ML20247K513
| ML20247K513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1989 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Owens W HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909210186 | |
| Download: ML20247K513 (3) | |
Text
'
4 c
ug'o
[pd pocco b
UNITED STATES
'. g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{,y WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
.m, September 18, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Wayne Owens United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Owens:
I am responding to your August 4,1989 letter concerning a proposal announced by Congressman James Courter of New Jersey to transport radioactive soil from sites in New Jersey to a uranium mine near Ticaboo, Utah. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is aware of this proposal and is following the situation closely. Use of an NRC-licensed facility such as the Ticaboo site in the manner proposed would full within NRC's regulatory jurisdiction. However, as the proposal has not been fully developed nor has NRC received any fonnal request for a license amendment, it would be premature for the NRC to conduct the' inquiry that you request.
It is our understanding that the radioactive materials referenced by Congressman Courter are the wastes and residues from the cleanup of sites in New Jersey under the Department of Energy's (D0E's) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Project (FUSRAP). The DOE and the State of New Jersey are responsible for assessing disposal alternatives and selecting a preferred option.
We also understand that the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill, located 4.2 km north of the town of Ticaboo, Utah, has been discussed e.s a possible disposal site for this material. The mill is operated by Plateau Rescurces Ltd. (PRL),
an NRC licensee. At present, PRL is not authorized to accept this type of radioactive waste for disposal at the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The company has assured NRC that it has no plans at this time to request such authority. We understand that the Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NAC) has expressed an interest in purchasing the mill from PRL to use the tailings impoundment as a disposal facility for other radioactive materials. Although NAC and PRL are negotiating on other mining properties near Ticaboo, PRL has stated that there are no current offers from NAC to purchase the mill.
If the owner of the Shootaring Canycn Mill proposes to use the site to dispose of radioactive materials other than uranium mill tailings generated on site, the owner would i
have to apply for and receive NRC approval in the form of a specific license amendment. The NRC would conduct an environmental assessment in support of the license amendment review. The NRC would also have to approve the transfer of the license from PRL to NAC if NAC wanted to purchase the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill.
i The characteristics of the radioactive soil from New Jersey have not been sufficiently determined for NRC to assess whether the soil would be considered l
uranium and thorium byproduct material, source material, Naturally Occurring r
ON Q$wf/& (3g) aJ x^
-2 and Accelerator Produced Material (NARM), or some other type of radioactive material. Although NRC regulates uranium and thorium byproduct material (mill
' tailings) in Utah, the State of Utah regulates source, special nuclear, and byproduct material other than uranium and thorium mill tailings as an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act.
In addition, the State, like all States, has responsibility for NARM independent of the Atomic Energy Act.
Thus, the characteristics of the material would have to be established before we could determine whether NRC has jurisdiction over the material and what statutes and regulations apply.
In a series of meetings with NAC, the NRC staff discussed the agency's licensing authority over uranium mill tailings and the technical and legal com-plications associated with the disposal of other radioactive materials in uranium mill tailings impoundments.
In his letter of July'1,1988, to Senator Simpson, former NRC Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr., described these complications regarding a similar proposal by the American Nuclear Corporation (ANC).
I have enclosed this letter for your infomation.
It is worth noting that our consideration of the ANC case was prompted by ANC's formal request for a license amendment to permit disposal of contaminated soil in its mill tailings impoundment. The ANC subsequently withdrew its request.
The NRC staff has also had several discussions with the State of Utah, DOE, PRL, and others about this subject. Representatives from NRC's Uranium Recovery Field Office and the State of Utah met with DOE on Monday, September 11, 1989, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of FUSRAP, characteristics of the wastes, alternatives for waste disposal, and the requirements that must be met before such waste would be authorized for transport and disposal at any site in Utah.
I can assure you that the proposed transfer of radioactive soils from New Jersey to the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill will receive close attention by the NRC upon receipt of a request for a license amendment by the licensed operator of the mill. Members of the NRC staff will be pleased to brief you on this matter at any time.
In the meantime, please contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
\\Lx.L Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
July 1, 1988 letter from NRC Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr.,
to Senator Simpson, with enclosure cc: The Honorable James A. Courter The Honorable James D. Watkins, Secretary of Energy
v.
I 4
L ENCLOSURE 1
\\
l l
4
[
umTED STATES ENCLOSURE y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASMNGTON. o C. 20006 July 1. 1988 CMA8RMAN The Honorable Alan K. Simpson Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Simpson:
In your May 13, 1988 letter, you requested information on the status of the American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) amendment request to permit ANC to receive third-party radium-contaminated soils and debris for disposal in its Tallings Pond No. 1.
We have considered this request and the complex regulatory issues involved in authorizing disposal of this type of material at a mill tailings site.
We have recently reached the decision that the major regulatory issues noted below would have to be favorably resolved before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could consider approving the disposal of these radium wastes in ANC's tailings pond under current statutory authority.
The statutory authority is unlikely to change in the near future.
Therefore, we cannot approve the ANC request.
This decision is being conveyed to ANC.
A primary issue stems from the fact that this waste material contains radium and is classified as naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM).
At issue is whether the inclusion of NARM wastes in a mill tailings disposal site is consistent with U.S. Government ownership (or State ownership) and other authorities under Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act (the Act).
Since the U.S. Department of Energy-(DDE) is currently designated to take title to the mill tailings sites, NRC requested DDE's view on this question.
DOE's response stated that DOE has doubts about its authority to take title to the mill tailin NARM (gs disposal sites if NRC has allowed the commingling of non-byproduct) materials in the impoundments (a copy of the DOE response is attached).
It is important to note that NRC does not have authority to regulate NARM.
Thus, the amendment, if issued, would result in a comming11ag of regulated and unregulated materials in the same disposal unit.
This would create duplicative jurisdiction between NRC and other Federal or State agencies with respect to the commingled radioactive materials.
Moreover, if NARM waste constituents were to violate the current standards (e.g., migrate into ground water), the Commission's authority under Section 84c.
of the Act to approve alternatives to requirements for disposal or reclamation would be seriously impaired.
h YN
)
2 Additionally, the wastes may be subject to presently applicable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations or other l
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules for hazardous I
constituents or NARM, as well as to applicable State requirements.
If the waste results from a Comprehensive Environmental Response ~.
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) clean up action, the EPA requirements to be met would also need to be considered by the licensee to. ensure that there is no issue regarding suitability of the site for disposal of the CERCLA wastes.
The appropr.iate regulatory authorities would have to address these requirements.
Finally, since there is currently a NARM disposal site licensed by the State of Utah and a license a State of Colorado, there appears.pplication under review in the to be no compelling need at this time to dispose of NARM material in uranium mill tailings impoundments.
I hope this information is useful to you and, I appreciate your continued interest in our programs.
51ncerely.
(A/.
Lando W. Zac Jr.
Enclosure:
l DOE letter dated June 10, 1988 cc:
The Honorable John Breaux The Honorable John S. Herrington, Secretary U.S. Department of Energy
l Department of Energy WasNngton, DC 20548 JUN 10 E88 Mr. Richard L. Bengart. Acting Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington. 0.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Bangart:
This is in ecsponse to M. R. inapp's letter of April 14, 1988..to the Department of Energy regarding the Department's acceptance of transfer of ownership of licensed uranium mill tallings impoundments if non-byproduct.
materials were also disposed there.
While the Department supports the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's efforts to find permanent dis posal sites for these materials. it is not clear that the Department would save the authority under Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act to accept custody of non-byproduct materials. Congressional action may be needed to provide an unambiguous resolution on this issue.
Assuming some means of resolving the authority question was achieved, the prior satisfaction of all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended, requirements would be essential. Appropriate financiaI arrangement would have to be provided so that tte Department would bear no additional cost associated with the acquisittog of this material.
Your letter indicated that there are three pending applications before the Comission for the disposal of non byproduct material at licensed uranium mill tailings sites. We also understand there may be different meterials
(' secondary"i some ("NARM*) clearly outside of NRC jurisdiction and some in question recovery waste) within NRC jurisdiction. We would be willing te discuss this in more detail, if you desire, with respect to specific material at specific sites.
Sincerely,
,,.. d..
John E. Saublita Acting Director Office of Remedial Action and Wasta Technology Office of Nuclear Energy i ->d U P/J -