ML20126M373
| ML20126M373 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-49 NUDOCS 8106170170 | |
| Download: ML20126M373 (1) | |
Text
i s
+g,Y b UNITED STATES h
8 % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ WASHWGTON. D. C. 20556
- ., % .* / l IAAY 2 91981 WMUR:WM-49 i MEMORANDUM FOR: John .B. Martin, Director Division of Waste Management FROM: Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
STATUS REPORT - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE PROGRAMS (332141)
Throughout the past quarter, the WMUR staff has provided technical assistance to the Office of State Programs in connection with the preparation of " report cards" or status reports which have been sent
, to each Agreement State which has indicated an interest in entering into an
't ' amended agreement with the NRC covering the regulation of uranium recovery licensing activity. Such amended agreements would, according to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, become effective on November 8,1981.
The purpose of the report cards is to inform the State officials of what progress has been made and, more importantly, of what steps still need to be taken before an amended agreement can become effective. These attached status reports include detailed reviews of the State's legis tion and regulations, staff resou'. .e levels, and licensing practice .
Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch m
a,
,- ?/f g
t ,i
& IMc vd JMm Kpts: p] g.
1C5 # 71 C3141/67 :
f JUN 101981N
~
tt. 3i 02 %!cJacS~ v ,a.g;7 f
" M g y; os @ o 4Y o ro
.sh ?} C'2.2.l.oOd/9 e- ? : C 'b 2 V !) b 2.
& y; C 3 S. fj 1/ u .o tr- 5i 5 3 l l C ' %~
~ ~
8106170/75
~
" ^
- t[ P~~ .%,, INTED STATES
$* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, [, g s.s
\ .9> j wassmaren.c.c.2 ossa -
ww a &
8 .
%, e AC
,,,[, ]*, March 16,1981 A ..
cum un As c/cl 3fd The Honorable Robert F. List .
Governor of Nevada
- Carson City, Nevada 89701 ,
Dear Governor List:
On July 1,1972, Nevada became an Agreement State under Section 274 of
- the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Under the provisions of this j Act, Nevada 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. ,
- i Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Uranium i
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) Agreement States
'l F.an continue to regulate uranium mills and mill tailings after November 8 I 1981, by entering into an amended agreement with the NRC. In UMTRCA, -
i the Congress also provided for the first time, funds for grants to 3tates to assist them in preparing their revised regulatory program.
Nevada applied for and received a grant of $14,100 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. Ralph DiSibio, i . Director, Nevada , Department of Human Resources, and his staff so that the amended agreement process may proceed smoothly. The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. DiSibio and his staff and to identify remaining actions which Nevada must accomplish for a timely
. amended , agreement.
l -' ' To execute the amendment, the Connission "must find not only that the State uranium milling regulatory program provides adequate protection of
_. the public health and safety and is generally compatible with the Commission's 4 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 associated with uranium mill byproduct material, which are' equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the Comission.
b~ In response to our request for a statement of continuing interest to 4
seek' an amendment to the agreement, Dr. DiSibio supplied us in August with copies of legislation and proposed legislation authorizing regula-tion of mills and implementing regulations. These have been evaluated against criteria (Enclosure.1) developed for this purpose with Agreement State input.
1 L
? ! mW!E7
,..~-.v.,,..i.--..mr, --
,. m,...m-,,-.-r-~....w,, ..-,.---_,w-,,,w.m ...-.,-,v..,w _%, - _ ,,-,w ,.v,.,--.-#we.,..- ,-.,,-,--.m_-,.. - . , .,
. ~.,' .'
l The Honorable Robert F. List -
- The only deficiency we find in the legislation submitted is the lack of a provision for transfer of funds for longatenn surveillance and maintenance to the Federal Government where the State elects not to take title to the land (Criterion 29c). Our comments on the regulations are contained in Enclosure 2. -
I Because Nevada does not have an active mill nor an iminent likelihood of an application, we understand that staffing to handle mill licensing and regulation has been deferred.
We cannot, however, complete a finding regarding Nevada's readiness ~for an ameMment to its-agreement unless all criteria have been met, including those for staffing. We suggest, therefore, that Nevada continue to work to put into place the necessary statutory and regulatory framework and define its organizational reTationships, staff requirements and procedures.
In order that all parties can be aware of Nevada's intention to regulate mills and mill tailings in the event a mill is proposed in the State, we propose that if all criteria are met except for staffing, the following -
statement replace the effective date statement at the end of the enclosed pr6 posed model amendment (Enclosure 3). .
This amendment to the Agreement shall become effective upon
, certification by the Governor to the Comission that the personnel meeting the specifications in the State's submis-sions dated have entered on duty with the State and upon a subsequent finding by the Comi::1:n.that these personnel meet'the criteria and that the State program centinues to meet the criteria.
, We presume that the State will' reliably know of forthcoming applications, i will obtain' the necessary staff and then request full implementation of i the agreement.
1 While, in our opinion, Nevada has done much of %= m'; r,ecessary to the
- amendment, items outlined above need to be set forth. It.will be mutually
',' helpful to receive a timetable as early as possible outlining Nevada's
~-
actions to resolve all issues. ---
In this time. table, we suggest a target date of July 1,1981 for formal submission by Nevac'a cf the application for amendment.
o 9
, w = . - + - + - - e, . w . - . -
~ ~~ ~
.+ ( r t v i t I .
- s. .
1 The Honorable Robert F. List ,
We will continue to work with your staff toward an amended agreement.
If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Mr. G. Wayne Kerr, Director of NRC's Office of State Program.at 301/492-8170. -
Sincerely.
Originaf Signed By Jose d .4 M , ,
Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman
Enclosures:
As stated bec: Ralph DiSibio, Nevada, # 4 w '.
John Vaden, Nevada w/ enc 1.
Distribution: .
l SA R/F l
. Dir. R/F NV File (fc) w/ encl., .
R. Scarano, NMSS w/ encl.
G. Cunningham, ELD.w/ encl.
L. Higginbotb r . IE w/ enc 1.
R. Jones, SD w/en 1.
I D. Kunihiro, NRC-V w/enci.
C'De
- CDC f Y 1
C/R NOTE: Treated as Chairman's Correspondence REF: CR-81-032
~
' SEC . R, w gs OCM . OCM
- W A, . '
3/12- 1
. (!, , \ *f (A - 'A -
_ (t/td.<h.N dd 3//s /81 ,3/IS /81
-o . ..... ..e p.0.. / .
'w.n. . ........... . . . C. . . g. . . . .np. ...'.. .. .. .. .. .md
. r.Qs.m..........
.'. . ..p.v . . ....
-> .nouno:sa... p.. su.A.~.- .. . ........... J......o.1........ ..................... ..................... .., en 4 ..
em> 2../.l.2./. 8.1.......
1 I 2 2 81..... .1........... .. 2/.. .. 81
. . .. . . 2 /. . . . ./. 2/./
. .. .. ./. 81 . . ../. .D. . . 8. 1.. 3/.
.......... . .. .. ../... ........ . ...W.
. . 8.1.....
ccre:w. veno,soinewca o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ** =
~.N.f' %. .. ,,,.
) ,, .,e . .,+1'* <s: , , g*
- O Zrst l h
. O',- ?
9 w. '
a r ~
4
.l January 29, 1981 I
The Honorable Bruce King Governor of New Mexico .
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
Dear Governor King:
On May 1,1974, New Mexico became an Agreement State under Section 274 1
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Under the provisions of this Act, New Mexico 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 :natarials.
j Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Uranium i
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Agreement States can continue to regulate uranium mills and mill tailings after November S.
1981, by entering into an amended agreement with the NRC. In UMl'RCA, the Congress also provided for the first time, funds for grants to .
States to assist them in preparing their revised regulatory program.
' New Mexico applied for and received a grant of $133,900 under that program, thereby indicating the State's interest in pursuing this addi-tional regulatory authority.
For some time, the NRC staff has been werking with I4r. Thomas E. Baca, l Director Environmental Improvement Division of the Department of Health
! & Environment, and his staff so that the amended agreement process may proceed smoothly. The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge the efforts of f4r. Baca and his staff and to identify remaining actions which New Mexico must accomplish for a timely amended agreement.
As a result of information exchanged between the NRC and New !!axico, in July,1980, we provided ltr. Baca with our initial assessment of the readiness of New Mexico for an amended agreement to regulate uranium mills and t:1 lings. Criteria for this purs !.e have been developed with Agreement State input and State coments were factored in when consistant
! with NRC rules and policies (Enclosure 1). Additional information was l provided by Mr. Baca which we haia evaluated. The results of this eYaluation are discussed in Enclosure 2 to this letter. I would like to highlight two of the actions still needed:
- 1. New Mexico has not yet promulgated complete regulations to comply with UMTRCA. This is a prime requisite for an amended agreement.
$ Y I^{?0$ .
h3!@y.D y ,. g . p y ; . .
4Q$&.p r.. .:
s.- _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . -
,'.. =..
. . .s . . .
[' . .
. 4 % t
- S c cl;-
The Honorable Bruce King sj l 1
2.
~
! Prompt action in advance of the amended agreement, as required by the UMTRCA and noted in previous NRC correspondence with
, the State, should be taken by New Mexico to. develop upgraded l , tailings management programs that meet (HTRCA requirements at
.j ! existing mill sites. .
i
' ~
To execute the amendment, the Comission must find 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 envirenment from.
radiation hazards associated with uranium mill byproduct material, which
, , are equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the Comission. It will be mutually helpfui to receive a timetable as early as possible
!' outlining New Mexico's actions to resolve all the issues discussed in i
Enclosure 2. In this timetable, we suggest a target date of August 1 l 1981, for fonnal submission by New Mexico of the application for amendment.
While, in our opinion, New Mexico has taken steps toward compliance with (MTRCA, more needs to be accomplished before an amended agreement can be reached. We will continue to work closely with your staff towards this .
and. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Mr. G.
W. Xert, Director of NRC's Office of State Programs.
t Sincerely, .
N' original signed 37
.Tobn y. Ahearne
.I John F. Ahearne Chairman I.
j' C U t C/R NOTE: Circulated as Chairman's
. corresponcence 1/20/00.
T. Baca, New Mexico w/encls. Ref. CR-8140g.
cc: ,'
T. Wolff, New Mexico w/encls. -
g, DISTRIBllTION: v ECY:C/R
!j l
j SECY w/encls OGC, w/encls Dir R/F, w/ enc 1 2 C. Gordon, w/ enc 1 2 gschuet:e 1/29/81
,j OPE w/encls J. ,Kendig, wenc1 2 1 EDO w/encls g,,,Mw Mexico File w/encls R. Scarano, 255 w/ enc 12 qp ld R. Jones, SD w/enci 2 1g ,
j ii G. Cunningham, El.D w/ enc 1 2 L. Higginbotham, IE,w/enci 2 ,
J. Montgomery, Reg. IV, w/ enc 1 2
/
SA ,R/F,_w/ enc 1 2, n ,
_hIb ,, _ i.s l
,,,,4 .
V ...V- d Sgo,j S t s .v. . . . . . . . '............
.2 .# 4 ELD f3 2 55 ..
. E00(.,v "
..........g......
l ,u m ..) .J. ............... ig:go CGordon vo n err . .M. _.. . . . . . .
.,................ .g . . .q. b . 4.,.g j / ...
2
......e.....u.......
. . . . . . .[g. . . . . ..d.. . . . ../
7................... . ... ..................
i m> 1}(,/81 1/1 81 1
....Q. ../81 1/
.... %.. ./ 81 ...1/..f.../ 81
............ .1/@. . . . /. .l . . '. . /. .g. 14s/81..
utC 8Com 1:e no,ecos*Cw c2do CFFICIAL RECORD COPY uS*' w.
I ,
-...r,.._...,--,r,_,,.. ...,.,.,.,..,,.,_.,.,,,_..,,,o.,,,..,,...mm,%#,.m,,. _,.m., .__,.,,,,,,..,..y., - ,..,,,,,,- - ~ . . , , , . . , . . . _ . . . . ,
O i '
l NEW MEXICO .
i Regulations 1
' The New Mexico regulations do not cover all of the points in Appendix A, to 10 CFR 40 and 150.31(b) (which constitute minimum national standards i
concerning technical, financial and institutional control aspects of .
i uranium mill tailings disposal under Atomic Energy Act (AEA) Sec. 274.o(2),
as amended). While there are some ifmited technical requirements in the State regulations, (for example, 55. 3-300 X and L and Part 12), 10 CFR 40 Appendix A, Introduction, and Criteria 1-9 and 12 are not covered.
Long-term funding (Criterion 10) and land ownership transfer requirements (Criterion 11) are addressed in the regulations; cements on these sections of the New Mexico regulations are provided in later parts of this enclosure. -
~
Also, with regard to regulation development, the State must develop a ;
4 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).
In connection with developing regulations, the State should recognize that Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended
$MTRCA) states that duplication of proceedings conducted by the Comissien is not necessary (last sentence of 274.0 of AEA). Since the Commission developed the substantive regulations (45 FR 65521) on uranium mills through a full and public rulemaking proceeding (NUREG-0706), the State may wish to incorporate the record developed.by the.NRC as a part of any rulemaking that may'be necessary under Stateelaw; -- -- -
It is also noted that UMTRCA requires that Agreement States have, as of November 1981, regulations which are equivalent to the extent oracticable, or more stringent than Comission regulations on uranium milling (10 CFR 150.31(b)(2)). The Comission considers that its recently promulgated regulations are practicable to implement in Agreement States as they are i based upon the analysis in the final GEIS* which addressed operations in
! both Agreement and Non-Agreement States. The Comission regulations
- constitute minimum national standards. ._
i Immediate Action at Existing Mills _
A letter from NRC Chairman Ahearne to Governor King dated June 12,1980, noted there is need to take prompt action to upgrade tailings management practices at existing uranium mills. While the full upgrading of New Mexico's regulatory program, including issuance of the regulations discussed above, is not required until November of 1981, the State must meet upgraded requirements.of the UMTRCA to the maximum extent practicable, in the interim as required by UMTRCA, Section 204(h)(1). During the interim period (before November 1981) 10 CFR 150.31(a) requires Agreement
! States to implement flRC regulations to the maximum extent practicable as i stated in the FR Notice issuing the regulations (see 45 FR 65530). The
{' Comission considers it practicable and necessary for Agreement States' mill operators:
- SEIS - Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (NUREG-0706).
Encl. 2 a'- --
g- *W=1 sea-w-'g-p vwyv .-*g -Trg-y-+wtw"W"*r
. .. C,-
(a) to beg'in 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 imediately implement s.teps to deal with presently occurring impacts such as blowing of tailings and uncontrolled
, seepage.
The need to take prompt actibn at existing mills has been raised in correspondence numerous times by the NRC staff over the past several years. As a result of conversations with the NMEID staff and our examination of materials in State files during the periodic review of the State's program, it cannot be explicitly determined if NMEID has taken documented '
steps to require existing mill operators to develop specific tailings management programs.
Long-Tenn Surveillance and Monitoring .
We recognize that New Mexico legislation and regulations contafm provisions for a Continued Care Fund"...for use in remedying and preventing situations which may be harmful to the health, safety, welfare or pr0perty of the
- people, involving abandoned wastes.or inoperative. facilities whien are -
or'were operated. by deposi tors to. the continued-care fund." It.. i s' ou'r - - .
understanding that; this is a fund which will also cover the costs associated .
with long-term monitoring. ~ ,
It appears that the total amount of each operator's deposit to the fund is more than sufficient at the present time to satisfy the escalating fee requirement established by the NRC in Criterion 10 of NRC regulations.
However, in view of the differing structures of the Federal and State long-term monitoring fund there is the possibility that at some time in
- the future the fixed amount specified in the New Mexico Regulation
($1,000,000) may no longer be sufficient.
t
, Existing New Mexico legislation or regulations nowhera require efforts to eliminate the need for active, ongoing maintenance of sites over the long term. This is a fundamental requirement of 70 {FR 40, Aop. A Criteria 1 and 12 and is consistent with Sec.161.x.(2) ( A) of AEA as l amended. While there may be some uncertainty over the degree of ongoing 1- surveillance that will be needed over the long-term, the clear thrust of
- legislation and regulations must be to require elimination of active maintenance (see also 12.3.11 and 14.3 of NUREG-0706.) This conce:t should be stated explicitly in State regulations so that the existence of a " Continued Care" fund does not encourage programs which need ongoing
- active maintenance.
t l
..w --n..>.. .n- , , - . ~
'l j
i i .
1 3 i
. 'i 1 Reservations of Authority to the NRC j 1
\
j With regard to land ownership, the State regulations appear to have adequate provisions for requiring.the ifcensee to obtain title to disposal sites for eventual transfer to the State or Federal government. Section 3-300 J(2), however, contains reservations of authority to the State, regarding such transfer. . These authorities are reserved to 'the Comission -
by section 83(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. The determination
, as to whether title transfer to the government is necessary tc protect the public health and safety or welfare or to minimize or eliminate danger to Tife or property can only be made by the Commission. -
j The final determination that all decomissioning, decontamination and a
reclamation requirements of the Comission have been met prior to license '
- l. termination and land transfer is to be made by the Comission (10 CFR 150,15a J and Atomic Energy Act, Sec. 83.c). Sections12-300 E and J appear to
.I conflict with this reserved authority.
' 'In connection with land ownership transfer requirements, it should be noted that the' only areas which can be comitted to long term gover.nment custody are the tailings disposal sites and not areas such as evaporation -
ponds or areas contaminated from active milling operations. These areas must be decontaminated for unrestricted use. (See Criterion 9 of Appendix-A, to 10 CFR 40.) This matter is raised at this time so hat it might be clarified in the revision to State regulations which should be done to meet Atomic Energy Act Sec. 274.o.
Written EnvironmentaT impact Assessments - . _ . _ . .
We are aware that New Mexico prepared a written assessment in the recent
.l Gulf case which satisfied the provisions of Section 274.o(3)(C) of the Atomic Energy Act. There appears to be no requirement, however, in State statutes for a written environmental analysis to be prepared by the State. Such assessments should be prepared for all licensing actions I having significant impact on the human environment, i.e., new licensing actions, renewals, and major amendments. All aspects of the assessment,
! required by AEA 274.o(3)(c) (including those conducted by other State agencies, such as the Water Pollution Control Bureau) must be included j in the documented analysis.
l It is considered necessary that this documented assessment be made I available for public review and coment for some reasonable amount of time before begin. proceedings (10 CFR (including) 150.31(b)(3)(1)(A) . hearings) on issuance of the license j Organizational Relationships Within States Although a lead agency has been designated as being primarily responsible for the preparation of the independent assessment and other agencies which will participate in the review are identified, the time sequence
+=-
T'9'D-9'P~T W7 9 T 78"7 4-M-'E" W $'- -?-9
i' .
n.
l 4
- 1
+
in which the other groups become involved is not clear. For example, it appears that both the Water Pollution Control Bureau and the State
- Engineer have independent regulatory responsibility over certain aspects .
- of an operation. Since neither of these organizations are under the i
supervision of the Radiation Protection Bureau Chief, coordination of the overall~ assessment needs to be clarified in accordance with Criterion 33(c).
The New Mexico response dated September 8,1980, identified the need for outside consulting services in a number of areas. With the exception of the $50,000 appropriation for racionuclide analyses, the New Mexico
. response of September 8,1980, does not. address funding costs incurred as a result of the use of consultants or how such costs are considered during the process of budget preparation. The response does not reveal if the utilization of these consultants has been approved or budgeted.
An estimate of each consultant's time for a particular mill licensing action should be identified. (Criterion 33 a througn d).
Staff Resources "Information contained in the State September 8 1980, respense indicates ,
that the staff will rely heavily upon the Water Pollution Control Bureau personnel for experience in hydrology. This does not represent a problem; however, it must be documented that such qualified personnel are available on a routine basis for assisting in preparation of the lead agency's ,
as'sessinent' and other licensing activities, that is, in persen 'years the amount of their time which can and will be devoted to uranium recovery licensing and regulation, must be documented (Criterion 34(c)). It is recommended that since these other Bureaus and Departments have their own responsibilities for mill licensing projects, the Radiation Protection Bureau initiate formal written agreements, e.g., Memorandum of Understanding, to solidify the coordination and timing of the lead agency assessment.
Such agreements as well as budget documents can be the mechanisms used to demonstrate the consnitment of other agency personnel.
6.
l l ,
. _ . , _ _ _ _ . . . - - . . = - . --- = -
~ ~
, , . . ~ ~ ,m--, , . . . . , _ . , . _ , .,.__.,,,,..m,.._em.,%..._.., , , _ . . ,,. __.,~,.,._m.v.,m._. . - , . ~ . , , , . . . . . _ . , , _ . ,
- 4 o w , a g kggug .
. c
'. po 1
FEB 101981 l
.i The Honorable Joh Spc11mak -
Governor of Washin -
Olympia, Washi.ngte 96504 1'
Dear Governor Spellman:
l l On December 31,1966 Washington became an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Under the provisions
! of this Act, Washington assumed, under agreement with the AEC (now NRC),
certain regulatory autho'rity over the use of reactor produced isotopes, the source materials uranium and thorium, and small quantities of special i ' nuclear materials.
Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Uranium I
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (tMTRCA), Agreement States
,. can cor.:inue to regulate uranium mills and mill tailings after November 8, i
1981,'by entering into an amended agreement with the NRC. In UMTRCA, j the Congress also provided for the first time, funds for grants to States to assist them in preparing their revised regulatory program.
. Washington applied for and received a grant of $80,000 under that program, thereby indicating the State's interest in pursuing this additional e regulatory authority. >
' For some time, the NRC staff has been working with Mr. Gerald E. Thomas,
, Acting Secretary Department of Social and. Health Services, and his staff so. ,
. that the amended agreement process may proceed smoothly. The purpose of
! this letter is to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Thomas and his staff and to identify remaining actions which Washington must accomplish for a timely amended agreement.
i As a result of information exchanged between the NRC and Washington, in i July,1980, we provided the Department with our initial assessment of the readiness of Washington for an amended agreement to regulate uranium mills and tailings. Criteria for this purpose have been developed with
. Agreement State input and State coments were factored in when consistent with NRC rules and policies (Enclosure 1). Additional information was provided by the Department which we have evaluated. The results of this evaluation are discussed in Enclosure 2 to this letter and I would like
- to highlight specific actions still needed
l 1. Revisions to Washington's regulations will be needed to 7 comply with tMTRCA. This is a prime requisite for an amended j agreement.
- 2. Prompt action in advance of the amended agreement as required by the LMTRCA should be taken by Washington to develop upgraded tailings management programs that meet UMTRCA requirements at
., g......
existing m1 1 sites.
~ W.f e.. :
....... ......... ........... ...., ,.............,~ ....,............... ..................... ..................... ....................
om> , N............... 9. .1 n . 7 .. n_. . . . .Q. . .C.
. .. . . .L..L. . ..............
. . 0. . . . .....................
4 .................... ...................
=c rosu v a no,so. acu o u e
~ ---
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
......_,,._.,_.-__-,,_m.-.,,__...r,_,. ___.,-,_.,..~...~....__,__,,_,,_~,,,,_._,_...,,_,m.,_..,.,...,_..m_,, , _ _ _ _ , .
_ _7
.' } ,
ENCLOSURE 2 WASHINGTON Written Assessments The State Environmental Policy Act and implementing guidelines appear to ,
i contain adequate authority and requirements for a written analysis of the impact of a proposed activity which would satisfy the requirements of
$274o(3)(C) of tne Atomic Energy Act (AEA),'as amended (IWAC 197-10-100,
. 405,420,425). It is understood that -the State guidelines pennit prepara-l tion of the EIS by persons outside the lead agency under the direction of l a responsible official within the lead agency. In fact, it is noted that the '
applicant was listed as a contributor to the recent draft statement prepared on the Dawn project. This has the appearances of conflict of interest. The State must do an independent assessment of each of the environmental impact areas delineated in 127W3T(C) of the AEA; assessments by applicants or operators cannot be accepted without independent review by the State. It should be demonstrated how independence -in the State asesssment is assured.
L (10 CFR 5150.31(b)(3)(iii)). The written assessments required by State regula-tions appear to satisfy the requirement of Section 274o(3)(C)(iv) with the exception that there is no provision for addressing decontamination.
I Reoulations - . .
It is noted that the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (bMTRCA)
- requires that Agreement States have, as of November 1981, regulations which, are equivalent to the extent practicable, or more stringent than Comission i regulations on uranium milling. The comission considers that its recently promulgated regulations 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. The Comission regulations
- constitute minimum national standards (10 CFR 5150.31).
!' In connection with this, the staff has ' reviewed Washington's regulations, including those which were scheduled for adoption on November 24, 1980.
Although the State's regulations address many of the significant. issues, they do not adequatel cover all of the points in Appendix A to 10 CFR 40
. and 10 CFR 5150.31(b)y(which, as indicated above, constitute minimum national standards concerning technical, financial and institutional control aspects of uranium mill tailings disposal). Coments-on .the specific provisions of t the State's regulations in tenns of their equivalenc'9 to minimum naticnal l stand' a rds are contained in later sections of this enclosure.
In connection with developing these regulations, the State should recognize that the UMTRCA states that duplication of proceedings conducted by the Comission is not necessary (last sentence of Section 274o of the AEA, as amended). Since the Comission developed the substantive regulations (45 FR 65521) on uranium mills through a full and public rulemaking pro- . .
! ceeding (NUREG-0706), the State may wish to incorporate the record developed
} by the NRC as a part of any rulemaking that may be necessary under State law. In fact, the simplest approach might be for the State to adopt language
- j identical to that contained in the NRC regulations.
,ew.,, e.e.., #- eh eme nem - = = = = = = '
- 9'71 V-W' *--'wyT W T-gut--*9*7WFw W - W-9 N v-'wtpr ey a wpe-n-g-Mw :'a-t-V*+v-*rT-a--*y&MW----* e"te vtmWertr--P"--Mrw-'-e*M*T*we-v"-eewmiw,*ume,a1--w==ee-- eeav -e*" - - - . *-
.. ~__. .
j t .
, S. s . .
~N The Honorable John Spellman- - 2- .
l
- 3. In our evaluation of the readiness of Washington. additional i
staffing will be needed by Washington to meet upgraded requirements 1 of INTRCA. We will give the same weight to resource comitments '
as is given to statutory and regulatory enactments. .
I I wish to acknowledge and comend the State's efforts to expeditiously
! revise and conform its regulations to meet the requirements of INTRCA. '
These past revisions were made based upon earlier draft NRC regulations. !
Final regulations for uranitsa mills were issued by NRC on October 3, 1980, the reporting requirements of which became effective January 5, 1981. Many, although not all, of our coments on the Washington regula-tions reflect differences between the draft and final NRC regulations.
We will be pleased to meet with your staff to discuss these differences
-and to explain our other comments.
To execute the amendment, the Comission must find 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 associated with uranium mill byproduct material, which are equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the Comission. It will be mutually helpful to receive a timetable as early as possible
- outlining Washington's actions to resolve all the issues discussed in Enclosure 2. In this timetable, we suggest a target date of August 1, 1981,
- for fomal submission by Washington of the application for amendment.
While, in our opinion Washington has taken many steps toward compliance with UMTRCA, more needs to be accomplished before an amended agreement can be reached. We will continue to work closely with your staff towards i
. this end. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Mr. !
r G. W. Kerr, Director of NRC's Office of State Programs. l
\
ll Sincemly, Y
John F. Ahearne Chaiman J. Lubenau, w/ encl. 2 !
D. Kunihiro R-V
Enclosures:
Distribution: SA R/F m/ .,d .2 As Stated SECY w/encls. Dir R/F "/=', E OGC w/encls. C. Gordon, w/ enc 1. 2 cc: G. Thomas, Washington w/encls. OPE w/ enc 1s. WA File w/ encl. 2 .
J. Beare, Washington w/encls. EDO w/encls.
R. Scarano, NMSS w/ encl. 2 G. Cunningham, ELD w/ encl. 2
! R. Jones, SD w/ enc 1. 2
, I Higgfnhnthr.m. M w/am ? - 9 o->
- m. h..
.. . A.......... .... SPg,,, ,,,,,,E,LD g , ,,,,JS),,4,, ,
ED0
'""^"*> .
. 9..d,9,n,3,go,,,,, ,,, , , , ..ena,u__ ,, ,,,,,r,__, ,6M_h,, @ l, d _ W .L ".d _ _ . . _ _ _
=c) ... /.u.... . . ./.p. . ./.8. 1. . . . . . .1/.
. .. . .f. /./. 81 .. . . . .. .
. .. . . . 1/. .. ... .1 ....b..f.
l /81
....... ~ .
1/?/81k 1/ /81 we rosu sia no..o uncu mo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "' --
,.smaa,aa wyerw__,,,,,s__ww,, ,,,yr,,,,-rg,ww + ,,.,,,,qn-.wwwwwm,%g.g.a,_,p ,*.M*Me g y-Ts'*r7 ^r y*rf--w- v'deafe 9 -s fv'-s gr-gN p ? 9 rar#-'e----- N =-W
m . .
l . ' ,
A detailed review of the Washington regulations is attached.
Innediate Action at Existing Mills -
l i
During the interim period (before November 1981) 5204(h)(1) of LMTRCA, as '
amended requires Agreement States to implement NRC regulations to the
, maximum extent practicable, as stated in the FR Notice issuing the regula-1 tions -(see 45 FR 65530). The Connission considers it practicable and necessary for Agreement States' mill operators:
(a) to begin now (as opposed to after November 1981) to develop j 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 innediately implement steps to deal with presently occurring impacts such as blowing of tailings.and uncontrolled seepage. -
.By nature of its partic pat i oni in the environmental assessment conducted in connection with the Dawn Mining Company license renewal, the NRC staff is aware that some steps are being taken to upgrade operations at this facility.
However, at the present time, we are unaware of any steps which Washington
- has taken in this matter pertaining to the Western Nuclear, Sherwood facility.
Staff Resources and Orcanizational Relationships The Washington response indicates that 2.55 staff years' effort is currently dedicated to uranium mill licensing activity. As indicated, this is appro-priate for handling a major license renewal; however, it does not take into account the other miscellaneous licensing activities referred to in Criterion 34(a) (Enclosure 'l). The specific agreements which document that such services are, in fact, available should be provided. The experience of the individuals who contribute to the 2.55 staff years of effort should also be provided in order for NRC to detennine whether these, supplemented i by the consultants and other contributing agency personnel referred to, l
constitute an adequately qualified staff.
The Washington response further indicates that the State understands and acknowledges the requirements of Criterion 33 (a-c). The response states that Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) staff have begun developing interagency agreements with other State organizations. Charts indicating which other State organizations will contribute to an environ-
- mental assessment (presumably those offices with which DSHS is developing .
l- agreements) should be provided. A discussion of the area and level of each i group's involvement in a review and.their corresponding contribution to an 1 assessment would be helpful in understanding State compliance with criterion 33a. The State response should also include a discussion of contributions e
examp M** Ne* M s'he ' Me. *$= >.ecg* w. , m ..
- - . . . . . . - - . . . ~ , - . . . _ . _ - . . ..~.-.~.-.,,,,-.,....,n,,,..,_,,,-n.----.n,- , , _ , _ , . . , . - - - - - , , , , . -
1
/ .
_3_ .
- l
! from groups within the DSHS other than the Radiation Control Section. The l arrangements for making such resources available should be documented. - I confinned by budgetary cost centers, and should clearly indicate the lines 1 of comunic.ation and administrative control exercised by the lead agency in order to ensure that the required independent environmental appraisal' will be completed.
! With respect to consultants, we need to know the degree to which the State will rely on consultants, identification of those substantive areas for which consultants will be contracted, an indication of the qualification requirements for such consultants, and the budget planning that will be
, provided to assure these consultative services will be available on a routine and . continuing basis. .
t
' Inspections .
In Mr. Strong's September 24, 1980 letter to Mr. Xerr, it was stated that inspections of uranium mills will be performed by doing one quarter of a complete inspection four times a year (p.3, Item VI.C.1). We see no problem gith this inspection plan provided it is clear that at the end of a year a complete inspection has been performed.
Public Hearings Opportunity for public hearing must be provided rega'rdless of environmental significance. In addition, the scope of the hearing must extend to the question of license issuance, not merely to the adequacy of the reclamation, disposal, decomissioning and decontamination plan (Section 274o.(3)(A)(i),
AEA).
l i
I l
\
l 1
- -, - . ~ - - - . . . -
1 1 ATTACHMENT I
DETAILED REVIEW OF WASHINGTON REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF APPENDIX A,10 CFR 40 Dur review was conducted by comparing the Washington regulations with l Appendix A, 10 CFR 40. A mark-up of Appendix A is included and each poin't
- which the State regulations must cover in an equivalent manner has been annotated ("A", "A-1", "B-1", etc.). The results of our review are summari:ed in the following table where we indicate those points that were adequately covered or not covered in the present Washington regulations.
Following the table, we have pruvided clarifying coments.
ANNOTATED POINTS OF APPENDIX A Section Not Covered Adecuately Covered Introduction B, C, D A 402-52-005+
010(5)
Criterion 1 B, C, A-2, A-3 A-1 -
015(I)
~
D - 020 Criterion 2 A*
Criterion 3 B, C .
A,* D 015(3)
Criterion 4 C-1,* C-2, C-3, E, F, G-1, A -
015(2)(a)
G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, (G*) , B -015(2)(e)
H,* I.* J D -020(2)
' K* -015(3)
L* -015(5)
Criterion 5 A,*.B, C-2, C-3, E-2, E-3, C-1 -015(6)(2)
E-4, G, H, I, J,.K-1, K-2, D* -015(6)(b)
K-3, K-4, K-5, X-6 E-1 -015 6)(b)
N .. _ F -015 6)(c)
L -0156)(d)
Criterion 5 B, E-1, E-2, F* A, C, 0 -020(2)
I + Section of ne Washington regulations where the identified item from NRC regulations is covered. Unless otherwise stated, the citation of Washington regulations is in abbreviated fann and applies to Section WAC 402-52 (for example, Section WAC 402-52-010(1) is cited as -010(1).)
- Clarifying comments are made on this item following the table.
emunes
-**= '*4e - -~ ass emp e .- "
. . , , . a-.._ ,,,., , , _ , , ,_
.ai. -e --n --
,p. y 3 # ,-- >.- :.-t w ..e - e-- sy g.. w r m.4- w.. - e
. . . . . . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ i
, .. i 1
Attachment 2- _')
~
.1 -
i
.i l Section Not Covered' Adequately Covered *
.l l Criterion 7 A -0.15(7 )
B -010(6)
Criterion 8 B, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, A -025(1),-010(7;
} C-6,(C*),E -010 4)
D -0107) ~
4 F -025 3) l Criterion 8a -
A*, B
- Criterion 9 B-2, B-3, C ,
- D , E , F,* A-1 402-22-070
, G,* H, I, K A-2 402-22-070 I -
B-1 402-22-070 J* 402-22-070 (b)
)
Criterion 10* A,B,C Criterion 11* A,* D, E B 402-22-070(6 c C 402-22-070(6 e Criterion 12 B, C A 402-52-020 k
l - CLARIFYING COMMENTS
Introduction:
None f Criterion 1:
j j None i
! Criterien 2:
- 1. . WAC-402-52-015 needs to make a stronger statement regarding the non-proliferation of small waste disposal sites. The present state require-ment is only that consideration be given to the utilization of existing sites. The requirement should indicate that wastes from small operations j shall be disposed of at existing sites unless the impacts of such offsite disposal clearly outweigh the benefits or demonstrate it to be impracticable. .
l
- Clarifying comments are made on this item following the table.
I 4
emes
..- . . - . . _ . . . . _ . ,.-- . ~ . . . . . . _ ._....;,,,, _.
~ . - . . ._ . .
4 Attachment ,
i l
l Criterion 3:
3
! 1. Item ** A - See Comment No. 4, under "Other Cornnents," below. .
i 4 Criterion 4:
i "
- 1. Items C-1 and H -- WAC 402-52-020(2) (first part) addresses this ;
.l
. generally but does not clearly indicate gradual slopes and contouring
- are necessary primarily for erosion control.
- 2. WAC 402-51-010(6), -015(d), -020(4) refer to use of drainage or
, diversion ditches near impoundments; it must be explicitly stated that
< such structures are not acceptable for long-term diversion of waters unless small upstream drainages are involved and it can be clearly shown that they will not require active maintenance.
- 3. WAC 402-52-015(d) calls for upstream catchments to be provided. This conflicts with item A and should be deleted.
~
, 4. Item G -- WAC-402-52-020(5) does not cover all points under item G.
Furthermore, it wrongly suggests that some materials (such as cement 1
- and petroleum products) which would not provide sufficient long-term i stabilization might be acceptable. .. .
- 5. Item I -- WAC-402-52-020(3) should be extended to cover those areas
. on the impoundment which may collect some direct precipitation runoff and drainage. -
3
- 6. Items K and L - See Consnent No. 4, under "Other Comments," below. _ _.
- Criterion 5
! 1. Item A -- WAC 402-52-015(2)(c) inappropriately suggests that seepage can
. be controlled by locating impoundments away from water courses.
li WAC 402-52-015(6) has the appropriate wording.
- 2. Item 0 -- WAC 402-52-015(6)(b) should include a requirement for consideration of conservation.
i l " Where mentioned, " item" refers to those ' items in NRC regulations identified in Attachment.
m .
,, w,. 4e ===so. .- o +e he-.. - w &
t 1 4-
~
Attachment
) .
~
Criterion 6:
- 1. Item F - WAC 402-52-015(2) should be revised to indicate that cove'r i materials of elevated activity are significant only near the surfaca
^
as written in NRC regulations. .
Criterion 8: ,
- 1. Item C.-- Sections WAC 402-52-025(2) and (3) generally treat the subject of yellowcake stack control. The detail in item C is not provided, how- .
, ever.
Criterion 8a:
j 1
, 1. Item A -- The " regular" inspection required in WAC-402-52-010(6) should i be revised to specifically require daily inspections.
I Criterion 9:
- 1. Item A-1 -- Although WAC-402-22-070(6)(b) requires a bond before
- issuance of a license for a new operation, the requirement is only for receipt prior to issuance of ifcense renewal for existing sitas.
This is not acceptable as indicated above, under Imediate Action at Existino Sites. It is necessary for mill operators to develop programs meeting the regulations now.
- 2. Item C - Although the Washington regulations require a pay-as-you-l go fund for long-term site control, the minimum total charge should be covered by the surety amount from the beginning of operations.
. 3. Items F and G -- Although there is a provision in WAC-402-22-070(6)(b) for review and adjustment of the gired bond amount by the State
'! regulatory agency, the specific factors which will be considered in this review and therefore, which could possibly lead to a revision in the required bond amount, should be addressed.
- 4. The ability to exempt licensees, new section RCW 70.110113, is con-trary to 10 CFR 40 Appendix A, Criterion 9 which requires surety for each mill operator before operations begin.
Criterion 10:
1, In view of the differing structures of the Federal and State long-term monitoring funds, there is the possibility that, at some time in the future the fixed maximum amount specified in the Washington regulations ($1,000,000) may not be sufficient 9
eens e m -e e o m .
. - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ..__.m .
~ -.-. . --.- . . . _ _.-_ _
Attachment
- '5 -
- i. 2. Although the Washington regulation (WAC-402-52-020) indicates that no active maintenance can be necessary to preserve isolation, this ,
concept should be explicitly stated where the " Radiation Perpettlal Maintenance Fund" is discussed so that the existance of this fund as entitled does not encourage programs which need on-going active ,
maintenance. .
Criterion 11:
- 1. Section RCW 70.121.060 appears to indicate that the State has some discretion concerning the ability of the operator to transfer . title.
- This judgement is reserved by Section 83(b) of the Atomic Energy Act to the Consnission.-
- 2. Item A -- The section of the requirement for the license to contain tems to provide for' ownership transfer applicable to existing licensees should apply prior to renewal of the license, as stated in WAC-402 '
070(6)(c), and/or prior to termination of the license.
I
- 3. New Section WAC 402-22-070(6)(c)providesthattheowner,priorto
, issuance of the license, must agree to transfer title to tailings di.<posal lands upon license termination. It does not require transfer as a condition precedent to license termination. Under present wording it is at least theoretically possible for the
- license to terminate and the cwner to thereafter breach his agreement to transfer title. .
- 4. NewSectionWAC-402-22-070(6)(c). New Section WAC 70.110 Sec. 3(b).
Exemption from these requirements should run only to lands owned by any Indian Tribe which are subject to a restriction against alienation
, imposed by the U.S. Exemption for all Indian-owned land is much too
' l broad. ,
Other Comments:
- 1. It is not clear that WAC-402-52-015 " Proposed Tailing Disposal Facilities,"
provides that the requirements, censiderations and objectives contained therein are applicable at existing sites as it must. In general, while the alternatives for tailings disposal are more limited at existing sites than at new facilities, evaluation of programs'at existing mills must be done in tenns of all of the Appendix A to 10 CFR 40 Criteria, except as specifically noted in Appendix A. As described in 45 FR 65524 l " Existing Sites" and NUREG-0706 Section 12.4, the determination of the ll exact extent to which measures are taken to meet Appendix A Criteria at existing mills can only be detennined on a site specific basis; i general exclusions for existing sites as indicated by WAC-42-52-015 '
are inappropriate.
. ,.mune -
em.*#.. . ,e- a - s.r e
-s.,.,._ .,,p_,,_,.., ,,g,,.. ,. , , , , . ,,, _ y
..o .~ ~ ~ . _ . + , --,s . , . , , _ ._r,.,_...,,., -, - , m..w. .gm.,
1 l- ,
~ ~~
Attachment - 6-
+ 2. WAC-402-52-010(2), if kept in final regulations, should go further than it does to prohibit erosion of the tailings retention system and not just of the tailings themselves.
?. WAC-402-52-010(9) should state that the Department cannot waive a requirement which is derived from NRC regulations which are minimum national standards.
- 4. The NRC staff will review amended Washington regulations to determine that the items identified in the above Table are fully covered in the amended reg'ulations. However, in itemizing Appendix A Criteria as shown in Attachment 2, some of the " fine points" in the Appendix A Criteria are not brought out. The final wording of Appendix A Criteria was carefully worked out after considering numerous public coments on the draft criteria (see Appendix A to NUREG-0706). As a result, in revising its regulations, the State should carefully consider the wording of each of the Appendix A Criteria noted as " covered" in the Table, and where different words are used in State regulations to determine that it is not significant.
- An example of this is Item A of Criterion 3. The definition of below grade is not included in Washington regulations; this definition was added for clarification to NRC regulations following many coments on the matter in the draft NRC regulations.
e e
4 0
-- me M 9
e
-- - .-w-a w ey *v- ae-,---v w- - - -e+Py r
- - - ' - y- +- reyee-v--*wm3 --ev e-aw-= wip- "' e w' == gi- --Wp
~ ~
-_ . -. - - - . ._ i ...
A umTuo stuns rF3 j Tv5 r9Ij
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION waswwaTow.o.c.2oses 8[te gg-y**CT/s*** -
January 29, 1981 OPPER OP THE .
, cwamuau
! The Honorable William P. Clements ~
i Governor of Texas -
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Governor Clements:
On March 1,1963, Texas became an Agreement State under Section 274 of i the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. "Under the provisions of this Act, Texas assumed, under agreement with the AEC (now NRC), certain regulatory j 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 Atcmic Energy Act as amended by the Uranium j Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), Agreement States 1 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 smoothly. The purpose of this l 1etter is to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Bernstein and his staff and 1 to identify remaining actions which Texas must accomplish for a timely amended agreement.
{
- As a result of infonnation 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 and tailings. Criteria for this purpose have been developed with Agreement State input and State coments were factored in when consistent with NRC rules and policies (Enclosure 1). Additional infonnation 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 I several of the actions still needed: -
i
- 1. Texas has not yet promulgated enabling legislation and 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.
9/C2%(cCC!y 6,ew..,_,m,,._ , , .--#. ._ ,,,.,.m ,,,, ,,m, .. ,.-..,_,_,...,,,m_,.e,.,r__.,.,_,..m ...,c,,m.,_,.,_,,....,,_, - . - . , , _ _ _ . . - -
e.-
- g
. -e , -O e- w e -
w g, -
e 1
1
~
! The Honorable William P. Clements E '
l l
- 3. In our evaluation of the readiness of Texas, additional staffing will be needed by Texas to meet upgraded requirements of UMTRCA.
"; .d" ;h - same weism. w . uwm . . . . . . i L at; o L vimi I
+n e+ +u+- o and ,sm e , -. '--_ t , ,
e .
To execute the amendment, the Comission must find not only that the State uranium milling regulatory program erovides adequate protection of the public health and safety and is generally compatible with the Commission's program l of ngulation, but also that the State has adopted standards for the protection of the public health, safety,and the environment from radiation hazards asso-j ciated with uranium mill byproduct material, which are equivalent to, or more i stringent than, those of the Comission.. 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 'initia1' steps toward compliance with UMTRCA. there is much to be accomplished before an amended agreement can br 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. Karr,
- Of rector of NRC's Office of Stata Programs.
Sincerely, Origi.nal Signed 37 John ?.'Absarne
. John F. Ahearne '
Chaiman ,
Enclosures:
As' Stated .
C/R NOTE: Circulated as Chairman's cc: Dr. Bernstein, Texas w/ enc 1. corresoondence on 1/23/80.
D.1.acker, Texas w/ enc 1. .
R 3
CR-8T-009 4,3ECY:C/R:gschuetze f .
1/29/81 R.Scarano, NMSS w/ encl.
Distri: SECY w/ encl. LHigginbo tham, IE w/ encl.
OGC w/ encl. A1Exas File (record) w/ encl.
! OPE w/ encl.
I Epo CGordon w/ encl.
ELD w JLubenau
' G.
R. Cunningham,/
Jones, SD w encl./ encl. RDoda w/ encl.
JMontgomery, NRC:IV w/ encl. Dir. RF Ch SA RF f- / G La. pm f/e d $ /E' m--u. .
o' nM "b "5 , ,,,
j ; 5 lj',,' h7""
- em> 1/..l.N...
1 81 ..../4/81
......... ................. 1/f/81 1/j7 /81 1/ /81M
.....;.)........g.G......[./55"..".."..". ..... "..".."
ac rosu sie no. ei siiicw ca.e OFFICIAL R E' CORD COPY ws*c '*n-mm e- w t--g-- ,- e.-c,yas,.% ,-m- --w-p.-emm-.,-w--- e ew -e.m .-+ve. atww*-- --*w .wm -g - -*7 1
[.,e ~
. . a q p. a ,us. Su. v. ur.-tmay 'lanuary 21 IvarI / Nottess ~ ~
National Advisory Conedttee on signed et Washtasies. D.C. Ode tsch day and amended by Pub. !. 95 406
- coeupational Satety and Healttit FuS of Janearyises. ,
approved November a.1sra.'Ibese
{
Committee Mesting and Subgroup Eul Bleshem. criteria are intended to indicata factars s Moedng .
Aessstaatseereserre/Zeber. which the Commissionistands to -
- Notice is hereby given that th,* lyR ous e.am seso.a.es mes vang consider in APP.vmai new y an =ndad
- National Advisory Committaa ou emaisessees m
- agruments.They are not fatanded to .- -
.O rpationa! Safsty and Health limit Commission discretism in viewing
- indivianal agreements or ====ad==a*=-
-(NACOSH) will meet on February 3- '. NUC1. EAR REGUL.ATORY .. e
)
1981.ct the Frances Perkins Department ' COMMISSION
- In accordance with these statutory .
. cf !. abor Building. Room N+437. Third provisions, when an agreement between Street and Constrution Avcua.N.W.,
. / t a Stata and the NRCla affected the .
Crfterte for Guidance of States and Washington D.C.The meetings win NRC in Disoontinuance of NRC Comadssion wuldiscondnesits begin at 9:00 a.m. the public is invited to Reguietory Authertry and Assumption regulatory authority within that State attend.. Thereof by States Througtt Agreement over one or more of the following e-na Nntional Advisory Co=unittee ,,g,,g,1,. byproduct matarial as defined
- answev: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory in Section11e(1)of the Act was estabilahad under Sectfon 7(al of Commission. (radioisotopes). 6,..,d e material as the Occupational Safety and Hashh Act acncwe Statement of Po!!cy. -
g j cf1970 (:S U.S.C. 656) to advise the dd"=d in Section lie (:) of the Act (miH tailings or wastes). source matrefal
, Secretary ofI. abor and the Secretary of ' sUtoa4ARY:The Nucisar Regulatorf
! Esalth. Education and Welfare on (uranium and therium). special naciser f-tW=*lon has revised citaria its forstatsmant of material (uraniu:n 253. urantam :35 and 1 martars relating to the' administration of the Act, policyregarding States and NRC in disradan=ae= of guidance of n1=*a4=) in quantities not suf5cient to ',
' form a criticalmass and permansai Wedar.sda . February 25.1981 wG be NRC regulstory authority and disposal oflow-level waste containing devoted to S b up matings.The assumption of regulatory euthority by one or more of the materials stated Subgroups wG cuss. States through agrument.This actionis above but not 6 N^= min tailings. *
- Reproductive Hazards. n*#87 #
- 2. An ag sement may be effected I safety and Heahh I3ects of New Energy update the poucy statement, to anew .
' g ,, .
States to enter into agreements forlow- betwun a State and NRC:(1) upon .
certification by the Govemot that the 3.Inf tfce Systems for N1C5H/CSHA level waste only, and to b f .te the Prienry Setting. provtsions and State has a program for b control of ents of the Uranium MG T tsdiation hazards adequate to protect The agenda for F1bruary 28 and r Radiation Control the public health and safety with respect wGlinclude reports on QSHA and Act of1278. Adoptics of this policy win
- allow !sterested States to enterinto to the materials within the State covered
- NIC5H activities, a discussion of repeat by the proposed agreeme6t and the rielations, and discussions of other a emer.ts with the NRC and regulate State desires to assume regulatory
- safety and health matters relating to 1 .
level wute sites only. Addiconally.
responsibuin for such =aterials: and (21 DSHA and NICSH. those States that meet the criteria for after a finding by the Commission that b regulation of uranium mins and Written data or views concerning the Sta te program is in accordance with tanings may exercise regulatory b nquiremets cf s4== Man a of these ag:nda items mey be submitted to authority over these sources as provided the Division of Consumer Afairs. Such by the Uranium MID Tailings Radiation section r4 and in all other respects i!ocuments wnica are received before compatible with the O="da-ion's ;
Control Act of1978.as amended. program for the regulation of such 6e scheduled meeting dates prefershly The reyfud statement of policT l with :D copies, will ne presented to the m usets b fou ' principal changes:- materials, and is adequate to protect the 7.ommittu and incluced in the ofncial :. Modification of t Mon r to pubuc hul'.h ed safety we rupect to scord of the proceedings. allow a State to sees, e agreement for the materials covered by the proposed '
' Anyone who wishes to make an oral the regulation of low. level waste as a agreement. lt is also necessary that the sresentation should notify the Division separate cat State have ensbunglegisladen .
..g ,, W.ts Govanor to utarinto
-! Consumn AEairs before the muting 2. Inclusion ,dditienal citaria for fate. Th2 rsquest should include the States wishing to continue regulating nch an agrumet.
unsunt of time desired, the capacityin uranium and thonum processors and 3,73, origmal criteria ,,,, anu' j chich the peson wG appear and a brief mHI tailings after November 8.1981. on March 24.1981 (26 FR 2537)'nher mtlins of the content of th,
- res: station. Oral pnsentations wfD be
- 3. Editorial and clarifying changes to discussions with various State oQcials ,
and other State representatives, to
['
l make the statement current. i
- cheduled at the discretion of the eatss
- This policy statement is e5ective provide guldance and assistance to tha .
ia!.rman of the Committee to the extant January 23,1981. States and the AEC(now NRC)in '
.mch time permits. developing a regulatory program which pon puntwsn mwonn4ATsow cowTacTt would be ecmpatible with that of the 1
For additional information contact John F. Xandig. OQce of State Programs. NRC. The criteria wee circulated
%rence page. Division of Censumer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:nmission. I I Anairs. Occ.:pational Salety and among States. r edwal agencies, labor. 1 Washington. D.C. :c353. telepnene: 302- and industry, and other mtarested Nesith Ad=inistration.3rd. Street and
- 8" *# #8**' l' Constfrution Avenue.N.W Rm.
f , ,,,,,y,,, ggg3 )
N3c33. Washington, D.C. 2C=c. 1.These criteria were developed to authority consider the total accumula'ted implement a program. authorized by occupational radiation exposure of .
Telephene :=/s:%ec2O Pub.l 86-373 which was enacted in the individuals. To facilitate such an OIIlcial records of the meetings wm form of a new uction to the Atomic appoach, it is the view of the NRC that
.e avausble for public inspection at the ' Energy Act (Section r4) and approved an overall'rsdiation protection program hvisien of Consumer Agairs. by the President on September 23,1959 la desirsble.The maximum scope of ,
I a.
.-- ype- * - ~ ~ * *
.e T*e'ev'v'W- ry--g-et9Tyr wvMTW-r---yNWe arg'ir-wp* *Wiwe yw*meyw% e -wvaarve- t---t w wwas w-vwin e wwpwww----_ w--+--w - w-e +-=e+----m-- w- - - - - e
--~ - - - , -
.e .
- such Statis radiation protecton exposure ofIndividuals. lac!uding thzt suneys, and ^~-A o! materials
- (b)
, program is not. bowever, a necessary or from sourc:s which an not regulated by keep records of the receipt and transfer ,
y*a appropnele subject for coverage in the it, of the materials:(c) report atht criteria. Consequently. tse entaria are LSurveys. Monitoring. Appropriato incidents involving the materiala, es
.. sGent on the question of whether a State seveys and personnel monitonng under presanbed by the regulatory authority; .
should have a total rerdatory program the clow supervision of technically (d) make avaSaals upon aquest of a
- covering aD sources of radiation, competent people an asuntialin former employn a report of the includng those not subject to control by ach2eving rsc2ological pntection and employee's s.xposure to radiation:(e) at the NRC uncer the Atomic F.nergy Act, shall be made in determining mquest of an employee advise the
- such as x rays rediu=. accelerstors, etc. compliance with safety regulations. ,
e=ployn cf his or her sm:nal radiation i 3. These revised critana provide for 6. Labels. Signs. Spicoss. It is exposure: and (f) Inform each employee
, ! entering into an agreement for a desirabia to achieve unifor=!ty in in w-iting when the employu has separate ca& gory of materials. namely, labels, signs and symbols, and the received radiation exposure in excess of low-level waste matetalin pw=anent posting therect However. it is essential the presenbed limits.'
disposal facilities. They also provide that there be uniformity in labels, signs. t1 Additions /Raguusments and .
new critena for States wuhing to and sy=bols affxed to radioactve Ixemptions. Consistant with h over:3 I
- continue regulating urshium and thorium products which an
- ransfarnd from cr.tena here enumerated and to
- processing .and the wutes resultir.g person to person. a-4ta specal came or 7.lnstrucdon. Persons working in or circu= itances, the State regulatory
~
'1 therefrem under the provtsions of the
- Uraniu= Mill Tallings Ra dation Control fnquanting restricted areas 8shan be authority shan be authonzed in Act of1978 (Pub.L 95 404) aftar instructed with respect to the health individual cases to impose additional Nove=ber E.1381. The rettsed critena naks assocfsted with exposure to requi.ements to protect health and also contain a number of editorial
- redicactive materials and in precautions safety, or to grs=t necesskry exemptiens changes such as changing AEC to NRC to mee exposurs. Workers shall which wC1not jeopardize health and where appropriate to conform to pnsent have de nght to request tordatory safety. i
' practice andlaw. authority bspeedens as per to CFR 19 p 8.bquiries about detafs of de secten 19.15 and to be repnsented ## N* #I A#b.## #.
critana er other aspect.: cf Se NRC dunng bspeedons as speciSed in Federal. State Relations Program should secton 19.14 of to CFR 19. 11PriorErcluction ofHezerds and '
be addressed to the Of5ee of State 8. Sect ge. I.Jeansed radicacdve Uses. Irceptions. In the present state of Prog ams. U.S.Nuc!aar Regulator 7 matsnal b storage shad be u=nd k=owledge. It !s neces sarv in regulating f%--*sion. W ashingten. D.C. 20333. against unauthonzed removal. de possessio: and use of byprocuc:.
m,% : 9. Wes:e Disposa4 The standards for source and special nuc!aar matenals the disposal of radioactive materials dat de State regulatory audority Objectives into.the air. water, and sewen. and requin the sub=ission of information burialin de soil shall be in aecordance c' and evaluaten of. de potental 1.Pr=tec:! n. A State regulatcry hazarns and de capabuity of the user er
. -ros t= shan be designed to protect de wiiPart :0. Holden of radioactve Sea 16 and safety of 6e people against material desinns to nlesse or dispose of possessor prior to his, receipt of the quanttes in excess of de prucnbed =sterials.This citanon is subject to
. radation hazards.
. -limits saan be required to obtain special .certain exceptfons and to continuing -
Radic:a.ca Protecdon Stancards
- perndssion f om b approphate . resp;raisal as knowledge and
- .5:nnderds.T*at State regulatory regulatory authenty, experience in the stemic energy field 10.Regdc:!cas Goverr:ing Shipmen: mcease. Trequently there are. and >
program shad adopt a set of standaris for protecdon against radiation. which increasingly in the future then may be.
afRadiocerive Metericls. The State categories of materials and uses as to shau apply to byproduct. source and shall to the extent of its brisdiction promulgate agulations applicable to the whick Sete is su!Scient knowledge to special nuclear matenals in quantities shipment of radioacuve :caterials, such per:m possessica and use without pric not su!!cient to form a entical mass. evnluation of the hazards and the
- 3. Uniformityin Radia: ion Standards. regulations to be compauble wtth those established by the U.S. Department of capabiHry of 6e pesusser and user.
! It is tmportant to strive for uniformity in t technical de5miticas and t=- Wlogy. Transportation and other agencies of the "" hen categories faH into two groupe--
then materials and uses whics may be l particularly.as related to such things as United States whose funsdiction over interstate sh!; ment of such =aterials
. completely exempt from regulatory t=fts of measmement and rad!ation controls, and those matarials and uses
- dose.There shall be t. iformity on necessarily congenes. State regulations regarding trans ation of redoactve in whichsanctions for =isuee are .
l max: mum permissible dous andleeels maintained widout pre.evaluaton cf of ndladon and concenntions of matenals must compatible with 10 l the bdividual possession or use. In radioactivity, ae Sxed by Part :0 of the CFR Part 71.
- 1:. Records andReperts. The State sudon=ng research and development NRC ngulaticas based on of5ciaDy or oder actvities involvmf =ultiple approved radiation protection guides. regu! story prog a= shaj require sat
- * *
- CI ?* dI C
- C*'* = *** 15' * *
- N *=
- 4. "'ot:1 Oc=pc:fons!Radic:ica holders and usen of radioacnve
=atenals (a) =aintain reccrds covenng institution has people v.6 extensive
, Irposuse.The ngulatcry autnerity shad 'ra=ing and expenence, the State I enssider de total .
ec=patiemal,rediaton penennel rad.iation expostres. radatics rerdatory authenry =ay wish to l
i be emen Jm sni . epied tii rebruarysset '%tneed me mear., any ma scuru is provide a =eans for auden=ng broad
! use Cf Osterials widou! evaluatmg e:ch (ts TR r.sr.Ma.rct. *4.iset, and a- d in wtuch is cc:tro5ed trr the tocassee for :ne purpose Nove ber 19e! tm TR iso 64'. December 4. toast of rea6scen prosecuos of ad.tvicuals froen exposure speciSC use.
w , .dn. at cr.a ,o m zm a lan tone to in ridaen sad r.4maem maiuma.winemd 14.5vahietion Criteric. In evaluatir.
ncee um annenry of ine t!.5. Lesarnment of ana* ana!J not ec:m an ana neo sa mioental l
- rsaspersauas and Orgascameo caanse a NC17. evartm. shmeush a separtie room or rooms is a e Nacsal to use radcactive =atenals.
85essester., Sute reeW.auens and State legmauen nsanssual tiuole.mg may be set apart as a mmeed the regulatory audenfy saal! deter- .ine wc: pe canismi m.au cniera asuncia ed. area.
the adequacy of the applicant's!aciliue l
i
. . _ . - . . , . , _ _ , , , , _ . _ -.-,-,.,.-_--,_,--_----,,,..m.-,.-mm.,,__m,.m. . . , . _ . ~ . _ , . ~ , , , - , , >-----..1
w.m. recesua steg1 star / vol to, no. In / rrtasy. Jannary .%.1981 / Nat1cas
-1 ' a=d safsty equipment his trutningredi and-..i e the h psg .d use to be experience in this Seld.De hs ',. d l cxperience in the use of th2 matenals evaluated and M_--M nis requirse and speedic traaning of these persons j
- for th) purpose requested, and his competency to evaluate various willin6cate to same extent their *
, p.og a. administrative costrnas. States potential r=*alare=1 hasanis posennal role in the regulatory -
- smould develop M- doonmer e far associated with the m.any uses es Dese trainees, of course. be used 4 use bylicense applicants this F-- radioactiva mateial and includen initially to evaluate and inspect these. * .
l 9euld be consistent with NRC %=--* concentrations of radioecuve mmarials applications of radioactivanatorials -
! -nd regulatory guides for various in ah and water conditions of shieldhg.
l categcries oflicensed activities. whica ses considered routine or more .
the making of rs&ation ===-- e standardized from the rs& anon safety
- 13. Human use. ne use af radioactve knowledge af radiagon instru=ams- standpoint, for ex.ampla.inspeedom of 4
l tr.:tcials and todiac=n on or =their hu=ans selecnos use and calibratinn- . industrialseuses smaDresearch j sha!! not be pe =ttted ex=ept b laboratory design. a=*=an= tion programs, and diagnosticmedica!
- p.=pefy qual 15ed penons (nar=yany control, other general prtaciples and programs. As they gain aperwne= and Heensed $ysicians) possessing practices of redation protecnon, and competance in the Sald. tramees could
- escribed *-" expedance k b use of management controls in assuring be used progressively to deal withlhe use of rudo.notopes or radiatier- adherence to safety procedures. In order more cor= plex or difnenlt types of - -
4 ,p,,gfon
. to evaluate some complex cases. b rn&oace.ve material appucations. Itis ,
State regulatory staf may need to be desirable that such tramees have a e
- 26. Arpose.Ingdency.no possession and use of radioactve supplemented by consultants or other bachelor's degree or equavelant in the State agencies with expertise.in geology, phyeical or life a s== == and specisc i
=atetals shan be subica to i=spe= tion training in reestion protecnon.In by the regulatory authority and shall be hydrology, weter quauty. radiobrelogy and engineertos decipunes. d=+==W the regarement fw .
subi:ct to se pe:famance nf tants, as W perfwm b funcdonsinvolved b academic trainmg of in6viduals in aD of .
nquimd by the mgulatory authority. evaluation and inspection. It is desirable the immscing categories proper .
Inspecucc rnd testing is condue:ed to canarderation should be given to deter = ins. and to assist in obta==g. ersonnel educated and th'at usud there6 ee be p#ysical and/w Efe equivalent competency wcich has ben ce=pliance with regulatory gained by apprepriate technical and sciences. !ncludicg biclogy, chemistry. .
m p ts m enta, physics and engineering. and ist the radation ptacuan expenance.
rmqency ofinspeedon shan be personne! have had training and !!is recosmzed that radoscove
, related directly to the amount and lcud matsn,als and their uses are so vaned of =atena! and type of operation exponence 6 radiadon ptecdon. Tor
,x,.nple. b pman who wG h that the evaluadon andinspection licenstd. and it saan be adequate to functions win requin skius and
.nsum es=puanca. mspesible for & actual pufamane=
expcie.ca h tse dMessit @~ nun ==
. in laspecticas Compulsory.1. ice = sees of evaluation and inspection of an of the which w!I! not always reside in one snall be under obligamon bylaw to various uses of byproduct. tource and special nuclear material which might { ave men.De agulaton provide accass to inspecten.
come to b regulat"Y body should have tse composite of saewity should such skius either 1:.Not!5cetien of Assu!r.: of in its employ or at its command, not Insp ctich lJ!censees are entit!ad to be "" * -
, ,g only for routine functions. but also for i acvised of the results of inspections and emergency cases. I toseu as to whatbar or not they arein protection. It is desirable that such a
- - peson have a hchle's degree or Specic/NuclearMeterialSource
- P equivalentin the physical orlife Macarialand Triflum T. -forcament sciences, and speci5c training. radiation protection. 21. Coodidons 4plicable to Special l 1s.Fnforcac:ent. Possession and use Nuclear Moterial. Source Moserial cad
, ot radioactive matedals should k It is rv+=d hatt sere wm also bt Tritium. Nothing in the State's
' a= enable to sr.!arceman $roughlegal persons in the program pefning a regulatory program shad interfere with sanctions, and the ngulato y andenty more limtted function in evaluation and the duties imposed on theholder of the
- shan be equipped or assistad by law inspectior nase persons wW perform materials by the NRC. for example se wt.h the necessary powers for prompt the day-to-day worn of the mgulatorY duty to report to the NRC. on NRC .
enforcement. nis may inchada, as progrum and dealwith both rootine .
appropria.a. administrative ramA=s presenbed forms (1) t.ansfers of special situations as wen as some which wiH be nuclear material, source matadal and i
looking toward issuance of ordea out of the ordnary.Lesa pesons i*
tritiusc. and (2) periodic inventory data.
requiring afirmative action or , shon!d haver a bachelor's degree or 22. Specia/ Nuclear A(ataria/ Defined. e suspsesion or revocation of 6a right to equivujent inthe physical or life Specialnuciemtarial !n quantitles ;
pcssess and use matenals.and the sciences training in heal & physics. and not suf5cient to form a critical masa, for ip;poundhg of matenals, the obtaining approximately two years of semal work present ;n:rposes means uranium of injunceve relief and se imposing of experience in the field of mdastion ennched in de isotope U-235 ist c:vi! c =. inal penalties. protectier. quandtfes not exceeding 250 s ams of ne foregoing are considered cor:tained U-:25: uranium :23 in e,smel
, desirable qualifications for de staff who quantties not exceedi .g :co g tms:
- . Qucli'icericas of Regulatory cad v.!! be responsible for the ectual plutoniu= in quantities not exceeding -
- 1. speeden personne!. ne regulate y peformance of evaluation and 200 grams: or any ecmhination of them anncy shall be sta!!ed wi2 suscient inspection. In addition. Sen wiD in accordance with the foHowmg -
- amed pe sonnel. pnnt evaluation c! probably be trainees associated wt$ the fannula:Fo each kind of special a;clicaticas ferlicenses or regulatnry progrs= who wiH have as nuclear =rteria:. deter =ine the ratio autnancasons and inspeedon c! acadesme hacxground in the physical or between tae quantity of ist special I 'scansses =ust be conducted by persons life sciences as well as varym; amounts nuclear matenal and the quannty posscesmg the training and expenence of speciSc training in radiacon speci5ed above for the same kind of relevant to the type andlevel of protection but little at no actual work special nuclear matarial.ne sum af
. l
- . - . - . . 1
. . - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - . _ _ - - - - - - . - - - _ - - - - - - . ~ . - . - - - - - - - l
1 . such ratios for at of the kinds of special the foDowing quantities la combination for the DOE at 115. Government. owned nuclear =aterialin combination should would not exneed be limitation and are or controDed sites:
f not exceed '1" (l.a. u=dty). For example, widin the formula. as foUmws: b. Prime contractors performing
. research in. or development.
175 (Scans can.tained U-23S)
- 50 (grans U-223)
- 50 (;rans Pu)
- I manufacture. storage. testing. or * ,
transportation of, stomic weapons or l MO 200 200 components thereof; *
- c. P:tme contractors using or operstbg (This def!=! tion is subject to change by discontinuance of NRC regulatory nudsar reactors or other nuclear future Commission rule er regulatioc.) authority and the assumption of devices in at.S. Government-owned regulatory authonry by the State may vehicle or vesseh and Ad ss.*- 6 relate to ey one or more of the d. Any other prime contractor or
- 23. State praedces for assuring the fair foUowing categories of matenals within subcontractor of DOE or NRC when the and impartial ad==ist ation of the Stata, as conte = plated by Public State and the NRO jointly deter =be (i) regula tory law, induding provision !ct Law 26 3n and Public Law 95-604- that, under the terms of the contract or public participation where appropriate. a.3yproduct =aterials as deined in subcontract, there is adequate should be inccrporated in procedures secten 11e(1) of the Ac'- asrurance that the work thereunder can for: h.Byproduer=aterials as deined in be accomplished without undue risk to a.For=*tlation of rules of general secdon tie (:) of the Act. the public health and safety and (ii) that applicabihtyt . c. Source materials- the exa=ption of such contractor or
, b. Approvmg or denying applications d'Special nuclear materials in subcone ac:ct b suthonzad by law, tot licenses or authc..2.ation to possess quantities not suficient to form a and use radioactive =aterials, and citical mass.
Additional Criteria for States Regulating
- c. Taking disciplina.y -
actions agabst a. Low level wastes in permanent Uranmm or Docum P ocessors and licensass. . disposal faciuties, as denned by statute Wastes Resulting norsfrom After Arrengements for Discontinuing NRC or Com=ission rules or reg (tlatiens November a. issi gj,g., containing one er more of e matenals gg,,
stated in a. c. and d above but not 24.Ste:e Agencyresignation. The including byproduct =aterial as de".ned 29. State statutes or duly promulgated State should :ndicate wnich agency or l in Secten tie (:) of the Act: regulations should be enacted. !! not l l
agencies win have audenty for ca=y=g but must relate to the whole of such already 6 placa. to =ake dear State 1 l
on the preg a= and shodd proMee the category or categenes and not to a part authonty to ca=y out the requirements
,NRC with a - ,ary of dat legal or Public Law s5 4M. Uranium MiB of any catego.y.*Ifless than the Sve l l
su:hority.Dere smould be assuruces categories are mcluded in any Tailings Radiatica Coneol Act l against duplicate regdatien and discen:inuance of junsdicton. piTRCA)as foHows-becsing by State and,1ccal authorities- discontnuance of NRC regulatory a. Authority to regdate the tailings or and it =ay be oestrame dat there be a sudority ed the assumption of wastes produced by the extraction or single or can:ral regulatory audority, regulatory authority by the State of the e=ceneation of uranium or thonum hsting Mpeanses and othe s =ay be accomplished frem any on processed primarily for its Pending Applications. In effecting the source matenal content.
subsequetly by an amendment or by a discontinuance of furisdiction. later agreement. b. nat an adequate surety (under appropriate arrange =ents will be made ter:-s established by regula tion) will be The as ee=ent may incerporate by by NRC and the State to ensure that reference provisions of other docu=ents, provided by the licansee to assure the there will be no interference with or kdadi. g tese entena, and the completion of aH requirements
, interrupuen of licassed activities or es agreement shad be deemed to es:ablished by the (cite appropriate processms oflicense applications by incorporate without speciSc reference State agency) for 6e decontaminatier.
reason of de transfer.For example, one the provisions of Pub. L. m ud Pub. decommissioning, and reclamation of approach =ight be that the State,in sites, structures, and egmpment used in L sm ud the related provisions of assuming jurisdicten. enu!d recognize the Atomic Energy Ac:. confectim with de generation or and conum in erect for an A,.rangements should be made for the disposal of such byroduct material.
appropriate period of time under State reciprocal recognition of State licenses c. If in the Stater licensing and law, existing NRC licenses, including and Federal licenses in connection with regulation of byproduct matenal or of licenses for which timely applicatir ns out of.the junsdicton operations by a any activity which producas byproduct for renewal have been Eled. except State or Federallicenses.. material the State ceUec:a hmda from where good cause warrants the earlier 28.NRC end Descr: ment of f.narry the licensee or its surety for lens. term renar-instion or termination of the c,,:7,,,,,, ne State should provide surveitance and =aintenanes of such
. licase. ,
exe=ptions for NRC and DOE material, the total amount of the hmds 28 R*l8tJo^8 With I'd"81 con:racto s which an substantiaDy collected by the State shan be
. Cove =: ment cod 0:her 5:cres. There eqdvalent to de IcIlowing enemptions: transfe=ed to the U.S. if custody of the saould be an inte change =f Feceral a d a. Prime centractors perfer=ing work byproduct material and its disposal site State in!crmation anc ass: stance in is transferred to the Feceral cor.nectice wid de issua*ce of Covernment upCn termination Cf the
- A State wbch deu act wQ4 to coeuaw regulallCes andl!Oenses C ,,,.daaen et urame= and thorium procepo-s and aubori stices.1 Spect:n oflicensees.
Irvyroouc: catarial as deaned in Secuen it's.::) of Stele license. (See *0 CFR 150.00.) l! no deladi has oc==ed and the I reporting of incidtsts cd Violations. the Atosuc Z.twrgy As es amenced. alter NovemDer recla=ation or other bonded activity has a an y a education problems.Q88jgnQo andy been performed. hmds for the purpose
. Cov'er:pe.d uun Acrend=ent.r. ,,, 3m, o g,, ,,,,,, ,, , p ,,,,,,,
Aec;precin. An agree =ent providing for j .
- p. .
~
~
7544 Tederal Resisier / Yol. 46. No. 25 / F*riday. January 2.1981/ Notfess a$e not to be transferred.to the Federal 31.111s pruferable est Staar sta:: tes or Federal agencies in properms the Covem:nent.no funds ~"W by the contata the provtsions of Sectiour a of the envu-"=1 =a====== sondd State shad be saf$cient u assure Model Act.But the followmginnth a d="T-a te a lead assney I- ..vv.M.W
~~"=*ca Mth the agulatians tha a-HN by adopdon of eithar and coordinating preparation of this * ,-
' Con =rission establishes pursuant to gu.n= by regulation or ' ache 4e=1 actua -J ===r===ent.lcss .
S-etion te:X of the AtendeIsegy Am. crite:ia.In.any casa authority for their normaDy vu thatthazadiatica f.In the issuances of b==== an. implementatiotr should be adequateiy control agency in Agreement States wGI
@pm: fty for wrfrien co=ments. supported by statute, regulation or case be the lead agency. Do be.h. premise is public hearing (with transcript) and law as datamened by the State Attorney that 6a land agency is =p-d to cross ammkation is nquired. General, pnpan the a ==a+=1 ==ame===wt
~
e.6 the issuances oflicenses, a h-the hada,* -- and regulation of ores Utuization of an applicant's mitten detar=ination of the action to be processed prtmarily for tasir source environmentalnport inlien of a lead taken based upon evidenne presented material content and for the disposal of agency nuessment of the -m- d .
d::rms the public co ment period'and byproduct material, procedures shad be project is not adequate or appropriata.
which is subject to jm%.af nyiew La- estabushed which provide a written However, t% lead agencymay prepare reqt; ired. analysis of the impact on the an enytron:nental assessment based .
- f. A ban on majar construcdon prior to environment of the Scanning activity. upon an applicant's envimamental .
comp!stion of'the aforementioned his-analynic shah ber avanable to the report. Other creeble information may .
stipuladans. Psh!!c before co nmar= d " of- be uti".ned
. by the Stata as long as sus
- 3. An opportunity shad be provided hearings and shaIlindade infor=ation is veri 5ed and dar-a-at=d for public pardcipation through witten a. An asseesment of the radiological - by the Stata. -
en - ,.er public haarings. and judicial and nonradiological public health ciWhen a lead ageneris designated. .
revi:w of rules. inspects: . that agency should coordinate 30.1= the enac: ment of any supporting b. An assessment,of any!= pact on preparatics of the statement.ne other legislation. de State shodd take inin any body cf wate er groundwater: agencies involved should provide account the reservations of authcrity to c. Cons 2cersten of alternatives to the assistance with respect to their anas of the U.S. in UMTRCA as stated in 10 CFA licesed a,civit:es: and jurisdic: ion and expedsa. Factors
- d. Conssceratzon oflong-term impacts relevant in obtaining usistance from uc.234 and s - =~~-=d by the oflicensed activities (see Itam 36b.(1). other agencies include the applicable foHowms a.The esta, bushment cf -*i--* Regulations statutory authority. the time sequen e in standards gover: sag nelamation. long. which the agencies become involved, p ate adons a'n odd W the = age!!ude cf theirinvolvemet. and term sntveslance or =aintenance, and dI relative expertise with respect to the ownership cf the byproduct =aterial. "i'n**m##
and necessayI'3*I'l*#7 W ta P'9*'**"
- b. The deter .ination dat prior to the project's environmentaf efects.
'*U '8'
- U' " In order to bring an envaronmental terminaden of a licansa the licanses has to the extent prac:icable er mere assess nent M a sausfacory concu coc. plied M6 decontami ta*. stan M decommissioning and redamat[on staeds. and ownership requiremen:s
'f n
,gg ns by .
S' h la high!)* re"-- "*' M Ga! an initial scoping occu=ent be oeveloped which for sites at which byproduct matarialis h jaQ Qd yR clearly delinentes the area and scope of work to be puformed by each agency.
preseni, gg within a given time constraint.
- c. The requirement that prior to ter=ination of any Heense for byproduct Crycruzafiacc/Ahadips WitAl'a d. For those arau fn the matenal, as da$ned in Section ne.(2), of the Stotae environmental assessment where the
- the Ato=ic Energy Aci er for any State cannot identify a Stata agency
- 33. Organizadonal rdadenships l activity that results in de production cf having sufDcient expertise to adequately shodd be utablished which win avaluata the proposal or prepare an such m.stenal. tf t!e to such byproduct provide fe: an dette regdato.y -
material and the disposal site be assessment. the State should have program for u:anina ndus and mal transiarred to the Federal Govarnment provisions for obtaining outside .
tauings,
' or State at the option of the Stata. a.Chets should be developed which consulting services. In those inatances whm non-townmanatal consultana previdad such option is exercised prior show the =anagement organination and Enes of authority.This chart should are utihzed procedures should be to ter=unation of the hcanse.
d.The suihority to require sue.n' deSna the speci5c unes of supervision estabushed to avoid conDict of interest ;
monitoring. maintenance, and from program management witids the consistant with Stata law and a cmergency measures aher the license is radia: ion control group and any other administrative gesmo '
te- .1:sted as necessary to protect tne department within the State responsible Medical consdtants recognized for pubuc heahh and safety for tho**
- for contributing to Ge regulation of their expetise in emergency medical i
=aterials and proper:y for which the uranium processing and disposal c! matters, such u the Oak Ridge and 5: ate has assumed e:stody pursuant to Maniced National Labo atorin, relating tanings.When otbc State agencies or
. puh 1. 95-W. regienal o!Seu are utilized, the lines of to the intake or uranium and its e.The au6erity to per=it use of the diagnosis thereof associated with ce==unication and administrative uranium mining and muhng sheuld be surface or subsurface esute or bod cf control between Se agencies and/or the land transferred to the United Sta,tes regions and the Prog a= Dire =ct should identined and avauable to the State for c- State persuant under provisien cf tne be eleciy drawn, advice and direct assistanca.
Uranie= Mill Rad:ation Tailings Con:rol h. nose Statas that wfD cdt.ize During the budget preparation. the personnal fro = othe State Depar:=ents State should aHow for funding costs Act.
- incurred by the use of consultants. In
- f. The authority to exe=pt land ownership transic requirements of .im . py me 4 4 s e a.y ,.n.g additio consdtantsshould be he Pamd'd 88' p.ac ==w. . avaGable for any emergencies which t+cuen 83fo)(1)(A).
w _, _
=*- * .. ,
e- ea,
,m.wwwww.www-+mw -' ' = " " * ~ Y
, m,....c__.. _ . - . ._.
may occur'and for which their expatiss h2ve additional train!:s in Uranium Mu! (b) Geology:
would'be netdedimmediately. Health Physics and Environmental (c) Hydrology and water quality:
- p Assesamants. (d) Meteorologn
,,,,,,f -
- c. Panonnelis agacies other than the (e) Background radiatione
- 34. Perse:nel needed in the processing lead agency an included in these total (O Tauings retendon systen:
of the lice =se applicago: can be pe. son year numbers. lf other agencies (g)latenm stabilization. reclamation, identiSed or grouped according to the an counted in these nu= ben thes it and Site Deco"^a* Progran::
fo!!owing skills:Technicah shall be demonstrated that these (h)RadiologicalDose Assessmann Ad=inistrative: and Su;pe:t. penc:nal wiu be available on a routine (1) Sourse teens
- a. Ad=inistrative peson=e! an those - and centi ui=3 asis b te a degree (2) Exposure pathway pers,ons who win provide isternal claimed as necessary to sue:essfully (3) Dose com=itma=t to inditiduals
- guices, policy memoranda, reviews and ee=;)y wid the requinments of (4) Dose commitment to populatons managerial sardcas necessary to assure (gt ACA ed these criteria.De (3)Evaluatico of radiological!= pacts completaan of the lice sing actier- arrange =ents fer =aki=g such resources to the public to include a deter =ination Support personnel are those persons available shallbe doc.unested. such as of complia=ce with State and Federal -
who provice secretariah clerical an interagency memorandum of regulations and compansens with l support. lega!. and laboratery services. undentandi g and ec Ermed by . background valuu 1 j Technical penonnel an those budgetary cost centen. (6) Oc=upational dose '
individuals who have the trammt and (7) Radiological impact to biota other experiesce is radiadca protaction functions To Re covend . than man necessary to evaluate the a gisering 33.'The Sutes should develop (8) Radiolegical monitoring programs,
> and radiological safary aspects of a . procedures forlicesi:g. inspection and pre-oce:pational and ope ananal uranium concentrator. Curre:t pnparation of env:ronmetal (I)!mpacts to surface and indicaticas are that to :.75 total assessments. groundwater, both quality and quantity:
professional person years' efort is a.4icanamy (ilInvirer.mentaleCecs of accidents:
seeded to process a new eenve:tional (1) Licensing evaluations or and milllicesse. != situ licese. or =aior assesr=e:ts shou!d include in plant (k)Evaluatfo:cf tai!! ss ma= age =est renewal. to meet the requirements of radiological safety upects in altamatives in terms of regulations.
L%iTRCA. This number includes the occupadonal or restricted anas and (2)*"he States an encouraged to afort for the environmental assessment anytrenmentalimpacts to populanens is exa=ine the need to arpand the scope and the in-plant safety review.11 also unnstricted anas frem the plant, cf the assess =e:t hio other anas such includes Se use of ccesultasts. Heap (:)It is expected that the State will as: .
leachipplicaticas may ta.ks less t!=a review, evaluate and provide (a) Ecciogy; and is expected to take 1.0 to i.5 documentation of these evaluaticas. (b) E vironme:tal efects of site professional staf years' efort. Ita=s which should be evaluated are: preparation 'and facihty construe: ion en dependi:3 on the cr-=tances (a) Proposed actvitiest environmet and biota-
. encon= tend. Carrsnti dications an (b) Scope of proposed actien: (c) Environmental efects of use and that the penes years efert !ct support (c) Speci5c actvities to be conducted: discharge of chemicals ud fuels: and and lega! services shon]d be one (d) AW ratve t procat:ns: (d)T.conomic and social efees.
secntary for apprcx=nataly 2 (e) Facility organization and c.laspecions conventional =ius nd % staf yean for
. radiological safety respcasibilides.-
(1) As a =immu=, items which should legal services for each soncentested =ill authorities, and penannel be in*pected or incinded dunng the ~,
case.The i= pact on anytronme:tal qualHications: insp ection of a urasiu= =ill should monitoring laboratory support sarvices (f)IJeansee audits and !=spections: adhen to the items evaluated in the b-is dificult to estimate but should be (g) Rad!adon safety training ; ograms plant safety nview.The principalitems 4 added !=to de persennel requirements. fer workers: rece== ended for inspecica are
- In addition. consideration should be (h) Radiation safety progrs=. control * (a) Administration: . >
gives to various =ise:Saneous post; and monitoring: (b) Mill circuit,includ!ng any
[ 11cansing c= going actvities including the (t) Rastricted area =arkhgs and adatons, delet!ona. or circuit changes:
l 1ssuance of =inor amendmants. accese controk (c) Accidents / Incidents:
inspections, and a=v:r=" -
(f) At existing mills, review of (d) part:9 or equivalent requinments surveillanca. it is est!=ated that the** monitoring data, exposure records, of the State:
activities =ay requin about 0.5 to 1 . licensee audit and ins tien records, (e) Action taken on previous indings:
person yean efort per licensed fac!!!!T and othat records appJenble to existing (f) A min tour to deter =ine
- per yes
- the latte-being the case for a miHs-comp!!ance with regulations, and !!cesse l 2 major facility.These Sgures do not (k) Esvironmetal monitoring: conditions:
I include manpower for T!tle ! actvitives (1) Emergecy proceduns. (g)TaiHugs waste =4magemet in l
. of DCRCA. .
radiologicah accordance with regulatiens and license b.In eval atag Ucesse applications (m) Prod::ct :esportatje:: ed cend!tions (see NRC Reg. Guide 3.11.1):
the State shau have access to necessary (n) Site a=d physical decc==issic:ing (h) Records: ,
specialitias, a-g ndialogical saiery. procedures. oder than tailings. (i) Raspu atory protecJon in r hydrology. reclogy and da= (c)7=picyte exposure data a:d acc rdance with license conditiens er10
' l* construccon a:id operatic:. bicassay pregn=s. ,
CFR part 20.
! In addition to de perscenal b.I.nvi/nament.cl A.rsassment (f) E!Luant and e=vire==ctal i L- qualificatices listad i: Se "Guice for (1) The e:v.ronmental evaluatien =enitering:
Evaha:en o! State Rad.!atien Control should censist el a detaued and (k) Trat:ing prog a=s:
propt=s. Revisto: 3. February 1. isac, docc=ented evahation of the foilewing (1) Transportatics and shipping:
. .d the .-egulatory :af i=velved in the itese (=)Istemal review and andit by i regulatory process (Radiation) should (a) Topopaph> , managemen 4
E - _._ _ -- _ _ _._. _ _ _ _.__ _ _._ _._ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
~
ro e .
~
FederalTesistar / Vol. 46. No. is / Friday January 23, 1981 -- / Notices
- [n) Exit laterview; and ,
In) Final written report documenting samples in a variety of' sample media ~
Subcommittee wiD review operating .
the results of the inspeedon and Andu s a resulting anal from a major accident can be experience. degree of success in -
on eachitem. ' in a time frame that wt3 allow eliminating the core tim decisions to be made regarding Guctuations.
l (2)In addition. Se inspectdr should core performance (f perfo== the following: public health and safety. and structural).
- d. Arrangements should be made to plans for testing and operation at levels *
(2) Independent surveys and above 7tM of rated power and plans for wmpung. participate in the Environmental l future operations. modifications.
(3) Additional guidance 1 contained Protection Agency quality assurance * )
refuejing, and shift mnning
- in appro;riate NRC regulatory 3 and '
program for laoorstory performance!
requinnants. Notice of this meeting was
, inspection guides. A complete Dated at Washingten. D.C. this teth day of published Jan.12.
j inspection saould be performed at least paaery.1 set. '
, once 'Sofety Philosphy. Tedmology and year. . For the Nuclear Regulatory c-iamion. Criteric. January 28.1931. Los Angeles.
- d. revonalDataReview g, c,3,y g, .
CA. The Subcommittee will discuss
. (1)In sodition to the reporting ,,,;,,,,,3**8#7 ,7g ,,._. .u. - requinments !or new (beyond Near.
i requirements required by the regulations IF" 8= am rw m ma mi . Term Construe: ion Permill reactor or license conditions, the licensee wC1 8'"8*88988?* "
plants. Notice of this meeting was .
submitin writing to the regulatory . published Janl1L -
. agency within 60 days after Januaryi T.ureme E.atarnalphenomeno. !
. and July 1 of eacnyear reports Advisory Csmmittee ort Reactor January 29-30.1931. Los Angelea. CA.
, de quantf*y of each of da Sdeguads- Proposed Meetings The Subcommittee wiD discuss the princip radonuclideo released to ?n order to provide advanct status of the Seismic Safety Margins unrestricted areas inliquid and in inf armation regarding proposed Program. Nodce of this meeting was
- saseous efLuents during the previous six mutings of the ACRS Subcom=itt*" published an.14. .
! months 'cf operation. This data shan be and Working Cemrps, and of the fun ' San 1 andJ. January 31.1931.
'repcrted b a manner $at will pe=c!t the Co==fttee the foHowhg prd"""*7 Los Angeles. CA. Le Subcomrnittee win
' regulatory agency to conSt= the schedule reSects the current situation, meet to review the seismology and p=tential annual radiation doses to the geology related items for San Onofre public. taking into account add! fonal mestags .
wmch have been scheduled and Units 2 and 3 for an Operatfng License.
i (2) AB data from the radiological and meetings which have been postponed or Notice of this meeting was published non. radiological evironmental Jan.15.
canceUed since the last list of proposed
=onitoring program wiU also be 'Repule:ory Aer/vities. February 3.
meetings published Dec. 22. isac (45 FR submitted fer the same ti=e periods and 84180). Taose meetings wazch am 1981. Washington. DC. The frequency. Le data will be reported in definitely scheduled have had. or wul Subcommittee will discuss a manner that will allow the regulatory have. an individual notice published in Regulatory Guides and R ations.
sgecy to confer = the doce to receptcrs. the Federal Register appicxi=ately is Notice of this meeting was published
_ days (or more jan.19.
..sti:rmentation .
Those Subcoc):= prior to the meeting.
1ttee and Working 'Picnt Fectures important to Safety.
' 38. Tan State should have available Group meetings for which itis February 3.1961. Washington. DC.Le
- sth neld andlaboratory Subcommittee wiU discuss the NRC anticipated that there wG1 be a portion nstrumentation suf5cient to ensure the or aD of the meeting open to the public definitions of the tenns " safety grade",
icanssis control of materials and to " safety related" and "important to !
are indicated by an asterisk (*).It is
- mildate the licensn's measurements. expected that the eessions of the full safety" as developed for testimony
. a.Thz State win submitits list of Committee muting designated by an related to the Three Mlle Island Unit 1
.nstrumsstation to the NRC ferreview. asterisk t') will be open in whole.or in restart. as woD as review the generic brangemants should be made for impucations of the use of these alibrating such equipment. part to the public. ACRS' full Committee i meetin'gs begin at 8:30 a.=. and definitions in the licensing process, i
- h. Laboratory rype inst".:mentatics Notice of this meetha was pubilshed Subce=mittee and Working Group Jan.19.
hould be avallable in a State esency or =eetings usuauy ' at 4:30 a.m.The
- rough a commarcial service wnich has WRCSofetyRese=rch Prognm.
time when items ed on the agenda re capability for quantitative and February 4.10e1. Washington. DC. The nautstive analysis of radionuclides win be discussed during fun Committee i Subcommittee will discuss NRC's long- '
l ssociated with natural urmh and its Working mutmas and when Subcommittee and range safety research plan and ACRS my chain. primarDy: U.:38. Ra :28. Group meetings win start win be published prior to each meeting. comments on the Of5ee of Nuclear -
s.2:0. Pb 210 and Rn.::2. In a variety Regulatory Research respense to ACRS '
'sa,mpls media such as w!!! be Inictmation as to whether a meeting has recotsmandations in NUREC-0699.
bus fL.. ly scheduled. canceDed, or a:ountered from an environmental Notice of this meeting wu published
.mpiing program. rescheduled. er whethe changes have Jan. 21.
l . Analysts and data reduction from been made b the agenda for the-
'SafetiPhilosophy. Technology and Loretory analytical facilities should be Febnary 1981 ACRS fuU Committee Cnteric. February 4.1981. Washington.
t silable to the licenshg and inspection meeting can be obtained by a prepaid telephone can to the O! Lee of the DC. The Subcommittee wiD discuss the
- ecritiss in a timely manner proposed Near. Term Construction i l ir=nDy. the data should be avallable Txecutive Director of the Committee perrnita Notice of this meeting was '
)
r.hm 30 days of submittat State (telephone :02/634-3267. ATTN: Mary E, published Jac. 21.
{ ceptsbill:y of quali assurance (QA) Vandarboll) between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 *Rece20r RadiologicalS.$~ec,ts.
p.= Easter Time.
i );-ains should also established for February 3.1981. (1:00 p.m.).
i analyticallabaratones. AC SSubo##N# # W 1hington, DC. The Subccmmittes is
' 88f ### - ,
Arrangements should also be *lort St. Vrcia. january 2:' 1981, at to review and co= ment on the NRC t spleted se that a large number of site, near Longmont. CO. The StafTs paper to the NRC Commissioners on the current status of thmking and
%,,,,. *'* ' " e
^^ #'N-* 'l--'
. - . . _ . _ _.. _ __ j i
.- . l Enclosure 2 ,
~
TEXAS t
I, Progress of Lecislation Develooment ,
i The State does not have legislation in place. There is very little time
~
} remaining before it must be in place and the Texas legislative agenda is.also limi.ted . Pr:mpt action must be taken. (Criterion 29)*
1 .
Long Ter. Surveillance and Monitorinc**
. 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 tennination of. the lice'nsed facility."
! 1. The draft law nowhere requires the miniinization or elimination of i
the need for active ongoing maintenance of sites over the long tenn.
i This is a funcamental 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 elimiriation 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. (Sec.161.x(2)(A) of AEA). :
- 2. The relationship between financial surety and long-term funding concepts should be clearly established in the statutes or in the i'
reguiations. Proposed revisions to the Texas Act (Sections 3(m )
6 (f),16 (a)(4) and 17)) are not entirely clear on this matter.
- Wnere a reference is made to the Criteria, unless otherwise specified, this refers te the criteria contained in "SECY 80-472 " (Enclosure 1).
' ** Comnents en legislation are based on review of draft legislation -(marked 2nd draft) of November 18, 1980. Wherever used, " Texas Act" refers to the exis ,ing legislation being amended (Chapter 72, . Acts of the 57th Legislature, as arended).
Enclosure 2 (cont') ;
2 ,
1 .
l The regulations and legislat. ion must assure that adequate financial i arrangements are available at all times during mill operation and 1
thereafter to protect the public health and safety. (Criteria 29(b) and 30(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 Ccmmissien 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 Cr1 40).
Immediate Action at Existina Sites l 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 Comission considers it practicable and necessary for Agreement States' mill operators:
(a) to begin now (as opposed to after November 1981) to develop l programs meeting the regulations; l (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 comitment 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 thiii .
l matter. (10 CFR 150.31(a)).
1 - -
a
. 1
.....-...m 6i..... . . . ..m.._ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .imm.mi.
- . _ . . _ . w_ __.
- p. . .. .
Enclosure 2 (con't) 3' '
1
' ~
Regulations Development No regulations have been issued (nor even drafted) by the State as required by i Section 274.o. Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Prompt action must be taken to develop I these regulations. - Under any circumstance, the regulations 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, or more stringent than Comission regulations on uranium milling. Tne comission 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 Stat,es. Therefore, the Comission 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 32 and 10 CFR 150.31). .
Also, in connection with developing regulations, the State should also recognize the UMTRCA states that duplication of proceedings conducted by the Comission is
- not necessary (last sentence of 274.0 of AEA). Therefore, because the Comission 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 its 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 to regulation development, the State must devel.op 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).
i l Related to item 35(a) of the NRC evaluation criteria, the Texas reply of 1 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, "Infonnation 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 3S(a)). %.,
e
- GEIS - Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (NUREG-0706).
l! : .
li 1
- - - + .e w . .. . . .
-.m- ,y v .w p,+--e1,3~3w y,,,,-tyy,- -
w.-- ,,---,,w-r-- a--,,,we,-e,,s,,,,-,..4.ww -uw- ,%v e,-.-_
2
_~ ~
..~ .
Enclosure 2 (con't) 4 l i Staff Resources i 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 conventienal mill license, in-situ license, or major renewal, to meet the requirements of UMTRCA. This number includes the effort for the environmental asses: ment and the in-plant safety review. It also in-cludes the use of censultants. " Heap leach applications may take less time and i is expected to take 1.0.to 1.5 prefessional staff years' effort, depending on the circumstances encountered. Current indications are that the person years 1 effort for support and legal services shculd be one secretary for approximately 2 conventional mills and 4 staff years for legal services for each noncentested mill case. The impact on environmental monitoring laboratory services is diffi-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 memnrandum of i
understanding and confinned by budgetary cost centers. (Criterion 34).
Preoaration of Written Assessments _
l Several recent assessments performed by the State of Texas (Caithness and
- 4 Trevino projects) in corinection with the licensing of new in-situ uranium extraction projects do not meet the requirements of UMTRCA. (Sec'.274.o(3)(C) ofAEA). 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 ore zone j 'and associated leach field, '
l
("b)monitoringrequirements, -
l 1 -
% T ..es.wre . . . . . .-
,--<..-,.,---.--..,_,.-_...---...-m. . ..- - - - . - . . . - _ _ , . . . . . - . - - . _ ~ _ . - - _ . . - ~ . , . - - . - . - - - . - - ~ . .
I . 7 ," k *,
Enclosure 2 (con'.t) 5 (c) groundwater restoration criteria, -
(d) operating limits (including specifications of upper 4
control limits). -
(e) plugging of exploration 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 hancle these aspects of project review and permitting.-
i This appears to be acceptable', but the written assessment must document the l
evaluation that Water-Resources parforms.. / See Sec. 274.o(3)(C) which re-
! quires that the environmental impacts of "any activities conducted pursuant" j - to the license being granted be included in the assessment.,,f Other comments en these assessments are:
i o
' Most technical aspe~ cts of license applications did not appear to receive a rigorous independent review. The State eften accepted the data and information submitted by the licensee and did not attempt a separate confirmatory analysis.
o ~
In our recent review of the Texas mill licensing program, it appears that the Radiation Control Branch (RC3) only considers radiological aspects of mill tailings.
This is not consistent with UMTRCA. The State should assure that both radiological and non-radiological aspects of environmental impacts are inoependently assassed and in-corporated into licensing actions and enforced.'
- The above highlights the need for clarification of organi ational relationships between various state agencies involved in the regulatory program for uranium mills and tailings. (Criteria 33(b)).
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 decommissioning, etc., but rather appears to attempt to subsume long-term impacts under other requirements. TheTexasapproach(Section12A(a)is not as clear cut as the su 35(b); Section 274.o(3)(C)ggested approach and should be revised. (Criterion of the AEA, as amended.)
I e
e
, , ,_, er -* * '**"'* '
- r. a dw-+ *ew w+w qg ,nep+u- g- ng-M*t hy v y,r+-gc #e W y get- *g-sp 'segv4wpg9e r y y- '#7- yvww- ww- y
h# 7' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES , , p g)
)
wasMIN GTON, D.C. 20556
{*cT/
- March 13,1981 OPPICE OF THE '
CHAIRMAN i *
- . The Honorable Victor Atiyeh i Governor of Oregon .
Salem,~0regon 97310 -
Dear Governor Atiyan:
! On July 1,1965, Oregon became an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Under the provisions of this 1 Act, Oregon 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 4 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 Ccngress also provided, for the first time, funds for grants to States to assist them in preparing their revised reg ^ulatory program. Oregon applied for and received a grant of $47,000 under that program, thereby indicating the State's interest in pursuing this addi-j tional regulatory authority. ; -
For some time, the NRC staff has been working with Mr. Lynn Frank, Director, Oregon Department of Energy, and his staff so that the'
. amended agreement process may proceed smoothly. The purpose of this i letter is to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Frank and his staff and to identify remaining actinns which Oregon must accomplish for a timely amended agreement.
I To execute the amendment, the Commission must find not only that the i State uranium milling regulatory program provides adequate protection of
- - the public health and safety and is. generally compatible with the Com-mission's program of regulation, but also that the State has adopted l' standards for the protection of the public'hea.ith, safety and the .
environment from radiation hazards associated with uranium mill byproduct material, which are equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the J Consnission.
j.
1 As a result of infonnation exchanged between the NRC arid Oregon, in April,1980, we provided Mr. Frank with our initial assessment of the readiness of Oregon for an amended agreement to regulate uranium mills and tailings. Criteria for this purpose have been developed with Agree-ment State input and State coments were factored in when consistent j with NRC rules and policies (Enclosure '1).
n' e - .'
gr-v.xLjggg n e,
e o mass
---e~.++---,-r.-+ ..ww, ,,,,...-.-,-.--,.,..~..-w-.-.~,--,,#. --..,-.~..--,...,.-,,,-%-..- . ,,..y , .w---e,_e ,.v.~e...%, ,,7....w...,.%,.-,,.--,.w.,,,,,..,,,--n ,p.re._
c ,I
'.' . ' $' t UNITED STATES g*
, 3 .. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIDN
, //NS ,
R 3 $ p JLMM. 3/ac ,
~
. March 17, 1981
, OPFICE OF THE CHAIMMAN i- .
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor of California Sacramento, California 95814
{ .
Dear Governor Brown:
California became an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic
- Energy Act of 1954, as amended, when an agreement between the Atomic t . Energy Cemission (now the NRC) and the State became effective on i September.1,1962. Under the provisions of this Act, California assumed certain regulatory authority over the use of reactor produced isotoper, 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 1961 by entering .into an amended agreement with the NRC.
In UMTRCA, the Congress provided for the first time, funds for grahts to States to assist them in preparing their revised regulatory program.
California applied for and received a grant of 550,000 under that program, i thereby indicating.the State's interest in pursuing this additional
-regulatory authority. Thus, on the continuing presumption that California does wish to have authority for the regul'ation of mills and rill tailings whenever they are established within the State, it is necessary that the present. agreement between AEC (now NRC) and the State be amended. (See Enclosure 1 for proposed amendment). Before it can be amended, we must i review Cal,1fornia's regulatory program as it relates to mills and mill tailings.
l l
In the sunner of 1980, we began an early review of current and potential !
uranium mill Agreement State programs to provide an early indication of where each State stands in preparing to enter into amended agreements.
I On July 31, 1980, we wrote to Ms. Beverlee Mye.rs, Director, Health.
. Services, and reported our initial assessment of the California program for regulating uranium mills and mill tailings with respect to the NRC criteria. On September 19, 1980, Mr. Ward, Chief, Radiologic Health Section, furnished us additional information in response to our assessment.
- Included in this response it reference to State comments on stat"ces to
, be transmitted to us at a later date. At this time we have not "eceived such comments although #1. the information provided, we have raassessed
~
l, the California program. Our findings include an analysis (Enclosure 2) l.'
of the California Health and 3afety Code as it applies to urani.um milling regulation which identifies specific issues needing resolution.
4
$l03$IPfi 1NETI -
~ ~'
4
_ . . . _ ~i. ' _ ~' 1 _.E ".__ __- '1. nn. _ . _
_.___m _.- . . _ -
-..s----.-- !
'. s u m . M M. .af.s/n \
g' I
- UNITED STATES
- j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
. t wAsmwoTom.o.c. zonas
- pc** / ~
l l ,, February 20, 1981 CHA4RMAN #
.a The Honorable Richard D. Lam -
i Governor of Colorado j
Denver, Colorado 802D3 ,
Dear Governor Lam:
On February 1,1968, Colorado became an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Under the provisions of this Act, (
Colorado assumed, under agreement with the AEC (now NRC), certain regula-
, tory authority over the use of reactor produced isotopes, the source materials uranium and thorium, and small quantities of special nuclear materials.
t-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. Colorado ,
applied for and received a grant of $95,000 under that program, thereby
_ l. indicating the State's interest in pursuing this additional regulatory 1 authority. :
For some time, the NRC staff has been working with Drs Frank Traylor,
- Executive Director, Colorado Department of Health, and his staff so that -
the amended agreement process may proceed smoothly. The purpose of this letter is to acknowle.dge the efforts of Dr. Traylor and his staff and
- to 1.dentify remaining actions which Colorado must accomplish for a timely amended agreement.
lll-:
I .
In the sumer of 1980, we began an early review of current and potential uranium mill Agreement State programs to provide an early indication of where each State stands in preparing to enter into amended agreements.
On July 25,1980, we wrote to Dr. Traylor and.teported our initial assess-ment of the Colorado program for regulating uranium mills and tailings with respect to the criteria. We have received letters from Mr. Albert J.
Hazle, Director, Radiation and Hazardous Wastes Control Division, Depart-ment of Health, comenting on the NRC's criteria, but we have received no
, .. specific response to our July 25, 1980 letter. With these letters and I.j '
with information obtained during our regular review of the Colorado radia-tion control program, we have reassessed the readiness of Colorado for an
- amended agreement to regulate uranium mills. Criteria for this purpose i , have been developed with Agreement State input and State comments were L-factored in when consistent with NRC rules and policies (Enclosure 1).
l ',
- The results of*our evaluation are discussed in Enclosure 2 to this letter.
I would;11ke to highlight two of the actions still needed:
o l
$ /03//MV Nd$1 - - - - - - -
, _ _ _ . - - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . .. .2__ _._._ ___._ _,_-.,_._._._ ~ _ _ _ . _ --