ML20057B656
| ML20057B656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1992 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057B646 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-156 NUDOCS 9309230080 | |
| Download: ML20057B656 (22) | |
Text
,
~..
i m/
s
'c UNITED STATES
["
3 #
k-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
o.,
,C'y
$9 *****
MAY 20 1992 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION PAPER ON DENIAL 0F PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON i
.REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HANFORD RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE Enclosed for your signature is the Commission paper entitled " Denial of PRM-60 Petition for Rulemaking From the States of Washington and Oregon i
Regarding Classification of Radioactive Waste at Hanford."
Backaround: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a petition from the States of Washington and Oregon. The States requested that the NRC establish a process, outlined by them, to regulate the reprocessing and separation of certain defense wastes at Hanford, Washington. The petitioners t
also proposed that the NRC change its definitions of high-level waste (HLW) and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60. The staff has examined the petition in I
light of existing regulations and the available facts. The' staff concluded that the current NRC involvement with DOE in their processing of the Hanford wastes has been appropriate. Further, the. current definitions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60 also seems adequate to NRC purposes.
Hence, the staff recommends that this petition be denied.
Public Comments: The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Two letters were from other Federal agencies (DOE and EPA)...two were from public interest groups, one was from a nuclear industry corporation (Westinghouse), and seven r
were from private individuals. Most comments were opposed to the petition. A full discussion.of the comments and the staff response to them is included in the Draft Federal Register Notice' (Enclosure 4 to the Commission Paper).
Backfit Analysis: The staff has determined that a backfit. analysis is not required for this petition.
i I
(
yJ 6
9309230080 930504 PDR..FOIA FAcArmQ-156 PDR.
MAY 2 01992 James M. Taylor 2
Coordination: The Offices of Administration, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, State Programs and Public Affairs concur on the Commission paper and its enclosures. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
ORIGlKALSIGNEDII Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
Enclosure-Commission Paper t
4 Distribution:
[BECKJT0EDO.MEM]
Subj-circ-chron EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris FCostanzi SSilberberg/ Reading Files JRandall
-i NTanious
- See previous conc rences 3
f Offe:
RDB.DRA*
RDB DRA*
RDB DRA
- D[
(ES D
ES h,I RES D.RES ttemas EBeckjord g/n /92 i f/r/ /92
$~/p/92 Name:
NTanious:le JRandall MSilberberg FCostan2i orris r
Date:
5/1/92 5 / 1 /92 5 /1 /92 f//?/92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
James M. Taylor 2
Coordination: The Offices of Administration, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, State Programs, Public Affairs, and Congressional Affairs concur on the Commission paper and its enclosures. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Commission Paper
(
4
/
/
/
Distribution:
[BECKJT0EDO.MEM]
Subj-circ-chron EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris FCostanzi SSilberberg/ Reading Files JRandall NTanious DD.DRARES D DRA-RES DD/GIR.RES D.RES Ofic:
R B.D R
RD :..
Name; NTaniousic JT; dall MSdberberg FCostanzi BMorris CJHettemes EBeckjord Date:
$/j/92
[,
/92
/92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
James M. Taylor 4
00C. FILE NAME:
BECKT0ED.MEM LONG DISPLAY:
Beckjork to ED0 Memo CREATED:
4/30/92 AUTHOR:
NTanious REVISED:
5/1/92 TYPIST:
LC TIME:
9:45 am EXCERPT:
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Lperations FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION PAPER ON DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HANFORD RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE Enclosed for your signature is the Commission paper entitled " Denial of PRM-60 Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon Regarding Classification of Radioactive Waste at Hanford."
l l
j
James M. Taylor 2
MAY 2 01992 Coordination: The Offices of Administration, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, State Programs, and Public Affairs concur on the Commission paper and its enclosures. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
n e
). 01 u- -
s,.
Eric S. Beckjord,,
rector Office of Nuclear gulatory Research
Enclosure:
Commission Paper 1
l I
l j
NCQC FORM 6 U.S. NUCLEGR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON
$R$ou SECY-SECY PAPER DISTRIBUTION REVIEWED BY TYPE OF PAPER CLAS$1FIED POLICY AFFIRM ATION CARR H)
REMICK (1)
[
RULEM AKING NOTATION ROBERTS 0)
OGC (2)
NEG ATIVE ROGERS 0)
SECY (3)
ADJUDICATORY CONSENT L
UI MEETING INFORMATION CUHTISS 0)
ENTER DISTRIBUTION T'
T" CH AIRM AN Selin (5) 5 OPER T%NS (3) 3?
"U EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER Rogers (2) 2
$RE (2) 2 O
I R ON COMMISSIONER CurtiSS (3)
?
"h"gfp,A g
g;
{
COMMISSIONER Remick (3)
J CONTROLLER (3) 3 COMMISSIONER de P1anque(3) t-INFORMATION RESOURCES (3)
MANAGEMENT (If RULEMAKING1(41 h
00)
ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF I3I SECY (FOR MEET / ngl (30 80)
M OPER ATIONAL DATA NUCLEAR MATERIAL (5)
/
OGC 02)
L,',
SAFETY AND SAFEGARDS NUCLEAR REACTOR gy, lNSPECTOR GENER AL (2)
R EGULATION NUCLEAR HEGULATONY LICENSING SUPPORT RESE AR OH 07I
/7 SYSTEM OFFICE OF UI GOVERNMENTAL AND I2)
CONSOLIDATION PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE OF UI CONG R ESSIONAL I2I ENFORCEMENT AF F AIRS l
STATE PROGRAMS (2) 1 fNV I2I i ATIONS OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL I2I PERSONNE L i
PROGRAMS (2
SDBU/CR 0)
AFF IRS i
DOCUMEN T CONTROL UI I
DESK REGION AL OFFICES: (C&R BR ANCH, SECY)
COMMITTEES AND PANELS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON U 0I RI - KING OF PRUSSI A (2)
REACTORJAFEGUARDS f NUCLEAR WASTE
_)l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON I0I Ril - ATLANTA (2)
' % i vMfC"3AT 4. 4 Y Arw I2I Riti - CHICAGO (2)
LICENSING BOARD PANEL ATOMIC SAFETY AND (2)
RIV - DALLAS (2)
LICENSING APPEAL PANEL RV - SAN FRANCISCO (2)
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
[g[, [~a n 'o g g/g
,] [, g RETURN ORIGIN AL TO:
s 1
NRC FORM 614 901 4
For:
The Commissioners From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Subiect:
DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD purpose:
To request that the Commission consider and deny the petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-4) from the States of Washington and Oregon regarding classification of certain radioactive waste at Hanford, Washington.
Summary:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received petition PRM-60-4 from the States of Washington and Oregon. The States requested that the NRC establish a process, outlined by them, for oversight of the processing and disposal of defense wastes presently contained in the double-shell tanks at Hanford, Washington. The petitioners proposed that the NRC change its definitions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60. This petition presents the issue of whether NRC has responsibility and authority to regulate certain DOE waste processing and disposal activities, including those at Hanford, Washington.
Subsequent to discussions with the DOE, the staff has concluded that the activities in question will result in the separation of HLW for disposal in a geologic repository, with the residual wastes being
" incidental" wastes to be disposed of in a concrete grout CONTACT:
Naiem S. Tanious, RES 492-3878
The Commissioners 2
facility at Hanford. This conclusion reflects the staff's view that residual wastes would be classified as
" incidental" if the great bulk of the radionuclides of concern have been separated out and the separation achieved is as great as is technically and economically practical.
The staff believes that this classification would satisfy the policy set out in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50. Hence, any radioactive material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste, and thus, would not be subject to the NRC's regulatory authority. The staff recommends that this petition be denied.
Backaround:
On December 17, 1990, the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732, Enclosure 1).
Following earlier consultations, the States of Washington and Oregon, and The Yakima Indian Nation, initially submitted the petition for rulemaking on January 2, 1990. On February 7, 1990, the NRC staff conferred with petitioner as contemplated by Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 2.802. The minutes of that conference are attached as Enclosure 2.
As suggested by the NRC staff, the petition was clarified and resubmitted on July 27, 1990.
The petition requested that the Commission revise the l
definitions of HLW and HLW facility and establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission would determine whether reprocessing waste, specifically that waste stored in tanks at Hanford, Washington, is HLW subject to the Commission's regulatory authority.
In particular, the petitioners requested (copy of the July 27, 1990 submitted Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC, is attached as Enclosure 3.) that the Commission amend 10 CFR 60.2 "to clarify the definition of HLW and the definition of 'HLW facility.'" Under the petitioners' proposal, the Commission would:
l.
Establish a process to evaluate the processing of defense wastes on a tank by tank basis such that the largest technically achievable amount of radioactive materials is removed and 2.
Require that ths heat produced by residual radionuclides, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology) will be within temperature limits for long-term stability of low-level waste forms.
t i
e.
i 1
The Commissioners 3
The petitioners assert that the proposed rulemaking is essential to provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest.
j Discussion:
The fundamental issue presented by the petition is whether the NRC has regulatory authority for the processing or disposal of tank wastes now stored in double-shell tanks at Hanford.
The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 assigned to NRC the regulatory authority over certain DOE facilities for the storage (including disposal) of "high-level radioactive wastes." The Commission has interpreted this term as having i
the same meaning as in Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50 - i.e.,
I "those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent...." Thus, the key component for defining high-level waste (HLW) in this context is the source of the waste. When the Appendix F definition was promulgated, the Atomic Energy Commission specifically noted that it did not include " incidental" waste resulting from processing plant operations such as: ion exchange beds, sludges, contaminated i
laboratory items, clothing, tools, radioactive hulls, and i
other irradiated and contaminated fuel structure hardware (34 FR 8712, June 3, 1969; 35 FR 17530, November 14, 1970).
Hence, incidental wastes generated in conjunction with or after the extraction cycles (e.g., decontaminated salts or miscellaneous trash from waste glass processing) would be outside the Appendix F definition of HLW.
In the cases of Savannah River and West Valley wastes, DOE plans to retrieve the wastes from their storage tanks and to separate essentially all of the radioactive materials for eventual disposal in a deep-geologic HLW repository.'
Accordingly, the projected recovery of HLW from the wastes
)
in tank storage at those sites will be sufficiently complete i
that the decontaminated salts and other residual wastes are classified as " incidental" (i.e, non-HLW). The NRC will have no regulatory authority over DOE's facilities to be
)
used for processing and disposal of the incidental waste.
- See 52 FR 5992, February 27,1987 (definition of "high-level waste"),
n.1, where the Commission characterizes as " incidental waste," the decontaminated salt with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nCi/g Cs-i 137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2nti/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy's FEIS on long-term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, DOE /EIS-0023, 1979. Although an EIS has not yet been published for the West Valley Demonstration Project, preliminary estimates indicate the likelihood of an equivalent degree of separation.
\\
l l
i The Commissioners 4
nolicensingauthorit)overDOEfacilitiesforprocessingor disposal of such non-HLW incidental wastes.
At Hanford, DOE plans to process the wastes stored in the double-shell tanks in a manner that is conceptually the same as that to be used at Savannah River cnd West Valley. Most of the radioactive constituents of the wastes would be separated for eventual geologic repository disposal, and the residual salts would be disposed of on-site in a concrete-like grout facility. However, the Hanford wastes were generated using older separation technologies, which resulted in substantial dilution of those wastes with non-radioactive materials.
Consequently, it is not technically and economically practical to achieve the same degree of separation of radioactive materials at Hanford that DOE projects to be achievable at Savannah River and West Valley.
In addition, many of the tanks at Hanford contain mixtures of wastes from both reprocessing sources and other sources.
Also, recordkeeping at Hanford was not always thorough enough to allow precise determinations of the origins of waste now present in specific tanks at Hanford.
For these reasons, some of the Hanford tank wastes cannot be readily classified as either HLW or incidental wastes using previously accepted definitions and concepts.
The NRC and DOE staffs held several meetings to explore this situation in detail.
A principal objective was to ascertain, to the extent practicable, whether some or all of the wastes should be regarded as HLW, as defined in Appendix F.
Several things became clear as a result of l
these meetings.
First, records were adequate for DOE to determine that some double-shell waste tanks do not contain wastes from reprocessing of reactor fuels. Therefore, these wastes are not HLW within the Appendix F definition.
Second, a DOE " material balance" analysis indicated that, after adjusting for radioactive decay, the amount of radioactive material expected to be recovered for geologic repository disposal would be nearly as large as the inventory of reprocessing waste originally generated.
s Hence, the proposed on-site grout disposal of the residual waste from the double-shell tank waste processing would be only a small fraction of the radioactivity originally generated at the site.
Third, DOE intends to remove the largest reasonably achievable amount of radioactive material from the double-i shell tank wastes to be disposed of in on-site grout i
facilities. This commitment by DOE coupled with the i
l
The Commissioners 5
material-balance study indicating that nearly all of the remaining (after decay) radioactive material would be recovered, led the NRC staff to conclude that the residual waste material af ter processing of double shell tank wastes should be classified as incidental waste.
Specifically, the extent of residual radioactivity would be sufficiently low that such waste should be considered incidental to the process of recovering the high-level radioactive waste from the tanks (within the sense of the Appendix F definition of HLW).
In this regard, if the DOE processing operations go as planned, the activity of the residual or incidental waste would be below concentration limits for class C wastes under the waste classification criteria of 10 CFR Part 61.
Following its review, the NRC staff, by letter dated September 25, 1989, from R. M. Bernero to A. J. Rizzo, endorsed DOE's plans to sample and analyze the grout feeds before disposal in an effort to control the final composition of the grout feed. However, the staff indicated that if in the course of conducting the sampling program, DOE were to find that inventories of key radionuclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than previously estimated, DOE should notify the NRC and other affected parties in a timely manner.
Issues Presented: The petition for rulemaking presents two issues. The first is a substantive one, i.e., what criteria or standard should be applied to differentiate incidental waste from high-level waste. The second issue is a procedural one, i.e., what process should be used to establish that criteria or standard and thereby determine whether or not the NRC has jurisdiction over the incidental waste and its associated disposal facility.
The petitioners suggest that the proper standard, to be applied on a tank-by-tank basis, is to consider all processing streams to be high-level waste unless they have been treated, prior to disposal, "to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity." Adoption of such a criterion would certainly serve the goal, which had been contemplated by the Commission, of removing the hazardous process streams to a geologic repository for permanent storage.
The petitioners' proposed standard, though, is not the only one that might reasonably be derived from the applicable regulatory history. The task before the Commission is to articulate a standard that is faithful to the policies that underlie Appendix F and Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
In this regard, the staff would draw from the history, a presumption that the great bulk of the
t The Commissioners 6
radioactive waste products should ordinarily be removed from the plants where they were generated and that, to accomplish this, processes should be employed that result in the largest recovery for purposes of disposal that is l
technically and economically practical. Thus, in a like manner in connection with the control of releases of radioactive materials from licensed facilities, AEC Manual Chapter 0511 called for such releases to be kept to the lowest levels " technically and economically practical."
Moreover, technical and economical considerations aside, DOE has stated that any remaining material would be subject to management that seeks to provide a similar degree of protection of the public health and safety as would be provided by the performance objectives of the Commission's regulations (10 CFR Part 61). These principles reflect statements made by the Commission when it promulgated Appendix F -- namely, "that the public interest requires that a high degree of decontamination capability be included in such facilities and that any residual radioactive contamination after decommissioning be sufficiently low as not to represent a hazard to the public health and safety."
i 35 FR 17530, November 14, 1970.
When the question regarding classification of wastes was first raised, the NRC staff identified to DOE some approaches that might be used in distinguishing HLW from incidental waste. One approach was expressed as follows:'
As an alternative approach, we suggest that DOE attempt an overall material balance for HLW at the Hanford site, using the source-based meaning of HLW.
It is hoped that this approach might provide a more efficient means of identifying those wastes subject to licensing by NRC under terms of the 1974 Energy.
Reorganization-Act. Under this approach,.if DOE could l
demonstrate that the largest practical amount of the l
I total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction" wastes has been segregated for disposal as HLW, then NRC would view the residual as a non-HLW. We would anticipate that at least 90 percent of the activity would have been separated in this way.
' Letter from Michael J. Bell, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Division of Low-Leyel Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to Ronald E. Gerton, Director, Waste Management Division, Richland Operations Office, DOE, November 29, 1988.
The letter included some alternative " suggested criteria" involving a " good faith" effort to achieve isolation of HLW from nonradioactive salts, such an effort to be judged, as a practical matter, by considering (among other things) alternative separation j
processes.
i i
The Commissioners 7
Thus, if it can be shown that DOE has processed the waste with the intent to dispose of the HLW in a repository or other appropriate licensed facility, leaving behind only a small fraction of only 3
moderately radioactive material, then the goals stated-in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix F and incorporated in the Energy Reorganization Act would have been satisfied; and the disposal of the residual would accordingly not be subject to NRC licensing.
Under this approach, the Commission might still assert jurisdiction over facilities used for l' ng-term storage of.
o large fractions of the waste originally generated, especially where the concentration of radionuclides is high.
The Commission must assert such jurisdiction whenever it believes its statutory mandate applies. By the same token, however, the NRC's authority with respect to defense facilities is carefully limited by law, and the Commission has no warrant to go beyond those bounds.
In the present case, DOE made an effort to conform to the criteria proposed by the staff that are set out above. DOE considered the practicality of various waste processing alternatives and presented the results of its study by letter dated March 6,1989.' The results were also presented at a meeting among interested parties, including the petitioners, held on August 4, 1989.
(Minutes of the meeting are available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room.) DOE's " baseline" disposal plans would have recovered all but about 12-13 million curies of cesium-137, together with lesser activities of strontium-90, transuranics, and other radionuclides. DOE's study indicated the practicality of removing an additional 6 i
million curies of cesium-137 for repository disposal. DOE proposed to remove this additional six million curies of cesium-137 and requested NRC concurrence. DOE also identified additional treatment alternatives, with their associated costs, which it viewed as not being economically practical.
In its letter of March 6,1989, DOE undertook to utilize an overall radionuclide material balance, as suggested by the NRC staff, and to demonstrate that the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction" wastes would be segregated.
Moreover, DOE indicated that the material balance showed
' Letter from A.
J.
Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, to Robert M.
Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, NRC, March 6, 1989.
The Commissioners 8
that 3 to 5 percent of the key radionuclides which entered the tanks will be disposed of as LLW in near-surface vaults when the double-shell tank wastes are grouted. Also the concentrations of radionuclides would be comparable to Class C for cesium and transuranic wastes, and to Class A or B for the remainder.' DOE also noted certain engineering and institutional factors that might compensate, especially as to potential intrusion hazards, for the possibility that the total amount of waste that would be grouted would be greater than the amount of Class C waste that might be contained in a typical commercial burial ground.
Based on its review of DOE's submission, the NRC staff agreed that DOE's proposed processing would remove the largest practical amount of total site activity, attributable to HW, for disposal in a deep geologic repository. This finding was based on (1) past and planned treatment of the tank wastes; (2) radionuclide concentration and material balance; and (3) cost-effectiveness of additional radionuclide removal. These conclusions reflected DOE's undertakings both to achieve a high degree of separation and to provide protection of public health and safety. As a result, the residual waste was deemed not to be high-level waste and would thus not be subject to NRC licensing authority. The staff thereupon advised DOE that NRC agreed that the criteria used by DOE for classification
)
of the grout feed are appropriate and that the grout facility for the disposal of the double-shell tank waste would not be subject to NRC licensing authority.'
On the basis of these considerations, and assuming implementation of DOE's plans as it has proposed, the staff recommends that the Commission affirm its judgment that the policies set out in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 were satisfied, that with respect to wastes now present in double-shell tanks the high-level radioactive waste (within the meaning of the Energy Reorganization Act) would be
'NRC understood this statement to connote that cesium-137 and transuranic radionuclides in the residual waste would be less than the concentration limits for Class C low-level waste, as defined in NRC's requirements in 10 CFR Part 61, and that the concentration of other radionuclides would be less than the concentrations limits for Class A or B low-level waste.
' Letter from Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, September 25, 1989. The letter also called upon DOE to advise NRC periodically of the analytical results of samples of key radionuclides entering the grout facility, so that the classification of the waste might be reconsidered if the inventories were significantly higher than DOE had estimated.
4
~
i The Commissioners 9
removed from the site, and that any radioactive material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the responsibility for safely managing those wastes would rest with the Department of Energy.
The petitioners also requested that the Commission exercise oversight to assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms. They acknowledge that vault design is protective of human health and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during grout process, is kept within defined limits. They present no technical data to suggest that achievement of these temperature controls presents any unusual engineering challenge.
In any event, if the Commission concludes that the grout produced in accordance with DOE's plans is not high-level waste, it would not have the authority to carry out this oversight function.
As to the procedural issue, the staff believes that this matter should be addressed case-by-case rather than by rulemaking.
Rulemaking is desirable where an agency establishes a general principle having prospective effect, to be applied in a wide variety of factual contexts - but not, as here, where the matter involves the application of law to a specific, and unique, existing factual situation.
Public Comments:
The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Two letters were from other Federal agencies (DOE and EPA), two were from public interest groups, one was from a nuclear industry corporation (Westinghouse), and seven were from private individuals. Most comments were opposed to the petition. A full discussion of the comments and the staff response to them is included in the Draft Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 4).
Recommendation:
For the reasons discussed aoove, the staff recommends that the petition be denied. Specifically the staff recommends that the Commission:
(1)
Acorove for publication in the Federal Reaister the notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (Enclosure 4).
(2)
Note:
(a)
That the appropriate Congressional committees will be informed of this action (Enclosure 5).
i The Commissioners 10 l
(b)
That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be informed of this action (Enclosure 6).
(c)
That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the notice of l
denial is filed with the Office of the Federal l
Register (Enclosure 7).
I Coordination:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper l
and has no legal objection.
l James M. Taylor i
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2.
Minutes of meeting between NRC staff and representatives of the State cf Washington 3.
The States' Petition to l
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 4.
Federal Register Notice 5.
Congressional Letters 6.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation l
7.
Draft Public Announcement i
10 The Commissioners (b)
That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be informed of this action (Enclosure 6).
(c)
That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the notice of denial is filed with the Office of the federal Register (Enclosure 7).
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper Coordination:
and has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2.
Minutes of meeting between NRC staff and representatives of the State of Washington 3.
The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 4.
Federal Register Notice 5.
Congressional Letters 6.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 7.
Draft Public Announcement 6lY
- 8
[CP4.WMB) i
- See attached for h
co r ces.
Offe: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DRA D: M D:ADM SP
- Name: NTanious*:Y JRandall*
Silberberg* R e ero M.
ch PNorry CKammerer Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92
< /'?/92 [
92 3
92 3 / 4 /92
\\
Offc: hfA D:PAF DD:M4ES D:DQdpfS j& G :RES D:RES )
E00
/CJHelt mes f,SBeckjord JMTaylor l
Name: Drlthbun JFouchard FCostanzi 4Morrir Date:
/
/92
,.q /pe,t/92 f/t7/92 f//y/92 I //7 /92 b/1}/92
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
__-m i
a 1
q 7
The Comissioners i
f That the States of Washington and Oregon, and (b) the Yakima indian Nation will be informed of this action (Enclosure.5).
l That a public announcement will be issued by the (c)
Office of Public Affairs when the note of denial is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Enclosure 6).
f the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and j
Coordination:
The Office has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations f
Enclosures:
i 1.
Notice of Receipt of a Petition fo Rulemaking from the States of j
Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2.
The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chil,
Secretary, NRC 3.
Federal Reaister Notice i
4.
Congressional Letters l
5.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation j
6.
Draft Public Announcement N
gRA 95
\\
W. RA WMB:DRA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD/GIR:RES Offe: WM Name: NTanious:Y J m all MSilberberg FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes Date: 02/Jo/92 02 0/92 02/74/92 02/ /92 02/ /92 02/ /92 l
"5 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 1
{
t i
./ -
Morris
[(pu%g Silberberg UNITED STATES J
r>(
h NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION Tanious FiIe wAsmwoTON, D. C. 20555 t.
j Pt
%,a..\\j/
6 292 g1 fiEMORANDUM FOR:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON DENIAL OF ETITION FOR
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING (PRM-60-4)
The Office of Administration concurs, subject to the comments provided, on the notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-4) from the We have attached a marked copy of the a
States of Washington and Oregon.
Thase notice of denial package that presents minor editorial coments.
changes must be made before the notice of denial is submitted for Comission consideration.
As we indicated in our last review of this notice of denial, we have again added a sentence to the sumary paragraph that explains why the We also recommend Commission is denying this petition for rulemaking.
that a statement be added to the statement of denial that surnarizes the Commission's reasons for denying this petition. We have presented suggested language.
We have rewritten the Congressional letter and the letter to the petitioner to include a more detailed discussion of the petition and an explanation of the Commission's reasons for the denial.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please have a member of your staff contact Michael T. Lesar on extension 27758 or Alzonia Shepard on extension 27651.
/D OM
(/W -
s Patricia G. Norry, Direct #
Office of Administration i
I
Attachment:
As stated 5
, /t&C'l f2yl'fk *
\\
Q J
M6
'o, UNITED STATES I'Te 7.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f/
/
E
/M_.
wAsmuotow. o. c. rosss
%,...../
March 16, 1992 MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues an emaking Office of Nuclear R atory ese h
FROM:
Carlton Kamerer Director 4
Office of State rogr
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HANFORD RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE (PRM 60-4)
I concur in the subject denial package and suggest adding the individual noted below as a cc to the letter to Cecil Sanchey, Chairman of the Yakima Indian Nation.
I would also appreciate being added to the distribution list to receive a copy of the letters to the States of Washington, Oregon and the Yakima Indian Nation. Thank you.
Mr. Russell Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration / Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation cc: N. S. Tanious RES Task Leader i
\\
S.
f
The Commissioners 7
(b)
That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be inforned of this action (Enclosure 5).
(c)
That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the note of denial is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Enclosure 6).
Coordination:
T Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Receipt of a Peti ion for Rulemaking from the States f Washington and Oregon (55 F 51732) 2.
The States' Petition to :,4muel
. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 3.
Federal Reaister Notice 4.
Congressional Letters 5.
Letters to the States of Washington a d Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 6.
Draft Public Announcement s(
- See attached for previous concurrences.
D:ADM [ SP Offt: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DRA D:NMSS DGC Name: NTanious*:Y JRandall*
Silberberg* RBernero MHalsch PHorry CKammere Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92
/ /92
/ /92
/
'92
/ /92
/ ~h Offc: D:CA D:PA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD:GIR:RES D:RES Name: DKRathbun JFouchard FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes ESBeckjord JMTaylor Date:
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
10 I
The Commissioners 7
l
\\
l E(b)
That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be informed of g
i this action (Enclosure 5).
(c)\\ That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the note of denial
'is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (f(nclosure 6).
Coordination:
The Office of thq General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations f
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2.
The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC l
3.
Federal Reaister Notice i
4.
Congressional Letters i
5.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 6.
Draft Public Announcement l
i t
OSee attached for previous concurrences.
Offc: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DRA D:NMSS DGC D:ADM SP Name: NTanious*:Y JRandall*
Silberberg* RBernero MMalsch PNorry CKammerer Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 Offe: D:CA D:P4/
DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD:GIR:RES-D:RES EDO Name: DKRathbun JFouchird FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes ESBeckjord JMTaylor Date:
/ /92 y/j/92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY k
m.-
84,,,
n m
-=
. -..