes to emphasize that it is not urging the Commission to determine either that an NRC byproduct material license is or is not required in Agreement S tates. Cyprus would take the same environmentally responsible course in an NRC licensing proceeding that it is taking with Colorado. Appropria's and meaningful environmental precautions do not concern C;prus; what concerns Cyprus is uncertainty as to the responsibilities of applicants and agencies and the potential i199 18$ m.w..m-a- . s

e 43 - Mr. Ross Scareno 23-79 delay to the Hansen Project. Therefore, Cyprus requests the Commission to decide these issues promptly to eliminate this uncertainty. Should the Commission decide that the 1978 Act requires that the NRC issue a byproduct material license and prepare a site specific EIS, Cyprus also urges the Commission to promptly provide guidelines for applicants and Agreement States so that duplicative procedures and delay can be avoided. Should NRC licensing be required, there surely is room for constructive state and federal cooperation. The Com-mission and its staff could make use of data assembled'by Cyprus and by state officials. Federal deference could pro-perly be given to decisions of state agencies with respect to such matters as the siring of the mill and tailings disposal area. Public hearings and comment periods could be combined. These and other measures could assure that any required fed-aral actions would be coordinated with state regulatory actions so that applicants will not be faced with duplicative and con-flicting instructions. Cyprus recognizes that, in undertaking uranium mining and milling operations, it has important environmental respon-sibilities, and it intends to meet those responsibilities. We believe our present plans, developed in consultation with the appropriate Colorado agencies, will comply with NRC criteria if immediate NRC byproduct licansing is imposed on Agreement States. Our comment is submitted only to urge Commission sen-sitivity to the potentially disruptive effects of dual juris-diction over the licensing of byproduct material in Agreement States during the next three-year period. Such disruptive effects, it seems to Cyprus, can and should be avoided no mat-ter how the legal questions are answered. Cyprus thanks the Commission for the opportunity to present this comment. Sincerely, / Paul W. Allen Executive Vice President PWA:aw cc: Mr. Richard Gamewell (7 Mr. Hamlet J. Barry, III i199 189 m.awaww a u

)"# VdstNFOMA;TER 1-03199ACO65 01/04/79 T L X '4U WS k n40 T6.7 710604n415 NRC 1HDA SJLO60 WAA?90 (1501 ) (4-040 737E06 5)PD 01/0 6/ 7 9 1501 TCS I?MONG% CSP %Ipapa39qq TD9N CO:ffUS CHRISTI TX ST6 03-06 0110P CST PMS MR JOSrdw PrNOR1r SHE.4 MAN NUCLEAR 4EGULA 70RY COMMISS ION, D LR e- ',. L*- 1717 H ST N.W. WASHINCTON 0C ?OS$5 SEFFRENCF. TO U;4AN!UM M ILL T A ILINGS :4 AD I AT ION CONTROL ACT Or 1978 EEA1 MR Hr.NOR IE WF WISH TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN OVE.? RF. PORTS'THAT NRC I N TF.RPd ET AT ION O? THE MTLL TAILINGS AC T MAY EXTENO ITS A? PLICATION TO COVER SOLUT ION MININC OF URANIUM SY THE IN S ITU LE ACHINF-METHOD sa:CtrICALLY WT U.7GE THAT NRC dECOGNIT.En THAT IN PLACE SOLUTION. VINING OOES NOT YIF.L0 " TAILINGS" O.7 "OTHER. WASTE...AT A PROCESSING SIGKT' OR " WASTE... lN THE FORM OF TAILINGS" AS DEFINED IN 101 (7) ANO 101 (R) IN THE ACT WE nn NnT 9ELIEVE THAT CONGRESS, ITS STAFF nd THE. PROPTNENTS OF THE LFGISLATION HAO 9FF037 T FT.h RTLF.VANT data CONCERNING IN ? LACE FULUTION v!NING 70.1 UAANIUw OR THA T THrY TOOX Th!S PROCrSS IN TO ACCOUNT IN TME LFGISLATON. AS A 4rSULT ANY EFFO:li TO MEGULATE IN PLAC E SOLUTION MINING OPEHATION UN06'R TmIS ACT WILL Re.SULT IN iANECESSARY 9UROFNS UPON ThIS INFANT INDUSTRY AND AWX'4A90 ftEGUL9TC4Y P101LEMS rna FROERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES

• E SU9MIT THAT TPE ONLY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 5AVINR CONCEfvA9LE ArtrVANT To SOLUTION MINING 3.R E THE JROCEDUR AL MATTENS CONTAINEO IN i

AMENOwrNT TO 274 (0) (3) nF THE Aiov.IC ENElGY ACT. Wr HA VE NO C AR R F.L IN 3 3. I NC l 3 LE WITH SUCH P40Cr004AL REfUI.U.MFNTS. WE R E L I r.v E i . rLL C ALCULATEO TO WEVEtt TH AT cud'irNT ?rGULATO4Y 3RCCEOURES AdF PROVInr A?PROo4 I ^.TE PRnIEC T inn TO THE PUALIC IN AFSPr.CT OF AFLATIVFLY MINISCULE (AS COMPAttEO in ALTr.RNATIVE MINING wrHOO3) PEALTH ANO ENVIRONwrNTAL MA/AND$ AS40CjA77,0 41Th 3OLUTION MjN{yG. 41.THOUG H WF AAR ONLY A :4ELAT1vCLY SMALL, AIVATELY 04Nr0 UAANIUM P3nnUC EA OUR ST AFF MAS rXPENSIVF

r. XPTA I FNC E 41T* IN PLACE SOLUTION 1LSCE SOLUTION MINING To 3F THE MIN ING OF UR AN !UM. JE 9ELIEVE IN 2

PNVIRONMFNT ALLY Sot 1NO Mr.THOD OF OEVELO?1 G UNAn'IUM AESOURCES. 4E INu ! TF ANO FNCOUR AG.C MORE INTERCHJNCV OF I NFO d.v A T I O N 9ET.2EEN INDUS T'4 Y AND ST ATE AND FEOF AAL GOvF ANMTNT. CONCEdNING SOLUTION MINING T r.0 %NO LO A Y 3R 10 9 TO ANY FUMTHE( I NC ? r. A S F IN ArGULATION3. THUS WF v!CHT AVOII) UNNrCF S3aay ann }Napp ;ppR I ATE AUUPDENS ON ADOPTION OF THIS TrCHNOLOGY r 57 1t t YOURS VrRY TAULY I I J d i. ) WALLaCE w wAYF, VICF, Mt!SIOENT .hijpc TVYdrST MINERALt CORPORATinN gqogpaQ m rSr

ERON MINERALS CCMPaNY, U.S.A. 3-

g = p, -. <, 3 ~..

-s-J:M ivJl.: March 16,1979 .. e Mr. Ross Scarano Fuel Processing and Fabrication Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Materials Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '4ashington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Scarano:

You recently requested recommendations from Exxon Minerals Company, U.S.A. regarding the implementation of. Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (?L 95-604). 'de have reviewed the Act and its legislative history as well as legal analyses of the issues which have been raised by ambiguities in the language of the Act. Our review has convinced us that the major issues - i.e., whether the Act requires immediate licensing of uranium mill tailings by the hclear Regulatory Commission, and whether new requirements for source material licensing by Agreement States are immediately effective - cannot be clearly resolved by technical analysis of the language in the. Act. The issues can best be resolved by considering the purpcses of the legislation as disclosed by its history and by implementing the new law in ac.cordance with the legally supportable interpretation which most effectively and ef ficiently achieves the objectives of the Congress. Congress clearly intended to require effective long-term control, by either NRC or Agreement States, of the management of uranium mill tailings. In attaining this objective, however, Congress surely did not intend to create confusion or to impose unnecessary administrative burdens on NRC, Agreement States anc licensees. Congress recognized that time would be required for E?A and NRC, acting consecutively, to develop and promulgate the new standards and regulations mandated by the Act, and that reasonable time would be required for Agreement States to enact new legislation required to enable them to meet the new Agreement State requi rements. Recognizing the absence of promulgated health and environmental standards for uranium mill tailings and considering that the effective date of Section 202 of the Act is November 8,1981, we believe that no tangible additional protection of public health or the environment would result from the imediate licensing of tailings or from the immediate imposition of new requirements for source material licensing by Agreement States. Accordingly, we recormtend that the licensing of uranium mill tailings and the new requirements for source material licensing by Agreement States should be effective on November 3,1981, the effective date of Section 202 of the Act. N P00R ORGINL m'w

i Mr. Scarano March 16,1979 I will be pleased to discuss our recorr.endation with you in greater detail, if yN desire. 'We appreciate the opportunity to present cur views on these issues. Sincerely, .& c.u/l DiVN ./ GD0:bjc c-0. B. Achttien F. P. Barrow, Jr. R. L. Bullock J. D. Patton J. K. 'Wil son 87 i nn is

@m00 D]$esee0 00eecomeese @ coo ,m.....,.....< Oeaver. CO 80222 March 15,1979 Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie . Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1717 H. Street, N.W. - - - Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978

Dear Sir:

~- We believe there might be some confusion about Gulf's plan to construct a uranium mill at its Mt. Taylor project in New Mexico. As outlined to you in my letter of March 5,1979, Gulf's mill license appli-cation stated that construction was planned to commence in the first half of calendar year 1980. However, favorable mine development and other con-siderations have caused the construction schedule to be advanced. Gulf hopes to receive a mill license from the State of New Mexico as soon as possible. We plan to comence construction promptly after the receipt of the license, and if construction is not cerrr.enced on or about January 1,1980, - - " the project schedule will be delayed. If the mill license is not received by the end'of September, 1979, construction of the mill will not be commenced in accordance with the project schedule. If this occurs, the delay will have a significant adverse ecencmic impact en the project. An interpretation by the Nuclear Regulatory Comissien of the above referenced act which immediately imposes new requirements on the licensing of uranium mills or tailings in New Mexico will undoubtedly prevent Gulf from cemencing construction of the mill on schedule. Thank you for considering this matter. Very truly yours, MW F. S. Mconey / FSM/sk n]O ll99 lM$)op n (Gulf) ]qCQ[f0d37 v

= Q ,,,.............s. se..oe ecs..ts.s tat Oeaver. CO 80222 March 5, 1979 The Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chair =an Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 RI: UFANTUM MILL TAILINGS ?J.DIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1973

Dear Chair an Hendrie:

The Uraniu= Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Public Law 95-604, (the "Act"), contains provisions which are of great i=portance to Gulf 011 Corporation's Mt. Taylor project. Gulf believes that this Act i= poses no new substantive or procedural requirements on the licensing of mills and tailings in Agreement States prior to three years from the date of enact =ent, and it respectfully requests your consideratica of its co==ents on the implementation of :he Act. Prior to setting forth such co==ents, it would be useful to briefly describe the Mt. Taylor project. Gulf's division, Gulf Mineral Resources Co., is engaged in a =ajor uranium mining and milling project near San Mateo, New Mexico, which is known as the Mt. Taylor project. Production and service shafts for the sine have been sunk to ore depth (approxi=ately 3,200 feet), and sine development is proceeding. Ore production is expected to commence later this year. Gulf sub=1:ted an applicatien for a uranius mill license to the New Mexico Environ-mental != pro n: cat Division du -ing May,1978. In Dece=ber, 1978; the Division requested addi:ional infor:ation, and Gu ' submitted such infor:ation during February, 1979. Cn February 26, 1979, the Division notified Gulf : hat i:s application had been accepted for a detailed review and evaluation. Gulf does not plan to co=mence cons:ruction of the sill at its Mt. Taylor project prior :o obtaining a license for the =111's operation. If a =111 license is obtained af ter Septe=ber,1979, Gulf's overall project schedule vill be delayad. Gulf has, to date, inves:ed approx 1=ately evo hundred million dollars in the Mt. Taylor project and plans to invest an additional two hundred sillion dollars in the projec: by the end of 1981. 3ased upon the current inves:=ent, each day's delay in :he projec: beyond Septe=ber,1979, rep: of fifty-five thousand dollars. In addi:1< increase substantially if there is a delay DUPLICATE DOCUMENT During :he construction phase a:. the mill e= cloyed on :he Mt. Taylor project. Gre Entire document previously entered into system under: kh3 h[ ANO No. of pages:

O e c-6pD PHILLIPS URANIUM CORPORATION sox 26236 4501 -ND'AN SCWCL ACAO N E. TELENCNE SC5 265-4431 ALSUCLE AOLE. NEW VExlCO 57125 March 16, 1979 Mr. Ross A. Scarano, Section Leader Uranium Mill Licensing Section Fuel Processing & Fabrication Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Timing of Certain Requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

Dear Mr. Scarano:

This is in reference to your telephcne request of Mr. Daryl Sunch of Phillips Uranium Corporation requesting the position of Phillips Uranium Corporation with respect to the above and, in particular, whether Phillips Uranium Corporation would prefer one of the fol-lowing alternatives: 1) mill licensing and mill tailings licens-ing handled by the State of New Mexico, 2) mill licensing handled by the State of New Mexico but mill tailings licensing handled by the NRC, or 3) both mill licensing and mill tailings licensing handled by the NRC. Phillips Uranium Corporation believes that the above Act clearly gives the State of New Mexico licensing power to the extent that licenses are required over both functions until November 8, 1981. We recognice that arguments can be cade which lead to a different conclusion. Aside from the legal question as to what is required by r.he Act, as a policy =atter, it appears that the position which we understand is being advocated by the State of New Mexico, which is No. 1 above, is the positicn which the NRC should adopt. As you know, our application is presently pending. We appreciate the interest which the NRC has shown in this application and we are endeavoring to make a timely response to all of the matters which both the State and NRC have raised. It accears to me that this procadure will allow NRC to monitor the cill tailings issue and also allow the timely issuance of our license. J' 1 l O, c) 19 i ,.j (% 4 - n., \\ /w - m 1900&D730

Mr. Ross A. Scarano March 16, 1979 Page 2 We understand that a dual licensing scheme is being considered and that the NRC believes that such a scheme would have an im-pact on only the pending Bokum Resources application. While of course the actual construction of our mill will depend upon many factors, it is certainly possible, and indeed likely, that should such a dual licensing scheme be implemented, there would be an impact on Phillips' mill also. We understand that the same may be true of the Gulf mill. Very truly you s, - t vsn-Juan R. Velasquez JRV:GWT:yc cc: Mr. J. H. Presnell Mr. G. W. Terry (0b i 199 ih80

PIONEER NUCLEAR. INC. POST OmCE 80x '51. AMAAuc TEX A319tCS March 20, 1979 R. B. STEWA RT petslotNT United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 At ten '.ic n : Yz. Ross Scarano Re: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Centrol Act of 1978 Gentlemen: Pioneer Nuclear, Inc. and Picneer Uravan, Inc. (jointly referred to as " Pioneer") are currently involved in the exploration for and de-velopment of uranium in a number of Western States, the great majority of which are Agreement States pursuant to the Atemic F.nergy Act of 1954. Pioneer Uravan, Inc. submitted a license application with the Colorado Department of " salt.* on January 19, 1979 for a uranium mill in San Miguel County, Colorado and anticipates license approval within the year. This application was made after almcst two years of gathering data and the expenditure of a significant amount of money. The Uranium Mill Tailings Padiation Control Act of 1978 Whe "Act") will have a distinct effect upcn Pioneer's uranium milling operations, both currently in progress and planned for the future. The interpre-tation the Cor: mission shall =ake relative to the effective date of certain provisions of the Act will have a particular impact upon Pioneer's future mill ple.ns. It is our understanding that the Cc= mission is presently considering whether its authority to license mill tailings pursuant to the Act attached upon the passage of the Act or is to be delayed fer a three year peried until 1981. Additienally, the Cc= mis-sien is to determine if certain sections of de Act pertaining to pro-cedures to be folicwed by Agreement States in issuing scurce materials licenses are effective i==ediately or are delaved for the same three ~ {9 year peried. 1199 MI M -s a k s 4 ,a, u M>N, 1 'O..) L 1 a.sn. 7 '-(>, M i b $k

• g Q\\==

90GhD

United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission March 20, 1979 Page 2 Pioneer respectfully requests that the Ccmmission interpret the Act so as to defer both the Ccmmissi.on licensing jurisdiction over mill ta.ilings and the Agreement State licensing precedures for uranium mills until 1981. Initially, as has previously been pointed out by lee.1 counsel for the Commission, the interpretation we request s as legally supportable as the contrary position or any of the numerous variations of either position which can be derived. Consequently, the ultinate issue before the Ccmmission appears to be one of policy. Pioneer suggests that the deferral until 1981 of both the Cem-mission's licensing authority of mill tailings and the procedures to be followed by Agreement States in issuing scurce materials licenses would result in the least adverse impact upon both industry and government. The concurrent exercise of jurisdiction over licensing of mill tailings by both state and feder agencies will inevitably lead to confusien and duplication of effort, which can only lead to delays in the licensing process. Ficneer considers the ability to make reasonably accurate long-range decisions on matters of mill licensing to be of utmost im-portance. Forseeable time constraints can be planned for and dealt with; however, unforseeable delays brought about by an uncertain reg-ulatory structure could be fatal to a mill project. This uncertainty could be eliminated, or at least mitigated, by giving both the state licensing authority and the NRC additional time in which to build and train sufficient staff to handle the significantly increased work load the Act will impose. If an Agreement 5 tate were to have to immediately cenply with Section 274 (c) of the Act, considerable time and money would be re-quired. A dc?arral of the requirements wculd allow the State to sys-tematically fund the ecmpliance agency, as well as train staff persons to carry out the mandate of the Act. Additionally, if the NFC were to i= mediately begin to issue tailings licenses, significant increases in staff would be required. As pointed out by counsel for the Ccmmission, present staff is inadequate, and funding for development of Agreement State Regulatory programs to bmplement the Act has not been included in the 1980 budget. A deferral of the NEC tailings license authority until 1981 would allow sufficient time to gain the necessary sppropriations and build a trained staff. / 11 'd 9 iMBi2

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 20, 1970 Page 3 Ceferral of the above described provisions would not result in an adverse environmental impact. Presently, the NRC reviews the infor-mation submitted to the majority of the Agreement State licensing agencies and assists in all aspects of the decision making process. It it Pioneer's position that the current Agreement State licensing procedure it an adequate safeguard to.the environment. Thank you for your consideratien in this matter. Very truly yours, R. 3. Stewart, President RSS:sb (To 1 1 9 9 !sats}}