ML19253A280
| ML19253A280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1979 |
| From: | Lynch D USX CORP. (FORMERLY UNITED STATES STEEL) |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253A277 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908210229 | |
| Download: ML19253A280 (3) | |
Text
T*
~
..J-Laees-L, 5 '..
^} & set 1,
LAW oEPARTMENT O
M b/O 600 GR ANT STREET PITTS B UR G H P EN N S Y L V A P.I A 15230 CABLE: USSCoLAW PGHPA April 18,1979 Mr. John B. Martin Director Division of Waste Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coesission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Ma-tin:
Mr. David L. Durler of USS Texas Uranium Operations has advised me of the request for United States Steel Corporation's comments on the February 2 1979 memorandum entitled Timing of Certain Res trements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
I have reviewed that document and its attachments and of fer the following comments on the apparent authorized timing of byproduct licensing of mill tailings.
It is noted that the NRC's draf t tailings bill provided specifically that no NRC tailings license was required for three years and specifically-deferred imposition of new requirements on Agreement States for three years.
Unless there is specific legislative history expressly rejecting such an approach, we believe the present Act is subject to an interpretation resulting in the same three year defet i of mill tailing licensing, and indeed believe this is the most consistent interpre,tation of the Act.
Section 202(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, (hereinafter the "Act") adds a new section 83 to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and all new or added licensing authority for byproduct material as ~
newly defined in section 11 e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 derives from section 83.
Section 83(c) specifically provides it shall be effective three years af ter enactment of the Act.
Section 204 of the Act providea amendments to section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, extending to Agreement States the necessary authority to license newly defined byproduct material or "...any activity which results in the production of byproduct material..."
In the context of the byproduct esterial definition of 11 e(2), licensing of uranium mills is covered since the milling will result in tailings or waste. However, the new authority 790 82 I o;Lgeq BD2 253
p.--
a%'
3
(*
ba f.--- -.. 39q3 4
Mr. John B. Martin Page Two April 18, 1979 and the language "...any activi[y which results in the production of byproduct material..." is directly derived from section 83, which by its terms is not effective for three years after enactment of the Act.
Accordingly, Agreement State licensing of tailings is deferred for three years.
This interpretation is reinforced by succeeding provisions of section 204 of the Act.
Section 204(h)(1) establishes that for the three year period following enactment of the Act the states shall continue to exercise whatever authority they presently have over byproduct material, and section 204(h)(2) provides that regardless of when a state may enter into an agreement extending its byproduct material licensing authority, pursuant to section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, such agreement will not be effective until three years after enactment of the Act.
The clear. intent of these provisions is to maintain the status quo and defer new licensing authority for three years.
In addition, the Commission's authority for licensing of byproduct material as defined by 11 e(2) also derives from new section 83 and is deferred for three years by delay in the effective date of that section.
The long standing provisions of section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 granting authority for licensing byproduct materials is limited by its terms to issuing "... general or specific licenses to applicants seeking to use by-product material for research or development purposes, for medical therapy, industrial uses, agricultural uses or such other useful applications as may be developed", and does not extend to licensing for ownership of waste material or tailings. The amendment to section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provided for in Section 205(b) of the Act does not extend the licensing authority to tailings; such additional authority is provided by new section 83 the effective date of which is three years after enactment of the Act.
Moreover section 204(h)(2) of the Act assures that the Commission shall not indirectly implement the new licensing authority which it is not authorized to implement directly.
We would further note that no undue risks will be assumed by au pretation requiring a three year deferral in the byproduct licensing, sr new section 83(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 expressly provides that a license in effect on the date of enactment of the section shall comply with the regulatory provisions if it terminates prior to a renewal which would impose new terms and conditions requiring compliance.
802:
254
M.1?!?
St~il
[Olg* TOTH.YR Mr. John O. :' : tin e
Page Three April 18, 1979 The foregoing interpretation of the timing of the new licensing authority permits implementation of licensing of byproduct material as defined by 11 e(2)
~
in accordance with the existing pattern of regulation, including existing Agreement State arrangements insofar as they are suitably amended during the three-year deferral. The new regulatory scheme will come into effect in agreement and nonagreement states at the same time, either through direct Commission licensing or Agreement State licensing. This interpretation and resulting implementation is consistent with efficient administration and, more particularly, with the provisions of section 209 of the Act and section 274(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
In addition to these comments on the timing of implementatica of new mill tailings licensing, we wish to call to your attention possible misapplication of the new Act to the peculiar circumstances of in-situ leaching of uranium.
We note the statement at page 10 of the February 2, 1979 memorandum to the effect that the better legal view is that the Mill Tailings Act ap, plies to tailings from solution mining. We disagree with this conclusion,md will elaborate upon our reasons in a separate letter, in order that our position on this question can more easily be made available to persons responsible for the draf ting of regulations and orders under the Act.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the February 2,1979 memorandum, and request your full consideration of our views.
Very truly yours, jN David A. Lynch General Attorney International &
Raw Materials clk e
cc: Messrs. J. O. Lubenau D. L. Durler R. L. Pollard
.