ML19329F934
| ML19329F934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hart G SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F935 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007110377 | |
| Download: ML19329F934 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:______ [M h' k UNIT ED STATES E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN P D!Isg7 Y@pO4 -{ WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20555 June 24, 1980 OF FICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The hunorable Gary Hart, Chairman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized to relinquish to States, through an agreement, regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials. Before entering into an agreement, the Comission must find that the State has a progra which is adequate to protect the public health and safety, and is compatible with the Commissicn's regulatory program. In 1965 the AEC infomed the U.S. Department of Labor of the Commission's plans to make formal annual redeterminations of the adequacy and compatibility of regulatory programs of the Agreement States. This is to infonn the sub-committee of the status of the regulatory programs of the Agreement States (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington) for calendar year 1979. With i opect to adequacy of the Agreement State programs to protect the - public health and safety, the programs of all 25 ' Agreement States were determined to be adequate for calendar year 1979. Significant program deficiencies were found in the California and Florida programs. The staff was unable to make a finding of adequacy for those two States at the time of our initial regular reviews. Follow-up meetings were conducted in both California and Florida. As a result of these meetings and subsequent correspondence, the staff notified these States in early 1980 that we now consider their programs to be adequate and compatible.- Additional details on the California and Florida reviews can be made available upon your request. During 1979, significant problems arose in three other Agreement States. In Arizona, American Atomics Corporation, a manufacturer of tritium activated luminous signs and devices, was cited for excessive releases of tritium to the environment. As a result of this incident, questions were raised concerning the ability of the Arizona Atomic Energy Commis-sion to protect the public health and safety. In New Mexico, a tailings dam break occurred at.the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock mill. This incident raised questions concerning the adequacy of the State's mill licensing program. In North Carolina, a State licensee, Finley Watts, was found to be burying radioactive material in violation of his license. There was a great-deal of public and media interest in these 8007110377
}' 1 Tha Honorable Gary Hart 6 cases and questions wee raised as to the adequacy of the States' actions in each case. tion of the adequacy of the State's program.Each of these cases was co Details can be made available upon request. With respect to compatibility, twenty-four States have programs which are considered to be compatible for purposes of reporting to the U. S. Department of Labor (OSHA) as follows: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Marylan Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dak Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. The State of Nevada did not complete action to formally adopt regulations equivalent to 10 CFR Part 19 until February 28, 1980. We, therefore, could not make a finding of compatibility for Nevada for calendar year 1979. tions is considered to be a matter of compatibility.-had previo We S,tates to revise their regulations at two-to three-year intervals.We normally expect significant manpower effort and may depend on outside fa Revision item appropriations by State legislatures. have been a problem, priority has been given to maintaining those parts o the program more directly related to health and safety, i.e., licensing, inspection and enforcement. This had been the case in Nevada. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 authorizes a $500,000 fund for grants to Agreement States in FY 1980 to aid in the development of regulatory programs for tailings. The first of these grants were awarded to four States in 1979. We hcve be';un efforts to ' review the States' position with regard to the clarifying amendments to UMTRCA of November 9,1979, which removed dual jurisdiction over 2740. the three-year period beginning on the date of the enactme Enclosed is a ccpy of the letter which we sent to the Department of Labor informing the Department of our determination. Sin:erely, i M fohA. hearne
- hairman 1
Enclosure:
Letter to Dept. of Labor cc: Senator Alan Simpson _-}}