ML19325C977

Forwards SECY-89-037B, Quarterly Progress Rept on Prelicensing Phase of DOE Civilian High Level Radwaste Mgt, for Placement in PDR

ML19325C977
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/11/1989
From:	Bates A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Neville T NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
SECY-89-037B, SECY-89-37B, NUDOCS 8910180249
Download: ML19325C977 (1)

Text

& 4 p::4

' M @A 'o{.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[h h.'

UNITED STATES'

'l'

. Et

~'

'. ' c.

,i W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 w -%.',,,4)

October.11, 1989.

[

, OFFICE OF THE

.SECRETARYf MEMORANDUM FOR:. Teresa Neville, Acting Chief Public Document Room

~

W n -:

l 1.

.THRU:-

Sandy Showman,

'l g

' Correspondence ds Branch

[ Operations Branch

'FROM:

w Bates, Chief l

SUBJECT:

RELEASE OF DOCUMENT TO PDR 2

]

Attached for placement in the PDR is a copy of:

L SECY-89-037B - Quarterly Proaress Report _on the Pre-Ll Licensing Phase-of the U.S.

Department of Energy's I

(DOE's) Civilian'High-Level Radioactive-Waste' Management

)l Program-Thisidocument.is_being.placed in the PDR at-the request of the p

Etaff and with concurrence of the Commission offices.

b

Attachment:

l

'As stated 1.

1 cc:

~DCS'

~'P1-124 l

i-l r

i 4

5 b Y,b q

' \\

8910180249 891011 PDR SECY

(

89-037B PNU w-u----

m.------.i

Me j

y P.

s s

./,%

1 POLICY ISSUE secy-8,_o328 September 27, 1989-The.CommissiMOIDrmation)

-For:

+

f From:

' James M. Taylor:

Acting Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

-QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PRE-LICENSING PHASE OF

_.'f

.THE V.S.: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S (DOE'S) CIVILIAN HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Purpose:

To provide the Commission with a Quarterly Progress Report

,(May-1989 through July 1989) on the pre-licensing phase of i

DOE's-Civilian High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program.

Background:

In the previous Quarterly Progress Reports on the pre-licensing phase of DOE's Civilian High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-(NRC) staff discussed seven items that cover key.

J aspects of the NRC/00E. pre-licensing consultation program.

As was discussed in the last Quarterly Progress Report (SECY-89-037A), to improve the usefulness of this and future l

Quarterly Progress Reports, there will be a reduction in the-a reporting of status which represents continuing acceptable progress, and more focus on issues which deserve Commission attention.

Besides the new focus of the report,.the item

" Development of~an Information Retrieval-System" has been removed, -because the Licensing Support System (LSS)-

Aciministrator wi n be reporting this area to the Commission.

.. Executive The most significant activities during this period 7

Summary:

pertained-to 00E Implementation of Scheduled and Systematic Consultations; Quality Assurance (QA); ~Early Establishment -

of Repository Design Parameters; and-Early Resolution of State and Tribal Concerns.

Contact:

Ken Kalman, NMSS 492-0428

~

9g>

b; an

,e,

@p

+3

~

' - TheiCommissioners_

4 The major a,ctivities related to:those items follow:

DOE Implementation of Scheduled and Systematic Consultations The staf f's Site Characterization Analysis (SCA)-of DOE'sSiteCharacterizationPlan(SCP),asrequired by 10 CFR Section 60.18, was issued on July 31, 1989.

To improve systematic consultations, NRC and DOE agreed, 26, 1989 meeting, to hold a total of 16 during a July interactions between August and December 1989.

-Early Implementation of a QA Program Although DOE's QA program for site characterization activities.is progressing,~ DOE failed to meet certain scheduled milestones for. submittal of Quality Assurance Program Plans (QAPPs) and audits;to qualify the QA Because of these missed milestones, on program.-

July 11,1989,L D0E provided revised milestone schedules

= for qualification of its QA program.

Early Establishment of Repository Design Parameters

~

. The SCA found inconsistencies with the execution of On July 26, 1989, performance allocation in DOE's SCP.

the NRC and DOE staff agreed to hold technical interactions to address these concerns.

Early Resolution of State and Tribal Concerns On July 6, 1989, Acting Governor Robert Miller of Nevada signed. legislation that makes it illegal to store nuclear waste anywhere in the State of Nevada.

It.is not clear how this will affect State cooperation on issuing permits for site characterization.

While preparing this report, the staff received anIt August 4, 1989 letter from the State of> Nevada.

objected to the staff's approach for accepting DOE's QA program and to the staff's consultation with 00E which it believed inconsistent with the separation of roles of NRC and DOE specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy is Act (NWpA). The staff is presently preparing a

~

response to the State's letter.

bM, i

'o 3r "M

+

,7 4

The Commissioners' i

,+

y

{,

J s.J Other' Activities

]

i 2

Other NRC activities to implement its role under the NWPA, as amended, are' summarized in the Enclosure, "NRC's Role a

under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."

j E*

Discussion:

1.

00E Implementation of Scheduled and Systematic f

Consultations:-

During this period,.the NRC staff. completed its review of DOE's SCP and Des & Acceptability Analysis (DAA) and developed its SCt

/ DOE's SCP, as required by 10 CFR Section 60.18. =. E and DOE held a public meeting on May 9 and-10, 1989, attended by representatives of the State of Nevada and local-governments, at which NRC presented its preliminary concerns about 00E's SCP and DAA.

During the

. meeting, DOE clarified some information in the SCP which NRC had questioned.

The staff briefed the Commission on the SCA on July 11, 1989 and, upon approval of the Commission, issued the SCA on July 31, 1989. There.will be a public comment period on the SCA. The staff will' review any comments received to determine appropriate action.

As noted in previous Quarterly Progress Reports, it has been very difficult to set up systematic consultations with y

4 00E on the' repository program.

The lack of such L

consultations has hampered establishment of good. lines of horizontal communication between NRC and 00E technical 4

programs.and staff. On July. 26,1989, NRC and 00E met to H

discuss the technical interactions needed over the next several months, and a specific schedule for those interactions. During the meeting, 00E and the staff agreed I. '

to three types of interactions:

technical exchanges, meetings, and site visits.

/,

Twelve technical exchanges, three meetings, and one site visit were scheduled between August and December 1989.

In general, the topics to be covered include tectonics; core-drilling methods; hydrologic transport; substantially complete containment; anticipated and unanticipated processes and events; the design control process for the exploratory shaft facility; performance assessment; and data management. Mostly, the interactions centered around the staff's comments on the SCA and upcoming NRC rulemaking activities. Overall, the staff believes that the July 26, 1989 meeting was very beneficial in establishing systematic consultations. Two interactions were held during this t

~

~

~

fg

~

r N

w i

y.

W 1

The Commissioners

- 4.-'

1 g

w I

l.

reportihg. period, a geology field' trip and a hydrology field trip.; These resulted in effective interactions at the technical staff level. ' The staff and DOE plan to meet in October 1989 to assess the progress on and benefit from.the

- scheduled interactions, and to discuss a'nd schedule

?

interactions beyond December 1989.

Progress on these interactions will be addressed'in future Quarterly Progress Reports.

~

t In its review of the SCP, the NRC staff identified tectonics as a significant concern, with respect to the ability of the-4 proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain to isolate nuclear waste. Tectonics, including the topics of volcanism,

-faulting,- and seismicity, will be the subject of upcoming

. interactions, including a faulting field. trip, in the August-0ctober timeframe.

The first interaction is planned-for August 30, 1989,-.at One White Flint North.

1*

2.

Early' Implementation of a QA Program:

< DOE is progressing in developing and implementing its QA program for site. characterization activities. However, it

' continues-to-miss some milestones to qualify the QA program, that were, established in January 1989. ~ This indicates the difficulty that DOE is having in the startup of some of its QA programs.- Although the staff is concerned 'that these delays are occurring, it is appropriate that DOE delay these qualification sudits until it believes the QA programs are ready to audit. Specific cases in which milestones were missed are:

DOE's QApP-for the Yucca Mountain Project Office was originally-scheduled 'for submission in February 1989.

DOE has revised the submittal date repeatedly, and now expects '.o submit the QApP'in August 1989.

1 The observation audits of Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reynolds Electric. and Engineering Company (REEco), and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) were originally scheduled for this reporting period, but have not yet been conducted. Because DOE could not meet the milestones and schedules it established in January 1989, DOE and NRC staff agreed to a revised schedule on July 11, 1989. The first milestone, an audit of SNL scheduled for July 24, 1989, has been postponed to September 1989. The USGS, REECo and LAWL audits have been rescheduled for the August-September timeframe.

Furthermore, DOE revisions to the QApPs for Fenix &

Scissc,n, Holmes & Narver, and REECo, scheduled for July 28, 1989, have not taken place.

l

E x,

p $ f.

f_,<-

1 k

• y i'

1 l

" LTheLCommissioners -

s' At a July 6, 1989 meeting with DOE and the State of. Nevada, the staff refine'd.its approach for. accepting DOE's and its contractors' QA programs by agreeing to accept each 1

contractor's-QA program at various stages of satisfactory' j

implementation. 'As discussed at the meeting, the specific-actions required for DOE _and NRC acceptance of a QA program include: (1) havingithe necessaryJQAPPs and procedures in place; (2) having staff trained and. qualified; and (3) demonstrating the ability to implement the QA program.

1 In particular, the process would involve DOE approving the QAPP plan and submitting it to NRC for review. If the staff found.no major deficiency with the QAPP, DOE would audit the~

program for implementation. -The NRC staff would observe the l '!

audit. 'If DOE found'no significant deficiencies in the QA program, it would notify NRC that it had accepted the program.~ Once NRC received the DOE letter, it would issue its own acceptance'1etter if the QAPP and audit were 9

acceptable to it. After the acceptance of the program, DOE would provide a schedule of-future audits and surveillances, so that the staff could. selectively observe the early stages-of. program implementation.

As.a result of the position taken~ at the July-6,1989 QA meeting,,the State of Nevada voiced concerns with this-

[

approach. Although the State agreed to auditing an E

organization's QA program after.the QAPP was found acceptable, the State disagrees with NRC acceptance of the program based on an audit that covers only those portions of the QA p'rograms that are in place. The State of Nevada L

is concerned that NRC acceptance is'being done in increments.

The NRC staff will ensure that the audit is of sufficient scope to make a determination on the acceptability.of-DOE's implementation of the programs to date and its ability to continue acceptable implementation.

In addition, the staff j

will ensure that DOE continues its oversight at an appropriate-level after an initial determination of acceptability is made.

If DOE maintains the currently estimated schedule, all the participants' QA programs could be accepted by DOE and the NRC staff by January 1, 1990.

3.

Early Establishment of Repository Design Parameters:

The NRC staff's review of the Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP) identified several concerns with DOE's implementation of performance allocation. This is the process of assigning performance goals, which apply to identified performance measures, to repository subsystems b

y a

. wa I$Mm ',f '

o m

4. 4 b,

I

[,

LThe Commis'sioners 1 e

an'd components.. Performance. allocation provides.the rationale q

for the establishment of particular site characterization activities that will lead to cbtaining.the necessary.

- information-for the license application. As documented in

+

- the-NRC. staff's SCA, the staff continues to have significant concerns with the implementation of performance allocation J

in DOE's SCP. This review found inconsistencies with the.

a execution of performance allocatint.. 'For example, the ma performance measures for total-system performance are not consistent with the stated definition of " scenario classes" and may.not be adequate for deciding whether the Environmentel 3

-Protection Agency (EPA) ' standard will be met..

Also,

- performance allocation for the waste package lifetime

-l requirement contains performance measures related to controlled release during the containment period.

These

- performance measures are not appropriate, because they should be based-on substantially complete containment during the period, rather than on controlled release.. The staff's performance' allocation concerns and 00E's action to

. resolve them will be discussed in the performance ~ assessment interactions agreed to at the July 26, 1989; interactions-meethg.

4'.. Early Resolution of State and Tribal Concerns:

f i

u -

During this reporting period, the Office of Governmental and j

l ',

. Public Affairs (GPA) developed'a mailing list for distribution of Advisory Committee:on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) j high-level' waste-(HLW) meeting. notices, transcripts, and-letter reports. ACNW documents are transmitted to the State 1

of Nevada,1 Nye, Clark and Lincoln counties, the Western -

-l Shoshone Indians, and the National Congress of American Indians, to keep them informed of ACNW activities.and-l recommendations.

On July 6,-1989, Acting Governor Robert Miller of Nevada signed legislation making it illegal to store nuclear waste anywhere in the State of Nevada.

It is not clear how this' will affect State cooperation on matters such as issuing permits for site characterization.

i On July 14, 1989, the staff found the QA Manual for the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects / Nuclear Waste Prmet

. 0ffice acceptable and consistent with NRC regulation:

Because the staff does not plan to audit any implement.acion i

of the Nevada QA program, no further work in this area is 1

anticipated.

3 I

t e

~

. e E

f Lr j

I L

The Commissioners a7-While preparing,this report the staff received an August 4, L

1989 letter from the State of Nevada.

It objected to the i

staff's approach for accepting DOE's OA program, and to L"

the staff's consultation with 00E, which it considers it. consistent with the separation of roles of the NRC and 00E specified in the NWPA. The staff is presently preparing a i

response to the State's letter, a

i i

5.

Adoption of the policy of Conservatism-l I

The NRC staff review of the CDSCP indicated that DOE needed I

l to take steps toward adopting conservatism in its program.

During its review of the SCP, the NRC staff focused on.

i whether. DOE was sufficiently conservative in its approaches to treating uncertainty in its investigations and analyses.

Many of NRC's~cc.cerns about the SCP have as their underlying theme a need for more conservatism. The individual point papers in SCA Section 4 present the J

concerns and.give specific recommendations on more conservative approaches These concerns will be addressed l

at the technical exchanges agreed to-on July 26, 1989. The

)

NRC staff will track DOE's progress toward resolution of these concerns through these meetings and in DOE's semiannual SCP progress reports.

L 6.

Early Resolution of Issues:

1.f On May 31, 1989, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory L

Analyses (CNWRA) completed a final report entitled " Analysis L

and Evaluation of Regulatory Uncertainties in 10 CFR Part 60, 1

D Subparts B and E".

This. report identifies regulatory and institutional uncertainties perceived by CNWRA as a result of its preliminary analysis of Subparts B and E of 10 CFR l-Part 60. CNWRA also prioritized these uncertainties and I

correlated them to potential rulemakings and Technical Positions identified in SECY-88-285, "Re;ulatory Strategy and $chedules for the High-Level Waste Repository Program".

The staff's preliminar*/ reviews of CNWRA's evaluations and recommendations will be presea nd in a seperate Commission paper describing the uncartainties the NRC staff is addressing.

The staff continues to mcke progress on its rulemakings and Technical Positions. On April 27, 1989, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) approved initiating a rulemaking to clarify the meaning of " anticipated and unanticipated processes and events" for repository design

[t '

j; '.

The Commissioners I and licensing.

Since that time, the Division of High-Level Waste Management (DHLWM) and Office of Nuclear Regulatory l

yP Research (RES) staff have made good progress developing the proposed rule, on an expedited schedule.

It is currently anticipated that it will be published in the Federal Register in December 1989.

t The DHLWM and RES have also undertaken rulemaking efforts to reduce existing 10 CFR Part 60 regulatory uncertainties with'

'i respect to a Design Basis Accident (DBA) Dose Limit. DOE has identified this as an area where additional requirements i

are ne6ded to clarify the existing regulations.

In particular, this regulatory. uncertainty arises because 10 CFR Part 60 does not contain a specific DBA dose limit.

Another of the potential rulomakings identified in SECY-88-285 was in regard to the implementation of EPA's revised standards for the management anti disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes. To assist in preparing this rulemaking, the staff will be developing its own in-house performance assessment capability and methodology r

for evaluating compliance with the EPA standard..This methodology is intended to give the staff confidence that i

the EPA standards can be implemented and help in developing guidance to DOE on methods to demonstrate compliance with 1

the' EPA standards.

In transmitting the SCA, the staff advised DOE that total system performance assessments need to be conducted periodically, starting at an early date.

In a parallel effort, EPA is planning to reissue its HLW standards which were vacated by the U. S, Court of Appeals y,

in'1987. The staff will be taking this opportuhity to reevaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of the current' EPA probabilistic approach for making ths licensing decisions for HLW repository siting.

If the l-staff's evaluation should not provide convincing evidence i

that the standards can be implemented, this information y

l would provide the beais for soliciting alternative standards from EPA.

l

/

\\

~

[

m D. Tay r

eting Executive Director i'

for Operations

Enclosure:

DISTRIBUTION:

NRC's Role under the Nuclear Commissioners EDO Waste Policy Act OGC ACRS OIG ACNW l'

LSS ASLBP GPA ASLAP SECY

_y%

o 4

1

[

151C'5 IIOLE WWER TIE INCLEAR imSTE POLICY ACT f

I.

Repository Develesment Freeras IBF NielPAA Current Provisten Bate Schedule IWC Bele i

1.

Section 112(a).aWC most concur in 7/6/83 Completed Action Taken: After review and comment en draft 80E Guidelines in early 1983. -

Siting GuiJelines promulgated by 30E.

12/M suit received final Siting Guidelines en 11/23/83. NRC held oral presentations en 1/11/M, and public comments were received throup 2/1/M.

On 2/29, the Cousission gave tentative endorsement to the Goldelines and stated that they would concer en the Guidelines provided seven conditlens enee

~

set. Fellowing sin meetings between SSE and IRC staff to resetve these conditions, final Siting Guidelines were received by NBC en 5/15/97 The Coasi - N voted to concur en the Guidelines on 6/22/84 SOE mdpilshed the

- final Guteiel*mes en 12/6/04. On 12/24/M, the staff forwarded a paper to the Comission (SECY-M-482) receasending that the Comission does not have to 4

concur in the sepplementary informetter, to the final Guidelines. The Commission approved this receamendation. Itine petitlens challenging the 00E Siting Guidelines have been censolidated inte one suit in the 9th Cinuit.

in September '87, Coat spheld DOE's authority to prehlbit use of -

ledPA funds to assist states in litigation activities. The Iluclear ideste Pelicy Amendments Act of 1987 requires BSE to phase out site-specific activities for the first repository at all candidate sites other then the Yucca flountain ".ite, and directs 30E to preceed with site characterization at 1

that site. Corrent Status: Litigation is still pending with respect to the Yucca fet. site. It the Ittigation results in the Siting Guidelines being i

vacated, 80E weeld have to repromulgate the Goldelines and IIIIC would have te recentur. On 3/21/89, the 9th Circw;t Court of Appeals declared its intention to eset most of t!w Siting timidelines cases, but requested i

additional fr: formation free DOE before taking final action.

Previous Version 89/04/24 Current Version 89/91/11

.-..-..m m

... m

z.

~

• U 4

Q 4

4 i

i larA/MdPAA Current l

Provision Bete Schedule ist Role Section 121(b)-NAC aust presulgete 1/1/04 Presulpeted IRC oust issue regulattens which specify the technical requirateents and 2.

technical requirements and criteria.

6/21/83 criteria for the repository.- Action Taken: The regulattens, m ich v re under development by the staff for several years, were pi411shed in the Federal tenister en 6/21/83 (48 FR 28194). The regulattens are found to le CF8 Part ts, "Wisposal of Mi p tewel Radioactive Westes in GeelegIC iteries Technical Criteria." An Advance Hetite of Proposed Rulenoiting (

) for the -

4 definition of high-level weste (NLW) was published in the Federal Seelster en 2/27/87 (52 FR No.39, pp.5992-6001). Current Status: The revisten to Part 68 for the definTtion of NLW has been tereinsted. An amendment to Ps-t 61 requiring disposal of Greater-than-Class C mestes in the MLW repeatory, unless the Commission approves an alternattwe seems of disposal, and shelating i

I the need to alter existing Classifications of radnestes as high-level M lou-level, was pe611shed for comment in the Federal assister G3 Fe 177eg, t

8tey 18, 1985). The comment period empired July 18. Isus. The Fliiel Rule mes publit%ed in the Federal Benister en May 25, 1909.

l l

l f

I t

(

t 1

2 V

c.-.,.

---,..,.~w.

.s.

m, y-

...--.,,w.w

...~,v.,,-,,,,

,,..-,-.....*m..+

m.

p.

.~

-.,... _r m,

e

_V*

e m

ImFA/ledinA Current Provision Date Schedwie NAC Bole 3.

Section 121(a)-EPA shall 1/7/84 Pneulgeted Section 121(b) regulations and criteria aust be revised by the Commisiten, promulgate generally applicable 9/19/05 if necessary, to canyly with standards being U w =4 by EPA.

stanoords for protection of the Action Taten: IRC's cements en the proposed standards were trannoitted to EPA general enviressent free offsite en 5/15/53. EPA fissi hi level weste standards were signed on 8/15/95, t

releases from radleactive material published in the Federal Estar en 9/19/95 (50 Fd 30066), and became in repositories.

effective 11/18/85. uut staff reviewed its high-Tevel weste criteria (16 CFE Part 68) for conformance with EPA standards, and provided a proposed rule (SECY-86-92) to the EBB and the Ceamission en 3/21/86, which the Commission app.wed on 5/15/86 withest modification. The proposed revish were published in the Federal Reelster en 6/19/86 (51 FR 22280) and comments were due by 8/18/06. In July, assi a Federal Appeals Court invaliteted EPp's

~

standards. Current States: Turther action by NRC has been postponed until EPA revises sts stanseres er is able te have parts of them reinstated. epa staff anticipates pelication in the Federal Resister of revised proposed standards in late 1999.

4.

Section 114(e)(1)-DOE Project Isene Coas,seted.

Inc and coordinate with SOE en the developmect of the P95. Action Taten:

Decision Schedule (PDS). Any Specified Sevision BBE submitted a preliminary draft PBS for NBC comment er-1/15795. uut agency that can met meet a P95 expected comments were transeitted to BOE en 3/4/95 (JBevis te BIhesche).

deadline must notify Congress Winter '89.

30E issued the draft Pts en 7/18/85. NRC cements were approved by the l

and DOE uhy it can not cogly.

Commis'slen (with modifications) en 9/19/P5 and the final camarAs were transeitted te BoE en 10/24/85. The final P95 was issued en 4/3/06 (51 FM i

11466) and copies were available en 4/19/06. Staff reviewed the PDS for SEE response to previses IRC comments, and aise for any NRC ellestones thet are sesact to Sec.114(e)(2). IRC and SGE staff werked together to resolve 4

spect:!c PDS concerns. On 4/3/87, S. Ausche sent letter to M. Tweepsen infereind his that 90E had initiated a revision to the PDS. Current Status:

As a result of the IndPAA ef 1987, 00E is preparing a new drafi PW5 feiitatively schetuted to be released in Winter 1989, that will be consistent wi'A the final flission Plan Amendment.

. I i

E 3

,t -

4 i.

1 IBFA/IMPAA Current-t Provision Bate Schedule IWC Bole 5.

Sections 216(a) and 301(b)- Braft 4/7/M Pelished IAC sust coordinate with Slp! en the development of the Mission Plan, Mission Plan published by 90E.

5/M.larM and specify, with precision, any obj"ectiens to the Plan. Action b hen: EBC draft received a prelleinary draft en 12/23/83 and sent comments directly to ME on amensbent 2/8/M. The draft Mission Plan recluired by the Act was released ty SEE en swceived 5/8/M and forwerded to MC for review and comment by 7/9/M. SDE briefed the 6/30/88.

Ceemission en the draft 18hsten Plan en 6/27/M. Staff comments were siped IIRC comments by the Chairmen and forwerded to BOE en 7/31/M. 98E released a new draft submitted to Mission Plan Amendment en June 29, 1998 te infore Congress of GGE's plans fer_

90E 9/16/88 leptementing the p.eelslems of the lefPAA for the civilian radioactive weste j

lmanagementprogram.

SIBC submitted comments to BOE on 9/16/88. 00E is curretly reevaluating its schedule.

t 6.

Section 301(b)-Subsission of DOE 6/7/M Original sub-Fellowing Congressional approval of the Nission Plan, NRC will, wherever 4

Mission Plan to Congress.

mitted to necessary, confere its weste saregement program planning guidance to Plan.

Congress Action Taken: SOE suheitted a final version of the original *tission Plan to 7/9/85. see Congtess en 7/9/85. NBC testified before the Senate Ciamittee an Enery and date set for Natural Resources concerning the Nission Plan en 9/12/85; before the House submitting 54 committee en Enery and the Envirere nt en 9/13/85; betere the Senate Amendment.

Subcensittee en lentleer Regulaties or.0/30/85; and before the Ilousa Secommittee en Enery Research and ! reduction en 11/6/85. ObE issued a droit amendment to the Nission Plan for public cessent on 1/28/87 with a 50-day l

cessent period. Staff prepared a response free Chefreen Zech to Ben Ausche, 30E, with attached comments. Letter was issued on 4/7/87. 90E sd aittet Mission Plan Amendment to Ceegress en June 9.1'387. On 12/22/87, the IRfM was 7

enacted Current Status: A draf t Mission Plan Amensteent conforming to the l

INPAA was released for comment en 6/29/88 (see 5 above). 90E is currently r

r**valJating its schedMIt. Ils date has be*n set for sdaissien Of a f$nel lil89 Mission Plan AmenM to Congress.

l l

l l

l i

l l

4 t

e,..

Y d

9 IniPA/lefPAA Corrent Provision Sete Schedule-MC Sole 4

7.

Section II7(a)-Provision of information In a tieely Ongoing As provided. Current States: Her staff and State of steveda repeweentatives to States / Tribes. ISC sust provide menner.

attended 80E's plenery meeting on the Censultation Draft Site Chorectorization-timely and complete information regard-Plan (CBSCP) for Yucca IIt. en 1/28-29/88 in Seae. IIr. net steff, State of lag siting, development, or design for Rewade, and 30E staff attended meetings: 11 to discuss 30E*s SA plan er..

licensing, construction, operation, reg-3/18/05; 2) to discuss 8EC's comments on the C95CP en 3/21-24/00; 3) to l

ulation, or decommissioning.

discuss alteneetive conceptuel mode's of the Yucca set. site en 4/11-13/0B;.

4) to discuss the BOE 44 pym en 7/7-8/es; 5) to discuss the esple story shaft facility (E5F) en 7/19-19/8B; 6) to discuss the SOE JCest 44 Angstrements Becament en 7/28/90; 7) to discuss apen items en 90E's ESF en 10/19-21/0B; i

8) to IIiscuss ESF Sesign Centrol lif3/88,11/23/88,'and 12/6/es; 9) to discuss 30E's 44 Program Bescription 11/18/88; 10) to discuss the content of ESE's Steelr Plans 12/15-16/es; 11) to discuss QA 1/25/e9. 2/21/89, and J/22/99 i

~ 5/9/99 and 7/11/09; 12) to discuss engeleg work by the NRC's Center for IIuclear Weste Regulatory Analyses (CISAA) and the State of nevada's engeing :

wert 4/25/09; 13) to discuss the SCNBAA pre 16einary concerns on 5/9-3e/89; i

and 14) to discuss the design centrol process and 00E's QA program en 7/E-7/89.

In Secesher 1988, the IWC staff met with Ilye, Clarh and tincoln County offic als s

in Les Vegas and Caliente. IIt, to *mer the views and oncerns of the Nevade I,

affected units of local gewerseent and to emplain ImC's regulatory role in the -

IILW licensing process. The staff aise set with Ilye County Commissioners in April 1999 and with tincoln County of ficials in IIerch 1989. The Ceemission l

held a meeting witie the State of Nevado en 12/1/es en the high-level weste j

program. Stanificant IILW documents are routinely distribut4 to State and local goverseent., M A lves. In additlan, wcasing meeting notices are g sent to rees. en a weetly basis. T;ee staff hos aise reviewed the State's OR L

l 81oneet and fewnd it acc stable and ce=esistent with IRC regulations.

i k

i k

. - =.

_,~m._._.---...m._____

..a f'" }.

, N ?*

fia Ih 4

i i

4 larA/IBdPAA Current Prowision Date Schedule IRC Role -

.i

8. 'Section 112(b)-00E recommends to the lil/85 site Backersund goE te develey draft EAs en sites onder consideration efter

. President 3 sites for characterization recommendation Commisstem concurrence oc the Siting Goldelines.~ IIRC staff to review and for first repository. Each of the 5 5/28/86 comment en EAs. Action Taken: BSE issued draft EAs for 9 potential-sites initially nominated for characteri-repository sites 6 and the IIRC review was completed on 3/20/85.

ration must be accompanied by an According to the draft PBS, OBE had planned to p elish final EAs anJ Environmental Assessment (EA).

nominate and recensend sites in 11/05. terw. en 10/30/85, 30E W that the final EAs and site recommendation weeld be delayed until late 2/05 l

to accomodate for the Rottenel Ac% of Sciences (1145) review of the ranking j

methodeley. N EAs were issued on 5/28/06, and tioshington. Itevede, and.

Texas were recommended to the President uhe approved them for che acteriaation.

IIRC comments en the Finst EAs (SECY-86-357) were transmitted to 00E en 12/22/36.

N affected States and Indian Trites challenged the EAs in the Ninth Circuit.

BOE semitted a motion is the ninth Cirtwit to dismiss the EA litlention

- kecause of the IBFAA requirement to characterfre only the Yucca Itsuntain candidate site.

L:,- = to 30E's motion have been filed by petitleners.

Current Status: On 3/*I/89, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dslated "(s intention to meet most of Je EA cases, but regsested additlenal infonastion from 90E before taking final action.

9 4

i l

l l

l 1

5-

{

i

~,

~~

-,z m

m m.m mm

x?- _ - _ -. _3

.p

~"

l

\\

)

f I

l i

sadPA/ledpAA Current ist Sole Date Schedule Any defense-only ittif respository 5%Il be sdiject to licensing and comp d operation.

with all SAC rer,wirements for siting, development, construction an P_ revision 1/7/85 Final EIS 90E sensmitted a final report to the President in 2/05, recem-Section 8(b)-Presidert must evaluate the received On 4/30/85, the Action Taken:

9 possibility of developing a defense-waste Dec.'87.

eending a combined ceanercial anJ defense repository. Presi 00E issued for peds.ic only repository.

with DOE's recommendatien of a combi,aed repository.

f d comment.* Oraft Enstronmental lepect Statement (DEIS) on

• Disposal of f Refense High-Level, Transuranic and Yank Wastes" in 3/86. Inc ceaments we

6. _ :d by the Ceamission and transmitted to DOE on 9 On avellable te affected State and Triba; *epresentatives soon thereafter.

9/3/87, 00E briefed IIRC staff on how they plan to handle estC comme Current status _: The selC Final EIS was received in late Dec.'87.

t j

staff provided the Commission with an Information Paper reflecting the c draft EIS.

EIS in Augu.i status of Henford tank weste issues raised in its review o' the F N staff met with 00E 6/9/8F. and 9/22/88 to discuss 00E's plans for On 11/29/88, the 184 staff forwarded ceanents to 1988.

On 1/18/89, the disposing of tank weste.

00E on 80E's proposed appwh for classlQing tank waste.

staff was briefed by 't0E en DOE's revs *ed approach for classifyin NRC submitted a paper to the double-shell tank weste.

3 IMC concurrence on 00E's revised approach.

Ceanission in 8 toy 1989 en the classification and disposal of the Han

• n July 1989, the Office of the Secretary informed the EDO that the Consission had approved the stafis position on the Han Eastes (SECY-89-1E4).

W staff espects to forward a letter to DOE by September 1989 Weste*.

documenting the IIRC'; position.

I I

\\

)

i

~

/

. :: * ' ; =,, :

4 ledPA/ledPAA Current Provision Date Schedule IRC Role l

10. Section 113(b)-5dmission to MC by Before h itation IMC aust review and cement en the statutory SCP. Action Taken: A Draft 00E of site characterizatie.s plan sinking Draft SCP Technical Review Plan and Administrative Plan for CD5CP review mr.s issued by '

(SCP), waste fore er package descrip-shaft received the IRC staff in 12/87. BOE issued a " Consultation Draft" SCP for Yucca IIt.

tion, and concepts-1 repository design.

1/8/88.

.en 1/S/88. The IRC staff and State of nevado esps attended a pionery Statutory meeting held by SOE en the CSSCP en 1/28-29/es in mene, Hv. net issued SCP received their prelleinery concerns en the Yucca Mt. CSSCP as draft " point pepers" en 12/28/88.

3/7/08. Two wortshops were held during 80erch and April with BSE and the

[

SCA issued State of Nevade to discuss the Inc draft " point papers". Inc sts.ff briefed ~

7/31/89 the Cannission en the final " point papers' on fley 4, 1988. The staf^ lossed the final " point papers" with no significant changes fram the draft on geny II, 1900. Current Status: SOE issued the statutory SCP en Decaster 24. Itac staff review of the 5CP. which involved interaction with and review by the -

ACitf. Logan 1/2/89. The staff completed its review in June and briefed the -

Ceemission en July II, 1989. The staff completed its review in June and l'

briefed the Comission en July 11, 1989. The smC's Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) of the 5CP was issued on 7/31/99.

t l

l l

u

...-.m

. - ~

,... ~... _.._ _._....._........ _._

y

. L *:.;...

. g r

BhiPA/ledPAA Currcat

{

Provision Sate Schedule NBC Sole i

11. Section 114(a)(1)(E)-90E submits to the Prior to Prior te IMC aust provide pielleinery comments en whether the at-depth site-President and enkes available to the 13 below 13 below chwacterization analysis (SCA) and weste fore proposal is sufficient for -

t public the Commission's preliminary (IM4).

inclusion in the DOE construcilen authorization application.

comments concerning the sufficiency of the at-depth SCA and weste fores proposal-4 for inclusion :n the application.

12. Section 114(a)(1)(0)-00E's final Prior to Final NBC oust review and <====nt en the draf t EIS. which is anticipated in Environmental lepact Stateme9t (EIS) 13 below EIS due 1993. Actina Taken: let is allowed 3 months for review and comment, but had on the first proposed repository must 1994 requested 5 months (in draft P95 comments) to allow for Consissien involvement include teament free IRC en the draf t and for consvitation with host states and affected Indian tribes. In the June EIS.

1987 Mission Plan Amendeont to Congress. 00E had retained only the 3 months for1.

draf' EIS review and cement. Currest Status: The Draft 1988 #6ssten Plan Amendment does not explicitly address the leiigth of the review period for the

$ raft EIS. It does state that "encept for the start of emploratory shaft -

construction and in-site testing, the sejer ellestones in this schedule are the same as these given in the 1967 Mission Plan Amendeent." According to DOE's Braft 1988 Mission Plan Amendment, the final EIS is to se issued in i

1994.

1

13. Section 114ta)(2)-9 resident 3/31/87 1994 II/A i

recommends site to Congress for (esy be construction.

extended one year if i

nKMun) ii. Sections 116(b) and 118(a)-Schmittal tip to 60 (See 13 II/A of notice of disapproval by State er days after above.)

Indian tribe.

Presidential receamendation

15. Section 115(g)-Congress any obtain any Prior to 16 Prior to 10 IWC aust er cognizant of State / Tribal concerns to be able to provide 4

comments of the Coastulon with respect below below barwiedgeair!e connents to Congress.

[

l to a State / Tribal site iisapproval.

1 6

J...

m_

~. :

w.

~

...r i

N It#A/larAA Current ProvisIw Date Schedule'.

IMC tele

16. Section 115(c)-State / Tribal Alsapproval Within 90 1995 IVA will tde effect unless both tauses of calendar days Congress pass reseletten of approval of continuous withir 90 calender days of continuous session after session after the dote of receipt by notification.

4 Congress of a notice of disapproval.

t 17.

Section 114(b)-Secretary sd aits IIe later ti.an 1995 An IEEC licensing proceeding will be initiated en the license.

license application 'LA) to IMC.

98 days afte-date site re ee-sendation is effective.

18. Section 114(c)-IIRL oust semelt one year after 1996 Inc aust semit an annuei status report to Congress describing

- l status report to Congress.

sdeittal of the proceedings undertaken through the date of stsh report 4

the license regarding the cos truction authorization application, including a, plication e description of: 1) any a3)er unresolved safety issues, and the 1

and annually emplanetten of the Secretary with respect to design and operation -

thereafter.

plans for resolving toch issues; 2) any setters of contention rege

• lag sects application; and 3) any Ceemission actions regarding the grants.q or denial of such authorization.

19.

Section 114(d)-Commission aust issue Three years 1998 The 3 year time period for an Inc licensing decision dictates an aggressive decision on construction authorizetten after program of involvement with SOE and State of Itevada prior to receipt of t

l (CA).

application a license application se as te identify and resolve contenticus issses j

sd estted, or to the semieum entent practicable. Ceemission will either grant er deny 4 years after aut.herization for 90E to hegin construction of the first plegic repository.

+

sd aittal (if To meet this sc*.edule, a relatively complete, good quailty BOE application

- extended) will be required. Due 3 year time period may be enten! fed up to 12 months, unless CA is if not 7ers then 30 days before such deadline, the Commisslow complies with for negotiated the everting requirements establisswns in safPA Sesection 114(e)(2).

site (Section 495(b)(2)).

I t

- m--

r m

=

-.u m..

a..

u.

n m-.A.a-m..

2-m4

=

4i ea-mi s-AaL-

..<iss u- -

u;; w-

- =_

~

1. %p-:

3

-. y;~

{

..i_'*- ',. ;

[x

~

4 1.W 4

ledPA/ lema f.wrrent' i

Provision Date Schedule edRC tele i

20. Section 114(d)- NBC decision

-- 1998 (80E to report to Congress between 1/1/07 and 1/1/10 en need for second vproving first application shall repository. See Items 22 and 23.)

prshibit esplacement in first.

4 repository of L quantity of spent fuel in excess of 70,000 RilSI untti such time as a second repository is in aperation.

4

21. Section 114(f)- Any EIS prepared in At time of 1998 l As provided. Action Taken: The Commissten has amended Part 51 to establish -

connection with a repository proposed construction s uhat is meant by "to the entent pacticat.le". IIRC proposes te find it to be constructed by the Secretary authorization.

practicable to adapt 30E's EIS unless the action proposed to be taken by IK.

under this subtitle will, to the as a conditten for licensing differs in an environnertally significant way extent practicable, be aApted by' free the actien described in SOE's license application, or significant and the Commission in cesuwction with substantial new infereotten er new considerations render the seE EIS the isseence by the Commission of a l inadegaste. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Agtster (54 FR construction authorization and l 27864, July 3, 1999).

j license for such repository.

22. Section 161(a)- Secretary may not N/A st/A Backs'ound - Sec.112(b)(1)(c) nf the RedPA of '82 required the Secretary to conduct site-specific activities receemend 3 sites for characterization to the President for a second with respect to 2nd repository repository. SOE issued the Area Recommendation amport (Ass) en 1/16/06, unless Congress has specifically which identified 12 possible second repository sites, and sesessmently i

authorized and appropriated funds conducted public hearings concerning the second repository. fic 5/28/36, for such activities.

80E announced an indefinite postponement of the Crystalline Project until the i

need for a second repetitory could be better assessed. This pos* W was t

.. legally challenged by States and Tribes in the first repository program..The Rission Plan Ameneemt of June '87 discussed the bask for tatending the schedule for site-specific work en the second repository. In the mssion pM i

Amendment, 30E stated that "If af firimetive Cugressional action is not taken i

[en the Amendment in FY'87], the DOE will review the more than 60,G38 cements re sived on the AAR issued in January 1986 yid prepere a final AAR that leentifies potentially acceptable sites for seseguent field wortt." On 10/1/87, 00E notified governors of potential second repository states thet set was resemi review of comments on the AAR. This actlen is new seperseded by Section 161 a) of the IBMA of '87.

I l

11-w w

2--

. a

. m m

.2 a

- - m

...m=-

7

-w

.=

d i

4 4

4 NWPA/IWPAA Current Provision Date Schedule.

IEC Bele d

?3. Section 161(b)-Secretary must

. On or after leone specif f =1.

BOE an#er Congress may seek NAC views, however.

report to Congress en need for 1/1/97, but second repository.

not later than 1/1/10.

24. Section 180(a)-sto spent fuel Not specific.

As provided. Action Taken: Under an existing NRC/ DOE proced sat agreement, or HLW may be transported by (48 FR 51875. Noveder 14,1983), DOE was planning to use pckaging a W or for DOE under Subtitle A by NBC in accordance with le CFR Part 71, rather than SOE-tertified packaging, (Reposttery) or Subtitle C for all 30E shipments perfereed under the IWPA free NAC-Itcensed facilities -

(NRS) except in packages that to an IWC-licensed repository, IMS, or interie storage facility. (Prior have l'een certified for such to the itMA of '87, SOE was required under Sec.1:7(a) of the papa of '82 purpose by NRC.

to obtain 18C coalfication only for transportation to lateria auey-free-reacter storage facility. See Itse 35.) The Procedural Agreement stipulated, however, that 30E sight have to reesamine this intent if it appeared that -

• such packaging will not he available or 4 (30E] can not accomplist its eendete under the IhrA using NBC-certified packaging." Section lee (s) of the i

lema ef '87 requires BOE to use NRC-certified packaging and appears te

(

sapersede 30E's option to reenamine the intent described in the Procedural Agreement. Cuerent Status: In the Draft 1988 Mission Plan Amendment, OBE i

i states that "all cas\\s used in weste transportattw will be certified by the IEIC." The NAC lean aertation Cranch staff ha, been meeting with BOE and its contracters to discuss pre-application design issues for 6-7 truck and j

rail cask desi ps. SOE will reimburse the imC for all cask review costs in I accordance with 80E/NBC peumerandia of Isaders 1988). NRC expects the first application for an IIWA truck resk in August j

1990.

4 1

f e

l l

i 1

u i

w1-

,y

,.~

v c

c

-+

w.,

a e v

-w.

,.e

.-e-,vi

.-+n m

e-,<

.~ + we

.3-w--

• +. -

g.

~

.o

.g n

6[

n.

j.

I 1

i i

s I

II.

Test and Evaluation Facility Progras ledPA/ledPAA Current provision Date Schedule IRC Ar,le

25. Section 213(a)- DOE is ae.thorized 7/7/83 DOE has not IIone. Current States: he guidelines have been issued. NAC will prw ide but net requirsd to issue TE facility announced

- the required consultation if and when the guidelines are *ssued.

siting guide'ines.

(See 27 below)

26. Sectioc 216(a)-Cooperation and IIene specified IRC shall assist the Secretary by cooperating aW coordinating en any esports Coordination.

under Title II (Research, Seveler ent, and Demonstration aegarding Ptsposal of Nigh-Level Radioactive tieste and Spent souclear Fuel) including test and Evaluation facilities.

27. Section 217(f)(1)-OSC, DOE eust conclude 1/6/84 Ilot seneduled full sust wert with 90E in develeping a written agreement for procedures far i

written agreement on precedures for TE review, censultatlee, and coors*instion in the plauing, construction and facility interaction.

eperation of tie TE facility. Such an understanding shall also establish i

the types of reports and other information as the Commission any reesonably require to evalente health and safety lepects of the TE facility.

?

Current State-- IIe agreement has been reached. 90E reported to Congress en.

i 47575E TEeTr'3ecision that if a TEF is necessary, it should be cellecated. but that the decision en the need for a TEF is being delayed setti the m *s data useds are bette. established. As of 4/24/09, decision was still on held.

i

28. Section 217(f)(3)(A)-INIC shall carry lione As provid=4 out a continuing analysis of the T E specified activities to evaluate the t ny 1

of the consideration of peelic health and safety issues.

29. Section 217(f)(3)(B)-Nec required to stone As provided report to the Secretary, the President, specified and the Congress as it deses appropriate.

30. Section 217(h)-IIRC oust concur on Five years N"C will evaluate DOE's decewtamination and decommissioning activities, decontamination and decosmissioning after initial and concer, if Remed appropriate, for a LE facility not located of DOE's 7 E facility.

operation at the site of repository.

i 13

..,_am _. -. __. __.,., _._

u

3 r

j-

~

a l

i i

i l

[

III.

Interie Spent Fuel Storage l

18dPA/ItiPAA Current Provision Date Scheduie IRC Bele

31. Section 132-The Secretary, the llo specific The Commission will consider which actions are necessary to laplement the i

Commission, and other authorized dates intent of this prevision. (See aise Item 37.)

federal officials shall each take such actions as such officials consider necessary to encourage and expedite the i

effective use of available storage, and necessary additional storage, at the i

site of each civilian nuclear rower reacter.

1

32. Section 134-Hybrid precedures are Ile specific Final rule A preposed rule establishing procedures for expansion of ensite spent

{

prescribed for hearings en certain dates, but pdlished fuel storage capacity er transshle=W of fuel was pdlished applications for licenses for procedures 10/15/85 en 12/5/83. Comment period was e.4ened to 2/29/84. A final rule wk2 s 4-facility expansions of spent fuel apply to eitted to the Commission en 7/8/85. Ca_evet Status: The Commission j

storage aed transshipments of spent applications approved the final.ule en 9/5/85, asuT the finei edited rule was pubitshed i

fuel.

filed after in the Federal Resister en 18/15/85 (50 FR 41M2).

1/97/85

33. Section 135(g)-Issuance of NAC proposed 4/7/83 Final As p:evided. A proposed rule was published 4/29/83. Comments received during rule establishing procedures and crite da criteria the public comment period which ended 6/28/83 have been reviewed. Final for making a determination that on:,ite published criteria were submitted to the Ceansission en 11/7/84. The criteria were storage cannot reasonably be provided 2/11/85 approved by the Commission en 1/18/85. The final rule,10 CFR Part 53, at a reacter.

" Criteria and Precedures for 8etermining Adegsacy of Available spent stuclear Feel Sterage Celty" estabilshing precedures and criteria for meking nut's dtuminetten that a utility is eligible to contract with 90E for Federal Interie ~,terage Capacity was ps411shed on 2/11/85 (50 FR 5563).

4 1

14

=

-e O. -

^

y

~

4 IAfPHINPAA Current Provision Sete Schedule lec St,1*.

34. 5(ction 135(a and b)-If the IWC Centracts any salt will aske public health and safety determinations as to the use of any cetermines that ensite storage he entered existing DOE facility for spent fuel storage and will license storage in cannot reasonably be provided r' inte ne later new structures, including sedular er ashile spent nuclear fuel storage a reactor by the licensee, SOE any, than 1/1/90.

equipment such as dry tasks, as required under this provision of the Act.

under certain conditions, provide (The IRFAA autherires SOE to enter into contracts for Federal Interie not more than 1900 metric tons of Storage no later than.tanuary 1, 1990. In the Draft 1998 flission Flag

~

capa6ity for storage of spent nuclear Amendment, 80E states "fo date, no Federal Interie Steroge applications fuel free civilian power reactors.

have been received, and, with the availability of commercial alternatives, none are egocted.") See 33 above.

35. Section 137(.)(1)-Transportation of leet specific NBC will certify packaging and apprewe pavysical security measures spent nuclear fuel to a DOE Interie for 30E spent fuel transport to a 900 interia away-free-raector away-free-reacter storage fecility storage facility.

shall bt sebject to licensing by 19C and by the Department of Transport-ation as provided for commercial fuel under existing law.

34. Section 117(a)(2)-90E, in providing for IIet specific IIe direct role.

h the transportation of spent nuclear fuel under this Act,'shall utilize by contract private industry la the fullest i

extent possible in each aspect of such transportation.

l i

--.,.~.._ -.

- - - ~ -

f p.=

c 4

d MdPA/ledPAA Current Provision Bete Schedele IAC Bele

37. Section 218(a) and 133-let shall by Itet specific pelic IEC, osing data and inforestion free 90E dry storage demonstratten and l

rwie estabilsh proce h.s for the g cameents cooperative ans, will develop regulation; to appre:ee dry tectueeley -

7 licensi of Imy technoley approved received.

stor at civi ian nuclear power reacters witheet, to the een k e entent by the for ese at the site of any Dcaft Final pract cable, tne need for additional site specific approvals by the WC.

civilian nuclear power reactor. NRC Sule to M On June 17, 1987, IRC's Office of Research was resquested to ir.itiate a imey by rule approve one or more dry fleragement ruissaking through amendments to le CTR Part 72 to streamline the licensing spent fuel storage technologies for use in Octeher 89 process for use of spent fuel dry storage casks at reacter sites.

at the sites of civilian power reacten Current Status: The proposed Rule was provided to the Comission in Storch without, to the semiens extent I 15Ery. me Cemeission approved the PR and it ses p4rlished in the Federet l

practicable, the need for additional aseister en stay 5,1989. The peelic comment period for the pt ended t

site-specific approvals.

' June 3,1999. IRC staff are responding to ck W s received. Staff is continuing to receive late ra===nts.

Appropriate revisions accommodoting 4

I public comments wil! he inceperated in a draft Final Rule for Inc Itanagement reefew in October 1999.

l

38. Section (5064)(b)(3)- 90E nest consult Report due {Ceepleted IMC will consider mission-related portions of DOE report fes possitie with Comission and include views 10/1/88.

3/89 of Commission in report to Congress j

coment as respuested. The draft BOE report taes transeittd to IEC in a letter fres OSE to Cheirman Zech '.ated 9/1/88. NBC provided comments i

on use of dry cask storage.

to 30E in a letter dated Itevember 18, 1988. 00E respuested lutC cessents en -

l the " Final Versten Dry Cask Storage study" in January 2.

Ist revleued the report and found thet consents en the draft report had been accesodoted. SWE l

provided the final report to Congress in Iterth 1985.

}

t i

l r

4 16 i

m 4

m.

m

~~-..-..~.,..4

..r-.

,, _ -...,... - _...... - - -.... ~

x.

.f.;

d IV.

Monite md Retrievable Storage Paeras IRFA/ttf*AA Current ProwIsIon Sete Schedule.

IRC Role

39. Section 141(b)(3)-00E shall censult 6/1/85' Completed.

As provided. Action Taken: IRC consulted with 90E en develepment of the IRS with the Commission and EPA in ferou-preposal, and provided consents (SECY-86-9) to SOE em 2/5/86 for semittal lating the IRS proposal and shall sateit with the pesposal to Congress seen th.reafter. Newever, legal theileepes their comments on the IRS proposal to by the State of Tennessee delayed the sukoittel of the HR5 proposal to Congress aler..g with the proposal.

Congress. 00E filed an appeal to expedite a decision en the i

District Court injunction in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincianett, anr eral arguments were held on 7/24/86. The 6th Circuit decided in faear of 80E on 11/25/86 be;t an appeal by Tennessee to the Supreme Court further j

' delayed the issuance of the proposal to Congress. The 54 prime Court denied the appeal en 3/30/87. BBE sadmitted the proposal to Cenpress en 3/31/5/.

n-.--J

: ta 3arate the nRS at a site en the Clinch River in Sok Ridge, TN a

with alternative sites en the paa sieve E=3e..n'.a M = =0 tas brasr sik of a proposed nuclear pcwr slant in Leertsville, TW. Congressional heerings took place en Hey 28 and June 18. 1987. Section 142(a) of the IaRAA af '87 l

annulled and revoked the BOE propesel, and at the same time authorized SOE te site, construct, and operate one IRS subject to conditions described in the-Amendments Act (see item 43 helow).

• 0.

Section 141(c)(1)-544 mission by 6/1/85 Ceapleted.

On 2/5/86, NAC staff cemented en 90E's original 8R5 proposal which included -

Secretary of an environmental an TA (See itse 42 below.)

4 I

assessment with re*pect to the IRS proposal to Compress.

t

41. Section 141(d)-80E shall file for No sooner 1995 C1C aust decide on any 90E license application. Action Taten: NRC has-license with IRC for IRS.

than 60 days developed revisions to 14 CFR Part 72 to provide the licensing frameuerk for from date of the IRS, and will review BOE's application and make the necessary licensing site selection detereinations. The proposed role en 16 CFR Part 72 was sehoitted to the which sesy not Commission (SECY-85-374) en 11/25/85, and e supplement (SECY-85-374A) l take place prior concerning state / tribal involvement was snesitted on 3/14/86. Both papers i

to DOE reces-have been approved by the Ceemission, the staff negairements sees was received l

sendation to the en 8#21/06, and the presesed revisions were p elished in the federal l

President of a Resister on 5/27/8b (Si FR 19106). The comument period closee en site for i 8/Z5/56, with 1% comments received. The Final Rule (SECY-87-298) was i

repository.

revised by the Office of the General Counsel to reflect the ISRAA and was l

affirard by the Cammission en July 14, 1988. - Current Status: The Final Rule l

was published in the F-3= el Register on 8/19/55. The effective dete was l

'?f12!SP.

I li.

mm-m-

-. c

^

W K,;

e ledPA/ladPAA Current Provision Date Schedule

_IRC Role

42. Section 143(a)- There is estabilshed 1-22-08 Estabilshed Isot seecified. Inc staff provided testieony to f25 Commission en an IEtS Review Commission that shall 6-34-98.

July EJ, 1988.

consist of three members appointed by and serve at pleasure of President pro tempore of Senate and iteuse Sped er.

43. Section 143(s)- IRS Commission is to 6-1-89 11-1-89.

Isot specified.

prepare a.< pert en the need for an IRS as part of a national nuclear waste management system.

44. Section 144-After IRS Commission sub-After 11-1-89. Isot specified.

mits its report to Congress under Section 143, DOE may c

• t a servey and evaluation of potesstially suitable sites for an IRS.

45. Section 145(d)- Secretary shall r epare Isot prior to 1994' Jet specified. 90E and/or Congress may seek IIRC views, however.

I an environmental assessment (IA) with 80E reces-respect to selection of a site for IRS.

mendation to EA to be based on available informatir. President of e ternative technologies. EA to be a site for submitted to Congress at time of site a repository.

selection.

46. Section 148(d)- ticense conditions for 1997 Any license issued by IMC shall provide that construction not begin issuance of construction authorization un'.it 151C has issued a license for repository constructice. Con-for IRS.

siruction er acc=ptance of spent fuel or ERW shall be prohibited si repositerw license is revoked by IIRC or repository construction ceases.

13

.,_n 6

+

7.,

=

, p: A O

C-

\\

j 6

V.

Nuclear Weste IIeestiator 109A/I89AA Current Provision Bote Schedule Inc Role 1

47. Section 402(a)- There is estab-(See 48 beleu.)

lished within the Emecutive Branch

' the Office of fluclear Weste llegotiator.

48. Section 403(c)- The llegatietor any As provided.

solicit and consider comments of 3DE.

Inc er any other Federal agency on the suitability of any potential site for l

characterization. The aheve agencies are not required to enke a fiw*ing that l

any such site is suitable fer site characterization.

49. Section 405(b)(2)- Inc must issue 1998

- A. provided final decision approving or dis-approving issuance of a construction authorization for a repository or Ins, sdject to a negotiated and enat.ted agreement. not later than j

3 years after date of seteission j

of application.

50. Section 407(c)(2)(8)- In EIS (Will depend As provided l

prepared with respect to a on whether-l repository to be constructed at Ilegotteter a site other than the Yucca Nt.

ebtains site. IEC shall consider the Yucca agreement for l

Mt. site as an alternative to such repository at site in the preparation af such

' a site other statement.

than Yucca Mt.)

i l

17 4

g.g.-r,c

=, < *,., - ---

.,,..,m,

.w.2.

..--y---

,yy..-p.

---,,.~ eme, wwww.,e

[.

..,,,y

.. v

=.,m-

.m,m~,

m,x F_

l l

l l

I VI.

Low-Level Weste Prey in (leo deadlines were provided in the terAA for the LLW senegement prowlsions under Section 151).

t l

Provisions IIRC nele

51. Section 151(a)(1)-Cameission authorized to establish As provided. Action Taken: Prelleinary work was begun on a rulemeking related to Sec-regulations or such other standards and tien 131(a). Discussions were held with the Office of State Programs and the Office of the instructions as it deems necessary er desirable General Counsel. The Emecutive Director for Operations terminated the rulemoking on te ensure that each LLW disposal licensee will slowember 5, 1986. Current status: Due to other higher priorities, resources continue to have adeguate financial arrangements for decantant-be unevallable to restart this ruleenking.

netton, decommissioning, site closure and reclame-tion of sites, structures, and equipnent used in l-conjunction with its LLW disposal.

52.

Section 151(a)(2)-If Commission detemines that fley require rulemetting by the Commission and the development of guidance for both e isting l

long-tere maintenance or monitoring will be and new commercial LLW disposal sites. For existing sites, analyses will.be required necessary at a LLW disposal slie Caseission must to assess long-tem performance; monitoring and long-tere enintenance requireseats; l

ensure before termination e.2 the license that the associated costs; and the programs to review monitoring data to identify the need j

licensee has made adequate financial arrangements.

for eitigettwe actions. Current Status: Sue to other higher priorities, resources Stonitoring will be carried out by the person having continue to be unewallable for this effort.

title and custody for such following licr se i

termination.

i

53. Section 151(b)-90E shall have the authority to Likely to require rulemoking/ guidance to provide basis for required assamme title and custody of ilW anu the land on determinations. Such rulemaking/ guidance would require close coordinetion with 90E -

which such weste is disposed of,apen the request which appears to have independent discretion to accept sites following Commission i

of the owner of such weste and land following detemination. Curren', Status: Due to other higher priorities, resources continue terminatten of the license issued by the Commission to be unewallable for this effort.

for such disposal, if 1) the Commission determines that the requirements for site closure, deces-i' missioning and decontamination have been met with pursuant to Section 115(a); 2) that such title and custody will be transferred to tM DOE without cost 1

to the Federal government; 3) that federal ownership

{

and management is necessary, or desirable to protect j

the public healtt: and safety.

I L

+

k

"_'?

. v* - as,.

i i

Provistens IWC Ik,12

54. Section 151(c)-Adequate financial arrangements Slailar to Item 53 above.

for long-ters maintenance and monitoring, as upH.

as decentamination and stablitration of speciai sites must be set in accordance with reguirements estabilshed by the Commission before 80E any assume title and custody of the weste and the land on whide it is disposed.

I i

5 i

i i

i i

1 l

21

_, ~,.,

. ~... _ -...,, _..

--,_..-m._,.

J an. w, -_

3 4

i 1

e VII. 8SC's role Relating to Other Provisions in the Act 1

lefP4/IndPAA Corrent Frovision Date Schedule IRC Sole -

55. Section 5062-Transportation of Pu This section of the larAA does not directly impact the civilian nuclear by aircraft through United States weste program.

airspace.

56. Section 223(b)-8y April 7, 1983, 00E 4/7/83 Completed Inc will prepare a pint Federal Register petire with DOE and will provide and NRC oust p 4115h a jetot notice in As nual 3/30/83, technical assistance to non-nuclear weapon states pursuant to the Act and the the Federal Register stating that the revisions w/ annual FR notice. leC and get will update and reissue this notice annually for U.S.~ls presered to cooperate and required gdetes.

5 years, as required. Action Taken: An FR notice was published following pre.ide technical assistance to non-coordination with DOE, 6 State Department on 3/30/83.

nuclear weapon states in the field of Annual updates of the notice were pelished in the Federal Register spent fuel storage and disposal.

en 4/6/84, 4/5/85, 4/3/06, and 4/3/87. The fifth and final apeste required by the Act was p e lished on 4/6/88 (53 FR 11390). Fifteen l

countries have rr; Mf to the effer. ~

57. Section 302(b)(1)(A)-The Camerission 6/30/83 Completed As previded. Action Taken: the final weste disposal contract proposal was t

shall w i issue er renew a license 6/30/83 p elished by the sUt in the Federal Register en 4/18/83. All necessary to use a utilization or prediaction centracts were signed and received by the UDE on or before the 6/30/83 facility under Section 103 or 104 of statutory deadline. The contract stipulates " services to be provided by SWE the Atomic Ener g Act unless the under this c.wtract shall be Legin, af ter commemenent of facility,

i applicant has entered into a weste operations, not later than January 31, 1998."

I disposal contract with the Secretary of Energy or the Secretary affices in I

writing that the licensee is negotiating in good faith to enter into such e l

contract.

l Section 302(b)(1)(8)-The NRC in its discretion may require as a precondition to the issuance or renewal of a reactor license that the applicant shall have entered into an agreement with DOE for the disposal of high-level waste or spent fuel that may result free soth a license.

22 v

,--s

.w.4-r,...,

,__,-_.s._.,.

.-.-.--m

~'

++

-/m-Ag IBdPA/ledPAA Corrent Provi. ion Date Schedule IMC Sole

58. Section 303-80E shall censult with 1/6/M Action At the invitation of the 5 cretary, the Chairman will censult en the the Chairman of the IIEC in conducting Completed

" alternative approaches" study. Actions Taken: SOE chartered an a study of alternative approaches to 4/18/85 Advisory Panel en Alternative Iteams of Itnanctag and fieneging Radioactive tieste Facilities (MIFN) to assist thee in conducting the tne construction and operations 9ofaIcivilianwastemanagement required study. As part of the consultation process, SOE entenced the invitation to have an IIRC observer attend the AIGN Panel meetings.

facilities and then 80E is to report The Panel held ten meetings between January and Inovember 1984, which were Congress.

attended by IRC staff observers, and toured SOE waste facilities at teenford, IITS, and tilPP. Panel held its tenth and final meeting on 11/13-14/94, including a meeting with Secretary Itedel en 11/14/84 to discuss their-receaseadations and forthcoming report. A final draft of the report received ISC en 12/5/94 concludes that several organizational feros are more suited SOE for managing the waste program, and identifies a public corporation as its preferred alternative. The report also recommends adoption of several specific progran cesponents which are independent of the type of ergenisation Council.

sitimately chosen to handle the program, including an Advisory Siting /19/05.

The Final graf t Report was sent to the Chairmen for censultation en 2 The staff provided comments to the Chairman on 3/8/85. The thelrman transeitted his ceanents to Secretary Mertington on 3/22/85, which were forwarded to the President along with SOE's escommendations en 4/18/95. 80E receamended retaliting the present -, - --; structure at lea?t throups the

. siting and licensing phase of the program.

59 Section 306-IIRC is required to 1/6/84 Completed As provided. Action Taken: The Commission issued a policy sta*ement en 2/7/85, concerning personeel training and qualifications (10 CFR Part SL).

promulgate regulations or other This policy statement was published in the Federal fleelster en 3/29/85.

suitable guidance for the licensing Proposed amendments to Part 55 dealing with simulater training reemirements and qualifications of civilian were publissued in the Federal Register en 11/26/84. The final rutemsking nuclear power plant personnel and package en Part 55 and~5.ae associated Reguletery Guides was approved by the submit a report to Congress on its ACES en 12/5-7/85, and final Office review ceapleted. The final activities under this action.

amendeent to Part 55 was submitted to CEGR for review on 2/26/86. which receamendet several modifications. The edited final rule was approved by CBER en 3/19/86, and approved by the E90 on 4/If/86. The Commission asproved SECY-86-123 with modifications en 10/17/86. Staf f resubmitted the final paper (SECY-86-338) to 000 in late 11/96. Ceamission affirmed paper en 2/12/ST.

Current Status: Rule was pe6lished in Federal Register en 3/25/87.

a