ML20046C669
| ML20046C669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/14/1989 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Mobley M TENNESSEE, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B476 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308110331 | |
| Download: ML20046C669 (2) | |
Text
Question 59
- "' %'c 1
w UNITED STATES I
E T*.- q {
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$?
t A
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9 %.:y /
i
'e September 14, 1989 Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director Division of Radiological Health TERRA Building 150 9th Avenue, N.
Sixth Floor Nashville, TN 37219-5404
Dear Mr. Mobley:
We understand the concerns expressed in your letter regarding what happens to the waste (from States not in compliance) once it is proces sed.
However, we have reviewed your action with our Low-Level Waste Management Division and Office of General Counsel, and we find that we can not support such an approach.
Your letter imposes a sanction on waste generators in noncomplying States by barring their waste from Tennessee. NRC does not find a basis for the lennessee action in the LLRWPAA.
This Act imposes sanctions on noncomplying States cnly in terms of monetary penalties and exclusion from access to disposal sites, sanctions administered by sited States. Tennessee does not have an operational disposal site and, therefore, no basis in the LLRWPAA to administer sanctions.
Further, the Sottheast Compact does not authorize your action. Under the Southeast Compact, waste processors or brokers are excluded from the definition of " generators" with respect to waste generated outside of the compact, and thus are not entitled to disposal capacity in the regional disposal site for such waste (see Compact, Article 2, paragraph 3). Thus, Tennessee should have no concern about disposal. Additionally, Article 5, paragraph D of the Compact, states that no party State shall have any form of arbitrary prohibition on the "... treatment, storage, or disposal of low-level waste within its borders." The letter appears contrary to that Compact provision.
Your action could also impose a burden on interstate comerce and potentially be contrary to the Comerce Clause of the Constitution.
It should be kept in mind that one of the primary purposes of the LLRWPAA was to allow the formation of compacts that, with Congressional consent, could bar the import of waste from out of the compact for the limited purpose of disposal. Absent Congressional consent, such a prohibition would be viewed as an impermissible burden on comerce. See, Philadelphia
- v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978). A ban on importation for treatment, processing, and storage would likely be seen in the same legal light.
9308110331 930714 PDR STPRC ESGGEN PDR
(
t SEP I 4 ;ggg Michael H. Mobley i We can understand Tennessee's concern about becoming an inadvertent storage location for low-level waste not generated within the State.
However, it would seem that removing the treatment option has potential health and safety implications, particularly in a national environment in which waste management options, in general, will.be limited.
In our opinion, free movement of low-level waste for treatment and processing is in the national interest. We would discourage any impediments to the safe and efficient management of low-level waste across state and l
regional borders, i
It is hoped that you will be guided by these comments and revise your previous communications in this area. We think there are ways to assure that Tennessee is not subject to increased risk from these materials, such as requiring that all materials be returned to the generator after treatment or processing. We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this-further.
If you have any questions, please contact Vandy i
Miller or Kathleen Schneider of my staff at 301-492-0326.
Sincerely, WW VandyL. Luer h
l Carlton Kamerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Distribution:
KNSchneider l
SA RF SLITP RF CHMaupin Tennessee file w/ incoming i
RWoodruff w/ incoming RTrojanowski w/ incoming RBernero FCombs VMiller JGreeves RFonner i
110 h k h t
)FC :5A
)W
- 5A:AD
- AD
- NM55
- 0GC.
:--p--------:------
):bLITP:D
-:_--g--lg:NM55:D aves h :: Bern ro o
R ner (AME :KSchneider :VLMill
- FC mbs
- Ctammere
- J T--------:-----------
:-------:gd--:----- ----:---)89-----:---h89
- 8/11 /89
- 09/ / /89
- @/b/89
) ATE :8/ bb/89
- 8/%i/89
' :09/
- 8/ )
/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I
- ~ _
4 f%.
QUESTION 61 f
lnl.N//.,.Q I
r n~
u r
%f?E <W
<cs+
i TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
-j i
April 17, 1991 j
Richard Woodruff, Region II Agreement States Officer State Agreements Program Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
201 Marietta St.,
NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323
Dear Mr. Woodruff:
As per the NRC request for a quarterly status update on the i
Tennessese Radiation Control Program, I have complied the information below.
As you are now aware we have been administratively transferred
[
from the Department of Health and Environment to the
{
Department of Conservation.
That transfer has had minimal l
impact on our activities and I believe it has many positive benefits to the Division in the long term.
Specific items to
)
be discussed below are regulation amendment status, staff i
vacancy status, and inspection status.
- I Amendments to regulations previously rejected by the Attorney i
General's office have been resubmitted based on discussions held with that office last year.
Specifically this addresses the " glass enamel frit" problem.
A proposed amendment i
regarding well-logging is in the system awaiting approval of j
Sureau attorneys.
We are continuing study on the i
Decommissioning Rule in an attempt to determine if there are l
any revisions needed in our existing legislation and/or.
)
regulations that addressed this item prior to the NRC j
promulgations.
i Attached is a report'from M.
H.
Short regarding-the current ~
j status of our vacant positions.
While we were able to.take advantage of a small window of opportunity to fill several j
positions, several losses have subsequently occurred _that have l
brought us back to the status of four vacant technical j
positions, all of which are under a new hiring freeze.
We are working to release them.
The staff position reclassification and salary adjustment proposal is still being reviewed within-l the Department.
Thus our current staffing status is a i
continuation of loss of trained and experienced staff.
1 i
l i
I L
-]
c
1 i
The assignment of NRC categories for our licenses is ongoing.
The initial effort was delayed awaiting adequate categorization information.
This has'been a labor intensive effort and has also exposed some extreme concerns relative to the NRC inspection frequency for certain facilities, e.g.
the Aerojet facility to be inspected once per 3 years (NRC) versus six months to annual 2y under Tennessee priorities 4
our current inspection status as measured against our annual workload is reflected in the attached table.
When the assignment of NRC categories is completed we will report to you the status as measured against the annual workload, the i
Division categories, and the NRC categories.
Backlog information will also be provided for the latter two measures.
Your assistance on the recent scrap problems and the Quadrex resin request is appreciated.
i sincere 2y, i
flfc$}b c
'/I h' i
Michael H. Mobley, D(recto.
Division of Radiological Health T.E.R.R.A.
Sullding 6th floor ISO Ninth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37247-3001 MHM/TMR Attachment (s) f l
I i
l I
i i
l
)
s TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM Tc DATE OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE I
DATE:
March 26, 1991 1
70:
P.H M j
i FROM:
MHS
SUBJECT:
Vacant Positions - 4/1/91, and H.P.
Reclass Project ll
\\
A.I.
Environmental Specialist 2 - Licensing 343.32-5000.09 - 1/25/91 2.
Environmental Specialist 2 - Technical Services 34'.32-5000.07 - 2/5/91 s
3.
Environmental Specialist 2 - Nashville Area Office (subject to placement in either this area or another where ever the need is felt greatest at the time of filling!)
343.32-2500.06 - 1/30/91 4.
Environmental Specialist 2 - Knoxville Area Office The requests f or release from the freeze of numbers 1 - 3, which are all fee funded, were sent to EHS on the dates specified, and were returned to DRH, by EHS, 2/14/91, because "the freeze froze".
We were advised that all v,acancies were to remain vagant, pending the administra-ton's attempt to relocate (-750) employees throughout state government whose positions are scheduled for abolishment July 1, 1991.
The latest word we have concerning this attempt is that probably none of the "relocatees" will qualify for ES 2 positions, but we shall l
have to wait to see the end result.
We also heard, both from a DOP employee and a " water Division" employee, that r
" people were being hired"; apparently this relates to posi-tions released from the freeze prior to its having become
-Wy tet
- frozen, I
w A request to release the Knoxville Area Office position has L
i not been prepared or suomitted re:
the frozen freeze.
i i
I
~
The 4 vacancies of 41 established positions represents a t
{
9.76 % vacancy rate; the vacancy rate compared to the i
number of positions available for DRH work, 37, is 10.83 %.
B. Dennis Hutton does not have the H.P.
reclass project yet, so j
i we assume that Ed Cole /Com. Luna still have it.
i PM 0001
$R $U
84 23 9,1 33818 8 884 Be3 6849 LETNA'ECN0 GTL 83
-J
- v. e s "
<s: 21 3433g 023 i
i INSPECTIONS RADICACTIVE MATERIAL CATEGORY OOAL3 QUARTERLY RESULTS ANNUAL QUARTER let 2nd 3rd 4th QL e
1 24 6
4 2
41 10 5
3 7
2 1
4 87 22 8
5 36 9
3 6
1 TOTAL 195 49 22 0
0 0
RADIATION MACHINE CLASS GOALS QUARTERLY RESULTS ANNUAL QUARTER 2st 2nd 3rd 4th 2
1026 254 241 2
743 186 132 3
235 59 25 f'
4 2
1
~
i 5
82 20 6
40 10
)
7 9
2 2
2126 532 400 0
0 0
t RI INSPECTION FCLLOWUP COALS QUARTERLY RESULTS ANNUAL QUARTER 2st 2nd 3rd 4th-.
340 65
- To be innpacted an necananry
== Inspected upon entry into state or notification of activity The annual workload reflected here is simply the e of licenses or x-ray units in a particular category or class divided by the frequency of inspect!on.
There as no adjustment for, extended inspectione, etc.
FILE = 92WRKLD.WKJ i
~
- vt>-
Bd/21/91 22:20' 34338 881 30._u
.nt_
IIMC SCNT: ]D.6 9 Icnnessec Departwent c' Feelth & Environnent 0 11111 All lif l NYIQl)NH~NI
'.L.it.H.A. Building
.fSD Ninth Airnur Nrwt h Noskvalle, TN 37267-3001 rAx h10NC NUM0!R:
625/742-4600
' A C S : ti:1. E
~9ANSHI5510N SHEET j
DAir SENT:
kIA l
1-NuxBER Or PAGES d'
(]ncluding l
Cover Sheet
- IU
'd.F..
DO 4 D4 % \\ 777 }-
Pil0NE NUMD C ft A 00'f L ' 'J : \\Ol9 71 Q w _ 5T, M rAx WMuta: $ 0's t 3 t M903 J
v.,,
MN O Atd g G R.g.o.. d.....
AlcE,$s 44j d
_y a
I calm: Wwm b\\ N,,
r
_,, 'll 0.N C NUMSLMi_ (,\\379I7%1) f t
If tre 'e.11ersny n.crucye as :rt.cive<> poo y, or ir ve.rffication is neccec, pleoc* cnJ1:,% %%
od i
kl. % y at
\\
srtt1Ai. Ihstatt. :n\\s:
i a
t Pt TASC WMat A Al.l. RAGES A
A 8. U.1..I.V.8 0'U C 488 881 6849
&Ef=e fOhD att 32 u. a.
m l
(G. Net R P O CD K LL EE. ).
.A ;u-:
. [I/
=
-_ m --
/r rp -
[U f&
l??-
~[~d Nm AA
~
~
aAM
/r41/W
- n p.
~
an~f f
Mehu
~'
[0..
f 4..~4 -
7[.....
z.4
~
=...
8
...a
^
.,,,,w 085 i
i g.
i i
1NSPECT10NS RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL i
cATEcoRY 00AL3 OUARTERLY RESULTS ANNUAL QUAR 7F.R 1st 2nd 3rd 4th GL 1
24 6
4 i
2 42 10 3
3 7
2 1
t 4
87 22 8
5 36 9
3 6
1 TOTAL 195 49 22 0
0 0
RADIATION MACHINE i
CLASS OCALS QUARTERLY RESULTS
}
ANNUAL QUARTER 34t 2nd 3rd 4th 3
1036 254 242 i
2 743 386 232 3
235 59 25 5
4 2
1 5
82 20 6
40 10 7
9 2
2 2326 532 400 0
0 0
RI INSPECTION FOLLOWUP OCALS QUARTERLY MESULTS ANNUAL QUARTER 2st 2nd 3rd 4th i
340 45
- To be innpacted an necananry
- Inspected upon entry into state or notification of activity i
The annual workload reflected here is simply the e of licenses or x-ray units in a particular category or class divided by the frequency of Inspection.
There is no adjustment for, extended inspectione, etc.
FILE - 92HRXLD.WX3 i
l r
i
..