ML20046A767
| ML20046A767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307300025 | |
| Download: ML20046A767 (3) | |
Text
-
j...
? tREl'.EASsDjo;THE'PDRL l*S9
'N 0 T A..T4I40 NL
.V-0 Ts E.
m
~-
- L 9 // ? /c) F '
f f J:P!
c.
............ 3...$A
/*@
RESPONSE SHEET.
s?
u
?!
T0:
. SAMUEL J.. CHILKi SECRETARY OFLTHE col 44I'SSION!
'*d 1
FROM; C0lWISSIONER CURTISS-y 1.1
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-080 -1RE-EVALUATION OFlTHE.
~ j COMPATIBILITY DIVISIONS ASSIGNED TO'THE
~ Al PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES'INL10;CFR:61.41:.
THROUGH; 61.44. AND : EVALUATION 0F'THE:. ILLIN0IS:
- 1; 1 MILLIREM PROVISION L
Option 3 wi
~i APPROVED mnriificatio ISAPPROVED-
. ABSTAIN
^
NoT-PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION-
.ni C0fEENTSi j
3.
.I.would. approve Option 3. with 10 CFR 61.41 classified 1 T
as a Division 2 rule for purposes of. compatibility.
See attached comments.-
.)
i
- i i
1 J
h f"
9307300025 93042BF
~
PDR COMMS NRCC CDRRESPONDENCE PDR
.SIGNAT RELEASE. VOTE
/ X ?- /-.
' April 28, 1993 DATE
,1 n
WITHHOLD VOTE
/-
/-
y iENTERED O'N "AS"'
YES.
x
.NO p
^
21)008b d
I j%
g--
'];
'4 Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-93-080:
I commend the staff for the careful and. thorough analysis that
- has been undertaken in the subject SECY paper. ~In myLview, the issues here are straiehtforward:
1)
The State of Illinois' "1 millirem provision" is, for all intents and purposes, a radiation protection standard.
In enacting this provision,'the State has advised us that it adopted a l' millirem 111mit for the explicit purpose of assuring adequate protection of'the public health and safety.1 e
The limit itself is phrased in terms of a maximum permissible dose, the very same-concept employed in 10 CFR 61.41 and which, to date, we have defined in that context as a radiation protection standard, e
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) has further advised us that the provision is not simply a design goal, but a criterion that the State's low-level waste facility "can and will be designed to.
meet."2 The NRC staff'has concluded that the 1 e
millirem provision. is a requirement, not an.
objective, with no operational-flexibility'of the type that might be expected if this were an ALARA goal or objective.3 Based upon the foregoing considerations, the only logical and defensible conclusion, in my view, is that the 1 millirem provision is a radiation protection standard.
2)
The 1 millirem provision is more stringent than the radiation protection standard' established in 10 CFR 4
61.41.
1 Egg Letter from Thomas W..Ortciger, Director, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, to Carlton Kammerer, Director, 1
Office of State Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (January 13,'1993).
2 Egg Letter from Thomas W. Ortciger, Director,-Illinois Department of Nuclear. Safety, to Kenneth' M. ~ Carr, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (September 7, 1990).
3 Egg SECY-93-080, p.
5.
k s,
- e..
.~ ~
t:
3)
In the' staff's view, there isLno basis 1for
~
' distinguishing the Illinois provision from the Pennsylvania provision approved earlier by the commission.' -
In view of the foregoing, I see only two. logical options:, (1) declare that States may not establish more stringent radiation protection standards in the. area of low-level 1 radioactive' waste disposal and, based upon that policy, rescindithe State of Illinois' Agreement State authority; or (2) allow' States to establish more stringent radiation protection standards 1n the 3
area of low-level radioactive. waste disposal and, based upon that.:
policy, advise the State of Illinois that we have no objection to its 1 millirem provision.
For the reasons set forth.in my votes on SECY-91-047 and SECY-92--
243, and in the additional views that I appended to the StaffE Requirements Memorandum of January 22, 1993, I support the latter:
course of action.
This approach would necessitate reclassifying 1
10 CFR 61.41 as a Division 2 rule, thereby~ permitting States to establish more stringent radiation protection standards. -It would also constitute, to be sure, a departure from the policy articulated by the Commission in its Staff Requirement:7 Memorandum of January 22, 1993.
But, in.my-view,'it represents' the only logical and workable approach'to addressing this-important policy issue.
Accordingly, I would. designate 10 CFR 61.41 as a Division 2 rule'and, on that basis,^ advise Illinois that we have no objection to its 1 millirem provision.
i 3
' See SECY-93-080, Attachment 2, p.
9.
)
^
m
~
b