ML19305E224
| ML19305E224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305E211 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-80-177, NUDOCS 8004230141 | |
| Download: ML19305E224 (6) | |
Text
ISSUES AND QUESTIONS IMPORTANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR THE REGULATION OF DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES Value/ Impact. Assessment I.
PROPOSED ACTION A.
Description The proposed action is to provide information about and solicit public comment on issues and questions important to the development of tech-nical criteria for the regulation of the disposal of high-level radio-active wastes (HLW) in geologic repositories (GR).
B.
Need for Proposed Action Since the publication in November 1978 of the proposed, General State-ment of Policy on " Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Wastes," 43 FR 53869, and the subsequent publication of licensing procedure as proposed 10 CFR Part 60 " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories" in December 1979, the staff have continued to work energetically on the develop-ment of technical criteria for regulating disposal of HLW.
- Although, at the time of publication of the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 the science and technology of geologic disposal of HLW were sufficiently under-stood by the NRC staff to allow formulation of suitable licensing procedured the technical criteria themselves were still in the early stages of development.
During the intervening months, issues 800)@S0[
f 1
Enclosure "B"
, o and questions have been identified on which the staff believes public comment would benefit their efforts to develop the technical criteria.
i These issues and questions in a fundamental way relate to the NRC's r
ultimate approach to regulating geologic disposal of HLW and are a key factor in the basis from which the technical criteria are developed.
Public review and comment on these issues and questions, therefore, will go to the very hart of NRC's HLW program, and as so are needed for truly effective public participation in that program.
i i
If the issues and questions identified by the NRC staff as relevant i
to development of technical criteria for regulating the disposal of HLW were to be made available for public review and comment, they should be made available at the most nearly optimum point in the development of the technical criteria.
Clearly, this point is sufficiently early so that the comments will have a positive effect on the course the staff is pursuing in development of the technical criteria, yet not so early in that development that there is a sub-stantial chance that the list of questions and issues is largely incomplete or off the mark.
The evolution of the criteria through the several drafts written by the licensing staff, the two workshops (first at the Keystone Center in October 1979, and next at the University of Arizona in January 1980) conducted to review and critique the technical criteria under development, and the comments received as a result of the wide but informal circulation of drafts of the criteria
- have brought the staff to the point where relevant
^ Drafts of the technical criteria have been made available informally to other Federal agencies (e.g., EPA, 00E, USGS) and parties who have expressed interest in seeing the criteria (e.g., NRDC).
e 2
Enclosure "B"
e issues and questions for formal public review and comment can be identified.
C.
Value/ Impact of Proposed Action 1.
NRC - Staff effort is moderate, attributable only to that needed to review and respond to whatever comments are made by the public.
The value to NRC is significant and arises from the positive contribution to the HLW program expected from seeking public review and comment at a pivotal time in the development of the i
technical criteria.
2.
Other Government Agencies - This action is exp 6 ted to have substantial benefit to the Department of Energy (00E) in that it will provide guidance to DOE as to the licensing staff's thinking and technical approach, which can be factored into its ongoing programs.
The impact of this action upon other government agencies is in direct proportion to the effort they expend to review and comment upon the issues and questions identi-i fied.
No adequate means are available to quantify this impact; l
however, it should be noted that review and comment is a fairly routine function of the government agencies expected to be affected by the proposed action.
The value of this action to other agences l
follows from the opportunity to influence the development of the technical criteria through their comments and is likely to i
be proportional to the degree of interest of the agency in the criteria.
l a
3 Enclosure "B"
i o
i i
1 f
i 3.
Public - The proposed action will not affect directly the public, including the Nuclear Industry.
Any impact will arise from the effort expended to review and comment upon the subject issues and questions.
The benefit derived is from participation in NRC's rulemaking process.
D.
Decision on Proposed Action i
The Commission should make available for public review and comment at this time the issues and questions identified by the staff as important to the development of technical criteria for the regula-tion of geologic disposal of HLW.
II.
Technical Approach Whether technical criteria for regulating geologic disposal of HLW ought to developed and what form those criteria may take are not questions which 1
should be addressed here.
In fact, there has been made an explicit assump-tion that such criteria should be developed and the staff in proceeding with their development.
These question will be addressed in the value/
impact analysis prepared for accompanying the criteria as proposed rule-making.
The proper question here is whether seeking public review and comment on issues and questions related to the development of those criteria is a useful assist in that development.
There is no question that public participation is a requisite to sound rulemaking.
But is it reasonable to expect the lay public to comment on specific, highly detailed technical points? The answer is probably not.
On the other hand, the philosophy, rationale, and insights into staff thinking which are reflected in the issues and questions are accessable to any interested i
4 Enclosure "B"
' r, s party, technologist and laymen alike.
Through the review of those issues and questions the public will be able to see the direction and approach being taken by the NRC, and provide meaningful coment on a very funda-mental level.
In fact, such review and coment will provide the NRC with insight as to whether its approach is not only technically and logically sound, but also will build the public confidence needed to proceed with fulfilling its licensing responsibilities.
Moreover, the issues and ques-tions provide a touchstone--a point of departure--for the scientists and engineers who wishes to review and comment upon the technical details of the criteria when these are published for comment.
In sum, seeking public review and coment on the issues and questions important to the development of technical criteria for regulating geo-logic disposal of HLW will likely benefit the NRC's HLW program.
III. Statutory Consideration A.
NRC Authority The authority for licensing disposal of HLW by DOE is assigned to the NRC by sections 202(3) and (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
B.
Need for a NEPA Review The proposed action involves no significant or inreversible commit-i ment of resources and does not affect the quality of the human environment.
It only seeks public review and comment or certain identified issues and questions.
No NEPA review is required.
1 5
Enclosure "B"
9 9ye IV.
Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Regulations or Policies In general, the proposed action bears only an indirect connection to other regulations and policies in that review and comment is being sought in an area in which NRC has licensing authority but not upon the details of how that authority will be exercised.
The notable exception to this is the proposed licensing procedures published for comment in December 1979.
This action makes available technical criteria which bear directly upon the proposed procedures.
V.
Summary and Conclusives It is appropriate and beneficial to NRC's HLW program to seek public com-ment of this time on issues and questions important to the deveiopment of technical criteria for regulating geologic disposal of HLW.
i l
l e
6 Enclosure "B"