ML20040B982
| ML20040B982 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/11/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Fish H HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040B983 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201270135 | |
| Download: ML20040B982 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _ _._______ - _
f
c UNITED STATES i jg y., #,'e NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,p - ! ;g WASWNGTON, D. C. 20553 t,
c gv /
DEC 111331 ni CHAIRMAN g
N 4
RECElVED 7,
0 The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
Comittee on Science and Technology g " E T L"7" United States House of Representatives q
Washington, D.C.
20515 y
a
Dear Congressman Fish:
We appreciate your interest in the proposed legislation now before the Science and Technology Comittee, and hope that our responses to the inquiries in your letter of November 2,1981 to Mr. John G. Davis prove hel pful.
We have performed a cursory review of the bill reported by the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, and our responses are necessarily brief, addressing what we believe is the general thrust of each question.
Due to the sweeping scope of the bill, we may wish to provide an addendum to these responses if subsequent analysis warrants.
We understand and share the desire of the members who reported the bill tc expedite the high-level radioactive waste management program. Many of your questions address the efficacy of provisions aimed at shortening the repository licensing process.
In general, we believe that several of these provisions will aid'us in this endeavor.
However, we are unable to guarantee that we can meet the deadlines es.tablished by this bill for NRC review and decision on a repository lic$nse application given possibilities for delay.
Such possibilities could conceivably include an incomplete DOE application, unanticipated technical diffi-culties, or other questions which may arise -- the resolution of which may take longer than the bill's implementation timetable allows for in this first-of-a-kind undertaking.
Sincerely, hr - f ( h-d( m..a
~
. ( uw Nunzio '. Palladino
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions e
8201270135 811211 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
1 H.R. 1993 contains several provisions relating to the Question 1.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In particular, Section 8(d)(9) provides that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) shall also be deemed to also satisfy the Nuclear Wnat is Regulatory Commission's requirements under NEPA.
the Commission's position on this provision? Do you believe that this provision is necessary in 'rder to meet Will all the goal of a permanent repository by 1996?
relevant environmental impacts associated with the key decisions in the nuclear waste program still be fully
. considered if the timetable set out in this legislation was followed, as required under NEPA? How iceg do you estimate it will take the Commission to satisfy its responsibilities under Section 102 of NEPA?
Do you believe that this provision would override current judicial interpretations of NEPA?
If so, do you believe that environmental impacts will be as fully considered as would have been the case had this provision been omitted from the legislation? Moreover, do you believe that this provision is consistent with the Nation's best interest?
Finally, what effect on the schedule set out in the legislation for operation of a permanent repository does this provision 1have?
Section 10(a)(2) of this legislation p[ovides that no action of DOE or any other government agency required under this Act to be taken prior to the effective date of the selection of a repository site by the Secretary shall be considered to be a major federal action for purposes of NEPA, thereby requiring the preparation of an Environ-mental Impact Statement.
At what stage of development of the overall nuclear waste program does the Commission believe it is in the best national interests to prepare an What EIS for its activities pursuant to this legislation?
actions of the Federal government prior to the selection of a repository site by the Secretary would be considered to be major federal actions under NEPA, thereby requiring an EIS?
)
Answer.
The Comission believes that there are arguments in favor of and against full flEPA review by tiRC.
The advantages are those that may result from the liRC's independent evaluation and the opportunity for interested persons to raise issues for resolution in an adjudicatory process.
However, the disadvantages that result from a duplication of effort, unnecessary broadening of the issues in a proceeding that may in any event be extremely complex, and the delays that may be caused by the formal adjudication of the environmental issues are of sufficient impact 2
that they should be avoided.
The provision requiring DOE to obtain flRC concurrence on its plan for an EIS would give the Comission an important tool to assure that the scope, outline, and alternatives to be evaluated in this EIS will be useful for f4RC's own decisionmaking purposes.
We support the provision in Section 9(b)(1) for _ DOE's EIS to be prepared "with the concurrence of the Comission on the intended scope, outline, and alternatives to be considered," and it would be helpful to have an explicit clarification in Section 8(d)(9) that the Comission's concurrence is only as to scope, outline, and alternatives addressed.
There are _no tiRC actions prior to the selection of a repository site by the Secretary which we would consider to be a major Federal action under NEPA.
7 Comissioners Bradford and Gilinsky agree that there is;no need for fiRC to write a separate Environmental Impact Statement so long as f4RC is required to concur with the. intended scope, outline, and alternatives of th'e DDE statement.
Ilowever, they believe that the fiRC should retain its J
other tiEPA responsibilities.
In the waste area it is difficult to distinguish safety issues from environmental issues.
If 11RC has no fiEPA responsibilities, the waste hearing will have to address the potentially time-consuming issue of whether issues are safety issues or environmental issues.
Additionally, a significant portion of eart 60 was presumed to be based on.iEPA.
Without aEPA jurisdiction, some of the requirements thought to be settled will have to be reopened to see yhether they might also fall under tSe Atemic~2nt.rgy Act.
s 1
\\,.
3 5
4 \\
s
=
4 kg h.
3 Oues. tion 2.
H.R. 1993 presently contains a provision relating to the role of the relevant State and tribal councils in the siting, construction, and operation of a permanent waste repository.
This provision (Section 9) provides a
" consultation and concurrence" role for the State and tribal council, with the requirement that the State's objections to the location of a permanent site shall be upheld if approved by one House of Congress. Do you have any concerns with respect to this provision, and if so, what are they? Do you support the State Planning Council's recommendations in this manner, and if not, why not? What additional recommendations, if any, do you have with respect to this provision?
Answer.
' NRC has no current recommendation on the specific procedures for the resolution of state / federal disputes, but we do have concerns about the As we have bill's timing of the consultation and concurrence process.
previously noted in Congressional testimony, we would prefer that the opportunity for state non-concurrence be provided after the Commission had decided to authorize facility construction.
The state decision would then come before the commitme,nt of funds for facility construction, but after the Commission had fully developed a factual record and a reasoned statement of its conclusions that would be available f.or use in the resolution of any state objections.
If a state were to continue to object after examination of the record on health, safety, and environmental considerations, after consultati,on with DOE, and after participation in NRC licensing proceedings, then a strong argument can be made for the process to be suspended pending a review of the record either by Congress, the President or both.
t l
O l
l l
l l
{
l l
e e
e e
m 4
research and establishes a of spent sitional dry storagesupport l tion Section 12 of this legis a Do you this development program for tranexisting Departm ilities.
uch funding do you believe l t the Queltion.3 Would such a program supp this program, and how m fuel in f this would require? l nts in the latter half o t of need for Away-From-Reactorcivilian nuc support the general concep program away from-reactor Moreover, do you for an Federal government support decade?
program?
D0E) to tment of Energy (d evaluata test an is appropriate for the Deparlopment progr 7
Answer.
Dry storage viding transitional commer agree that it are being investigated byonven conduct research and deve fuel.
te disposition of the We various options for procapacity pending ultima viable alternatives for c f
as to the applicability o aged spent fuel, such as in nt program identifiedFedera site, appear to be tion technologies forHowever, we have some quesge research withdrawal of plans for DOE at its Hevada we result of this decision, ge capacity is likely i
's view of the Administrat on pool storage.the particular dry stora It appears unlikely that As a storage facilities.necessary increased stora y or Section 12 in ilities, where the galler sites.
ed by away-from-reactorbelieve that most of the perating reactorconsidered, will be developh ou centralized-storage f ac to be established at o conduct sucW a program t r bility availability and suitading t large regional orof dry storage might be is directed to iliarity with the mode i s to comment on the fun canyon If DOE legislation, we lack famof existing DOE facil would require DOE to industry.
least two modify at t
to 500 tonnes of spen ity were provided an required.
rovide dry storage for'up lation Section 12~ of this legisexisting fa suggested If 1000 tonnes of capacwhich first as tors fuel 3t each facility.
ide of the 12, the requirements for1989 or 1990.
spent fuel was additional capacity outswou'd be delayed unt il about commercial spen by Item (4) ot "e tion ilities for c
reactor storageto Federal storage f aconsistently has a
With respectstorage, the Commis ion c s
ee.
m a
m
/
c l
i 5
I dethe'rsuchstorageshouldbedevelopedbythegovernmentorwhether l
provisions for adequate capacity should be left as a responsibility of the industry.
The Commission is prepared to exercise its licensing responsib'ilities in either case.
j i
i 9
- l l
l i
I s
e m
i i
- e l
r T
=
i f
B 2
6
. e.
h I
Duestion 4 Section 5(d)(10) of this legislation provides interim licensing authority for the operation of a repository.
Do you generally support the need for this authority?
Is this authority necessary in order to meet the goal 1
of a permanent repository by 1996? Do you believe you could meet the timeframe set out in this legislation with-out this authority?
Answer.
The Comission does not support interim licensing authority.
First, this facility is too critical to waive the hearing.
It is the first of its kind.
Second, getting state, local, and general public acceptance is the hardest task for this facility.
Interim licensing strongly undercuts building the 9
needed acceptance.
Without interim licensing authority, the Commission probably would not be able to reach a final decision on construction authorization within 24 months after submission of the application.
However, even if the Commission had interim licensing authority, it is not clear that the 24 month goal could be met.
In either case, it is not clear whether the goal of a permanent repository by 1996 would be met.
The staff would have to provide detailed schedule information before the Comission could make a reasonable judgment.
lievertheless, we believe it would be essential to complete the hearing process, because it is crucial to gaining state, iocal, and general public confidence.
Separate view of Chairman Pa-lladino and Commissioner Roberts:
The pur, nose of this provision is not clear.
We would not object to provisions in the bill to specifically grant the Commission interim-licensing authority for the operation of a re.nository, to be exercised at' the Commission's discretion.
However, we do not believe that the Comission should be directed to grant the license particularly as provided in Section 8(d)(10)(B)(i) and (ii).
We believe the repository licensing schedule in the. bill should allow for a comprehensive, review of the complete application and development of the complete record, prior to issuance of a license for this first of a kind repository.
If the applicant can successfully make the ' argument that an interim license for the repository is in the flational interest and does not affect health and safety, discretionary authority would allow t1RC to grant the petition.
O O
l l
c 4
7 Question 5.
Section 8(d) of this legislation provides for a statutory licensing process in considering a license application for all or part of a repository.
What are. your comments on this provision? Do you believe that public participation will be fully and fairly accorded under this situation?
Do you believe that this legislative process is necessary to meet the time goals set out in the legislation, or do you believe that the NRC has sufficient authority under other statutes that will allow it to make the appropriate action to meet the time goal set out in this legislation?
Answers.
We believe that the provision in Section 8(d) recuiring the Commission to consider a license application for part of a repository is ill advised.
The Commission believes it' presently has authority under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, to establish requirements for a license application, and we have the discretionary authority to set requirements to cover part or all of a -
repository.. However, in this first-of-a-kind undertaking, we do not think' it prudent to legislate this restrictive requirement in advance.
We would prefer to look at a complete application from DOE for the entire repository in order to properly evaluate geologic and hydrologic conditions at the site for any potential health and safety problems before issuing a license to emplace waste in all or part of the repository.
Although the Commission
- favors modified hearing procedures, it wo'uld prefer a more general provision authorizing use of such procedures rather than these detailed provisions requiring a particular approach.
Since the Commission has no experience with these procedures, it is difficuyt to predict difficulties we might have adopting this approach to our licensing actions.
A more general authorizing provision would give us the flexibility to address any difficulties which were identified in the initial proceedings.
In addition, these pro-cedures should not be tried for the first time in a waste repository proceeding.
Rather, we should be allowed to use them in a few other less complex proceedings so that we can gain experience and develop appropriate procedures.
Additionally, Section 8(d)(6) of the proposed bill imposes a very high threshold for the admission of contentions.
The provision requires prima facie showing and an affidavit from persons having personal knowledge in order for the Commission to consider an issue.
This could be interpreted as requiring potential parties to prove they are right befo're the issue will be considered by the NRC.
Since the Commission itself is studying how its standards for admission of contentions should be modifieg the Commission suggests this section be deleted and the issue be left to Commssion rulemaking.
- See following page.
l g
- Commissioner Bradford's view l
I do. not favor modified hearing procedures which would require that f actual and legal issues meet rigorous tests before they may be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing.
Adjudicatory hearings, which the NRC currently uses for all contested power plant licensing issues, are a better way to get an accurate assessment of complex factual issues.
If they are run effectively, th.ey will not take significantly longer than informal hearings, but they will be a much more reliable decision-making tool.
They are more reliable because they permit direct con-frontation between the views of different parties under circumstances that allow each party a maximum of opportunity to probe the assumptions and the weaknesses of the other's position.
Informal hearings, by contrast, allow the parties to make statements that contain untested allegations and assumptions and that need not face cross-examination.
Within limits, this favors the witnesses who are most careless with the truth.
In any clash of statements the chances of the fellacious ones prevailing, especially if they are sufficiently financed to be repeated by several witnesses, improve in direct proportion to the informality.
of the proceeding.
As one of the officials who must pass judgment based on the. records that will be built at these hearings, 'I ask you in the strongest terms not to change the current adjudicatory format.
O
..a 9
I e
9 Ousstion 6.
Section 11 of this legislation establishes a research and development program relating to the constru'ction and operation of a test and evaluation facility.
Do you believe that this facility is necessary in order to meet the current DOE program goals in nuclear waste management, as well as the goals set out in the pending legislation?
What do you believe is the optimum role for this facility viewed in the context of the Department's overall nuclear waste program? What do you estimate to be the costs of this facility? How much of this cost would De incurred in any event, should no Test and Evaluation Facilit.y be included? Do you anticipate any savings from the Test and Evaluation Facility, during the life of the program? Do you believe that it would be appropriate to require an NRC license for this facility given the role that this facility will play under the pending legislation? Do you -
believe that there is a need for any other institutional or procedural safeguards in connection with the construction and operation of this facility, given the role that this facility will play in the pending legislation?
Answer.
The Commission has no objection to the construction of,a T&E facility.
We would prefer, however, that it be fully integrated into the framework of our regulations.
For optimum usefulness in promoting the goal of licensed geologic disposal, we believe that T&E activities should be conducted at a site suitable for a licensed repository, and developed in accordance with the pre-application review procedures set forth in our 10 CFR Part 60 rules for the licensing of geologic disposal.
Although the primary focus of these procedures is site characterization to determine the suitability of the geology for a repository, test and evaluation activities could address follow-on considerations of design, materials emplacement, and personnel safety optimization.
These activities may be useful in firming up details of conceptual design for a license application, but we do not believe that this 'second step should substitute for or interfere with the first step, which is determining the geologic suitability of the site.
We are unable to estimate the cost of a TEE f acility with any reasonable degree of certainty, as it is dependent on a large number of variables.
These include the size l
W G
B
f.
10 and design of the facility; the geologic medium; and engineering
[
accommodations for geologic conditions.
Whatever this' cost turns out to be for a given site, certainly if the T&E facility is at the site which is selected to be the ' repository, most of its cost would have been required in the normal development of the repository.
If, however, the T&E facility, is.from the outset, not part of a licensed repository development, most of the T&E cost would be additive to the program cost.
w 3
e e
4 S
...