ML20236V459

Responds to to Chairman Jackson,Which Raised Issues Re Current & Future Regulation of U Mill Facilities & Solicited Support for Enhanced Public Participation in Such Regulation

ML20236V459
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/28/1998
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Nielson D UTAH, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9808030223
Download: ML20236V459 (7)

Text

.

pMth g

UNITED STATES i

g j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t, o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

)

'..m July 28, 1998 Dr. Dianne Nielson, Executive Director I

State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality 168 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144810 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810

Dear Dr. Nielson:

I am responding to your letter to Chairm:'n Jackson, dated June 10,1998, in which you raiseo issues about the current and future regulathn of uranium mill facilities and solicited my support for enhanced public participation in such regclation. Your concerns specifically focused en: (1) the National Mining Association's (NMA's) Whne Paper, in which the NMA requested, among other things, modifications to the current U.S. NLclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) guidance addressing uranium-mill processing of n.aterial other than natural ore (i.e., " alternate j

feed materials"); and (2) the staff's ongoing review of an NRC licensee's amendment request for a performance-based license condition to receive and process alternate feed materials at its uranium mill.

As stated in Chairman Jackson's letter of June 16,1998, to the NMA (enclosure) and in Mr.

Joseph Holonich's letter of May 29,1998, to Mr. William Sinclair of your staff, the NRC staff presently is evaluating the entire framework under which uranium recovery is regulated and is j

developing a detailed approach on how best to proceed. This approach willinclude public i

meetings to solicit early input, the submission of any rulemaking plan to the Agreement States for comment, and submission to the Commission for approval. One option being considered is a rulemaking either to revise the current 10 CFR Part 40, or to promulgate a new part specifically for uranium mills and in-situ leach uranium recovery facilities. Under this option, the revised Part 40 or new part would includa policy related to alternate feed materials.

Regardless of whether rulemaking is the Commission's preferred option, this issue and the others that the NMA raised will be considered, and NRC will solicit input from affected parties, 1

including the States, other Federal agencies, and members of the public. The next opportunities for input will be the public meetings that the staff has scheduled tentatively for the last week in August, which will be held in two States that have Atomic Energy Act jurisdicCon over uranium recovery (Colorado and Texas), and two States that do not (New Mexico and Wyoming). The staff will notify your agency when the dates arv.i locations for these meetings have been set, and I encourage your staff to attend and make their views known on the variety of uranium recovery issues to be discussed. In addition, it should be noted that, until such time as the Commksion l

makes a final determination to approve either the revised Part 40 or the new part, the current staff guidance conceming alternate feed materials will remain in effect.

l

{

With respect to your second concern, the staff is still reviewing the specific licensee's l

I amendment request. It is important to note, however, that our review of this application is PDR STPRG ESQUT (f M d O' ' '

9900030223 980728

. u y% g

.j,,

PDR' U-L-V i M '

hG a

t

~

D. Nielson o consistent with the process begun several years ago to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on uranium recovery licensees. This specific application is consistent with the overall risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach being implemented agency-wide by NRC.

Central to the licensee's request are the standard operating procedures it is proposing to use in determining whether any particular alternate feed material is amenable for processing. For the NRC staff to determine that these review procedures are acceptable, the procedures will need to address the essential aspects of the staff's current guidance on alternate feed materials, which are: (1) the determination that the particular materials meet the definition of " ore;"

(2) the prohibition against receiving and processing materials that are, or contain, hazardous wastes; and (3) the determination that the processing of such materials is primarily for their source-material content. If the procedures and, thus, the amendment request as a whole are determined to be acceptable, the staff will require the licensee, through the amended license incorporating the performance-based license condition, to follow the approved procedures, in addition, the licensee would be required to document thoroughly all of its determinations made pursuant to the license condition and to retain this documentation untillicense termination.

Finally, through routine inspection of the facility, NRC would be able to assess and verify the licensee's adherence to the approved procedures.

As stated in Mr. Holonich's letter to Mr. Sinclair, NRC agrees that public participation in the stah's review of the licensee's application would help to define the procedures and criteria by which the licensee could accept alternate feed materials for processing at its mill. Copies of all correspondence between the NRC staff and the licensee on this matter are publicly available.

In addition, on April 14,1998, in an effort to ensure public participation in this process, the NRC staff noticed in the Federal Reaister the receipt of this application and offered an opportunity for hearing by any member of the public that could be affected by this action. No requests for hearing were received.

I recognize the importance of the issues that you raise and look forward to the State of Utah's participation in the upcoming public meetings. I trust that this reply responds to your concerns.

Sincerely, L. Jo ph Callan Ex utive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated 1

i

D. Ni::Ison ~

application is consistent with the process begun several years ago, at the request of then Chairman Selin, to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on uranium recovery licensees.

This specific application is consistent with the overall risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach being imp;emented by NRC.

If the staff were to find this milllicensee's procedures ano, thus, the amendment request as a whole, acceptable, the amended license would require the licensee to follow the approved procedures. For the staff to determine that the licensee's review procedures are acceptable, such procedures will need to include the essential aspects of the staff's current guidance on altemate feed materials, among which are: (1) the prohibition against receiving and processing materials that are, or contain, hazardous wastes; and (2) the determination that the processing of such materials is primarily for their source-material content. In addition, if the amendment request is approved, the licensee would be required to document thoroughly all its determinations and to retain this documentation untillicense termination. Through routine inspection of the facility, NRC would be able iv nosess and verify the licensee's adherence to the approved procedures.

I recognize the importance of the issues that you raise and look forward to the State of Utah's participation in the upcoming public meetings. I trust thahis reply responds to your concems.

j Sincerely, I

Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION:

TICKET: G980421 FILE CENTER CRC 98-0620 NMSS r/f UR3 r/f DWM r/f-t/f PUBLIC CNWRA BSpitzberg/RIV CPoland ACNW EDO r/f LJCallan HThompson PTressler Dir.Off. r/f SBums MWeber RBangart EM:rschoff/RIV DGillen CAbrams MLayton l

l DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\JRP\\PBLC.TKT

• See previous concurrence I

OFC

, URB

• TECH ED*

1. RE] /

DWM NMSS f

NAME JPark/bg EKraus JHol JGreeves /

MKnapp DATE 7/ 9/98 7/9/98 7/10/98 7//0/9e 7/ /98 l

OFC DEDR EDO OC NAME HThompson LJCallan l

DATE 7/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY u _ _ _ _ _ _______ __.

J

?

D. NiGison -

is consistent with the overall performance-based licensing approach adopted and being implemented by NRC. This general approach and activity-specific application are modeled on the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, which allow 10 CFR Part 50 licensees to make changes or conduct tests and experiments at their facilities without prior NRC approval under certain conditions.

If the staff were to find this mill licensee's procedures, and thus, the amendment request as a whole, acceptable, the amended license would require the licensee to follow the approved procedures. For the staff to determine that the licensee's review procedures are acceptable, such procedures will need to include the essential aspects of the staff's current guidance on attemate feed materials, among which are (1) the prohibition to receive and process materials that are or contain hazardous wastes and (2) the determination that the processing of such materials is primarily for their source-material content. In addition, if the amendment request is approved, the licensee would be required to document thoroughly all of its determinations and to retain this documentation untillicense termination. Through routine inspection of the facility, NRC would be able to determine the licensee's adherence to the approved procedures.

I recognize the importance of the issues that you raise and appreciate your concems. I trust that the approaches presented in this letter will serve adequately to address these concems.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION:

TICKET: G980421 FILE CENTER CRC 98-0620 NMSS r/f URB r/f DWM r/f-t/f PUBLIC CNWRA BSpitzberg/RIV CPoland ACNW EDO r/f LJCallan HThompson PTressler Dir.Off. r/f SBums MWeber RBangart i

EMerschoff/RIV DGillen CAbrams MLayton

_ DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\JRP\\PBLC.TKT OFC URB TECH ED URB DWM NMSS JPark/bg W NAME EKraus JHolonich JGreeves MKnapp DATE 7/@ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 my u'gumnamnummmmmmunmenu mean

--uo useum muumunummmmmmmuumanum Ol u DEDR EDO OC NAME HThompson LJCallan l

DATE 7/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

[#

k UNITED STATES

,;i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-4001 e

.k.....p8 June 16, 1998

]

CHAIRMAN Ms. Katie Sweeney Associate General Counsel National Mining Association 113017th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-4677

Dear Ms. Sweeney:

L On April 22,1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) provided the Commission with a White Paper entitled " Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry." In the White Paper, NMA provides its views on four areas regarding the regulation of uranium recovery facilities, in which it would like the Commission to develop a policy. These four areas relate to: 1) concurrent jurisdiction by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and individual States over the nonradiological hazards of 11e.-(2) byproduct material; 2) NRC jurisdiction over ground water at in situ leach facilities; 3) disposal of material other than 11e.(2) byproduct material in tailings impoundments; and 4) NRC's altemate feed policy for mills wanting to process material other than natural etc. In the White Paper, NMA recognizes that NRC staff has positions on these matters, be ce requests that the Commission review these issues, and develop a formal ager

,a I

Presently, NRC staff is evaluating the entire framework under which uranium recovery I

operations are regulated and is developing a detailed approach on how best to proceed that will be submitted to the Commission for ap,a ovalin the near future. As the NMA White Paper recognizes, one option is a rulemaking to either revise the current 10 CFR Part 40, or promulgate a new part specifically for uranium recovery facilities. Regardless of whether rulemaking is the preferred option of the Commission, the issues raised in the NMA White Paper will be considered and NRC will solicit input from affected parties including the States and other Federal agencies, and members of the public. This approach will also afford the Commission the opportunity to decide whether a formal agency policy is necessary. Therefore, we do not pbn to respond separately to the NMA White Paper, but will do so in coordination with the current effort of evaluating the uranium recovery framework.

I It is important to understand that at least two of the issues you rsised are directly related to NRC's responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) and as a r tsult, NRC may have limited regulatcry fle tibility in this area.

I l

l l

Enclosure my&T\\y-en r r, i ao

l t

2-l The Commission appreciates your providing the White Paper to us. It is obvious that significant effort went into its development. The issues you raise are important issues that need to be addressed by the Agency, and we anticipata hearing more on these issues when the Commission meets with the NMA on June 17,1998.

l Sincerely, i

[O Shirley Ann Jackson l

l

)

4 I

i i

l D. Nisbon !

to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on uranium recovery licensees. This specific l

application is consistent with the overall risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach

{

being implemented by NRC.

l

{

Central to the licensee's request are the standard operating procedures it is proposing to use in

(

determining whether any particular altemate feed materialis amenable for processing. For the i

NRC staff to determine that these review procedures are ac eptable, the procedures will need I

to address the essential aspects of the staff's current gui nce on altemate feed materials, which are: (1) the determination that the particular mat als meet the definition of " ore;"

(2) the prohibition against receiving and processing erials that are, or contain, hazardous wastes; and (3) the determination that the processi of such materials is primarily for their source-material content. If the procedures and, t s, the amendment request as a whole, are determined to be acceptable, the staff will requi the licensee, through the amended license incorporating the performance-based license ondition, to follow the approved procedures.

In addition, the licensee would be required t document thoroughly all of its determinations made pursuant to the license condition an to retain this documentation until license termination. Finally, through routine ins ction of the facility, NRC would be able to assess and verify the licensee's adherence to the proved procedures.

As stated in Mr. Holonich's letter to

r. Sinclair, NRC agrees that pubfic participation in the staff's review of the licensee's ap ication would help to define the procedures and criteria by which the licensee could accept Iternate feed materials for processing at its mill. Copies of all correspondence between the C staff and the licensee on this matter are publicly available.

In addition, on April 14,1998 in an effort to ensure public participation in this process, the NRC staff noticed in the Federal eoister the receipt of this application and offered an opportqmgekhave been maa hearing by any member f'the public that could be affected by this action. No requests Bf OEDO and for thow hearing were received.

highli9 ted.Piease mak h

mmpningdistribution.

I recognize the impo ance of the issues that you raise and look forward to the State of Urdh s participation in the upcoming public meetings. I trust that this reply responds to your Sincerely, y

Shirley Ann Jackson

})5jO Sb'+

Enclosure:

As stated "This correspondence addresses policy issues previouslfresNd DISTRIBUTIQ11, G980421 FILE CENTER SECY-CRC 98-0620 kb rffnpolig8r/f n

DWM r/f-t/f PUBLIC CNWRA BSpitzberg/RIV CPoland AcNW EDO r/f LJCallan l

HThctnpson PTressler Dir.Off. r/f SBurns MWeber RBangart EMerschoff/RIV DGillen CAbrams MLayton DOC NAME: S:\\DWM\\URBURP\\PSLC.TKT *See previous concurrence CP/ PROOFED / JULY 1 O.1998 OFC URB

• TECH ED*

URB

• DWM*

NMSS. // /

[

NAME JPark/bg EKraus JHolonich JGreeves a

v '

DATE 7/9/98 7/9/98 7/10/98 7/10/98 7//V/96

(

m DED3 /

EQO OCAf I

OFC NAME HT on n

DATE 7/4 /98 7/

98 7/2 7/98 i

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

l

1 1

D. Ni:Ison -

i to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on uranium recovery licensees. This specific application is consistent with the overall risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach l

being implemented by NRC.

l l

Central to the licensee's request are the standard operating orocedures it is proposing to use in determining whether any particular alternate feed materialis amenable for processing. For the NRC staff to determine that these review procedures are ac eptable, the procedures will need to address the essential aspects of the staff's current gui nce on attemate feed materials, which are: (1) the determination that the particular mat als meet the definitioc of " ore;"

(2) the prohibition against receiving and processing erials that are, or contain, hazardous wastes; and (3) the determination that the processi of such materials is primarily for their source-material content. If the procedures and, t s, the amendment request as a whole, are l

determined to be acceptable, the staff will requi the licensee, through the amended license incorporating the performance-based I; cense ondition, to follow the approved procedures.

In addition, the licensee would be required t document thoroughly all of its determinations made pursuant to the license condition an to retain this documentation untillicense termination. Finally, through routine ins ction of de faciiity, NRC would be able to assess and verify the licensee's adherence to the proved procedures.

I As stated in Mr. Holonich's letter to

r. Sinclair, NRC agrees that pubiic participation in the I

staff's review of the licensee's ap scation would help to detine the procedures and criteria by which the licensee could accept Iternate feed materials for processing at its mill. Copies of all correspondence between the C staff and the licensee on the matter are publicly available.

j in addition, on April 14,199 in an effort to ensure public participation in this process, the NRC staff noti ed in the Federal ea ster the receipt of this application and offered an opportunity for hearing by any member the public that could be affected by this action. No requests for hearing were received.

I recognize the impo ance of the issues that you raise and look forward to the State of Utah's participation in the upcoming public meetings. I trust that this reply responds to your concerns.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated "This correspondence addresses policy issues previously resolved

'n DISTRIBUTION: G980421 FILE CENTER SECY-CRC 98-0620 bb rffn polig($ r/f t

DWM r/f-Uf PUBLIC CNWRA BSprtzberg/RIV CPoland ACNW EDO r/f LJCallan HThompson PTressler Dir.Off. r/f SBurns MWeber RBargart EMarschoff/RIV DGillen CAbrarns MLayton DOC NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\JRP\\PBLC.TKT *See previous concurrerree CP/ PROOFED / JULY 1 O.1998 OFC URB'

' TECH ED*

URB

• DWM*

NMSS //,/

h/

NAME JPark/bg EKraus JHolonich JGreeves v'

DATE 7/ 9 /98 7/9/98 7/10/98 7/10/98 7//y/98 mmmmiksElEmm x : r

=r mmEMI OFC DED3 /

ECO OC /W thdS6 NAME HT on l DATE 7/4 /98 7/

198 7/2 7/98 a

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

, we e;s y vu e r#m e s. i ammmus.

Iw.

Pars asi di33 P. S iu...

r.e D. Nielson I recognize the importance of t1e issues that you raise and ap your concerna.

+e--.= N" n3&f/_ M_ /]jf2/ 7 Q W "'"

t

^ ~ ~"

~~

'^

\\

G: iepl vupmdsloy.u&

y Sincerely, cdl c_ e.a e va t.

i (es Y i

g(

Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION-TICKET: 0980421 FILE CENTER CRC 99-0620 NMSS r/f URB r/f DWM r/f-t/f PUBLIC CNWRA Bspitzberg/RIV CPoland ACNW EDO r/f LJCallan HThompson PTressler Dir.Off. r/f SBums MWeber RBangart EMerschoff/RIV DGillen CAbrams -

MLayton DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\PBLC2.TKT OFC URS TECH ED URB DWM NMSS NAME JPark/bg EMds JHolonich JGreeves MKnapp DATE 7/ 19 8 7

98 7/ 198 7/ /98 7/ /98 Immuummuhwnumi aw-OFC DEDR EDO OC NAME HThompson LJCallan DATE 7/ 19 8 7/ /98 7/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t

)

fa nta%,

A p

4 UNITED STATES g

.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055%0001 o

.....g July 28, 1998 Dr. Dianne Nielson, Executive Director State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality 168 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144810 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810

Dear Dr. Nielson:

I am responding to your letter to Chairman Jackson, dated June 10,1998, in which you raised issues about the current and future regulation of uranium mill facilities and solicited my support for enhanced public participation in such regulation. Your concerns specifically focused on: (1) the National Mining Association's (NMA's) White Paper, in which the NMA requested, among other things, modifications to the current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) guidance addressing uranium-mill processing of material other than natural ore (i.e., " alternate j

feed materials"); and (2) the staff's ongoing review of an NRC licensee's amendment request for

{

a performance-based license condition to receive and process alternate feed materials at its

{

uranium mill..

As stated in Chairman Jackson's letter of June 16,1998, to the NMA (enclosure) and in Mr.

Joseph Holonich's letter of May 29,1998, to Mr. William Sinclair of your staff, the NRC staff presently is evaluating the entire framework under which uranium recovery is regulated and is i'

developing a detailed approach on how best to proceed. This approach will include public meetings to solicit early input, the submission of any rulemaking plan to the Agreement States for comment, and submission to the Commission for approval. One option being considered is a i

rulemaking either to revise the current 10 CFR Part 40, or to promulgate a new part specifically for uranium mills and in-situ leach uranium recovery facilities. Under this option, the revised Part 40 or new part would include policy related to alternate feed materials.

Regardless of whether rulemaking is the Commission's preferred option, this issue and the others that the NMA raised will be considered, and NRC will solicit input from affected parties, including the States, other Federal agencies, and members of the public. The next opportunities for input will be the public meetings that the staff has scheduled tentatively for the last week in August, which will be held in two States that have Atomic Energy Act jurisdiction over uranium recovery (Colorado and Texas), and two States that do not (New Mexico and W; coming). The staff will notify your agency when the dates and locations for these meslings have been set, and q

l encourage your staff to attend and make their views known on the variety of uranium recovery issues to be discussed. In addition, it should be noted that, until such time as the Commission makes a final determination to approve either the revised Part 40 or the new part, the current staff guidance concerning altemate feed materials will remain in effect.

I With respect to your second concern, the staff is sti!: reviewing the specific licensee's amendment request. It is important to note, however, that our review of this application is MD 3

t D. Nielson consistent with the process begun several years ago to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden c'1 uranium recovery licensees. This specific application is consistent w;th the overall risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach being implemented agency-wide by NRC.

Central to the licensee's request are the standard operating procedures it is proposing to use in determining whether any particular alternate feed material is amenable for processing. For the NRC staff to determine that these review procedures are acceptable, the procedures will need to address the essential aspects of the staff's current guidance on alternate feed materials, which i

are: (1) the determination that the particular materials meet the definition of " ore;"

(2) the prohibition against receiving and processing materials that are, or contain, hazardous wastes; and (3) the determination that the processing of such materials is primarily for their 1

source-material content. If the procedures and, thus, the amendment request as a whole are i

determined to be acceptable, the staff will require the licensee, through the amended license incorporating the performance-based license condition, to follow the approved procedures.

In addition, the licensee would be required to document thoroughly all of its determinations made pursuant to the license condition and to retain this documentation until license termination.

Finally, through routine inspection of the facility, NRC would be able to assess and verify the licensee's adherence to the approved procedures.

As stated in Mr. Holonich's letter to Mr. Sinclair, NRC agrees that public participation in the staff's review of the licensee's application would help to define the procedures and criteria by which the licensee could accept alternate feed materials for processing at its mill. Copies of all correspondence between the NRC staff and the licensee on this matter are publicly available.

In addition, on April 14,1998, in an effort to ensure public participation in this process, the NRC staff noticed in the Federal Reoister the receipt of thir, application and offered an opportunity for hearing by any member of the public that could be affected by this action. No requests for hearing were received.

I recognize the importance of the issues that you raise and look forward to the State of Utah's participation in the upcoming public meetings. I trust that this reply responds te your concerns.

Sincerely, L. Jo ph Callan Ex utive Director for Operations Enc'aure: As stated l

l

D. Ni::Ison 4 to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on uranium recovery licensees. This specific application is consistent with the overall risk-informed, performance-based licensing approach being implemented by NRC.

Central to the licensee's request are the standard operating procedures it is proposing to use in determining whether any particular attemate feed materialis amenable for processing. For the NRC staff to determine that these review procedures are ac eptable, the procedures will need to address the essential aspects of the staff's current gui nce on alternate feed materials, which are: (1) the determination that the particular mat lais meet the definition of " ore;"

(2) the prohibition against receiving and processing erials that are, or contain, hazardous j

wastes; and (3) the determination that the processi of such materials is primarily for their j

source-material content. If the procedures and, t s, the amendment request as a whole, are determined to be acceptable, the staff will requi the licensee, through the amended license s

incorporating the performance-based license ondition, to follow the approved procedures.

In addition, the licensee would be required t document thoroughly all of its determinations made pursuant to the license condition an to retain this documentation untillicense termination. Finally, through routine ins etion of the facility, NRC would be able to assess and verify the licensee's adherence to the proved procedures.

As stated in Mr. Holonich's letter to

r. Sinclair, NRC agrees that pubiic participation in the staff's review of the licensee's ap ication would help to define the procedures and criteria by which the licensee could accept Iternate feed materials for processing at its mill. Copies of all

{

correspondence between the C staff and the licensee on this matter are publicly available.

j in addition, on April 14,1998 in an effort to ensure publ:c participation in this process, the NRC staff noticed in the Federal, qLsier the receipt of this application and offered an oppcrtgggtphave been mL,.

hearing by any member (the public that could be affected by this action. No requests 1Bf OEDO hearing were received.

highli hted.Pleasrs mal 9

I recognize the impo ance of the inues that you raise and look forward to the State of a #sningdistr participation in the upcoming public meetings. I trust that this reply responds to your cog g

Sincerely, 3

Shirley Ann Jackson Sb'.-

l

Enclosure:

As stated "Thiscorrespondenceaddressespolicyissuespreviousi~reslNd DISTRIBUTION"t G980421

"'u FILE CENTER SECY-CRC 98-0620 bb r f

$ r/f DWM r/f-t/f PUBLIC CNWRA BSpitzberg/RIV CPoland ACNW EDO r/f LJCallan HThompson PTressler Dir.Off. r/f SBurns MWeber RBangart EMerschoff/RIV DGillen CAbrams MLayton DOC NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\JRP\\PBLC.TKT 'See prev,lous concurrence CP/ PROOFED / JULY 1O.1998 OFC URB

• TECH ED*

URB

• DWM*

NMSS f7,/

/[

NAME JPark/bg EKraus JHolonich JGreevss ap V

DATE 7/9/98 7/9/98 7/10/98 7/10/98 7//4(/98 OFC DErVt /

EQO OC/4 NAME HT on DATE 7/M /98 7/

98 7/2 7/98 L

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.'. e 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES eg g

j W#.sHINGToN, D.C. 20555-4001 kN..... j June 16, 1998 CHAIRMAN Ms. Katie Sweeney Associate General Counsel National Mining Association 113017th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-4677

Dear Ms. Sweeney:

On April 22,1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) provided the Commission with a White Paper entitled " Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry." in the White Paper, NMA provides its views on four areas regarding the j

regulation of uranium recovery facilities, in which it would like the Commission to develop a j

policy. These four areas relate to. 1) concurrent jurisdiction by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and individual States over the nonradiological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct l

i material; 2) NRC jurisdiction over ground water at in situ leach facilities; 3) disposal of material

{

other than 11e.(2) byproduct material in tailings impoundments; and 4) NRC's attemate feed policy for mills wanting to process material other than natural ore. In the White Paper, NMA recognizes that NRC staff has positions on these matters, but NMA requests that the Commission review these issues, and develop a formal agency policy.

Presently, NRC staff is evaluating the entire framework under which uranium recovery i

operations are regulated and is developing a detailed approach on how best to proceed that will be submitted to the Commission for approvalin the near future. As the NMA White Paper recognizes, one option is a rulemaking to either revise the current 10 CFR Part 40, or promulgate a new part specifically for uranium recovery facilities. Regardless of whether rulemaking is the preferred option of the Commission, the issues raised in the NMA White Paper will be considered and NRC will solicit input from affected parties including the States and other Federal agencies, and members of the public. This approach will also afford the Commission the opportunity to decide whether a formal agency policy is necessary. Therefore, we do not plan to respond separately to the NMA White Paper, but will do so in enordination with the current affoit of evaluating the uranium recovery framework.

j lt is important to understand that at least two of the issues you raised are directly related to NRC's responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) and as a r 'sult, NRC may have limited regulate ry fle cibility in this area.

l r

v l

Enclosure I

i

e 5

. The Commission appreciates your providing the White Paper to us. It is obvious that significant effort went into its development. The issues you raise are important issues that need to be addressed by the Agency, and we anticipate hearing more on these issues when the Commission meets with the NMA on June 17,1998.

Sincerely,

~

Shirley Ann Jackson l

{

1

)

l I

l l

i.

-