ML20097F528

Responds to DOE Request for Rulemaking on Transuranic Limit in West Valley Demonstration Project Wastes.Requests Copies of Communications Exchanged Between DOE & C & Overall Schedule for Major Steps in Rulemaking

ML20097F528
Person / Time
Site:	West Valley Demonstration Project
Issue date:	06/02/1992
From:	Vaughan R COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES
To:	Gary Comfort, Rowland T ENERGY, DEPT. OF, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-PROJ-M-32 NUDOCS 9206150343
Download: ML20097F528 (2)

Text

l-

-3d COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES (

Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14655 -(716) 941 3168 June 2, 1992 TO T. J. Rowland, DOE, West Valley Demonstration Project

-G.

C.

Ccaif ort, NRC, West Valley Project Manager Office of General Counsel, NRC FROM:

Raymond C. Vaughan, Coalition on kust Valley Nuclear Wastes SUIATECT DOE request for rulemaking on TRU_ limit in WVDP wastes It has come to our attention that DOE recently requested NRC to undertake a rulemaking on the transuranic (TRU)-limit in West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) wastes.

Our knowledge of DOE's request comes from NRC's "Wookly Information Report-Week Ending April 10, 1992."

We find it odd that we have had no direct' communication from either DOE or NRC regarding this.rulemaking request.

We are writing _to ask for 1)-a copy of DOE's request; 2) copies of any subsequent communications exchanged.by DOE and NRC regarding DOE's request; 3) information on the procedure that NRC intends to use, and the role that DOE will play,.in carrying out the rulemaking; 4) a list of differences, if any,.'between the rulemaking procedure that NRC now intends to'use and the rulerak-ing procedure that NRC previously intended to use; 5) the reason for such differences, if any exist; and 6) an overall schedule that shows major-steps in the.rulemaking--(including public comment periods and any'other opportunities:for public involvement), along with the estimated date of each step.-.In addition,._we are writing to express our concern that DOE's request.is premature.

As you no doubt know, DOE's request for this rulemaking stems from $11 of the Stipulation of Compromise Settlement that we signed with DOE in U.S. District Court, Western District:of New York, on May 27,-1987.

Both parties (DOE and our-attorney) sent-copies of the Stipulation of Compromise Settlement to NRC; those copies are on file in the NRC'Public Document Room as ACH 8707090304 and~ACN 8708100108.

As you probably also know, Nhc has already' issued'five docu-ments (3 letters, 1 task plan, 1 set of meeting:! minutes).that outline in some-detail the procedure,-criteria, and rationale that:

c NRC intended to use-in making a determination or rulemakjng on_the WVDP TRU' limit..Those'five documents are:-

1. Letter frot 7aapp (NRC) - to-Bixby (DOE): dated. 8/18/87:

appar--

ently no copy in,NRC Public Document Room.

9206150h33E0102-IL l

'PDR PRDJ g-M-32 PDR

.A

s 2.* Letter from Knapp to me dated 2/26/88:

apparently no copy in l

IRC,Public Document Room.

3. Minutes (one page) of NRC-DOE meeting of 4/27/88:

apparently no copy in NRC Public Document Room

4. NRC Task Plan dated 4/27/88:

ACN 8806280243.

5.

Letter from Bangart to me dated 6/8/88:

ACH 8806280243.

The NRC position outlined in these five documents, including the key concept of performance of the West Valley site as a whole, is presumably the same as NRC's current position on this rulemak-ing.

However, if the basis for NRC's rulemaking is to be substan-tially different, it is incumbent on NRC and DOE to let us know--

and explain why.

Assuming that the basis for.NRC's rulemaking has Dat changed, we ask that the dates marked "TBD" ("to be determined") on pp.

11-12 of the Task Plan be filled in,'if they're available, as part of the overall rulemaking schedale requested-above.

NRC's " Weekly-Information Report--Wook Ending April 10,-1992" indicates that DOE's rulemaking request included a statement that DOE is prepared to perform supporting analyses.

These analyses, intended to show that the 10 CFR 61 performance objectives can be mot, would be done "in the context of (DOE's] Phase II Environmen-tal Impact Analysis."

If DOE is indeed asserting its readiness to do analyses in support of the tulemaking, we must register our concern.

We doubt that DOE is ready to perform such analyses at this time.

While we should probably await the above-requested information before jumping to conclusions, we feel obliged to note some major gaps in DOE's characterization of the site.- Meaningful analyses cannot be done, in our opinion, without good site characterization.

Among the apparent gaps in site characterization are those outlined in my January 24, 1991 letter to T. J. Rowland and my May 17, 1992 letter to John Chamberlain (WVDP).

We are continuing to look at this question of unresolved cite-characterization issuec.

We look forward to an eventual NRC determination or rulemak-ing on the WVDP TRU limit--but only'when the supporting data is reasonably complete.

We see no evidence-that that point has been reached.

<; _. I y;l

.2

_ _ _ _.