ML20195C172
| ML20195C172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195C167 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-251-C, SECY-99-057-C, SECY-99-57-C, NUDOCS 9906080036 | |
| Download: ML20195C172 (2) | |
Text
.
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
'FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-057 - SUPPLEMENT TO SECY-98-251,
" DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR WEST VALLEY" h
w/ comment Approved X
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENT
\\
Mb f
SIGNATORE i
March 26,1999 DATE r
l Entered on "AS" Yes No 9906080036 990603 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
'h0 bu 800 3(>
Chairman Jackson's Comments I approve prescription of the original broad criteria presented in SECY-98-251, with the final criteria to be prescribed after issuance of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but before the record of decision. Use of the existing License Termination Rule (LTR) criteria for decommissioning at West Valley is appropriate and provides consistency with other NRC-licensed cleanup activities. However, the GEIS for the LTR did not consider a situation representative of West Valley. Therefore, the additional NEPA support provided by the ongoing EIS process appears necessary to guide the NRC prescription of the criteria.
1 in addition, prescribing criteria at this time for closure or long-term care of the remaining NYSERDA portion of the site licensed by the NRC represents a broad approach that meshes with the ongoing EIS. This approach avoids postponing prescription of onsite disposal criteria to a later date and unnecessarilyjeopardizing New York State once the DOE withdraws. The l
narrow approach of prescribing only LTR criteria to the DOE now would not address clean-up of the entire site and would not cover NYSERDA responsibilities.
Although the supplemental paper clarified many aspects of this action, there remains an area that needs additional focus. As evident in the January 12,1999, briefing, there is some misunderstanding of the incidental waste criteria by NYSERDA and DOE. The staff should clarify that the incidental waste criteria only require the waste to be managed such that the performance objectives of Part 61 are satisfied and the Class C waste concentration limits are met. The incidental waste criteria do not include specific provisions for the use of alternative waste concentrations and characteristics provided in 10 CFR 61.58.
Furthermore, I agree that the proposed Commission decision on the decommissioning criteria can be transmitted to DOE by public letter. The letter also should state clearly what the NRC role will be in determining whether the DOE has completed decontamination and decommissioning for the WVDP. Although the staff indicates that the WVDP Act gives the NRC no authority to enforce a completion determination, a review of a DOE Completion Report or similar document should be performed as envisioned by the House of Representatives during consideration of the bill.
However, using a public letter to prescribe the final criteria would not allow for further public comment. On the other hand, as OGC concludes, the WVDP Act provides no NRC licensing authority over the DOE, and as such, no authority to order the DOE to take or refrain from taking specific actions. Therefore, for the final criteria, the staff should use the Policy Statement option, with the statement first issued as draft to allow for public comment. In addition, concomitant to issuing the draft statement, the Commission should schedule 'a public meeting to solicit' comment from appropriate parties.
Regulatory attematives for potential long-term control of the site were presented for the Commission's information in SECY-98-251. These should not be included in any criteria prescribed at this time. Although I recognize the need for long-term control of the site, speculating on attematives at this time has raised unnecessary controversy, appears to be premature, and could prejudge the eventual outcome of the EIS on closure of West Valley and associated Commission deliberations.
Lastly, I approve of the staffs plan to enter into an office-level cooperative agreement with NYSDEC regarding the West Valley site.
.