ML19331C116
| ML19331C116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/22/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Randolph J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331C117 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008140182 | |
| Download: ML19331C116 (43) | |
Text
r acaey
/s UNITED STATES U
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSION N.
g a
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- 3"CDENCE
"%{*CT July 22,1980 CHAIRMAN THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS The Honorable Jennings Randolph Chaiman, Comittee on Environment and Public Works i
United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear P.r. Chaiman:
Enclosed are our responses to the questions on spent fuel storage and high-level waste disposal contained in your letter to me dated July 9, 1980. Thank you for this opportunity to express our views on t,hese areas. We will be pleased to provide any additional information you require..
Sin erely,
/
John F. Ahearne
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions e
8,0081401 0
. - - =. -.
r Question 1:
Please quote the substantive health and safety standard under which the proposed technical criteria for the disposal of bigh-level radioactive waste were issued.
Is this the same standard under which the Comission contemplates acting upon applications to construct a geologic repository, to emplace radioactive waste therein and to decomission the fa ility? If not, please clarify.
The information foll'ws:
The procedural requirements and the technical criteria would be issued under the same substantive health and safety standards.
The authority is derived from section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C.
5842, which extends to the Commission " licensing and related regulatory authority pursuant to chapters 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as to the following facilities of the Administration:
(3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act.
"(4) Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose 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 developnent activities."
The relevant provisions of the Atomic Energy Act include, most importantly;
" Chapter 6.
Special Nuclear Material Sec. 53 Domestic Distribution of Special Nuclear Material (42 U.S.C. 2073)
"b.
The Comission shall establish, by rule, minimum criteria for the issuance of specific or general licenses for the distribution of special nuclear material depending upon the degree of importance to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public i
o f--
(1) the physical characteristics of the special nuclear material to be I
distributed; (2) the quantities of special nuclear material to be distributed; and (3) the intended use of the special nuclear material to be distributed.
l "e.
Each license issued pursuant to this section shall contain and be subject to the following conditions --
(7) special nuclear material shall be distributed only pursuant to such safety standards as may be established by rule of the Comission to protect health and to minimize danger to life or property."
__ " Chapter 7.
Source Material "Sec. 63 Domestic Distribution of Source Material (42 U.S.C. 2093)
"b.
The Comission shall establish, by rule, minimurn criteria for the issuance of specific or general licenses for the distribution of source material depending upon the degree of importance to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public of--
(1) the physical characteristics of the source material to be distributed; (2) the quantities of source material to be distributed; and (3) the intended use of the source material to be distributed.
" Chapter 8.
Byproduct Material "Sec. 81 Domestic Distribution (42 U.S.C. 2111)
...The Comission shall not permit the distribution of any byproduct material to any licensee, and shall recall or order the recall of any distributed material from any licensee, who is not equipped to observe or who fails to observe such safety standards to protect health as may be established by the Comission or who uses such material in violation of law or regulaton of the Comission or in a manner other than as disclosed in the application therefor or approved by the Comission..."
The rulemaking authority of the Comission is further described in Chapter
- 14. General Authority as follows:
" Sec. 161. General Provisions. 42 U.S.C. 2201.
In the perfonnance of its functions the Commission is authorized to --
"b.
Establish by rule, regulation, or order, such standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material as the Comission may deem necessary or desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property.
"i. Prescribe such regulations or orders as it may deem necessary...(3) to govern any authority authorized pursuant to this Act, including standards and restrictions governing the design, location, and operation of facilities used in the conduct of such activity, in order to protect health and to minimize danger to life or property.
l l
. ~... -
3-
"o Require by rule, regulation, or order, such reports, and the keeping of such records with respect to, and to provide for such inspections of, activities and studies of types specified in section 31 and of activities under licenses issud pursuant to sections 53, 63, 81, 103, and 104, as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act, including section 105; and p.
Make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."
The authority to prescribe the contents of license applications is further set forth in section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, as follows:
"a.
Each application for a license hereunder shall be in writing and shall specifically state such information as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may determine to be necessary to decide such of the technical and financial qualifications of the applicant, the character of the applicant, or any other qualifications of the applicant as the Commission may deem appropriate for the license..."
Additionally, our regulations and licensing decisions must be consisten:
with standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 5 U.S.C., App. at 827 (1976).
That Plan transferred to EPA:
"ibe functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, administered through its Division of Radiation Protection Standards, to the extent that such functions of the Commission consist of establishing generally applicable environmental standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive material.
As used herein, standards mean limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in the general t
environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive material. "
i G
-r--#
Question 2:
Given the content of the proposed technical criteria mentioned above, would enactment of the following statutory standard for high-level waste repository construction, waste emplacement, and repository decommissioning delay final promulgation beyond.lanuary 1, 1982?
"(1) such issuance would present no unreasonable risk to public health and safety or the common defense and
- security, (2) facility operation would conform to all applicable general environmental standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to authority under existing law, and (3) the facility would incorporate multiple independent barrier design that provides reasonable assurance each such barrier will contain the waste for the period determined by the Commission to be necessary to comply with paragraph (1) of this subsection."
The information follows:
Enactment of such a standard will not delay promulgation of the technical criteria beyond January 1, 1982.
If a standard is to be promulgated, we recommend the following alternative language for item (3):
"the facility would incorporate multiple independent barriers designed to provide reasonable assurance that each such barrier will contain the waste for the period determined by the Commission to be necessary to comply with paragraph (1) of this subsection."
l l
l
Question 3:
Please discuss the potential usefulness of an express statutory design requirement such as the one delineated in item (3) of the standard set out above in support of the Commission's defense-in-depth regulatory philosophy and the similar formulation in section 60.lll(c) of the proposed technical criteria.
The information follows:
We do not feel that an express statutory design requirement would be useful at this time.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, licensing criteria for private activities are the promotion of common defense and security, protection of health, and minimization of danger to life and property. Together with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, we believe that the Commission has enough discretion to assure that waste disposal facilities are technically sound, operationally safe, and environmentally acceptable.
Our existing authority is adequate and clear. We ara concerned that the expression of new criteria or design specifications, to be applied at the time we are to exercise authority under Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of the Atomic Energy Act, will require the use of multiple (and possibly conflicting) standards in our adjudications.
The staff is currently responding to public comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the technical rule that was published on May 13,1980 (45FR31393). The purpose of the ANPR is to inform the public of the status of our efforts to develop technical criteria to invite their canments on our approach and technical considerations.
Our defense-in-depth regulatory philosophy provides the foundation and framework for the technical criteria, and we are most interested in the comments of the public on this.
Following our consideration of comments on this early draft, we will prepare the Proposed Rule for public review and comment.
Our final position on this will be developed after full consideration of these comments.
9 e
--r.
-,n.e
Question 4: Does the Commission view an express statutory empowerment as desirable to clarify the Commission's authority to require the submission of a site characterization report, as contemplated by section 60.11 of the proposed licensing procedures, in advance of acting upon the in-depth characterization of a potential repository site? Please elaborate.
The information follows:
Yes. While we believe our existing authority (including section 14 of P.L.95-601) does support the requirement that 00E submit site characterization
~
reports, clarifying legislation should eliminate disputes and litigation that could otherwise complicate the regulatory process.
t I
I*
l i
Question 5:
Please coment on the effectiveness of the mechanisms provided by section 5 of the Subcommittee bill to assure that the pilot program established by that provision does not jeopardize national security interests. Specifically address the restric tions on implementing regulations imposed by subsection (e) and the Presidential suspension mechanism established by subsection (1).
The information follows:
The mech. aisms provided by section 5 of the Subcomittee bill to assure that the pilot program established by that provision does not jeopardize national security interests are:
(1) the specific determination as part of the pilot program of whether such activities can be conducted in a manner to assure adequate protection of national security interests, (Subsection (b)(3));
(2) the requirement for the promulgation of regulations to include provisions forsuchassurance(Subsection (e));and (3) the provision for suspension of pilot program activities by Presidential Order if he determines that the common defense and security will be jeopardized (Subsection (1)).
The provisions of Subsection (1) provide a Presidential mechanism, and we believe this to be a reasonable approach.
Concerning Subsection (e), Chairman Ahearne and Commissioner Hendrie note that:
In recomending a pilot program, the previous Commission recognized the difficulty of developing the system proposed in Subsection (e). There-fore it recommended not using defense waste.
If the Senate approach l
were consistent with that position, rulemaking could be undertaken based on the results of the pilot program.
The time provided for this rulemaking (one year after the date of enactment) is inadequate; the NRC staff advised that it would take approximately three years to promulgate a final regulation.
Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky believe that the restrictions on implement-ing regulations imposed by Subsection (e) sensibly and effectively deal with the national security concerns that could be associated with regulation of defense wastes. A procedure to prevent unauthorized disclosures of restricted data or other national security information for NRC adjudicatory proceedings i
are already included in existing regulations,10 CFR Part 2, Subpart I.
As for the coment above concerning the views of the " previous Commission" i
regarding defense wastes, it should be noted that in the attached testimony delivered before the Congress on June 14, 1978, the Comrission approved making defense wastes subject to NRC regulation.
2-Since his colleagues seem to try to imply some uncertainty in his views by the above remark.. Commissioner Hendrie notes that his conclusion on whether the pilot program should include defense wastes, taken in concurrence with Chairman (then Comissioner) Ahearne and Comissioner Kennedy, followed a careful and detailed balancing of the issues involved and considerable dis-cussion with the Department of Energy more than a year after the June 1978 testimony.
f e
4 o
S w
r r
p
-~ew--
m
=
m
,w.-
,r=*
s--
w
"Zf
,. -,...... y 2 ->
STATEMENT 'OF DR. JOSEPH M,. HEND3IE, CHAIRPAN
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION COIGITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UN,ITED STATES SENATE
~ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1978 1
Mr. Chairman and members.of th'e Subcommittee, I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to discuss legis-
~
lative approaches to the: critical issue of nuclear waste mana5ement.
Accompanying me today are Commissioners Gilinsky and 3radford.
Is a prel'iminary observation I would like to express the Commission's view that the present statutory framework for
- o:
regulating the waste management aspects of nuclear activities
.in.the United States could be c:nsiderably improved.
Federal A.
agencies' responsible for waste management. must have clear le5a1 authority to take whatever steps are necessary to continue'to protect the public health and safety.
Tnerefore, l
we believe that legislative changes in the Atomic Energy Act 1
and Ener5y Reorganization Act would be cesirable to ensure that waste management practices are regulated in accordance
.,wi'th a consistent set of standards.
e I
NRC's Present Regulatory.:.u::hority Over Waste Before addressing specific le5 slative proposals,being con-1 i
g gered here, I think it would be helpful to provide some.
p J 175 12* O l
l t
- . ~
.?
- . 2 perspectiv'e for.th'e. disdussion. by briedy reviewing the
.p NBC's present regulato:ry authority in the area of waste j
muagement.
h'RC authority to regulate radicactive waste is derived from three statutes:
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the National' Environmental Policy Act of'1969,~nd -
a the Energy ReorganizatioYi A~ct ofl1974. 2
-- 1,:
- c. ? ue.::.$2 :. :. :. 5.
umm - - - :- c. =_- :.c T.h.e.At.omic Energy Act".. authorized the' NRC.'.s predecessor..
the Atomic. Energy Commission -- to license and regulate the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material.
AEC facilitfes'.and certain, defense activities t
were exempted from i;his " regime.
The Act'did not explicitly
~
P-s authorize 'regulati6ri 6f Tradf6pdtiv6 -Msste. facilities :yer'Ise.+5
' The:Ieferei the' Commission's~aut dfit'y,rto' regulate waste ~
A d
i undei 'the 1 Act is d5 rived fro:ii:-its.? authority over licensable t
bypr5 duct' ~2hEtsrisis. i ?M "'~~2"=r :: UI -"
-' ~
1
- .. = - - -.
....h...
Under.the Nai;ional Environmental Policy Act, the Commission
.~ h
- has additional implied authority over nu'elear waste manageEEnt
-. u :. n. : -.
- ~~---2
=:
associated with licensed activities.
The Act permits the i
~:-:
' Commission to impose license conditions on waste management activities to minimize their environmental impacts.
l 1
=
Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act.....
of 1974 transferred the AEC's.. licensing and regulatory authority to the NRC.
The
~
\\
O
+
u.
v
. (
~...
3
~
Energy Research and Development Administration, now a part of theDOE,was'exemptedf$omNRClicensingauthority,except'as
~
provided in Section 202 of the Act.
Section 202 provides the only explicit statutory authority for NRC licensing of DOE waste management facilities.~"However, because waste facilities are ne'ither production"nor utilization facilities as defined by the Atomic Energy Acti' waste facility licensing is' currently 7.
~
ci;f...:I
- c. ~.; j.ra : 1. i... *l implemented via licensing the possession of materials.
Such
. :., :..r.- - :..._._ n : n - - : : _:
licensing does not focus on the predominant licensing interest h
.. - + _. '
.: '. -: ** ::i. :'
~~. *...
a.
Which is the purpose of'the facility.
Thus, the Cc= mission believes that licensing of repositories intended to handle a significant amount o ste shouN" be' done on a facility
~
v
- . :: ::u.
~
- s
- ::.cn :f rd.ic2_ ; ;i c r.
..i
. basi's rather than a materials licensing basis.
Accordingly,
~:. :.:- :L : - ' :-.....:.
\\.
the statute should be amended to establish waste management
- L..
- ..: : t.
f.acilities as a third category in addition to production and utilization facilities and materials, subject to direct licensirag by ' the ' Commission. J : Establishment of a third class of licenses would allow:.the -Commission to develep ~ a sisitable -
licensing procedure.
- Secti'on 202, subisection (3) specifically recuires an 191C
' license for any DOE facility used primarily for the receipt or storage of high-level radioactive waste'resulting from activities licensed by _the JGC...In our view this JEC auth6rity e
e
e i
=
j p
extends to" DOE te=porary. storage of comnercially produced irradiated nuclear fuel'because spent reactor fue5. should be regarded as high-level waste.
Storage of spent fuel involves similar technical problems and levels of radiation hazard similar to those associated with the storage of high-level waste.
Therefore, the C,cmmission,;. believes that any DOE away-from-reactor. spent :. fuel.f.a.ci.lity. (usu..al.l.y kn.own.by
......m t.he acronym AFR) ~would require a.n._N_R_C__l.i.cen_se under the pre.sent statutory scheme...However,,as I will note later, w.e would welcome statut,ory. language.in any bill which is s
a.do.pted that would_make.this_ authority. unmistakably clear.
Subs,ection 202(4) o~f th,,e 1974 Act provides for NRC licensing b s uuth. :. : ~
~..~.: a:..orized'for the.. express purpose of N
of. DOE ~.f acilitie.~.-
--~
long-term storag'e 'of hiVgh21eVer"radi'oa'etive waste generated by' DOE' activities ~.E'o>ieVeF,"t'hi'Idhs term storage or disposal of DOE-generated"high-lev'e'1" waste in'a DOE research or develop-facility currently does' not Eequire an URC license, ment
- although such action 'may hresent~ sir 51'lar potential health and. safety. problems.
l High-level waste and' spent' fuel'are not the'only forms'of sa'ste which presend tNe p6isib'ility of signifiEant 16ng-term
. health hazards.
Trans-dranic wastes (TRU) also present a potential long-term 'adilt'16'n hazi$d.
Under the current,' -
~
l e
m.
-e--
- w
^
5 long-standing interphetation used by the Cc==ission, TRU has
~
notbeencategorizeda)'high-level' waste......In view of this..
interpretation; the' Cc ;"issien coi:1d not clearly' assert
~
statutory authority'over TRU wastes at DOI facilities.
Uranium nill tailings produced in:the' initial stages of the uianium fuel cycle are alsc a sub'j ect of gro):ing concern
~
because of the hazard, associated-with lehg-tei="raden
'emissichs ' Iet the 'C'==Ess'11:n ' current 1y lacks 'statutcry
~
c authority over uraniu= mill tailihgs' except indirectly through. t h e l i c e n s i..... ~ ~.. -ng.of =1-111=g operati.ons. - I will. return to th...ese issues at a later point-in =y testimony.-
1
~
'Under: Section 27h of th'e -At'c=ic-E.iei-6 let,- the -NRC'- =ay --- :
.trans?er sc=e... regulatory authc.-ity over byproduct', sci:rce
\\
s End'special nuclear.. =aterial to the.~ tat'es by beans of a fer=al agr..ee=ent process.v Pu...rsuant to-such a'gre.ements, several states curr'ently license-cc==ercially cperated burial sites fer 'lew-level radicactive 1:aste, uranin =,
I and nilling operatiens.
...dece--issioned facilities.
Revisinc the Reculatcry Fracework for Easte Manaze=ent The brief statutcry cu'tline I have just presen'ted illu'strates
~
the disjointed nature'~of'the' KRC's current authorit'y'over nuclear waste nanage=ent.=-In.the future, a's trastes accu =ulate,
~~
this n.even patteFn 'of-auth..ori.ty-could lead to confusic~n about
.mW
[..*
1 t.-
6 4
i i
ge 4
the exercise of effective. regulatory control over several, i
potentially hazardous waste management activities.
Ther,efore,
it is appropriate for Congress to review the current regula.--
tory situation and to adopt a regulatory framework which will not only be logical and coherent, but will also be flexible..enough:.to, reflect the realities of the nuclear.- -
industry _and to. accommodate future advances in technology.
~
e-In' formulating views about the proper scope of NRC"jurisdic-tion over current and future waste management activities the
)
Co= mission has been guided by two primary considerations.
The first is that nuclear wastes whi.ch have comparable properties.* and hazard : levels:..should be dealt.with. -in ways
'.khich; provide' comparable' levels _of public. protection.
The
\\-
nation would be ill-served. by.any. regulatory. scheme which would permit hazardous materials of a similar character to be governed by wi.dely differing measures of. protection, 1
merely as'a result of fragmented institutional arrangements.
ThesecondconsiderationNhichhasshapedtheCo= mission's view of NRC's appropriate _ role conc _erning waste nanage.sent
. rests on our belief in the.value of the regulatory pro' cess I
in assuring the public health and safety.
When it ehacted
-he Energy Reorganization Act,of 1974', Congress established a basic principle that continued development of nuclear 1
..n mmm
~-m.
..ouwo.
v
^^-.
' " * * * ' * * ~
0u a,
?
}
7 l
energy should be subject to the separate scrutiny of an independent regulatory agency.
To give' body-and meaning to this principle, activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle which m'ay involve significant, long-term risks to the public health and safety should, in our view, be subject to the kind of. scrutiny. typically afforde,d by NRC licensing.and regi;ulationi.;We see two principal benefits;in such.NRC involvement.
First, the independent perspective
~
..t-
- -:.- ::^
and inst.itutional competence of the Comni'ssion can make an 2-i=portant. contribution'to assuring that'all aspects of an
' activity'which may impact upon the publi'c health and safety
~
are thoroughly and objectively analyted.
Second, the L **:
i.. :.. :'
. regulatory. process provides a structured means of involvir.g,
' concerned members of the public in decision =aking on issues affecting their ' interests".
~In view of this need to r.evise the regulatory framework for waste management; the Cennission. believes that legislation strengthening or clarifying NRC's statutory authority in this area would be des 5rable.
For convenience, I have divided,the following discussion of the Comm3ssion's specific 1 recommendations into three cateEeries.
First, I will list several activities where'NRC should possess clear licensing l
authority.
Second,the{eareact'ivitieswherel'icensing e
l e
l
,,--,.v,-.,-. -.., - - -, -.., -
g may not always be practical or appropriate, but where NRC should have a combination ~of licensing authority and expanded reSulatory involvement'.
Third, there.are other =ajor issues.
arising from the legislative proposals before you which I W11,1 address in the final portion of my remarks.
_.7 Activities Warranting Exnanded NRC Authority
-...... ~
We think that an important initial legislative judgment which 2-must be made".in connection with the bills currently *before this Committee is the extent to which the Commission's.regu-latory authority should be enlarged -.especially with regard-to DOE facilities.
The Commission has identified several-speci,fic areas which it,b.elieves reouire clear NRC licensing c :... -.......
' authority.
~
~ Waste Isolat'io'n Pilot Plant Under current DOE plans, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) will be the f'irst' federal radioactive waste facility for the I
disposal of trans-uranic and sope high-level wastes.
'We agree
..~
with the conclusion of the DOE Task Force for. Review of ljuclear Waste Management that NRC licensing of WIPP is appro-priate because of the potential health and safety hazards arising from the long time periods associated with the wastes
.it will receive.
These hazards have justifiably. led the public to expect NRC. review as part of the sovernment's licensing
e.-
. - = - r - -- ------ - --- - - - - - - - - -
s.
9 5.-.=. =
kn addition [ NRC licensing will provide important 7 ---.
procedure.
cxperience for future Commission licensink actions of other g
= _. s l
disposal facilities.
. g-Awav-? rom-Reactor Storage L:E As already mentioned, we~ believe that.a fair reading of the
-2E ss F.nargy Reor5anization Act ofJ-2974.grintsithe Commission
~
5 3
authority.to license AFRs.~'Rowever, because AFRs present g
5=
hoalth and safety hazards similar to those associated with b
ss 5=
the' commercial storage of spent ~ fuel which is licensed by 1...
Es
_==
the Commission, we would welcome.statutpry languaEe which g
=
a =.
would' :riake this autho9ityi unrii'st'akably;. clear.
s E
E Trans-Uranic Contaminated Wastes i.5 o
Trans-uranic contaminated dastes'..c.ontain quantities of long-g
=..
lived radioactive material which remain hazardous for very g
=
long periods of time.
Thus, their safe disposal requires i
they remain isolated from the biosphere for very long k
~
that time p,eriods.
We believe that tihe viability of such lons-term isolation will be enhanced tiy ' subjecting disposal facilities for trans uranic wastes' to NRC licensing.
Waste Solidification Faci'.ities C
'o full 1,'aste. solidification facilities should be subject t
NEC licensin5 because they are closely associated with RRC-licensed waste repositories.
The final product frca a waste'
10 a-s solidifica' tion facility must be in an acceptable form and of high enou5h. quality to satisfy NRC disposal requirement's.
The necessary compatibility between final waste form and repository design can best be achieved by continuous NRC monitoring of the waste. solidification process in an NRC-6.;*....
approved solidification facility.
~
^ ~
- * =,. *.
j
=
~
In addition to those.ac,tiiities which we believe should be sub[ectto.15ClicensingjtheCommissionhasidentified other waste management a.ctivities for which'ac'o~m'binaE1on of regulation and, licensing would be more appropriate in light of existing conditions.
- p
?.... ~. :. *- - - - -
'Hich-Level Was$e Tanks u
The storage of DOE-generat.e.d high-level liquid waste in surface tanks presents what is perh'aps the most significint current health and safety hazard invc1ving nuclear wastes.
However, for' reasons I will detail shortly, licensing of these existing facilitie,s,would no.t be meaningful.
'Ihstead, the Commission believes that a specifically tailore'd method
'of. regulatory oversight by the NRC would be a'more sensible
(
and realistic alternative for protecting public health and safety.
Such regulation would include four main eleaents.
,KRC should. possess authority to':
require DOE to. supply all information requested'Y Y'e~v'iew the health and safety aspects m.
=.u.
..m.u.m
,.-o 11 s.'
of existing facilities; make~ reco=mendations for resolving any identified problems; and concur in any DOE' plans for remedial action concerning proble=s identified by the ;iRC., -
Unlike existing tanks, it might be reasonable to make new DCE surface storage tanks subj ec,t to NRC 11censin5, lik'e any other new facility.
In considerin5 whether the C'= mission should c
2 be given this authority',1the. unique role of.these tanks in th5 defense-related processing-chain should be kept'in mind.
Re5ulatory oversi5ht may. provide sufficient protection to the public here because new-tanks will' be located on relatively isolated federal installations, and.3;111 be built and operated by.another' federal asency with extensive experience a'nd
. expertise in"the field.
On the other. hand, the potential hazards associated with these tanks could justify their
~. -
licensins by NRC whenever practical..
Low-Level Wastes ~
Currently the NRC has no regulatory authority over DOE low,
level waste disposal sites.
Several of these facilit'ies are
~
inactive.
Others, though~ active, already contain substantial
'cuantities of low-level wastes in shallow land-burial ~ facilities These passive existing facil'ities are net amenable to licensing fer reasons which I will detail later.
Therefore, the Commis-sion believes.that the mere limited regulatory eversight already O
e
%emoop**=*
discussed for existing wasto' tanks would also be appropriate here.
New DOE low-level wast'e ' facilities and existing DOE facilities used for the disposal of commercially generated low-level waste can and should be subjected to full'NRC licensing authority for the same health and safety reasons which support NRC licensing authority.over co=mercia11y generated' low-level waste facilities..
l For the most parti NRC' licensing authority over concerciall'y operated low-level wast ~e facilitibi his~been transferred to
~
~
.p.
the states coer the Agreement Stites pi o's; ram.
Under that p$'ogram, the,. Commission 'can reass55 t its authority only if it
~
1,
~.
find's' tha.t public~ heal'th' and~ safety"iidires teimina.t'icn or suspension of a State Agreement.
The'Cecmission believes i
that this standard isto6" strict t6 Ne~ effective.
We recommend. amending Section 2711 of the Atomic Energy Act i
to authorize the Commission to set minimum standards for facility operation, and.to permit the Coc ission to $eassert its authority if states fail to comply with those standards.
Uranium Mill Oailines
.The Cennission supports the provisions in S.
31k6 which would extendtheAtomicEnergyAct'sdefh.nitionoflicensableby-product,materialtoincludeurar.iummilltailinks.
':e note i
i l
e. :~..=-- ~ ~. ::- :-..= 2. _.
~~"
---~ ~
~~
= = " " " * "
"""- """"~
~
""*^"3
,; 5.'."~i".,,: --" "52 '
+
~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ""~" "~~
~ ~ ~ ~
']
-,_.__,_m m_,_
m.m
. =.=...-m
~'l
13 s-that S. 3146 would also spec'ifically a=end Section 274 to permit regulation 'of. =111 tailings by the states, pursuult to a suitable agree =ent which provides that NRC standards shall be net or exceeded.
The Co==ission endorses the 4
concept of requiring that =111 tailings b.e disposed of in a canner that meets or. exceeds national standards set by the NRC.
We' not,e wi_th. regard to a related legislativ.e n
proposal by the Department of Energy that the proposed remedial action progra=..in cooper.ation with the states at' s
abandoned' tailings sites kill, as ke"have urged,'be =ade
.subj ect to review and concurrence' b[ the NRC as a way of assuring uniformity'of'tr'eatment.There are, however,
. as,oects of S,. 3146 as it affects the states which require
~
clarification.
At present, the states exert centrol over tailings piles through their inherent police power to protect
~
public health and safety.
By giving NRC direct authority cver tailings, passage of S. 3146 w~ould terminate this state control abruptly through federal pree ption.
State regula-tien of tailings would remain pree pted until the states enterinto'neworrev(sedSection274 agreements.
Where a state has shown an active interest in the centrol of tailings piles and would seek to continue its authority by means of a Section 274 agreement, such a' lapse of au:hcrity would be unnecessarily. unsettling.
- ' hat is needed is legislative r.
e A
14 s
provision for a transition p'eriod which allows for a state role and makes* clear wha ds shall apply while new Section 274 agreements are being negotiated.
The Commission has been working on legislation which would establish Commission control over mill tailings in a manner similar
,to S. 3146.
This. proposal provides for a transition period durdng which the states may. continue,to. regulate mill tailings, pending completion of a modified agreement in accordance with Section 27k.
" Estimated NRC Resource Recuirements These expanded NRC responsibilities.gwould require substantial additionalmanpowebakdbudket'rdschrees.
While no precise
~
- ; estimates are available at"this' time, we have made'a very
\\
rough preliminary evaluation ~of resou$ce' requirements.necessary to' implement the' proposed'new~1icensing authority.
- However, we have not attempted,'at this time, to estimate resources which would be required to fully' implement the proposed I
regulatory oversight ' program 'bedauise ~ we do ~6ct have detailed information concerning the present~ state of existing facilities.
Thus, vie cannot estimate ~the extent of remedial ac-icns they
' might require, or what NRC resources might be reasonably required to monitor any remedial program.
Therefore, at i
this time the Commission can only estimate the resources 5
e
,,gggg.oo oo9.po =oN***** **..
15 recuired to review existin'g conditions in those areas which might be subjec't to regulatory oversight'.
In the judgment of the NRC staff, the li}:ely budgetary and staffing impact of the proposed expansion of NRC licensing and regulatory activities discussed in this statement would be the order
~
of 120 persons and $4 to $5 million~ psr year.
This estimate is for a program whi'ch has 'rda' chid ' a fully devsfopid ' stage.--
~
~
Other Major Issues Naving discussed possible expansions in -NRC licensing or
[.
regulatory authcrity.over, waste. management, I would now
~
w.
4 like to turn to,several other paj or_.is, sue,s which, arise fro,m the bills 'being considered today._
Licen' sinc of DOE'Research'and' Development"Fac.ilities
~
S. 3146 would expand NRC jurisdiction over Doz res'earch and development facilities n'ow excluded under Subsection 202(4) cf the Energy Reorganization Act.
The only exemption would
~
be for facilities subjec't to a presidential' waiver, a feature of.the legislation I will discuss later.
S. 2804 would not 1
l go as far, and would exempt certain cperatiens at existing l
federal installations.'
Howeve,~both bills would extend NRC
~
i l
licensing authority t'o DOE research.and develept.ent activities i
I
(
l I
l
y 16 without regard to their seope.
The Commission believes that protection of public health and safety does not require NRC licensing of DOE short-term activities or facilities designed for small quantities of. waste.
NRC licensing of numerous small DOE research and development waste activities would also be impracticable because their diversity would require Commission resource _s,in,copmensurate with any potential increase in the protection of public health and safety.
Therefore, the Commission recommends that its licensing a'uthorityoverDOEresearchanddevelopmentactivitiesbe[.
limited to those facilities which are large enough to present
.u i
potential public~ health and sa'feiy" hazards requ'irin5mo're- ~
',than DdE self-regulation.
This~ class.should include any sufficiently large fac,ilities inten.ded.to demonstrate.long-
. _ : _..~.
term storaSe or disposal.
The suitable limits on.NRC authority in,this area could be established by setting a -
legislative threshold, or by authorizing the Commission to establish by rule or regulation which DOI facilites will be excluded from licensing.
o Licer. sin: of Existi.Tg DOE racilities The provision in S. 3146 for NRC licensing of existing DOE facilities would present practical. difficulties.for NRC.
These difficu.1 ties are readily apparent in the case of the
-n
17 s
DOE carbon-steel tanks used'to store most of the high-level waste from the' defense program.
Under S. 3146 the Ccamission would presumably be called upon to license these tank storage facilities or to determine what remedial actions should be taken to make them licensable.
For NRC t.o issue a license for these tank facilities would carrp a clear implication that the. tanks ' meet" some~ reason'abl. 'siningent set ~ of-standards that might have been established prospectively; had the facilities 'been subject to licensing at the time they were ori inally proposed and' built.
5 A1.ternatively, S. 3146 would require the NRC to specify remedial abtion either to'makel ths defense waste facilities r
i
. licensable oE~somehow to sasisfactorily terminate 4xisting operations.
The.practihal diffibulty'here is that the NRC cannot specify and direht such remedial actions because the necessary technology may not be available, although DOE has suggested several alternative pcssibilities for managing
~
~
~
defense high-leve1 waste.
Many short-term DOE storage facilities are part of DOE reactors and reprocessin5 facilities which temporarily store waste as part of their en50in5 activities.
The Commission has no licensing authority over the primary activities of
~
these facilities and did not always perform saftty reviews e
e e
,.,-n-
---n-
,---,. n
Sg,
when these acilities were built.
Therefore, the Corrission doubts whether-it is practical and possible to license only the~ waste'-storage parts of otherwise unlicensed facilities.
- =.
Role of State Government's'
~
S. "2761 provides for;_ state : participation in vaste f'acility.
licensing proceedings,.and for. a statie veto.over NRC authori-
. -.__:-- - rw.;.a. - -
-:~w.. : : -
zation of a' waste facility.
Tne Co ::=ission believes it appropriate'togiv5sttiito.ryrecognktiontothelegitire.te
- '.:.:L '
concerns of states in'..which vaste fa.cilities may be located.
However, prov'ision for a state veto does mean that a rela-:
tively small percentage of the Arer,4an people will be e= powered to halt or s.eriously impede _ nuclear develop'nent.
... - c
.throughout the country.even if the normal regulatory pro' cesses lead to the conclusion that the wastes can be safely stored and disposed of.
Therefore, we reco:.nend that any state veto be carefully drafted to clarify the circumstances under which it could be exercised.
This would include recuir-ing the state to exercise all reasonable means of res,olving its difficulties.
[
- L.
~
The Comnission reconnends that enphasis be placed.on state
~
participation.in the licensing process for waste canagement activities.
Under present regulations, the states are entitled to participate fully as a party to any licensing ^
,c
19 procee ding'.
We believe that state participation should begin with DOE's site selection procedure and continue through the URC's licensing review process.
With.the states thus having.
participated in the licensing process, we think it reasonable to limit the opportunity for a formal state veto to the time
- y.,..
at which'a final decision is'made to fully authorize facility constructi_on.
~
....__._.'..Y.*..
Presidential Exemotion..
~
S. 3146 provides a Presidential waiver or execption from NRC
~
licensing of DOE waste facilities if such a co'urse is deeme,d,
necessary in the interests.of national security.
The Ccmmission -
.u does not object in princip1.e;to.such a provision.
Ho' wever, the
~ p.eed fo'r such an exemption would be substantially diminished
\\-
if the NRC's licensing authority over DOE research and develop-ment activities were to be limited as I have sugge.sted in an earlier portion.of my remarks.
Furthermore, we believe that any reintroduction of the Executive Branch into the licensing process should be limited
'to matters-directly involving military or national defense activities of the government.
Therefore, we recomment a waiver applicable only to the temporary storage of defense-related wastes.
~
+
D
[.*
- - - - - - - ~ ^
..,,m,,
,,,,gg.ec o,cee**.*
- 1 20 _
This limited standard would satisfy the national interests in both security and public welfare by recognizin5 the need for temporary emergency action, while preserving the NRC's.
authority to regulate hazardous activities.
Alternative Sites..'.h. ::
..t :_
S. 3146 would require each license application for a waste
+.......
facility to identify alternative sites and provide whatever information' concerning tbem that the Commission deems sufficient.
The Commis ion,. consistent with'its respon-
$1bilities under th,e National Environmental Policy Act,
~.
E1 ready requires power plant licens,g applicants to identify and evaluate alternative sitss'in'accordance with an'"obviously
- superior" standard.
Under the standard, a proposed' site is compared with alternatives and wo~uld' be rejected only. if another alt ~ernative is obvi usly sup'erior.
This is not necessarily the standard that we would apply to all waste facilities, but an alternate site review to at least this level will be dene under NE?A.
17e also believe that ext'e'nsive state participation in DOE's site selection process ~ will ensure the consideration 6f reasonable alternatives'.'
Therefore, we do not see a' clear
~ ~
need for an' additional explicit statutory directive to consider alte.rnative sites.
The Commission would also O
t
2 r
2.
21 x
observe th'at it is possible that geologic factors will i
cause one or a limited' number of sites to be particularly well-suited for waste disposal.
Therefore, site selection must be somewhat flexible as is already realized by the
" rule of reason" interpretation of requirements in the National Environmental ~?olicy Act.
- _ _. z.. -
' Study and R'eport u...h. = -:
S.
3146 directs the Commission.to undertake a comprehensive study to determine.whether sufficient information exists to i
s'upport a conclusion that a sound method and plan are avail able for waste disposal.
Waste management studies of several types have already been. conducted. by the American Phy'sical ;,,--
' Society and to some exte t by.the Ford-Mitre Nuclear Energy A.
Policy Study Group.
Related efforts, in which the NRC may participate, are being conducted by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management.
A study of the type suggested would require additional resources or divert Commission resources currently de' voted i
'to developing a waste' management regulatory program.
The l
Commission recocmends that, if the KRC is to conduct a stud'y, it should focus on determining the stage of develop-l of various areas of disposal technology, and suggesting ment areas needing additional examination.
l
eggcgp>oooo. ooopeoecooocoogxncoccoocoocooooooo_cooe_oop
m-
.f 22 Such a study would enable the Commission to help ensure that 1
l effort is being applied to areas needing it..
e I.'""...
4 O
e e
. s._._
O O
e e
O e
s..
- m
-~
e e.
e.
g.
N e
e g
l I
l l
e e
e 1
l I
e
Question 6:
Does the Commission believe the nuclear waste management schedule established by section 7 of the Subcommittee bill is realistic?
Please elaborate.
The information follows:
Section 7 would establish the following schedule for developing and licensing a waste repository:
Subsection Deadline Action (a) 1/1/81 EPA to issue generally applicable standards for offsite release of radioactivity from facilities.
(b) 1/1/82 NRC to issue technical criteria applicable to geologic waste facilities.
(c) 1/1/85 DOE to submit to NRC at least four site characterizatiol plans for geologic disposal facilities.
(d) 1/1/89 DOE to apply to NRC for construction authorization.
(e) 1/1/93 NRC to act on DOE application for construction authorization.
(f) 1/1/98 DOE to apply to NRC for authorization to emplace waste.
(g) 1/1/2000 NRC to.act on DOE application for authorization to emplace waste.
We believe the dates to be realistic. We suggest that you contact EPA about the deadline to issue their standards by January 1,1981. The drafts of those standards have not been issued for comment and it normally takes several months after drafts are issued to resolve cmanents and issue the standards in final form.
The January 1, i982 date for the NRC regulation is realistic if no hearings are requested on the rulemaking. We hope by involving all interested parties in formulation of the rule to eliminate the need for hearings. To be on the safe side we suggest the date of July 1,1982 be used in the event a hearing is held.
Question 7: How many of the sites at which commercial nuclear powerplants are currently licensed to operate can accommodate an additional independent spent fuel storage installation?
The information follows:
Any nuclear powerplant site chosen for the site of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) would require a technical review to determine its suitability and may require a NEPA review which would include an evalution of alternative sites. Most operating powerplant sites would have sufficient room to accommodate an ISFSI.
O O
9 e
r
Question 8: Would unrestricted eligiblity for a Federal away-from-reactor storage program inhibit utilization of evolving techniques, such as pin compaction, for more efficient storage in on-site spent fuel storage installations?
The information follows:
While we cannot predict the actions of individual reactor licensees, we note
-that the Department of Energy is encouragi,ng maximizing storage of spent fuel at resctor basins.
To this end, the Department of Energy,through its Savannah River Operations and the Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NACh has evaluated pin compaction.
The abstract of the NAC report, " Alternatives for Water Basin Spent Fuel Storage Using Pin Storage (SRO-1051-3, NAC-C-7917, Part III), issued in September 1979 is attached.
l l
l
ABSTRACT The Department of Energy has sponsored a project to evaluate nuclear spent fuel storage techniques in support of the Inter-national Spent Fuel Storage Program.
Pursuant to that project, Nuclear Assurance Corporation has evaluated spent fuel storage using pin storage as part of the study of advanced spent fuel storage methods.
The densest tolerable form for storing spent nuclear fuel is storage of only the fuel rods.
This eliminates the space be-tween the fuel rods and frees the hardware to be treated as non-ft'el waste.
The storage density can be as much as 1.07 MTU/ft when racks are used that'just satisfy the criticality and thermal limitations.
One of the major advantages of pin storage is that it is compatible with existing racks; however, this reduces the storage density to 0.69 MTU/ft2 Even this is a substantial increase over the 0.39 MTU/ft2 that is achievable with current high capacity stainless steel racks
..?
EC1 which have been selected as the bases for comparison.
r@4 1
??
+W 1
m,-
is; Disassembly requires extensive operation on the fuel assembly 1
d'
~~
to remove the upper end fitting and extract the fuel rods from the assembly skeleton.
These operations will be performed with the aid of an elevator to raisc the assemIbly where each fuel rod is grappled.
Lowering the elevator will free the fuel rod for transfer to the storage canister.
A storage savings of l
$1510 per MTU can be realized if the pin storage concept is
incorporated at a new away from reactor facility.
The storage cost ranges from S3340 to S7820 per MTU of fuel stored with the lower cost applying to storage at an existing away from reactor storage facility and the higher cost applying to at reactor storage.
24
.3
- $E.
. c'
_'.i
.'b W17.
g.
-
e.
w, g.
. zii=--
.5:=.
M
..Ed
-cas -
aK-
.QL
..w -
p
?,. - -
.~
3; i~
.,.e.
O l
.III.ii.
Question 9:
In order to minimize the number of spent fuel shipments and their attendant risk to public health and safety, is it advisable to restrict eligibility for Federal away-from-reactor storage capacity to those licensees who are unable through a good faith effort to provide in a timely manner for their own spent fuel storage requirements at the reactor site?
The information follows:
With two exceptions all operating commercial light water reactors in the United States already have increased their reactor basin capacities or have applied
'to do so.
As to restricting eligibility for any Federal away-from-reactor (AFR) storage capacity to licensees who are unable through a good faith effort to provide for their needs, the Department of Energy has already indicated that this will be its policy. The two exceptions noted are San Onofre Unit 1, which plans to utilize space in the pool of Unit 2 now under construction, and Dresden Unit 1, which can utilize the Dresden Unit 2 and 3 basin.
9 9
e S
~
~
Ouestion 10: In the judgment of the Commission, has the principal impediment to the expansion of the capacity of existing spent fuel storage pools at reactor sites been the length of time required for Commission review and approval, including the opportunity for a public hearing, the uncertainty concerning the availability of Federal away-from-reactor storage, or some other factor? Which of the foregoing factors has been the principal impediment to the on-site construction of new independent spent fuel storage installations?
The information follows:
The Commission is not aware of a serious impediment to the expansion of existing spent fuel storage pools at reactor sites. With..two exceptions, all operating commercial light water reactors have expanded or are in the process of seeking authorization to expand their basin capacities. Some have done so more than Where difficulties do arise, as noted in the Final Generic Environmental once.
Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0575) issued in August 1979, it is with' older reactors which have already expanded their basin capacities and will need additional storage
~
capacitie>. in independent spent fuel storage installations either at reactor or at away from-reactor sites.
The uncertainty concerning whether or not there will be a Federal away-from-reactor spent fuel storage program has been cited by one licensee, the General' Electric Company, in its request for suspension of proceedings in its application to expand pool size at its independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at Morris, Illinois. While we suspect that this uncer-tainty may likewise be impacting decisions by utilities considering construction and operation of an at-reactor-site ISFSI, we have no confirmation of this.
e
QUESTION 11:
Please indicate the number of licensee applications submitted to date to expand the capacity of existing spent fuel storage pools, the number of such applications upon which the Commission has acted, the average period from the stbmission of an application to the commencement of use of the additional capacity, the average l
period for Commission review of such applications, the number of such applications on which a public hearing was conducted, and the average length of such a hearing.
The information follows:
The originally intended spent fuel storage capacity of operating reactors may have been modified either during the OL review process by a licensee submittal which contains a revised description of the spent fuel storage pool and supporting analyses, or after the OL is issued by submitting an application to amend the license which also contains a description of the new spent fuel storage pool and supporting analyses. Staff review and action during the OL review is part of the reactor licensing review; it is not a separate action. Staff review,after the OL is issued is a separate and distinct action which results in a license amendment.
All of the recently licensed reactor facilities have increased the spent fuel pool storage capacity during the OL review process.
In addition, all of the older operating reactors except for Dresden 1 and San Onofre have had one or more applications to increase spent fuel storage capacity submitted to the Commission for review and approval.
(Indian Point I and Humboldt Bay are shutdown indefinitely and are therefore not considered to be operating reactors). To date, there have been 55 applications to increase the spent fuel storage capacity. Of these 55 applications, 8 applications are for a second expansion of storage capacity. A total of 46 applications have been approved; this number includes 3 of the second time expansions.
The medium time from date of application to approval date is about ten months. We do not know the additional time required by the licensee to install and begin to use the new storage racks, but a licensee has typically taken three to nine months to rerack their spent fuel pool after authori-zation from NRC has been given. This time depends on (1) how much pre-paratory work can be done before the authorization to rerack is given, (2) how much work must be done under water, (3) the number and design of the racks - they may be freestanding and easily removed or installed in the pool', or they may be bolted or welded in place, (4) the amount of spent fuel in the pool during the reracking and (5) the method of packaging of the old racks.
i 2-Requests for intervention have been received in 14 applications. Hearings were actually initiated in 7 cases.
The medium time between initiation of the bcaring to initial decision date was about five months for 6 cases.
An initial decision on the seventh case has not yet been issued; about 14 months has elapsed since initiation of that hearing.
In several instances additional time was taken up by appeal.
O e
.------.-e
.. -_ ~,.-.__,,, _,...,_,,.,..,..,,_,,,,, _,, _,. _ _., _ _ _ _...
Question 12: What is the Comission's projection of the average period from submission of an application to construct an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation to the commencement of facility operation? Please provide a breakdown of this projection, including the period for a public hearing if requested and conducted?
The information follows: -
Since the time required for an onsite-independent spent fuel installation (ISFSI) to be licensed, constructed and in operation is projected to be less than that for an ISFSI at a new site because some steps will be abbre-viated, we will first look at the steps for an ISFSI at a.new site and then discuss how these will be affected by locating an ISFSI at the site of an existing facility.
Some of the steps shown involve necessary pre-submission activities. Whether one considers them as part of the application-to-operation period or not, they must be accounted for in any assessment of how long it will take to have an operating ISFSI.
We est' mate that it would take about 5 years.to get a new AFR on line at a new si u.
T:ie steps involved include:
(1) site investigations, (2) facility design, (3) preparation of the license application (Safety Analysis Report and Environment Report), (4) staff licensing review, (5) public hearing, (6) facility construction, and (7) pre-operational testing.. The first three steps would likely take at least one year by the applicant. The staff's licensing review,-including issuance of a final environmental impact statement, should be completed in about oneyear followed by an expected public hearing process (pre-hearings, discovery, evidentiary hearing, decision) taking at least 7-8 months, but perhaps two years or more.
(Some of this elapsed time would be concurrent with other steps such that the two year period would extend total time only by a net period of a year or so.) Construction should i
be completed in 18-24 months followed by 2-3 months of pre-operational testing preparatory to receiving the initial spent fuel.
If the independent spent fuel storage facility is proposed for construction on the site of a reactor, the timing could be shortened to about 4 years.
Pre-paration of the application by the applicant would require less time because of available site data and environmental information.
Staff licensing review time would be less if an environmental assessment is prepared rather than a full environmental impact statement. Other aspects would be comparable in timing.
e
~
Question 13:
In light of the discussion in item 10 of Issues Addressed to Public Comments, Enclosure "A", SECY 80-236, and the provisions to streamline Commission review and approval contained in the pending license requirements for independent l
spent fuel storage installation (10 CFR Part 72), is there a need to further streamline this procedure through legislative enactment? Would such an enactment create further delay and uncertainty given the imminence of final Commission action on 10 CFR Part 72?
The information follows:
We do not believe that legisla'tive action is needed to streamline the procedures discussed in item 10, "One License Application and One Safety Such enactment at this Analysis Report," of Enclosure A of SECY 80-236.
time could create delay and uncertainty in 1the effective implementation of 10 CFR Part 72.
- . ame._
we.,
l
. _, ~ - ~ _ _ _ _..... _,.
Ouestion 14: Would the approach embodied in pending rules 10 CFR 72.31(b) and 72.34 better serve the health and safety of the public than allowing construction to commence on onsite independent spent fuel storage installations in advance of the opportunity for a public hearing?
The information follows:
The approach embodied in proposed 10 CFR Part 72, Sections 10 CFR Part 72.31(b) and 10 CFR Part 72.34 would better serve the health and safety of the public than allowing construction to commence on onsite independent spent fuel storage installations in advance of the opportunity for public hearing.
In the event of overriding circumstances the Commission, under proposed 10 CFR Part 72, i
section 10 CFR Part 72.7 " Specific Exemptions," could grant an exemption to allow such construction should it determine that an exemption is authorized by law-and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest.
O O
o e-w
,g-,--r, e----
--,<w w
w e
-*--w.
w 1--g