ML20046A858
| ML20046A858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/07/1993 |
| From: | Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9308020017 | |
| Download: ML20046A858 (2) | |
Text
.
c.
RELEASED TO THE PDR *!
~
NOTATION V 0 T E.
I 9
c:a RESPONSE SHEET
" " " ' " " " " a:
3 T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION 1
l FROM:
COMMISSIONER ROGERS
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-106 - WITHDRAWAL OF BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992
)
m r.-
i APPROVED ' c-me~n
- DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
,m NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
While I generally agree with the staff's proposal to defer case-by-case consideration of exemption requests until the enhanced participatory rulemaking process is completed, I agree with Commissioner Curtiss that the Commission should retain the option to 1
address such initiatives should a health and safety matter trise.
The tttached edit reflects this proviso.
I also agree with the third point in Commissioner Curtiss' comments.
uirO. b SIGNATURB i
RELEASE VOTE
/
/
7eIIP3 g
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
' i ENTERED ON "AS" YES s
NO "906of Il
~
9 i
93o002o01 i
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR(
.x e
5 the existing general procedures for the expedited processing of petitions for rulemaking.
3 However, in regard to the University of Utah petition, the Commission has decided to return the petition for rulemaking to the Jniversity 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 Comnission to act upon an updated
[
petition.
However, the Commission will defer action or the tat de ne+ adduss a. hed h "a s&y similar petitions that may be University of Utah petition, or an efywwntw 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.
A second development is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) planned rulemaking on residual radioactivity standards.
It is anticipated that epa will have made progress on the standard by the time that the enhanced participatory rulemaking is completed and the EPA progress on this standard should be 7
S/
considered before the Commission acts on any waste stream i
exemption petitions.
Therefore, the Ccemission will defer action on waste stream petitions until after the enhanced participatory rulemaking process is completed.
By that time, the
______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.