ML20195C199
| ML20195C199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195C167 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-251-C, SECY-99-057-C, SECY-99-57-C, NUDOCS 9906080042 | |
| Download: ML20195C199 (3) | |
Text
r i
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET i
TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-251 - DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR WEST VALLEY Approved Disapproved X Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS See attached comments.
i l
l l
LLo(15sa SIGNy R
/L U ()
LP 37,li'li l
DATE U Entered on "AS" Yes I No Ta'"oe me CORRESPONDENCE PDR L 9'70(,OSOM1
n.-g+:
~
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-98-251 and SECY-99-057 The following constitutes my vote on both staff papers. For the reasons set forth below, I join Commissioner Dieus and Commissioner Diaz in support of Option 1(a) in SECY-99-057, under which the Commission would prescribe the License Termination Rule (LTR) (10 CFR 20.1401-1405) now as the final decommissioning criteria
. applicable to the Department of Energy (DOE) West Valley Demonstration Project
_. (WVDP).-
But first, I would Ike to acknowledge the complexity of the issues before us in dealing
' with this site and to thank all those who have contributed to the clarification of these issues over the past six months. I am proud of the' open process which the staff and the Commission have utilized to aid our decision-making.
l_ support applying the LTR to the WVDP because that is consistent with our approach at NRC-licensed sites subject to Pait 20. It is the rule which will apply to the New York
- State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) once the NRC Part 50 license issued to NYSERDA is reactivated following completion of the WVDP. We -
'should not have one rule for DOE and a different rule for NYSERDA. - I would point out to all stakeholders that the LTR does make' provision for license termination under
.. restricted conditions using institutional controls and for use of attemate criteria for license termination with public participation.
Decommissioning of the WVDP is a complex task that will not be complete for many -
years. I believe that it is not useful to speculate at this time on how to resolve future issues which may arise. There is a benefit in not attempting to decide now more than we have to'or are prepared to.-
That said, it is easy to imagine, based on the data in SECY-98-251, that it will be
~ difficult for DOE to meet the LTR in the WVDP and for NYSERDA to meet the LTR following reactivation of the Part 50 license. l do not discount the possibility that some
~
of the options discussed in SECY-98-251 for long-term control of the site may indeed have to.be explored. Hopefully, the discussion of long-term institutional' controls at sites
' such as West Valley will have benefitted from the intervening broader dialogue which DOE.will have had with its stakeholders on the use of institutional controls in the cleanup of DOE nuclear facilities (pursuant to the settlement reached in NRDC v.
Richardson, Dec.12,1998) and which will likely take place in Great Britain as it Proceeds with decommissioning of the Dounreay reprocessing facility. At Maxey Flats and at mill tailings sites, " perpetual" institutional controls have been adopted to ensure adequate protection'of public health and safety. But it is also possible that new decommissioning technologies or' disposal options may become available that facilitate cleanup of sites such as West Valley and obviate or reduce the need for very long term institutional controls at West Valley.
'4
i 2
I agree with Commissioner Dicus that a Commission decision to apply the LTR should
' be published now as a proposed policy statement for public comment. I have no i
objection to the suggestion that the Commission's final decision on the criteria be transmitted to DOE by public letter. However, I question whether the letter is necessary since the final policy statement would be published in the Federal Reaister as well.1 also suggest that copies of the draft and final policy statements be provided to all relevant parties, including the appropriate State agencies, Congressional delegation, and citizens' groups.
i i do not support prescribing Part 61 criteria or the current incidental waste criteria at this time. Decisions on waste management issues are important ones that can be made only when decommissioning of the site is more complete and answers to certain questions, such as whether it is technically feasible or cost-beneficial to excavate and remove certain wastes currently buried at the site, become more apparent.
I have no objection to the staff proposal to enter into an office-level cooperative agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation i
regarding the WVDP, and I agree with Commissioner Merrif' eld that a copy should be provided to DOE for information purposes. I also suggest that the staff consider issuing the draft cooperative agreement for public comment before it is finalized.
i s
l l