ML19219A693
| ML19219A693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/26/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19219A664 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-RIA, TASK-SE SECY-81-048A, NUDOCS 8102260416 | |
| Download: ML19219A693 (25) | |
Text
-
SECY-81-48A g.
Jan. 26, 1931
' q%$;
i; L n
1
,y
.....a Er "i ri a, 0 4 p ou rt RULEMAKING ISSUE i
(Affirmation) 3 WN7,-d For:
The Commissioners
' *51D "m 5/)
6
,i
/'/
From:
William J. Dircks
/D l[7 J
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FINAL RULE 10 CFR PART 60
" DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN GECLOGIC REPOSITORIES-LICENSING PROCEDURES" (SECY-81-48)
Purcose.
To forward to the Commissioners for their approval, infor-mation implementing the Commission's policy to sipport Executive Order 1:t!.
- /incr page modificaticns to SE Y-81-48 are also enclosed.
Discussion:
In accordance with its announced policy to support the basic objectives of Executive Order 12044 to improve government regulations, the Commission has directed the staff to develop appropriate procecures, including procedures designed to implement the criteria for the approval of significant new regulations set out in section 2(d) of the Executive Order.
This paper requests the Commission to make a formal deter-mination that the final procedural rule 10 CFR Part 60 satisfies the criteria for the approval of significant regulations set out in section 2(d) of the Executive Order.
The attached fact sheet (Enclosure A) which contains information relating to these criteria, has been prepared to assist the Commission in making this determination.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) applies only to rules for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on or after January 1,1981.
The proposed rule for 10 CFR Part 60 was issued on December 6,1979; tnus, reouirements of the Act do not apply to the final rule for Part 60.
SECY NOTE This paper is NOT identical to advance copies which were distributed to uomission offices on January 26,1981. Paces 21 throuan 24 of Encicsure 3
Contact:
(referred to on paae 2 of the basic staff paper) have
~
C. Ostrowski, SD been added.
443-5981 8100260fh
The Commissioners 2
Minor modifications to SECY-81-48 are submitted as Enclo-sure B, These modifications are primarily clarifications and minor corrections and do not significantly change the rule.
Changes made to Enclosure A of SECY-dl-48:
Page 8 Language has been added to the Supplementary Information wnich clarifies the procedure which could be used where an exemption has not been granted, to determine whether in situ testing is or is not required at a particular site.
(The addition of this language on page 8 necessitated the retyping of pages 9-13, which are also provided, although no changes in text occur on these pages.)
Page 14 "S 2.101(f)(7)" has been correctec to read "9 2.101(f)(8) "
In lina 6 the wora " facilities *" snould have read
" facility" and has been corrected.
Page 20 In response to Item #12 in Commissioner Bradforo's 12/18/80 memo, the Supplementary Information has been revised to explicitly state that specificity with respect to the criteria used to evaluate alternative sites may be provided at the time the technical criteric are proposed.
(The addition of this language on page 20 necessitated the retyping of pages 21-24, which are also provided, although no changes in text occur on these pages.)
Page 25 On the first line of this page, the word "may" has been substituted for "shall," to reflect the staff's orig nal intent that the language be discretionary, and the term " application" has be1n changed to " environmental report." The phrase "in 5 51.40 of this chapter" has been added to the end of the first sentence to indicate where the numbers of sites and media are specified.
Page 30 "9 2.101(f)(7)" has been corrected to reed "S 2.101(f)(8)" on line 24 (See also page 14).
The Commissioners 3
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
1.
Accrove the minor chances in tne text of the final rule ISECY-81-48), as noted.
2.
Cetermine that the final rule 10 CFR Part 60 satisfies the criteria for the approval of significant regulations set out in section 2(d) of Executive Order 12044 t
/
s-William J. Dircts Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A. Fact Sneet for E.C. 12004 Determination B. Change to text of SECY-81-48 Commissioners' comments cr consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, February 3, 1981.
Response sheets issued v.i h t
SECY-81-48 should be used for tnis purpose.
DISTRIBUTION Concissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP Secretariat
0 e
t 0 4
o
- h e
t -
4 n5
/
y r
t t it l
ac
/
ee-4 t
e c
d c p
h u 4
h m9 isd v A s nis5 me t rl -
t s7 0
rneo eat e i t c t a0 s - s8 t
ood f
s yr rl r ais s n8 neYt -
n A
hi nyoeguh ab eol geno -
i sC cY e
t t et t rdt pabt uor oiY st aC r
e ucmit s eel nm gl uctC dAS pL e
r aear nanc aceeeeod iL e
mS o,
f S
oewE oei y
sh m rhl i cl r eerdS rt ei f
eu gc od ec e n
i o
n r
at t ecp b iD rl of a,
d aSl i d
t u
o ur vi cua nr s
i p a
t t dt aaimsi p nd laipert s m t d e
o uec pt oel O e s on ni ne e
t t dA yect hb es s es enF e o/een r
an rD aA s ul e os eh e m
cel mi h
t eno o
ipb r pnt t c e
uunm t
smot eiel iuroes i
.l yl roa aiahdhbf sd ercasl yp a
r x n
l
' sau r
t oc n l
we rp l
Vdi e o
s tl t at a os enpi h you u
eve C az gy r s npoaa es rt S f
e s nr d
R i ebl eeo rm oviai h oe e
N, nr ed i s p
,t il s s s et p e
r t a d v net e yt tb s ot r
l rh e d
oer e
scgi eeul c
el nnca e pi e
n ueMs eeoat c e w,pt w i
u tA ri t l n
oaa-d rt mommios erd a
s ene rh e o
hi mti en n
s e
,s n
moR gegs eret t oad ca tl h r nA o
e ei n pi nh pl cz aeei cat e o4 c
l t yi oh eT uf a i rl h g es h
/
c n
pags c
ero r r ut o4 f iht t 4 e
a mz rndfi h
nool r l /
f at r a -
r eenol t etif h e eo4 eriul 0 e
n i
ii nnca s
h n t vl r e -
pwf u8 w
o l
l s m gt edd u e a u g0 t p g-p naEi i
l t aean meeal nc 8
cA n eY s
t m
og re l
si ri
, pth
- i ef -
e o
rC e
a o
i n
C t ohhi ot grnoes yhf s oY rti)
L h
i aet t u pi ouol l i r g C8 i ctL e5 c e m
L l R ib s v rsi e pl oieont 4 d a t h
al pst vmbt hht o5 -
npedt d ou w
r R
u ii f
I i
1 i mnn n
r r e
N gyo edt aieouu wt e8 nah a p
t eg Cb cE dd c pt f I
e r r) R eaO nd ao oae-d o
t pe D
e4N oh Di aeeCt
.l rsY nl cBi) ah d n(
t t y h i R sl sl e C
aa wt t
l eE e
b nd nt l N aeopn1 t ns e
a s
dh s r i ei o
s sif oo5 t nied e vf v
oent eod aw nt e' or i
c e r er i o et o i
hC pot dt d emd ut u t
o ph a i f R st s nan rnes as as r
ot et t rl s, t Nii uama i or oio nt p
r
)di yael yn p
pr3il grcot oe,
d s m r
d r al cl r c eic9t o
no i pc oc ee A
e( vi r e f
f t o/nepE of 0 ev ens n t p ed2 ocend s
h n0 raneneaar9 eh e0i n-h nrL sL l
s n
T u2 pf E gab s p p1 mt r0tiA T E p( a(
A a o
i 1
t s
a t
l n
u e
g m
e d
R ne r
m o
A f
s d
d g
n e
ee t
n o
r rl e
eb e
i i
e m
t d
d a h
r a
ei it h s s p S
o l
f u
t n ne t
n g
d o
oc c
o e
e f
c cc a
C R
d o
a e
y n
f d
t e
sl ee e
n) n t e eh t
ad ct bt a
c(
e ea n
u ef e l
i 2 r
f e
f a
f q v os ee a
o R
inc s
d h eh d
ge n
t a mc S
o c
s o n
i en es n a
S i
t re h ne 0
f 4 a
i e t e e db adb 6
o4 l
0 u
n or t
l A g
i e r o s r
aI e
v pna a
v r
d a p
h nh at p
o.
d a
s s rO R
p e
s ea e p
s t
n v ev I
C AI o
c o il i p
ei t
l rt a ea 0
r o
i a nh n o
r 1
f p
dl rt r u
e e
a e
eg t dt h
h e l
nl I
i C
r T
T r A aa E
e J
t B
i U
r S
C 1
2 3
y e
l l
t h
a l
e s n e
a c
t d
t ud r
ah d o h
e d
r rn nt ege ct l
o t
u et t ed u eas ecvnh o
h r g
mo ns e o v
emaiit
- l f
A t o d
e or eohf s o m
et ee
,o
,l e
l r
s p mps -
,r
) poecsht e
me u
n moiyeet 9i ch eewiee r
t o
g eo0 orl tl t n6 c t
rt st r u
l s
h nn dt 8 c pb s une8 nt au s
aa s
i o r
5 uirem3i s nsun" t t o
w ti ue-cs ph me5 r oat t ot S a l
i t
s st ht 9 ii td mv pMh niis n
c ne s
ic a/
l b y eooR t est e; n
ev e
x a td -
bI cf s crI e m
ab s e i
ti c
e s nY u
i oo p
h rmnz" t h ot o
C aaC p
l pem3t eeoii nI pc r
nR emE ol ohi4 h c r ee l
a p
oN l
S r) P art
( f ut eh m; o
y o8 t p t
oral nt t es l
g ee ern 0f o f ny raoc g
l i f
t ad n
ct h oi 4 ot eoaced pi at an na t t d0 h
civ e
,it r ct i a
i or n
ai ud e/t At til i s s caae s r t
e ir f t n h
n sf ot oenzhl a
p oau sR e noiP r puiic et e l
e l
ye r
eo t o i m oMn oos r r s ch i
v c
rr esf e) gf pc.is pee a
l l
pe s
p c
b4t 9d op1 t t L pt i
pl rp iC e u4 a6 e s
u eciO mi a-e oa orb p( t8t s t s e yh asDil e
h td hN S3 nean h cl r b
c d g i n st c
n C0 5 eu eeti artl u n
l i s a ns ea R6l ms s mr l
h oaap a
uh oo eh c N
aR msaeeno cf ht n
i o
l e;
im ht t rI oi t wipe n;
t hf a h e t
t y
ere c
ea o
es en i
l p
s os t c ae f t h an3 f l t sd r ut eemo i
t m
o n
l h
noe tP e4 s oust eorit rni a
o el p ne ut o
f G(l r
nnj s aiot as i m g
t a
,R ay l
eiad mura n
C l
usi m
ee nh s 9I e8 ut d am1 m e e i qi p i
C_
rod m
o rh og 7 Ch/d eer mt sl t evi t
r R
p nc ii i 9
t 9ii s eoud ops r nt i
e l
es c i
wd tl n 1 0 1 vronc o e pi e ei i
t hii ow el a
a 1 d i ape s ot d
t e
td g pe nu mn end voG es s rl tl f r o
rih) 6 edi n r
h eepus uoa D
o i
r el t v rw o
tB l
e iapdt rr moo p
l eh o ae e
f el r uct e
ud e ch n a
ht e h r h s nv ae er r nd ges
,ddh o s or v
t g
w t n i i er b
eennh oyeat t ;
i i o
er C
eo h u md pmait pl c h et l r
h oo tR hi n 'e s
eeum s
ol osf dtl ab p
wf t aN wt enco css ossd rarroepuru p
h ril eo cpeepr pe erap t
A t el c D pe urw e
t t ad p
)
)
)
rt b n ol rod eendt xl eed s
a h
c ul uL nruordih eneeeth rn ap(
O prf gavt gal t rat pa n
(
(
(
f o
i 2
t s
a t
l n
u e
g m
e d
R ne r
m o
A f
s n
g n
a t
n o
i i
d ee m
t n
h r
a a
S o
lu d
f t
n g
ed c
o e
re a
C R
er d a l
d t
i p e
n) s e t
ad nr a
c(
op i2 c
l e
f n
R i
ne nc ee d
ge eb n
iS b
a S
s ea 0
f4 vh 6
o4 a
0 h e t
l 2 s
r a1 s n a
v t o P
o np rO es R
p me I
p mr C
A l'
oce 0
r t
1 o
cau i
f l
q a
b e ud I
i C
r p a L
e J
t B
i U
r S
C 4
den-s y
rie-n d
t - r
- i aro
- e o
es nna cuti rt ng
- c i
t ti o eos aqnupn od ai i
t mr s
,reiq a
ce el d t s nf c aef c d n ei enaraewc l
b no A
uh cai eod rvcoh mr ei ew yi r
nt l i e i neice il l
o l
er e
l tf osb dt r uent r oyv p in l
r e r
nf c u
nai q
i eat rep rk i
p u.
oa Cp al u ed edt or a ws ct eR uq rnrditEt l
a is o
shNC d ge a aasnOi nn a
nh' l
r t
R eer n
eD s o a nf ot C t
oC eN wr onsnf m oi i o i
,R n
f R nh e
e otI opept s f
t N
l.
i Nit e ier ti n oh eaa r
an n
h vh a at e sl t R c ee l
of oeddt et mam s e i l hb uio ih en r
o rz eneve l o t m gt tl s an t h oir or er pD u
eie) naw f riigdi yp gn rdl a
i i
1 c
as eh neus o ut ad n
d c9 rt e et s it qi rd qi n
e e a y9 i
i n
nl b
n c ecpnev eo t n h
c1 l
n pos eb go l
ar e ari s y ao t
pi ema s ns ar d e t ne gh idi f
at uml air n1 n hh yc eb l
p h
n8 as oi h re oh o gt ca ac ue t
o9 cin rm d
ml i
c1 nns ca up i
i aii v
) s t
ti na dl n oe wne(
m ca 0 ny i eas oeC e e
rt os e
nrei 6 eb dt mn sR s et p
ei s
ehl e di reE eN nh x d
ct es c
i d
as ocO r et e en nah e n
t tb r t f a
d ua roo f iD ec c a el t c eesp a
o h s nl mhiht i
i u o
n i
o l
d si s
p et t ai mrt gnr l t o t
r p
unset s s r
d oo n
os e eip i
i e yh n R or oh enrf s ew ns pr t
m l
a o
ccl t e I
pe f csuf dh o
e x
d w n
C nia m
C rd ueo ert dd r rl eeee nf m un s sh s st o e
ed a h wi i
il m
C aoo 0 pu t
l t s cht s t
di f t ev r
R ed c
1 es ar a et an s ac f
i e e
N b nf s
( ce s e ow iie i
i aevr t
af ee ih u
ep wcd j,f t t e
i e
o aih ef t
es sk ed y or eef s a rc l
st arnnns oe R mo u
i D
t nt pt m l
i ni os o o
uc a uic m aa osb s a
dl et l
ni Cf o rech r
e l
i a n
l ny nah a a
ot a oR p
t of oanst ee a
c av m
l t f t uoac eh c r en ei e v
i a l
sdi o
t zd st a
nw a
e ni erTi eh e e
l t r
aiesin nea nd C ntl na 1
dt g eois el R aal n e
st wy p
mrrrs e i h y
i s
n s
p roaeym f t rl f
aN - z eos a
l ne ed n t
wct s l
u ap at ii A
oh pt f t et ac er em el nimr nsr eil c eoi n
s nureno h ol o h eeoees neeo h ab i si l t a l
ut. u.
rmf st aimcf a pl aD I f cc I
n i
o 3
i t
s a
t l
n u
e g
m s
e d
i R
n t
y e
di gr r
m n
na o
A ah i s an F
s t
t s i
g n hi re f
r t
n o sw oc od e
pe e
t e
i i i
y en rd e
m t l
f h
r a gl r
eu a
np s
bl S
o l
f u
E m wt mc n
un o
t n
g o
en,
ni c
o e nc nen i
mo t
a C R i
F at eei es a
d t l
s h rt ni l d a
o ue e
n) pu t i t
ad m
ul hl gp qu pa eo a
c(
n f
o oeg ei rl l
i2 i
e f
h re l
c e
R i nw e
r ei ev nc e
d g t f h e d
ge t e ane f
td n
iS t s mih d o e s i o pt n
gn rh ne ay ne 0
f 4 wt eeh c
i e 6
o4 ek t
, n t b a,
a 0
s o bd i t
us t
l 2 i t r w r
a1 s o ean a
l a v ne ace r
o ah p
o.
ol h ec d ei v
r0 i b rn dl t ee R
p t a e
a ab a c
F p
ad t ri ac r n C AL l
n aol
, ci oau ua m
p e ul f
0 r
gt is m mdb s
1 o
es t no a eu ns f
rr s ec nl p ai e
ed w
l
. a ed rr eoe ps h n nuo b nh t
T i
C r
T u Abf ik t Ai E
e J
t B i U r S C 5
6
/
8
[7590-01]
is succorted by the ever-cresent possibility of lateral chances in the oro-certies of the host rock and the possible cresence of inhomogeneities of too small a ccale to be detected bv remote or borehole technicues.
Moreover, in orcer for NRC to be able to conclude that the alternatives to DOE's preferred site are in fact reasonaDie alternatives for the intended purpose, in situ testing at death is [preetbiy] essential to characterizing alternative sites as well.
The NRC will then be able to determine, af ter considering all relevant environmental f actors as conterplated by NEPA, whether a construction authorization at DOE's pro-posed site should be issuec.
[Hewever]Thus, the Commission [:ees-net cetege*'es44y] recuires in situ testing at depth in the rule [t'mee] [i]It is conceivable. however, that [in-seme-insteneet] tecnnicues may be develooed to obtain the necessary data at a part cular site without in i
situ testing at depth.
In such a case, DCE may recuest an exemption from the in situ testinc at depth reouirement or, it may decline to include the results of such testina in its environmental recort, in which case its aoolication would be subiect tn der.ial for f ailure to sucoly reouested information.
(See f 2.101(f)(4L ) DOE would be entitled to a formal hearino en such a denial and would at that time have an occortunity to cersuade the Commission that in situ testina at a particular site is "not recuired." 00E, like any applicant for an NRC license, has the ourden of establishing that NRC requirements have been net, and the regulations require DCE to undertake any testing needed to determine the suitability of the site for a geologic repositrry.
Thus, if [96E-enete--et-te-et:4ere]
exploration at depth [it wecie net-te-reiievec-in sny asy-ef] -ere not undertaken, DOE would still have the same burden of obtaining and supply-ing to the Commission information needed to establish the suitability of the site.
8 Enclosure "C"
[7590-01]
c.
Cost Estimates f or Site Characterization.
Cost estimates for site cnaracterization cited in tr.e supplementary information acccmaanying the proposed rule were regarded by scme commenters as being too 10w.
Much of the data for the cost estimate of 520 mil'icn per site was cerived from the Teknekron Inc. report, "A Cost Optimization Study for Ceclegic Isolation of Racioactive Wastes," May 1979, prepared under contract wi+.h Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
The NRC staff has reexaminec its previous estimate and still believes that figure of $20 millicn oas a realistic estimate for the "at depth" portion of the site characteriza-tien program considered at that time.
Indepencent su; pert cf this figure has been obtained f cm the cost summary of Ils r4 ilion 'cr a prog"am analogous to site cnaracterization concucted oy the Bureau of Mines at its Environmental Researcn Facility in Colorado curing 1975-1979.
The DOE has developed a preliminary cesign for an undergrouna test facility in New Mexico at which many site characterization activities could be conducted.
Tne estimated cost of the facility was $27 million (1980 dollars).
This figure has been confirmed by [the] American Mine Services uncer contract to NRC.
The sccpe of the DOE preliminary design surpasses the extent of activities suggested for the "at cepth" portion of site characterization in the proposed rule.
For example, the DOE Site Preliminary Verification Project Plan incluces extensive uncergrouac mining development.
The [stsff] Commission has come to believe, however, that a facility consisting of two shafts and up to 1,000 feet of tunnels is a more practical arrangenent #ct conducting tests and experiments at epth +cr site cnaracterization.
Therefore, the [ staff) Commission celieves tne 527 million figure represents the upper limit for the "at depth" portion of site charac-terization in soft rcck.
Cost estimates for site characterization including b
9 Enclosure "("
[7590-01]
in situ testing at cepth in hard rock may range up to 30% more tnan cost figures for soft rock.
d.
The "Best" Site.
Some commenters suggested that the final rule snould require that the site selected by tne DOE te the " test" fet other commenters thought that the Commission oas setting an unattainable goal of perfection for the selection of the site for a geologic repository.
It remains the Commission's view that the process of multiple site characteriza-tion provides a workable mechanism by nich tne DCE will be able to deveicp a slate of candidate sites that are among the best that can reasonably be found and ' rom hich DCE will select its preferred site.
It generally has been NPC practice to censicer only anetre a 'icense application meets prescribed criteria.
The Commission perceives no reason to adopt a cifferent pniloscDhy here.
e.
Environmentai Imoact Statement.
Some commenters celieveo that the NRC should require that the DOE submit an environmental impact state-ment (EIS) at the site characterization stage.
Other comT; enters believed that DOE need only submit an Environmental Report or an Environmental Assess-ment for site characterization.
In its comment letter on the proposed rule, the DOE stated that a decision to bank or withdraw a site or to conduct a site characterization by more ex;ensive methods such as sinking a shaf+
.ill require the preparation of an EIS.
In any event, since NRC is uncer-taking no " major Federal action" in connection with site characterization, it has no statutory basis for prescribing what steos DOE must take in orcer to be in compliance wi h NEPA.
The rule reouires suomission of an environmental report along witn the safety analysis report.
If DOE has prepared an environmental impact 0
10 Enclosure "C"
[7590-01]
statement, that document can be used so long as it contains the informa-tion called tor in the regulation.
Howevar, NRC cannot be bounc to accept judgments arrived at by DOE in its environmental imoact statement.
One commenter suggested that the NRC should prepare an EIS for the rulemaking action.
The Commission determined that this was not necessary as part of its review and approval of publication of the proposed rule.
Ir. stead an environmental impact appraisal was prepared for those recuire-2 ments which might have environmental impacts.
These impacts were not found to be significant.
This entfronmental imoact acpraisal has recently been updated and no new impact was found to be significant.
A copy of the updated appraisal is cvailable for inspection and copying at t'e Ccmmission's Public Document Room.
f.
State, Local, and Public Participation.
The proposed ule incluced detailed provisions to ensure extensive opportunities for participation by State. and local governments and the general puolic in the review of the DOE's programs for site selection cr.1 eite characterization.
The consulta-tion role of the States in reviewing applicable NRC regulations and licens-ing procedures, as well as participation in the licensing process, was treated explicitly in the proposed rule.
However, a more formal role of consultation and concurrence for States was requested by some commenters.
Suggestions were also made that tne Commission require the DCE to solicit input f rom State, Indian tribal and local governments as well as from the general public prior to and during site characterization.
The Commission's views on this sucject were set nut at lengtn i" a report submitted to the Congress on "Means for Improving 5 tate Participa-tion in the Siting Licensing and Development of Federal Nuclear Facilities" NUREG-0539, March 1979, cited in the supplementary information accompanying C
11 Enclosure "C"
[7590-01]
the proposed rule.
The concerns of the commenters on broad policy issues such as " consultation and concurrence" would recuire acticns cy parties other tnan the Commission.
Within the context of NRC's existing authorit;,
appropriate opportunities for meaningful 5 tate and puolic participation have been developed.
No serious deficiencies in these opportunities have been pointed out to the NRC.
In addition, the provisions of the NRC's coen meeting policy set forth at 43 FR 29058 (June 29. 1978) will also be soclied to the licensing of a geolcgic repository to the extent practicable.
Under this policy, cenerally, all meetings conducted by the NRC technical staff as cart of its review of a carticular domestic license or permit Boolication will be open to attendance by all carties or cetitioners for leave to
, intervene in the case.
It should be noted, however, that proposals for intervenor funding have not been incorporated as suggested by some commenters.
~his question may be addressed separately in the context of rulemaking applicable to various adjudicatory proceedings, should the Commission be given statutory authority, which it now lacks, to provide such funding.
In response to.cmmenters' suggestions, the rule has been clarified with respect to notice to, and participation by2 Indian tribes.
g.
Public Hearings.
The issue of whether public hearings should be mandatory curing the pre-licensi' J and/or licensing stages of geologic disposal of HLW was addressed by a number of commenters.
Two commenters suggested that hearings ce required prior to site characterization.
One commenter suggested that puolic hearings should be nela in the vicinity of a proposed site prior to the approval of a Site Characterization Report, while another commenter suggested that hearings be held prior to in situ testing at depth.
It was also proposed by another commenter that public A
?
12 Enclosure "C"
[7590-01]
hearings be held on DCE's research and development work on aste forms.
Finally, two other commenters celieved that for-al nearings snoula be mandatory prior to granting construction authorization to DOE.
[ Tee-5RE nas-censieered-tne pessibiiity-ef-neerings prier-te-site-enerseteriestien; sne-tentiates-to-?sintein-its pesitien-ss set 4*rta 'P-tae-50 tite-e'-s-e-pesee-R=ie*stiag-st-44-FR-79469-that-witn respect-te-s geeiegic-repetitery; recennsissance-sevei-data-siere wiii--et settert s prestmetien-inst-s site-is-s=itsbie witn-respect-te-ssfety-fer-s-repesiteryr--Hence--any cecisien-en-siternstite-site-issees-et-tnis-esriy peint-is-siheiy-te re e4*e--eexteirst'ea-st-tre-censtreetien-setreriest'en e-eceeti ;s-s-c; therefere--we id-be-ef-etestiensese-es3eer 50 wever--the-5RE-nss-tensiceree-tne-sevisseisity-ef ptciic-9esrings s t - t h e-c e ns tre e ti e n-s e th e ri e s ti e n-s t e g e;- h s s-d e t e rr' m e e-in s t-s et h-a e s t-ings-sre-re cited de-the ptbiic-4nterest-and-has-4ncittee previsiens-for mandstery ptciie-heerings prier-to granting-tenstreetien-set *erientien is-EFR-Erie 43 ] These issues were discussed at the time the rule was crocosed.
The Commission then concluded, in light of the limited informa-tion available at the site characterizat.on stace, that formal nearinos were not warranted at that point.
The commenter did not deny the relevance 7f the policy considerations identified by the Commission, but would have palanced these considerations differently.
But this is a matter of ];dc-ment, and tne NRC adheres to its original position for the reasons then offered.
Also, the NRC must decline to review OCE researr.h and develcc-ment Drograms form. ally.
NRC's statutory authority incluces ' licensing and related regulatory authority" as to certain DOE facilities.
NRC's iurisdiction arises when there is a " facility" to consider, i.e.,
wnen it is proposed that a carticular site be characterizec.
Althouch it is we?
13 Enclosure T "
[7590-01]
imocrtant to follow 00E's Orogram closely, the Commission aculd not be warranted in formalizing a review process witn rescect to inat orcc-am In reviewing the orececures for formal Droceedincs in connection with licensing, the Commission has determined that nearincs ould be in tne cuclic interest orior to the aranting of constructicn autnorization.
An amencrent (in 6 2.101(f)(7)(8)) nas the effect of mandatina such earings.
In accitien, hearings will be held upon the recuest cf any interested pe" son prior to finally granting a license to receive and possess high-level -adioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area and before granting license amencments to decommission or terminate a license.
As in the case of facilitv[ies'] 'icensinc matters, ex carte ccm unica-tiens woulc bc restricted wnile on-the-recorc creceecincs are cencinc.
Because a construction authorization funlike a construction cermit) is not a license, its issuarce does not ccnstitute a #inal decision on the cending acclication.
To avoid any unintended imolication that the ex carte rule (10 CFR S 2.750) would acoly between the construction authori-zation croceedinos and the commencement of formal proceecings crior to receipt of wastes, that rule has been amended to provide specifically that a final decision with respect to issuance of construction authori-zation will be deemed, unless the Commission orders otherwise, to termi-nate, for Ourocses of the fx carte rule, formal orcceeci c5 then cending before the NRC wit _h r.esDect to the acclication.
The rule has also been "evised to Orovide that in cases 4 vc1 vinc Dublic hearings, the initial cecision of tne cresiainc officer snali not ce immediately effective.
(f 2.754.)
It is furtner previcec that es en if no hearing has been held, the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards will not issue a construction authorization or license until IL 14 Enclosure T "
[7590-01]
excressly authorized to do so by the Commission.
These chanpes, while not issued in direct resconse to commenters' succestions, reflect senti-ments that the fullest ecoortunity for formal consiceration of the issues is in the public interest.
h.
Preliminary Nature of the Information to be Included in an Acoli-cation for Construction Authorization.
A number of commenters excressed the opinion that the wording of 60.21 did not explicitly reflect the preliminary nature of some of the information that would be available at the construc-tion authorization stage.
Some commenters believed that some categories of information, such as emergency plans and plans for retrieval aid not seem necessary, at least in full detail, at the construction authorizatien stage.
In view of the fact that s50.21 must be read in conjunction with S60.24(a), which specifies that the application "shall be as complete as possible in light of information that is reasonably available at the tire of docketing," no change to the proposed rule is required.
- Further, G60.24(b) specifically lists several categories of information wnich, where appropriate, may be left for consideration only at th; stage of license issuance.
i.
Termination of a License.
Two commenters opposed the provi-sions (g60.52) for the termination of a license for a repository after decommissioning.
The NRC believes that there will be considerable debate regarding license termination during the period bett,een adoption of rules and implementation of their provisions.
Although the NRC could have omitted the topic altogether, it believes that some recognition of the issue is desirable so that the rule covers the entire process.
It should be noted that there is no assurance under the language that the license would be terminated since a decision to co so could only be made if
^
'/
15 Enclosure 'f"
[7590-01]
"authoriced by law."
The Commission isnes to e-onesice t*at criteria to ce used in making a decision to cecommission a recositcry are not incluced in this crccedural ule but oi'l be set forth eitner itrin the technical criteria of Part 60 or as a future reculation or colicv statement.
Chances The final rule contains the following changes from the proposec rule as published in December 1979.
a.
Definition of tne term "Discosal" Ccmmenters notec inat the proposed cefinition of the term "discosal" embociec the contradictory concepts of "cer-anent emplacement" and coss ble retrieval for curocses 4
other than resource value.
The definition has ceen modifiec to reflect usage of the term " disposal" in the rule to cnaracterice the concition in which isolation is required.
(560.2(e))
b.
Incidental Uses of Racioactive Materials.
The DOE noted tnat the proposed rule could have the effect of prchibiting the use of source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials at the site during site cnarac-terication and facility construction.
It? bJE referred to the desirability of being able to use such materials, for example as radicgraphy sources and radiation monitoring test sources.
There may also be a need to emDioy a small amount of radioactive material for in situ testing in the course of site characterication activities.
Tre Ccmmissien did not intend to estrict DCE's use of acicact'.e materials for the stated ;urocses, and nas clarified the ;c"nt cy accing a new section, j60.7, hich expressly recognices tnat DCE ( nicn is exeT;t from NRC licensing except as expressly recuired to te licensec) need not be licensed for such preliminary activities.
This is not an exemption 16 Enclosure'Y"
[7590-01]
under the exemption provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, but rather an interpretation of the Commission's jurisdiction uncer Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 In other words, the " facility" that the NRC is licensing is one at which nigh-level radioactive wastes are actually stored.
To the extent that the procedures call for earlier NRC involvement, that involvement would be undertaken with a view to long-term health and safety considerations; but during site characterization and prior to emplacement of waste, there would be no " facility" for storage of high-level waste and no basis for the exercise of licensing authority over the incicental use of source, special nuclear. and Dyorocuct material by DOE.
Once operations at a facility have been licensed, the Com-ission believes it should regulate the use of all licensable mater'als onsite, so as to avoid fragmentation of responsibility and accountacility with respect to radiological safety (particularly as it may affect occupational exposures).
The change does not respond to the DCE's additional concern that the proposed rule would prohibit construction and operation of a surf ace facility for the storage of spent reactor fuel at a repository site prior to issuance of a Part 60 license.
Should this situation actually arise in practice, the Commission would consider granting an exemption so as to permit licensing to be carried out under other parts of NRC regulations.
c.
Site Characterization.
Followino e tailed consideration of cublic comments, the Commission has cecided to recuire in situ testico at ceoth and to srecify the minimum numoer of sites to ce censicerec as alternatives corino site characterization.
d 17 Enclosure "f"
[7590-01]
conducted by DOE at all sites and, as accrocriate, exclanations of why such work differed from the descriotion of crocram in the Site Charac-terization Report.
[d-]f_ Construction Authorization Findinos.
The necessary findings by the Commission on environmental matters (s60.31(c)) have been revised to conform to the language in other portions of the Commission's regula-tions.
Contrary to the views expressed by a commenter, the Commission
- egards this provision as being fully consistent with the requirements of NEPA.
Further soecificity may be provided, however, particularly with resoect to the criteria for evaluatina alternative sites at the time tech-nical criteria are crocosed.
The Ccmmissicn has declined to modify the common cefense and secu-rity finding [ss-seggested-by], which one commenter [The-Eemmissien's review-ef-the-histery-ef-the-Energy ceergani:stien-Act-ef-19?4-'edicates that-NRE2s-review wes-deemed-to-be-impertent-to preteet-the-hesith-end safety-ef-the pebiic--the-Eemmissien-thinks-it-is-spprepriate-te-reiy epen-96E-to-tske-setion-to proteet-the-cemmen-defense-sne secerity inesmech-es-it-shares-with-NRE-sech-respensibilities ender-the-Atemie Energy-Act-] characterized to be "so vaoue as to be of no consecuence."
The proposed "inimicality" findinas, sg 60.31(b) and 60.41(c) reflect the legal standards set forth in the Atemic Enercy Act, in articular Section 57c.(2) thereof.
Comparable languace acoears elsewhere in Commis-sion regulations, e.a., 10 CFR ?? 50.57(a)(6) and 70.31(d).
With respect to certain activities, however. the Ccmmission reouires that a license applicant submit a cescription of fundamental material controls for the control of and accounting for special nuclear material and also a physical security olan.
The present regulations do not recuire such submissions e
20 Enclosure "
[7590-01]
from the DOE, and the NRC has, therefore, critted any scecific findincs that the fundamental material controls or Dhysical security Dlan are adecuate.
In so coina, the NRC takes notice of the fact that the DOE is resconsible for maintair.ina ccaman defense and securits at installa-tions of the createst sensitivity.
Further, the DeDartment--unlike any other license a:Dlicant--sharcs with NRC resocnsibilities under the Atcmic Eneroy Act to protect the common cefense and security.
And, radiation ha?ards associated with high-level radioactive wastes make them inherently unattractive as a tarcet for diversion.
The NRC has concluded that the DOE should certify that it will orovide "such safeguarcs as it recuires at com0 arable surface facilities to cromote the cc men cefense and secu-rity," S 60.21(b)(3), but that details of the safecuaras crocram neec neither be obtained nor reviewed in order for the Commission to be able to make the recuired findina.
While this accroach contemolates that tne Commission would cive great weight to the DOE's certification, it does not foreclose the cossibility Of comacn defense and security issues beina raised and adiudicated in formal proceedings.
The Drovisions of the Enercy Reorganization Act callina for Commission review cf high-level waste facilities were desicned to assure orotection of the health and safety of the Dublic and protection of the environment: ccasidering the fact that the leaislative history inaicates no equivalent concern about the need for the Commission to review ccamon defense and security issues, the NRC believes the accroach cutlined is reasonable and accrocriate.
[e-]c.
Conditions of Construction Authorization.
-ne final rule specifies (s50.32(b)) that the construction authorization "will incor-porate" conditions requiring the submission of certain periodic or special reports.
This wording differs from that of the proposed rule 21 Enclosure "6"
[7590-01]
which stated that the Cormission "may, at its discretion inccrporate" these conditions.
The NRC 9grees with a commenter that such reports will be needed and that there is no reason to reserve oiscretion, as the pro-posed rule would have done.
The particulars of the conditions would, of course, depend upon the no..-e of the project that is to be constructed.
A new paragraon 60.32(c) has been set forth in the final rule wnich states that there will be a set of conditions which are of sufficient imoortance that the DOE cannot deviate from them without having obtained an amendment to the construction authorization.
[f ]h.
License Spacifications.
The Commission has accepted a suggestion to delete a recuirement for including, as license conditions, restrictions as to the location and cnaracteristics of the storage medium.
As noted by a commenter, these features may be inherent in the storage medium itself.
[g ]i; Inscections.
The final rule contains a provision (560.73(c))
requiring DOE to provide on site office space for the exclusive use of NRC inspectors and personnel.
[h ]i.
Participation of Indian Tribes.
Several changes have been made in the rule to provide for full participation by Indian tribes in the licensing procedures.
These changes generally provide that tribes shall have the same opportunities as governmental units.
new Sec-n tion 60.64 provides that Indian Tribes shall have the same opportunities at States to submit proposals for tneir participation in the NRC review.
These proposals shall be accroved (and may be funded) if accropriate find-ings can be made concerning tne contribution to be made to the licensing review.
A new Section 60.55 makes it clear, however, that the Jirector shall endeavor to avoid duplication of effort when acting on multiple 22 Enclosure
't"
[7590-01]
proposals, to the extent that this can be accomolished without substantial prejudice to the parties involved.
k.
Prcoaration of an Environmental Imoact Statement crior to issuance of license to receive and cossess HLW.
The reouirement that the NRC orecare and circulate an EIS orier to issuino a license to receive and Dosess HLW has been deleted (51.5(a)(11)).
Since an EIS will be orecared by NRC prior to orantino construction authorizaticn for a geolooic recository coerations area, it may not be nec r7y to a'
prepare a second EIS.
Rather. after the construction authoriza. ion stace, the NRC will perform environmental assessments, ana, as acoro-oriate, will secolement the EI5, or cetermine inat no sucn sucolemental statement is recuired.
1.
Differences between clanned and comoleted site cnaracterization work.
A provision has been added to the rule that recuires DOE to include in its license aoolication a description of site characte*iration work actually conducted bv DOE at all sites considered, and accropriate explanations of why such work differed from the procram described in the Site Characterization Report for each site (60.21(b)(4)).
It is expected that such a orovision will facilitate the evaluation of DOE's site charac-terization procram by the Dublic.
m.
Records and Tests.
The term "significant" has been deleted from Section 60.71(c)(3).
The Commission recuires notification of all deviations from license conditions, whether or not they nicht be recarded as "sicnificant."
Pursuant to the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reoroanization Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 95-601 (November 6, 1978), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and 23 Enclosure "6"
[7590-01]
sections 552 and 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, notice is nereby given that the following amencments to Title 10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations are published as a docurent subject to ccdification.
PART 2 RULES OF PRACTICE 1.
Section 2.101 is amended to add a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:1 S2.101 Filina of acclication.
x
=
(f)(1)
Each application for a license to receive and possess hign-level racicactive waste at a geologic repository operations area cursuant to Part 60 of this chapter and any environmental report required in connec-tion therewith pursuant to Part 51 of this cnapter shall ce processec in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.
(2) To allow a determination as to wnether the application or envi-ronmental report i: complete and acceptable for docketing, it will be initially treated as a tendered document, and a cooy will be available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room.
Twenty copies shall be filed to enable this determination to be made.
(3)
If the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards deter-mines that the tendered document is complete and acceptable for docketing, a docket number will be assigned and the applicant will be notified of the determination.
If it is determined that all or any part of the tendered document is inccmplete and therefore not acceptable for processing, the applicant will be informed of this determination and the respects in which the document is deficient.
IAs compared to text of proposed rule additions are underscored and dele-tions are bracketed and lined through.
24 Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
(4) The Director [?nasi] may determine the [appiicatien] environ-mental recort to be not corolete and therefore not acceptacle for creces-sino if it f ails to include site characterizaticn data, includino the results of accrocriate in sito testina at oeoth for each site enaracter-ined, with resDect to the number of sites and media scecified in e 51.40 of this chacter.
If such a determination is made, the Director shall recuest the DOE to submit, within a specified time, such characterization data as the Director determines to be necessarv.
If the DCE fails to provide the reouested data within the time specified, the acclication shall be sub_iect to denial under Section 2.108.
(51[f43] With respec' to any tendered document tnat 4s accect20'e for docketing, the applicant will be requested to (i) suDmit to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards such adcitional copies as the regulations in Parts 00 and 51 require, (ii) serve a copy on the chief executive of the municipality in which the geologic repo-sitory operations area is to be located or, if the geologic repository operations area is not to be located within a municipality, on the chief executive of the county (or to the Tribal orcanization, if it is to be located within an Indian reservation), and (iii) make direct distribution of adcitional copies to Federal, State, Indian Tribe, and local officials in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and written instruc-tions from the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
All such copies shall be completely assembled documents, identified by docket number.
Subsecuently distributed amendments, however, may incluce revised pages to previous submittals and, in such cases, the recipients will be responsible for inserting the revised pages.
J 25 Enc 1osure "f"
[7590-01]
[f53) (4) A license to receive and possess hiah-level radioactive waste at a oeologic recository Ucerations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter; (5) An amendment to a license specified in paracraoh (a)(4) of this section, or an amendment to a construction authorization cranted in proceec-incs on an acclication for such a license, when such amencrent would authorize actions which may significantly affect the health and safety of the oublic:
EE
[f 43-An-amenement-ef a-iicense specified-in persgraph-(s3fi3--f E3-er-fS3-ef-this-sectien-and which-inveives-s signifiennt-hs:sres-censicers-tien--er]
[f53] (6)
Any other license or amendment as to which the Commission determines that an opportunity for a public hearing should be afforded.
'(7)
In the case of an application for an operating license for a facility of a type described in 550.21(b) or 550.22 of this chapter or a testing facility, a notice of opportunity for hearing shall be issued as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed.
(3)
In the case of an acclication for a license to receive and possess hich-level radioactive waste at a neologic repository operations area, a notice of opportunity for hear"m, as reouired by this paragraoh, shall be oublished prior to Commission action authorizing [:enstrettien end-sise prier-te] receint of such wastes;
[st-the repesitery--this-ensnge i!-in-edditien-te-changes prepesed-in-the prier-.etice] this rectirement is in addition to the crocedures set out in 6 2.101(f)[f 73] (8) and 6 2.10a of this part, which provide for a hearing cn the acclication orior to issuance of a construction authorization.
30 Enclosure "C"