ML19348A041
| ML19348A041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Nord N COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111020049 | |
| Download: ML19348A041 (32) | |
Text
.
6} '
w["
j%Y
- &f
?
A y
p e
w we DCT 2 01981 Hs. Nancy Nord General Counsel Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006
Dear Ms. Nord:
Subject:
Conenents on Environmental Law Institute Study of Agency Environmental Offices We have reviewed the draft study of NRC's environmental offices prupared by the Environmental Law Institute, requested by your memorandum of September 29, 1981.
Our comments are limited to marginal editorial suggestions on the enclosed copy of the draft report.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and consnent on the study.
Sincerely, a
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Draft Report General Coments 4 pilf3 p
J/,D
'g h[li!F*Il fx f
t" DISTRIBUTION:
[CentraLEi.les.
DEisenhut NRC PDR SHanauer.
T OCT2 G1981~
EEB Rdg RMattson 0;
y,3,um m um EEB File TMurley c" "
-Jg%
d ED0 BSnyder
/N KCornell RVollmer
/i sy HDenton DMuller 8!l bn e ECase R8allard f /
PPAS SCavanaugh I
JDavis PBrandenburg (10915)
. jl / \\
j (%
VStello AFerguson RMinogue 3p HShapy 8111020pqq.5 a
4 ya J
omer>.DE;E jf @
.DE
]F
.. N.8 8...........ED#., @
9.......
5 * ^"5) RLB,al.]&r#;.y. R..Mu,],T,e r......lyhoIlnier...
...Et C
.B t u....
.XCell...
l.0/,1,5/ 8,1....,..l0/((g].......19/.6Tl.81,,,,.,,,19[. /81,,,,,
,,19/,$81.
.... W d/81...
. L..
l.....
Gt$RC F OR M 318110/80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
-327824
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Mission cnd Types of Action The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an indeper. dent regula-
~
tory agency responsible for regulating commercial and'research uses of nuclear energy.
It develops standards and issues licenses for all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, from the
' milling of uranium through disposal of irradiated spent fuel.
The following actions of the agency receive some level of environmental review under NEPA:
(1) consideration of 9Cocivr-construction permit applications; (2) consideration ofpaperat - reacd*P ing license applications; (3) program studies; (4) promulgation of regulations; and (5) amendments to operating licenses.
Organization and Staff Resources for Environmental Affairs The NRC has no central environmental office.
Each program office maintains a staff that is responsible for responding to Al $ fgg NEPA matters as well as other assigned responsibilities.
Gengxallgp8? preparation of EISs E.or licensing and r the emaking i
f#1.
the same staff perso'nnel who conduct safety g
r reviews under the Atomic Energy Act.
Under the Commission is the Executive Director for Opera-tions (EDO).
In'1980 there were five progrrm offices under the EDO, each of which 4%$? involved to some degree in NEPA reviews and compliance with other federal environmental laws.
On April 5, 1981, one of the program offices, the Office of Standards Development, was dissolved and its responsibilities were taken over by another program office, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES).
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) does the environmental and safety reviews and issues licenses for nu. lear power reactors and research reactors and, together with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, conducts most of the NRC's~NEPA reviews.
The focal point for NEPA review and other environmental activities in NRR is in th 4>/rfcS*r office of the Assistant Director for Environmental T
- ology, Daniel Muller.
Muller has an M.A.
in nuclear en ~,eering and is an SES employee.
Muller reports to the T2J-of the Divi-sion of Engineering, one of five divis' ions in NRR.
NRR has 649 employees.
Forty-two person-years, spread among all the em-playees, is allotted for compliance with NEPA as well as all other environmental laws.
NRR's FY 1981 budget includes a line item of $2.693 million for consultant preparation of NEPA docu-ments.
The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is responsible for the environmental and safety reviews and licensing of all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle other than S
- 242 -
~..
reactor construction and operation.
NMSS has three divisions; NEPA reviews and compliance with other envircnmental laws take place within two of then.
The Division of Waste Management has five branches.
Each branch has some NEPA responsibilities, but the focal point for NEPA activities in this Division is the Licensing Process and Integration Branch under the direction of Joseph Bunting, Branch Chief.
The other major NEPA and en-vironmental activity in NMSS takes place within the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, directed by Richard Cunningham.
NMSS has 264 employees; 40 person-years, spread among staff,'are allocated for compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws.
NMSS's budget contains a line item of $4.5 million for preparation of NEPA documents by contractors.
Before its reorganization on A 1981, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) pril 5, had two divisions.
The focal point for compliance with environmental mandates was in the Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle, and Environmental Research under the direction of Jared Davis, Assistant Director for Waste Management and Environmental Research.
At the time of the interviews, RES employed 154 people and allotted four person-years to environmental activities.
Until the reor-ganization, RES prepared no EISs.
The new RES has assumed the responsibilities of the now defunct OSD.
The former Director of OSD, Robert Minogue, now directs RES.
OSD formerly had two divisions:
its Div'ision of Siting, Health and Safeguards Standards prepared programmatic and rulemaking EISs.
Craig Roberts, Assistant Director for Siting Standards, was the focal point for this activity.
Before its dissolution, OSD had 144 employees; three person-years were allotted to compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws.
OSD's budget contained a line item of $1.0 million for preparation of NEPA documents by contractors.
As reorganized, RES has five divisions.
It ap-pears that the principal responsibility for preparing program and rulemaking EISs will be in three of the new divisions:
(1)
Division of Environment and Te'chnology, (2) Division of Facility Operations, and (3) Division of Health, Siting and Environment.
It is expected that RES will have between 250 and 300 employees, including staff from OSD.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement (ISE) has five regional of fices whose pr imary functions are to inspect NRC licensees and to oversee safety in the construction and opera-tion of nuclear plants.
These offices have very little to do with the NEPA review process; they never prepare EISs.
The
[/s deod' minimal activity associated with NEPA in ISE t-ekes-=ptsce=undenA^_#"
L e o H i g g e nb o t h a m, Ass +s t-a nt-Ihe c-to r, D i-v4-s+o n-o f-Fu e-1-Faci-lity nd-Materiats-Saf ety"nspec t-ionr IGE has 8 employees; four person-years are allotted to compliance wit NEPA and other environmental laws.
Environmental (non-ra iological) inspec-tions are conducted as necessary by the re ional staffs at IGE.
The regional ISE offices are the clo est NRC comes to having regional environmental offices.
\\
W ' h3.
O'"R UXG S
443 -
With the exception of NMSS, NEPA and environmental compli-ance in the program offices described above generally takes place at the Assistant Director management level.
At NMSS, Branch Chiefs (under Assistant Directors) have the authority to issue licenses and thus-(barring a legal challenge before a hearing board) grant approval or disapproval of NEPA documents.
The NRC has no up-to-date statistical summary of the educa-tional background or professional experience of its employees, but estimates that professional personnel working on NEPA-related matters have, on the average, bachelor's degrees through Ph.D.'s with about two years of post-graduate work.
The average professional experience is about 20 years.
Many of NRC's employees are trained as nuclear and chemical engineers.
In the NEPA compliance offices many employees have M.A.s and.
Ph.D.s in the biological and natural sciences. -The Environ-mental Engineering Branch, for instance, has 7 Ph.D.s and 3 M.A.s on its staff.
In recent years there has been a trend within NMSS to take on new employees with more environmental background and training.
NEPA Process and-Quality Control Following CEQ's NEPA regulations of July 33, 1979, the NRC proposed new regulations (45 Fed. Reg. 13739, March 3, 1980).
Following the comment period, the 3 raft final regulations were sent on January 2, 1981, to NRC's Commissioners for review.
The first agency decision in the NEPA process is jointly made by the project manager and project attorney assigned to a particular action.
Together they determine whether the action is one that requires an EIS.
The regulations divide agency )
(1) those requiring EISs; (2 actions into three categories:
those not requiring any environmental scrutiny; and (3) those for which the decision to prepare an EIS must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Decisions on actions in the last category are based in part on the lev.el of public interest.
Although NRC's regulations
~
call for a two-step environmental analysis in these cases
( i. e., an initial assessment of whether an EIS is required, then preparation of the document itself--either an EIS or a document justifying why an EIS is not required), agency staff gave the following description of how the process works in practice.
An environmental document is prepared.
If a finding of no significant impact results, the document is called an Environmental Impact Appraisal (NRC's equivalent of an Environ-mental Assessment), and a Negatire Declaration (the equivalent of a FONSI) is issued.
The project manager (usually an engineer) and the project attorney initiate preparation of environmental documents.
The interviewees at NRC stated there is no public ptrticipation in
- 244 -
w.
the preparation of routine Environmental Impact Appraisals (EIAs).
After-the-fact notice is published in the Federal Register with an opportunity to respond.
The agency is getting little public response as a result of this procedure.
Interviewees stated that if an'EIS is required,Lthe agency gives notice of the scoping process through the. Federal Register, local newspapers, letters to local officials.and oiner federal agencies, and letters to public interest groups who track NRC's activities.
In response to the question of who defines the alternatives in environmental documents, interviewees replied that the al-ternatives are usually standard for EISs and that on EISs for op.erating licenses the choice more or less came down to ap-proval or veto.
One official further stated that there are no significant environmental impacts on reactor permit applica-tions, so alternatives are no problem on these EISs.
In routine cases, the project manager and project attorney make the EIS/ Negative Declaration determination and recommend it to their office director #>r approval.-
However, if there is much public interest, the d.
ision goes to a higher level; for.
2 example, the decision to do an EIS on the Three Mile Island decontamination was made by the Commission.
When the Negative Declaration route'is chosen, it is chosen by the person with i
the authority to issue the license.
Negative Declarations are made available to the public by placing them in the Public Documents Room at the NRC.
The agency has not published any criteria for making the EIS/ Negative Declaration in discre-tionary cases, beyond those stated in NEPA, CEQ regulations and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
As noted above,-public interest is an un-published criterion.
On construction permit and, operating license applications-for facilities where EISs are required, applicants must submit l
Environmental Reports (ERs).
These documents are used as a data base for EISs.
The veracity and accuracy of the ER is sworn to under oath by the Applicant.
Interviewees stated, "You operate under the assumption the applicant is honest."
L Typically, EISs are prepared under et 1 tract by National-Labs such as Argonne and Oak Ridge.
However, the~NRC staff always prepares the radiological analyses in NEPA documents, and makes independent mathematical calculations or audits the contractor's calculations in every facet of the document.
NRC has~an agreement with EPA for EPA toVpr:- r:GeoPE M
- w$h,e water guality l
analysis in NRC's EISs.
Pr4MN l
Before general distribution, a draft EIS receives an in-house review by the project manager, OELD, branch chiefs, and program' staff technicians in their areas of expertise.
Reviewers use the NRC's " Standard Review Plan" to determine 245 -
i
whether the required subjects have been addressed in the draft EIS.
The scientific accuracy of the document is verified by the technical staff people, with the review of their branch chiefs.
The project manager checks for internal consistency.
The agency responds to each comment it receives, either in a paragraph addressing the issue in the comments appendix or by making appropriate revisions in the text.
The project manager oversees this activity.
NRR project managers do not neces-sarily have environmental training; they are usually nuclear engineers.
50%.to 70% of NMSS project managers have environ-mental training.
The same people who review the draft EIS also review the proposed final EIS.
There is no specified check of comments and responses in this review.
These reviewers have the author-ity to reject a proposed EIS, but they said that this never actually happens because "the bugs get worked out before this."
f*dieen. sin In the NRR, EIS is for ly approved when the Assistant N
Director-(:-3.,
'n... _.a;;fu u? signs it.
In the NMSS, formal approval is given by the signature of the branch chief.
In NRR licensing proceedings, hearings are required to be held on construction permits; hearings are not required for operating. licenses, out as a matter of practice are usually held.
In contrast, hearings are not routine in NMSS.
Every now and then, a hearing is requested but is usually denied after NMSS discusses the issues and works them out with the parties.
An EIS may be modified as a result of the hearing process, although technically oniy the Commission (i.e., not the hearing boards) has the authority to direct the staff to modify an EIS.
However, this issue ~is being litigated.
Typically, the EIS reviewer with authority to recommend approval of the proposed EIS is an engineer.
At the Division ement within NMSS, reviewers are primarily cheni-of Waste Manag/ rec //f f yC/Csh, Snurrowenkl cted pfec/snied isyt
=1
- i
- :::
A neer.c. b NMSS staff said that even though they do not get involved in EPA reviews too much, they believe EPA focuses on issues that NRC sees as less important, that the EPA comments are generic and do not adequately focus on issues the particular license application raises.
Interviewees stated that EPA com-ments are sometimes nitpicking and point out problems without explaining why they are problems.
Their comments are often voluminous.
They believe that individual prejudices (e.g.,
anti-nuclear) that are not necessarily EPA policy sometimes surface in the comments.
EPA's grading of NRC draft EISs show the following results:
246 -
n l'
Code Year LO-1 LO-2 ER-1 ER-2 EU-1 EU-2 3
Other Total
'76 3
4 0
7 0
2 4
2 22
'77 1
5-0 4
0 0
1 0
11
'78 0
3 0
5 0
1 1
1 (EU-3) 11
'79 0
2 0
0 0
2 0
1 (EU-3) 9
'80 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
Total 4
15 0
25 0
3 6
4 55 Interviewees stated it is difficult to single out one EIS as the best ever issued by the agency because the documents are so standard.
They concluded that the EISs have gradually im-proved over the years, so the last may be the best.
Today much more attention is being given to accidents (particularly
- mew 6-Very
~
geotrCn'J- :::'e accidentsW) than before.
Also, NMSS is giving more attention to groundwater migration impacts.
EISs today are better referenced than before, so the reader can identify the sources and go to them.
Consultants includin program EISs, are prepared by con-Most EISsNRkhasasoke-sourcecontractwithArgonneNational sultants.
Lab to prepare NEPA documents.
NMSS has a contract with Oak Ridge National Labo r' ^ r;;n.m.
The offices usually stay with one consultant that has worked well in the past.
In the pri-vate sector, competitive bidding is used to obtain a Basic Ordering Agreement list.
Consultants who are chosen are then on call to do NEPA work as needed.
When consultants are used, the agency independently evalu-ates and takes responsibility for the environmental documents.
NRC staff said that for every technical person at the national lab that prepares the environmental documenr, NRC program offices have a senior technical counterpart aho oversees the day-to-day process.
NRC's Standard Review P'.an is used in overseeing the preparation.
The project manager is responsible for turning the work into an agency document.
In the case of NMSS and NRR, the document becomes an agency document at the time of t'- ; ui l. ; '- _.
.m.
In the case of OSD (now RES), it becom an agency document at the time the Commission adopts it O'a art of the Record of Decision.
gdadC Contracts are funded out of program budgets.
NMSS has a line item for environmental support.
Interviewees stated that they were adequately budgeted to meet NiPA requirements.
247 -
s.
The agency has established a standard disclaimer clause in contracts with private consultants.
All national lab contracts are under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Energy and NRC; the question of a standard disclaimer clause is therefore not applicable f.o them.
Overall, contract involvement is staying constant at NRC.
Within the Livision of Waste Management, NMSS, use of con-g4 sultants 6, rising.
Consultants usually do the actual writing of the EIS, but not the EA.
NRC staff cited the following benefits of using consult-ants:
(1) the national labs have a large body of expertise in technical areas that the agency could not have in-house; many(2) consultants improve NRC's workload management by help-and ing to smooth out the peaks and valleys in work demands impoc,d by NEPA obligations.
They cited the following problems with using consultants:
(1) the agency becomes a bit captive to them.
After the work is turned over to them by the agency, they have a fair amount of autonomy as to what direction to go and how far to go with it.
(2) The cost of censultants is getting high.
For example, it costs about $3!),000 to prepare one EIS.
One official said that it is hard to justify some of Within NMSS's Division of-Gust k/aJk
" g money spent on experts.
t
- nd ' :::ri:1
- f ;,, there has been a problem of getting
, idd'I"C, _1 consultants to focus on problems peculiar to uranium milling
]
rather than relying on already-existing reactor EISs.
The following consultants have been rctained by the Division of Waste Management, NMSS, to prepare three or more EISs or EIAs in 1979 and 1980:
1.
Argonne National Laboratory, a)
Atlas Minerals Moab Mill - EIS b)
United Nuclear Corporation Morton Ranch Mill - EIS c)
Western Nuclear Split Rock Mill - EIS d)
'!nion Carbide Gas Hills Mill - EIS e)
Generic Envionrmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 2.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory a)
Energy Fuels White Mesa Mill - EIS b)
Plateau Resources Shootering Canyon Mill - EIS c)
Federal American Partners Mill - EIS
- 248 -
w S
d)
Ogle Petroleum In-Situ Mining - EIS e)
Energy Fuels-Hanksville Ore-Buy'ing_ Station - EAS g)
Plateau Resources Blanding Ore-Buying Statica - EAS b
3.
N, Colorado 3 tate University a)
Union Carbide Gas Hills Mill - EIS b)
Union Carbide Gas Hills Mill - EAS c)
Western Nuclear Split Rock Mill - EIS d)
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling
//64'I#
etworks of Communication The environmental analysis of every project i reviewed by the project officer.
He is cutsulted as a matt of course on project planning.
The NRC has no environmental staff in its regionel offices.
The principal functions of these offices are to inspect NRC licensees and to oversee safety in the construc-tion and~ operations of nuclear facilities.
Informal contact between NRC's environmental officers and their counterparts in other agencies is decreasing as time goes on, although Muller has developed some contacts from prcject-specific work.
Most of the communication is with EPA and Department of the Interior.
There is cross-cutting contact by subject expertise between staffs of the agencies.
Scoping and lead / cooperating agency designation has not increased contact between NRC environmental officers and those in other agencies; NRC was already making these contacts before the 1980 CEQ regu-lations became effective.
However, before NEPA was enacted, NRC was extremely isolated from other agencies.
After NEPA, its contacts expanded.
i l
In all of the EIS prepared within NRR, EPA acts as a j
cooperating agency by preparing the sections on water quality issues.
This arrangement is pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies.
NHSS has never had the assistance of cooperating agencies in its preparation of EISs.
Likewise, OSD has not used cooperating agencies in preparing its rulemaking EISs.
There is no transfer of funds between NRC and' cooperating agencies.
NRC has never participated as a cooperating agency, but believes that it'has been properly consulted by other i
- 249 -
m
agencies.
In the event NRC becom,es a cooperating agency, it would pay its own way.
Efforts to Educate NRC has no in-house training programs for personnel on en-vironmental matters.
NMSS is alloted $100 per year, per per-son, for on-the-job training in all areas, including environ-mental affairs.
This comes down to sending each person to an environmental course each year.
NRR has more money for this than NMSS; approximately 3 work days a year, per person, are allocated to environmental training.
The training consists of sending personnel to conferences.
The NRR has developed the Environmental Standard Review Plan (19'3) to assist in NEPA implementation.
The Plan lays in detail how to prepare NEPA documents and is updated out approximately every three years under the leadership of Mr.
Muller.
NRR has also prepared internal memoranda for preparing specific EIS sections.
Since NMSS's licenses are much less standard than NRR licenses, it has not prepared NEPA implementation guidebooks; it just uses what has been done before, and for some sections uses NRR's Standard Review Plan.
When NEPA was first enacted, NnC conducted seminars on compliance; it no longer does this because NEPA compliance has become-routinized.
The agency conducts seminars on public participation.
N"CC has m;;n pierning to ccnduct it: fiert scninar, en the rubject cf m.culum alli ;oilin43, :: fe-ilicr ;
)4-ic: it: ct:f f :ith "RC': newly edvemed scgulet;cn; ir thi: crec.
Memos from CEQ are apparently sent directly to NRC's Chairman and from there to the legal of fices (Of fice of General Counsel and OELD) and are not routed to others dealing with NEPA.
Number and Types of Decements t
'Ss.
In 1980 NRR was involved in the preparation NMSS had two underway on fuel cycle licenses ene
.erway on waste management.
OSD had one EIS underway.
umber of EIAs and Negative Declarations prepared by NRR and NMSS is increasing; Negative Declarations run into the hundreds each year.
The agency has not yet prepared a Record of Decision (ROD).
Agency Responsiveness As part of its obligation to enhance opportunities for public participation, the. interviewees attend and participate in public meetings and seminars and give talks on nuclear
- 250 -
s.
energy in schools and other forums.
For the generic EIS on uranium milling, NMSS conducted post-scoping public meetings.
According to interviewees, this was mostly a public relations effort.
Out of four scoping meetings, there was very little public response.
The situation is just the opposite in NRR; projects under this office's jurisdiction get much public attention.
The NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
set up under the Atomic Energy Act, meets once a month and has a subcommittee on environmental issues.
The subcommittee examines radiological health and safety issues and has no direct NEPA responsibility.
It usually meets about 4 times a year.
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth, and NRDC are the primary environmental groups that follow NRC's activities.
NWF
_ gff/3 tracks NMSS's activities closely because' of the wildlip ton-cerns in the western U.S. where many of the uraniumgh are located.
The principal business groups that follow the NRC are the Atomic Industrial Forum, American Mining Congress, and state mining associations.
The agency maintains a m ling list for each facility it licenses.
E/a ' id her' kl5 **"-
- 2nsHttds, The interviewees said that there is no correlation between opportunities for early public participation and later litiga-tion.
There have been no difficulties in providing copies of EISs to the public.
If the agency runs out, it prints more.
There is a pattern of groups and individuals who repeatedly ask for copies of EISs.
Academics and consultants frequently ask for EISs.
Groups' opposed to nuclear power are the biggest group of requesters.
One official stated that these groups are not environmentalists; they just use the environmental movement to further their own aims.
He also said that neighbors of aro-posed plants rarely ask for EISs.
Our interviews with representatives of the private sector (industry, trade associations) and public interest groups un-covered some perceptions of the NRC's responsiveness.
Mr. Robert Whitesel from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) made certain comments with the caveat that he was speaking for himself and not the Institute.
He reported a
" good working relationship" with the agency in exchanging in-formation.
He believed that EPRI's recommendations to the NRC have been as effective as one can expect considering the agency has other more pressing concerns right ne v.
EPRI tries to keep an arm's length distance from the agency since it often does parallel research.
Mr. Whitesel cited NRC's rulemaking pro-ceedings on spent fuel as an example of its responsiveness to
- 251 -
4 comments received.
Thirty-two parties filed briefs on the proposed rules.
It bent over backward on minority views.
The agency paid attention to details, and received Whitesel's " good marks."
Mr. Larry Lanpher of the Washington, D.C.
law firm of Hill, Christopher 6 Phillips said that the NRC is responsive proce-durally, but not substantively, to outside concerns. _He stated that it is one of the best agencies for providing information and rated it "very respons3ve" in keeping his particular clients informed but rated it "very unresponsive" in addressing their substantive concerns.
Mr. Lanpher said that responsive-ness would be improved if the NRC staff were barred from taking positions in the emirse of a licensing proceeding until all the also cited a strong " pro-nuclear" agency evidence is in.
.m bias and used as an example the fact that it objected to every point he raised in a 180-page brief.
He said the sgency has never turned down an application for a censtruction permit or an operating license.
Lanpher called the NRC's proposed rules to expedite the hearing process " disastrous," but felt that in general the agency's shortcomings in responsiveness lay with personnel attitudes rather than procedures.
He said that responses to comments on draft EISs were inadequate.
Lanpher stated that some issues decided in the agency's licensing and rulemaking processes are better decided in the legislative forum; as one example, siting decisions should be left to the states.
se aiplicaf4*s NRC[taffsaidthat
< are not rejected. outright; if K
there 4e-e-problem $ the applicant is given conditions to meet, resulting in some cases with the withdrawl of applications.
Proiect Modifications and Terminations NMSS could cite no project. terminations resulting from the NFPA process.
NRR cited the Perryman plant as the only project terminated by NEPA.
Both program offices stated that virtually every project has been to some degree modified as a result of l
the NEPA process.
Recent NMSS project modifications include the Union Oil Sweetwater Uranium Mill in Wyoming in 1978 and the Union Carbide Gas Hills Uranium Mill in 1980.
NEPA causes no delays in NRR licensing proceedings because the safety reviews are on the " critical path,"
i.e.,
take longer than anything else.
But in NMSS, the environmental re-view is always on the critical path.
One official attributed the long delays largely to the commenting process.
Identifying Needs for Proiect Change Needed changes in the course of the NEPA process may be written in as conditions to the license.
Other leverage the l
agency uses is to inform the utility / licensee that it will not 252 -
t
b' 9
proceed with the environmental review (e.g., the draf t EIS)
- until the needed changes are made.
Needs for change are usually identified early in the environmental review process.
Communications to Congress The NRC did not submit any impact statements on legislative proposals in 1979 or 1980.
The program offices at NRC respond to congressional inquiries by sending. heir comments through the Executive Director for Operatione.
Procedures for Cutting Delay Interviewees rated the techniques listed in CEQ's regula-tions for reducing delay as follows (1-least effective, 7-most effective):
Integrating NEPA process into early planning.
7 7
7 2)
Interagency cooperation before i
EIS is prepared.
6 6
6 3)
Insuring resolution of lead agency disputes.
NA NA 5
-4 )
Using scoping for early iden-tification of issues.
7 7
NA 5)
Establishing time limits for EIS process.
7 7
7 6)
Preparing EISs early in the process.
7 7
7 7)
Integrating NEPA with other en' iron-mental review and consultation require-ments.
NA 4+
5 8)
Preparing joint EISs with State and local agencies and adopting environ-mental documents of other Federal agencies.
NA NA 5
9)
Combining environmental documents with other documents.
NA NA NA 10)
Using accelerated procedures for proposals for legislation.
NA NA NA 11)
Using categorical, exclusions.
7 7
7 12)
Using FONSIs.
7 7
7 253 -
4 Methods of reducing delay developed by NRC include using its Environmental Standard Review Plan and getting the right.
information from the applicant by notifying applicants early of NEPA requirements.
NMSS is expediting the NEPA process by staffing up on en-vironmental expertise and occasionally assigning safety review staff to environmental review.
NRS staff. said that the CEQ regulation on conducting joint planning processes and public hearings with state and local agencies may increase delay, although perhaps a better process results.
The NRC is setting up a joint hearing process with the State of. Washington on a licensing proceeding.
In both NRR and NMSS, 6 months are scheduled from publica-tion of the Notice of Intent to issuance of the draft EIS.
It can take anywhere from 6 to 12 months or longer if project modifications are necessary.
It takes an average of 6 more months to go from the draft EIS to the final EIS.
Clout The interviewees stated that their recommendations are heard by and usually influence the agency's decision makers, altnough this is more through the hearing process than because of NEPA itself.
gg gyk w The NRC has procedures for avoiding the commitmen of resources prejudicing the selection of alternatives ior to **
completion of the NEPA process.
Within NMSS, no construction is allowed until the license is issued.
Under the p"oposed regulations no construction would be allowed until the R0D is issued.
The current regulations say that construction activity is grounds for a license denia.1.
Within NRR, the construction permit EIS is completed and a hearing is held beforeAa limited K
wo rk autho rization (LWA) Nur-d.au.4twM pM CC 9).
Environmental values are integrate'd in varying degrees into the professional assumptions of the NRC Staff.
Many have no environmental awareness at all; they are dyed-in-the-wool en-gineers.
The legal staff is better than most of the agency on NEPA complirnce because it is predisposed to complying with the law qua law.
Nithin NRR, safety is the emphasis rather than the more generalized environmental concerns.
Within NMSS, waste management has more environmental implications, so there is more environmental awareness.
Also, NMSS has more environ-mentally trained personnel.
The ratio of EIS preparation cost to project cost is ap-proximately one percent within NRR ($10 million/$1 bill' ion);
within NMSS, the ratio of EIS cost to project cost is much higher because the projects are usually less costly.
- 254 -
l n
In.the private sector, Mr. Whitesel from EPRI-thought NRC's EISs have some impact on the decision-making process,-but said that:EISs are read byEfew'and are largely useless. - From an
- intervenor's perspective, Mr. Lanpher saw the agency's EISs as:
p post facto rationalizations of agency decisions.
Involving Environmental Office in-Budget, R'egulations, Legisla-tion, and Litigation i
t Budget requirements for NEPA and-general environmental com-pliance are deve. loped at the branch level, then_ work their way i-up the system and back down again., Unusual environmental re-quirements (e.g., the TMI clean-up) and program EISs are some.
i-times identified and specifically included.in the budget.
i The interviewees have little opportunity to comment on the environmental aspects of proposed legislation, because in their 4
view there are not many environmental impacts connected with l
proposed NRC legislation.
Similarly, intervievees-do not have 2
much opportunity to comment on legislation originating in'other
~
agencies.
Occasionally NMSS is questioned.by the Hill, but it submits.nothing formal.
NMSS personne1~went up to the Hill and reviewed drafts of the Uranium Mill Control Act'of 1978.
OELD gives notice to the program officers of pending regu-li 1ations that may. affect their NEPA performance.
In addition, people throughout the agency track the Federal Register,.
I I
Interagency exchanges of information on the NEPA process cited by the interviewees include the CEQ briefing on.its new regulations (held in Reston), and the EPA Atlanta region inter-
~
j agehey NEPA conference.
The interviewees'-offices do not par-ticipate in any formal programs to inform other offices in-NRC about environmental matters.
i be When the NRC is s ject to. litigation on environmental.
i issues, the staff of ces.are notified by Office of General
)(
Counsel (OGC).
They participatedto a limited extent, e.g.,
g they sign affidavits but do not testify.
l t
i i
i f
i 4
- 255 -
~,
Bibliography 1.
Trubek, Allocating the Burden of Environmental Uncer-tainty:
The NRC Interprets NEPA's Substantive Mandate,-
1977 Wisc. L. Rev. 747, 2.
Environmental Law:
Public Participation in the Environ-mental Impact Statement Process, 61 Minn. L. Rev. 363 (1977) 3.
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act Through Rulemaking:- The Implications of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 126 U. Pa.
L. Rev. 148 (1977) 4.
Stutts, The Use of Generic Rulemeking to Resolve Environ-mental Issues in Nuclear Power Plant Licensing, 61 Va.
L. Rev. 869 (1975) (Discusses rulemaking powers of NRC in its handling of licensing and dealing with environmental questions).
4 4
e a
e 256 -
GENERAL COMMENT
S The _ report inaccurately describes the environmental organization ~ and capabilities of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), particularly in the discussion under " Clout" commencing on page 254. NRR's technical review organization, headed by an Assistant Director for Environmental Technology, contains three branches with at least 100 staff-years of environmental review experience within NRC and academic training at the graduate level (MS or PhD) in the Environmental Engineering and the Natural and Social Sciences. The Division of Licensing has Project Managers assigned to EIS preparation with over 40 staff-years of experience and similar academic achievements.
Other branches within NRR provide technical support in the physical sciences and health physics for specific aspects of EIS preparation.
/
ar hgg6 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL ON FNVIRONMENTAL QU ALITY kgy 722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
1 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 September 29, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO NEPA LIAISONS Under contract to CEQ the Environmental Law Institute has prepared a study of the environmental offices of nineteen federal agencies. You were given the opportunity to review this study some time ago and the bulk of the agency comments were considered and incorporated into the study.
CEQ will be publishing the final study in the near future. Before final publication I would greatly appreciate if you would review that chapter of the report dealing virh youra gency to verify the accuracy of the factual information contained in the chapter.
i e
\\
Enclosed is a copy of the chapter discussing your agency. You need j
g contact me only if the chapter contains any incorrect information; if I do not hear from you, I will assume the chapter is accurate.
I will need any comments before Oct. 15. 1981. Thank you for your cooperation.
O L%
0%
thncy Nord General Counsel Enclosure 45 - $16 U 0
s j p 3, ~l l
~
,y ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTRO L NO ieft 10915 Co m -AouN<
ACKNOWLEDGMEf 4 T DATE OF DOCUMENT R4ACy Nord. Centr 2l Counal
~
IN TERIM REPLY gfyf t ]
]
)
TO:
PREPARE FOH SIGNATURE OF-NEES lllisCRS FIN AL REPLY
' [:
y, I
F 6LE LOCATION I
0 ExEcutivt oiREcToR l
/
OTHER g gnA DESCRIPTION U LETTER f] MEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR R EM ARKS feucSt revit< af fiEC's chapter of tha ear mpu W. Tuts Qmil Etudy of the entraceental offices cf 13 fc&ral.nencies to verify the dccurscv of the factual infa.
F'uller s5 auld rmtect other offices as necessary to vArtfy 10 order to develop e
edited copy. Offices inttfate contsct l
CLASSIFIED DAT A y((g pgjj gp h7 gg, (*g j{ gg7 gg C LASSIF IC AT IO Nl roblC9.
OCUMENT/ COPY NO.
lNU*ABE R OF PAGES CATEGOilY l POST AL REGIST RY NO.
O N51 O Ro O FRD l
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INF ORM A ION ROUTING AZG,%13pf]f{
U FIN A L U COPY TUT.fiOlCMXLT/7M Ti NO LEG AL CUJECIlONS l
irf a.s/*I-Cornell L Sh 7
NOTIFY:
,m l
- 2.... wa. - e:.
^-
O too ^ov'"' c " "'s e r lnt
'u NIM Lavis ouw I
e tellG 1,
rrrs
- rk EXT.
1 s
G_
__it
. f_i
<t
.f COU V E N T S. N O TIF Y :
2-o.. +
.aa g
l 910.'vJ 2
- 2. iIM J
~ ~ "<
l e x 7, j
J. MM2 FCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMYENDED U YES U NO_
l f l
- *3 y t
qRC rOny 232 E xecuTiv E DintCTOn rOR O.,En AriONc ca. or neuovc ras cogy i
~
PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
/
l v
t
=.
- ..~
'1 Bibliography 1.-
Trubek, Allocating the Burden of Environmental Uncer-tainty:
The NRC Interprets NEPA's Substantive Mandate, 1977 Wisc. L. Rev. 747.
2.
Environmental Law:
Public Participation in the Environ-mental Impact Statement Process, 61*Minn. L. Rev. 363 (1977)
~
3.
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act Through Rulemaking:
The-Implications of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 126 U. Pa.
L. Rev. 148 (1977) 4.
Stutts, The Use of Generic Rulemeking to Resolve Environ-mental Issues in Nuclear Power Plant Licensing, 61 Va.
L. Rev. 869 (1975) (Discusses rulemaking powers of NRC in its handling of licensing and dealing with environmental questions).
f f
i
- 256 -
~
. ~ _, _
~ -. -
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Mission and Types of Action.
The Nuclear Regulatory-Commission is an independent regula-tory agency responsible for regulating commercial and research
[
uses of nuclear energy.
'It develops standards and issues-licenses for all-phases of-the nuclear fuel cycle, from the' mining and. milling of uranium through disposa11of.. irradiated 4
spent fuel.
The following actions of the agency receive some level of environmental review under NEPA:
(1) consideration of construction permit applications;-(2) consideration of operat-ing license applications; (3) program studies; (4) promulgation of regulations; and (5) amendments to operating licenses.
)
Organization and Staff-Resources for Envit== ental Affairs a
1 The NRC has no central environmental office.. Each program office maintains a staff that is responsible for responding to NEPA matters as well as other. assigned responsibilities.
Generally, the preparation of EISs f,or licensing and rulemaking 4
is performed by the same staff perso'nnel who conduct safety reviews under-the Atomic Energy Act.
I Under the Commission is the Executive Director for Opera-tions (EDO).
In 1980 there were five program offices under the EDO, each of which got involved to some degree in NEPA reviews and compliance with other federal environmental laws.
On April 5, 1981, one of the; program offices,.the Office of Standards Development, was dissolved and its responsibilities were taken over by another-p(rogram of fice, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES).
1 i
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-(NRR) does the environmental and safety reviews and issues licenses for nuclear power reactors and research reactors and, together with the Office of Nuclear Materi al Safety and Safeguards, ~ conducts most of the NRC's NEPA reviews.
The focal point for NEPA review and other-environmental activities'in NRR is in the office of the Assistant Director for Environmental Technology, i._
Daniel Muller.
Muller has an M.A.
in nuclear engineeridg and
[
is an SES employee.
Muller reports to the Chief of the Divi-l sion of Engineering, one of five divisions in NRR.
NRR has.649 employees.
Forty-two person-years, spread among all the em-ployees, is allotted for compliance with NEPA as well as all i
other environmental laws.
NRR's FY 1981 budget includes a line
[
item of $2.693 million for consultant preparation of NEPA docu-l-
ments.
l The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards-(NMSS) is responsible for the environmental and safety reviews and
[
licensing of all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle other than l'
i 4
242 -
4
- men,
reactor construction and operation.
NMSS has three divisions; NEPA reviews and compliance with other environmental laws.take place within two of them.
The Division of Waste Management has five branches.
Each branch has some NEPA responsibilities, but the focal point for NEPA activities in this Division is the Licensing Process and Integration Branch under the direction of Joseph Bunting, Branch Chief.
The other major NEPA and en-vironmental activity in NMSS takes place within the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, directed by Richard Cunningham.
NMSS has 264 employees; 40 person-years, spread among staff, are allocated for compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws.
NMSS's budget contains a line item of $4.5 million for preparation of NEPA documents by contractors.
Before its reorganization on A 1981, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) pril 5, had two divisions.
The focal point for compliance with environmental mandates was in the Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle, and Environmental Research under the direction of Jared Davis, Assistant Director for Waste Management and Enviror.,e.6a1 Research.
At the time of the interviews, RES emple<c' 154 people and allotted four person-years to environmer. a activities.
Until the reor-ganization, RES prepared t) EISs.
The new RES has assumed the responsibilities of the nes defunct OSD.
The former Director of OSD, Robert Minogue, now directs RES.
OSD formerly had two divisions:
its Division of Siting, Health and Safeguards Standards prepared programmatic and rulemaking EISs.
Craig Roberts, Assistant Director for Siting Standards, was the focal point for this activity.
Before its dissolution, OSD had 144 employees; three person-years were allotted to compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws.
OSD's budget contained a line iten of $1.0 million for preparation of NEPA documents by contractors.
As reorganized, RES has five divisions.
It ap-pears that the principal responsibility for preparing program and rulemaking EISs will be in three of the new divisions:
(1)
Division of Environment and Technology, (2) Division of Facility Operations, and (3) Division of Health, Siting and Environment.
It is expected that RES will have between 250 and 300 employees, including staff from OSD.
The Of fice of Inspection and unforcement (ISE) has five regional offices whose primary functions are to inspect NRC licensees and to oversee safety in the construction and opera-tion of nuclear plants.
These offices have very little to do with the NEPA review process; they never prepare EISs.
The minimal activity associated with NEPA in ISE takes place under Leo Higgenbotham, Assistant Director, Division of Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Inspection.
ISE has 846 employees; four person-years are allotted to compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws.
Environmental (non-radiological) inspec-tions are conducted as necessary by the regional staffs at ISE.
The regional ISE offices are the closest NRC comes to having regional environmental offices.
- 243 -
With the exception of NMSS, NEPA and environmental compli-ance in the program offices described above generally takes place at the Assistant Director management level.
At NMSS, Branch Chiefs (under Assistant Directors) have the authority '.o issue licenses and thus (barring a legal challenge before a hearing board) grant approval or disapproval of NEPA documents.
The NRC has no up-to-date statistical summary of the educa-tional background or professional experience of its employees, but estimates that professional personnel working on NEPA-related matters have, on the average, bachelor's degrees through Ph.D.'s with about two years of post-graduate work.
The average ptofessional experience is about 20 yearr.
Many of NRC's emplc~ees are trained as nuclear and chemical engineers.
In the NEPA compliance offices many employees have M.A.s and Ph.D.s in the biological and natural sciences.
The Environ-mental Engineering Branch, for instance, has 7 Ph.D.s and 3 M.A.s on its staff.
In recent years there has been a trend within NMSS to take on new employees with more environmental backg ound and training.
NEPA Process and-Quality Control Following CEQ's NEPA regulations of July 30, 1979, the NRC proposed new regulations (45 Fed. Je 13739, March 3, 1980).
R Following the comment period, the draft final regulations were sent on January 2, 1981, to NRC's Commissioners for review.
The first agency decision in the NEPA process is jointly made by the project manager and project attorney assigned to a particular action.
Together they determine whether the action is one that requires an EIS.
The regulations divide agency actions into three categories:
(1) those requiring EISs; (2) those not requiring any environmental scrutiny; and (3) those for which the decision to prepare an EIS must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Decisions on actions in the last category are based in part on the level of public interest.
Although NRC's regulations call for a two-step environmental analysis in these cases (i.e., an initial assessment of whether an EIS is required, then preparation of the document itself--either an 'IS or a document justifying why an EIS is not required), agency staff gave the following description of how the process works in practice.
An environmental document is prepared.
If a finding of no significant impact results, the document is called an Environmental Impact Appraisal (NRC's equivalent of an Environ-mental Assessment), and a Negative Declaration (the equivtlent of a FONSI) is issued.
The project manager (usually an engineer) and the pro,4ect attorney initiate preparation of environmental documents.
The interviewees at NRC stated there is no public participation in
- 244 -
lf..
i
+he preparation of routine Environmental Impact Appraisals (EIAs).
After-the-fact notice is published in the Federal Register with an opportunity to respond.
The agency is getting little public response as a result of this procedure.
Interviewees stated that if an EIS is required, the agency gives notice of the scoping process through the Federal Register, local newspapers, letters to local officials and other federal agencies, and letters to public interest groups wno track NRC's activities.
In response to the question of who defines the alternatives in environmental documents, interviewees replied that the al-ternatives are usually standard for EISs and that on EISs for operating licenses the choice more or less came down to ap-proval or veto.
One official further stated that there are no significant environmental impacts on reactor permit applica-tions, so alternatives are no problem on these EISs.
In routine cases, the project manager and project attorney make the EIS/ Negative Declaration determination and recommend it to their office director for approval.
However, if there is much public interest, the decision goes to a higher level; for example, the decision to do an EIS on the Three Mile Island decontamination was made by the Commission.
When the Negative Declaration route is chosen, it is chosen by the person with the authority to issue the license.
Negative Declarations are made available to the public by placing them in the Public Documents Room at the NRC.
The agency has not published any criteria for making the EIS/ Negative Declaration in discre-tionary cases, beyond those stated in NEPA, CEQ regulations and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
As noted above, public interest is an un-published criterion.
On construction permit and operating license applications for facilities where EISs are required, applicants must submit Environmental Reports (ERs).
These documents are used as a data base for EISs.
The veracity and accuracy of the ER is sworn to under oath by the Applicant.
Interviewees stated, "You operate under the assumption the applicant is honest."
Typically, EISs are prepared under contract by National Labs such as Argonne and Oak Ridge.
However, the NRC staff always prepares the radiological analyses in NEPA documents, and makes independent mathematical calculations or audits the contractor's calculations in every facet of the document.
NRC has an agreement with EPA for EPA to prc'are the water nuality c
analysis in NRC's EISs.
Before general distribution, a draft EIS receives an in-house review by the project manager, OELD, branch chiefs, and program staff techni.ians in their areas of expertise.
Reviewers use the NRC's " Standard Review Plan" to determine j
- 245 -
whether the required subjects have been addressed in the draft EIS.
The scientific accuracy of the document is verified by the technical staff people, with the review of their branch chiefs.
The project manager checks for internal consistency.
The agency responds to each comment it receives, either in a paragraph addressing the issue in the comments appendix or by making appropriate revisions in the text.
The project manager oversees this activity.
NRR project managers do not neces-sarily have environmental training; they are usually nuclear engineers.
50% to 70% of N;tSS project managers have environ-mental training.
The same people who review the draft EIS clso review the proposed final EIS.
There is no specified check of comments and responses in this review.
These reviewers have the author-
-ity to reject a proposed EIS, but they said that this never actually happens because "the bugs get worked out before this."
In the NRR, the EIS is formally approved when the Assistant Director (e.g., Muller and his counterparts) signs it.
In the NMSS, formal approval is given by the signature of tue branch chief.
In NRR licensing proceedings, hearings are required to be held on construction permits; hearings are not required for operating licenses, but as a matter of practice are usually held.
In contrast, hearings are not routine in NMSS.
Every now and then, a hearing is requested but is usually denied after NMSS discusses the issues and works them out with the parties.
An EIS may be modified as a result of the hearing process, although technically only the Commission (i.e., not the hearing boards) has the authority to direct the staff to modify an EIS.
However, this issue is being litigated.
Typically, the EIS reviewer with a thority to recommend approval of the proposed EIS is an engineer.
At the Division of Waste Management within NMSS, reviewers are primarily chemi-cal engineers.
NMSS staff said that even though they do not get involved in EPA reviews too much, they believe EPA focuses on issues that NRC sees ss less important, that the EPA comments are generic and do not adequately focus on issues the particular license application raises.
Interviewees stated that EPA com-ments are sometimes nitpicking and point out problems without explaining why they are problems.
Their comments are often voluminous.
They believe that individual prejudices (e.g.,
anti-nuclear) that are not necessarily EPA po.licy sometimes surface in the comments.
EPA's grading of NRC draft EISs show the following results:
4
- 246 -
L l
3 T
Code Year LO-1
'17-2 ER-1 ER-2 EU-1 EU-2 3
Other Total
'76 3
4 0
7 0
2 4
Z ZZ
'77 1
5 0
4 0-0 1
0 11
'78 0
3 0
5 0
1 1
1 (EU-3) 11
'79 0
Z 0
6 0
2 0
1-(EU-3) 9
'80 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 Z
Total 4
15 0
23 0
3 6
4 55 Interviewees stated it is difficult to single out one EIS as the best ever issued by the agency because the documents are so standard.
They concluded that the EISs have gradually im-proved over the years, so the last may be the best.
Today much more attention is being given to accidents (particula-ly " maxi-mum credible accider
') than before.
Also, NMSS is giving more attention to groundwater migration impacts.
EISs today are better referenced than before, so the reader can identify the sources and go to them.
Consultants NRkhasasokerogramEISs, are prepared by con-includin p
Most EISs source contract with Argonne National sultants.
Lab to prepare NEPA documents.
NMSS has a contract with Oak Ridge National Lab and Argonne.
The offices usually stay with one consultant that has worked well in the past.
In the pri-vate sector, competitive bidding is used to obtain a Basic Ordering Agreement list.
Consultants'who are chosen are then on call to do NEPA work as needed.
When consultants are used, the agency independently evalu-ates and takes responsibility for the environmental documents.
NRC staff said that for every technical person at the national lab that prepares the environmental document, NRC program offices have a senior technical counterpart who oversees the day-to-day process.
NRC's Standard Review Plan is used in overseeing the preparation.
The project manager is responsible for turning the work into an agency document.
In the case
.E NMSS and NRR, the document becomes an agency document at the time of the public hearing.
In the case of OSD (now RES), ic becomes an agency document at the time the Commission adopts it as part of the Record of Decision.
Contracts are funded out of-program budgets.
NMSS has a line item for environmental support.
Interviewees stated that they were adequately budgeted to meet NEPA requirements.
- 247 -
The agency has established a standard disclaimer clause in contracts with private consultants.
All national lab contracts v morandum of Understanding between the Department are under a s
of Energy and NRC; the question of a standard disclaimer clause is therefore not applicable to them.
Overall, contract involvement is staying constant at NRC.
Within the Division of Waste Management, NMSS, use of con-sultants may be rising.
Consultants usually do the actual writing of the EIS, but not the EA.
NRC staff cited the following benefits of using consult-ants:
(1) the national labs have a large body of expertise in technical areas that the agency could not have in-house; many(2) consultants improve NRC's workload management by help-and ing to smooth out the peaks and valleys in work demands imposed by NEPA obligations.
They cited the fo)1owing problems with using consultants:
(1) the agency becomes a-bit captive to them.
After the work is turned over to them by the agency, they have a fair amount of autonomy as to what direction to go and how far to go with it.
(2) The cost of consultants is getting high.
For example, it costs about $300,000 to prepare one EIS.
One official said that it is hard to justify some of the money spent on experts.
Within NMSS's Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, there has been a problem of getting consultants to focus on problems peculiar to uranium milling rather than relying on already-existing reactor EISs.
The following consultants have been retained by the Division of Waste Management, NMSS, to prepare three or more EISs or EIAs in 1979 and 1980:
1.
Argonne National Laboratory a)
Atlas Minerals Moab Mill - EIS b)
United Nuclear Corporation Morton Ranch Mill - EIS c)
Western Nuclear Split Rock Mill - EIS d)
Union Carbide Gas Hills Mill - EIS t
e)
Generic Envionrmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 2.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory a)
Energy Fuels White Mesa Mill - EIS b)
Plateau Resources Shootering Canyon Mill - EIS c)
Federal Amer.can Partners Mill - EIS l
i
- 248 -
d)
Ogle Petroleum In-Situ Mining - EIS e)
Energy Fuels Hanksville Ore-Buying Station - EAS g)
Plateau Resources Blanding Ore-Buying.
Station - EAS 3.
Dr. John Nelson, Colorado State University a)
Union Carbide Gas Hills Mill - EIS b)
Union Carbide Gas Hills Mill - EAS c)
Western Nuclear Split Rock Mill - EIS d)
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling Networks of Conimunication The environmental analysis of every project is reviewed by the project officer.
He is consulted as a matter of course on project planning.
The NRC has no environmental staff in its regional offices.
The principal functions of these offices are to inspect NRC licensees and to oversee safety in the const-uc-tion and operations of nuclear facilities.
Informal contact between NRC's environmental officers and their counterparts in other agencies is decreasing as time goes on, although Muller has developed some contacts from project-specific work.
Most of the communication is with EPA and Department of the Interior.
There is cross-cutting contact by subject expertise between staffs of the agencies.
Scoping and lead / cooperating agency designation has not increased contact between NRC environmental officers and those in other agencies; NRC was already making these contacts before the 1980 CEQ regu-lations became effective.
However, before NEPA was enacted, NRC was extremely isolated from other agencies.
After NEPA, its contacts expanded.
In all of the EISs prepared within NRR, EPA acts as a cooperating agency by preparing the sections on water quality issues.
This arrangement is pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies.
NMSS has never had the assistance of cooperating agencies in its preparation of EISs.
Likewise, OSD has not used cooperating agencies in preparing its rule.aaking EISs.
There is no transfer of funds between NRC and cooperating agencies.
NRC has never participated as a cooperating agency, but believes that it has been properly consulted by other i
- 249 -
s.
agencies.
In the event NRC becomes a cooperating agency, it
~
would pay its own way.
+
Efforts to Educate NRC.has no in-house training programs for personnel on en-vironmental matters.
NMSS is alloted $100 per year, per per-son, for on-the-job training in all areas, including environ-mental affairs.
This comes down to sending each person to an environmental course each year.
NRR has more money fcr this than NMSS; approximately 3 work days a year, per person, are allocated to environmental training.
The training consists of sending personnel to conferences.
The NRR has developed the Environmental Standard Review Plan (1978) to assist in NEPA implementation.
The Plan lays out in detail how to prepare NEPA documents and is updated approximately every three years under the leaoership of Mr.
Muller.
NRR has also prepared internal memoranda for preparing specific EIS sections.
Since NMSS's licenses are much less standard than NRR licenses, it has not prepared NEPA implementation guidebooks; it just uses what has been done before, and for some sections uses NRR's Standard Review Plan.
When NEPA was first enacted, NRC conducted seminars on compliance; it no longer does this because NEPA compliance has become routinized.
The agency conducts seminars on public participation.
NMSS has been planning to conduct its first seminar, on the subject of uranium mill tailings, to familiar-ize its staff with NRC's newly adopted regulations in this area.
Memos from CEQ are apparently sent directly to NRC's Chairman and from there to the legal offices (Office of General Counsel and OELD) and are not routed to others dealing with NEPA.
Number and Types of Documents In 1980 NRR was involved in the preparation of ten EISs.
NMSS had two underway on fuel cycle licenses and six underway on waste management.
OSD had one EIS underway.
The number of EIAs and Negative Declarations prepared by NRR and NMSS is increasirl; Negati,e Declarations run into the hundreds each year.
The agency has not yet prepared a Record cf Decision (ROD).
Agency Responsiveness As part of its obligation to er. hance opportunities for public participation, the interviewees attend and participate in public meetings and seminars and give talks on nuclear
- 250 -
~ _ -
i energy in schools and other forums.
For the generic EIS on uranium milling, NMSS conducted post-scoping public meetings.
According to interviewees, this was mostly a public relations effort.
Out of four scoping meetings, there was very little public response.
The situation is just the opposite in NRR; projects under this office's jurisdiction get much public attention.
The NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
set up under the Atomic Energy Act, meets once a month and has a subcommittee on environmental issues.
The subcommittee examines radiological health and safety issues and has no direct NEPA responsibility.
It usually meets about 4 times a year.
T a National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth, and NRDC are the primary environmental groups that follow NRC's activities.
NWF tracks NMSS's activities closely because'of the wildlife con-cerns in the western U.S. where many of the uranium mines are located.
The principal business groups that follow the NRC are the Atomic Industrial Forum, American Mining Congress, and state mining associations.
The agency maintains a mailing list for each facility it licenses.
The interviewees said that there is no correlation between opportunities for early public participation and later litiga-tion.
There have been no difficulties in providing copies of EISs to the public.
If the agency runs out, it prints more.
There is a pattern of groups and individuals who repeatedly ask for copies of EISs.
Academics and consultants frequently ask for EISs.
Groups opposed to nuclear power are the biggest group of requesters.
One official stated that these groups are not environmentalists; they just use the environmental movement to further their own aims.
He also said that neighbors of pro-posed plants rarely ask for EISs.
Our interviews with representatives of the private sector (industry, trade associations) and public it.terest groups un-covered some perceptions of the NRC's responsiveness.
Mr. Robert Whitesel from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) made certain comments with the caveat that he was speaking for himself and not the Institute.
He reported a
" good working relationship" with the agency in exchanging in-formation.
He believed that EPRI's recommendations to the NRC have been as effective as one can expect considering the agency has other more pressing concerns right now.
EPRI tries to keep an arm's length distance from the agency since it often does parallel research.
Mr. Whitesel cited NRC's rulemaking pro-ceedings on spent fuel as an example of its responsiveness to 251 -
comments received.
Thirty-two parties filed briefs on the proposed rulas.
It bent over backward on minority views.
The agency paid attention to details, and received Whitesel's " good marks."
Mr. Larry Lanpher of the Washington, D.C.
law firm of Hill, Christopher 4 Phillips said that the NRC is responsive proce-dure.11y, but not substantively, to outside concerns.
He stated that it is one of the best agencies for providing information and rated it "very responsive" in keeping his particular clients informed but rated it "very unresponsive" in addressing their substantive concerns.
Mr. Lanpher said that responsive-ness would be improved if the NRC staff were barred from taking positions in the course of a lice' sing proceeding until all the evidence is in.
He also cited a strong " pro-nuclear" agency bias and used as an example the fact that it objected to every point he raised in a 180-page brief.
He said the agency has never turned down an application for a construction permit or an operating license.
Lanpher called the NRC's proposed rules to expedite the hearing process " disastrous," but felt that in general the agency's shortcomings in responsiveness lay with personnel attitudes rather than procedures.
He said that responses to comments on draft EISs were inadequate.
Lanpher stated that some issues decided in the agency's licensing and rulemaking processes are better decided in the legislative forum; as one example, siting decisions should be left to the states.
I I
NRC staff said that licenses are not rejected outright; if e
there is a problem the applicant is given conditions to meet, resulting in some cases with the withdrawl of applications.
Project Modifications and Terminations NMSS could cite no project terminations resulting from the NEPA process.
NRR cited the Perryman plant as the only project terminated by NEPA.
Both program offices stated that virtually every project has been to some degree modified as a result of the NEPA process.
Recent NMSS project modifications include the Union Oil Sweetwater Uranium Mill in Wyoming in 1978 and the Union Carbide Gas Hills Uranium Mill in 1980.
NEPA causes no delays in NRR licensing proceedings because the safety reviews are on the " critical path,"
i.e.,
take longer than anything else.
But in NMSS, the environmental re-view is always on the critical path.
One official attributed the long delays largely to the commenting process.
Identifying Needs for Project Change Needed changes in the course of the NEPA process may be written in as conditions to the license.
Other leverage the agency uses is to inform the utility / licensee that it will not
- 252 -
proceed with the environmental review (e.g., the draft EIS) until the needed changes are made.
Needs for change are usually identified early in the environmental review process.
Communications to Congress The NRC did not submit any impact statements on legislative proposals in 1979 or 1980.
The program offices at NRC respond to congressional inquiries by sending their comments through the Executive Director for Operations.
Procedures for Cutting Delay Interviewees rated tha techniques listed in CEQ's regula-tions for reducing delay as follows (1-least effective, 7-most effec _ive):
Integrating NEPA process into early planning.
7 7
7 2)
Interagency cooperation before i
EIS is prepared.
6 6
6 3)
Insuring resolution of lead agency disputes.
NA NA 5
4)
Using scoping for early iden-tification of issues.
7 7
NA 5)
Establishing time limits for EIS process.
7 7
7 6)
Preparing EISs early in the process.
7 7
7 7)
Integrating NEPA with other environ-mental review and consultation require-ments.
NA 4+
5 8)
Preparing joint EISs with State and local agencies and adopting environ-mental documents of other Federal agencies.
NA NA 5
9)
Combining environmental documents with other documents.
NA NA NA 10)
Using accelerated procedures for proposals for legislation.
NA NA NA 11)
Using categorical exclusions.
7 7
7 12)
Using FONSIs.
7 7
7
- 253 -
Methods of reducing delay developed by NRC include using its Environmental Standard Review Plan and getting the right information from the applicant by notifying applicants early of NEPA requirements.
NMSS is expediting the NEPA process by staffing up on en-vironmental expertise and occasionally assigning safety review staff to environmental review.
NRS staff said that the CEQ regulation on conducting joint planning processes and public hearings with state and local agencies may increase delay, although perhaps a better process results.
The NRC is setting up a joint hearing process with the State of Washington on a licensing proceeding.
In both NRR and NMSS, 6 months are scheduled from publica-tion of the Notice of Intent to issuance of the draft EIS.
It can take anywhere from 6 to 12 months or longer if project modification; are necessary.
It takes an average of 6 more months to ge from the draft EIS to the fina? "IS.
Clout The interviewees stated that their recommendations are heard by and usually influence the agency's decision makers, although this is more through the hearing process than because of NEPA itself.
The NRC has procedures for avoiding the commitment of resources prejudicing the selection of alternatives prior to completion of the NEPA process.
Within NMSS, no construction is allowed until the license is issued.
Under the proposed regulations no construction would be allowed until the ROD is issued.
The current regulations say that construction activity is grounds for a license denial.
Within NRR, the construction permit EIS is completed and a hearing is held before a limited work authorization (LWA) is issued.
Environmental values are integrate'd in varying degrees into the professional assumptions of the NRC Staff.
Many have no environmental awareness at all; they are dyed-in-the-wool en-gineers.
The legal staff is better than most of the agency on NEPA compliance because it is predisposed to complying with the law qua law.
Within NRR, safety is the emphasis rather than the more generalized environmental concerns.
Within NMSS, waste management has more environmental implications, so there is more environmental awareness.
Also, NMSS has more environ-mentally trained personnel.
The ratio of EIS preparation cost to project cost is ap-proximately one percent within NRR ($10 million/$1 billion);
within NMSS, the ratio of EIS cost to project cost is much higher because the projects are usually less costly.
- 254 -
In the private sector, Mr. Whitesel from EPRI thought NRC's EISs_have some impact on the decision making process, but said that EISs are read by few and are largely useless.
From an intervenor's perspective, Mr. Lanpher saw the agency's EISs as
.s post facto rationalizations of agency decisions.
Involving Environmental Office in Budget, Regulations, Legisla-tion, and Litigation Budget requirements for NEPA and general environmental com-pliance are developed at the branch level, then work their way up the system and back down again.
Unusual environmental re-quirements (e.g., the TMI clean-up) and program EISs are some-times identified and specifically included in the budget.
The interviewees have little opportunity to comment on the environmental aspects of proposed legislation, because in their view there are not many environmental impacts connected with proposed NRC legislation.
Similarly, interviewees do not have much opportunity to comment on legislation originating'in other agencies.
Occasionally NMSS is questioned by the Hill, but it submits.nothing formal.
NMSS personnel went up to the Hill and reviewed drafts of the Uranium Mill Control Act of 1978.
OELD gives notice to the program _ officers of pending regu-lations that may affect their NEPA performance.
In addition, people throughout the agency track the Federal Register.
Interagency exchanges of information on the NEPA process cited by the interviewees include the CEQ briefing on its new regulations (held in Reston), and the EPA Atlanta region inter-agency NEPA conference.
The interviewees' offices d-not par-ticipate in any formal programs to inform other offices'in NRC about environmental matters.
When the NRC is subject to litigation on environmental issues, the staff offices are notified by Office of General Counsel (0GC).
They participate to a limited extent, e.g.,
they sign affidavits but do not testify.
1
.I
-255 -