ML20236M859
| ML20236M859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1987 |
| From: | Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Gramm P SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236M790 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-670, FOIA-87-A-87 NUDOCS 8711130313 | |
| Download: ML20236M859 (4) | |
Text
-___
. ! g mee g \\ '
umisosTAves
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
l D
WASHWG TON, D. C. 20006
- e...
September 30, 1987 The Honorable Phil Graset United. States Senator e
900 Jackson Street, Suite 570 Dallas, Texas 75202
]
Dear Senator Gramm:
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of i
September 4,1987 regarding Texas-regulation of Conoco Inc.'s Conquista Project and Rhone-Poulenc breeport fc 111ty.
As you are aware, the State of Texas is an Agreement State and exercises its own regulatory authority over uranium milling and tailings disposal activities in Texas. Consequently, the NRC has no jurisdiction-over specific licensing 7
and disposal activities in the State of Texas; 1
1 Previously. N received similar Congressional letters of inquiry and inquiries' from Stuart N. Henry, Esq. of Henry & Kelly Attorneys-at Law. The general' I
issues in these lettert are essentially the same as the ones contained in the September 2,1987 letter from Mr. William'G. Bunch. 'Our responses to these issues are provided at Enclosure 1.
Additionally, we are providing you a copy of the letter that we sent to Dr. Robert Bernstein, Consiissioner Texas.
Department of Health, dated March 23,1987 (Enclosure 2) which contains our reconsnendations to the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control (TBRC) regarding-TBRC regulatory actions for this licensing action.
Although couched somewhat differently, the first three questions on pages 7 -
and 8 of Mr. Bunch's September 2,1987 letter revolve around the definition'of byproduct material and other residues having radiological characteristics similar to uranium and thorium mill tailings. On March 23, 1987, the NRC staff advised Stuart N. Henry Esq. (Enclosure 1) that. " pursuant to the Section 274b agreement between Texas and the NRC, the NRC has relinquished its 8711130313 871110
./
i NCH A-87 PDR
4 9
Honorable Phil Gramm SEP 3 01987 authority, and the State exercises control by State statutes and regulations.
Thus, there is no delegation of Federal authority involved in such agreements.
The NRC staff is aware that Texas statutes and regulations contain a definition of byproduct material which is broader than that contained in Section11e.(2)oftheAtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended(Act). The Texas definition has the effect of subjecting other residues which have radiological characteristics similar to uranium and thorium mill tailings to the same stringent requirements applicable to uranium or thorium mill tailings. This is a conservative approach from a safety and environmental standpoint that is an exercise of Texas' plenary power. There could be a potential problem, l
however, in the event Texas desires to transfer ownership of the tailings site to the Federal government rather than the State assuming ownership since the Federal Section 11e.(2) definition of byproduct materlat would then be controlling. Federal ownership of the tailings may be precluded if significantquantitiesofresiduesnotmeetingtheSection11e(2) definition are present. We believe Texas is aware of this factor. We believe the Texas statutes and regulations are otherwise consistent with the Atomic Energy Act and the Texas amended agreement."
The fourth question regarding radioactivity determination of Rhone-Poulenc waste, on page 8 of the September 2, 1987 letter, and the other environmental issues raised throughout the letter have been addressed in Enclosure 2, which provides two recommendations for Texas's regulation of the conoco Tailings site:
(1) It is reconinended that the TBRC prepare a safety and environmental 7
assessment of the existing tailings impoundment as a basis for deciding whether or not the current and projected licensed activi-ties at the Conoco site should be permitted and if so under what conditions or restrictions. This assessment should deal with both radiological and non-radiological impacts.
In particular, the current and potential future impacts of the disposal of the Rhc6e-Poulenc rare earth process wastes into the tailing impoundment should be analyzed and a comparison made of the characteristics of the rare earth process wastes and those of the tailir.gs from a conventional uranium mill. Typically, rare earth process wastes have higher concentrations of radioactivity and different chemical constituents than uranium mill tailings. Thus, there is a question as to whether the controls and conditions established for meeting the regulations pertaining to uranium mill tailings will also offer sufficient safeguards for the rare earth process wastes.
We believe this assessment should be initiated in the near future and should not be delayed until the matter of license renewal is taken up.
It would be advisable to establish a schedule with I
E _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _________________. _
l v
Honorable Phil Gram SEP 3 01987 milestones for completion of this effort so that progress could be l
monitored.
l (2) It is recommended that a detailed reclamation and stabilization clan' for the Conoco site be completed by the licensee and approved by' TBRC including the amount of surety prior to approving the pending request for license transfer. We believe that an approved detailed reclamation and stabilization plan is necessary to assure that an adequate surety is provided. The NRC staff reviewed a pro wsed reclamation plan at the request of the TBRC.in 1985. At tsat time l
the NRC expressed concerns about the adequacy-'of the concept pre-sented(reference.-letterdatedSeptember 25, 1985 to Edgar D.
Bailey from Harry J. Pettengill). The concerns centered on long tem stability, predicted. radon emanation rates and possible ground, water degradation. To our knowledge this matter has not been.
resolved.
.I We have been informed by the TBRC that Conoco's present plan is to' submit by the end of 1987 a. revised plan for termination of the licensed activities and decontamination and reclamation of the Conquista site. The TBRC has also-advised us that it expects to complete an environment 1' assessment of the existing tailings impoundments by mid-1988 and that this assessment will address questions regarding environmental issues and facility operations. It is our understanding that this environmental assessment would also be used by TBRC in evaluating any decontamination and reclamation plan which Conoco may submit. Unde ~r Texas procedures, members of the public will be given an I
opportunity to provide written consents and request a public hearing.on the final environmental assessment prepared by TBRC. Under the' circumstances, we cuggest that the environmental concerns raised in Mr. Bunch's letter.of' September 2, 1987 be sent to the TBRC so that.they can be evaluated and addressed in the environmental assessment.
Mr. Bunch's question on the status of Conoco's license was answered by.
Dr. Bernstein in a letter to Henry & Kelly dated December 22,1986.' According to information provided by our NRC representative in Region IV. License No.
9-1634, issued to Conoco. Inc. for the Conquista Project, was due to expire September 30, 1980. Under the applicable State regulations,.Conoco was required to file an application for renewal at least 30 days prior to the license expiration date. Conoco applied for license renewal on August 27, 1980, stating in its application that, "an environmental report would be furnished shortly." Conoco's environmental report was received by TBRC on September 16, 1980, together with an amended application fom. The Texas Bureau of Radiation Control (TBRC). advised Conoco of the timely renewal status of the license by letter dated September 19, 1980.
i I
Honorable Phil Gram 4
SEP 3 01987 The NRC staff has no infomation to confirm the accuracy of Henry & Kelly's research "in showing Rhone-Poulenc to be the only rare earth producer in the Uni.ted States disposing of its wastes as if it were uranium ' byproduct' waste, We hope you find this information helpful in responding to Mr. Bunch of Henry
& Kelly Attorneys-at. Law.
i Sincerely.-
Original signed by losoph J. Fcuchard l
Harold R. Denton, Director l
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
1.
Letters dated 2/9/87 and 3/03/87 l
from G. Wayne Kerr to l
Smart N. Henry, Esq.
i 2.
Letter dated 3/23/87 from G. Wayne Kerr to Dr. Robert Bernstein cc: Robert Bernstein, Concissioner 7
Texas Department of Health DISTRIBUTIDNi SA R/F GPA R/F DIR R/F OGC R/F HDenton JShea DLacker RDoda MKnapp JBradburne JFouchard RMartin, RIV DNussbaumer DSmith. URF0 Texasfile(fc)w/incomingandallenc1s JKendig OCA SECY(CRC-871074)
,w 08 adburne
- Telephone Concurrence **See Previous Concurrences 94$/87 l'C
- SA
- SA
- *RIV
- 0GC
- SLITP:DD :**5LITP:D 6:
. NE :JKendig:gd :DNussbaumer :RDoda
- JMapes
- SSchwartz
- CKamerer ;
on-
....:............:............:............:.............:.............:...........L:
, TE :9/24/87
- 9/24/87
- 9/24/87
- 9/25/87
- 9/ /87
- 9/28/87
- /fo/87 w___________-_____-______-______