ML20044H393
| ML20044H393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/18/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9306080317 | |
| Download: ML20044H393 (2) | |
Text
........................ -
RELEASED TO THE PDR
,8 UNITED STATES O'
f 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-f]
zy W ASH WGTON,0.C. 20555 H
. O
%.....o February 18, 1993 OFFKE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Opfrations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secret Q
[)
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-351 - FINAL AME: DM INTS TO 10 CFR PART 61, " LICENSING REQUIREM3NT3 FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE" The staff should incorporate the comments listed below and return the final rule to the Commission for approval and affirmation.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
3/26/53) 1.
The definition of " Land Disposal Facility" should be changed to read:
Land disposal facility means the land, buildings and structures, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes.
For purposes 4
of this chapter, a " geologic repository" as defined in Part 60 is not considered a " land disposal facility."
The Statement of Considerations should include a statement that while the definition is a Division I matter of compatibility for the Agreement States, the NRC will relax strict application when making its determination of compatibility for those States which have already selected a disposal technology and have adopted a more narrow regulatory definition of " land disposal facility" to reflect the selected technology as long as the State definition is encompassed by the NRC definition (i.e. existing State definitions could be " grandfathered").
The Commission will not require such States to amend their regulatory definition i
solely to conform to the NRC revision if the selected technology falls within the scope of 10 CFR Part 61 and the 4
definition is not inconsistent with the NRC definition.
040105 SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SE;f-92-351, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF THE CHAIRMAN, AND COMMISSIONERS ROGERS, CURTISS AND de PLANQUE WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN ON THIS RULEMAKING 9306080317 930218 m
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR.
\\\\0
0 2.
The comments from US Ecology should be addressed in the Statement of Considerations.
In addressing this comment, the staff may wish to consider substituting " subject to regulation under" for "as defined in" in order to avoid any appearance that Part 60 definitions are being incorporated by reference.
3.
The characterization of the public comment about increased regulatory uncertainty for above-ground disposal (on page 8 of Enclosure 1) and the response (on page 9) are not consistent.
As characterized, the comment is concerned with the potential for legal uncertainty that could arise from the differences between criteria developed by the states in the absence of NRC criteria.
The response focusses on whether Agreement States may set more stringent criteria than the NRC -- a different issue.
If the comment has been mischaracterized, that should be corrected.
Otherwise, the response should be revised to be more to the point.
4.
The response on alternative opportunities for public input on case-by-case approaches should be strengthened by describing the process used in real cases (e.a., the LES and Envirocare cases) where site-specific standards were established with opportunity for comment.
The reference would show that the use of alternatives is not just an abstract idea.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX)
I e
.