ML20128E408
| ML20128E408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1992 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302100427 | |
| Download: ML20128E408 (2) | |
Text
_ - - - - - - - - - -
%I ! I' HOTAT10H V0TEj dELEbDTd$PDd ]
2 44/9 a
. . . . f.* . . . L.....?W....j d
RESP 0h5E SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0tHISSION FR0bi: C0bt1ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-356 - FINAL RULE, AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 70, AND 72, "DEC0bS1ISSIONING -
RECORDKEEPING AND LICENSE TERMINATION:
DOCUMENTATION ADDITIONS" X/with APPROVED _c_orrients DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING _
REQUEST DISCUSSION C0btiENTS:
See attached comments, 9 04 NM .
g21g SIGNATURE CORRESPONDENCE PDR December 4, 1992 RELEASE VOTE /X / _
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE / / e ENTERED Of "AS" YES x NO DI )
T Commissioner Curtics' comments on SECY-92-356:
While I agree with the staff's general approach in the recommended final rule to focus on the minimum essential documentation, the following comments should be addressed before publication:
- 1) The final rule deletes a proposed provision that would have required licensees to list all burials in the Jingle document and instead requires licensees to list -
All areas outside of restricted areas which contain material so that, if the license expired, the licensee would be-reauired to either decontaminate the area to unrestricted release levels or apply for approval for disposal under 10 CFR 20.302 or 20.2002 (emphasis added).
Because there are no codified requirements to determine whether decontamination and disposal are required, the
" requirements" would have to be in the existing licenses or orders. Such requirements are currently being established on a site-specific basis for the SDMP sites. On page 9 of the notice (Enclosure 2), staff indicates that the requirements are the NRC's most current criteria and that rulemaking to establish residual radioactivity limits is underway. .I believe that this provision should be deferred until the residual radioactivity rulemaking effort is completed.
Alternatively, staff should consider rulemaking to impose standard license conditions or issuing orders to be sure that there are " requirements" in place to implement this provision before it is issued.
- 2) I recommend that the proposed requirement to list burials be retained. However, the proposed requirement would have required listing "[ajll known. locations and radionuclide contents of previous and current burial areas within the site." In kooping with the approach to minimize duplication, the requirement to include "radionuclide contents" in the list should be deleted or modified by allowing reference to separate records for details on burials.
- 3) The package repeatedly indicates that only areas where sources that are not leaking are exempted, but the rule itself does not reflect this intent. The rule should indicate thar areas are exempt, provided that the scaled sources have not leaked. Areas where sources have leaked would then be captured by the spills or other unusual occurrences provisions of 10 CFR
- 30. 35 (g) (1) and similar provisions. .
I
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -