ML20046A857
| ML20046A857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308020015 | |
| Download: ML20046A857 (8) | |
Text
'
REl EASED TO THE PDR N0TATION V O T E:
- ,,,[,;,hD 74
,,,,y /;L_ :
RESPONSE SHEET m..
s,,,,:
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-106 - WITHDRAWAL 0F BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 l
APPROVED X/in part DISAPPROVED X/in part ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
1 i
9300020015 930603 CONRES JE E PDR SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/ X
/
June 3, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES x
NO 1661h 7'
i
i Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-93-106:
i In general, I support the staf f's intent to clean house and address all items related to the two policy statements revoked by
)
Congress in section 2901 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
I am
)
not prepared at this point, however, to reverse the Commission's policy on case-by-case treatment of exemption initiatives, including rulemaking petitions for slightly contaminated wastes, as the Commission articulated that policy in Item 6 of the SRM on 3
SECY-92-045 dated April 15, 1992.
I would prefer to retain the option to address such initiatives should a health and safety matter arise.
Therefore, I approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, subject to the following comments:
)
1)
The proposed notice in Attachment B should be modified to be consistent with the April 15, 1992 SRM.
I have also attached some clarifying changes related to the legal status of the policy statements.
In particular, the 1986 policy and staff implementing procedures were published as Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 2 as an administrative convenience, but they are not codified reauirements.
2)
With regard to the University of Utah
)
petition, I understand that the staff contacted the petitioner and that he intends to withdraw this petition.
If this happens,
)
I believe this will moot any issues related to how we should handle this petition.
Alternatively, I would support one of two options:
(i) denial of the petition for lack of information if a sufficient legal case can be made, but not for the reasons indicated by staff for returning it; or (ii) leaving the petition on hold, consistent with the April 15, 1992 SRM.
The Notice should be modified to reflect the final resolution.
3)
I agree with the staff recommendation to
)
defer the development of an interpretation of section 2901 as it deals with state authority to set more stringent requirements for disposal and off-site incineration of low-1 level radioactive wastes provided that:
a) the neutral position stated in the paper is understood as superseding the preliminary OGC views expressed in earlier documents (e.a.,
OGC's memorandum to the Commission dated i
October 26, 1992) (I would propose that this be explicitly stated in
e the accompanying Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY-93-106) ; and b) the staff informs the Commission expeditiously if the intent or application of section 2901 becomes an issue in the SDMP site actions, the enhanced participatory rulemaking, or other activities.
Additional edits are attached.
4 i
i a
j l
1 l
Attachment B
[7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2 RIN-3150-AE56 Withdrawal of Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statements and Related Rulemaking Actions Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AGENCY:
Withdrawal of policy statements and related ACTION:
rulemaking activities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is formally
SUMMARY
withdrawing its Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy statements.
This action is necessary to comply with provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Specifically, this action removes the BRC Policy Statement issued on July 3, 1990 and the BRC Policy issued in 1986 concerning the submittal of petitions for disposal of radioactive waste streams below regulatory concern that [ p,tf6 4 M vt4I cnri t in the Commission's regulations.
The Commission is also terminating a rulemaking action initiated to implement the 1986 BRC policy.Ad] M T ef;),cn,( jen l(f, e
2 This action is effective (upon publication in J
EFFECTIVE DATE:
the Federal Register).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 504-1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
l Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985 directed the Commission to develop criteria and procedures to act upon petitions "to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation...due to the presence of radionuclides...in sufficiently low concentrations or The Commission quantities as to be below regulatory concern."
1 responded to this statutory provision by issuing a policy statement on August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839) that contained criteria for evaluating uch petitions.
These criteria and E 4 /[';
l l.%
ACi~ Y t
of the
- P,g.eaprocekures are cod g in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix B, Commission's regulations.
In order to establish a consistent risk framework for making regulatory exemption decisions across i
the broad spectrum of activities regulated by the Commission, the Commission later issued a second policy statement addressing the below regulatory concern issue, " General Statement of Policy I
on Below Regulatory Concern," July 3, 1990, (55 FR 27522).
i
i 4
radiological criteria for site cleanup and decommissioning are considered as part of that rulemaking process.
Although Section 2901 of the Energy Policy Act effectively revoked the 1986 BRC Policy Statement by providing that it should have no further effect, it did not explicitly remove the Commission's obligation under Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 to develop criteria and procedures for evaluating exemption requests for aus es pecl.%l bas *s on specific radioactive waste streams.
Nor did the Act revoke the i
Commission's authority under the Atomic Energy Act to exempt classes of materials from licensing.
The Commission does not believe that it is necessary at this time to initiate the development of new generic criteria and procedures to replace hU --
those established in 1986 Policy Statement that implemented 3,g; Section 10 of the LLRWPAA.
There is only one pending petition for rulemaking that would have been addressed by the criteria and procedures in the 1986 BRC Policy.
This petition was submitted by the University of Utah related to an exemption for the disposal of biomedical wastes containing small quantities of
%.,u[the/simildrpetitions)submittedby 30 197+ ' Pgn 2 c-t4 radionuclides).
(49 fit 3 &&1 Two Rockefeller University were withdrawn by the petitioner (57,FR 11920, April 8, 1992).
The Commission believes that the current situation could allow these types of exemption requests to be effectively handled on a case-by-case basis using the Commission's existing authority under the Atomic Energy Act and
5 the existing general procedures for the expedited processing of petitions for rulemaking.
However, in regard to the University of Utah petition, the ah v 2 f,wt Commission has decided to return'the petition for rulemaking to'
?
D e n y s'n q the University of Utah without prejudice.
Returning'the petition without prejudice would allow the petitioner to resubmit the petition at a later date, if they deem it appropriate, updated to reflect changes in waste stream processing, solid waste management, and dosimetry.
At some point in the future, it may be appropriate for the Commission to act upon an updated af g
.f m 1Q ug]ivs %
he Commission will defer action on the 1
--~._.
petition.
However, t
.I University of Utah petition, or any similar petitions that may be i
submitted, until two future developments have been evaluated.
One of these is the evaluation of what is the most appropriate
\\
and effective process for public involvement in the waste stream exemption process.
An evaluation of the enhanced participatory rulemaking process may provide useful information on this issue, t
A second development is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) planned rulemaking on residual radioactivity standards.
It is anticipated that EPA wijl have made progress on the standard i
by the time that the enhanced participatory rulemaking is
\\
completed and the EPA progress on this standard should be h
considered before the Commission acts on any waste stream exemption petitions.
Therefore, the Commission will defer action on waste stream petitions until after the enhanced participatory rulemaking process is completed.
By that time, the
~
I m mmid M ill have more information both on the type of process
~I
(
that might be appropriate for addressing waste stream exemption requests and on related standards that might be used to evaluate
-~
s-y Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Rithdrawal of this policy statement removes information m47W g v._-
collection (equirementi that were subject to the Paperwork 4
~.A Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
Office of pr e/d /en s Management and Budget approval of the(requirements contained in J
I
~
Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 was allowed to expire on December 31, 1992.
The 10 CFR Part 2 information collection requirements that remain in effect were approved by the office of Management and
)
Budget approval number 3150-0136.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2 l
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 1
)
material, Classified information Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
j For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.
552