ML20046A949
| ML20046A949 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1993 |
| From: | De Planque E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9308020134 | |
| Download: ML20046A949 (2) | |
Text
.
rr lb N 0 T A T I-0 N V 0 T Ef EELEASEDTdfhh"PI f-
. _I RESPONSE SHEET
-.c........m.,,,j
.T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-106 - WITHDRAWAL 0F BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE.WITH THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 l
ABSTAIN APPROVED xx DISAPPROVED xx NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
i See attached comments.
abt 4e SIG%TURE RELEASE VOTE
/ xx /
June 11, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES xx No if8@l'?!
$97 ' l 9300020134 930611 PDR 10CFR PDR PT9.7
i
- \\=
Commissioner de Planque's comments on SECY-93-106:
I agree in part and disagree in part.
I support the staff's proposal to rescind the-Commission's BRC-policy statements and to terminate the rulemaking designed to implement BRC policies.
However, I do not approve the proposal to defer any action on waste stream petitions on a case-by-case basis that might come before the Commission until completion of the enhanced participatory rulemaking and completion of EPA's planned rulemaking on residual radioactivity.
Deferring all action forecloses too many options for licensees, staff, and the Commission.
I prefer to retain the position adopted in the SRM on SECY-92-045 dated April 15, 1992.
I understand that the Univcrsity of Utah intends to withdraw-its petition for exemption of cs biomedical wastestream.
If the University does withdraw the petition, it will eliminate the need i
to handle this particular petition.
I would support Commissioner Remick's position with regard to a subsequent petition.
I would also support Commissioner Curtiss' options of leaving the petition on hold consistent with the April 15, 1992 SRM or denial l
of the petition for lack of information if a sufficient legal case can be made, but not for returning it as staff has t
indicated.
The Federal Recister notice should be modified to reflect the final resolution.
I agree with the staff recommendation to defer the development of an interpretation of Section 2901.
Staff should continue to follow this issue, however.
I do not agree with commissioner Curtiss that the staff's statement concerning interpretation of Section 2901 of the Energy Policy Act in' SECY-93-106 s' ould be identified as superseding views of OGC as expressed in OGC's October 26, 1992 memorandum to the Commission.
The staff should be able to make use of both documents should the Commission, at some future point, need to express an interpretation of the meaning of Section 2901.
l i