ML19294B005
| ML19294B005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Nichols W OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294B006 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002260576 | |
| Download: ML19294B005 (3) | |
Text
/,
'o UNITED STATES g
gg g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cgg WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
s,... /
January 29, 1980 CHAIRMAN William M. Nichols, Esq.
General Counsel Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C.
20503
Dear Mr. Nichols:
.This is in response to your request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's views on a proposed Executive Order which would establish a State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management. The Commission supports the establishment of such a Council. The NRC has made specific recommendations on how the Council could most effectively attain the goal of Fedcral-State cooperation on nuclear waste management in the publication entitled Means for Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing and Development of Federal Waste Facilities - A Report to Congress [NUREG-0539 March 1979]. Several of these raommendations have not been included in the proposed Executive Order. Moreover, several of the recommen-dations by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management (IRG) have also been omitted or substantially changed. The Commission believes that implementation of a number of key recommendations originally proposed by NRC and IRG would sub-stantially improve the effectiveness of the Council. The Commission recommends that the proposed Executive Order not be promulgated unless amended to be consis-tent with the comments offered below.
1.
The NRC should participate in the State Planning Council as an observer, but should take no part in its deliberations. This would be consistent with the NRC's role in the IRG.
NRC participation might include explanations of NRC licensing policy as it relates to the Council's deliberations.
Such explana-tions would be especially important with respect to proposed regulations now pending before the Commission for high-level waste repositories.
2.
The proposed Executive Order would include temporary spent fuel storage facili-ties in the scope of the Council's considerations. These facilities do not present the issue of long-term integrity intrinsic to permanent waste reposi-tories. Thus, the proposed Executive Order appears to go beyond the IRG's recommendation that the Council should focus on developing plans for Federal /
State cooperation in addressing the problems associated with long-term disposal.
Moreover, because interim storage facilities will not be of essentially unlimited duration, the Commission believes that such facilities should not be treated differently than other nuclear fuel cycle facilities not intended for long-term use. Accordingly, the Commission notes that including temporary spent fuel storage facilities in the scope of the Council's considerations may signifi-cantly increase the Council's workload.
800226 o 59 G,
1:
1 E
2 3.
The transportation of high-level radioactive waste is of significant concern h) to the States and is integrally related to the siting of disposal facilities.
?
Accordingly, the Council should be explicitly directed to prepare advice and recommeridations on waste transportation issues.
4.
The Council should be authorized to provide for an independent technical review capability. This would give all Council members, especially the States and local representatives, confidence in technical analyses of F
Federal proposals.
5.
The Commission sees no reason to condition the Council's establishment of subcommittees on the approval of the Secretary of Energy.
The Commission agrees with the IRG's recommendation that the Council shculd be authorized to establish the advisory committees it demis necessary.
6.
All Federal agencies should be directed to assist the Council by providing information when requested.
7.
The IRG recommended that the Council should focus its attention on the administration's plans for siting and developing high-level waste reposi-tories. After the IRG issued its final report, other waste management issues of interest to States and localities, particularly the availability of facilities for disposal of low-level waste, have assumed increased signifi-cance. While these issues need not be excluded from the scope of the Council's considerations, the Commission believes that HLW repositories should bc the Council's principal concern. floreover, the Council's advice and recommendations should be focused on addressing the needs of States and localities.
8.
The IRG recommended that the Chairman of the Council should be a Governor.
5 The NRC agrees that State and local officials must play key roles in developing Federal-State cooperation in radioactive waste management.
Accordingly, the Order should provide for designation of a non-Federal official as Chairman of the Council.
9.
The Council'should be authorized to choose its own executive director and staff.
10.
The Council on Environmental Quality should be represented on the Council to encourage greater State participation in the environmental review process required my t 7e National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In e
addition, the Department of Health and Social Services should be repre-i sented in view of its involvement with the health effects of low-level E
ionizing radiation.
$w 0
h
3 L
- 11. The Council should provide advice and recommendations to the Congress as well as to the President.
- 12. The IRG and NRC envisioned continuing Council involvement with the planning and development of the Federal program for managing radioactive wastes.
However, the Executive Order would terminate the Council after eighteen g
months.
The NRC believes that the Executive Order should not set a fixed time for termination of the Council, but would note that the establishment of a Council by Executive Order should be considered a temporary measure pending the enactment of comprehensive legislation regarding Federal / State cooperation in nuclear waste management activities.
These recommendations represent the Commission's views, although in some cases not~all Commissioners agree.
The following are the more strongly held differing opinions.
~
Commissioners Kennedy and Bradford do not join in recommendation number 2 because, in their view, States will be as concerned about away from reactor facilities for spent fuel storage as they are about repositories for high-level waste.
Commissioner Kennedy supports the following alternative version of recommenda-tion number 7:
The IRG recommends that the State Planning Council should focus its 3
attention on the Administration's plans for siting and developing i
high-level waste repositories.
No reasons have been given explaining why the proposed Executive Order would alter the agreed upon scope of the Council's consideration to include licensing procedures and regulatory content.
Sincerely, E
f E
() John F. Ahearne
!