ML20127P553

Notation Vote Response Sheet Approving in Part & Disapproving in part,SECY-92-423, Analysis of Comments on Compatibility of Agreement States Programs & Proposed Policy Statement on Compatibility of Agreement States..

ML20127P553
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/08/1992
From:	Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 9302010325
Download: ML20127P553 (8)

Text

. . . . _ _ _ - . _ . . . . . ._ .

H- T A Ts1 0: H

~

V; O T E . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*".

iRESPONSE SHEET' a

gg RELEASED TOTHE PD g a

, , , f,$5, , , , , , , , ,tyL , ,

T0: SAMUEL J.- CHILK,- SECRETARY 10F THELCOMISSION FROM: THE CHAIRMAN a

SUBJECT:

SECY-92-243 - ANALYSIS-0E C0lWENTS ON THE r COMPATIBILIl( OF AGREEMENTsSTATES PROGRAMSL AND.A PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON THE-COMPATIBILITY OF AGREEMENT-STATES REGULATIONS FOR LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL APPROVED in pare DISAPPROVED in part ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING' REQUEST. DISCUSSION C0tNENTS:

See attached comments and revised-Policy Statement.

2900.02 SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE /x/ september 8, 1992 WITHHOLD VOTE /

/

DATE 4

ENTERED ON "AS" YES No 1 m m ,DR CORRESPONDENC9-P o

, ,n . , . + - -

n

r J.- ,

CHAIRMAN ~SELIN'8 COMMENTS ON SECY-92-243 I agree with the' staff's recommended procedure for establishing genera 1Ecommission_ policy.on-determinations-of compatibilityLof__

Agreement State regulations and programs, as outlined:as Option 2__

in SECY-92-243, with modifications. -I believe the commission-should act expeditiously to establish firm policy in.this area, ,

but that the Commission should do'so in a' manner which does not, as'the staff has indicated is possible,'"...;cause some' loss of flexibility for.the NRC to act independently." Accordingly, I.

would prefer-that the staff consult with the'-Agreement States in the first writing of a draft policy. statement rather than write a-first draft "... with the assistance of the Agreement States..."

I would also ask the. staff to otherwise proceedcin.a manner which:

fully takes into account.the views of;the-Agreement States but-also preserves the Commission's independence in determiningi requirements-for findings of compatibility.

I disapprove the stafffs recommended policy statement regarding-determinations of compatibility for Agreement:Gtate low-level:

waste disposal regulations. I believe it would be inappropriate.

to set-a general policy of acceptability of more stringent-standards, as-recommended, with no-review by the commission'. I much prefer the alternative language ~ herein attached.- : This would not prohibit the application of_more stringent standards-entirely, but would serve to assure thatisuch standards-were resorted to only when useful in enabling LLW disposal;_ site development and operation.

L i :-

l l'

~

L

_Al_te_E_ hit _iiVeI_Di5_f_f!1.,5bl_fiET_Sfst_d5s_sti COMPATIBILITY OF AGREEMENT STATES' LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS; STATEMENT OF POLICY AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Statement of Policy

SUMMARY

This Policy Statement is not intended to have the force and effect of law or binding effect; it is provided instead as guidance- to the Agreement - States, licensees, and the- public regarding the policy the commission intends to follow in reviewing Agreement State - regulations on low-level waste disposal. This statement presents the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory . Commission with respect to the- interpretation of .the- statutory term

" compatible" as applied to the low-level radioactive waste disposal-regulations of the Agreement States. The Commission is'taking up~

this issue separately from a larger process reconsidering the compatibility issue for.all Agreement State programs in order to facilitate the Agreement States' timely.. compliance with the responsibilities imposed upon the States by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The policy statement contains an-interpretation of the term " compatible" as applied to Agreement State low-level radioactive waste dis osal-regulations which ,ITipu+=4=~-d2MMTdow spMN g m a mQqf-~

't y y --

_ __ g^*

h1 W . _. . ._ . . ---E _C -i2_EC.-T2.ff.S M W

. I gggfy" g6g*=* %

dddisisWods Q Q %W2EE M M & Q g g"Xgrcc 5 8 6$ U E!

.Misninisj%2EE~E11duc GiE~~f1Eli'$1Tf E7'~EE~EE'YEfifE r e n t cr scrc ctringent then the ec =iccicn in 10u level rcdiccctive ucate dicpccci regulctienc te addres iccci concernc, outside cf c very few incucc thct require uniformity, provided that .the level of protection of the~public health and safety is equivalent to or greater than that rovided by 10 - C . F . R . - Part 61 stidM WaW iliE! sVsfe'@ liiiitfi'ons ~~Td%B6tj frustratehthangon E5fusbuildWresere(velERAdi@?oadEdEsih EI!iR$1IOy AmeindsdntssAc6Atospr6videsads@$tesdinposaMcapadityEfor31owMsysi ~ ~ ~

'~

Eddi'6EcElVdissifsi EFFECTIVE DATE:' ,

L FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vandy L. Miller, ' Office of State Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (301) 504-2326.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Backcround-

.The word " compatible" constitutes.one of the core concepts in-the Commission's Agreement State Program under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Subsection '274d.

i- states that the Commission shall enter into an agreement under

a r.

2 subsection b. - relinquishing _- regulatory- authority over certain >

materials to a State if the State's program is " compatible".with the' Commission's regulatory program. Subsection 274g.-authorizes and directs ' the Commission to cooperate with the States- in the formulation of standards to - assure that State . and - Commission standards will be coordinated and " compatible'"-

.. -Subsection requires the Commission to review periodically. the 274 (j) (1) agreements and actions taken by the States t$ der the agreements' to insure compliance'with the provisions of section 274.

Although the term " compatible" represents a cornerstone requirement .

in the Agreement State program under Section-274.of the AEA, the term is -not defined in ' the Act. Neither has the Commission provided a formal definition or formal comprehensive guidance on how the term should be interpreted in implementing Section 274.

The guiding concept over the years since the beginnings ; of the Agreement State program in _1962 has been to encourage uniformity to the maximum extent practicable while ' allowing. flexibility where possible to accommodato_ local regulatory concerns. This concept has been-implemented in case-by-case decisions by the Commission and in internal procedures developed ' by the staff to assign designations of degrees of _" compatibility" (i.e. uniformity) , from

" essentially verbatim": to "no degree of uniformity _ required" ' to sections .of the Commission's regulations.. More recently, the Commission has attempted to involve the States earit er 'in the -

process of developing new regulations and determining what levt of

" compatibility"-(i.e. uniformity) will be required of the Agreement -

States.

The Commission's approach to making compatibility d'eterminations has developed slowly, in a piecemeal ~ fashion over the life of the Agreement State: program. At the same-time, the Agreement-State Program has' expanded and developed significantly both in numbers of Agreement States, as well as de th-of e rience and expertise of

~~~~

State regulators - idiince in-1962. To improve the reguldfosy part.nership man "$E6iff'on'274:of the AEA, the Commission has decided ito revisit comprehensivelyf the -

entire interpretation and application of the term " compatible" for Agreement State _ programs.

The Commission is starting a process for full consultation with the States on the development of. a new generic policy on- the interpretation of-the term " compatible" with regard to Agreement State programs and the specific application of the policy to regulations and other program areas.' NRC staff will meet with-the Agreement States at the All Agreement State Meecing.or in regional -

workshops to draft the' elements of a comprehensive proposed policy '

on compatibility of Agreement State programs. Comments received in The ReDort of the Acreement States Task Force'on 'Comnatibility (OAS Repo_rt), dated - March 7, 1991; and the comments submitted- in Encicaurc 4 m -

e

l .

l 3

response to a Federal Register notice prepared by the NRC entitled

" Request for Comments on the Compatibility of Agreement State Program", published December 23, 1991, will also be considered in the process. After the drafting process, the proposed comprehensive generic statement of policy will be published in the Federal Register for public notice and comment, and finally,-after revision as necessary, will be adopted by the Commission.

Following adoption, the policy statement will be applied during new rulemakings to determine the degree of Agreement State compatibility for each new regulation. .

However, this process may take some period of time and the area of compatibility of low-level waste disposal regulations in Agreement State programs appears to have particular urgency at this time.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) imposed on the States the responsibility for developing new low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity. The LLRWPAA imposed deadlines on the States as well as incentives and penalties for meeting or f ailing to comply with the deadlines, some of which are already past.

By assigniny these responsibilities, Congress implicitly.

acknowledged the States' special capabilities. At the same time, Congress explicitly stated that nothing in the LLRWPAA or in any compact agreement could be interpreted to change or transfer any existing regulatory authority over low-level waste or low-level waste disposal. The Agreement States, in fulfilling their responsibilities under the LLRWPAA must maintain a regulatory program for low-level waste disposal which is " compatible" with the Commission's. The uncertainty of awaiting a new policy of the Commission with regard to the compatibility of Agreement State regulatory programs for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste may have an adverse effect on the Agreement Etates' efforts to comply with the deadlines in the LLRWPAA. Ther0 fore, to-assist those States which have already, or those States which may wish in the future, to assume regulatory authority over the disposal of Jew-level radioactive waste under a Section 274b. . agreement, the ci maission is taking up the issue of compatibility of low-level weste disposal regulations of the Agreement States separately and on an expedited basis.

Mtidd5iEiiE516ARUfip5supp6ff55Mdli5@dsE6didOV516pEdhtiEE?AsWE16n levelefa'ni6sEEiVskesteRdisposal napaaitiffMeenThencsmmissi6n 6Esibifitlessandthsadfidesisimp6ssdf65sMs r5E6551EES%dHEWMh%Eds@$ntais1]

statekij6inthsdLLIWPXA pidb6dureskwn16nMust%swadEoff ~ Eddiinfc6spidsn6etwithheithsE "difficulbsihitihinshdQli the cio5p3EiblAF$yydiaEi6W~ Th '

rEghlsini66@iteWWAitn66@hEQefie@ph$7^"

hgrn6sunt$st ihanthstMcMiLRisAA% iddh6ti hxpli61tilydghijjMbg{fhji@ghyggghjpg@j@yjtha((ald(({@j{in Mg{cy@ dEnhWany3heditieEdiWeddlnto9yMhsthdfiEpst6ithsifststas sneeeus

{

1

l l

4 f-

_ _lb'ifi. ti.__i_mpo_s_ed$cth respona osh ._ ____e tW GgreemenStatie_s_#sh~o- - l,dA h. u. _ _ -avcasome hddition alt fl e x ibilitytdia'ddf e s s _elo ca_l_ico nd_itio n_s -- iand--~;fc.o_ncerns --- wa M_ cme _ver_ys

m. -

_.i_c> c_om_ mis _s._ ion, also4ha...ss si_i,fi. c_an.- --- hconcernswa~bou_~he~t.he poten_ti.alEn.e _. gqsta_ tem.regul tionskon.sthe pati'onaly,go.

al a

. gative&1mpacta-_o,fe.~dit.f.er

-~

. ~ -

~

os m

n_n.

ci T,+6f%th, ~ed

~ Stat ons;thattaress ific.antly, n

,for4LLWRparticul.

~

--n m.o_renetiingendvtih~ana~

. - ~ ~ -

arlyjW.

cthn c itht,nn~e.,%r,egulati .osegwhichgth~e4,  :

-.~ -

a e .

~ esware -

Commission

'necessaryJtolpro.~t_ectatha.w, tpubli~c health 4andw. fetygwd. a ~ nn; add:Lti<ontto reYtiinc obhfus10 h$

h, bM,, n:wp6.tbEhild1MfbMd,Mi,fsfe.,r_jMt,%,,St!a.te_nM, n - n n

.rnandade~deralnshap . e. .~ ndiddohbth6oriceF ar m

7%,dsp ndequacy.dwf,e4the

.c o W, en

._regu a~r tib,nista . n unnecessarily,! string _ent+tordunenfor .ceabl,o;ist  ;

, ~~

sresu ltMi,ndthoRu.daresultain_1typof navaliob s1 1 necessarypLLW~!di_ndard,

- ~ -

s,sposal.

4th~eu,at_ou -

n w m,ay capaci w h.m wm ndhi-~ ~ .s n opera, ti,on.tofc.i__spyou_l rm -  ;

ndumstRUal ... _.~__eadv~._ersexeffec_Es.yo~n>th_

searchM.andthealt<h2careefaciliti-

--m as ~e:; iti, gr.

~i~ndefin.itel f;;st~oretLLWAatnthous..esg-f it.eeo eatenthey. nec- om y t!oibnco'urstjekthd He11S~astcri'iB6s@@ItW5dpposEs6fdthesnationalfp611Bys#

itsig'edukt

'devhlopisntd R hdditishhl{Mdisposal%:iapacitpW t d $to$redddd

' adistis3siyb~siufsdiE65eW6dnhlta6dVEssides6'ontr6126firadi6aEtiud r

h.~s ihdcbsMissf6nidd.Esi.not tenid,1Tst,al.~1 eye. 1%r ~ -

adioacti~vo_?lo on f avoEa619d u.s bnitib e416ns de st ~oragerot ow . - . .swasten . _

mwgm w we+ wa.w w-we w.* m.

W.A_#t*h_ouEF.nnn \.omeedegpasso nif sue wo mivt3y

- orys an ardsaforpprotu -eewtaviww e - onto cwf calEpr_es_s~.r- ~... ;stwrww.we.t%w,,d. m ugh_ti.t_or.

th._e) pub.11cn, o_1_iti_w

- .bea. _rc~upcardWfornacienti.a . on st e-tygulatorsutopentab1!ishRsh._uretc.ould_ybeibro.

m -

andards m - .

fic ithout_%rog'aydshWThe@ '"%si bWsls3 n

,u_tri t~en+si.c M,s6htiACaiifdF6sahi'th.de@$theM_fAiid,at,o.n n

_o_nM ~ N,, ~t_s.mpgocess

_~1%htMbe@f

~

egni ryp-m t_and a ngent%th popsc ente. icyproofaofccompita_ne,c$wouldibespossibled, Sd.Wdlbbosd.IMte. .d E_fISQbkMis9el&n.~dida'6tiiseM,aisten.bbu.ldyne ihn5_ed.i_v w

b. _ffect _

en pprohibi dgwi -

wrth%thet ttend_an.t_

v -

conse.quen_ces._fe.l_t_eds_ab_ov.

s g. m w_ ,

_.,4,t_hi_~nr~aVS_

e . tHowe. ver.nt_he:Com_mi_s,s~io_a_ngai_sogrecog.

tattad p12es er-

~e1m.n. L se

-- tradioa h -t e_f c. o n c e r m ts_at.2S.

cxpresse tad 3asEdesi_nseforguld._imi,_zin.gn gn; goalstoMin;ankALAR$_ct_iv_eifr_elea_se,s. _ext gmay ib Eth. attar.ee?enfi . ly m m s

contim re e tionWJm W Whe approphiste, appro

- n sssbje.ct MfonmSt t nsgh1h,ty%s_ta_nda.

r,d_gfor,tlow,elc - scommissibnis.

- - l wa. ..

- ste.

wadis a,chato2establ.,s posa.lw~~re.

i shingyawcompatibili_~

a ns s=w . -

. ~_a

.illsi.ncorp~orat. x-gul~tio.

ema

_ -ru

~ ca e commissionsreviews. o6f E.he e offeett:thaMthe# s_t

- . c. ~

standaidemigs.

f4t e ht have wonuthe- a u - .

cal %

n ..

theMRWPAKUto Kensurer thendev.~lopment~nofo e

~

~~~~

"ad tii'6halW6bM

-In-d.i.b.h-(WrEle ion t.E._Vn._In_._d,iEfoTd_isp6 ddmNcTs*6_ityT m

a nt. adopt-ion- c .g **e-pol-Ley-etetement

, the Gemmiccion han care f-ully cona-idered-t4c viewc af thc Agreement stetee-ao-presented-4n-t-hc'OAC Report--end-the-eemments-eubmitted in respone: to -the-December 2 3, 1001, rederal neg-ister-not-ice. Thoce state-organiectionc wh4eh-addrecced --the-compat4bility incue-as appMed-opecificaHy-tc 10w level wcet-e-dispccal reguiet4 enc were unanimous-i-n-urgi-ng-the-Gemmiso-ion-tc cllow-the-Ageeemere - Ctates -

f4exibl44ty tc-adopt = crc ct-ei-ngent-standardc. T-hc Cammic; ion-i-s conv-ineed-that-t-he-Agreement-Gtetc; in the low-levcl wacte dicpe%+1 f4 eld-de-ledeed-requirc flexibi44t-y-to-eddrecc loccl condit-ienr,-and concernc. A peinei-ple--focus-of-the-4c w - l e ve l wcete--diegosal Enclocurc 4

5 eegu-let4eno-celet+o-t+-the--epec1fio-+1t-er -deelsn-and-operationc, th erefere--t4te-effecte-on-interete t c ccmccrcc c f- -- di f f-eeing-Gbat+

regu-let-lene-should-bc minimal. Morecycr, af-f+rdleg--Agreenent Statec-addit 4ena-1-f4ex-ibi-14ty in=-thic area is in-keeping-wit-h-the under-lying-pr-leelple-ef the LLnWP.M that Statcc arc generally responsible-fee-the-disposa-1-of-lev--level ;;astc.

II. Policy statement For the purpose of evaluating the low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations of an Agreement State, the term " compatible" shall mean that all of the principles of the- Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 61 are addressed in a manner that provides protection of the public health and safety that is equivalent to or greater than that provided by the Commission's regulations. Although the Agreement States are encouraged to adopt regulations similar to those of the Commission for ease of adoption, the Agreement States' regulations need not be essentially identical, except in only a few areas important for ef fective communication and interaction with other States and the Federal Government, and affecting interstate transportation, specifically:

certain basic definitions such as units of radiation dose; the low-level waste classification system; and possibly parts of the uniform manifest / data base system.

Aside from these areas, there are other provisions in 10 C.F.R. Part 61 that address basic principles of radiation safety and regulatory functions such as sito design and conditions of licenses. While States must address such principles in their regulations, the States' regulations may be different from or more stringent than the Commission's regulations to reflect local conditions, provided that the level of protection is equivalent to or greater than that provided by 10 C.F.R. Part 61. For example, an Agreement State may prohibit a method of disposal generally allowed under Part 61, such as shallow land burial, and mai adopt performance requirements for low level waste disposal facilities more stringent than 10 C.F.R. 61.41-61.44.

The Commission believes that the Agreement States will exercise their regulatory authority .in a responsible manner and will .not abuse this flexibility. by adopting more stringent regulations as a means to bar low-level waste disposal altogether without -'an adequate safety or environmental basis.BhossVirWsny3Stf5issyfivf6E I~6cJu TEElbEVQh1EhWEs WH6iTEssliiEEIBMishlih Midsittit addSMa f etp[i o r shviF6htibstaltiprotiestfi6h?s6rfshibhrsdulatb6f1Hf Eabib1"estdssnfofEu .

bi-$monitorM$rEOhicihS Und fd d havastideT6f N5NOMY $$hIbihihijdthd disposaldoftalowWevdinhalbibtisd%sasthuihhhcMStstMdWillsn desmed stObeVihbompatibinMUith %1ieYCorlissi6n t sjiEshidt16nsGdhd pB69-.--

Ysmh -fThb_Wom_mid._dlonisi11&Svibneki.sti_ns!

- _ ~ .> - - . - - _ u Agrsit5dntVSthtMLLW Enelesure-+

l .

('

6 E.: EGG. l'aE1. .E M.w..

TT ... F.s:A_t,o E . F.,aT, $ S e,c EK. e_ m ..,d, Me. fisWLL., W.by_..iif.(Ersti.i. iHEF6tES,

e.m_a_ kenEKt,~e, d

27. W. <

c~ - .

agr. e, e.

~ .

.m.. .e.n t, ,t.

g a_r.,s_

g. o._nre_s ca,._s . . .ca,s,.e

_ _ r b,_a sis _<L,_.zi_n_t zor . m_ .

d,eter.minat. ion.: -

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of

, 1992.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission t

Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission i

s

~e Enc 40su-re-4

.