ML20137H948
| ML20137H948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/16/1997 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137H924 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-055, COMSECY-96-55, DSI-5, SECY-96-055-C, SECY-96-55-C, NUDOCS 9704030164 | |
| Download: ML20137H948 (2) | |
Text
_ g g,a .m_Ja-* "M"" ' _ _ _ - - - ~ ~ ~~
3 [ ' ,
>s ucu4 ............... ...... 6 A UNITED STATES
- -[" g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
,,smuovow, o.c. 20555 000' RELEASED TO lbu PDR 8 g
d 5
% y!
~
JANUARY 16, 1997 gg gg) q Cata
.............. ........ Ii
- ..... initiab OFFICE OF THE COMutSSIONER MEMORANDUM TO
- Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan d l FROM: Greta Joy Dicus j
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-055 - LOW-LEVEL WASTE - DSI-5 Section 3.3 of the Phase 11 " Stakeholder Interaction Report" discusses the public comments and Commission Preliminary Views on the subject of Low-Level Waste. I have reviewed the information provided and although there is no consensus among the stakeholders' comments I still conclude that the Commission should assume a strong regulatory role in the National program (option 2 - Commission's preliminary view). This includes assuming all of the activities that were performed before the recent reductions in the low-level waste program.
I believe that this view is supported not only by a significant number of comments received during the DSI process, but also by recent developments in the transfer of DOE responsibilities to the NRC that occurred after the DSI process began. Many of these responsibilities will involve complex low-level waste issues. Option 2 will help position the agency in a way that will allow it to address these complex issues and the increased activities in this area.
Comments received indicate that most states and state regulatory organizations do not favor an increased NRC presence in low-level waste activities. Concerns cited in the comments include 1) the possible impact on Agreement State-NRC relations and related activities and 2) the belief that state activities regarding low-level waste are adequate, and therefore, increased NRC activity is not needed. Recognizing that these concerns may have some merit,I believe that staff should attempt to minimize any negative impact that increased NRC acti.fities could have on state programs. Increased NRC activity should focus primarily on augmenting NRC's low-level waste program.
N0*
3 00c N I * * '
- Because this option requires additional staff and financial resources,it
- must be viewed in light of other DSI decisions. To accommodate possible higher priority actions, the assignment of resources needed to l l implement this option could be carried out at a rate that is compatible ;
l with the rate of increased DOE oversight. )
i i While not necessarily appropriate to be addressed in detail by this DSI, in i implementing option 2, the EDO should develop an integrated approach !
l to the regulation of LLW handling, processing, recycling, and disposal.
- Included in this approach, the EDO should 1) consider the impact of costs of waste disposal on individual licensees and 2) objectively evaluate any State request for assistance regarding the feasibility of
- . assured storage in their State.
cc:
I l
4 i
Y