ML20127L565
| ML20127L565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/12/1991 |
| From: | Wastler S NRC |
| To: | Denise Wallace NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127L535 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-91-394 NUDOCS 9211240390 | |
| Download: ML20127L565 (2) | |
Text
-
,f.%. *
=
August 12, 1991 NOTE TO:
Dick Wallace, PNL FROM:
Sandra Wastler, NRC 5UBJECT:
PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE U.
S.
ECOLOGY COMMENTS ON THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIROCARE DEIS The NRC attorney, Robert Fonner, and I have revi ewid U.S.
Ecology's comments and would make the following general respunses to the following issues raised in their comment document.
You should keep these in mind in preparing the draft strawman document we have discussed.
SPECIFIC ISSUE 1.
Conflict Amono Reaulatorv Procrams - The purpose of the DEIS is to determine whether the proposed action (in this case the disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material) has a significant environmental impact.
The differences between 10 CFR Part 40 and 40 CFR Part 192; and 10 CFR Part 61 and Utah's conforming regulations are policy / regulatory issues which have no bearing on the environmental impact of the proposed action.
Therefore this issue will not be covered by the DEIS.
The Commission has specified that Envirocare's proposed 11e.(2) disposal site be licensed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, including Appendix A.
2.
Government Ownershio -
The issue of government ownership is covered in 10 CFR Part 40, therefore, the NRC is looking at the issue in the licensing action (safety analysis) rather than as an environmental issue.
3.
Inconsistencies Amona Waste Control Horizons - As stated above, Envi rocare 's proposed 11e.(2) disposal site will, by Commission /k d' seu we, will be licensed under 10 CFR Part 40.
Therefore, the i
only, as U.S.
Ecology termed it, "long-term control hort:on" will be 200-1000 years, to the extent practicable, for 11e.2 byproduct material waste as defined in Part 40.
Compliance with 10 CFR l
Part 40 i s part of the licensing action, not the DEIS.
None of the other regulations or their diffences with Part 40 have any bearing on the environmental impact of the proposed action.
I 4.
R el a t i onshi o Between 10 CFR 40 and Part 61 -
The Commission, within its authority, has decreed that the site will be licensed j
l pr i vaar i l y under 10 CFR Part 40.
Only Part Subpart G iu being applied to the Envirocare site.
b 5.
Surety Recuirements - Surety requirements are being addressed in l
the licensing review and DEIS for the proposed action.
The Envirocare application for 11e.(2) disposal has been modified and will not include ^ixed waste.
Therefore, the only 9211240390 920504 P DF.
3, ';M "
J~'
r.,
l requirements regarding surety are the NRC,s.
Utah's FCR is applicable to their LLW licensing authority and has no bearing on the NRC's licensing process or the DEIS for the 11e.(2) disposal site.
6.
Interstate Comoact_s - Engl e care will be licensed under Part 40, not Part 61, as dcc.www by the Commi ssion.
Therefore, any questions regarding interstate compacts has no bearing on the environmental impact of the proposed action and would not be included in the scope of the DEIS.
7 Need for Broao Scoce to the EIS - As discussed in the responses above, the majority of U.S.
Ecology's issues are r? lated differences amnung regulations, policies and/or the implementing agency.
None of these differencer are related to the environmental impact of the proposed action and therefore are not within the scope of the DEIS.