ML20045D698
| ML20045D698 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/29/1992 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Parler W, Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045D684 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-134 NUDOCS 9306290313 | |
| Download: ML20045D698 (2) | |
Text
l>}
',e 8pm Rf C g
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
y
),g
,n W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
%{**C/4 8 December 29, 1992 j
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations William C.
Parler General Counsel M
FROM:
James R.
Curtiss
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391:
DEN L OF PRM-60-4-PETITION FOR RULEMAKING REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD While I generally concur in the staff's recommendation to deny the subject petition for rulemaking (PRM), I have two concerns with the specific approach recommended by the staff to the classification of the Hanford tank wastes.
Those concerns are as follows:
j First, neither the proposed letter to the Department of Energy (DOE) nor the draft Federal Register Notice (FRN) speaks to the question of who (i.e., URC or DOE) is to evaluate compliance with the technical criteria proposed by the staff.
Moreover, based upon the briefing that the staff provided me on December 1, it is evident that there is considerable confusion on this i
matter among the staff here at the NRC.
The question is an important one, because the manner in which the technical issues are resolved will, in turn, have a direct bearing on the scope of NRC's jurisdiction over the ultimate disposition of the Hanford material.1 Because of the jurisdictional implications of this issue, and in view of the fact that the technical criteria to be applied here are drawn directly from NRC 1 Under the staff's proposed approach, if waste is classified as " incidental", DOE, in turn, will be permitted to dispose of the waste in an unlicensed facility (i.e.,
in a concrete grout facility at Hanford).
Otherwise, the waste must be disposed of in a licensed high-level waste disposal facility.
In essence, DOE will be responsible'for defining the scope of NRC's jurisdiction over these waste streams when it makes its technical determination as to whether a waste is " incidental."
9306290313 930426 PDR FOIA FACARDS93-134 PDR
i *.
e regulations,2 I believe there needs to be a clearer understanding as to what NRC's role will be in assessing compliance by DOE with the technical criteria.
Accordingly, I would ask the staff to expand upon this matter.
Second, under the staff's proposed approach, " economic j
practicality" associated with further processing of wastes will play a central role in the issue of whether residual wastes will be classified as " incidental."
Yet there is very little detail in SECY-92-391, the letter to DOE, or the FRN as to what is to be considered in evaluating " economic practicality."3 Accordingly, I would ask the staff to expand upon this matter.
I would appreciate the staff's responses to the foregoing issues before I vote on SECY-92-391.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque i
OGC SECY 4
i 2
In making its determination as to whether waste is
" incidental", DOE will be applying NRC regulatory criteria under the approach recommended by the staff (i.e., the concentration of the solid physical form is not to exceed 10 CFR Part 61 Class C limits; safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are to be satisfied).
3 For example, is DOE to apply the $1,000/ person rem standard under the approach recommended by the staff?
If adequate funding is not forthcoming in the budgetary process (as a consequence, for example, of insufficient funds being requested i
by DOE or approved by OMB or Congress) is this a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that further processing is not
" economically practical"?