ML20238C647
| ML20238C647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1986 |
| From: | Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C622 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-506 NUDOCS 8709100277 | |
| Download: ML20238C647 (3) | |
Text
- %
u D 4Dfk
- pn asc 'o UNITED STATES 8.h.r*
~,h E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 205$5 MEM0AANDUM FOR: Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety W Tafeguards FROM: John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DISPOSAL OF PADI0 ACTIVE WASTE "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN" Tne Division of. Ru':es and Records (DRR) has reviewed the policy statement regarding the disposal of radioactive waste "below regulatory concern." A OP.R-marked copy of the package is enclosed for your information.
NRC licensees- familiar with the 10 CFR have been accustomed to using the procedures outlined in Part 2 for the submittals of petitions for rulemaking.
Furthermore, Part 20 licensees are, no doubt, familiar with the procedures outlined in $20.302. Because of a similarity in procedures and an overlap in requirements, you should reference both Part 2 and Part 20 in the Commission Paper and Summary statement of the Federal Register notice (FRN). We have included a partial rewrite of the Summary statement to include a reference to Part 2. A cross reference to the policy statement can also be made in Parts 2 and 20, since the policy statement is not codified, and it will be more difficult to find. This cross reference can be handled administratively in a separate document that DRR could prepare, so there need be no delay in handling the policy statement.
The following is a compilation of DRR's concerns regarding the FRN:
Pages 6, 17, 20 - The procedures outlined in the FRN place a heavy information gathering burden on a prospective petitioner. In essence, the petitioner will be compelled to prepare a complete rulemaking package with all of the required boilerplate statements, i.e., Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexi-bility Certification, Regulatory Analysis, and OMB Supporting Statement package.
In addition, the petitioner must prepare a document to " estimate the number of NRC and Agreement State licensees that produce the waste, the annual volumes and mass, and the total annual quantities of each radionuclides that would be disposed of." We are aware that much of the information the petitioner will need to be familiar with is contained in the NUREGs cited in the footnotes.
After our conversation with Wayne Kerr, OSP, we are unaware of any document or
( documents that would assist the petitioner in completing the document pertaining N to NRC. licensees and Agreement State licensees. References should be made to N these documents, if they do exist. If they do not, we believe the policy state-nwdt places an unjustified and unmanageable burden upon the petitioner.
N'N '
8709100277 870904 <
1 Robert E. Browning ApR 2 81986 We forwarded a copy of this proposed policy statement to TIDC for their review of Paperwork Reduction Act compliance. TIDC, after consultation with their paperwork counsel, has indicated that procedures set out in the policy statement constu.ute an information collection burden. Therefore, the policy statement will have to be submitted to^0MB for its review and approval prior to publication. For further information call Steve Scott on extension 28585.
/
v We note that a telephone number (to be filed in) is listed on.page 8 of the FRN. It is unclear whether this will be the central point of information should the petitioner have any questions regarding the required procedures. If this telephone number is to be the central point, not only for code questions, but on all matters related to the petition, then perhaps paragraph 2 on page 30 ,
should be modified, so that a petitioner will communicate with that individual rather than the Rules and Procedures Branch. .I Page 7 - Indicates that three copies of the complete petition package "should" be su6mitted to the Commission. If the petitioner submits only one copy, will the petition be rejected? If it is the intent of the policy statement to impose the copy requiNment, the word should be "must" or "shall" to avoid confusion and the resultant loss of time. If either "must" or "shall" is osed regarding ,
copy requirements, there arises a conflict between the procedures stated in the '
policy statement and Part 2. This use of a policy statement to impose require-ments is at the heart of our unease over the selection of a policy statement to l amend 652.802 and 20.302.
' Page 7 - It is not clear how lengthy the document containing NRC's computer
' code will be. Currently, there are budgetary restrictions on making free copies of documents available to the public. Many agencies are indicating the availa- ;
bility of documents through the GP0 sales program, NTIS, or at a Public Document 1 Room where they can be reviewed and/or copied for a fee. This is an issue you should discuss with Steve Scott, TIDC.
Page 26 - There is an indication that a single licensee would not be considered under this expedited rulemaking proposals because proposals by individual i
licensees would be considered under 10 CFR 20.302(a). On reading that section, l' one finds that it allows not for a petition for rulemaking but for an applica-tion to the Commission for approval of a manner of disposal that is not other- )
wise found in the regulations. Much of what is required of a licensee under :
these circumstances is a duplication of what is being proposed in this policy l statement. If, for example, a single university petitions the Comission, as is the case in PRM-20-14 where a single licensee petitioned the Commission under ;
$2.802 to amend $20.306, would the new procedures force that petitioner to '
resubmit his request under $20.302? The petitioner in PRM-20-14 represented the University of Utah only, yet other universities supported his petition. .
Under the new procedures, how would this petition be treated? If PRM-20-14 were i submitted jointly by three or four universities, would their petition be accepted for expedited processing?
In Section III of the FRN, we have added side headings, as you have done elsewhere in the notice, in order to highlight the individual discussions of the required boilerplate statements and analyses.
~
, .. D I r .
.I Rcbert E. Browning J Other comments are noted marginally. ' . )
I If you have any questions regarding DRR's review, please have a member of your l staff telephone me on extension 27036.
l
. I I
1
)
e John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch
,, Division of Rules and Records i
Office of Administration 4 Enclosute: As stated >
e l
l l
! RDG
~
I SUBJ -
SWIGGINTON < .
JPHILIPS * ' t SSCOTT , / r
, , c l1 e
( <
<, i ,
l I 6 1
l $
J 1 ,
i l , -
l
{
i l
? 1 ADM:DRR AD ADM: IDC '
" PRR
..WIGGINTON/BKG JP _IPS SSCO Lr i Q7 4/.2$86 4/ /86 4/1Y86 1
I l
l l
l l
__ -_. --__ D