ML19318B967
| ML19318B967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/09/1980 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Hazle A COLORADO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006300350 | |
| Download: ML19318B967 (2) | |
Text
?.
Y'
[
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,*.../
JUN 9 1980 Mr. Albert J. Hazie, Director Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division olorado Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenue Denver.Co rado 80220 Dear M azle:
Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1980, and its assessment of the conformance of Colorado law and Regulations with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). The legal staff have reviewed. the attachments to your letter.
The Colorado statutes are adequate for 9 83 ownership of tailings and disposal sites [CRS, 25-ll-103(7)(a), (7)(b), and (7)(h)], and for licensing.
and rule making procedures under i 2740(3)( A) and (3)(B) [CRS, 24-4-103,105, and 106]. A pre-licensing construction ban is imposed by regulation (RH 3.8.7, and 3.9.7).
l There are, however, two major problem areas: (1) the setting of " equivalent" standards under i 2740(2); and (2) the preparation of written environmental analyses under i 274o(3)(C).
For meeting the " equivalent standards" require-ment, the State cites CRS 25-11-104, and 108. These statutory provisions authorize the State Board of Health to istue regulations modeled after, and neither more or less stringent than, those proposed by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., 4815 b 'st Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. The Board may also substitute its regulations for those of the Conference if a deviation "is warranted." No such Conference proposals yet exist. While John McGrath of the NRC Office of State Programs participates in the drafting of those Suggested State Regulations (SSRs) and the SSRs as proposed by John McGrath will follow carefully the NRC regulations in each j
stage of their development, we do not control their content nor the date of l
their adoption by CRCPD.
l l'
is possible that the Confercnce reference procedure may not be effect.ive m
before November 1981. Accordingly, it may be necessary for an alternative set of " equivalent" regulations be prepared by the State for use in the event the Conference procedure is not timely. As we see it, this would not require any new legislation since CRS 25-11-104(2) already contains an alternative procedure.
The second problem area involves the preparation of written environmental I
dnalyses. The statutes and regulations cited [CRS 25-11-104(2) and l
RH 3.9.3 and 3.9.6] do not clearly call for a written analysis, available
I w*
Mr. Albert J. Hazie to the public before licensing, covering the matters specifieo in 5 274o(3)(c)(1)-(iv). The Colorado regulations require only that an environmental report be filed by the applicant (RH 3.8.7.1, 3.8.8) and an evaluation be made by the Department of Health (RH 3.8.8.1).
New regulations should be written to specify that the staff evaluation be made in writing, be available to the public before the 5 274o(3)(A) hearing proceeding, and that it cover the four major areas specified in i 274o(3)(C).
On April 21, 1980, you transmitted to us the memo from the Assistant Attorney 4
General, Richard Griffin.
I will deal with his comments in order.
First, we do not believe he has correctly interpreted footnote 2.
It comes from the amendment and emphasizes that your program with regard to tailings is in accordance in requirements of section 2740. The 4th whereas clause is from the present existing agreement.
Next, with regard to the rewording of the top of page 3, we believe it can be changed to read as follows: "Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission has tne following) authorities pertaining to b-product materials as defined insectionlle.(2 of the Act:"
We do not object strongly ta the Article IX suggested by Mr. Griffith, but we do not feel that it adds anything.
That language is in the Federal UMTRCA and is therefore effective whether in the agreement or not.
We will provide you, by July 1,1980, an indication of our anticipated schedule for evaluating the State's program in preparation for amending the agreement.
l t
Sincerely, G. Wa e Kerr, Assistant Director j
for State Agreements Program Office of S. tate Programs T
_