ML20151T710
| ML20151T710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1998 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T689 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR36902 PR-980831, NUDOCS 9809100126 | |
| Download: ML20151T710 (2) | |
Text
. . _ _ ._ .. __ . _. . _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _..___._m n
(7590-01-P]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 60 1 RIN 3150-AE40 l Clarification of the Assessment Requirements for the Siting Criteria and i Performance Objectives AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule: Withdrawal.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a proposed rule that would clarify uncertainties in regulations that contain generic criteria goveming the disposal of 1
high-level radioactive wastes (HLW) in geologic repositories. Because the NRC is developing site-specific disposal regulations for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, consistent with the Energy Policy f Act of 1992 (EnPA), the proposed rule is being withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet P. Kotra, Performance Assessment and l High-Level Waste Integration Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear f i
Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,11545 Rockville Pike, l Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. Telephone 301/415-6674. E-mail JPK@NRC. GOV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Existing NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 60, initially issued in 1983, contain generic criteria goveming the disposal of HLW in a geologic repository. On July 9,1993 (58 FR 36902), the NRC published, for public comment, proposed amendments intended to clarify certain regulatory uncertainties in those regulations related to the investigation and evaluation of potentially adverse conditions at potential repository sites. The public comment period ended on October 7,1993.
In anticipation of the results of a National Academy of Science (NAS) study undertaken in response to the EnPA, as well as Congressional activity with respect to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the Commission decided not to issue a final rule and directed 9909100126 990903 PDR ORG EUSSEN PDR ,
s .
. s,
'i the NRC staff to withdraw the proposed rulemaking and reconsider the need for it when the j legislative environment had stabilized. The purpose of this FederalRegister notice is to announce the NRC's withdrawal of this proposed rule.
At present, the NRC staff has considered arid is implementing a strategy for developing site- l I
specific disposal regulations that would apply solely to the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, and is deferring the updating of 10 CFR Part 60 generic requirements to a later date. These cite-specific regulations will be promulgated consistent with EnPA, which also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to issue radiation standards for a geologic !
repository at Yucca Mountain, based on and consistent with the 1995 findings and recommendations of the NAS. A proposed rule will be published for public comment by the end of the calendar year.
The NRC s'aff's strategy for developing the site-specific disposal regulations for Yucca l Mountain can be found in a Commission Paper, designated SECY-97-300, that is dated December 24,1997. This strategy was approved by the Commission in an SRM dated Ms rch 6,1998. The Commission Paper, the SRM, and associated documents are available for pJblic inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street (lower level), NW, Washington, D.C., 20012-7082. Telephone: 202-512-2249.
It Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this b day of August,1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/
John C/ oyle, /
Secre of the Commission.
I 2
- ........................ i
- "*k . UMTED STATES RELEASED TO THE PDR l o*^
n NUCLEAR REGdLATORY COMMISSION e y WASHINGTON, D.C 20S56
- ! l
= : eate inws :
,.....f ........................
" " " June 30 1995 PECRETARY I
1
. MEMORANDUM TO: James M.: Taylor Exe yi g Director for Operations v _
John .. Hoy ecretary FROM: i l
SUBJECT:
SEC Q19 - CLARIFICATION-OF ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITING CRITERIA AND ;
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES - FINAL RULEMAKING 1 W
l The Commission (with the ChairTnan and Commissioners Rogers and has disapproved issuance of the proposed de Planque agreeing) this time due to the significant
< final amendments at Congressional activity with regard to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that could have a significant impact on 10 CFR Part 60.
Changes may also result from the National Academy of Sciences
' study being conducted in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Commissioner Jackson did not participate in this matter.
Additionally, the staff should reconsider whether rulemaking is necessary to clarify the terms " adequately investigated" and
" adequately evaluated" or whether this can be done more Further,
' effectively in guidance documents supporting Part 60.
eliminating the word adequacy (and moving the requirements tofix the pT6BTe another section) does not to what is the acceptable degree of uncertainty with respect j
is:
l the identification of, and effects of, potentially adverse conditions, and the degree / amount of proof the staff is going to require. This may be more appropriately addressed in guidance to DOE.
In addition, the staff's proposed resolution of these concerns introduces the concept of proving absence, which is not necessary Potentially cr advisable, and is not technically correct. or unknown, adverse conditions are either definitely present,within the level of uncertainty of the m not present i.e.,
of detection. (Absence is technically included in the latter, i
b9t if truly absent, theThus, uncertainty this concept mustofbe zero, absence proving a highly unlikely situation.)
THIS SRM, SECY-95-019, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL
- SECY NOTE
COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 l
WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
~9507210tS6 V50630 d 01-f/
yp q .
2-serves no useful purpose, and creates only problems and unnecessary regulatory uncertainty.
The Commission does not believe that a rule change is needed to address the CUWRA and staff's third concern dealing with whether conditions must be considered separately or in combination and the extent to which conbinations of conditions might be considered when carrying out performance assessments.
The fact that several of the public responses to the proposed rule indicate a lack of clear understanding of the proposed rulemaking serves to emphasize the need for a comprehensive CRGR-type review of rules for facilities (and licensees / applicants) other than reactors.
Commissioner Rogers noted that the draft rule would have provided relates some useful clarification of the term " adequately" as it He to investigation and evaluation of site characteristics.
stated characterization that the draft rulean is not would end inhave clarified itself, that siteit is one that instead, i
means to the end of< showing that andthethat Performance its adequacyObjectives should beof 10 CFR 60.112 and 60.113 are met, Thus, the draft rule would have determined in that light.
established that site characteristics that siteshould be determined information and is necessary evaluated to developonly the extentand subsequently to provide input to the andtoconfirm, models that are used to determine compliance with these Performance Objectives.
The staff, upon determining that the legislative situation has stabilized, should reconsider the need for the amendments proposed and, if needed, propose language that more closely follows the reaconing in the existing rule with respect to absence of potentially adverse conditions.
cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner de Plangue Comminaioner Jackson OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)