ML20137H938
| ML20137H938 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/30/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Discus G, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137H924 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-055, COMSECY-96-55, DSI-5, SECY-96-055-C, SECY-96-55-C, NUDOCS 9704030161 | |
| Download: ML20137H938 (1) | |
Text
-- .- - - -- - - - - - -- - - ~ - - - - --
j -
_ [9,,,#% UNITED STATES l *3 * % NUCLF.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION = flELEASEC)TO THE M **
, y g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001
- t p January 30, 1997 . -- dge
'%,,,,,# *****...........g.......
g .
CHAIRMAN I
l MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Rogers l
Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz l Commissioner McGaffigan FROM: Shirley Ann Jackson M
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-055, LOW-LEVEL WASTE (DSI 5)
Valid arguments can be made in support of adopting either Option 2 (Assume a Strong Regulatory Role in the National Program) or Option 3 (Retain the Current Program). This is apparent from the public comments that were received on this 1 Direction-Setting Issue (DSI) which were split in their preference for Option 2 and Option 3.
I am inclined to have a slight preference for Option 3 over i Option 2 for the following reasons: (1) Low-level waste disposal capacity is currently available to all states (except North Carolina) and is likely to continue to be available for the next several years; (2) NRC is unlikely to receive a license
- application for a low-level waste disposal facility; (3) NRC i l personnel could be made available from related NRC programs if a l need arises for a greater NRC role in the n,ation's low-level
! waste program; and (4) the states.,, who are responsible for low- ,
! level waste disposal, favor less NRC involvement in the low-level .l l waste program (between Options 3 and 4).
l l Although I find Option 2 to be acceptable, to implement Option 2 l would require for FY 1999 and beyond, up to 10 more FTE and l $2 million. (This is assuming NRC does not regulate DOE LLW l disposal.) My preference at this time is to adopt Option 3 with the understanding that as the NRC's responsibilities for the external regulation of DOE increase in the future, the NRC's low-l level waste program should also begin to grow at a commensurate j rate, funded through an appropriate mechanism which supports any additional FTE required. The funding mechanism for NRC LLW waste activities associated with DOE external regulation should be addressed in any enabling legislation or appropriations language deriving from that legislation.
' SECY 9704030161 970401 PDR NRCSA I 5 PDR
-. -