ML20217K000

Transmits State Agreements Program Info (SP-98-020) Concerning NRC Us Senate Response Re DOE Contractor Issues

ML20217K000
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/24/1998
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	GENERAL, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
SP-98-020, SP-98-20, NUDOCS 9804070098
Download: ML20217K000 (2)

Text

1

.a MAR 2 ($

ALL AGREEMENT STATES l

OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98420) j l

Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION..

1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...

TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION..

TECHNICAL INFORMATION..

OTHER INFORMATION..................

XX NRC U.S. SENATE RESPONSE REGARDING DOE CONTRACTOR ISSUES Suco!ementarv information: Enclosed for your information is Chairman Jackson's February 18, 1998 response to The Honorable Dale Bumpers regarding a possible proposal by the Department of Energy (DOE) to use private companies to dispose of DOE waste on private property. The NRC's Office of General Counsel prepared the responses addressing the policy and legal concerns raised.

k3 pr.H ARD L@BAOfginalSi.Qg C3 F

Richard L. Bangart, Director

[.,

Office of State Programs i

f f-i

Enclosure:

I' C3 As stated

.U:1! I L2 (9 Distribution:

{;j, DIR RF (8S-90) p,

DCD (SP03)

-;p gPDR (YESj_) (NO_)

12 - SDroggitis

- ~

cqyP13 A/S File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ ROV \\SP38020J@V t r.ew.. ew oe w. soeum.aunew. in m. bor c4 cM) anemenu.nao.ur. r com anemenu. nee ur. v no copy OFFICE OSPT 5

Ojp@s - l OSP:D f I'd NAME RVirgilio:nb N -

PLohdus RBangart l'"

DATE 03/ M /98 03/ G l98' 03/8T /98 9804070098 980324 OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4 '

PDR STPRG ESGGEN PDR j

• "209 UNITED STATES p

f j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON, D.C. 205f54001

%*****/

March 24, 1998 ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98-020)

Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION.......

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...

TRAINING CO'URSE INFORMATION..

TECHNICAL INFORMATION.....

OTHER INFORMATION................

XX NRC U.S. SENATE RESPONSE REGARDING DOE CONTRACTOR ISSUES Sucolementary Information: Enclosed for your information is Chairman Jackson's February 18, 1998 response to The Honorable Dale Bumpers regarding a possible proposal by the Department of Energy (DOE) to use private companies to dispose of DOE waste on private property. The NRC's Office of General Counsel prepared the responses addressing ha policy and legal concerns raised.

C f(VI(

ht,gf

~

Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs A-

Enclosure:

As stated L-.

m mm--

^

i

~

h UNITED STATES

/

p k,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V!ASHINGTON. D.C. 20066-0001

+

• s 0

• 5 February 18, 1998 g.

5...*

a CHAM 64AN The Honorable Dale Bumpers Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Bumpers:

This letter responds to your letter of December 9,1997, regarding a possible proposal by the Department of Energy (DOE) to use private companies to dispose of DOE waste on private property.

Your letter expresses serious policy concems with DOE's proposal and encloses questions for the Commission to answer. Your letter also encloses a legal memorandum prepared by Committee staff.

Enclosed are responses to the questions prepared by our Offs:e of General Counsel. If the Commission can provide any additional assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

)'

L Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Frank H. Murkowski l

\\

{

QUESTION 1.

Does section 110a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 exempt DOE contractors from the materials licensing requirements nf Chapters 6,7, and 8 or only the facilities licensing requirements of chapter 107

{

I ANSWER j

i The appropriate interpretation to be given to Section 110a., and the extent to which it provides

)

an exemption from the licensing requirements in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, are matters of some dispute. Section 110a. excludes certain activities conducted under contract with the ' Commission' [formerly referring to the AEC, now referring to the DOE and the NRC) from the Act's requirement for a license:

Sec.110. Exclusions. - Nothing in this chapter [ Chapter 10) shall be deemed

s. to require a license for (1) the processing, fabricating, or refining of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear r.sterial from other substances, under contract with and for the account -

of the Commission; or (2) the construction or operation of facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission;....

As noted in the legal memorandum accompanying these questions to the NRC, litigation on this issue is pending between the Department of Energy (DOE) and Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WSC)in the United States District Court for the Northem District of Texas. In a preliminary ruling, the Court appeared to hold that.any facility which DOE uses for disposal of low-level waste (LLW) must be self regulated by DOE and, thus, exempt from licensing under Section 110s. See Waste Control Soecialists. LLC v.. United States'Denartment of Enerav. et al.,

Preliminary injunction Order at 5-6 (October 3,1997). DOE, which has appealed the ruling, appears to take a narrower view that Section 110a. is limited to " utilization and production facilities" and therefore does not exempt other facilities, such as LLW disposal facilities, from licensing. See Brief for Appellants at 33-34, Waste Control Soecialists. LLC v. United States Deoartment of Enerov. et al., No. 97-11353 (5th Cir.., filed November 26,1997). The legal memorandum accompanying these questions to the NRC also appears to favor the narrower view.

Since Section 110a is located in Chapter 10 of the Act and refers only to Chapter 10 (i.e.,

"[njothing in this chapter shall be deemed... to require a license...."), it is certainly possible to interpret the exclusion in the section narrowly, so as to apply only to the requirement for a production and utilization facility license (i.e., the subject of Chapter 10), and not to the license requirements in Chapter 6 (special nuclear material), Chapter 7 (source material), and Chapter 8 (byproduct material). However, the rest of the langu' age used in the section is very broad. When the NRC rendered a formal opinion on the scope of its jurisdiction over Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA, subsequently, DOE) facilities, it appeared to follow this broader view.'

' ' In deciding that high-level waste tanks under construction at Manford and Savannah River by DOE's predecessor, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA),

were not subject to NRC licensing, the Commission said:

i

~

QUESTION 1 (Cont'd),,

it can also be argued that Section 110a. reflects a structure which Congress intended for the Act as a whole, that is, that the AEC did not need to license its contractors through which, historically, it carried out its activities. Under the predecessor Atomic Energy Act of 1946', the AEC had not required the licensing of contractors ~ involved in the operation of Commission-owned facilities including those involved in the acquisition, transfer, use, and disposal of radioactive materials related thereto.8 Further, the history of Section 110a. of the 1954 Act does not demonstrate any Congressional determination to narrow the AEC practice

• Thus, according to the logic of the argument, all licensing provisions of the 1954 Act continue the structure established under the 1946 Act of not requiring AEC contractors to be licensed, including Sechon 110s.

The AEC issued regulations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which granted exemptions from licensing to AEC contractors but, in doing so, did not provide an explanation or analysis of Section 110a., or any other statutory authority for the AEC's action. In 1956, the AEC adopted license exemptions for AEC production and utilization facilities contractorsf and also asserted Since ERDA facilities are generally exempt from the licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. $2140 [i.e., citing Section 110), licensing the new ERDA waste tanks is required only if they come within the scope of Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. $5842(4).

Natural Resources Defense council (Request Concerning ERDA High-Level Waste Storage Facilities),5 NRC 550,552 (1977). However, the Commission's decision, which mainly dealt with the language and legislative history of Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, did not discuss Section 110a. The high-level waste in the tanks at Hanford and Savannah River was generated by production activities at those sites. Thus, the Commission could have considered that the storage tanks were part of the production facilities and, as such, were exempt from licensing under Section 110.

8 See the AEC's notice, promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, adopting 10 CFR Part 30 on distribution of radioisotopes (16 FR 3251 (1951)):

$30.10 Persons operating Commission-owned facilities. The regulations in this part do not apply to persons to the extent that such persons operate Commission-owned facilities in carrying out programs on behalf of the Commission. In such cases, the acquisition, transfer, use, and disposal of radioisotopes are govemed by the contracts between such persons and the Commission, and internal bulletins, instructions and directives issued by the Commission.

• See the Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on the 1954 Act which included the following statement: "Section 110 clearly excludes the contract operations of the Commission from the licensing provisions of the bill...." S. Rep. No. 1699,83d Cong.,2d Sess. 21 (1954).

' See 21 FR 355,356 (1956):

~

a.

QUESTION.1 (Cont'd),

the authority to extend license exemptions to AEC contractors involved in activities other than production and utilization facilities.' Although the AEC did not make the basis explicit, it could be t

argued that the AEC license exemptions simply reflected the AEC practice, codifed by Congress in the 1954 Act, not to require the licensing of AEC contractors involved in the operation of Commission-owned facilities including the acquisition, transfer, use, and disposal of radioactive materials related thereto. In 1964, the AEC revised the contractor license exemptions to civify their scope.' The revised exemptions contained specific exemptions for AEC prime contractors performing functions under the contract at a U.S. Govemment-owned or controlled site (10 CFR 30.12,40.11,50.11 and 70.11). For other prime contractors and J

subcontractors, a license exemption was permitted if the Commission determined that there was J

adequate assurance under the terms of the contract or subcontract that public health and safety were protected.

' The AEC license exemptions for AEC contractors appear to be based on the principle implicit in i

Section 110a., that any AEC contract would contain the necessary health and safety protection provisions which could be enforced as easily by the terms of a contract as by license conditions, and therefore, that both types of control should not be required. Furthermore, if facilities were to be exempt from licensing and subject to safety controls through the contracts, it made little sense to require the nuclear materials used on such sites to be licensed rather than subject to contractual controls.

$ 50.11 Exceptions and exemptions from license. Nothing in this part shall be deemed to require a license for:...

O The construction or operation of production or utilization facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission;....

8 The exemptions to AEC contractors involved in activities other than production and utilization facilities exempted the contractors from the requirements for a license for special

- nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material (Chapters 6,7, and 8 of the Atomic Energy Act). See, e.g.,21 FR 764,765 (1956):

$ 70.11 Persons using special nuclear material under contract with and for the account of the Commission. The regulations in this part do not apply to any person to the extent that such person receives, possesses, uses, or transfers special nuclear material under, and in accordance with, a contract with and for the account of the Commission. In any such case, such person's obligations with respect to the special nuclear material are governed by the applicable contract between such person and the Commission.

J

• See 29 FR 14401 (1964).

z

QUESTION 2.

Does the Commission, as opposed to the Department of Energy, have the authority under sections 57d.,62, and 81 to make an independent judgment on whether to exempt certain

• kinds of uses or users from the requirements for a license" under those sections?

ANSWER As a general matter, the Commission has authority under Section 57d.,62, and 81 to grant exemptions from the requirements for a license under those sections. However, whether that Commission authority includes the authority to grant license exemptions to DOE contractors is a more complicated question because Commission authority to exempt would imply that the l

Commission has authority to license the contractors.

i l

The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred *all licensing and related regulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission" to the NRCT The legislative history of the Act states that the licensing and related regulatory functions transferred to the NRC relate to

" facilities, materials and activities in the civilian nuclear industry which... [were) under the j

jurisdiction of the regulatory side of the AEC.* Section 202 of the Act further provided as

' follows:

i Notwithstanding the exclusions provided for in section 110a. or any other provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2140(a)), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall, except as otherwise provided by section 110b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2140(b)), or other law, have licensing and related j

i J

regulatory authority pursuant to chapters 6,7,8, and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as to the following facilities of the Administration:

(1) Demonstration Liquid Metal Fast Breeder reactors when operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system, or when operated in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitaF. y for commercial application of 1

such a reactor.

l l

(2) Other demonstration nuclear reactors - except those in existence on the effective date of this Act-when operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system, or when operated in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of such a reactor, I

' Public Law 93 438, $201(f) (1974).

• S. Rep.No.93-980,93d Cong.,2d Sess. 57 (1974).

o,

?

QUESTION 2 (Cont'd) (3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act.

(4) Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.

The Energy Reorganization Act also created the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA - now DOE), and in Section 107(a), entitled

• Powers," stated as follows-

... Such functions of the Administrator under this Act as are applicable to the nuclear l

activities transferred pursuant to this title shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic l

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and to other authority applicable to such nuclear l

activities, j

Moreover, Congress intended for ERDA, in carrybg out its functions, to have the responsibility l

for assuring that its programs are conducted in a manner which protects the environment and public health and safety. The Report of the Sr.nate Committee on Govemment Operations included the following statement:

l The Committee also intends that the Assistant Administrator for Environment and Safety should have an inspection and audit function which reaches throughout ERDA to ensure i

the establishment and enforcement of appropriate health, public safety and l

environmental protection standards for all activities of the agency. Such a function is l

gggpially imoerative in the noncommercial nuclear R & D area because the new INRCI will have no licensina lurisdiction over auch ERDA nnchar activities. [ Emphasis addedf l

Thus, the language of the statute and the legislative history support the view that, when Congress enacted Section 202, Congress was extending the authority previously exercised by the regulatory side of the AEC beyond that which was transferred by Section 201(f) cited above."

After NRC's creation, it adopted all of the existing regulations of the AEC, including the AEC exemption provisions, without any reexamination of their bases. The exemption provisions were modified only to reflect the Energy Reorganization Act Section 202 exceptions and to refer to

' S. Rep. No.93-980,93d Cong.,2d Sess. 30 (1974).

" 'Section 202 extends the licensing and related regulatory authority of [the NRC) beyond the present provisions of the Atomic Energy Act...." S. Rep.93-980,93d Cong.,2d

)

Sess. 59 (1974).

l 1

4

~

OUESTION 2 (Cont'd),

both ERDA (now DOE) and NRC contractors. In the Faderal.Bagiatar notice adoptmg these regulations, the Commission included the following statement:

...The primary purpose of these technical and conforming amendments... is to reflect wording, organizational and procedural changes effected or made necessary by that Act.

... Adoption of these technical amendments does not reflect any judgment by the Commission on the merits of the existing rules and is, of course, wthout prejudme to modification of those rules by the Commission in the future."

It is against this statutory and regulatory structure and background, that the question of Commission authority to grant exemptions from licensing to DOE contractors would need to be addressed.

A strong argument can be made that the Commission generally has no authority to imense (or exempt from licensing) DOE contractors except with respect to the DOE facilshes in Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. In otner words, it can be argued that Section 202 of the Act, itself, defines the scope of NRC regulatory authority over DOE contractor activities in general. As to other DOE contractor activities, DOE generally would have responsitdity to self-regulate under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and other authority applicable to such nuclear activities, and the Commission accordingly would not have authority to regulate (or grant exemptions) to the DOE contractors.

The argument that NRC lacks authority to license (or exempt) DOE contractors is supported by the historical practices of the NRC and DOE. Excluding the facilities listed in Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, both the NRC and the DOE appear to have generally regarded activities under DOE contracts (or subcontracts) to be outside the scope of NRC licensing requirements.'8 Although NRC maintained the AEC exemptions for contractors in its regulations, there do not appear to be instances in which NRC sought to regulate DOE contractors (or subcontractors) on the ground they did not qualify for specife exemption.

)

Similarly, there do not appear to be instances in which NRC (or DOE) made exemphon j

determinations for DOE contractors (or subcontractors) on the ground that contract terms J

provided adequate protection of public health and safety, under those provisions. (See the response to Question 4 Ocussing instances when NRC considered the exemptions.) This practice was, of course, reinforced by the adoption of 42 U.S.C. $7272 which, beginning in 1980, precluded the NRC from using any appropriated funds "for any purpose related to licensing of any defense activity or facility of the Department of Energy" by the NRC!: At the

" 40 FR 8774 (1975)

'8 The NRC and Agreement States have licensed activity at facilities which perform a il t

d

" mixed-use" activity - that is, some of the nuclear-related work is of a commerc a na ure an similar work is performed under DOE contracts (e.g., low-level waste oisposal facilities).

See Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1981, Public Law 96-540 (1980). See also Public Law 96-164, Title 11, $210 (1979).

3 s

l QUESTION 2 (Cont'd) 4-time this provision was adopted, as indicated in the legislative history, Congress intended to

• continue current policy with respect to NRC licensing of DOE defense programs until the,

Congress addresses certain concems raised by the NRC in its report on ' Regulation of Federal

. Radioactive Waste Activities.'" H.R. Rep. No.96-702,96th Cong.,1st Sess. 30 31 (1979)

(Conference Report).

However, if it is argued that the NRC lacks authority to grant licensing exemptions to DOE contractors, then it might be questioned why NRC would have adopted the AEC licensing exemptions for contractors when it was created in 1975 (and why it still retains them today)"

We believe a supportable explanation is that, in retaining the AEC exemptions, the NRC was simply maintaining the Alahlf.WD. At the time of the Energy Reorganizaten Act of 1974, a very limited set of AEC activities were being conducted under licensef' and, in addition, the AEC was using some licensees to perform activities that the licensees were performing commercially under license." Further, given that Section 201(f) of the Act transferred to the NRC *all licensing and related regulatory functions of the [AEC),'"it may have seemed doubtful that Congress intended not to transfer the regulatory authority exercised by the AEC (and the Agreement States) with respect to these activities. Thus, by adopting the same AEC exemptions, as they were written, it could therefore be made apparent in NRC regulations that NRC (and the Agreement States) had licensing and regulatory authority over ERDA (and now DOE) activities as AEC had in the past. However, beyond this simple " place-hoeder" status, continuing the Atahls 30 as to NRC (and Agreement State) licensing authority with respect to DOE activities that historically involved licensing, the exemptions would have no continuing significance."

As noted in the answer to Question 1, the AEC exemptions, at least arguably, were a codification of an AEC practice subsequently adopted in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, not to require the licensing of AEC contractors involved in the operation of Commission-owned (or controlled) facilities including the acquisition, transfer, use and disposal of radioactive materials related thereto. Under this argument, the NRC's continuation of the exemptions would not imply the authority to license AEC contractors.

18 The AEC licensed naval fuel-cycle and mixed-oxide pilot program activities conducted at facilities not on Government-owned sites (e.g., NFS Erwin, B&W Lynchburg, UNC Windsor, and CE Wood River JunGon). NRC continued to license these activities.

" For a period beginning in the mid-1960's, the AEC sent unclassified low-level wastes (LLW) to commercial facilities already licensed by either the AEC or Agreement States for disposal of LLW. These facilities continued to be licensed by NRC or the Agreement States.

DOE stopped shipping LLW to commercial sites in 1979 apparently to preserve disposal capacity for waste generated by NRC and Agreement State licensees. Recently, DOE began using the Envirocare facility which is licensed by the State of Utah, an Agreement State.

F Section 201(f) also provides that "all of the licensing and related regulatory functions of the [AEC)... are excepted from the transfer to [ERDA)."

" Under this view, the NRC (and Agreement States) would have regulatory cuthority over (1) the specific (formerly AEC) licensees conducting (formerly AEC) naval fuel-cycle and mixed-oxide pilot program activities under license (e.g., NFS Erwin, B&W Lynchburg, UNC

f, OtJESTlON 2 (Cont'd).

Although the Act and historical practices are consistent with the view that NRC generally lacks authonty to license or grant licensing exemptions to DOE contractors, R should be recognized there is also room to make the argument that NRC has authonty to interpret and apply the -

licensing exemptions." Thus, for example, a DOE contracting arrangement that did not contain health and safety protection provisions in the contract and that authorized activity on a site that was controlled by the contractor might provide a basis for the NRC to interpret that performance of work would not take place "at a United States Govemment owned or controlled site" and, therefore, to find that the DOE contractor is subject to licensing. An analysis of the specific facts in each case would need to be done for each individual situation.

However, R should be recognized that R is questionable whether the NRC would be able to achieve any consistency in regulating DOE contractors including, most particulariy, DOE contractors, engaged in apparently similar activities. We note that a waste solidification project at Savannah River is proceeding under DOE self-regulation, without NRC participation.

However, at DOE's discretion, apparently identical projects could be structured by DOE in such a way as to appear to require licensing. It is also unclear, as more importance b:: gins to be placed on the terms of DOE's contractual arrangements, whether it might be argued that NRC or an Agreement State, as appropriate, should begin to examine existing contracting arrangements and factual circumstances surrounding the work of current DOE prime contractors and subcontractors, in order to achieve a more consistent application of the licensing exemptions.

Given the scope of DOE activities, this could create a substantial, unanticipated burden on the NRC and Agreement States.

Windsor, and CE Wood River Junction) and (2) ERDA's (and now DOE's) use of commercial facilities for activities the facilities are already performing under license by NRC or an Agreement State (e.g., LLW dispossi).

• Although it would appear logical to conclude that the authority to determine the extent of any exemption from licensing was given to the NRC as an inherent part of the licensing function transferred to the NRC, under the AEC, it was the General Manager side (now in DOE) which made the decisions to proceed by contract oversight rather than by licensing.

0

j QUESTION 3 What is a

• United States Government... controlled site" for purposes of sections 30.12,40.11, and 70.11 of the Commission's rules?

ANSWER Section 30.12 of the Commission's regulations provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Except to the extent that Department facilities or activities of the types subject to licensing pursuant to section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 are involved, any prime contractor of the Department is exempt from the requirements for a license set forth in sections 81 and 82 of the Act and from the regulations in this part to the extent that such contractor, under his prime contract with the Department manufactures, produces, transfers, receives, acquires, owns, possesses, or uses byproduct material for:

(a) The performance of work for the Department at a United States Government-owned or controlled site, including the transportation of byproduct material to or from st";h site and the perforir..ance of contract services during temporary interruptions of such transportation;.... [ emphasis added.)

The Commission adopted this regulatory language (as well as comparable language in Section 40.11, for source material, and in Section 70.11, for special nuclear material) shortly after it was created as an agency in 1975, and in the course of adopting all the existing AEC regulations. At that time, the Commission said it was adopting the AEC regulations without any judgment on the merits, and it neither explained the exemptions nor the meaning of " United States Government... controlled site."

The AEC, when it clarified the exemption provisions in 1964 (29 FR 14401), included the following statement:

The phrase "Govemment controlled site" means a site leased or otherwise made available to the Govemment under terms which afford to the Commission rights of access and control substantially equal to those which the Commission would possess if it were the holder of the fee as agent of and on behalf of the Govemment."

)

" Prior to adopting the 1964 clarification, the AEC had found a practice within the AEC of contracting on a non-licensed basis with otherwise licensed commercial facilities (i.e., mixed facilities), and that the practice created and perpetuated inconsistencies related to health and safety standards, approvals and inspections. The 1964 clarification did away with these problems by extending AEC regulatory control to cover AEC contract operations in commercial facilities. AEC licensing requirements were traditionally inapplicable at United States Govemment-owned or controlled sites.

QUESTION 3 (Cont'd) -

it might be possible to conclude in an appropriate case that a site could be regarded as a

" United States Govemment... controlled site" if the Department of Energy exercised suffscient safety oversight over activities at the site.8' I

See Letter to Joe Egan, Esq., from Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel; dated November 21,1996.

OUESTION 4.

Does the Commission decide whether a specific site is exempt from licensing under sections 30.12,40.11, and 70.11 or does it leave that decision to the Department and its contractors?

ANSWER To our knowledge, the Commission has not been presented with the question of whether a specific site is exempt from licensing under Sections 30.12,40.11, or 70.11. As indicated in response to Question 2, since 1974 the NRC and DOE (formerly, ERDA) have generally regarded activities under DOE contracts (or subcontracts) to be outside the scope of NRC licensing requirements.

In the late 1970's, the NRC considered whether certain nuclear generators used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's space program should be subject to licensing under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The devices, which are not subject to NRC licensing, are carried on spacecraft that are federally-owned vehicles launched from U.S. Government owned sites. In 1996, the NRC staff decided not to require licensing of a DOE subcontracter preparing isotopes at DOE's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory because the subcontractor's contract included sufficient health and safety protection.

QUESTION 5.

Has the Commission ever exempted a low-level waste site owned by a private company on the basis that it was a " United States Government.

controlled site?"

ANSWER No. To our knowledge, the Commission has not been presented with the question of whether to exempt from licensing a low level waste site owned by a private company.

In correspondence discussing in general terms NRC licensing authority over a private entity disposing of DOE low-level radioactive waste under DOE contract on a non-DOE site, the view was expressed that the need for an NRC license would depend on whether DOE would exercise sufficient safety oversight over disposal activities so that the site could be regarded as a DOE controlled site, and that if the oversight were such that the site would be controlled by DOE, the disposal would be exempt from licensing under 10 CFR 30.12.22 in 1993, the NRC found acceptable an exemption to the land ownership requirement in 10 CFR 61.59(a) granted to Envirocare of Utah, Inc., by the State of Utah. However,in that case, the State, using the exemption authority in its regulations, issued the exemption when it issued a license to Envirocare in March 1991.

Letter to Joe Egan, Esq., from Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel, dated 22 November 21,1996.

j

\\

1 QUESTION 6 Do sections 30.12,40.11, and 70.11 of the Commission's rules still provide an independent basis for exempting low level waste disposal from NRC licensing or have those exemptions been superseded by part 61 so far as low level waste disposal is concerned?

ANSWER The question of the extent to which Sections 30.12,40.11, and 70.11 of the Commission's regulations provide a basis for exempting the activities of DOE contractors from NRC licerising and regulation is addressed in the answer to Question 2.

There is no indication in the Commission's rulemaking on Part 61 that the Commission intended Part 61 to supersede Sections 30.12,40.11, or 70.11. Because the Commission's licensing authority under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act does not extend to DOE LLW disposal facihties, it seems likely that the Part 61 rulemaking was understood not to apply to the LLW disposal activities of DOE contractors at those facilities.2' r' See 10 CFR 61.7(c)(4) (Part 61 LLW disposal license will be terminated (rather than transferred to the Federal government that owns the disposal site after satisfactory disposal site closure)if the Federal agency administering the land on behalf of the Federal government is DOE *because the Commission lacks regulatory authority over the Department for this activity.")

e

QUESTION 7.

Does the exemption for a " United States Govemment.. controlled site" apply under part 61 in view of the govemment ownership requirements of section 61.59?

ANSWER As discussed in response to Question 3, the exemptions for contractor activities on a " United States Government-owned or controlled site' were adopted by the AEC which explained that

' United States Govemment... controlled site' meant a site leased or otherwise made available under terms that gave the AEC rights of access and control substantially equal to those possessed by an owner. The exemptions appeared to reflect the historical fact that AEC licensing requirements were traditionally inapplicable at such sites. Although the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 gave the NRC licensing and regulatory jurisdiction over certain DOE facilities, DOE low level waste disposal facilities were not among them.

The govemmental ownership requirement in Section 61.59 is one of the licensing requirements applicable to commercial land disposal facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.

Federal or State govemmental ownership of the land has been a licensing requirement for disposal of waste at a land disposal facility since the inception of commercial land disposal operations. It was adopted as a requirement by the AEC in 1961 for persons engaged in commercial radioactive waste disposal activities. See 26 FR 352 (1961) ("The Commission will not approve any application for a license to receive licensed material from other persons for disposal on land not owned by the Federal govemment or by a State govemment.")

l QUESTION 8 Do agreement states have the authority to license and regulate private companies receiving low-level radioactive wastes from the Department of Energy for disposal on private land under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act and part 150 of the Commission's rules?

ANSWER As discussed below, neither Section 274 nor NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 150 address the question of Agreement State regulatory authority over DOE contractors. However, it is clear that a State entering into an agreement with NRC under Section 274 can have no greater authority to license DOE or its contractors than possessed by NRC at the time authority is relinquished to a State. Agreement States are expected to provide exemptions to DOE contractors that are substantially equivalent to Sections 30.12,40.11 and 70.11 of the Commission's regulations.

Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides that:

Except as provided in subsection c.,8' the Commission is authorized to enter into agreements with the Govemor ef any State providing for 6 continuance of the regulatory authority of the Commission under chapters 6,7, and 8, and section 161 of this Act with respect to any one or more of the following materials within the State -

(1) byproduct materials as defined in section 11e.(1);

i (2) byproduct materials as defined in section 11e.(2);

(3) source materials; (4) special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.

During the duration of su:h an agreement it is recognized that the State shall have authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards.

In the course of implementing Section 274, the AEC issued regulations in 10 CFR Part 150 which the NRC adopted as part its regulations. Under Part 150, a person who possesses radioactive materials in an Agreement State is exempt from the requirements for a Commission license for the radioactive materials covered by the agreement. However, the exemption does not apply to agencies o"he Federal government (10 CFR 150.10). Part 150 does not address the status of DOE (or NRv) contractors within the Agreement State.

Section 274c. of the Act directs the NRC not to discontinue its authority with respect to the regulation of production and utilization facilities, exports and imports of certain nuclear materials and facilities, disposal of nuclear materials into the ocean or sea, and disposal of materials determined to require a license from the Commission.

e QUESTION 8 (Cont'd),

Under Section 274d., an agreement shall be entered into between the State and the Commission after -

... (2) the Commission finds that the State program is... In all other respe' cts compatible with the Commission's 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.

Criteria developed by the NRC in 1981 to assist in the implementation of Section 274 envisions that a State entering into an agreement with NRC will provide licensing exemptions for DOE (and NRC) contractors." The NRC criteria include modellanguage for the State's licensing exemptions that essentially repeats the language of NRC's licensing exemptions in Sections l

30.12,40.11, and 70.11 of NRC regulations." Under the criteria, which remain in effect today, the State is to have exemptions that are "substantially equivalent' to the model language.

Thus, Agreement State authority to license and regulate persons disposing of ra:.ioactive wastes from DOE depends on the meaning of the NRC licensing exemptions for DOE contractors.rr As discussed in response to Question 2, while the scope of the licensing authority reflected in the NRC exemptions is open to some dispute, we believe that the adoption of these licensing exemptions by the NRC merely preserved the.alahs. gyp, reflecting NRC (and i

Agreement State) licensing authority with respect to DOE activities that historically involved licensing, and otherwise having no continuing significance. While it might be argued that the licensing exemptions include the authority to interpret and apply the exemptions depending on the factual circumstances and contractual arrangements in a particular case, we do not believe they are indicative of broad authority on the part of NRC to license or exempt DOE contractors.

" See NRC Statement of Policy on " Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement" (46 FR 7540 (1981), as amended (46 FR 36969 (1981); 48 FR 33376 (1983)(*NRC and Department of Energy Confractors. The State should provide exemptions for NRC and

~

DOE contractors which are substantially equivalent to the following exemptions:....').

" In the case of a prime contractor or subcontractor whose exemption depended on a determination, the model language calls for the State and NRC to " jointly determine

• that the exemption is appropriate.

8' It should be recognized that, in some instances, a federal contractor may be able to assert immunity from State regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Sea. e.g., Goodvaar Atomic Corn. v..Mdlar,486 U.S.174 (1988).

QUESTION 9 What role is the Commission playing in the review of the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) proposal?

ANSWER On various occasions, members of the NRC staff and Commission offices received information or briefings on the status of the proposal of Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS). In November 1996 Martin G. Malsch, then Deputy General Counsel of the NRC, wrote a letter to attomeys for WCS. The letter is cited in footnote 14 of the legal memorandum enclosed with the I

letter transmitting these questions to NRC and in our responses to Questions 3 and 5.

Apart from these activities, the Commission is playing no role in the review of the WCS proposal.

l QUESTION 10.

How does the WCS proposal relate to NRC and DOE efforts to bring DOE nuclear facilities under NRC regulation?

ANSWER.

It appears that the WCS proposal has generated a great deal of interest in a number of issues.

Some of the issues raised by the WCS proposal might be seen as overlapping issues that need to be addressed in the context of considering possible NRC regulation of DOE facilities. For example, in the answer to Question 2, we noted that a waste solidification project at Savannah River is proceeding under DOE self-regulation, without NRC participation, but that DOE might structure apparently identical projects in such a way as to appear to require licensing. We understand the WCS proposal to suggest how DOE might structure contractual arrangements and, in that sense, to raise issues that might be seen as potentially overlapping issues in NRC's regulation of DOE facilities.

9

fl

.p{;A (') ]}.'LQD p<i.

( -,

c,

.t fysc0 i

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROMs DUE: 12/22/97 EDO CONTROL: G970857 DOC DT: 12/09/97 FINAL REPLY:

s S nOtor Dale Bumpers TO:

Chairman: Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF :

• • PRI CRC NO: 97-1165 Chairman DESC:

ROUTING:

LEGAL QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO REGULATING DOE'S Callan NUCLEAR FACILITIES Thadani Thompson Norry Elaha

'Burne SDATEt!12/12/97

[gart vyt, m --

ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT:

NMSS Paperiello SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

Coordinate response with OGC.

'em

i

~

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

. CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET

.1 PAPER NUMBER:

CRC-97-1165 LOGGING DATE: Dec 10 97 ACTION OFFICE:

EDO/OGC AUTHOR:-

SEN DALE BUMPERS AFFILIATION:

U.S. SENATE ADDRESSEE:

CHAIRMAN ~ JACKSON-LETTER DATE:

Dec 9 97 FILE CODE:

SUBJECT:

REGULATING DOE'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES....

ACTION:

. Signature of Chairman 1

DISTRIBUTION:

CHAIRMAN, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

NOTES:

DATE DUE:

Dec 24 97 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

d EDO.-- G970857

vy w TUE 15:14 FAI 2022249026 ENERGYCA

@ 002 12/09/97l I

1*.

. o:

r,wansaamones.m.m.cm 1

E'Ja:ro".^.,':::"""

1'*",%":llL,

=,4.' % h a.c

?".J7=':"'ll~

. Q%*'""**

7MN "* 8

$1M(Ed hl0 LEE h'EUQlE gv,,,,,,,,,,,

l

=o;;:::,,,,,,

EeE COMMITTEE oN me a um oss a ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES y, Q 7 g

• g *,' Q' Q 7 '

WAs anoToN, DC 20510-8150 December 9,1997 The Honorable Shirley AnnJackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Madam Chairman:

Last month, you and Secretary Pefia initiated a pilot program under which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will begin regulating the Department of Energy's nuclear facilities. The Appropriations Committees have already endorsed this initiative and have directed that future DOE nuclear facilities be constructed in accordance with NRC licensing standards.

Meanwhile, the Department is giving serious consideration to invoking its self-regulatory authority to shield commercial low-level waste disposal firms from NRC or agreement state licensing. While DOE waste contractors have historically been exempt from NRC or state licensing for waste disposal activities on DOE sites, DOE is now entertaining a proposal to extend this exemption to private companies disposing of DOE waste on private property.

I have sericus policy concerns with this proposal. Moreover, my stidf has given me a legal memorandum, a copy of which is enclosed, which questions its legal basis.

I would be grateful if you would review the enclosed memorandum and provide me with the Commission's views on this matter. In particular, I would appreciate the Commission's answers to the attached questions.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

)

~ [g M

Dale Bumpers Ranking Democrat

((

12/09/97 :11JE 15;15 FAI 2022240005 ENERGWA

=

QUESTIONS

1. Does section lloa. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 exempt DOE contractors from

- the materials licensing requirements of chapters 6,7, and 8 or only the facilities licensing requirements ofchapter 107

. 2. Does the Commission, as opposed to the Department of Energy, have the authority.

under sections 57d.,62, and 81 to make an independentjudgment on whether to exempt certain

" kinds of uses or users from the requirements for a license" under those sections?

3. What is a " United States Govemment... controlled site" for purposes of sections 30.12,40.11, and 70. I1 of the Commission's rules?

4. Does the Commission decide whether a specific site is exempt from licensing under sections 30.12,40.11, and 70.11 or does it leave that decision to the Department and its contractors?

5. Has the Commission ever exempted a low-level waste site owned by a private company on the basis that it was a " United States Government... controlled site"?

6. Do sections 30.12,40.11, and 70.11 of the Commission's rules still provide an i=4p= dent basis for exempting low-level waste disposal from NRC licensing or have those exemptions been supemoded by part 61 so far as low-level waste disposal is concemed?

7. Does the exemption for a " United States Government... controlled site" apply under part 61 in view of the government ownership requirements of section 61.597

8. Do agreement states have the authority to license and regulate private companies receiving low-level radioactive wastes from the Department of Energy for disposal on private land under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act and part 150 of the Commission's rules?

9. What role is the Commission playing in the review of the Waste Control Specialists

'(WCS) proposal?

10. How does the WCS proposal relate to NRC and DOE efforts to bring DdE nuclear facilities under NRC regulation?

4 iu __

m C004 12/os/s7? TUE 15:15 FAI 2022249a38 ENERGY #A

/..

November 12,1997 MEMORANDUM To:

Senator Bumpers From:

Sam Fowler Subjecti Waste Control Specialists and the Regulation of DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Mary Anne Sullivan's nomination to be the General Counsel of the Department of Energy (DOE) has been blocked by Waste Control Specialists (WSC), a waste disposal company located

in Texas. WCS is engaged in an ongoing dispute with DOE over WCS's ability to compete for contracts to dispose of DOE's low-level radioactive wastes at the company's site. DOE has been unwilling to award WCS a contract because the company does not have a low-level waste disposal license and does not qualify for one under Texas law. WCS argues that it does not need one.

This dispute is significant to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for reasons that go beyond Ms. Sullivan's nomination. WCS is saying that "if a private entity makes itself a DOE contractor," it is exempt from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and state regulation.

In fact, DOE can dispose ofits low-level wastes on its own sites without a license from either the

- NRC or the host state. But when DOE contracts with commercial finns to bury its low-level wastes on private land, itwquires the firrn to have an NRC or a state license. WCS argues that DOE's policy is not mdy unnecessary but unlawful. WCS proposes that DOE hire a university, national laboratory, or some other entity to oversee its operations in place of state or NRC regulation.

Acceptance of WCS's view could have far reaching consequences. It would significantly expand DOE's ability to shield its nuclear operations from extemal regulation at a time when DOE, the NRC, and Congress are working to bring those operations under NRC regulation.8 It would constrict the power of the states to regulate the siting and operation orlow-level waste disposal facilities at a time ~whm the states are already struggling to meet their commercial low-level waste disposal responsibiliues. It would enable private companies to evade state or federal licensing conditions that they cannot meet.

The Secretary of Energy and the Chairman of the NRC agreed in June to have the

~'

NRC begin regulating DOE nuclear facilities "on a pilot project basis." Both the House and the

. Senate Appropriations Committee endorsed this effort. The Managers' Statement on the FY i

(1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act " directs that all new nuclear facilities for which construction starts in the year 2000 or beyond are to be constructed in accordance with f

)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing standards."

i

12/09/97..TUE 15:16 FAI 2022249026 ENERGYOA.

GliO 2

WCS has already found acceptance for its view in the courts. In August, WCS sued DOE in federal district court in Texas to prevent DOE from denying it a waste disposal contract on the grounds that it did not have a license. ' WCS argued that section 110a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 exempts any private company working "under contract with and for the account of" DOE from NRC and state regulation.

WCS also told the court that the independent-overseer approach it proposed for itselfis the nah way that DOE can lawfully dispose orlow-level waste at any private site. In WCS's view, since the states are preempted from regulating DOE contractors, DOE cannot rely on a state license. WCS went so far as to accuse DOE of breaking the law by sending waste to it chief competitor, Envirocare. The Envirocare site is located on private land in Utah and is licensed by the State of Utah.

' In October, the court granted WCS a preliminary injunction. The court ruled that DOE waste contractors are shielded from state and NRC regulation on private sites and called into question the legality of DOE's use oflicensed waste disposal sites like Envirocare.'

~ In view of the serious implications of WCS's claims, I have reviewed the goveming law and its legislative history. Based upon my review, I believe that WCS and the district court have

. misread the Atomic Energy Act's section 110a. exemption. I think their broad reading of the exemption is supported by neither the plain meaning of the text nor its legislative history. Other provisions of the Act give the NRC the power to exempt DOE contractors in cases like this, but that power lies with the NRC and not DOE.

NRC AND STATE REGULATION OF DOE CONTRACTORS The etattitory framework The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 regulates three kinds of nuclear material and two kinds ofnuclear facilities. Chapter 6 of the Act requires a license to possess "special nuclear material" (i.e., plutonium or enriched uranium). Chapter 7 requires a license to possess " source material"

.'(i.e., uranium or thorium ores). Chapter 8 requires a license to possess " byproduct material"(i.e.,

radioisotopes resulting from nuclear fission or uranium mill tailings). Chapter 10 requires a license to build, possess, or operate a " production facility" (i.e., a uranium enrichment plant, plutonium production reactor, or reprocessing plant) or a " utilization facility" (i.e., a power reactor or test reactor).

The court ruled that "[t]he existence of a state or NRC license is neither a 2

necessary prerequisite nor a sufficient basis for the receipt by a DOE contractor of DOE low-level or mixed radioactive wastes for disposal at a private site," and that the Atomic Energy Act "does not relinquish to a state any federal... power to license DOE low-level radioactive waste

- disposal contractors," Wa=#, contml Specialists v. Du.-.:...r.t of Enerev, No. 7-97CV-202-X,

p. 5 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3,1997) (order granting preliminary injunction).

12,/09/97 TUE 15:16 FAI 2022249026 ENERGYOA lE 5

?

3 The Atomic Energy Act does not regulate low-level radioactive waste as such. Low-level waste is waste that contains special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material.' It

-_ is licensed and regulated under the special nuclear, source, and byproduct material provisions of

. chapters 6, 7, and 8, rather than the facility licensing provisions of chapter 10.*

Annlientian of the licentino requirementa to DOE enntractors ne Atomic Energy Act of 1954 makes it unlawful for any " person" to " acquire, own, possess, [or] receive possession of or title to" nuclear materials without a license or an applicable i

exemption.5 DOE is exempt from the Act's licensing requirements because section Ils. of the Act excludes it from the definition of" person."' Private companies doing work for DOE are

" persons" and are subject to the Act's licensing requirements if they " acquire, own, possess, [or) receive possession of or title to" nuclear materials. A contractor that buries IX)E low-level waste on a DOE site does not need a license because DOE continues to "own, possess," and hold " title to" the waste. A contractor that takes possession of and title to low-level waste, on the other hand, would need a license.

I WCS would " receive possession of (and] title to" low-level waste under its proposal.

Hus, WCS must either obtain a license or qualify for an exemption. The Atomic Energy Act and NRC rules implementing it offer three possible sources for an exemption: the contractor exemption in section 110a. of the Act, the materials licensing exemptions in sections 57d.,62, and 81 of the Act, and the low-level waste exemption in part 61 of the NRC's rules.

The contractor exemntion

.WCS claims that it is exempt under the contractor exemption in section 110a.(2) of the I

Atomic Energy Act. Section 110a. states:

i 3'

10 C.F.R. 61.2 (definition of" waste").

1 10 C.F.R. 61.1(a) and 61.3(a).

I l

s Section 57a. (special nuclear material); 62 (source material); and 81 (byproduct material). See also 10 C.F.R. 61.3 ("No person may receive, possess, and dispose of radioactive waste containing source, special nuclear, or byproduct material at a land disposal facility unless" licensed by the NRC.).

J f

Section 1 Is. defmes " person" to include any individual, corporation, or other entity other than DOE and the NRC.

ENERGYOA UJU w m

-12/09/97L TUE 15:17 FAI 2022249026.

lf.,

[

.\\

4 Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed-ai to require a license for (1) the processing, fabricating, or refining of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material from other substances, under contract with and for the account of the Commission; or

~

+

(2) the construction or operation of facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission....

-l Neither the text of section 110a. nor its legislative history supports WCS's claim. By its terms, section 1 los. does not provide an exemption from all NRC licensing requirements, only those in "this chapter." As used in section 110 "this chapter" means chapter 10 of the Act?

Since low-level waste disposal is licensed under chapters 6, 7, and 8, and not chapter 10, section

' 110a. does not offer WCS an applicable exemption.

Moreover, section 110a. provides an exemption for only two types of activities: (1) those

. associated with the production of special nuclear material; and (2) "the construction or operation of facilities." Neither encompasses low-level waste disposal. A low-level waste disposal site is not a facility within the meaning of section 110a.(2).

3 he Atomic Energy Act does not define " facilities," but it is clear from the context of.

chapter 10 that, as used in section 110a., the tenn means " utilization" or " production" facilities.'

The preceding nine sections of chapter 10 apply only to utilization and production facilities?

' Moreover, since no other facilities are subject to NRC licensing under chapter 10, them is no reason for section 110 to exempt any other " facility" from the licensing requirements of chapter 10.

If Congress had wanted to exempt waste disposal activities from the materials licensing requirements, it could have said "nothing in chapters 6, 7, 8, and 10," as it did in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, or it could have simply said "nothing in this Act,"

as the witness who originally proposed section 110 suggested. (Scs Appendix.)

Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 uses the term " facilities" more broadly to apply.to both reactors and high-level waste storage sites. But, unlike section 110 of the Atomic Energy Act, section 202 of the 1974 Act identifies the licensing authority for this broader classes of" facilities" as including the materials licensing provisions of chapters 6,7,

- and 8 as well as the facilities licensing provisions of chapter 10. Thus, the broad use of the term in the 1974 Act cannot be equated with its narrow use in the Atomic Energy Act.

ne subsequent section, section 111, relates to special nuclear, source, and

~

' byproduct materials, but it was added by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978,24 years aAer section 110 was enacted.

1

12/09/97 TUE'15:17 FAI 2022249026

' ENERGWA '

C008 s.

4 5

ne legislative history of section 110a. also supports a narrow reading of" facilities."

During the Joint Committee's consideration of the bill in 1954, two members of the Joint Committee, Chairman Cole and Rep. Hinshaw, asked what the term " facilities" in section 110a.

meant. Lewis Strauss, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, responded by asking if the term was defined in the bill. Chairman Cole replied that it was "[s]o long as we understand that the word ' facilities' here refers to either a production facility or utilization facility." Harold L. Price, the deputy general counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission, agreed that it did.3' ne.

i.1 11ceneing exemntions Chapters 6,7, and 8 of the Atomic Energy. Act permit the NRC" to exempt "certain...

kinds of uses or users" of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material."

NRC rules brsed on these chapters exempt DOE contractors from materials licensing requirements for " work for the Department at a United States Govemment-owned or controlled site."" ne rules do not define a " Government... controlled site," and the NRC has expressed no opinion on 'how or whether DOE should choose to exercise such control.""

1 Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic En rgy on S.3323 and H.R.

8862,83d Cong. 2d Sess., part 2,927-928 (June 8,1954), renrinted in 2 Losee, Legislative Hietary of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 2565-2566 (1955). (San Appendix.)

The Atomic Energy Act uses the word " Commission," meaning the Atomic Energy Commission. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 abolished the Atomic Energy Commission and transferred its nuclear research and weapons responsibilities to the Energy Research and Development Administration,42 U.S.C. 5814(c), and its licensing and regulatory authorities to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,42 U.S.C. 5841(f). The DOE Organization Act abolished the Energy Research and Development Administration in 1977 and transferred its i

nuclear research and weapons responsibilities to DOE. 42 U.S.C. 7151. In nny event, the Act's f

licensing authority now resides with the NRC.

1 Section 57d. authorizes the Commission to exempt "certain... kinds of uses or users" from the licensing requirements for special nuclear material if the exemption "would not be inimical to the common defense and security and would not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public." Section 62 provides that ' licenses shall not be required for quantities of source material which, in the opinion of the Commission, are unimportant." Section 1

81 permits the Commission to exempt "certain... kinds of uses or users" from the licensing

)

requirements for bypmduct material if the exemption "will not constitute an unreasonable risk to 1

the common defense and security and the health and safety of the pu)lic."

10 C.F.R. 30.12(a) (byproduct material); 40.11 (source material); and 70.11(a)

(special nuclear material).

Letter from Martin G. Malsch to Joe Egan (November 21,1996).

1

'32#9/97i*!11E 15:18 FAI-2022249026 ENERGYJA UWWU f..

,/

6 A former deputy general counsel of the NRC (who is now an attorney representing WCS) has ventured that "it seems conceptually feasible... for sufficient DOE control to be manifested by an agreement between DOE and a State whereby the State would exercise sufficient safety oversight on DOE's behalf" to satisfy the NRC's rules." Even so, the NRC has expressed no opinion on whether DOE would exercise sufficient safety oversight over disposal activities at :

-WCS's site for the site to be considered " controlled" by DOE.

h low-level w==+, eramntion

. Part 61 of the NRC's mies appears to take pre:+4=-:4 over the materials licensing rules in parts 30,40, and 70. Part 61 states that no person may dispose oflow-level waste at a land disposal facility unless licensed " pursuant to ihia part" or exempt under section 61.6. Unlike the materials licensing rules, part 61 does not provide an exemption for " work for the Department at

' a United States Govemment-owned or controlled site." To the contrary, section 61.59 provides that low-level waste disposal "may be permitted only on land owned by the Federal or a State government."

Section 61.6 authorizes the NRC to grant any exemption that "it determines is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest." While the NRC could conceivably exempt a contractor disposing of DOE low-level waste on private land under this broad provision, the NRC has not done so in WCS's Case.

Simte resndatlan In general, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempted state regulation of nuclear materials and facilities. Section 274 of the Act, however, permits the NRC to enter into agreements to tum over licensing and regulatory authority over nuclear materials to the states with " coordinated and compatible" regulatory programs. More than half the states have entered into such agreements.

Texas entered into such an agreement and has the responsibility for licensing and regulating nuclear materials, including low-level waste. Texas law prohibits a " person" from disposing oflow-level waste in the state without a license. Texas law defines " person" to exclude the NRC and " federal agencies the [NRC] licenses or exempts."

Id.

10 C.F.R. 61.3. Sections 30.11(d),40.14(d), and 70.14(d) of the NRC rules exempt persons from byproduct, source, and special nuclear material licensing requirements,

. respectively, "to the extent that [they] are subject to the requirements of part 61...."

l

~

@010.

ENERGY #A 12./es/s7.TUE 15i18 FAI~2022249026 1;.

1 c.,.

/

7

~

' WCS argues that since section 110a. of the Atomic Energy Act exempts DOE contractors from NRC regulation, and since the NRC cannot transfer to Texas regulatory authority it does -

- not have, Texas has no jurisdiction over DOE contractors operating in the state." '

, WCS errs, however, in assuming that section 110a. exempts private companies that accept title to DOE low-level waste and bury it on private land. For the reasons stated above, sectioni 110a. provides no such exemption ~. If WCS is not exempt from NRC licensing, and the NRC has turned over regulatory authority to the state, then WCS is not exempt from Texas law.

DOE USE OF LICENSED SITES

WCS asserts that DOE cannot lawfully send its low-level waste to a state licensed.

disposal site. Its theory is that since section 110a. of the Atomic Energy Act exempts DOE contractors from NRC regulation, and since the NRC cannot cede to the states regulatory authority it does not have, the states are preempted from licensing or regulating DOE contractors.

'Ihc law does not support WCS's claim. There is nothing in the Atomic Energy Act or any other law that bars DOE from using commercial waste disposal sites so long as those sites are licensed and willing to accept DOE's waste. To the contrary, DOE has broad power to enter into contracts to carry out its missions" and to decide how to' conduct its nuclear research and weapons activities." 'Ibe U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has said that the Atomic Energy Act *is virtually unique in the degree to which broad responsibility is reposed in the administering agency, free of close prescription in its charter as to how it shall proceed in achieving the statutory objectives.""

Transcript in WCS v. DOE at 84 (Sept. 30,1997)(testimony of Howard Shapar).

i Section 646 of the DOE Organization Act,42 U.S.C. 7465, authorizes the j

Secretary of Energy "to enter into and perform such contracts... as he may deem to be necessary or appropriate to carry out functions now or hereafter vested in the Secretary."

Section 161i. of the 1954 Act authorizes DOE to ' prescribe such regulations or orders as it may deem necessary... (3) to govern any activity authorized pursuant to this Act, including standards and restrictions governing the design, location, and operation of facilities used in the conduct of such activity, in order to protect health and to minimire danger to life or LPro ty/

n y

a,

' ao n,,i y,3,omie po,,gy comm;nnion,400 F.2d 778,783 (D.C. Cir.1968).

H t

1

~

5

@ 01 I

^12/09/97 'IUE 15:19 FAI 2022249026 ENERGYOA i

1 8

1 The Supreme Court has held that the Atomic Energy Act preempts state regulation of nuclear safety. But, in doing so, the Court said that "the Federal Government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concems, except the limited nowers ernrensly cedad to the St=ta< "28 The Court noted that " agreements with the NRC" under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act are the principal source of these powers.22 Section 274 authorizes the NRC "to enter into agreements" with the states to discontinue NRC regulation of special nuclear, source, and byproduct materials under the Atomic Energy

- Act. Section 274b. plainly states that "[d]uring the duration of such an agreement it is recognized that the State shall have authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards."

DOE use of state-licensed commercial disposal site is not unprecedented. DOE's riks.essor, the Atomic Energy Commission, began disposing oflow-level waste from its nuclear weapons, naval reactor, and research programs at a state-licensed commercial low-level waste disposal site (Maxey Flats, Kentucky) in 1963.

Moreover, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act allows DOE to send its low-level wastes to state-licensed disposal sites. Section 4(b)(1) of the Act states that "[ljow-level radioactive waste owned or generated by the Federal Govemment" may be disposed ofin a state-licensed site " subject to the same conditions, regulations, [and] requirements... imposed by the compact commission, and by the State in which such facility is located, in the same manner and to the same extent as any low-level radioactive waste not generated by the Federal Govemment."23 CONCLUSION Conventional wisdom holds that section 110a. preempts all DOE contractors from all NRC licensing requirements for work performed "under contract with and for the account of" DOE. WCS's expert witnesses, two former NRC lawyers, testified to this effect. DOE and the Justice Department have conceded as much. The federal district court in Texas so ruled.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and 28' Develonment Commission,461 U.S.190,212 (1983) (emphasis added).

22 461 U.S. at 212 n.25, 42 U.S.C. 2021d (b)(1)(B). State and regional low-level waste disposal sites 22 formed under the Act are not required to accept low-level waste owned or generated by DOE, 42

'.U.S.C. 2021c(a)(1), and the regional compacts may not regulate DOE waste disposal at federal c-

sites. 42 U.S.C. 2021d(b)(1)(A) and (2). But the Act does not preempt any licensing authority the state has under a section 274 agreement with the NRC. 42 U.S.C. 2021d(b)(5).

4 s

ENERGYOA

@ 012

- 12/09/97 ' TUE 15:19 FAI 2022249026 l,-

O

,e.

/

4 9

The fact remains that neither the text of section 110a. nor its legislative history supports the conventional wisdom. By its terms, section 110a. exempts only the production of special nuclear material and the construction and operation of production and utilization facilities by contractors from the facility licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. It does not exempt receipt and disposal of low-level waste by a private company at a privately owned commercial disposal site.

While other provisions of the Atomic Energy Act may permit the NRC to exempt WCS from NRC and state licensing requirements, the NRC has not granted WCS such an exemption.

Moreover, the discretion to grant such an exemption lies with the NRC and not DOE.

e 9

12/09/97 TUE 15:19 FAI-20222'49026 ENERGYOA 6013 Q

l l

)

f a

10 i

J l

L APPENDIX 1

1HE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CONTRACTOR EXEMPTION IN SECTION 110a.

I 1

Tae Anny's Manhattan Engineering District relied heavily on private contractors to produce nuclear materials and build and operate nuclear facilities during World War II. When Congress transferred the Army's nuclear program to the Atomic Energy Commission in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, it expressly authorized the Commission to continue to use contractors. He Act made the Commission the owner of all production facilities and fissionable 1

matarial." De Act did not require the Commission to license its contractors, but the contractors

.only -r. :cd facilitics owned by the Commission, not themselves.2s In the spring of 1954, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy began considering a bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The bill authorized the Atomic Energy Commission to license persons to possess and use nuclear materials and facilities in order to encourage wider use and ownership by the private sector.

As originally introduced, the bill did not exempt contractors perfomiing work for the Atomic Energy Commission from licensing requirements. On May 14,1954, one of the Commission's contractors, the General Electric Company, testified in favor of a broad exemption l

for contractors.' Since "everything done by the contractors is done on behalf of the Commission,"

[~

the General Electric Company official argued,"it would seem wholly unneu:ssary to require a j

contractor to obtain a license." To avoid "any possible ambiguity," however, he suggested that l

the committee add a new provision stating that the licensing requirements "of this act" shall not I

apply to anyone building or operating nuclear facilities or using nuclear materials " pursuant to a i

contract with the Commission.""

On May 21,1954, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy produced a revised bill that incorporated many of the changes proposed by witnesses at its hearings the week before. The May 21 draft included the text of section 110 (though it was originally numbered 109). The new section exempted contractors but was nanower than the General Electric Company had i

Atomic Energy Act of 1946, sections 4(c)(1) and 5(a)(2).

Atomic Energy Act of 1946, section 4(c) authorized the Atomic Energy 2s Commission "to make, or to continue in effect, contracts with persons obligating them to produce e

L fissionable material in facilities owned bv the Comminnion" and authorized it "to enter into i

di and developmcat contracts authorizing the contractor to produce fissionable material in r=eili+L~ owned by the Cammi== ion...."

Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on S.3323 and H.R.

8862,83d Cong.,2d Sess., part 1,333 (May 14,1954), renrinW in 2 Losee, Legidative History of the Ata=le Rnerav Act of 19541%7 (1955).

,12/09/97.;TUE 15:20 FAI 2022249026 ENERGYOA

@ 014 l.

r 4

11 suggested. The revised draft exempted only contractors that either (1) produced special nuclear material or (2) built or operated facilities. Moreover, it exempted them only from the licensing requirements for facilities, not those for materials."

On June 17,1954, the General Electric Company submitted written comments on the May 21 draA bill. The company said the exemption was too narrow because contractors may perform activities other than the production of special material or the constmetion and operation of facilities. The company asked that "the exclusion from the licensing system explicitly be.

made coextensive with the Commission's contracting authority." Despite the company's concerns, the Joint Committee made no changes in the exemption.

The only recorded discussion of section 110 prior to its enactment occurred at a hearing before the Joint Committee on June 8,1954. During the Joint Committee's line-by-line scrutiny j -

of the bill, the following exchange took place betv.a.s members of the Joint Committee and.

l Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, William Mitchell, the AEC's General Counsel, and Harold Price, the AEC's Deputy General Counsel:

Rep. HINSHAW What is intended by the language in line 5 on page 47 which says "the construction or operation of facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission"? It says " facilities." It does not say production facilities or utilization facilities. It does not say anything l

I except " facilities," which is very broad.

Chainnan COLE. I know lots of answers, but I do not, I confess, know the answers to L

everything.

Mr. MITCHELL. I da not think it extends our authority otherwise than we have it elsewhere in the bill. It simply says as 1 read it that where we do have authority to contract we do not have to issue a license for the operation.

Rep. DURHAM. You do not have to get a license to build a reactor if you want to build it l.

yourself?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is my understanding.

Sen. PASTORE. Where are we reading?

Mr. STRAUSS. Page 47, Senator, line 5, starting with (2):

"Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to require a license for the construction or operation of facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission."

- In other words, if we are doing a piece of work ourselves we do not have to go to all the trouble of issuing a license for that particular piece of work.

Joint Committee Print, May 21,1954, at 46-47, reorinted in 1 Losee, Leoi=1stive Hi=ta v of the Atamic Enerav Act of 1954 302-303 (1955).

Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on S.3323 and H.R.

8862,83d Cong.,2d Sess., part 1,348 and 351 (comments submitted on June 17,1954),

reprinted in 2 Losee, Leai=1stive Hietary of the Atomic Enerav Act of19541982 and 1985 (1955).

12,/09/97 TUE 15:20 FAI 2022249026-ENERGY #A

@ 015

.s.',.-

I

~

12 Rep. DURHAM. Why is that necessary?

Chairman COLE. Because in the bill a construction license is required for the construction of a utilization facility.

Mr. PRICE. And a production faciJty.

Chairman COLE. Here it 'says that if a construction is for the Commission-Mr. STRAUSS. We like to see it in the bill so that if the question is ever raised it is answered.

Chairman COLE. I though Mr. Hinshaw's question was raised as to what do you mean when you say" facilities"?

Rep. HINSHAW. I understand.

Chairman COLE. I do not. What do you mean when you say " facilities"?

Rep. HINSHAW. Production operation, utilization, any kind of facility.

Mr. PRICE. I assume any facilities that are otherwise required to be licensed in this act.

Ifit is something being built for the Commission, then a license is not necessary.

Mr. STRAUSS. Is it in the definitions at all?

Chainnan COLE. So long as we understand that the word " facilities here refers to either a production facility or utilization facility.

Mr. PRICE. Yes. "

Section 110a. was subsequently enacted without change.

l

~ Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on s3323 and H.R. 8862, 83%Cong.,2d Sess., part 2,927-928 (June 8,1954), reprinted in 2 Losee, Lggi=1stive History of the Atannie Enerry Act of 1954 2565-2566 (1955).