ML20137M076
| ML20137M076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1993 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Ashley Roberts TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007F933 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-60FR15649, FRN-60FR25983, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-61 AD33-2, AD33-2-015, AD33-2-15, NUDOCS 9704080008 | |
| Download: ML20137M076 (5) | |
Text
'
~
g ) .3 TA
]- [
/ k '
^
UNITED STATES '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, wassworow.o.c. noses i i AUG ? 31993 4
Mr. Alan Roberts, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Material Safety, RSPA
-Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Roberts:
In previous letters to you on May 10, 1991 and September 30, 1992, I discussed the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) rulemaking that would mandate the use of a uniform manifest for transfers of low-level radioactive waste (LLW).
l JThis task required us to develop a manifest document that not' only captured i
- NRC information and tracking needs but also those of the Department of i Transportation (DOT), i.e., shipping paper requirements, the States and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commissions, and the disposal facility operators. The purpose of my letter is to once again ask for your assistance so that we can move forward on this regulatory project.
, We have reached the point in this rulemaking where we have developed proposed
- forms that meet both our agencies' requirements. In addition, we believe, i with your help, that the manner-in which the information is collected on these forms responds in part to the " reporting burden" issue raised in comments we received on our proposed rule (57 FR 14500; April 21, 1992). Nevertheless, to produce a more effective rule and manifest document, and in response to a l request from the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, the NRC held a public j meeting on June 15, 1993, to discuss concerns raised in the comment letters i and to clarify the purpose of the rule. Members of your staff were invited, but were unable to participate in this meeting.
~
_ A principal question raised in the comment letters and during the meeting was why the manifest format currently used by the two current disposal facility operators, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. and U.S. Ecology, would not be
- acceptable. If we were to adopt this approach, the manifest format would be l consistent with that which is currently in use in the nuclear industry.
In response'to this question,'the NRC staff stated their understanding that the DOT did not believe that the disposal facility operators' current-manifests complied with DOT shipping paper requirements. The NRC staff also discussed several perceived benefits of the proposed new format: (1) the presentation of required shipping paper information on one form of the manifest with no commingling with other manifest information needed by entities ~ other than DOT;'(2) the elimination of the need to transfer NRC and State / Compact information on manifest forms carried by the carrier; and
_veh (3)icle.because of (1) and (2),
The participants a reduction at the meeting,ofincluding the paperwork in the disposal transporting facility
.operatorrepresentatives,aswellasothersdirectlyinvolvedwithLLW 9704090008'.970327 ,
20 6 15649 ,[PDR
1 AUG 2 31993 2
shipments, aggressively challenged the NRC staff's interpretation of shipping paper requirements.
The decision on the general format of a uniform manifest is a significant one, both to NRC, and those involved in the management of LLW. Furthermore, it appears that a judgement on the adequacy of existing manifests being used by licensees of NRC and its Agreement States is warranted under Section IV. B. of the Memorandum of Understanding between our two agencies.
I have enclosed a written statement from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., and US Ecology that provides the rationale for their belief that these companies' manifests comply with DOT shipping paper requirements, along with sample manifests. If the existing manifests are judged unsatisfactory in complying with your shipping paper requirements, it would be helpful if the deficiency can be sufficiently defined so that wa can direct appropriate corrective actions.
In closing, we appreciate the support that DOT has already provided in the development of our proposed rule. I hope that resolution of the above issue will remove the last hurdle in our determination of which manifest format is most suitable to meet both of our requirements. The NRC considers this rulemaking to be an important aspect of our overall LLW regulatory program.
Since resolution of this issue is on our critical path to finalizing the rule, I am asking that DOT place a high priority in bringing this issue to closure.
I would appreciate receiving your reply by September 30, 1993. Please let us know if you will be unable to meet this date. Mark Haisfield of my staff will be coordinating NRC's interactions with 00T. Your staff can reach him at (301) 492-3877. I can be reached at (301) 492-3700. orego,isi,n,a g Sincerely, w p3m Eric Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Res arch
Enclosures:
- 1. US Ecology letter
- 2. Chem-Nuclear Systems letter Distribution: ,
Subj/ Circ /Chron a 6, y RES: Morris Costanzl Silberberg Ott Miff WMB Rdg/Cire NMSS: RBangart Wlahs CHaughney
- See previous concurrence ggg-p'g 3pQ _
Offe: WMB WMB WMB QDQRA %%
Name: MHalsfleid
- WOtt
- MSilberberg
- FCcsNnzi horris Date: 08/03/93 08/03/93 08/03/93 08/fA d 08/((/93 ,
& fit 4 ) )
DD;Qgt _ _DRES /
Name: WLahs
- RBangart
- Chemes b d N.
Date: 08/04/93 08/10/93 08893 084.,/93 w
N N
1 shipments, aggressively challenged the NRC staff's interpretation of shipping paper requirements.
The decision on the general format of a uniform manifest is a significant one, '
both to NRC, and those involved in the management of LLW. Furthermore, it appears that a judgement on the adequacy of existing manifests being used by ;
licensees of NRC and its Agreement States is warranted under Section IV. B. of the Memorandum of Understanding between our two agencies.
I have enclosed a written statement from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., and l US Ecology that provides the rationale for their belief that these company's manifests comply with DOT shipping paper requirements, along with sample ,
manifests. If the existing manifests are judged unsatisfactory in complying with your shipping paper requirements, it would be helpful if the deficiency can be sufficiently defined so that we can direct appropriate corrective actions.
In closing, we appreciate the support that D0T has already provided in the development of our proposed rule. I hope that resolution of the above issue will remove the last hurdle in our determination of which manifest format is most suitable to meet both of our requirements. The NRC considers this rulemaking to be an important aspect of our overall LLW regulatory program, l Since resolution of this issue is on our critical path to finalizing the rule, I am asking that DOT place a high priority in bringing this issue to closure.
I would appreciate receiving your reply by September 30, 1993. Please let us know if you will be unable to meet this date. Mark Haisfield of my staff will be coordinating NRC's interactions with DOT. Your staff can reach him at (301) 492-3877. I can be reached at (301) 492-3700.
Sincerely, Eric Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. US Ecology supporting letter
- 2. Chem-Nuclear Systems supporting letter Distribution:
Subj/ Circ /Chron RES: Morris Costanzl SHberberg Ott Philip WMB Rdg/ Circ NMSS: RBangart Wlahs cthg %
Offe: WMB WMB WMB DD:DRA D:DRA Name: MHalsfield WOtt MSuberberg FCostanzi BMorris Date: 08/ /93 08/ /93 08/ /93 08/ /93 08/ /93 a > ,
Offe: NMSS b@SShf/ '
DD:GIR ' D:RES Name: WLabsM k .RBan[rt CHeltemes EBeckjord Date: 08///93 08/$/93 08/ /93 08/ /93
n l The decision on the general format of a uniform manifest is a significant one, both to NRC, and those involved in the management of LLW. Furthermore, it appears that a judgement on the adequacy of existing manifests being used by ;
licensees of NRC and its Agreement States is warranted under Section IV. B. of I the Memorandum of Understanding between our two agencies.
I have enclosed a written statement from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., and US Ecology that provides the rationale for their belief that these company's i manifests comply with DOT shippinC paper requirements, along with sample j manifests. If the existing manifests are judged unsatisfactory in complying l with your shipping paper requirements, it would be helpful if the deficiency )
can be sufficiently defined so that we can direct appropriate corrective actions. J In closing, we appreciate the support that DOT has already provided in the development of our proposed rule. I hope that resolution of the above issue will remove the last hurdle in our determination of which manifest format is most suitable to meet both of our requirements. The NRC considers this rulemaking to be an important aspect of our overall LLW regulatory program.
Since resolution of this issue is on our critical path to finalizing the rule, I am asking that 00T place a high priority in bringing this issue to closure.
I would appreciate receiving your reply by September 30, 1993. Please let us know if you will be unable to meet this date. Mark Haisfield of my staff will be coordinating NRC's interactions with 00T. Your staff can reach him at (301) 492-3877. I can be reached at (301) 492-3700.
Sincerely, Eric Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
I. US Ecology supporting letter
- 2. Chem-Nuclear Systems supporting letter Distribution:
Subj/ Circ /Chron RES: Morris Costanzl Suberberg Ott Philip WMB Rdg/ Circ NMSS: RBangart WLahs Offe: WMB gff h / DD:DRA D:DRA Name: MHalsfield Ott hSuberberg FCostanzi BMorris Date: 08/J /93 08/3/93 b 08/$/93 08/ /93 08/ /93 Offe: NMSS NMSS DD:GIR D:RES Name: Wlahs RBangart CHeltemes EBeckjord Date: 08/ /93 08/ /93 08/ /93 08/ /93 f
e.
4 i
h i
i 1
l i
l
\
I I
I l
ENCLOSURE 1 i
l 1
i l
l l
l l
l l
1 4
1 !
l i
l m,