ML20046A948
| ML20046A948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9308020132 | |
| Download: ML20046A948 (2) | |
Text
.
/
\\
RELEASED TO THE PDR
[N UNITED 5TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g/
C3
[
l; Og W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 8
gi g
g, "a
,, /
.................t.......t June 24, 1993 OFFICE OF THE SECRE TA R Y MEMORANDUM TO:
William C.
Parler General Counsel James M. Taylor Executive Director.for Operations l
Chil,ffecretary Lv FROM:
, bSamuel J.
S
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-106 WITHDRAWAL OF BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff proposal to publish the Federal Reaister notice withdrawing the below regulatory concern policy statements subject to the changes indicated in the attachment.
In addition, the Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Curtiss, Remick and de Planque agreeing) has disapproved the staff proposal to defer case-by-case treatment of exemption requests, including rulemaking petitions for slightly contaminated wastes.
- Instead, the staff should continue to observe the direction provided in item 6 of the SRM on SECY-92-045 dated April 15, 1992.
Commissioner Rogers would have preferred to approve deferral of these case-by-case considerations pending completion of the enhanced participatory rulemaking process on the radiological criteria for decommissioning (although he would approve case-by-case consideration should a health and safety matter arise).
The proposed notice should be revised to reflect the guidance in the April 15, 1992 SRM.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
7/30/93)
The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Curtiss, Remick and de Planque agreeing) has disapproved the staff proposal to simply return the University of Utah petition without action.
Should the University of Utah decide to withdraw their current petition, then the issue becomes moct.
Alternatively, the staff should either (1) deny the petition for lack of i
SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-93-106, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL WILL BE MADE -PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM 1&bl*m.
i k 930so20132 930624 b'
c
'L'
, sufficient information if a legal case can be made, but not for the reasons' indicated by staff for returning it; or'(2) leave the petition on hold, consistent with the April 15, 1992 SRM.
Should the University of Utalt submit a subsequent petition for rulemaking for medical wastes, it should be handled by the existing policy as described above.
Commissioner Rogers would 1
have approved the staff recommendation to return the petition without prejudice.
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing, has approved the staff proposal to defer development of an interpretation of l
Section 2901 of the Energy Policy Act.
In view of the fact that there is no case. currently before the commission that would i
necessitate a determination regarding the scope and applicability of Section 2901, the Commission believes that the agency should take no position at this time regarding how this provision should be interpreted and applied as a legal matter.
In the event that i
such a case should'arise, the staff should promptly inform the Commission.
1 i
Attachment:
As stated cc:
The Chairman
~
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail) i ASLBP (via FAX) i 9
i b:
.