ML20151V864
| ML20151V864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/25/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Quillin R COLORADO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151V869 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809150093 | |
| Download: ML20151V864 (7) | |
Text
_
3 ymru q
k UNITED STATES y
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[g WASHINGTON, D.C. *nana -t August 25, 1998 l
Robert M. Ouillin, Director Laboratory & Radiation Services Division Department of Public Health & Environment 8100 Lowry Boulevard Denver, CO 80220-6928
Dear Mr. Ouillin:
1
Subject:
Request From Colorado to Assume Approval Authority of Altematives to Appendix A of Part 18, Colorado Rules And Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control Your April 17,1998 letter describes a proposed revision to Part 18, Appendix A, of the Colorado Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control (equivalent to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix j
A). The proposed change would permit the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to act as the final reviewer and approval authority of alternatives to Appendix A, including providing notice and opportunity to a hearing before the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. As discussed below, your proposal to displace NRC in the process of reviewing and approving alternatives is not consistent with the provisions of Section 274o of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended. A State's procedure cannot replace NRC's role in the process as specified in the AEA.
Staff has reviewed your request and determined that Sectica 274o of the AEA, as amended, imposes certain responsibilities upon NRC regarding the evaluation of Agreement State requirements related to the uranium mill tailings or, more specifically, that defined as "by-product material" under Q 11e.(2) of the AEA (see 42 U.S.C. 9 20210.). In particular, Q 274o I
provides an opportunity for a hearing when an Agreement State imposes regulatory provisione
/
that NRC determines to be an alternative to its own regulatory requirements. Section 274o refers to the differing State provisions as " alternative requirements." The purpose of the hearing is to allow:
... the Commission to determine that such alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose and final standards adopted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with section 275.'
To the extent that Colorado seeks to replace an NRC hearing with one conducted by Colorado, the State's proposal is inconsistent with the clear intent of 6 2740. We can find no indication from the plain language of the section (or its legislative history) that Congress intended to allow 9909150093 900825 OU PDR STPRG ESGCO e[,O "
(
q h MG-$
PDR c
l 110054
'42 u.S.C. 202io.
l
j Robert M. Ouillin the States to conduct the hearings and make determinations regarding alternative requirements.2 in fact, the very nature of the provision suggests that Congress sought to minimize the flexibility of the States in this area and place NRC in what is essentially an oversight role. As such, your proposal to displace NRC's role in the process appears to be in direct contradiction to the purposes of 274o. However, we see no bar to allowing the State to conduct its own hearing for its own administrative purposes prior to NRC consideration.
Finally, we are not aware of any NRC activities at the Joy Mining Site in the State of Washington which are related to the above issue. In the case of the Joy Mining Site, there were no alternative requirements involved and therefore, section 274o did not need to be addressed. NRC reviewed the Washington State license termination and agreed that all requirements had been met.
Sincerely, a d L
& a+
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
'See, H.R. REP. No. 884,97* Cong.,2d Sess., at 48 (1983). "Under section 19 of the conference agreement, individual Agreement States are authorized to adopt alternatives (including site-specific alternatives) to the Commission's regulations. These alternative State requirements, which may take into account local or regional condition, must be submitted to the Commission for approval."
1 52 Robert M. Ouillin the States to conduct the hearings and make determinations regarding alternative requirements.8 in fact, the very nature of the provision suggests that Congress sought to minimize the flexibility of the States in this area and place NRC in what is essentially an oversight role. As such, your proposal to displace NRC's role in the process appears to be in direct contradiction to the purposes of 274o. However, we see no bar to allowing the State to conduct its own hearing for its own administrative purposes prior to NRC consideration.
Finally, we are not aware of any NRC activities at the Joy Mining Site in the State of Washington which are related to the above issue. In the case of the Joy Mining Site, there were no alternative requirements involved and therefore, section 274o did not need to be addressed. NRC reviewed the Washington State license termination and agreed that all requirements had been met.
Sincerely, D @9d BY RICHARD L.BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF (8S-129)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
CMaupin, ASPO BUsilton Colorado File
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\TJO\\QUILLIN.WPD Ta receive a copy of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = lopy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l
OGC NMSS:DWM OSP:DO l' NAME TJO'Brien:gd:nb PHLohaus FXCameron JHolonich RLBangad N DATE 07/30/98*
08/04/98
- 08/20/98
- 08/06/98
- 08/X/98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-5 See, H.R. REP. No. 884,97th Cong.,2d Sess., at 48 (1983). "Under section 19 of the conference agreement, individual Agreement States are authorized to adopt alternatives (including site-specific alternatives) to the Commission's regulations. These alternative State requirements, which may take into account local or regional condition, must be submitted to the Commission for approval."
a<
Robert M. Quillin the States to conduct the hearings and make determinations regarding alternative j
requirements.8 In fact, the very nature of the provision suggests that Congress sought to i
minimize the flexibility of the States in this area and place NRC in whpt'is essentially an oversight role. As such, your proposal to displace NRC's role in theprocess appears to be in direct contradiction to the purposes of 274o. However, we see nofar to allowing the State to conduct its own hearing prior to NRC consideration.
Finally, we are not aware of any NRC activities at the Joy Mi 'ng Site in the State of Washington which are related to the above issue. In the case of the Joy Mining Site, there 6
were no alternative requirements involved and therefore,7 ction 274o did not need to be addressed. NRC reviewed the Washington State license termination and agreed that all requirements had been met.
Sincerel,
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF (8S-129)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
CMiupin, ASPO BUsilton Color:do File
/
/
- See revious concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\TJO\\QUILLIN.WPD f
whmf T* rec *ive a cop r of this document, indicate in the box: *C* = Copy without attach nt/encio ure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N* = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l
OGC //
NMSS:DWM l OSP:D NAME TJO'Brien:gd PHLohaus FXCamerorf/h)/d JHolonich RLBangart DATE 07/30/98*
08/04/98
/
2See, H.R. REP. No. 884,97* Cong.,2d Sess., at 48 (1983). "Under section 19 of the conference agreement, individual Agreement States are authorized to adopt alternatives (including site-specific alternatives) to the Commission's regulations. These alternative State requirements, which may take into account local or regional condition, must be submitted to the Commission for approval."
l l
_ _ _.. m _ _ _ m ___._
l
/
Robert M. Quillin the States to conduct the hearings and make determinations regar$ng alternative requirements.8 In fact, the very nature of the provision suggests minimize the flexibility of the States in this area and place NRCj'n) hat Congress s what is essentially an oversight role. As such, your proposal to displace NRC's rol fn the process appears to be in 9
direct contradiction to the purposes of 274o. However, we e no bar to allowing the State to conduct its own hearing prior to NRC consideration.
l Finally, we are not aware of any NRC activities at the y Mining Site in the State of Washington which are related to the above issue.1 he case of the Joy Mining Site, there I
were no alternative requirements involved and ther fore, section 274o did not need to be addressed. NRC reviewed the Washington Stat icense termination and agreed that all requirements had been met.
l S' cerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DlR RF (8S-129)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
CMiupin, ASPO BUsilton Coloratdo File
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME:fG:\\TJO\\QUILLIN.WPD j
Ta receive e aos r of this document, ineficato in the teos: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E* = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N' = No copy i
OFFICE MSP l
OSP:DD l
OGC l
NMDWM l OSP:D l
NAME TJO'Brien:gd PHLohaus FXCameron JH61dbich RLBangart j
DATE 07/30/98*
08/04/98
- 08/ /98
[/08/m /98 08/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-5 8See, H.R. REP No. 884,97* Cong.,2d Sess., at 48 (1983). "Under section 19 of the conference agreement, individual Agreement States are authorized to adopt alternatives (includ;ng site-specific alternatives) to the Commission's regulations. These alternative State requirements, which may take into account local or regional condition, must be submitted to the i
Commission for approval."
i
1 Robert M. Quillin f the States to conduct the hearings and make determinations regarding/
alternative requirements.2 In fact, the very nature of the provision suggests that' Congress sought to minimize the flexibility of the States in this area and place NRC in wfiat is essentially an oversight role. As such, your proposal to displace NRC's role in,tlie process appears to be in direct contradiction to the purposes of 2740. However, we se no bar to allowing the State to conduct its own hearing prior to NRC consideration.
Finally, we are not aware of any NRC activities at the Joy Mining Site in the State of Washington which are related to the above issue. In thd case of the Joy Mining Site, there were no alternative requirements involved and therefore, section 274o did not need to be addressed. NRC reviewed the Washington State license termination and agreed that all requirements had been met.
/
Si erely,
/
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DlR RF (8S-129)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
CM upin, ASPO BUsilton Color do File
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\TJO\\QUILLIN.WPD Tm receive e cop r of thiteceumont, Indicate in the bor: "C%Il Copy wl:hout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N* = No copy OFFICE
/ OSP l
OS$D l
OSP:D l
NAME T30'Brien:gd PHLoh a8s' RLBangart DATE 07/30/98*
08/4/98 08/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-5 l
8 l
See, H.R. REP. No. 884,97t" Cong.,2d Sess., at 48 (1983). "Under section 19 of the I
conference agreement, individual Agreement States are authorized to adopt alternatives (including site-specific alternatives) to the Commission's regulations. These alternative State requirements, which may take into account local or regional condition, must be submitted to the i
Commission for approval."
l Ro rt M. Quillin l the St es to conduct the hearings and make determinations regarding alternative l
require ents.' In fact, the very nature of the provisiors suggest that Congress sought to l
minimize e flexibility of the States in this area and place NRC in what is essentially an oversight r le. As such, Colorado's proposal to displace NRC's role in the process appears to be in direct ntradiction to the purposes of 2740. We are not aware of any NRC activities at the Joy Site in th State of Washington which are related to the above issue. However, we see no bar to allowing e State to conduct its own hearing on these issues prior to NRC consideration.
In doing so, the tate proceedings would act as a filter to weed out alternative requirements before they beca subject to an NRC hearing. In any event, the State's procedures cannot replace NRC's role the process as specified in the Act.
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs l
Distribution:
DIR RF (8S-129)
DCD(
08)
SDroggitis PDR (Y
/)
CMaupin, ASPO BUsilton Colorado File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\TJO\\QUILLIN.WPD Tu receive a copi of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Co (with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD OSP:D
\\
l NAME TJO'Brien:gdh 5 PHLohaus RLBangart
\\
DATE 07/>t/98 07/ /98 07/ /98
\\
P FILE CODE: SP-AG-S l
l r
I l