ML19273B291
| ML19273B291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1979 |
| From: | Burns J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 7904060084 | |
| Download: ML19273B291 (4) | |
Text
FDA.
_ c.
~.
[
UNITED STATES 4
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 gv j MAR I 31979 MEMCRANDUM FOR: John B. Martin, Director Division of Waste Management FROM:
Jackie Burns Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
MEETING REPCRT--MARCH 1,1979, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO This memorandum covers our meetings with the Environmental Improvement Division (EID) on March 1,1979.
Meeting on NRC/EID Interaction on WIPP March 1,1979; 1 p.m.; Crown Building, Santa Fe Attendees: Jack Martin, NRC Al Topp, EID Regis Boyle, NRC Bruce Garber, EID Jackie Burns, NRC Richard Holland, EEG Marty Malsch, NRC Bob Neill, EEG Tom Baca, EID Joe McCuff, DCE Cubia Clayton, EID Gary Halman, DOE Ted Wolf, EID Jack Martin opened the meeting by clarifying our lack of authority over WIPP and our desire and expectation that we will be granted such authority in the future.
He reiterated the importance to NRC of state participation.
Regis Boyle then reviewed, in part, what happened at the meeting last April 13 attended by himself and Jackie Burns.
1.
He reported that the Public Document Rooms and limited document rooms had all been established with the exception of Carlsbad which did not want to accept the PDR without funding.
Clayton indicated they would try to resolve the problem. We also agreed to send two sets of documents in the future to EID, one for EID use and one for EEG use.
2.
EID indicated that the manner in which they were receiving DOE information (through the PDR and directly from DOE) was satisfactory.
7904066 0 87
u ; ; p,';
J. B. Martin 2
3.
With regard to NRC public meetings in New Mexico, ve distinguished between ope. meetings and public meetings.
All meetings with DCE on WIPP would be open meetings in that the public would be invited to observe and the meetings would be noticed in the PDR and by use of service lists.
Public meetings would be for the purpose of soliciting public input and ideas.
EID suggested the public meetings contain a presentation of the scope of the WIPP project and of the NRC role and those areas we've already identified as being important. We indicated that one of the primary purposes of any such meetings would be to identify issues of interest prior to preparing an environmental evaluation.
The meetings could be structured in a variety of ways to obtain the desired results.
After some discussion of the timing of such meetings, it was generally agreed that they should ccme shortly after submittal by DOE of the Environmental Report to NRC.
We turned next to discussions on exchange of rersonnel and assistance from the state.
NRC Employee Assigned to New Mexico - Last April, EID indicated such assignment was unnecessary.
Af ter establishment of the EEG and further evaluation, they ncw feel such an individual would be valuable but are uncertain as to the exact scope of a potential position.
The primary need, though, appears to be an individual weio can speak for the NRC in interactions with the public.
It was also suggested that NRC assistance (in the form of an IPA) might be useful in designing an environmental monitoring program and/or emergency response capability.
State Employee / University Professor Assigned to NRC - The main function of such an indiv1aual was tnougnt to be to participate and gain experience in the NRC licensing procedures.
EID identified potential prcolems with such a transfer particularly because of their limited resources--staff and funds--and due to the low state pay scale.
With regard to any assignment of personnel (either to NRC or to the state), EID stated that they need to define the respective roles of the EID and the EEG to determine what transfers would be profitable and effective.
They will come to NRC with a proposal in the future.
State Assistance in Preparation of EIS - The areas in which we expect that state assistance woula De most beneficial (e.g., evaluation of socioeconomic impacts, transportation issues, and competing mineral resources) are not generally within the expertise or scope of responsibility of the EID.
Therefore, EID recommended that we contract directly with local groups to perform wch assistance.
They also
I J. B. Martin 3
volunteered to help us identify those lccal groups with the potential to perform the desired work.
The types and manner of EID/f;RC interaction discussed last April (e.g.,
EEG attendance at meetings, review of dccuments, and funneling of issues and qucstions to fRC) were reconfirmed.
With regard to a state member on the ASLB, holding of joint hearings or other direct state participation in the hearing, EID asked for additional information on the ASLB (M. Malsch will send).
EID will get back to us on hcw they would like to proceed at a later date.
Finally, we again confirmed that there may be participation by state agencies in addition to the EID.
If House Substitute Bill 106 is enacted, the Task Force formed composed of the Secretaries of Health and Environment and Energy and Minerals and the Chief Highway Administrator would become the single point of contact. Until that time, EID sees it as their responsibility to keep us informed and to act as a central contact point.
In summary, the meeting was friendly anj construct:ve.
fb ccmmi treats were made.
EID has primary responsibility for further action.
Meeting on the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 March 1, 1979; 3:30 p.m.; Crcwn Bu.ilding, Santa Fe Attendees: Jack Martin, fiRC Cubia Clayton, EID Marty Malsch,fiRC Al Topp, EID Regis Boyle,fiRC Ted Wolf, EID Jackie Burns, fiRC Bruce Garber, EID Tom Baca, EID The issues discussed were whether fiRC and Agreement States have con-current jurisdiction for the first tnree years under the Act and in what manner the issue of jurisdiction shculd be resolved.
fiRC maintained that, as written, there was concurrent jurisdiction under the Act.
New Mexico believes the state jurisdiction it superior.
There was discussion of seeking a declaratory judgment as a vay to resolve the dispute in the most efficient manner.
\\
I'O 19 fa ;
J. B. Martin 4
EID also indicated a desire that tiRC request Congress to clarify the question of concurrent jurisdiction since all felt that it was a result of a drafting error.
fiRC mentioned the potential hazards of reopening the question of regulation and control of mill tailings in the Congress.
- -.u[pv Jackie Eurns Division of Waste Management cc:
R. Boyle M. Malsch R. Ryan