ML20043B919
| ML20043B919 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1988 |
| From: | Hopkins D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006010044 | |
| Download: ML20043B919 (6) | |
Text
e CLW
~
~~ ~~~
'~
~
~
^
. D J ~~
~ ~ ~
~
j h
50 l
30 t
ghf M99 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Bill M. Morris, Director, Division of Regulatory-l.
Applications, RES THRU:
William R. Lahs, Acting Chief, Regulation Development Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
-l c
FROM:
Donald R. Hopkins,-Regulation Development Branch, L
Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
SUBJECT:
BELOWREGULATORYCONCERN(BRC)PETITIONCOORDINATION The RES and NMSS staff, who are expected to review and process petitions for s
rulemaking involving BRC waste disposal, met on October 4, 1988 to establish and coordinate interoffice procedures for the handling-of these petitions.
Attending for NMSS/LLWM were M. Bell, R. Boyle, C. Glenn, and K. Dragonette.
Attending for RES/DRA-were W.Lahs, D. Hopkins, C. Mattsen, and S. Neuder. The procedures which were discussed would apply to any BRC waste petition _ submitted under the ' expedited handling" provisions of the August 1986 NRC policy statement, " General Statement of' Policy and Procedures'Concerning Petitions Pursuant to 2.802 for Disposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below Regulatory Concern." However, all participants were keenly aware of the pending EPRI petition regarding disposal.of nuclear reactor BRC waste streams,'which is expected to be submitted around-the end of the calendar year. That petition is expected to consolidate the disposal of eight separate nuclear reactor waste streams.and, as a result.:a submission of 1500 pages is expected, based on a telephone call with an EPRI~ representative.
The most serious problem discussed was how to satisfy the timing requirements set forth in the Staff Implementation Plan which accompanied the NRC Policy Statement. The Plan states that proposed rules developed to. satisfy waste
-disposal petitions will generally be forwarded to the Comission six months after petition acceptance and publication for comment, with an extra month allowed if the petition involves nuclear reactor wastes so that a review by
'CRGR is required. The following factors work to deter our being able to make that schedule, and proposals on how to minimize their delaying effects were discussed:
1.
Approval of the initiation of rulemaking by the EDO before any extensive work may be done to develop the proJosed rule.
Our recomendation to the EDO on whether to initiate a rulema King would normally be completed af ter our initial review of the petition, after a determination that it qualifies for " expedited handling," and after public comments have been analyzed. We would normally begin this process about 3 months into the seven-month schedule, with a subsequent delay in further work until the EDO approval is received.
_h60gO44891130
'CHP1 53FR49886 PDC
{
ww.9.-
7
.s 2
i 2.
' Involvement with the Agreement States in the development of the proposed rule.
This is particularly important when the NRC rule is being made "a matter of compatibility," where the Agreement States are recuired to adopt the same rule in State regulations.
Involvement with Agreeset States j
normally occurs.when a draft proposed rule is circulated for coment from other' interested NRC Offices at the Division level. The States are normally afforded a 45 day coment period, and their consnents are i
considered in developing the draft proposed rule which is then distributed o
for NRC Office concurrence.
In the proposed compressed schedule (attached), devised for " expedited handling," the time allowed for NRC Offices to coment and subsequently to concur is only thirty days, j
l 3.
Involvement by the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Wastes (ACNW) a group B
which did not exist at the time the Staff Implementation Plan was written.
ACNW would normally be briefed by.the staff af ter the draf t proposed rule L
-is developed so that ACNW comments could be incorporated into the draf t proposed rule which is distributed for NRC Office concurrence.
The actions suggested to minimize the delaying effects of the three factors just described are as follows:
l 1.
Regarding the EDO approval to initiate rulemaking, NMSS tried, in 1986 when the BRC Waste Policy Statement was published, to get the EDO to agree to exempt any-rulemaking associated with*" expedited handling" waste petitions from the need for EDO initiation approval. The EDO would i
not agree to that exemption from processing procedures, but vowed to quickly process any rulemaking associated with an " expedited handling" waste petition. Because the writing and rewriting, typing delays, and 4
multiple reviews and concurrences in the Task Initiation Package all take time away from the technical review of the petition and its supporting documents, some accomodation must be made to avoid delays during the busy time of the schedule when public comments are being analyzed and the proposed rule is being formulated. The accomodation should be based on
.the presumption that a proposed rule which responds to a waste petition L
approved for " expedited handling" after staff review has a very high I,
probability of being approved by the EDO.
Recognizing that some of the information in the Task Initiation Package is l
used for purposes only related to task approval (e.g. a regulatory agenda entry is included), we should com)1y with procedures and prepare the Task Initiation Package. The timing siould be early in the schedule, however, during the initial 60-day coment period. The Package would not include L
any information on public coments, a fact the EDO should accept. The EDO l
should also accept that work should continue on the petition pending EDO approval. We need management assistance to verbally air this proposed accommodation with the EDO.
2.
Finding time in a tight schedule to involve the Agreement States is a difficult problem with a simple solution.
Recognizing that the petition must specify the rule change being requested and provide comprehensive supporting rationale and data, we should be able to elicit any important
^^
^
~~^^
~~
T
^
~
^~
I p w.x -
,?
a.
3 coments on the proposal by sending the petition to each Agreement State and requesting coments. - We would send copies to the States as receipt of L-the petition is noticed, allowing 60 days for connent. When the proposed
~
rule and associated materials (essentially all of.which would be contained in the petition) are developed by the staff, a copy would be sent to Agreement States, but with a 30-day coment period since the States would have already reviewed and responded to essentially the same information.
As an afterthought to the meeting it was agreed that if there are no changes to petitioner's proposed rule and no significant new supporting rationale or data, the second coment period for States would be eliminated as unnecessary duplication.
3.
Finding time in a tight schedule to involve the'ACNW is also difficult, bat again the solution is that the petition. includes virtually.all the information that will support the proposed rule.
We propose to.brief the ACNW during the initial 60-day coment period, probably involving the petitioner in th6t briefing.
A copy of the draft proposed rule would be sent to ACNW, when available, but, presuming it would be very similar to the petition, no further briefing would be envisioned.
The division of responsibility between NMSS and RES for processing the
" expedited handling" waste petitions was discussed.
NHSS has less than 1 FTE to devote to BRC implementation and has a number of tasks already underway.
RES has less that 3 FTE's involved in BRC tasks, and also has a number of tasks already underway 3 It was agreed that RES would-take the lead in processing the petitions.
HMSS would devote its staff resources to the initial convening of a task group of representatives of NRR and OGC, in addition to NMSS and RES, to make. the determination whether a petition qualifies for " expedited handling."
The task group would also follow the processing of the petition into a i
rulemaking package, and, when necessary, contribute-to the review and development of this package. NMSS also has a contract with Sandia Labs, under which the IMPACTS-BRC code could be run for a specific application. The Sandia contract is scheduled to expire in April 1989. RES indicated that it will have a contract in effect in early CY 1989 to provide technical assistance in processing waste stream petitions, including the use of the IMPACTS-BRC code, at which time the Sandia contract would not be needed.
1 As an afterthought to the meeting, it was agreed that although NMSS would initially convene the task group, the chairperson may change as the processing of the petition proceeds and the function of the task group changes..
i
i
+
.I P
4 gg'g Some modification of our normal interface with ARM: Regulatory Publications Branch is necessary for processing waste petitions submitted under the 1986 NRC Statement.of Policy and Procedures.
The staff will need more than the 10 days currently allotted by procedures to determine if the petition qualifies-for
" expedited handling " DRA:RDB will initiate discussions with ARM in this respect, with SLITP with respect to the involvement of Agreement States discussed earlier, and with ACNW with respect to its review of " expedited handling" petitions.
0 Donald R. Hopkins, Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
Enclosure:
Proposed Compressed Schedule Distribution:
[ MEMO BMORRIS/BELOW REG CON PET) subj-circ-chron Reading Files ESBeckjord TPSpeis DFRoss-KDragonette, HMSS
.BMorris CGlenn, NHSS ZRosttoczy WLahs MKnapp, NMSS SNeuder JGreeves, NMSS CMattsen MLesar, ARM HScott MBell, NMSS-teHcpkins Y
h st:
RDB:RES RDB:RES W NMSS:llWM is DHopkins Wlahs MBell 11/04/88 11#f/88 11/g /88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
n, i
~.
y e -.;.
s 4,
E.
y j,.
I, Attachment Proposed Compressed Schedule For Exped'ited BRC Waste Petitions
.1 1.
Prefiling Interaction.
-ARM responsibility with participation by NMSS, RES, and any other office affected by the proposed petition.
2.
Receive Petition, Review for Expedited Handling, and Docket.
Develop Tentative Schedule.
-ARM responsibility, following decision on
- expedited handling by NMSS-chaired task group.
-RES responsible for sending petition, through GPA: State, local,
, and Indian Tribe Programs, to Agreement States for coment after l
petition judged adequate for expedited handling.
RES responsible for sending petition to ACNW for comment.
3.
Publish Notice for Public Comment. Send Notice and Schedule to Petitioner, Noting Name and Telephone Number of Contact Person in Assigned Office.
-ARM responsibility with RES participation.
-Complete within about 40 days of receipt.
-Start of. Schedule.
~4.
Prepare Package to Initiate' Rulemaking.
-RES responsibility.
-Complete within 30 days of schedule start.
5.
Briefing on Petition for ACNW.
-RES responsibility with possible task group and petitioner participation.
l
-Complete within 60 days of schedule start.
6.
Docket Comments and Provide Copies of Coments to Petitioner and Appropriate Staff Offices.
-ARM responsibility.
-Complete within 70 days of schedule start.
7.
Provide feriodic Status Reports to Petitioner.
-RES responsibility. Copies to ARM and task group.
-Not longer than 3-month intervals.
B.
Review and Analyze Coments.
-RES responsibility.
-Task group to provide input.
-Complete within 100 days of schedule sp t.
9.
Prepare Proposed Rulemaking Package.
-RES responsibility.
-Task group to provide input.
-Complete within 130 days of schedule start.
-RES send copies to ACNW if proposed rule different from petition.
-RES, through GPA, send copies to Agreement States if proposed rule different from petition.
- 10/11/88 1
rw.aww ~an a
l
.+
l.,-
1 I.
- 10. Obtain Concurrences on Proposed Rule Package.
-RES responsibility with task group assistance..
-Complete within'160 days of schedule start.
i
- 11. Submit Proposed Rule Package to CRGR and Resolve Comments.
1
-RES responsibility with task group assistance.
-Complete within 190 days of schedule start.
i 12.
Submit Proposed Rule Package to Comission.
-RES responsibility.
-Complete within 210 days of schedule start, 13.
Provide Commission Briefing, if Appropriate.
Resolve Comission Coments, as Necessary.
-RES responsibility with task group assistance.
i
-Complete within 240-330 days of schedule start.
- 14. Publish Proposed Rule.
-RES responsibility with ARM assistance.
-Complete within 270-360 days of schedule start.
15.
Analyze Public Comments and Request Additional Information From 1
Petitioner, if Necessary.
-RES responsibility with task group assistance.
-Complete within 360-450 days of schedule start.
16.
Prepare Final Rule Package and Repeat Steps 5-7 and 9-14
-RES responsibility.
-Task group to provide input.
-Complete within 530-730 days of schedule start.
l 10/11/88 2