ML20046A821
| ML20046A821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1993 |
| 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 9307300099 | |
| Download: ML20046A821 (3) | |
Text
, =7 ' ' '
-a.
,g;g
'~p"[y,q*r ;
- > LRELEASEDTOTHEPDRL T
~
- UNITED STATES !
o
- ^
-: l. ;
}
g/
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l' jjjf' [
Mf
- ;)
- 7. -
,g
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
,f i.
e i
du. 7 15gftop-.
. ' (3 4
9
. /'
< June:30, 1993
- di L OFFICE OF THE
-I I>e
' SECRETARY I
t MEMORANDUM'TO:
James M. Taylor ExecutiveDirectorforOpeIations
[<
.s
[
FROM:
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secret
./
m SUILTECT:
SECY 080 - RE-EVALUA'idON, OFf COMPATIBILITY L'
DIVISIONS ASSIGNED:TO"THE PERFORMANCE f
-OBJECTIVES IN'10-CFR:61.'41/THROUGH'61 d4 AND L
EVALUATION OF THEJILLINOIS 1. MILLIREM' PROVISION The Commission _ (with alls Commissioners agreeing)' has-detierminedl that.the Illinois regulatory-program is compatible 1with NRC's; regulations.
The Commission 2(with Commissioners Rogers, Remick T
and de PlanqueLagreeing)_has' approved Option:1 in which/the-decision on Pennsylvania is.used to determineithat-Illinois 5is-
. compatible with NRC's regulation.
The. Chairman,f.although:
agreeing.:with the conclusl'on reachedrby the-majority,cwould: have -
preferred to'go;further and adopt: Option'3.
Option;3,would have.
reconsidered the. guidance lprovided;in the January (22,.jl993;SRM to j
allow flexibility in Agreement States for1 regulation:of LLWl disposal facilities and would1also:have resultedLin=a
=
.J determination of compatibility.
Comnissioner Curtiss believescthat StatesTshould beJpermitted toi
~
adopt more stringent radiation protection: standards'in the area) i of low-level radioactive. waste.. disposal. -As the-' staff has noted i
in SECY-93-080,.the-Illinoisi1Emillirem'provisioniatlissue;here E
is airequirement, not an objective, with no?operationali s
- flexibility of the' type that.
- might be~ expected if_this were an ALARA_ goal ~or-objective.. ItVis,?in essence,--a radiation ~-
s
- protection: standard.: ;Beyondithis,.the_ State l.of Illinois ~has.
F
- advised NRC.'that this' provision was adopted 1forithe explicit;y purpose of:assuringiadequate. protection _.ofjthe"public~nealth andL q
safety _(see?. Letter from' Thomas W. Ortciger,; Director,-qIllinois.
j J
Department of NucleariSafety,7 to Carlton Kammerer,(Director,j j
~
SECY NOTE:
THISTSRM, SECY-93-080,_AND-THE VOTE SHEETS 0F)THE=.
~
CHAIRMAN,: AND COMMISSIONERS ' ROGERS, CURTISS: ANDi g
'de PLANQUE - WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY " AVAILABLE5 10
'f WORKING DAYSFROM THE DATE OF THIS'SRM-ikoom 1
?
M uc_
7 1
i 9307300099 930630 "3 Ch 1; 1 b >'
PDR~ 10CFR "UU a
s
- PT9.7 PDRg
~
.a n.
-4.'
< =
n D
- d Office of State Programs,ENuclear Regulatory. Commission, January 13, 1993).
Accordingly, Commissioner Curtiss believes that-the issue squarely _before the. Commission in this case is'whether a State should be permitted-to establish a moreLstringent radiation protection standard, on the ground that such action is necessary to assure adequate protection'of the public health and safety.
In Commissioner Curtiss' view, States should be given that
. option.
Accordingly, Commissioner Curtiss would -
,(i) reclassify 10 CFR 61.41 as a Division _II matter of;compatibilityj thereby permitting States to establish more; stringent radiation-protection standards on health and safety grounds in the-low-level waste disposal arena; and (ii) endorse Option 3 to 4
reconsider the guidance given by the Commission in the Staff Requirements Memorandum on the Pennsylvania case.
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved'the continued categorization of 10 CFR 61.42 and 10 CFR 61.44 as Division II Jequirements.
The Chairman and Commissioner Curtiss unconditionally approved changing 10 CFR 61.41 to a Division II requirement and retaining 10 CFR 61.43 as a Division II requirement.
Commissioner Rogers would approve an Agreement State program which specifically.
refers to 10 CFR 61.41 and 61.43 as the standards for protection.
of public health and safety, but augments these by more stringent requirements provided it does not claim that greater' stringency; is needed to protect public health and safety, and it isionly in this sense (subject to this proviso) that Commissioner Rogers would permit interpreting 61.41 and 61.43 as. Division II requirements.
The staff, therefore, should change the existing compatibility category for 10 CFR 61.41 to Division II and retain 61.43 as Division II provided that the conditions-stipulated _by-Commissioner Rogers, as stated above, are met.
Commissioner-1 Rogers has determined that, in the case of Illinois,.-these conditions have been met.
Commissioners Remick and de Planque unconditionally and strongly; object to reclassifying 10 CFR 61.41 to a Division.II requirement and would have preferred that 10 CFR 61.43.be reclassified as a.
Division I requirement.
The reclassification of'10 CFR 61.41 to a Division II requirement will result in non-uniform standards for radiation protection in the low-level waste (LLW)_ disposal arena and, in some cases, perhaps no radiation protection standards at all'.
Neither Commissioner Remick nor Commissioner
- l l
de Planque view non-uniform radiation protection standards, or the complete lack of radiation protection standards, to be in the 1
national interest for protecting'public health andisafety.
i Commissioners Remick and de Planque believe that the reclassification of 10 CFR 61.41 as a Division II requirement, subject to Commissioner Rogers' proviso, produces.
inconsistencies.
First, if 10 CFR 61.41 contains the radiation
protection standards necessary for the NRC to approve a state's regulatory program for low-level = waste disposal, then under Commissioner _ Rogers' proviso, a state program could be found acceptable if the state adopts those standards.(i.e., the standards are treated as Division I radiation protection standards).
However, by Commissioner Rogers' proviso, if a state chooses to adopt more stringent requirements and remains silent-on what constitutes radiation protection standards, the' state would~have no radiation protection standards in the LLW disposal' arena.
Thus, the Commission would make it possible for a state LLW regulatory program to be deemed compatible even though'the state does not have a radiation protection standard identified as necessary to protect public health and safety.
Second, the Chairman and Commissioner Curtiss unconditionally approved changing 10 CFR 61.41 to a Division II requirement and,'
in effect, permits states to establish more stringent radiation protection standards.
Commissioner Rogers would permit 10 CFR 61.41 to be interpreted as a Division II requirement provided that if a state sets more stringent requirements, these more stringent requirements not be claimed to be needed to protect public health and safety.
These-two interpretations of, Division II requirements are not consistent with one anotherJbecause one interpretation allows the establishment of more stringent radiation protection standards while the other does not.
For example, the Chairman and Commissioner Curtiss would interpret the Illinois' 1 millirem requirement as being a radiation protection standard while Commissioner Rogers would not.
In view of these inconsistencies, Commissioners Remick and de Planque request the staff to brief them on whether this approach is viable.
The staff should initiate actions to implement changes directed above, keeping the Commission informed of progress.
This decision applies only to the area of low-level waste disposal.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
8/26/93) cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
ASLBP (via FAX) i