ML19256A225
| ML19256A225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1978 |
| From: | Casey Smith NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-78-366B, NUDOCS 7811030253 | |
| Download: ML19256A225 (18) | |
Text
t umTro STATES SEC"-78-366B October 3, 1978 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMM:SS:oN CONSENT.CALEND AR iTUA For:
a ne commiss waer >
From:
Clifford V. Smith, Jr., Director
, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and S e uards
^0 Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
EDITED POLICY STATEMENT FROM SECY 78-366
Purpose:
To Obtain Comission Approval for Publication in Federal Register Discussion:
As the Commission requested during the September 15, 1978 briefing, we have made minor revisions to the policy statement accompanying Commission Paper SECY 78-366, Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Wastes.
Enclosed is the edited policy statement, a press release to accompany the publication of the policy statement, and a current working draft of
'he High-Level Waste Management Regulations (Part 60) which are being prepared.
This version of the draft Part 60 is still under development and has not been circulated for office-level review.
Reccmmendation:
Approve publication of Policy Statement as edited (Enclosure 1).
Note (a)
The proposed notice will be published in the the Federal Register for a 60 day public comment perloo.
(b)
The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the Hcuse Interior and Insular Affairs Com-mittee and the Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Comittee on Environmental and Public Works will be informed.
Contact:
James C. Malaro, NMSS 427-4433 g 8 ? ',".3 0 2 I 3
.- Recommendation:
(c) A public announcement similar to Enclosure 2 will be issued when notice is filed with the Office of the Federal Register.
(d) As modified by public comment and staff analysis of those comments, the procedures would be in-corporated into the regulations expected to be issued ir, proposed form in early 1979.
Coordination:
The Offic of the Executiv,. uegal Director concurs in the cho.;as made to Enclosure 1.
The draft public announcement has been prepared by the Office of Public Affairs.
V
' 46
//
-V i
c
- /
Cli ffpr V.
ith,'dr.,Direc r
Office of Nuclear Material Sa ty and' Safeguards DISTRIBUTION Encl osures :
Commissioners 1.
Edited Policy Statement Commission Staff Offices 2.
Press Release Exec Dir for Operations 3.
Current Working Draft of Regional Offices Waste Management Regulations Secretariat Comm.issioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by cob Commissioners' cm,ments or consent should be provided directly to the Office c7 the Secretary by c.o.b.
Wednesday, October 18, 1978 Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT October 12,1978, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of October 23, 1978.
Please refer to the Appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
SECY NOTE: Enclosure 3 to Ccmmissioners, OGC, OPE, SECY only.
8 g
i ENCLOSURE 1
ENCLOSURE 1 Changes are indicated by underlining LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES Proposed General Statement of Policy AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Proposed General Statement of Policy
SUMMARY
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has under con-sideration the following proposed policy statement regarding establishment of procedures for licensing a geologic high-level waste repository to be constructed and operated by the v.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
This NRC policy statement is intended to inform DOE, interested States and members of the public of the procedures with which 00E will be required to comply to receive a license to construct and operate a repository.
The policy, as finally adopted, may be codified as part of the Commission's regulations.
DATE:
Comments are due on or before (insert date 60 days after publi-cation in the Federal Register).
ADDRESSES:
Send commants and suggestions to:
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of comments may be examined in the:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Malaro, Chief, High-Level and Transuranic Waste Branch, Civision of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555.
301 427-4433.
. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
The Commission has licensing authority under Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 over certain DOE repositories for the storage of high-level radioactive wastes.*
The Commission is considering the procedures to be used in the licensing of such high-level waste repositories, and believes that it would be use-ful to solicit the views of interested persons prior to making any final decision.
Accordingly, the Commission is publishing for comment the Proposed General Statement of Policy on high-level radioactive waste repository licensing procedures set forth below.
The Proposed General Statement of Policy could also be used by DOE for interim planning pur-poses pending a final Commission decision on repository licensing procedures.
Any person wishing to comment on the proposed procedures should submit written comments by (insert este 60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Section.
- NRC does not at cresent have jurisdiction over licensing of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carl sbad, New t'exico.
- However, if NRC receives licensing jurisdiction over WIPP, NRC excects to acoly these crocedures in the licer 1g review.
. Proposed General Statement of Policy--
Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories For High-Level Radioactive Waste Introduction The U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission ("fiRC" or " Commission") is vested with licensing authority over certain DOE high-level radioactive waste repositories by Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
These sections refer to:
(3)
Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act (Atomic Energy Act).
(4)
Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purposo of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.
Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, such repositories would not be licensed as " production" or " utilization" facilities.
Rather, they would be licensed under those provisions of the Atomic Energy Act dealing with receipt and possession of " byproduct" and "special nuclear" materials.
However, the Commission has authority under the Atomic Energy Act to fasi.'on procedures for licensir; of byproduct and special nuclear materials that are tailored to the kinds of activities being authorized and the
. potential hazards involved.
For example, although a license for possession and use of plutonium in a sealed calibration source and a license for possession and use of plutonium for purposes of processing and fuel fabrication are both special nuclear materials licenses, the former license may be issued after a single review (and indeed may even be generally licensed without the need for filing and review of a specific license application--see 10 CFR !70.19), while the latter license may only be issued after a review process resembling in many respects the two-step licensing review provided in the Atomic Energy Act for production and utilization facilities (see 10 CFR))70.22[f] and 70.23[b]).
In fashioning the procedures which follow, several unique features of geologic high-level waste repositories were carefully considered.
For such a repository, the suitability of the site becomes crucial, for the integrity of the site itself is essential to assure containment of the radioactive materials.
Thus, sound policy suggests that the Commission be afforded the opportunity to participate in DOE's site selection process, though--considering the tentative character of the activities involved--
only in an informal advisory capacity.
Also, for such an application, construction of a repository shaft would constitute the first major pen-etration of the geologic containment.
If improperly constructed or sealed, it could impair the ability of the geologic containment to isolate wastes over long periods of time.
At the same time, construction of this
. haft is ex ected to dispell uncertainties in the accuracy of data necessary for design of the underground repository.
Thus, while a
, safety review prior to sinking of a shaft would be appropriate, the scope of review and the findings required need to take into account the possibility that only limited data may be available.
- Further, there should be a formal safety review of the main repository design features before substantial commitments are made and alterations become impracticable to implement.
Finally, the Commission believes that it should examine the methods of construction and any new information that may have been developed during construction before formally authorizing receipt and storage of radioactive materials at the repository.
If a repository is subject to the NRC licensino authority, the entire repository will be subjected to licensino review includino those activities which by themselves miaht not be within the scoce of NRC responsibility.
This comprehensive review will be necessary because loss of integrity in any part of a recository will imoeril the integrity of the entire repository.
The Commission believes it should prepare an environmental impact statement pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") prior to authorizing construction of the main repository shaft.
This statement could be updated prior to receipt and storage of radioactive materials at the repository should new information warrant.
.~. Early Notification to States and Other Interested parties In order to provide opportunity for early input from States and other
_ interested parties, the Commission would, upon receipt of a DOE license application or request for an informal early site review, (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice of such receipt (2) make a copy of the application or request available at the public document room, and (3) transmit copies of such request to the Governor of the State and to the Chief Executive of the municipality in which the repository is tentatively to be located ar.d to the Governors of any contiguous States.
Also, the staff would offer to meet with State and local offic'ils to provide them with information about the Commission's review and to exples,e the possibilities of State and local participation in the Commission licensing process.
Licensina procedures The proposed repository licensing procedures are divided into four parts:
review of 00E site selection, review of repository development, repository licensing, and repository closure.
1.
Review of DOE Site Selection There would be informal NRC staff comments to 00E on site suitability matters after 00E's site selection.
Such informal consultation, which might take the form of written NRC staff comments supplemented by one or more open meetings between the two agency staffs, would enable the NRC staff to point out those aspects of a location which in its judgement might require special attention or present special problems,
. and would help to define the kinds of information that might be needed for the Commission to make licensing decisions.
Informal consultation between a prospective license applicant and NRC staff is consistent with the pract(ce presently employed in the case of nuclear power reactors, and would be no less appropriate where the applicant concerned is another government agency.
As indicated, the interaction between NRC staff and DOE at this early stage would be consultive in nature.
That is, NRC staff may provide comments and advice, but the Commission will neither make formal findings nor take other formal action.
00E would remain at liberty to come forward later with any proposal that it believed would conform to Commission requirements, and the Commission would be free, as the evidence might warrant, to formally approve or disapprove the proposal.
2.
Review of Repository Development The formal Commission licensing review process would begin with the filing of an application for a license by DOE prior to commencement of construction of a repository shaft.
The application would be docketed for review after a preliminary review for comple:eness, notice of the application would be published in the Federal Register offering an opportunity for interested persons to intervene and request a hearing, and a public announcement would be issued.
The application would include information on site suitability and repository design features important to safety.
An environmental report prepared by DOE addressing the matters set forth in Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA would be submitted with or prior to the application.
, It is probable that some information necessary to make a defini-tive finding of the repository's safety will not then be available.
Nevertheless, the Commission
- could authorize construction of the repository upon completion of a review of all NEPA, safety, and common defense and security issues, and upon finding (1) after considering reasonable alternatives that the benefits of the proposal exceed the costs under NEPA, and (2) that there is reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of wastes described in the application can be stored in a repository of the design proposed without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public or being inimical to the common defense and security.
Construction would commence with the sinking of the main repository shaft.
In the alternative, where insufficient information is avail-able prior to shaft sinking to permit the Commission to make the complete findings set forth above, on request by COE or on the Commission's own initiative, the Commission could allow the safety review to be conducted in two phases.
Construction of the shaft could commence upon finding (1) after considering reasonable alter-natives, that the benefits of the proposal exceed the costs under NEPA, and (2) that there is reasonable assurance that:
(a) tb
.te
- It is expected that, should a hearing be granted on an application, the Commission would, as in a nuclear power reactor licensing proceeding, designate an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hear and initially decide the contested issues.
As in any licensing case, it would be possible for the Board to render partial decisions on several discrete issues, such as NEPA issues, where this would advance the conduct of the proceeding.
.g-is suitable for a repository wf thin which high-level wastes of the kivis and quantities described in the application can be stored without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public or being inimical to the common defense and security, and (b) the plans for construction of the main shaft and related structures can be implemented in a manner compatible with the use of the site for a repository.
The full findings set forth pre-viously would, then, have to be made before the start of construction of surface and underground structures.
Safety issues that could not be resolved based upon the available information might be deferred until the repository operation review provided that:
(1) an adequate program has been developed to resolve the issue prior to that time, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the issue can be resolved in a favorable manner at the later date.
The NEPA environmental review would address, to the extent possible based on available information, environmental impacts and alterna-tives associated directly or indirectly with siting, construction, and operation of the repository.
Any hearing held upon request of an interested person would be conducted in accordance with subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2.
The applicant will be required to report to the NRC, during the course of construction, any site characterization data obtained which is not within the predicted limits upon which the repository design was based.
Also, it would be required to report deficiencies in design and construction which, if uncorrected, could have a significant
. adverse effect upon the safety of the repository at any future time.
3a.
Repository Licensing Prior to receipt of any radioactive material at the repository, DOE will need to file an updated license application with the Commission.
The license authorizing actual receipt and storage of radioactive materials would be issued after the Commission has conducted a final review of health and safety and common defense and security issues in the light of (1) any additional geologic, hydrologic, and other data obtained during constuction; (2) conformance of construction of repository structures, systems, and components with the earlier received design; (3) results of research programs carried out to resolve questions identified during prior reviews; (4) plans for start up and routine operations; and (5) plans for identifying and responding to any unanticipated releases of radioactive naterial from the repository.
Issuance of a license will require a definitive finding under the Atomic Energy Act that the receipt, possession, and use of the special nuclear and byproduct materials at the repository will not con-stitute unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public or be inimical to the common defense and security.
If warranted by new information, the earlier environmental impact statement will be updated.
Also, if requested by a person whose interest may be affected, a hearing in accordance with subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2 would be held prior to license iss'iance.
.- 3b. License Amendment (As Needed)
If special restrictions such as retrievability or a limit on amounts or types of wastes have been imposed in the license, an amendment will be required prior to committing waste to irretrievable disposal or prior to the receipt of additional waste.
It is antici-pated that the required review procedures and findings will be sim-ilar to those described above for initial licensing, taking into account additional information obtained during the retrievable storage phase or duritig operation with limited inventory.
DOE will be required to conduct and monitor its operations, to keep records and to submit routine and special reports, in accordance with Commission regulations and orders. All operations will be subject to such continuing NRC inspection activities as may be found to be apporpriate.
4 Review of Repository Closure After the repository has been developed and filled to maximum capacity but prior to final closure of the underground excavations and shafts and the decommissioning of surface facilities an NRC review and approval will be required.
This review will require compliance with regulations governing sealing of the underground repository, decommissioning of surface facilities, storage of permar. ant records, and long-term monitoring.
Following ccmpletion
. of repository closure procedures, requirements for a license may be ended.
Dated at this day of
,1978.
FOR THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission
ENCLOSURE 2
ENCLOSURE 2
- ~
NRC ISSUES PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING WASTE REPOSITORY APPLICATI0flS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a proposed policy statement on procedures for reviewing a possible application frcm the Department of Energy (DOE) for a license for a high-level nuclear waste repository.
The policy statement is being issued in proposed rather than final form so that the Commission can obtain the views of interested parties and the public before making a final decision as to the procedures that will be followed in reviewing the application.
The proposed statement may also be used by DOE for interim planning purposes until a final statement is issued.
The proposed repository licensing procedures are divided into four steps:
(1)
NRC and DOE staff members would consult informally on site sui tabili ty matters after DOE selected a site for the repository.
(flo application for a license would be before NRC at this point, and NRC would not give any formal approvals.)
(2) When DOE submits an application for a license, NRC staff would conduct a formal safety and environmental review and would prepare an environmental impact statement.
Notice of receipt of the application would be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons would be offered an opportunity to intervene and request that a public hearing be held.
If the Ccmmission made a satisfactory finding with regard to the effects on the public health and safety and the environment from
.. constructing and operating the repository, and if it found that the repository would not be inimical to the common defense and security, it would authorize sinking of the main repository shaft and construction of surface and underground structures.
(3) NRC staff would conduct another formal safety review and make any necessary updates to the environmental impact statement before the Commission could authorize DOE to receive waste for storage in the facility.
Interested parties would again be given an opportunity to request a hearing before the license was issued.
(4) After the repository had been developed and its capacity filled, but prior to its final closing and decommissioning, NRC staft' would conduct a review and, if appropriate, the Commission could approve the closing and terminate the license.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed policy statement by to the Secretary of the Commission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Section.
After considering the comments received, the Commission expects to either publish the policy statement in final form or issue proposed rules on the waste repository review procedures.
.