ML20249C076
| ML20249C076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Sweeney K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806250281 | |
| Download: ML20249C076 (2) | |
Text
-- - --
C#7c,_
% UtelTED STATES gji,'
( '% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mp ,#[
b[) * , j 4 S WAStilNGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 I
9 04
' June 16, 1998
% * ..+ g CHAIRMAP4 Ms. Katie'Sweeney l l
Astociate General Counsel National Mining Assr2ciation 113017th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2003G-4677
Dear Ms. Sweeney:
On Ap.il 22,1998, the National Minii,3 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 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 operations are regulated and is developing a detailed approach on how best to proceed that will be submitted to the Commission for approval in 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 coordination with the current effort of evaluating the uranium recovery framework.
It is important to understand that at least two of the issues you raised are directly related to NRC's responsibilities ur. der the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) l and as a result, NRC may have limited regulatory flexibility in this area.
\u m)
- O
, g@y 9906250201 980616 l
PDR COMMS NRCC .
CORRESPONDENCE PDR 6s i ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ -
1 i
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 issucs that need to be l
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 1
l l
J
- - - _ _ _ -_ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _