ML20024E797
| ML20024E797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/26/1983 |
| From: | Wolf J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E798 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 8309070072 | |
| Download: ML20024E797 (2) | |
Text
_
pa rtrg'o, r
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 WH OOCKET CONTROL AUG 2 6 1983 CENTER
'83 NE 29 P3:29 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Hubert J. Miller, Chief High-Level Waste Technical Development Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
'FROM:
James R. Wolf Attorney Regulations Division Office of the Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
REVISED STANDARD REVIEW PLANS (SRP) FOR SCPs 2
We are pleased to provide the following comments in response to your memorandum to Mr. Olmstead on the captioned subject dated August 16, 1983.
1.
The relevant provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 are currently under review.
It would be desirable to modify the SRP to reflect the changes in the -
latest draft and to postpone publication of the SRP until the Comission has issued a proposed rule.
12.
Part 60 contemplates that the NRC position will be arrived at by the Director, after review of the SCP. While there is merit in trying to reach earlier understandings at lower staff levels, the Director should not be foreclosed from expressing a contrary view later on.
3.
The importance of affording an opportunity for State / tribal /public input has been emphasized.
In order to assure such opportunity, no understandings or agreements should be arrived at by NRC and DOE unless the substance thereof has been made known in advance in sufficient time for_the concerns of such interested parties to be solicited and considered.
(
4.
References to the " systems approach" should be deleted wherever they occur. While Part 60 dces allow performance objectives to be applied in a flexible manner, both the regulation and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act require a multiple barrier approach rather than a systems approach.
5.
The connection between the SRP and the ultimate concerns of the review as spelled out in law and regulation needs to be clarified. The most important objectives are to determine (1) the adequacy of excavations and testing plans to support a license application, (2) the extent to which proposed activities may affect the site's isolation capabilities, and (3) plans to control adverse, safety-related, impacts.
Items (2)'1 Frm. (3)
/
and do not appear to be adequately addressed. W w x d fde
\\,.
ct l09* 3-D & t ?.'0.
PCR. /
LPJR CfrNcv
/$ Nt //c f gp g
C*
g t
~
- e. '6.
The SRP seems to be' unduly focussed on.long-term isolation. Additional language to point out the need for site characterization activities to address pre-closure safety concerns would be helpful.
7.
The SRP.should not contemplate NRC evaluation of plans for decontamination and decommissioning, or for mitigation of adverse environmental impacts if the site is found unsuitable for seeking construction authorization.
In that event, there would be no NRC licensing action and no basis for NRC environmental review.
(A limited exception might be made if DOE uses radioactive material for onsite testing.)
8.
The SRP should provide for consideration of the need for onsite testing with radioactive material so as to provide a basis for concurrence or nonconcurrence as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
9.
- The concern about "real world factors" should not be allowed to override the~ need for completeness in the review.
- 10. The relative advantages and disadvantages of rulemaking and generic technical positions require further examination. My tentative opinion is that the GTP should be eliminated entirely.-
_ Additional detailed connents appear on the draft SRP, which is returned
_ herewith..
.x
!'/
llYhkb/f'
/ James R. Wolf y / Attorney
/ / Regulations Division
/
Office of the Executive-Y Legal Director
Enclosure:
- As stated-m