ML20055D441
| ML20055D441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/23/1987 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Henry S HENRY, KELLY & LOWERRE (FORMERLY HENRY, KELLY, BUNCH |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D365 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-TUYL90-36 NUDOCS 9007060306 | |
| Download: ML20055D441 (2) | |
Text
-
1 e.
I
- N, UNITED STAf ts c,
~,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON p.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20566 g
\\ '"* * /
NAR 2 81987 Stuart N. Henry, Esq.
Henry & Kelly Attorneys at Law P103 Rio Grande Austin, Texas 78705
Dear Mr. Henry:
This refers to your letter of January 26, 1987 concerning Texas' reguletion of the Conoco-Conquista tailings disposal site near Falls City, Texas and our letter of acknowledgement. He have made a review of this matter and our views on your issues 1 through 3, as presented in your January 26, 1987 letter, are as follows:
(1 & 2) Regarding the definition of byproduct material, pursuant to the Section 274b agreement between Texas and thy NRC, the NRC has relinquished its authority and the State et.ercises control by State statutes and regulations. Thus, there is no delegation of Federal authority involved in stch agreements.
The NRC staff is aware that Texas statutes anc regulations contain a definition of byproduct material which is broader than that contained in Section 11e.(2) of the Atonic Energy l.
Act of 1954, as amended (Act). The Texas def t.11 tion has the effect of subjecting other residues which have radiological characteristics similar to uranium and thorium mill tailings to the same stringent requirenents applicable to uranium or thorium mill tailings. This is t. conservative approech from a safety and environmental standpoint that is an exercise of Texes' plenary power. There could be a potential problem, however, in the event Texas desired to transfer ownership of the tailings site to the Federal government rather than the State astuming ownership since the Federal Section 11e.(2) definition of byproduct material would then be controlling.
Federal ownership of the tailings may be precluded if significant quantities of residues not meeting the Section 11e.(2)definitionwerepresent. We believe Texas is aware of this factor. We believe the Teyes statutes and regulations are otherwise consistent with the Atonic Energy Act and the Texas amended agreement.
(3) The matter of the 11cer.se status of Conoco was outlined in Dr.
Bernstein's 'etter to you of December ??, 1986. We note that the matter of transfer of the license from Conoco Inc. to Conquista Project Cor> oration is in hearing status for the purpose of deciding w1 ether approvtl of the license transfer should be granted.
l
~
9007060306 900515 E 1 N O-36 PDR
1 I'r. Stuart " Derir<, Esc.
I i
i IWe' on. (,ur r+xieru t.' this r*tter ric hava ne s~n reeernandatin-i. +;i i
Lha T x.it D:;rc tny t.i' '!. r1+.h re.cs rdit.e t h re.mui $tien of the Cor.or a e
t ilie.m. site. t cr.p," r.' our 1-+ t.r r to T r. P. As rt Pernstain, j
Cr.' rii s t.i s.tc r '.' Unr.l t'1 f a r Ten t i s ran.16 sod.
T5....l; "1u e.e ** iur i: cui r '.
~
Sincerely, W.Vd T!*M N O
- 0. Urun? I'rtrr, Oi rar.t 3r O'fice rif Stite Prnqrem j
Fr.cl osu r.':
i f.s stured Distribution:
SA R-F Dir R-F JFK endig DANussbaumer GWKerr VSt ello JRoe' JS niez sk HThompson JMurray JParler RMartin, RIV DSmith, URF0 RDoda, RIV Green Ticket -002501 Texas file (fc) w/ incoming & w/ enc 1 SNL vis 9.3ts tas]WM 3/) q,rr(/87
.L U D
Y eSA g
w
[......@a.i.v.. Ri.he.........c m.....
a w
- => EKendig/.bh.. DAN ssbaumet.. sit a.......HK na p p.......RMattin..... R05 mi th.................
3./.10./.8,7,,,,,,,3j, p/8,7,,,,,,,3/,g,87,,....,34gs7.......,3 z,,/p,,
,, a f..f,8 7.,,,,
3f;?.f.87..,
unc ronu sia no so> wacu ano OFFICIAL RECdRD COPY i
-