ML20205P466
| ML20205P466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/13/1985 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318J013 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR31880, FRN-61FR26582, FRN-61FR26852, RULE-PR-150 AC57-1-006, AC57-1-46, AC57-1-6, NUDOCS 8811080145 | |
| Download: ML20205P466 (5) | |
Text
,_
. = _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _
~
Ppg
?
t i
UNITED sT ATEs
/,
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,Q(.f.'}
W AsHINGTON,0. C. 20555 5
SEP 131935 l
Pf 4: A';T;M F0P:
Hereld R. Der, ton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation F PO'4 Guy F. Cunningham, !!!
j Frecutive Legal Director
. t%)SDICT10N OVER LOW LEVEL WASTE >'AKAGEPENT AT REACTO
!HTM P :
SITES IN ACFEEMENT STATES L pur renont et.m of August 7,1985, you requested OELD con irmation of i
r ycur understanding of t,7C jurisdiction over the handling, treatment (including l
imir.r.ratier.) and storage of low level radioactive waste at 7.uclear reactor As stated in your trerorandum, in Agreement States the NRC would j
sites.
exercise licensing arid regulatory jurisdiction over the handling and storage j
This t
o' i c4. level waste within the exclusion area of the reactor site.
The j
in cludes both reactor pnerateo waste and waste free other sources.
17t t e s i tt.r t ic.n ;. L. red in greater detail in Generic Letter 8514 In t
i rer Acr m ert States tFere is no jurisdictional.problent the NRC liter.ses and rect @n all bee.dling, stcrage, and disposal of low level radicattive waste, Yrvi recrandur. also reouested an opinion on the licensing, in Agree.r.ent j
Sut%. c1 ich level waste discesel within the exclusion area.
stH r-erts art correct.
In Agreerent States the fJC will license N t er-f anc orilate th. handling ar'd storage of Icw level waste in the exclusion l
D er. the wastt is derived from offsite waste generefors NPC a rei:.
jurtic'ictior is based prinarily on 10 CFR 100.3(a) which requires the reactor liter.so to rM r.tain an exclusien area in which the licensee retains full f
rcrirci ova L11 activities in order to protect public health ard safety fron a rest"'atec' fissit+ froduct release resultint from a hypothetical rejor 14 licensing authority is seen as essential to maintaining such nteidert.
licensee cce, trol.
Thus, urder Generic letter 8514 any program sponsored by
)
a state to fulfill its low level waste obliettions pursuant to the Low Level j
Racicactive Veste Felicy Act (Public Law g6 573, 42 U.S.C. 2021b 20?ld) by stcrap of waste within the esclusion area of a nuclear power reactcr will be l'
subjttt to the licersing and regulatory jurisdiction of the NF In tr.rver,ent States the hardling and storage at the reactor site of low level waste resulting free the operation of the reactor is reserved to the NPC pursuant to 10 CFR 150.1H e)(3).
It is reasonable to view the exclusien area as the reactor site for this purpose since it represents spatially the area of greatest and nest inc4diate public health and safety cencern in the (San j
Onofre Nuclear Gcr,erating S_S_ee e.c. Southern Califorria Edison C operation of the reactor.
tation, l' nits 2 and 3), ALAS 26,1 NFC fj l
e i
(1975), ALA9 308, 3 NRC 20 (19?f).
)
8811000145 881021 PDR PR 1SO 53FR31880 PDR J
-2 SEP 131985 of low level The conclusion differs, however, regarding the disgata) lear reactor, radioacttve waste generated by the operation of the nuc lh_e_
crission of low level waste disposal in 10 CFR 150.15 as a function reserved to the Federal Governrent implies that it has been relinquish'ed to the Agreecent States.
The Statement of Considerations accompanying Part 150 when i
it wet promulgated clearly demonstrates that the Atomic Energy Comissicn cer sidered the crestion of Agreement State authority over the, disposal of reactor Icw level waste and otcided to relinquish the fuoction..while r.ctainir.c her dling and storage.
'lhe Comission has taken into consideration the coments and l
advice it has received in adopting the regulation set out herein.
The Comission Ias decided against blanket resersations of control cver land burial of waste and over the trer.sfer of mant'f actured products.
"cwever, et to land burial, the Comission finds, pursuant to section enc.(4), of the Act that because of the hazards or retential bl.:ards thereof, hich level atomic enercy wastes from the cherical processing"of irradiiitFd fuel elements
!!culd not be disposed of without a license from the i
Comiss un.
This finding is reflected in,5150.15(a)(4).
Cortrol over the handlirg and storage of waste at the site cf e reactnr. including ef fluent discharge, will be retained by the Cemissior as part of the control of reactor operation.
)
TFe states will have control over land burial of low level i
wn tes." [erphasis supplied). (27 FP, 1351, February 14, TC.-
l'ncer Sectior 301(b) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the NRC is not littrty to vary the clear u aning giver to this regulation by the Atomic i
at
{
Er+rgy (c-issicri without a rulemaking proceeding, er by issuance of appropriet( orders, pursuant tc Section 27/c of the Atonic Energy Act, as arorded. We rete that Agretrent State licensing of the disposal of reactor icw level weite within the exclusien area is not inconsistent with the rceutrerer t in 10 CFR 100.3(a) for licensee control of activities in the l
exclusion area. The issuance of a license by an Agreement State for disposal l
l of reactor low level wastes in the exclusion area only establishes the l
cenditicns under which the disptsal may be made. It does ret diminish either l
the licensee's decisional authority whether to undertake the activity, nor
]i his centrol over its executien.
Further, under well established rules of I
preeeptien if conditions in the State issued license for disposal conflict wtth the terrs of the Federal operating license, then the latter vill prevail. Accordingly, the legal advice previously given by this office on this tratter stands.
j l
Yet.r rercrands raises four additional concerns arising from the corclusien given above, First, altheugh the regulatory structure may I
I i
i
o 3
SEP I 3 1985 at ag, pear to be the trost cf ficient, licensing of disposal by the Agreement f.tetes ar/ cf handling and storage by Nht are not inconsistent. The two govarruental units are regulating dif ferest aspects of the waste generation and disposal prcctss.
Such divisions of responsibility are conron it tjove r nna nt.
M ard IE Notice 83-05 is valid advice for reactors in r c r-Agreei.ut St atet.
It is not, hcwever, applicable in Agreement States witt rtspect to otspcsal by lard burial. Third, the legal conclusion does n^t crtate the pottntial of each Agreeuent State detern.ining release levels e t t a (.t plent sitr. The legal advice consistently given by this office is that ri.(ite levelt rt6ated to the handling and storage of the waste at the reactor site m establut.v by NRC.
Fce example, Duke Power Company has been advised only recentiy titi it is apprcpriate to use the detection levels in IE Circular 81 07 fc pu rpc o rf releest cf v.aste fret the site, t,ut that the remission toe ecti al riitresc'. c.f the weste trust come f rom the state.
1 is unrectisery fer cecisions &!sociated with decoTrnissionino F %rti, w tcrs ar>. eclease cf sins for unrestricted use to be complicated c4 ical cu clusion.
Or the contrary, it can be scen as clarifying h
- t. '
tre leg i tabgrwr acainst which those cerisions will be made and insuring ccr.5,t'enry hitt (,ther low-lf vel waste Cisposal deci5 ions which will be fr.600 b,, th(
- etes.
Attti removal of all special nuclear t.aterial fron. the site a r.a li x,i
' M m c bi rd so that it can never acain be used in the product 1Ch i.tilintin ci special reclear r-aterial, there is a legal basis t-f cr coru: ut State r(sulation c' the remairing byprooLct radioactivity if
- te W tM M Ut po s i ti( r that leavirs the racicactive stru::tures on site in s :r ien'ipri,ticn is th trethod of etcice for disposal of the reraaining
>cu LAirtuct r.'u ial. On the otbtr hand, assuming a cortinued legal viability for F (4 'LO.1E(c)(1), a stcrace option would tend to preserve Nc0 ft.r1>citt w. il
!f continbec h d jurisciction is considered essential fcr oil v eut t ' G::er i t t i cni ng (.a s et, then a Comission ceterminatico that the i di re c ' tt i to ste require continuec Cecc.ission licensins enc a rule:,a6 inc udt e 9<- u d't.u'l cf the Attric Eners) Act amending 10 CFE 150.15 would h..* nest
~
-.,s.
(.c3 H. Cunninshar,11:
t Executive Legal Directcr cc; Jehr 0 L a i s. 0'.5 5 Jen s M. 4)lo', Il R ne terr, ( 9 i
~1.
The fol'oving legai trsunent car te trade thn 1(. LFA 15C.10(e)(1)
- culd base no It al significance in these circu stances. 11 it.cre is no ler.ger a reacter as defined in 10 CFR Part 60, there is rc centinuir[ t a>1s f o-NFC juridictien under Chapter 10 o' tr( Atomic Energy Ar.t. At'sent the latter,10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) u of ne ef fect.
Littwist, et.sent i criticci r.w. of special nuchar tr,atet ici, 10 CFR 150.10 ; ovices rc jurisdictional ba%.
c SEP 13 1985 4
cet errm to be the rett efficier.t. licensing of disposal by the Agreeme'nt Statn anc cf hancling arJ stcrase by NkC are not inconsistent. The two gt.e rwental units are reguleting different aspects of the waste generation ar.d disrcsal process.
Such divisions of respcnsibility are comor.
ir. pvernment, fecond, IE t'ctice 83 05 is valid adsice for reactors in r,c r.a greer ont St 'tes.
It is not, bewever, applicable in Agreement States
>ith respect to cisposal by land burial.
Third, the legal contlusion does i
the pettr tial of each Agreement State determining release levels l
net crecta et etch plant sitt.1he legal advice consistently given by this office is that relem leuils releted to the randling and storage of the waste at the reactor r i *t a re esto!.i f s ted by ?;PC.
For example, Duke Power Company has been advisec only r6ctr *ly thet it is 4ppropr iate to use the detection levels in IE Circular ll.r7 for purgoe of releast cf waste frca the site, but that the permissicr.
i for atttt' dis;osai ci the waste rit.st come f rce the state.
cecisior.s associatec; with decctrrrissionitig fturth, it ;! crnecesur) for t' amctors err: releast t.f sites for unrestricted use to be cerrplicatert 1 conclusict..
On the contrary, it car,t,e seen as clarifying car icp to in ol tackcenund against which these decisions will be made and insuring tot I
cm stcrcy uith (tr.er low-inel waste disposal decisions which will be made t,
9e states.
Atter rerreul of all special nuclear caterial from the site ar.d fiai 3 the
,3 chine 50 that it car. never again be used in the production o t.til14t:cn of specici nuclear raterial, thcre is a legal basis rep letion of the remoiriing typroduct recioactivity if der 4 ro ce.1 Statt
'TC talrs the posititr that lee \\ing the racioective structure.s on site in l
'It t u: e satt tctfituratier: is the niettcd ef choice
- for disposal of the remoir,iry j
t1,T rw r t i a t e r i a i. Or the other tand, assurHng a contirueo leg 61 viability ff r h C M M.lf(a)(1), t stcrate option would tend to preserve I;EC i
- ut inu t ic r..
1/
if continuec 14 jurisdiction is cor.tidered esttntial for i
l olt rr ect Mm.assit rire cases, thtr. a Corvissien deterrination t. hat the i.rardt c' t'. waste require cor.tir t.es Co r.issian licensir.g and a rulemaking i
i tice St, cer '7:c.(.o ct the Atou.it frergy Act ensnaing 10 CFF 150.15 wet.ld t e u,% : c..
i Guy H. Cur.t.ingher,!!!
Executive Legal Directer 1
(c b *i (.
L a s i s, t ' '" t J,m : f.
16;lnr, II OfDai sigw dy f
t GW H. Cunnmpa m, til
)
<. 4 3ts in r. OSI i
f 1/
A b esl ar u n t can be made that 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) veuld havt-nc hf al sicr i'icance in ttese circunstances.
If there is re longer a
~
rcoctor as defir.ed in 10 CFR f art 50, tt.cre is nc continuing basis for UC S.rtsdictun under Cherter 10 of the Atomic Energy Act. Abstrt the latter, 10 CFR 15C.15(a)(1) is ct no eftect, like.<ist, atisent a critical
]
- r. ass of strcial nucient r aterial.10 CFR 150.10 provides re jurisdictional J
Lane.
l
]
fa 'RibbTION:
i FFenner Gt' unr.i nghe W01estead
)
% s R/F OELD 5/F OELD R/F Central Fiits (SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE)
OT r icitt
- erto
- oELD
)
W'1 :RFenner:sl
- Milmstted
- GCunninthan :
DATE :9/
/S5
- 9'
/05
- 9/
485
o e
j SEP 13 1995 4
r,ct L,. ty retricel, licensir.g cf dispesel by the Agreement States and of hew'irt end stcr(9c by Nkt arc rot inconsistent, it is sin. ply the c(:1 natier of another regulatory bocy to do the job. Such asyr.etrical 9
usi r.ner,ts of respei;sibility are common in government. Second, IE Notice 9
U '.! is alid actice for reactors in non-Agreement States, it is not ap;i.cttle in Agreetent States v.ith raspect to disposal by land burial.
Thir e, ti t legal cerclusion coes not create the potenti61 of each Agreement Mr*r deterriring releate levels at cach plant site. The leoal advice ccns.sttitlj eiver t this ottice is that release levels related to the J
hc.elin; att norage of th( vaste at tht reactor site are established by l
MC.
Fci ver ple, Pth power Coyany has beer. advised only recently that i'
't erproi.ric te to use tt r detection levels in IE Circular 6107 for I
o' releen cf waste f rcn the site, but that the pemissicn for i
w N.
cut ' vi!.neul (.i the waste f.c!t come frot, the state.
N.rtt, n u u w cessar,s fu cecisicis associated with decomissionir9 4
of re, ".i i > enc re'.eu r cf si tet tcr unrestricted use to be complicatec
- c.rclusior.
On the contrary, it Car be seen as clarifying at leu j
're Irp1 t c t.Srcund 69einst which those decisions will bc n. ace and insuring
)
- 1et<6r: vit'. othei 1ck-level weste disposal cecit
's which will L.e r.sde q
l L., the saut. Af ter ruwal uf all special nuclear material from the site l
a r.t in :n; tb rec hinc so thi.t it can neycr again be used in the production or ut'h rrtior of sucial nucirer raterici, there is e legal basis j
l f:,r + m ert StMr. reguinien of the remaining byprccuct radicactivity if 1
t t >. ' r 16 e th,csition that leaving the radioactive structures on site it, wt : W coifsp rotica. 1> the rether cf choice. fur disposal of the remainint t..; t a r t c etot u l. tr the ettcr band, assun.ing a continued legal viability W '. '. W ill.1[(4 '(1), e f.tcrage optier would ter,d to preserve f3C lvri'Fctict. 1/
1f centinuec hd jurisdiction is consicered esstrtial for e!, it a *.cr oc' mis sioning cases, ther a Comissicn detemirction that the te.
et rf t*s m :t require certinued Cerrission lictrsing and a rulema(ir.g c ro i n. : i a A. ( O of th Atomic trersy Act acer cing 10 CFR 150.15 woule j
t-r i c '. ! e.
n Guy F. Cunninghce,111 t
Executise Legal Directcr u:
is'.
t.
.< m r'/"o ieylci, !!
o.:..
c..g; 4,.,y j
r<e j * ],..
W. e t v, 0*d j
5 1/
l leg, 6ry.rret can be rocs that 10 CFF. !!0.15(a)(1) would have ro I
it p 1 sigt vicance ir 'bese circurstances, If there is r.o longer a
~
tractor a cefined in 10 O F Fart 50, there is n( cortinuing basis for Mt jui $5cictice t.r. der Chastu 10 of the / tonic f.nergy Act. Absert the
'1 i
l o' tt e, 10 CFR 15C.15(a)(1) is cf no effect. Likewise, absent a critical r os of spenel nuclear raterial,10 CFR 150.10 ;roviots rc jurisdictional
- tase, f
Ll53 !BUTION:
ITcnner GCurninghar
'dJClmstted m R/F OELD 0 1 OELD R/F Qirtral Filet i
ij OFC
- 0EK
- CELUg
- 0 ELD
.....:.7.,........:.gg_
WE:Rfch6er:sl
- Winsteed
- GCunninshcri :
DATE :9, L tt 5
- 9/
/85
- 9/
/85
~
A C57-l
'j{*
0 UNIT E D STATt:$
8 '- )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WQ*M".:f f et
- ^5"'Not N.. cm
%..... />
May 12, 1986 PEMORANDUM FOR:
G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation John G, Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
, S_UBJECT:
NRC VS AGREEMENT STATE JURISDICTION OVER W/.STE DISPOSAL RELATED TO DECOMMISSIONING In your memorandum of November 1,1985 you supported a staterent of NRC policy that jurisdiction for decommissioning of NRC-licensed reactor and 10 CFR Part 70 fuel :ycle facilities should remain with the NRr. for the entire process.
Ycu also supported a position that the NRC should retain sole authority for the burial / disposal of low level radioactive waste in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.302 at such reactor and Part 70 fuel cycle facilities in Agreement and non-Agreement States, I
W+ ogree with your por,ition on both issues.
First, with respect to decemissioning in Agreement States and non-Agreecent States alike:
1)
NER and NMSS policy is that the NRC will retain sole regulatory authority fcr shutdown NRC-licensed reactor and Part 70 fuel cycle facilities ard for all decomissioning options
- for these facilities, and ?) the HEC will reth this licensing authority until the license is teminat(d.
Aqreermnt Stete f acility licensing authority is precluded by the Atonic Er crgy Act and NRC regulations for all eperatina nuclear reacters and for all Part 70 fuel cycle facilities with quantities of special nuclear raterial ciceeding the amounts specified in 10 CFR Part 150,11.
Consideration ray,
- h0never, b.* given to the transfer of licensing authority to an Agreerent State for an operatinq Part 70 fuel cycle facility, if:
- 1) the facility is to continue to operate as a nuclear facility, 2) the quantities of special nuclear material have been reduced to less than 10 CFR Part 150.11 limits, and 3) the Agreerent State involved is prepared to issue a State license.
WDR Enissioning options such as SAFSTOR ENTOMS or DECON, as defined in the
~
proposed decomissioning rule of 2/11/85.
CONTACT:
P. Erickson, SSPD
/
Est, 20194 g
/}
s -.
% 1 -
p.
.n 1
o
.k 2
I 1
Second, with respect to on-site burials.-
currently, if radioactive. material is to be buried / disposed of at an fiRC-licensed rea. tor or Part 70 fuel cycle facility in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.302, an approval must be obtained from the fiRC in a non-Agreement State and from the State in an Agreement
- State, fiRR and fiMSS will initiate, by a request to RES, an amendment to 10 CFR Part 150.15 to clarify that the f(RC has the sole authority for the above on-site waste burial / disposal in exclusion and restricted sreas. This rule change will reduce unnecessary duplication of review and avoid potential l
jurisdictional conflicts during subsequent decomissioning.
The proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 150 will not chcnge the rules with rescoct to waste disposal subject to 10 CFR Part 61, which would continue to l
be licensed by the fiRC in non-Agreement States and by the State in an l
Agreement State.
1 R.
irector Office of fiuclear Reactor Regulation
(
'\\
9l /
r b.di?r)
/
John G. Dav{s, irector i
(,
Office of fiuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
l l
i 1
l l
l i
N