ML20046A770
| ML20046A770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307300029 | |
| Download: ML20046A770 (2) | |
Text
....
e W.
i
- RELEASEDTOTHE PDRL N OLT A T:I G N
-V0TE g m
RESPONSE: SHEET.
. L....'date ! ~
....... inkts..... V.....
^
T0::
SAMUEL I.. CHILK, SECRETARY-' OF THE1 COMISSION v
l
~
FROM:-
THE CHAIRMAN-
?
SUBJECT:
- RE-EVALUATION ~OF THE-L COMPATIBILITY DIVISIONS ASSIGNED TOLTHE.
1 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN?10~CFR-61.41 THROUGH: 61'.44 - AND EVALUATION' 0F THELILLIN0IS.
~
1 MILLIREM PROVISION
/
f APPROVED E Part DISAPPROVED in part
. ABSTAIN
.NOT-PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION-y
)
COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
-i e
s 1
r
'9307300029 930507j
^
ES$aeESEN!ss@Ee.na
. SIGNATURE-
. RELEASE VOTE
. / '/ /
May 7, 1993 DATE-i WITHHOLD VOTE
/-
/
i g[d ENTERED ON "AS" YEs v NO-k" 150091-u o
CHAIRMAN SELIN'S COMMENTS ON SECY-93-080 With respect to the question of the compatibility with NRC regulations of the Illinois 1 millirem limit, I approve a variation of Option-3.
I agree with both the staff and Commissioner Curtiss that
...there is no basis for distinguishing the Illinois provision from the Pennsylvania provision approved earlier by the Commission."
As the staff puts it, these provisions are both reauirements and not merely objectives.
As such, they will both achieve the practical result of restricting radiation and radioactive effluents to levels that are lower.than would'be permissible under 10 CFR Part 61.
While.I recognize that it is possible to construct arguments based on distinctions as to-whether these provisions are standards,' objectives or operational requirements, I believe such distinctions are, in' reality, artificial.
On the basis of the foregoing and the precedent of-the Commission's approval of the Pennsylvania. provision,.I approve the Illinois provision as compatible with NRC's. regulation.
This is in keeping with my belief that, in the limited' area of low-level waste disposal site regulation, the Commission canfand should allow special flexibility to the Agreement-States.
Furthermore, I believe the Commission should' adopt and formalize this position by taking the action described below.
With respect to the assignment of the required degree of compatibility for.10 CFR Part 61, subsections 61.41'through 61.44, I agree with the staff's recommendation to retain.the currently assigned compatibility Division levels except for subsection 61.41.
All of the subsections except 61'.41 are.
designated Division level 2, which permits an Agreement State to set a more stringent standard but not a less stringent standard..
The staff has designated 61.41 as Division Level 1, meaning the-provision must be adopted essentially verbatim.
However, for Agreement State regulations governing low-level radioactive waste disposal sites, it is my view that the states should have whatever flexibility and latitude the Commission is.able to provide, in keeping with the unique and'significant responsibilities assigned to the statesrunder the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
For this-reason, as a matter of Commission policy, I would designate subsection 61.41 as a Division level 2 regulation.
This would clarify the Commission's position that the Agreement States deserve special flexibility in regulating low-level waste.
disposal sites, in keeping with their special responsibility for developing such sites.