ML20206G741
| ML20206G741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ing L TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206G745 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905100131 | |
| Download: ML20206G741 (2) | |
Text
y 3L 4,
UNITED STATES
[
Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 2065H001
- %*****]
April 26, 1999 CHAMMAN Ms. Leigh Ing, Deputy Director Office of Waste Management Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 '
Dear Ms. Ing:
Thank you for your March 18,1999 letter to Paul Lohaus, Director, Office of State Programs.
Your letter discusses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) plan to ship waste containing source material and lead from the Lake City Army Ammunition plant to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted disposal facility in Texas. You express concern that the USACE plan, and the previous METCOA decision, are in conflict with previous U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff positions.
The Commission recognizes that guidance to NRC staff regarding the METCOA materials provided direction in interpretation of provisions in 10 CFR 40.13(a) that differs from previous NRC staff positions. The METCOA materials action raised the issue to the attention of the Commission of whether the licensing exemption under 10 CFR 40.13(a) should be interpreted to encompass disposal. In concluding that the licensing exemption under this provision does include disposal, the Commission was aware of and took into consideration the NRC staff prior views and guidance, including the ones you reference in your letter. Our decision was based on review of the terms of this provision, on direction to the staff to ensure that such disposal would be within bounding radiological consequence analyses ad thus would provide adequate protection of public health and safety, and on the authority of the proposed Texas facility to f
receive the METCOA materials. The regulatory requirements imposed on the disposal site by f
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the State, would still need to be met. Note that in an earlier related decision the Commission allowed disposal of cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust at sites approved for disposal of hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle o
C. This new policy was announced in the Federal Reaister on March 19,1997. In addition, we (h i understand that in 1998 the Texas Department of Health and TNRCC similarly permitted disposal in a Texas RCRA-permitted facility of exempt material from a site in Middlesex, New Jersey. The NRC staff will be implementing the Commission direction with regard to the application of 10 CFR 40.13(a) in future regulatory considerations, such as for the wastes from the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
I have enclosed responses to the three specific requests contained in your letter.
O Sincerely, g
i b h,y,
/
9905100131 990426 PDR COMMS MtCC Shirley Ann Jackson /
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Enclosure:
As stated
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS (1)
We request that the NRC maintain its established policy as set out in guidance documents and not grant exemptions for disposal under Parts 30 and 40.
Besconse: The Commission decision does not grant an exemption for disposal. It directs the staff to implement the regulations in 10 CFR Part 40 including the existing provision,10 CFR 40.13(a), which provides that material containing less than 0.05 per cent by weight source material is exempt from regulation.
(2)
We request that if the NRC decides to change its policy to allow for exemptions for disposal, that change be implemented through formal rulemaking and be based upon sound science.
Response: As noted in (1) above, the Commission decision was based on a review of the existing provision in 10 CFR 40.13(a) and does not grant a specific " exemption" for disposal. The Commission has directed the staff to complete ongoing work assessing the current exemptions for source and byproduct materials. Any insights gained from these assessments are to be incorporated into the development of a rule for release of materials from a licensed site. The Commission also has directed the staff to provide recommendations to the Commission for developing a more risk-informed and coherent set of requirements for licensing of source materialincluding possible revisions to 10 CFR 40.13(a). These recommendations are to include options for proceeding to address jurisdictional and technical issues associated with regulating source material.
(3)
We request that significant departures from previous policy be made subject to public review and comment early in the decision making process, so that Texas and other Agreement States may assist in developing policies or rules that are technically and legally defensible.
Besoonse: Any rulemaking actions taken under (2) above will be subject to the public comment process and will consider all points of view in this area from all interested stakeholders, including early input from the Agreement States.