ML20032D459
| ML20032D459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Simpson A SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111170029 | |
| Download: ML20032D459 (5) | |
Text
r s.
p 93 E87 g UNITED STATES
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
{
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o
4 4
0' 9
4 g%
CHAIRMAN fi\\ bl s
g\\
f
-r
({b[
t The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chainnan E
Subconsnittee' on Nuclear Regulation N OV O 4 gggg, f
~
-2
'6 u.ag'm[ '
Committee on Environment and Public Works k,/'
United States Senate y
Washington, D.C.
20510 4.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are pleased to su,bmitresponses to additional questions for the record from the October 6,1981 hearing on proposed high-level waste legislation.
I hope you will find these responses adequate for your purposes, but if you need additicnal information or clarification, please let me know.
Sincerely, s=
Y c~2 t&
t Nunzio. Pa ladino
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions on Proposed high-level waste legislation i
uGRRESPO!D E PDR
.m
,.p...
- y..,..,
~ _. -
. -. ~.
l a
P Question 1.
Testimony provided by Chairman Palladino on October 6, 1981, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and
-the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation regarding Senate Bill 1662 implies the NRC could relax slightly the time for processing an application for a construction authorization for a high-level waste repository if it had a complete application from DOE.
Chairman-Palladino's testimony further indicated concern whether DOE had sufficient time to prepare an adequate license application.
To what degree could NRC relax its time frame for processing the application to allow more time for DOE to prepare the application? How much additional time should be provided to DOE for this. purpose beyond that provided now in S. 1662?
Answer:
NRC did not intend to leave any impression that thehimeforprocessing an application for repo'sitory construction authorization could be
" relaxed" if we had a complete application from the Department of Energy (DOE).
Commission Chairman - Palladino's testimony on S. 1662 said that the NRC would do everything in its power to avoid delaying the national program.
Past NRC staf f estimates have concluded that construction authorization proceedings would require a minimum of four years, and the testimony pointed out that the bill's goal would be "very difficul't" to achieve in the two years and 9 months allowed for construction authorization proceedings under this bill.
The testimony went on to say that under such a tight time frame, it becomes extremely important that we receive a complete license application from DOE containing all the information we will need to resolve the issues in dispute. We thus intended to make it clear that if we are to avoid delaying the national program, we could not afford to lose any of the time available to us for processing an application.
We wanted ~to point out, however, that DOE may need more time to do the necessary research and analysis in order to develop adequate information needed to resolve the issues in a licensing proceeding.
T
gr We are uncertain as to how much time can be shortened from the DOE plan discussed by Mr. Brewer in his testimony. We are somewhat skeptical that DOE can shorten the program very much. and still do the technical job required for an adequate license application.
We will work with DOE to assist them in evaluating what can be done.
F-R
- q -
Question 2.
.What-is the Commission's position on EPA proposing guidelines for site selection of a high-level waste repository? Are such guidelines needed in addition:
to. environmental standards?-
-Answer:
We understand that EPA, pursuant to the reorganization plan No. 3lof 1970,(35 FR 15623) 84 STAT 2086) is working on two HLW products. They are working to develop generally applicable' standards _ for-protection lof-the general environment.from HLW at geologic repositories. The -
Commission supports' and urgently needs these standards.
Under authority of the Federal Radiation Council, transferred to EPA by the reorganization plan, EPA is also developing guidelines for all Federal agencies with respect to HLW repositories. These guidelines appear to be redundant with the NRC's proposed regulation 10 CFR 60 and could be eliminated.
E
.7 e
y"
?
Question 3.
EPA, in its testimony on October 6, proposed modifying the provision in S.1662 for the preparation of environmental standard's by EPA. Under the EPA proposal, EPA would issue proposed standards and guidelines on January 30, 1982, and final standards and guidelines one year thereafter.- How would. this formulation af fect NRC's ability to develop final technical criteria within the time schedule provided in S. 16627 Would proposed EPA standards be a sufficient basis for NRC to proceed with developing the final technical criteria?
Answer:
.t Basically, we, bel,ieve that the EPA ~ proposal' would not seriously affect our time schedule for promulgating the final technical rule, as long as EPA makes no major changes in direction. Our proposed technical rule has been based on EPA internal working draft versions of the standards, which have been essentially the same for the past two to three years.
If substantive changes are made by EPA in its final standards, they may require us to change our rule by amendments.
Since the NRC technical rule serves as the detailed guidance to DOE for its decisions and activities resulting in an application for a particular site, we believe our technical rule should be issued as soon as practicable. To provide the complete regulatory framework however, EPA.
should also be encouraged to make every effort to promulgate its standards ia final form as soon as practicable.
1
-