ML20055C227
| ML20055C227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1988 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C215 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-A-32, FOIA-TUYL90-36 NUDOCS 8812070092 | |
| Download: ML20055C227 (1) | |
Text
.- 4 N 3. ~
(( e,
UNITED sT Af ts NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
MlHINGT o% 0. C. 70666 5
GPA/SLliP DEC 011988 88 DEC -5 AM 9: 06 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Carlton Kennerer, Director State Local and Indian Tribe Programs, GPA FROM:
Stuart A Treby Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle. 0GC
SUBJECT:
TEXAS DRAFT CHANGES TO URAN!UM RULES in your November 22, 1988 memorandum, you requested our review of the proposed revisions to the Texas rules confoming them to the recently promulgated NRC amendments coninreing the uranium tailings rules in 10 CFR Part 40 to the EPA standerds in 40 C R Part 192. We understand that the Regional State Agreements Representative in Region !Y will transmit agency connentt, to the Texas authorities.
000 has two comments as follows:
In section 43.70(b) Texas has added the words, 'to the maximum extent practicable
- to its rult requiring elimination of active maintenance. We setteve that Texas should be infomed and kept up to date on the recent developments in the NRC program on this issue. For this purpose we enclose a copy of a legal memorandum of May 24, 1988 to Malcolm Knapp.
ORMSS, which should bc Civen to Texas. As of this date, the issue of active maintenance has not been completely rationalized withir. hRC.
Other documents bearing on this issue thould be available from CNMSS and the Derver office.
Section 43.90(p) appears to be patterned after the intreduction to Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. However, the statutory basis for NRC to consideralternatives(Section84coftheAtomicEnergyAct) differs T tm the basis for Agreement States (last paragraph of Section 274o of tw Atomic Energy Act) in a significant procedurcl aspect. The latter rtouires that the Commission review State prograweatic alternatives with rotice and opportunity for hearing. The Texas regulation does not rteognize this procedural aspect. We enclose a copy of a legal atmorandum of September 20, 1988, to Joel Lubenau, SLITP, that, in part, avdresses this matter, kW Stuart A. Treby Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle. OGC cc:
M. Knapps J. Lubenabs s
97/Z$7M9 Yk Na
__