ML20212E759
| ML20212E759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ortciger T ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711040047 | |
| Download: ML20212E759 (1) | |
Text
, b
- 4 UNITED STATES I / $% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON, D.C. 205W0001 g
% ,,,,, October 23, 1997 CHAIRMAN l
Mr. Thomas W. Ortciger, Director Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 Dear Mr. Ortciger.
I am responding on behalf of the Commission to your letters, dated September 3,1997,in which you expressed concems with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's draft j Branch Technical Position (BTP) titled "A Performance A:,sessment Methodology'for Low- l Level Radioactive Waste D:sposal Facilities," issued for public comment on May 29,1997, in addition to expressing reservations involving certain aspects of the BTP, you referred to COMSECY-96-055, issued on March 7,1997, ~which directed NRC staff to inform the Commission as to how it plans to resolve Agreement State comments, made during the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining initiative, before finalizing the BTP, For your information, the staff set forth its approach to address Agreement State concems in SECY-97-125, a copy of which is enclosed. The May 29,1997 publication of Notice of Availability of the BTP tc which you refer, is part of this approach to obtain a broad range of public comments, which should ensure a more comprehensive and responsive disposition of all concerns, including those received during the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining initiative. l Regarding your requests to meet with me and cther Commissioners, or members of our staffs, I believe it would be beneficial and appropriate for a meeting to be ar anged directly l with staff from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and the Office of State Programs. I have requested that senior management from NMSS, in the Division of Waste Management, contact you to arrange a meeting to discuss your concems'with the draft BTP, Sincerely, h I5 Shirhy Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
As stated m uuo n l}ll!!N 9711040047 971023 PDR COPMS MtCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
M/,.
.g
% p ** tov POLICY ISSUE June 18, 1997 SECY-97-125
( FOR: The Commissioners ,
FROM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Ooerations
SUBJECT:
r0MMENTS ON THE DRAFT BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION ON LOW-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE WASTE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (NUREG-1573)
PURPOSE:
To inform the Comission on how the staff plans to resolve coments from Agreement States on the draft Branch Technical Positioc' (BTP) on low-level waste (LLW) performance assessment (tentatively identified as NUREG-1573), as directed by the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on Direction Setting Issue 5 (COMSECY-96-055). Also to inform the Commission that as a result of conceting priorities in the budget, completion of the BTP is now anticipated in FY 1999 and the staff will not document the supporting LLW test case, which would demonstrate the LLW performance assessment methodology in the BTP. The reprioritization of resources is currently under review as part of the FY 1999 budget process.
BACKGROUND:
On May 17. 1996, the staff informed the Commission about staff policy recommendations on four principal regulatory issues in LLW performance assessment (SECY-96-103). The four regulatory issues of concern are:
(1) timeframe for LLW compliance: (2) consideration of future sitc conditions, processes, and events: (3) performance of engineered barriers: and (4) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty. The pur>ose of .aforming the Commission about the proposed staff positions was to o)tain approval to publish, for public comment, a draft BTP on LLW performance assessment. In accordance with direction received from the Comission in the SRM dated August 7,1996, the staff has issued. for public coment, the draft BTP.
NOTE: To BE MAEE PUPwICLY AVAILABLE IN 5 WORKING DAYS FRoM THE DATE OF 'nlIs PAPER CONTACT: Frederick W. Ross. NMSS/DWM (301)'415-6705 Enclosne
'?'htp400oM 3 g
The Comissioners 2 Also, as directed by the Comission the staff specifically requested comment on the four policy issues identified in SECY 96-103.
Recently, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received coments on a previous preliminary draft of the BTP through the Comission's Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative. Although coments from Agreement States appear to have been mixed, one Agreement State strongly asserted that the BTP is unnecessary and will disrupt LLW disposal site licensing efforts.
In recognition of this Agreement State concern, the Comission directed the staff, by the SRM on COMSECY-96-055. to inform the Commission on how it will address Agreement State coments after the public comment period, but before deciding to finalize the BTP.
DIS _CUSSION:
In January 1994, a preliminary draft BTP on LLW performance assessment was distributed to all States with existing LLw racilities. host Agreement States.
the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). the U.S. Department of Energy.
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The preliminary draft BTP was provided to share with r.nd obtain input, from Agreement State regulatory authorities and other Federal agencies with an interest in LLW disposal, on the positions the staff is considering on LLW performance assessment. The staff received written comments on the preliminary draft BTP. and received additional verbal comments during deliberations at a November 1994 LLW performance assessment public workshop held at NRC Headquarters. Comments and questions received during those interactions were primarily of a technical nature; however, several comments did address the specific policy issues contained within the BTP. All of these comments were considered in the staff's development of the public coment draft of the BTP.
In comments on the Comission's Strategic Assessment and Rebase~ lining Initiative and in : presentation to the ACNW (August 22. 1996), one Agreement State criticized th_ BTP as "unn m essary and disruptive." As presented D the ACNW. that State's opposition to the BTP is based on its disagreement with the staff's proposed regulatory compliance period of 10.000 years. The State believes that 10 CFR Part 61 does not mandate a compliance calculation beyond 500 years, and, in any case, inherent limitations of performance assessment
" abilities" limit the credibility of these assessments to a 500-year timeframe of consideration. The staff had previously commented on this issue in SECY-96-103, where it stated the belief that short compliance periods, such as the 1000-years being used in dose assessments of decomissioning facilities, are generally inappropriate for assessments of LLW facilities because they could rely primarily on the performance of the engineered barriers for meeting the performance objective and not provide sufficient evaluation of the performance of the site. The staff's rationale for its proposed position on a 10.000-year timeframe for performance assessment is set forth in the draft BTP for public comment. However, to obtain a broader range of views on this issue. staff has specified. in the Federal Reaister notice, which announces the availability of
.6 '
The Commissioners 3 the draft BTP for public comment, that it desires further public comment on the appropriateness of a 10.000 year timeframe of compliance for LLW facilities.
Copies of the draf t BTP will be mailed to regulatory authorities in Agreement and non Agreement States and to the aforementioned Federal agencies and other BTP workshop participants. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the staff will provide the Commission with an analysis and proposed disposition of public comments on the draft BTP. including those made on the preliminary draft BTP during the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative. This connent analysis documentation will provide the rationale and technical basis for any recomrnendation to the Commission as to whether to proceed with finalization of the draft BTP.
RESOURCES.
The approach outlined for consideration of Agreenent State comments will have no significant resource impacts outside of tnose needed to complete the
- respon:e to publi~c connent. However, it is likely that the effort to respond to aublic comments will be deferred until FY 1999 when resources are projected to )e available for this activity. As a res . . of competing priorities in FY 1998. it has been necessary to reprogram resources from the LLW program to other high priority waste ii.anagement activities, primarily Title I and Title II uranium recovery activities. This decrease in resources would delay completion of the BTP until FY 1999 and eliminate documentation of the LLW test case to demonstrate the LLW performance assessment methodology. This reprioritization is currently under review as part of the FY 1999 budget process.
C0 ORDINATION:
This paper has been coordinated with the Office of the General Counsel. and it has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has ne objection to the resource estimates in this paper.
1 I
L. Joseph Callan 1 Executive Director for Operations '
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners CIo oGC CFo oCAA EDo oIG sECY oPA oCA ACNW
~
., n sgjoYSb$6%p!s DEPARTME% {0E(NUCQEAR SAFETY .
103.iQt1TER PARK; DRIVE SPRING (LINOIS (1 -185-99 Jim Edgar Y 21 h ,62704 Thomas W. Ortciger Direciar Governor 2178$24133'(TDD)
September 3,1997 Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairman Jackson:
As you know, the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Department) will someday again review h license application for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. We therefore have considerable interest in NRC staff views presented in the Draft Branch Technical Position (BTP) on a Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, NUREG-1573, dated May 1997.
While the document is to provide detailed low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) performance assessment guidance to potential NRC license applicants, we are concerned that its influence is much broader.
The Department's staff has under separate cover submitted comments on the W
current document similar to those made on the 1994 preliminary draft BTP. _ e remain most concerned about the potential disruptive effects that the BTP will hav' on Agreement State's regulatory programs. and maintain that the proposed 10,000-year compliance period is excessive and unwatTanted.
Notwithstanding the disclaimer in Section 1.8 that an Agreement State's adoption of the position is voluntary, and assurances that the BTP is only to supplement other guidance documents, such positions of course become defacto standards. This is already becoming evident. Recent NRC staff guidance to one Agreement State urging dose projections for longer time periods for an existing LLRW disposal facility cited the time-frame proposed in the draft of BTP as its basis.
h mm a w m ,.
j
.j
-j Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson )
' Page 2 ; i
' September 3,1997
, \ l In COMSECY-96-055 (March 7,1997), the Commission noted that Agreement States have ccmmented that the BTP is " unnecessary and disruptive." You directed the 1
~
_ staff to " inform the Commission how it plans to resolve such comments prior to a decision to finalize the BTP." On May 29,1997, the Federal Register published the notice of the availability of NUREG 1517. We are not aware of any action by the staff to comply _with the Commission's directive to resolve concems expressed earlier by Agreement States.
l At your earliest convenience, we would like to meet with you and/or your !
l 'immediate staff to review our concerns about the impacts of the positions presented in !
- - this document. Please contact me at 217/785-9868, so that we can arrange a mutually convenient schedule.
1 Sincerely y urs, l.
~
1 J
M N Thomas W. Ortciger Director TWO:bac
- cc: Richard L. Bangart, Director, NRC 1
1 1- i