ML20196H731
| ML20196H731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1999 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Vaughan R COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196H668 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-32 NUDOCS 9907060439 | |
| Download: ML20196H731 (2) | |
Text
M
. ~.,
l 0
4 UNITED STATES s
y j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
t WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4 001 April 20, 1999 Mr. Raymond C. Vaughan Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes 10734 Sharp Street East Concord, New York 14055
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
I am responding to your memorandum to the Chairman, dated March 29,1999, transmitting the comments of the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's supplemental Commission Paper (SECY-99-057) on decommissionin0 criteria for the West Valley site. The NRC staff response to some of your comments is enclosed. We will inform you of the Commission's decision on SECY-99-057 in the near future.
Sincerely, r
Cari. aperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As v.ated cc:
T. Attridge, NYSERDA (for the CTF)
e
~
\\
NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES
. Below are responses from the U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff on the comments numbered 7 through 17 in the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes memorandum letter to the Chairman dated March 29,1999. The staff plans to consider the remaining comments in the context of the Commission's decision on SECY-99-057.
7; Section 2(a)(4) of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act addresses a U.S.
Department of Eriergy (DOE) responsibility under the WVDP. DOE must decide how the low-level and transuranic waste produced by the solidification of the high-level waste under the project is to be disposed, and that decision will determine what licensing requirements are applicable. The Act does not require NRC to prescribe licensing requirements for waste disposal, but this issue is addressed in both SECY-98-251 and SECY-99-057.
8.
Even though Section 2(a)(5)(C) of the WVDP Act says "...in accordance with such requirements as the Commissionmay prescribe," the NRC staff's view is that NRC should prescribe the D&D criteria for the WVDP project.
9.
As stated on page 5 of SECY-98-251 and in Section 4 of SECY-99-057, the NRC staff's proposed criteria for onsite disposal of wastes generated by the WVDP are the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61.
10.
Section 20.2002 applies to licensees and is a licensing requirement.
11.
See answer 9 above.
12.,13.,14.,15.
Although the NRC is not authorized to determine whether or when DOE has completed decontamination and decommissioning for the WVDP, the NRC staff agrees that NRC should prescribe appropriate decommissioning criteria for the WVDP, and that DOE's implementation of the criteria will affect other parties including the licensee under the reinstated license.
16.
The scope of the NRC staff proposed decommissioning criteria for the site is described in both SECY-98-251 and SECY-99-057, 17.
The NRC staff agrees that reinstatement of the NRC license at West Valley should follow all applicable procedures, and that the decommissioning requirements for DOE, under the WVDP Act, should be compatible with the anticipated reinstatement of the license.
Enclosure I
l 1
gy.
COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES a
Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14055 -(716) 941 3168 April 25, 1999 Carl J.
Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Dr. Paperiello:
Thank you.for your letter of April 20 and the accompanying NRC staff responses to our March 29 comments.
We are looking forward to the Commission's decision on SECY-99-057.
1 The NRC staff responses to our comments 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 seem generally good, i.e.,
they seem to indicate that we and NRC understand each other reasonably well on these points.
A few of the other responses suggest that we and NRC fail to i
understand each other on the important matter of " applicable I
licensing requirements" for dispcsal.
We regard this as an essential part of the overall West Valley decisionmaking and will continue to seek a better mutual understanding.
The following comments are offered constructively, to try to elucidate what we see as misunderstandings.
A) In your (i.e., NRC's) response to our comment 7, you state that "Section 2 (a) (4) of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP).Act addresses a U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) responsibility under the WVDP."
We agree, but the response is overly narrow.
In other words, the DOE responsibility includes waste disposal "in accordance with applicable licensing require-ments."
To satisfy this legal mandate, DOE must either meet existina applicable licensing requirements or create new ones.
Creating new licensing requirements that are applicable to waste disposal would be arduous (probably requiring new legislative authority, followed by a NEPA process and promulgation of regula-tions).
The more likely alternative is that DOE will have to meet applicable licensing requirements that already exist, such as 10 CFR 61 or 6 NYCRR 382-383.
Granted, the responsibility is DOE's, but NRC needs to recognize the likalihood that, for LLW disposal, the only plausible choice for r eeting the mandate of 2 (a) (4) will be the choice between 10 CFR 61 and 6 NYCRR 382-383.
In any-case, DOE has to leaal authority to create new, unlicensed disoosal facilities at the West Vallev site.
We hope this is recognized clearly by both DOE and NRC.
The license must precede creation of the disposal facility.
We hope this is likewise clear.
We see no evidence in 2 (a) (4) that Congress intended DOE to create an unlicensed LLW disposal facility whose care (and responsibility for licensing) falls to NYSERDA.
On the contrary, 2 (a) (4) directs DOE to dispose of wastes "in accordance with applicable licensing requirements."
The responsibility is 1
Y
f t
DOE's, but, for LLW at least, NRC will almost certainly have to r
decide whether 10 CFR 61 or 6 NYCRR 382-383 is applicable.
It 4
would be shortsighted of NRC not to recognize this likelihood.
B) In the second sentence of your response to our comment 7, you state that " DOE must decide how the low-level and transuranic waste produced by the solidification of the high-level waste under the project is to be disposed, and that decision will
)
determine what licensing requirements are applicable."
We agree, at least in part.
See discussion above in (A).
c) In the third sentence of your response to our comment 7, you state that "The Act does not require NRC to prescribe licens-ing requirements for waste disposal..."
We agree.
As discussed above in (A), we believe'those licensing requirements already exist.
But we also think that your response to our comment 9 is inconsistent with the third sentence of your response to our comment 7.
In responding to 9, you refer to "NRC staff's pro-posed criteria for onsite disposal of wastes generated by the WVDP..."
Do you believe NRC has legal authority under the Act to propose criteria for onsite disposal?
If so, are such criteria entirely consistent with the mandate imposed on DOE by 2 (a) (4)?
D)'In your response to our comment 10, you state that "Section' 20.2002 applies to licensees and is a licensing require-ment."
We grant that this is true as stated and that our comment 10 could have expressed our concern more clearly than it did.
Our concern is as follows:
Section 20.2002, in and of itself, does not' constitute a full-fledged set of " applicable licensing requirements" for disposal, nor can it create a license ab initio, nor can it create technical specifications uhere none currently exist, nor can it convey licensee responsibility from one party to another, nor can it automatically convert a Part 50 license to a Part 61 license.
Section 20.2002 may conceivably play some role, but it falls far short of being the " applicable licensing requirements' to which 2 (a) (4) - refers.
Thanks again for your response.
If you disagree on any of the above points, we hope you will let us know so that we can improve our mutual understanding of the remaining steps in the West Valley decisionmaking process.
Sincerely,
,A w
Raymond C.
Vaughan cc:
T. Attridge, NYSERDA/CTF B. Mazurowski, DOE P. Merges, DEC P. Piciulo, NYSERDA A. Vietti-Cook, NRC 2
o