ML20217D581
| ML20217D581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1994 |
| From: | Schneider K NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D567 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-105 NUDOCS 9710060011 | |
| Download: ML20217D581 (4) | |
Text
!$ "
eM ([17/ W l
MEMORANDUM TO - Utah File THRU: Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH WILLIAM SINCLAIR TO DISCUSS GENERAL UTAH ISSUES After the conclusion of the Agreement State review of the Utah program on Juno 17, 1994, Paul Lohaus, OSP George Pangburn, NMSS, Jack Hornor, Region IV Walnut Creek field office and I met with William Sinclair, Director, Division of Radiation Control to discuss several issues of concern to the State of Utah. The following issues were discussed and action items are marked for NRC follow-up as appropriate.
. 1. EPA's task force (in the Solid Waste area) concerning site clean
! rules, waste management rules and the LLW standard involving radiological aspects.
Mr. Sinclair is on the task force as a result of his involvement with Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management-Organization (ASSTSWMO) and raised a concern at the last meeting of the task force that NRC was not represented. He has recommended to both EPA and ASSTSWMO that they contact Paul Loha for participation. Mr. Lohaus indicated that he would be help coordinate NRC participation, however, he might not be the appropriate staff to represent the NRC. Note, ASSTSWMO is an
[ organization ~ 7:ti"IsCern)lraN e to CRCPD in the Solid Waste area.
Action: Mr. Sinclair will keep Mr. Lohaus informed as to the activity of the task force. K. Schneider will contact Tom i Kennedy, Executive Director for ASSTSWIC 202-624-5828 for
. additional background on ASSTSWMO.
- 2. NRC's policy to allow in-situ waste disposal in uranium mill gh tailings.
'ke Mr. Sinclair stated that Utah still disagrees with NRC's policy allow in-situ waste to be disposed in uranium mills licensed by
,n the NRC in the-State of Utah. Utah has concerns regarding the
- $0, interstate transfer of waste and the placement of such waste in o i- facilities not designed.for commercial disposal of such wastes.
l,$$1 Mr. Lohaus indicated that the staff has begun to examine changes to the regulation to allow only a certain amounts of these waste-NEg
- *' to be disposed of in a tailings and to require additional materi over the amount specified to be disposed in a commercial facilit
= Utah-was in-favor of-that approach. However, Mr. Sinclair N MON / _
/
( /
indicated if this approach was not feasible, that NRC should consider eliminating the general license provision allowing the disposal and require an amendment on a case-by-case basis.
- 3. Disposal of non 110.2. materials - Monticello mill.
Mr. Sinclair said that the State of Utah is interested in seeing the draft policy established and approved. Mr. Lohaus indicated that NRC did not plan to do that at this time. There is still the issue of mixed waste. It still make sense to NRC to authori this type of disposal on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Lohaus noted that DOE / EPA presently believes that the 11e.2. v.aste would need to segregated from the non 11e.2. waste because of the mixed wasSL issue.
- 4. Atlas, Moab EIS and sampling issue.
We discussed the National Park Services (NPS) and DLM participating in the EIS. Mr. Sinclair had comments on the EIS from the NPS that had not yet been transmitted to NRC. He would recommend to NPS to transmit their comments to NRC. Mr. Sinclai believes that there has not been a good effort to summarize the water quality data for the EIS. According to Utah, the original EIS tor Atlas discounted the Colorado River without an adequate analysis and explanation as to why it was possible to eliminate impacts to the river.
If the tailings are to remain in place, NRC will need to evaluat the long term impact on the Colorado River and establish a sampling program. Mr. Sinclair believes that there could be a cooperative program to gather data with the State of Utah and NPS
- 5. NRC's coordination with the State of Utah on Atlas.
InitialT Utah believes that NRC did a good job of getting the interested parties together including the scoping /public meeting held April 1994. However, Mr. Sinclair does not believe team interaction is occurring now. He pointed out that NRC should nof gauge the interest by various interested parties based on the attendance at the public meeting held in Moab in April 1994.
Also, it is difficult for Utah participants to fly to Washington to attend meetings if they are being held on the east coast due budget constraints.
Action: State Programs would forward the suggestion to NMSS on the possibility of some type of confernnce call to assist communications with all members of the participating parties on some routine basis regarding the progress on Atlas and other pertinent issues.
- 6. Federal Funding the Agreement States.
( #
r -
Mr. Sinclair believes that the Agreement State program under 274 should be authorized in a similar fashion to the EPA grant programs. NRC discussed the legal basis for the Agreement progr and the recent paper on seed money and the request from Oklahoma Action: OSP will provide a copy of the SECY paper on seed money and the response to the State of Oklahoma to Mr. Sinclair. In addition, information.
this paper should be'sent to all states for their
- 7. Communications on visits / reviews to Agreement states.
Mr. Sinclair discussed the miscommunication that occurred last August 1993whenareviewvisitwasconductedbyOSPpersonneland the intent of the visit was not clear to the State. A copy of t i
review visit report was given to Mr. Sinclair on June 16, 1994.
NRC again committed to use our best efforts to keep lines of communications open as to the intents of visits and reviews.
- 8. Training for state legal counsels in Agreement States.
Denise Chancellor (801-536-0282), from the Utah Attorney General Office has inquired about training for the legal staff from agreement states in legal aspects of NRC (not health physics).
Mr. Sinclair indicated that Ms. Chancellor is aware of seed money from DOE given to the National Attorney General Organization for radiation not litigation being utilized. and other legal aspects which is presently conduct training. She would like to see NRC participate or Action:
OSP will contact Ms. Chancellor to obtain additional information about possible funding for a course /special topics workshop for state attorneys.
- 9. Total Quality' Management (TQN).
Mr. Sinclair Quality's TOMshared information on the Division of Environmental program.
years in the Division.
TOM has been in place for the last two He shared a copy of the latest retreat conducted by the Division which included identification of Utah' needs from EPA /NRC (federal agencies). Also, he stated that the Division has an annual retreat with EPA and inquired as to the possibility a given region.
of regional retreats with NRC and Agreement States in comparative risk We also discussed identification the Division efforts on a process.
- 10. Uranium mills monthly call, fyh g $$b Mr.
that Sinclair URFO had commended the NRC for the bimonthly conference cally been conducting. Although Utah miesed the last call, the State believes these calls are'usefully and' hopes that
-headquarter will continue the practice. They are looking forwar to the-June call.
- 11. -Distribution-Lists.
_ _ _ . 1
,/
Mr. Sinclair stated that he does not wish to receive the correspondence from NRC which deals with reactors. NRC explained our distribution process. It is not always possible to separate out reactor information from the material information. We explained that OSP is examining methods for streamlining and would impicment corrections as identified.
- 12. Distribution of NRC licenses.
Mr. Lohaus raised the issue of distributing NRC licenses to the Agreement State. lie indicated that a snall number of states did not feel this practice was necessary for reciprocity purposes, hovover, a larger number of States than expected still wish to continue to receive this information. Mr. Sinclair indicated he was in support of reduction of paper between our two agencies.
Kathleen N. Schneider i
Office of State Programs i
V