ML20003B863
| ML20003B863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Clements W TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102260014 | |
| Download: ML20003B863 (14) | |
Text
.
4 p3400 E YJ]*( [ t UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ta 0
j W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555 p,f January 29, 1981 COWISSI0N OFFICE OF THE N
CDP.RESPONDENCE
~
CHAIFIMAN s
f G
't.
The Honorable William P. Clements
~
i 0 0 9 Governor of Texas 7
6, *g#p
Dear Governor Clements:
'9 M
e der Section 274 of On March 1, 1963, Texas became an Agre the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Under the ons of this Act, Texas assumed, under agreement with the AEC (now NRC), certain regulatory authority over the use of reactor produced isotopes, the source materials uranium and thorium, and small quantities of special nuclear materials.
Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), Agreement States can continue to regulate uranium mills and mill tailings after November 8, 1981, by entering into an amended agreement with the NRC.
In UMTRCA, the Congress also provided for the first time, funds for grants to States to assist them in preparing their revised regulatory program.
Texas applied for and received a grant of $80,000 under that program, thereby indicating.the State's interest in pursuing this additional regulatory authority.
For. some time, the NRC staff has been working with Dr. Robert Bernstein, Comissioner, Texas Department of Health, and his staff so that the amended agreement process may proceed Emoothly. The purpose of this letter-is to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Bernstein and his staff and to identify remaining actions which Texas must accomplish for a timely amended agreement.
I As a result of information exchanged between the NRC and Texas, in July, 1980, we provided Dr. Bernstein with our initial assessment of the readiness of Texas for an amended agreement to regulate uranium mills l
and tailings. Criteria for this purpose have been developed with Agreement State input and State comments were factored in when consistent with NRC rules and policies (Enclosure 1). Additional information was provided by Dr. Bernstein which we have evaluated. The results of this evaluation are discussed in Enclosure 2 to this letter.
I would like to highlight several of the actions still needed:
Texas has not yet promulgated enabling legislation and 1.
implementing regulations to comply with UMTRCA. This is a prime requisite for an amended agreement.
2.
Prompt action in advance of the amended agreement as required by the UMTRCA should be taken by Texas'to develop upgraded tailings' management programs that meet UMTRCA requirements at existing mill sites.
.8102ggggg,.
g -,
m_
The Honorable William P. Clements 2
3.
In our evaluation of the readiness of Texas, additional staffing will be needed by Texas to meet upgraded requirements of UMTRCA.
We will give the same weight.to resource comitments as is given to statutory and regulatory enactments.
To execute the amendment, the Commission must Tind not only that the State uranium milling regulatory program provides adequate protection of the public health and safety and is generally compatible with the Comission's program of regulation, but also that the State has adopted standards for the protection of the public health, safety and the environment from radiation hazards asso-ciated with uranium mill byproduct material, which are equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the Commission.
It will be mutually helpful to re-ceive a timetable as early as possible outlining Texas' actions to resolve all the issues discussed in Enclosure 2.
In this timetable, we suggest a target date of August 1,1981, for formal submission by Texas of the application for amendment.
While, in our opinion, Texas has taken some initial steps toward compliance with UMTRCA, there is much to be accomplished before an amended agreement can be reached. We will continue to work closely with your staff towards this end.
If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Mr. G. W. Kerr, Director of NRC's Office of State Programs.
Si cerely, i
't
/
John F. Ahearne Chairman
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: Dr. Bernstein, Texas w/ enc 1.
D. Lacker, Texas w/ enc 1.
.~
s f*
7540 Feder:1 Register / Vol. 48. Ns.15 / Friday. J.nunry 03. 1981 / Notices N tional Advisory Committee on S2gned at Washingtor DC. this teth day and amended by Pub. l.95-604 Occupational Safety and Health; Fut!
of lanuary 19st.
approved November B.1978. These Committee Meeting and Subgroup Eula Bs ham.
cnteria are intended to indicate factors s
Meeting Ass stantSecretcyorlobot.
which the Commission intends to N:tice is hereby given that the rm ow. ei-asu n d m a penod addition, consultants should be Secti:n 83(b)(1)(A).
bv primded for pubhe renew.
available for any emergencies which 3
Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 46. No.15 / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Notices 7545 may occur and for which their expertise have additional training tn Uranium Mill (b) Geolegy:
would be needed imme6ately.
Health Physics and Enytronmental (c) Hydrology and water quality; Assessments.
(d) hieteorology:
p,*## #I
- c. personnelin aFencies other than the (el Background radiation:
- 34. Personnel needed in the processing lead agency are included in these total (f) Tailings retention system:
of the license application can be person year numbers. lf other agencies (g)Intenm stabilization reclamation.
identified or grouped according to the are counted in these numbers then it and Site Decommissioning Prcgram:
fo!!owing skills: TechrJeah shall be demonstrated that these
[h) Radiological Dose Assessment:
Administratave: and Support.
personnel will be available on a rouune (1) Source terms
- a. Administrative personnel are those and continuing basis to a degree
(:) Exposure pathway persons who will provide internal claimed as necessary to successfully (3) Dose commitment to individuals guide:. pol.cy memoranda, reviews and comely with the requirements of (4) Dose commitment to populatsens managenal services necessary to assure UhCP.CA and these enteria. The (5) Evaluation of radiologicalimpacts completion of the licensing action.
arrangements for making such resources to the public to include a determination Support personnel are tnose persons available shallbe documented such as of compliance with State and Federal who previoe secretarial, clencal an interagency memorandum of
' regulations and companscas with support. legal. and laboratory services.
understanding and confirmed by.
background values Technical pers annel are those budgetary cost centers.
(6) Occupational dose individuals who have the training and (7) Radiologicalimpact tc biota other experience in radiation protection functions To Be Covered than man necessary to evaluate the enginerin8
- 35. The States should develop (8) Radiological monitoring programs, and radiological safety aspects of a procedures for licensing, inspection. and pre-occupational and operational uranium concentrator. Current preparation of environmental (i) Impacts to surface and indications are that 2 to ?_75 total assessments.
groundwater, both quality and quantity; professional person years' effort is
- a. Licensing (j) Environmental effects of accidents:
needed to process a new convent 2onal (1)!Jeensing evaluations or and mill license in situ license. or major assessments shculd include in. plant (k) Evaluation of tailings management renewal to meet the requirements of radiological safety aspects in alternatives in terms of regulations.
UMTRCA. nis number includes the occupational or restncted areas and
(:) The S:ates are encouraged to effort for the environmental assessment environmentalimpacts to populations in examine the need to expand the scope and the in-plant safety review. it also unrestricted areas from the plant.
of the assessmentinto other areas such includes the use of consultants. Heap (2)It is expected that the State will as leach applications may take less time review, evaluate and provide a) Ecology; and is expected to take 1.0 to 1.5 documentation of these evaluations.
(b) Ennronmental effects of site professional staff years' effort.
Items which should be evaluated are:
preparation and factlity construction on depending on the circumstances (a) Proposed activities:
environment and biota:
encountered Currentindications are (b) Scope of preposed action:
(c) Envirenmental effects of use and that the person yea-s effort for support (c) Specific act:vities to be conducted:
discharge of chemicals and fuels; and and legal services should be one (d) Administrat:ve procedures:
(d) Economic and social effects.
secretary for approximately 2 (e) Facility organization and
- c. Inspections I
conventional mills and % staff years for radiological safety responsibilities, (1) As a mimmum. items which should legal services for each noncentested mill authorities, and personnel be inspected or included during the case. The impact on ennronmental qualifications:
inspection of a uranium mill should monitoring laboratory support services (f) Licensee audits and inspections; adhere to the items evaluated in the in-is difficult to estimate but should be (g) Radiatta safety training programs plant safety review. ne principal items added into the personnel requirements.
for workers:
recommended forinspection are:
In addition. consideration should be (h) Radiation safety program, control (a) Administration:
given to various miscellaneous post-and monitoring:
(b) Mill circuit. including any licensing ongoing activities including the (i) Restricted area markings and additions, deletions, or circuit changes; issuance of minor amendments.
access control:
(c) Accidents / Incidents:
inspections, and environmental (J) At existing mills, review of (d) Part 19 or equivalent requirements surveillance. It is estimated that these monitoring data, exposure records, of the State activities may require about 0.5 to i
. licensee audit and inspection records.
(e) Action taken on previous findings:
person years effort per licensed facility and other records applicable to existing (f) A mill tour to determine per year, the latter being the case for a mills; compliance with regulations and license major facility.These figures do not (k) Environmental monitoring:
conditionr.
include manpower for Title I activitives (1) Emergency procedures.
(g) Tailings waste management in of UMTRCA.
radiological; accordance with regulatmns and license
- b. In evaluating license applications (m) Product transportation: and conditions (see NRC Reg. Guide 3.11.1);
the State shall have access to necessary (n) Site and physical decommissioning (h) Records:
specialities, e.g. radiological safety.
procedures. other than tailings.
(i) Respiratory protection in hydrology. geology and dam (o) Employee exposure data and accordance with license conditions or 10 r
constniction and operation.
bicassay programs.
CFR part 20.
In addition to the personnel
- b. Envaronmen:o1 Assessment (j) Effluent and environmental qualifications listed in the " Guide for (1) The environmental evaluation monitoring:
Evaluation of State Radiation Control should consist cf a detailed and (kl Training programs:
Programs." Revision 3. February 1.1980, documented evaluation of the following (1) Transportation and shipping:
the regulatory staff involved in the items:
(m) Intemal review and audit by regulatory process (Radiation) should (a) Topography:
management:
i
- s
.~
l 7546 Federn! Regist:r / Vol. 46. No.15 / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Notices In) Exit interview; and (g) Final written report documenting samples in a variety of sample media the results of the inspection.and findings resulting frorr a maior accident can be Subcommittee will review operating experience. degree of success in analyzed in a time frame that win anow eliminating the core power Guctuations.
cn e:ch item.
(2) ln addition, the inspector should timely decisions to be made regardmg core performance (fuel and structural).
perf:rm the following:
public health and safety, plans for testing and operation at levels (a)Ind: pendent surveys and
- d. Arrangemen5 should be made to above 70% of rated power and plans for sampling.
participate in the Environmental future operations, modifications, (3) Additional guidance is contained Protection Agency quality assurance in appropriate NRC regulatory and -
program for laboratory performance /
refue, ling. and shift manning requirments. Notice of this meeting was inspects:n guides. A complete Dated at Washington. D.C. this te:h day of published Jan.12.
inspecti:n should be performed at least g, aunty,1gg1,
'SafetyPhilosphy. Technology and ence per year.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commis.;on.
Criteric. january 28.1981. Los Angeles.
- d. OperationalData Review CA. The Subcommittee will discuss (1)In cddition to the reporting d'#i#""# 3'##*7 #M' C**###I#^-
requirements for new (beyond Near.
requirements required by the regulations fra ow. m m-u mi Term Construction Perrntt) reactor cr ticense conditions, the licensee wigj auc coes mom plants. Notice of this meeting was submit in writing to the regulatory published jan'14.
j cgency within 60 days after january 1
' Extreme ExternalPhenomena.
and July 1 of each year, reports Advisory Committee on Reactor Jamsary 2m 1981. Los Angeles. CA.
specifying the quantity of each of the Sateguards; Proposed Meetings The Subcommittee will discuss the princip:1 radionuclides released to In order to provide advance status of the Seismic Safety Margins unrestricted areas in liquid and in information ngarding proposed Program. Notice of this meeting was Saseous efDuents during the previous six meetings of the ACRS Subcommittees published Jan.14.
. m:nths cf operation.This data shall be and Working Groups, and of the fu!!
' San Onofre 2 andJ. January 31.1981.
! report d in a manner that will permit the Committee, the following preliminary Los Angeles. CA. The Subcommittee will
' reFul tory agency to confirm the schedule reflects the current situation, meet to review the seismology and
- potenti
- 1 cnnual radiation doses to the taking into account additional meetings geology related items for San Onofre public.
which have been scheduled and Units 2 and 3 for an Operating 1.lcense.
(2) All data from the radiological and meetings which have been postponed or Notice of this rneeting was published
- non.r:disligical environmental cancelled since the last list of proposed jan.15.
! monitoring program will also be meetings published Dec. 22.1980 (45 FR
' Regulatory Activities. February 3.
- submitt
- d for the same time periods and 64182). Those meetings which are 1981. Washington. DC. The fr:qu ncy.The data will be reported in definitely scheduled have had, or will Subcommittee will discuss proposed a mann:r that will allow the regulatory have. an individual notice published in Regulatory Guides and Regulations.
agency to conform the dose to receptors.
the Federal Re Notice of this meeting was published days (or more)gister approximately 15jan.19.
Instrumentation prior to the meeting.
PlantFeatures import:nt to Safety.
- 36.Tha State should have available Those Subcommittee and Working Roth fiIld cad laboratory Group meetings for which it is February 3.1981. Washington, DC. The enstrum
- ntation sufficient to ensure the anticipated that there will be a portion Subcommittee will discuss the NRC definitions of the terms " safety grade",
sicins:e's control of materials and to or all of the meeting oper. to the public are indica ted by an asterisk (*). It is
" safety related" and "important to plidtt2 tha licensee's rueasurements.
expected that the sessions of the full safety" as developed for testimony a.Tha State will submit its list of
)nstrum;ntation to the NRC for review.
Committee meeting designated by an related to the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Arr:ngements should be made for asterisk (*) will be open in whole or in restart. as well as review the generic implications of the use of these
)clibrating such equipment.
part to the public. ACRS full Committee definitions in the licensing process.
} b.1. abor: tory-type instrumantation meetings begin at 8:30 a.m. and Notice of this meeting was published 5hruld be tvailable in a State agency or Subcommittee and Working Group jan.19.
through a commercial service which has meetings usually begin at 8:30 a.m. The
'NRCSofetyResecrch Program, the c:pability for quantitative and time when items listed on the agenda February 4.1981. Washiagton. DC. The i
gullitative analysis of radionuclides
. will be discussed during full Committee Subcommittee will discuss NRC's long-(ssocinted with natural uranium and its meetings and when Subcommittee and range s0Jety research plan and ACRS t cay chain, primarily: U-238. Ra 228.
Working Group meetings will start will t
comments on the Office of Nuclear be published prior to each meeting.
Regulatory Reseirch response to ACRS 3 0, Pb.210. and Rn. 22,in a variety
!s:mple m:dia such as will be Infonnation as to whether a meeting has recommendations in NUREG-0699.
cuntered from an environmental been firmly scheduled, cancelled. or Notice of this meeting was published empting program.
rescheduled. or whether changes have Jan. 21.
been made in the agenda for the-
- k. An: lysis and data reduction from boratory enalytical facilities should be February 1981 ACRS full Committee
- Safety Philosophy. Technology end eailable to the bcensing and inspection meetmg car; be obtained by a prepaid Criteric. February 4.1921. Washington, sthonti:s 6 a timely manner.
telephone call to the Office of the DC. The Subcommittee wi!! discuss the proposed Near-Term Construction rmilly, the data should be available Executive Director of the Committee Pennit. Notice of this meeting was ithin 30 days of submitial. State (telephone :02/634-3267. ATTN: Mary E.
published Jan. 21.
eptability of quality assurance (QA)
Vanderholt) between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 fgrams sh:uld also be established for p.m Easter Time.
'ReactorRadiologiec/ Effects, February 5.1981 troo p.m.).
ACRSSubcommittee Meetings Washington. DC. The Subcommittee is (e an:lyticallaboratones.
- c. ArrenFements should also be
' Fort St. Vrcia January :7.1951,at to review and comment on the NRC umpleted so that a large number of site near Longmont. CO. The Staff s paper to the NRC Commissioners en the current status of thinking and i
TEXAS Progress of Legislation Development The State dces not have legislation in place. There is very little time remaining before it must be in place and the Texas legislative agenda is also limited. Prompt action must be taken.
(Criterion 29) long Term Surveillance and Monitoring **
The draft law provides for the establishment of a " Radiation and Perpetual Care Fund" (new section 17 of Texas Act) to cover costs of " maintenance, surveillance or other care on a continuing or perpetual basis after termination of the licensed facility."
1.
The draft law nowhere requires the minimization or elimination of the need for active ongoing maintencnce of sites over the long term.
This is a fundamental requirement of 10 CFR 40, App. A, Criteria 1 and 12 and consistent with Sec. 161.x(2)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, which requires eliminating long term maintenance and monitoring to the extent practicable. While there may be some uncertainty over the degree of ongoing surveillance that will be needed over the long term, the clear thrust of legislation and regulations must be to require the minimization or elimination of active maintenance (See also 12.3.11 and 14.3 of NUREG-0706.) This concept should be stated explicitly in the legislation and imple-menting regulations.
It is suggested the term " Perpetual Care" be dropped from the title of this fund.
Experience in other states has indicated that presence of such phraseology has been used by potential mill operators as reasons for not developing programs which eliminate need for ongoing, active care.
2.
The relationship between financial surety and long-term funding concepts should be clearly established in the statutes or in the regulations. Proposed revisions to the Texas Act (Sections 3(m )
6 (f),16 (a)(4) and 17)) are not entirely clear on this matter.
Where a reference is made to the Criteria, unless otherwise specified, this refers to the criteria contained in "SECY 80-472," (Enclosure 1).
- Comments on legislation are based on review of draft legislation (marked 2nd draft) of November 18, 1980. Wherever used, " Texas Act" refers to the existing legislation being amended (Chapter 72, Acts of the 57th Legislature, as amended).
. (cont')
2 The regulations and legislation must assure that adequate financial arrangements are available at all times during mill operation and thereafter to protect the public health and safety.
(Criteria 29(b)and30(a)).
3.
Section 17(g) of the proposed legislation should be revised to authorize the agency to transfer funds to the United States for long-term surveillance and control in the event the State chooses not to become owner of a tailings disposal site.
The amount of such transfer should be determined at the time of transfer by mutual agreement of the State.
Financial Surety Mechanisms The legislation as drafted provides adequate authorities for requiring financial sureties. However, it is not clear from the legislation that the State will follow those sections of regulations of the Commission prescribing the accepta-bility of financial surety mechanisms.
(See new Sec. 6(g) of Texas Act.) Texas apparently intends to permit self-insurance which would not meet NRC regulations based on conversations with Texas Department of Health staff.
(Criterion 9 in Appendix A to 10 CFR 40).
Immediate Action at Existing Sites During the interim period (before November 1981) Section 204 (h)(1) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, (UMTRCA) requires Agreement States to implement NRC regulations to the maximum extent practicable as stated in the FR Notice issuing the regulations (see 45 FR 65530).
The Commission considers it practicable and necessary for Agreement States' mill operators:
'(a) to begin now (as opposed to after November 1981) to develop programs meeting the regulations; (b) to submit such programs to the Agreement States on the same schedule as non-Agreement State operations; (c) and to immediately implement steps'to deal with presently occurring impacts such as blowing of tailings and uncontrolled seepage.
Regarding this matter, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) was notified in letters from G. W. Kerr dated March 25, 1980, and May 9, 1980, that UMTRCA required that agreement states take immediate steps to acquire a commitment by existing uranium mill operators to specific tailings reclamation programs.
~
Based on our recent review of the Texas radiation control program, we note that we found no documentation that any steps have yet been taken in this
. matter.
. (con't) 3 Regulations Development No regulations have been issued (nor even drafted) by the State as required by Section 274.o, Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Prompt action must be taken to develop these regulations.
Under any circumstance, the regislations must be in place by November 1981.
In connection with regulations development, it is noted that UMTRCA requires that Agreement States have, as of November 1981, regulations which are equivalent to the extent practicable, ur more stringent than Commission regulations on uranium milling.
The Commission considers that such regulations recently promulgated are practicable to implement in Agreement States as they are based upon the analysis in the final GEIS* which addressed operations in both Agreement and Non-Agreement States. Therefore, the Commission regulations con-stitute minimum national standards. This appears to be recognized in proposed new Sec. 6A(a)(1) of Texas Act; the regulations developed should likewise reflect this.
(Criterion 32and10CFR150.31).
Also, in connection with developing regulations, the State should also recognize the UMTRCA states that duplication of proceedings conducted by the Commission is not necessary (last sentence of 274.o of AEA).
Therefore, because the Commission developed the substantive regulations (45 FR 65521) on uranium mills through a full and public rulemaking proceeding (NUREG-0706), no substantive proceedings need be conducted by the State in developing itt regulations.
These NRC regula-tions include the minimum national' standards concerning technical, financial and institutional control aspects of uranium mill tailings disposal. The State could incorporate the record developed by the NRC and include it as a part of the rule-making to help expedite any rulemaking that may be necessary under State law.
(Criterion 32).
Also, with regard tn regulation development, the State must develop a program for implementation of U. S. EPA fuel cycle radiation protection standards (40 CFR 190) at mills in addition to regulations to be developed under Section 274.o(2).
Related to item 35(a) of the NRC evaluation criteria, the Texas reply of September 29, 1980, to the initial NRC status report lists applicable regulatory guides, standards and other sources that are used in the Texas program. The list seems to be adequate except that the guide, "Information Required and Criteria Used to Evaluate Embankment Retention Systems," (undated) should be deleted because it has been superseded by Regulatory Guide 3.11, which is included in the list.
(Criterion 35(a)).
I l
- GEIS - Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (NUREG-0706).
m
+.
. (con't) 4 Staff Resources Texas personnel resources need to be significantly upgraded if these resources are to be adequate for processing license applications and carrying out other regulatory responsibilities.
Current indications are that 2 to 2.7 total professional person years' effort is needed to process a new conventional mill license, in-situ license, or major renewal, to meet the requirements of UMTRCA.
This number includes the effort for the environmental assessment and the in-plant safety review.
It also in-cludes the use of consultants.
Heap leach applications may take less time and is expected to take 1.0 to 1.5 professional staff years' effort, depending on the circumstances encountered. Current indications arc that the person years effort for support and legal services should be one secretary for approximately 2 conventional mills and la staff years for legal services for each noncontested mill case. The impact on environmental monitoring laboratory services is difti-cult to estimate but should be added into the personnel requirements.
In addition, consideration should be given to various miscellaneous post-licensing ongoing activities including the issuance of minor amendments, inspections, and environmental surveillance.
It is estimated that these activities may require about 0.5 to 1 person years effort per licensed facility per year, the latter being the case for a major facility. These figures do not include manpower for Title I activities of UMTRCA.
Personnel in agencies other than the lead agency are included in these total person year numbers.
If other agencies are counted in these numbers, then it shall be demonstrated that these personnel will be available on a routine and continuing basis to a degree claimed as necessary to successfully comply with the requirements of UMTRCA and these criteria.
The arrangements for making such resources available shall be documented, such as an interagency memorandum of understanding and confirmed by budgetary cost centers.
(Criterion 34).
Preparation of h'ritten Assessments Several recent assessments performed by the State of Texas (Caithness and Trevino projects) in connection with the licensing of new in-situ uranium extraction projects do not meet the requirements of UMTRCA.
(Sec.274.o(3)(C) of AEA). The assessments did not document detailed evaluation of the most significant environmental impacts that will occur with, and associated controls which will be provided for, the project--those related to groundwater.
For example, the following should also be included:
(a) determination of adequate geologic confinement of the oro zone and associated leach field, (b) monitoring requirements, u
. (con't) 5 (c) groundwater rostoration criteria, (d) operating limits (including specifications of upper controllimits),
(e) plugging of exploretion wells and well abandonment procedures, and (f) well construction and testing.
(Criterion 35(b)).
It appears that the Texas Department of Health is relying upon the Department of Water Resources to handle these espects of project review and permitting.
This appears to be acceptable, but the written assessment must occument the evaluation that Water Resources performs. /
quires that the environmental impacts of "an_See Sec. 274.o(3)(C) which re-y activities conducted pursuant" to the license being granted be included in the assessment.] Other coments on these assessments are:
Most technical aspects of license applications did not appear to o
receive a rigorous independent review.
The State often accepted the data and information submitted by the licensee and did not attempt a separate confirmatory analysis, In our recent review of the Texas mill licensing program, it appears o
that the Radiation Control Branch (RCB) only considers radiological aspects of mill tailings.
This is not consistent with UMTRCA.
The State should assure tnat both radiological and non-radiological aspects of environmental impacts are independently assessed and in-corporated into licensing actions and enforced.
The above highlights the need for clarification of organizational relationships between various state agencies involved in the regulatory program for uranium mills and tailings.
(Criteria 33(b)).
y While the draft of proposed legislation specifically requires a written environmental analysis, it varies from NRC suggested State legislation in not having a separately stated requirement for including long-term impacts, in-cluding decomissioning, etc., but rather appears to attempt to subsume long-term impacts under other requirements.
The Texas approach (Section 12A(a) is i
not as clear cut as the suggested approach and should be revised.
(Criterion i
35(b);Section274.o(3)(C)oftheAEA,asamended.)
.