ML20207D912
| ML20207D912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206A706 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-47, TASK-PINC, TASK-SE SECY-86-373, NUDOCS 8612310338 | |
| Download: ML20207D912 (4) | |
Text
YNSNSSNNSMNMMMMMM) e 2
i
\\...../
~
y POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
December 17, 1986 SECY-86-373 FOR:
The Comissioners FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS PURPOSE:
To request Comission approval for publication in the Federal Register for public coment of a staff analysis of a proposal by the Governor of Illinois for an Agreenent pursuant to Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act) and a 1
proposed agreement.
BACKGROUND:
By a letter dated October 2, 1986, Governor James R.
Thompson of the State of Illinois requested that the Comission enter into an Agreerent with the State pursuant to Section 274b of the Act. The specific authority requested is for (1) byproduct naterial as defined in section 11e.(1) of the Act, (2) source material, (3) special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass and (4) permanent disposal of low-level waste containing one or more of the foregoing but not containing uranium l
or thorium mill tailings (byproduct naterial as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Act). The State did not request authority over uranium recovery activities but reserves the right to apply at a future date for an amendment to the Agreement for these activities. The staff has prepared a staff assessment of the State's proposed radiation control program to be published with the proposed Agreenent in the Federal Register for public coment. The category of snurce material over which the State has requested authority includes the Allied Chemical UF6 conversion plant in Metropolis, Illinois. The Chairman and NRC staff nenbers have raised questions as to whether the Allied Chemical plant is of
Contact:
)- m
-i Donald A. Nussbaumer, X27767 M.3 [ b g (./'
Joel 0. Lubenau, X29887 i.g I-1
a<-
sufficient importance to the comon defense and security of the United States that its regulation, for. health and safety purposes, should not be transferred to Illinois as part of the Section 274b agreement.
DISCUSSION:
The Allied Chemical plant is one of two comercial UF conversion plants in the U.S both of which are g
licensed by NRC.
(The other is Kerr-McGee's Sequoyah Fuels Corporation plant in Oklahoma). The material processed at these plants is natural uranium which falls within the definition of source material. Thus, pursuant to Section 274 of the Act and existing NRC policy and criteria the plant would be included in the proposed Agreement within the source material category.
4
~
Agreements are made with States pursuant to Section 274b after the Comission finds that the State progran is in accordance with the requirements of subsection o. and in all other respects compatible i
with the Comission program for regulation of such materials, and that the State program is_ adequate to protect the public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed agreement (1274d.(2)). The staff believes that the Illinois program is adeouate to regulate the Allied Chemical plant from a health and safety standpoint.
It should be noted that Section 274m of the Act provides that agreements "shall not affect the authority of the Comission under subsection 161b.
or 1. to issue rules, regulations, or orders to protect the comon defense and security..." 9274m.
Specific questions relating to State regulation of the Allied Chemical plant were asked of OGC by the l
Chaiman and the response of the General Counsel is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
NRC staff has consulted with DOE staff concerning possible State regulation of the Allied Chemical plant.
DOE has expressed the view that overall, continued NRC regulation would appear to be prudent l
in view of the importance of the Allied Chemical plant in maintaining the comon defense and security j
of the United States (Enclosure 2).
In addition, the Director of the Illinois Department l
of Nuclear Safety in a letter dated December 3, 1986 l
has expressed its view that the agreement should not exclude the Allied Chemical plant. Thii letter notes that the agreement would not affect the euthority of the NRC to issue orders to protect connon defense and security (Enclosure 3).
l
~
), : '
The staff believes that the matter of Agreement State vs NRC regulation of activities which have significant comon defense and security implications is one reqGiring a Comission policy. The staff will prepare an option paper for use of the Commission in deciding what the policy should be.
Although Governor Thompson's letter did not specify a target date for the agreement to become effective.
. Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety officials have indicated a date as early in 1987 as is possible is highly desired.
In view of the State's desire for an early effective date for the Agreement, the staff proposes to publish its assessment of the Illinois proposal and the proposed agreerient in the Federal Register for public comment
, Pursuant to Section 274e of the Act the publication must be made once each week for four consecutive weeks with an overall comment period of 30 days. The staff will identify in the Federal Register notice that the Comission is considering whether continued NRC regulation of the Allied Chemical plant is necessary in the interest of the i
common defense and security of the United States and has not decided whether or not to relinquish regulatory authority over the Allied Chemical plant to the State. However, we are not asking for public coment on the comon defense and security issue.
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety agrees with this approach. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and concurs in its recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION:
That th* Comission:
1.
A prove for publication in the Federal Register t u notice of the proposed agreement.
2.
Note that Comission approval for such iTu'5Tication is not normally requested but has been done in this case because of the Allied Chemical plant issue.
3.
Note that the staM will prepare a Comission paper on the matter of Agreement State vs NRC l
regulation of activities having significant common defense and security implications.
4.
Note that following analysis and conside, ration of public coments, if any, the staff will request Comission action on the request by l
Governor Thompson for an Agreement.
h 1
.+.+----,-vi,w.w-..v+-+www-,---wywe e,,---,%,.e w w...---.--w.,.--.v_
.----.m
- j. :.
d SCHEDULING:
Dec,ision is needed by December 23, 1986 so as not to delay the request for public comments on the Illinois proposal.
W
_ ?) O
- ello, Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Memorandum, W.C. Parler, OGC to L.W. Zech, Jr., Chairman, dtd.
November 6, 1986 2.
Ltr. fron. DOE dtd. November 17, 1986 3.
Ltr. fro'1 Illinois dtd December 3,1986 SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on December 23, 1986 that the Comission, by negative cansent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (H Street)
OI OCA OIA OPA REGION III EDO OGC (MNBB)
SECY I
~
l 5
l l
i i
<I STATE OF lLLINOIS l
DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE SPRINGFIELD 62704 (217) 546-8100 TERRY R. LASH 0"*c*
December 3, 1986 A
Mr. G. Wayne Kerr Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission 4550 Montgamery Avenue, Rs. 5301 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear Mr. Kerr:
l This letter is in response to the November 17, 1986, letter sent to you by Mr. John R. Longenecker, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Uranium Enrichment, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
In that letter, Mr. Longenecker, on behalf of DOE, recomended against transferring licensing of the Allied Signal Company uranium conversion facility in Metropolis,
'., Illinois, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission ("NRC") to the State of
. 4111nois. While I share Mr. Longenecker's concern for the common defense and i
security of the United States, I as imable to see how it would be endangered by the proposed transfer.
l The DOE concern, as !' understand it, is that the Allied Signal facility might become the sole U.S. supplier of uranita conversion services because i
operations at the Kerr-McGee facility in Oklahoma might be discontinued for economic reasons. The national security interests mi< nt then be threatened if the Allied Signal facility is licens*ed by the StateT linois rather than the NRC because of the need of uranita hexaflouride for both connercial i
nuclear power generation and military purposes. The letter leaves completely unclear why DOE believes that the NRC's regulation of the Allied Signal facility would protect national interests better than regulation by Illinois as an Agreement State. -
The framework for tra'nffer of regulatory jurisdiction from the NRC to a state is well-defined. As stated by the NRC in In the Matter of the Petition of Sunflower Coalition (CLI-81-13, June 24,1981):
"* *
- Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act permits the Commission to cede to the States jurisdiction to regulate source materials, byproduct materials and small quantities of special i
j nuclear materials. The procedures and criteria for
]
Qgg lnclos6re 3 Mv
.l, g.=*~
doing so are carefully spelled out in the statute.
The Commission is authorized to cede its jurisdiction over nuclear materials if it finds that the state program is 'in accordance with subsection o'I compatible with the Commission's progras' and adewate to protect the public health and safety.'"
As recognized by NRC staff, the State of Illinois has complied with the procedures and criteria " carefully spelled out in the statute." The State's program is in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act and is adequate to protect the public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed agreement. DOE's last minute, vague reference to a speculative threat to the " national interest" should not dissuade the NRC from entering into the proposed agreement with the Governor of the State of Illinois.
I would like to point out finally that an agreement between the NRC and the State of Illinois would not affect the authority of the NRC to issue orders to protect the cosmon defense and security. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2021(a).
If a real, as opposed to a speculative, threat were to arise, NRC would be able to take appropriate action regardless of the agreement.
Si eral,
L.
erry Jt. Lash irector 9
(
,.TRL:sp l
l l
l l
l l
l l
L
,