ML20217D593
| ML20217D593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/09/1994 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D567 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-105 NUDOCS 9710060017 | |
| Download: ML20217D593 (1) | |
Text
,
September 9, 1994 ,
NOTE TO: Richard L. Bangart, D/OSP CONCERNS REGARDING WHITE MESA MILL AND NOTIFICATION OF UTAH REGARDING NRC INSPECTIONS AT ENVIROCARE
^ On September 6,-1994, I called Mr. William Sinclair to discuss the_ status of-Utah's review of the IMPEP review report. During that-discussion, Mr. Sinclair raised two unrelated-issues-as follows:
=1. Mr. Sinclair indicated that the White Mesa Ute Community had ask.
-the State of-Utah to intervene in the Monticello tailings amendment and during their presentation before the-Utah Radiatio control Board, they raised a number of concerns regarding the White Mesa Mill. He suggested that NRC staff might consider meeting with some of the key Ute Community representatives to better understand their concerns, possibly in connection with staff attendance at the September hearing.
I asked if their concerns were documented in.any way, such as minutes from the Board meeting. Mr. Sinclair stated that the minutes reflected their concerns and I asked that he fax me a copy of the minutes.
(Copy Attached). I committed to pass on the minutes and his suggest; ion to DWM staf f.
- 2. Mr. Sinclair raised considerable concern relating to two recent NRC inspections of the Envirocare 11e. (2) _ license, one conducted by DWM staff and a second by Region IV staff where he indicated NRC staff had provided no prior notice to State staff of the
-inspection. He asked that NRC inform the State in all cases whe an NRC inspection was scheduled. _He further stated this request' was a " request from the top" and that a letter to NRC dealing wiM this issue _would be forthcoming. I stated that I would discuss his request-with both Region IV and DWM staff.
~
9 0060017 970929 P FOIA WEBB97-1C' PDR Paul Lohaus, DD/OSP
Attachment:
{q.134#
As' stated p,7 pff gcqwc, cc: M. Knapp l. Clwek d4 nb o$n$h *
"h #
D$ lain ' Ih TrC 8' M d b h o E rn 8-D. Sollenberger k"I Co J J - fey ), J t)D 7[m M. Lopez-Oti_n i 1
9 7/o M W 7 L Gu L ,,,,,,, j,J g & , n Apur
_ , , , ,, , 4)g - /
f (-
NOV1-$19$1 MEMORANDUM FOR: Francis X. Cameron Office of General Counsel Otismaligned by:
I-
-f D.M. Sollenbeiger FROM: PaulH.Lohaus.DeputyDirect,rg Office of State Programs
]
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO MR SINCLAIR'S LETTER Attached is a recent letter from Mr. Sinclair, Director, Division of Radiation control, Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. Sinclair poses the question of whether Utah can enter into a partial lle.(2) agreement for only the Envirocare site and not the other lle.(2) faellities in the State.
We would appreciate your assistance in providing a legal analysis on whether such an agreement would be possible under the provisions of Section 274.
Please call me or Dennis Sollenberger with the date by which you wculd expect such an analysis would be completed.
I thank you in advance for your assistance
Attachment:
As stated
- y,
'n ~ ll Distribution: '
.S-335 R8ernero- .,
DIR RF MKnapp R8angart JCallan " N
/
PLohaus JMongomery DSo11enberger -CCain Utah file JHolonich Mill Talli s file-DCD (SPO) -
PDR YES N0,_,
G:\ Utile 2.dms
. 01.C,,j.Sf,;S,A,{,h,,,,,,,5fjpgg$ L ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,
..NM,( j g1 9 ,h, ,y,r,g r,4 f,L,,,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,,,,
9,h,a,g,,p ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,, ,, ,, ,4,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
DTE ! 11/18/94 ! 11//$/94 ! ! [ ! ! !
9%nc Guz y 7 ip f&
a
r k
6
- I (
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY l DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL Whael o tema 11J Nenh 1950 West
- o. PO Bon 144650 Diarme R Nielson. Ph D. sah Lake City, thh 841144150 ta=viu ov.a. (801) 3)M250 Office Walwn L seclair (Boli $33 4097 f a Dream (601) $3H414 T.D.D.
November 7,1994 E
Mr. Richard L. Bangart Director U, E@
Office of State Programs
~, , y ~n Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
,.#^
WashinFton, D.C. 20555 0001
[
m
Dear Mr. Bangan:
Thank you for the opponunity to meet with you and Paul Lohaus prior to the Management Review Board meeting on October 7,1994. As I discussed with you in the meeting, the Division of Radiation Control (DRC)is very interested in finding a mechanism to allow us to assume primacy for the uranium mill [lle.(2)) disposal activities at Envirocare of Utah. As indicated to you in the niecting, this would be assumption of the uranium mill program on a partial basis, it is my understanding that NRC may be constrained in granting a partial A Freement State status by statutory or regulatory means. I am hoping that through a cooperative and innovative effon we can find a way to work through the existing bureaucratic process to allow Utah this unique opportunity. Our reasons for wishing to assume the lle.(2) regulatory program at Envirocare are as follows:
(1) Envirocare is already licensed by DRC for source, by. product, special nuclear material, and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) wastes. Another level of regulation by NRC for lle.(2) complicates an already complex regulatory scheme by the state of Utah.
Currently four Divisions within DEQ have permits and/or licenses at Envirocare. DRC does an effective job in coordinating those activities among the Department. However, the process becomes complicated when NRC enters into the picture. Coordination must occur with both Headquaners and NRC Region IV. It is more difficult to adequately coordinate with parties located in Arlington, Texas and Rockville, Maryland, it has been our experience that coordination occurs most often as a courtesy after we have made a great deal of noise regarding the need to let us know that NRC inspectors are coming into our state. It is our perception for the most pan there is no real desire or need for this coordination by cenain NRC staff.
(2) Duplicative regulatory requirements are in effect at Envirocare of Utah due to the NRC 1leJ2) license. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has a groundwater protection program in effect for the low level and NORM waste areas of Envirocare and has extended this c~ew.m:msw d -d fj: f )
Sff
b protection program to the non radiologics at the lle.(2) area DRC would like to avoid this dutil@ative regulatory effort wherever possible. Assumpoon of the lle.(2) program at Envirocare could resolve this groundwater regulator) duplicat on Mdch extends to other areas as well). e (3) A low level waste program is in existence that already oversights the facility. It is anticipated that existing staff would be sufficient to assume the regulatory responsibility.
DRC can provide a better inspection capability than NRC because of DRC staff being on site at least three to four times per week. Even though there has been communication between DRC and NRC Region IV on assumpdon of some inspection responsibilities, this has not been clearly defined. DRC feels that a total assumption of responsibility including the ability to take enforcement action is the only sensible approach to oversighting this facility.
(4) A funding mechanism could be put into place to provide resources for DRC to oversee the Envirocare Ile.(2) program. Without primacy, DRC does not have the ability to collect disposal fees from the lle.(2) activities for oversight costs. With primacy, DRC could collect fees or charge an annual fee for the proFram costs.
(5) Typically, DRC could provide better and faster service to Envirocare in the lle.(2) uea in terms of licensing. Additionally, licensing activities such as amendment requests would fall under DRC's public comment rule which would better inform the citizens of' Utah of the lle.(2) activities at Envirocare in the matter they are accustomed to with other waste facilities in Utah.
(6) NRC is not a signatory to the hiemorandum oi Understanding (h10U) developed between DEQ Divisions that regulate Envirocare. This hiOU recognizes DRC has principle and comprehensise responsibility for all activities at Envirocare and therefore is the primary regulatory agency within Utah DEQ. As an example, with the cansfer of the DWQ groundwater position to DRC, this has been further solidified as DRC now has assumed all groundwater responsibilities with the exception of the RCRA hiixed Waste area.
In conclusion, I feel that Utah citizens are better served having DRC as the lead agency for regulation of uranium mill activities at Envirocare. I would appreciate hearing your ideas if and how DRC can assume primacy for this facility. We would be intercsted in exploring any avenues such as a pilot program for partial State Agreement status. Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
, Sincerely.
' O
) ,
'i iam .. Sinc! r Director Division of RadWtion Control c: Dianne Nielson, Executive Director, UDEQ x