ML20216G277
| ML20216G277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216G235 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR8640 AG04-1-007, AG4-1-7, FACA, SECY-97-300-C, NUDOCS 9803190319 | |
| Download: ML20216G277 (3) | |
Text
.
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-300 - PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN A PROPOSED REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA Approved _
Disapproved X
Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
he-n.
SIGN URE f0()
O l
Release Vote / v /
1, liTY DATE Withhold Vote /
/
l Entered on "AS" Yes Y No NO
$o0$s $!80**
- i-GDRRESPONDEylCE PDR
9/"
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-97-300:
I generally agree with the key elements of the staff's proposed strategy for developing regulations specific to Yucca Mountain. However, I disapprove the Alternative 1 approach wherein_the staff would promulgate a new, separate part of the regulations that would apply solely to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository and leave the current Part 60 intact. Instead, I support the Altemative 2 approach wherein Part 60 would be revised to apply only to Yucca Mountain, since it poses significantly less litigative risk than Alternative 1 and since an Altemative 2 approach will consume fewer Commission resources in the long run.
The staff presents three possible " cons" to an Alternative 2 approach. With regard to the first con-the need for additional site-specific criteria should a site other than Yucca Mountain be considered at some future time-l would argue that there will be a need for additional site-specific criteria in any case if the fall-back option is the generic Part 60 criteria which neither the staff nor the Commission believe are appropriate today. With regard to the second con-the need to justify each change in Part 60-1 believe that we must find a way to do that under Attemative 1, or else we will be inviting litigation in the future i any ambiguities. With regard to j
the third con-eliminating Part 60 generic requirements could be interpreted as going beyond statutory direction-l would argue that the Energy Policy Act of 1992 clearly permits an Attemative 2 approach, while not specifically directing it. This represents good legislative drafting. The Commission is not limited in any way to do only that which is specifically directed.
I would also point out that one of the " pros" listed for Altemative 1 is dubious at best. Leaving generic requirements, in which we no longer believe, such as those in 10 CFR 60.113 and 60.134, intact and in place for use at other sites is not a " pro."
i If a majority of the Commission nevertheless supports the staff's recommended use of Altemative 1, the Commission should at leaut make two points clear in its direction to tha staff.
First, approval of Altemative 1 was based, h part, on concems regarding current resource and time constraints, and secondly, the rule lenguage itself (in both the new rule and the Part 60 purpose and scope section) should explicatly state that the purpose of the new rule is to provide specific criteria applicable onh to Yucca Mountain and that the more generic requirements in the existing Par + 60 do not apply and can not be the subject of litigation in any NRC censing proceeding for Yucca Mountain. This approach: 1) might reduce some of the litigauve risk that may be associated with the use of Alternative 1; 2) would clearly reduce the amount of litigation over the applicability of the existing Part 60 in our own licensing hearings on Yucca Mountain; and 3) would make it clear that the Commission no longer supports the use of certain Part 60 criteria such as the 10 CFR 60.113 subsystem criteria. But these concems would be better addressed by adopting Altemative 2.
I strongly support the use of an all-pathways radiation dose standard in the range of 30 millirem per year and generally agree with the findings and recommendations of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report, " Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," with the exception of the time o7 compliance issue (predetermined timeframe versus peak dose). I also note that the NAS recommendations are supported by those of the International Commission or.
Radiation Protection (ICRP) and I agree v ith the comments of Commissioners Dicus and Diaz that the staff should consider ICRP's recommendations in this area. I also support the staff's approach to proceed with promulgating radiation standards for Yucca Mountain that are generally consistent with the NAS report as required by the 1992 Energy Policy Act, in the absence of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. If EPA promulgates its standards during the NRC rulemaking process, the proposed standards will be revisited; however, in the interim, the staff should strive to meet the timeline identified in Attachment 4.
i l
2 While the timeline indicates that the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will be consulted during the proposed rule phase, the staff should involve the ACNW early in the rulemaking process by soliciting their input on this rulemaking plan. This approach will enable the ACNW to better fulfill its chartered role to provide advice to the Commission on this impcrtant waste disposal rulemaking.
i C ('
i Li y
1 l
1
p u:
~f UNriED STATES e
i' fl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
n j
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 e
f March 6, 1998 OFFICE OF THE SECRETAPY MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Executiv Dire or Operations FROM:
Jo C. Hoyle, cretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-300 - PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN A PROPOSED REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA The Commission has approved the staffs proposed generai strategy for developing site-specific regulations for Yucca Mountain while deferring the updating of Part 60 generic requirements to a later date. The Commission also approved Alternative 1, to implement the proposed strategy by drafting a new, separate part of the regulations that would apply solely to the proposed j
Yucca Mountain repository. The approval of Alternative 1 was based, in part, on concerns regarding current resource and time constraints.
In developing regulations specific to Yucca Mountain, the staff should:
omit the preparation of a formal rulemaking plan for this rulemaking because of time o
constraints.
develop rule language (in both the new rule and the Part 60 purpose and scope o
sections) to explicitly state that the purpose of the new rule is to provide specific criteria applicable to Yucca Mountain and that the more generic requirements in the existing Part 60 do not aply and can not be the subject of litigation in any NRC licensing ngp proceeding for Yucca Mountain.
yy O t) h f
develop radiation standards in the form of an overall facility performance standard that is o
/
generally consistent with the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, " Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards" as required by the 1992 Energy Policy Act, in the absence of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and witF iue consideration given to the implementability of the NAS recommend
.s under NRC's regulatory process.
SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-97-300, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
-9geadertvt
'iff
s.
$s '
1.
-2 o
also consider the recommendations of the international Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) for use of an all-pathways limit and no collective dose as a basis for the overall facility performance standard. To be consistent with these NAS and ICRP recommendations and NRC'r, current clean-up standards, the staff should consider an all pathways dose standard in the range of 25 to 30 millirem per year to the average menter of the critical group.
continue to steadfastly oppose the implementation of a separate groundwates standard o
and keep the Commission informed of developments in this area.
immediately inform the Commission of any delays to the schedule shown in Attachment 4, including future EPA or Congressional actions that may result in a potential delay in the schedule.
consult with the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) as early as possible in o
the rulamaking process so the ACNW can fulfill its chartered role to advise the Commission en this important waste disposal rulemaking.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
9/30/98)
Since this rulemaking will further the NRC's use of risk-informed methods in the regulatory process all NRC offices that have responsibilities in developing and implementing regulatory policies should monitor this rulemaking for applicability to other regulatory programs.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)