ML20056C496
| ML20056C496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306240273 | |
| Download: ML20056C496 (3) | |
Text
'
.......................1 RELEASED TO THE POR N0TATI0N V0TEj jj y,
!....Y/g RESPONSE SHEET
........ /, f.... ! l T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE'COMMISSIO'N FROM:
COMMISSIONER CURTISS-
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-107 - LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM
?
PROGRAM AND BUDGET RESPONSIBILITIES X/with APPROVED comments DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
-l NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
1 See attached comments.
u NNM 3A
]~
SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/y
/
May 10, 1993-DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
I I
]
ENTERED-0N "AS" YEs x
No 1/c 62 9
10 P CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-93-107:
My positions on the proposals for allocating LSS program and budget responsibilities are as follows:
1.
In view of the efficiencies and the overall savings in system costs to the government that should result, I believe that DOE should have both the program and budget responsibilities to design,_ develop, install, operate, and maintain the LSS capture, storage, and dissemination systems using INFOSTREAMS as a base.
At the same time, I believe that NRC should1 retain.its design and implementation oversight responsibilities.
Accordingly, I strongly support the. staff's recommendation to adopt and pursue Alternative 3.
2.
In general, I approve the staff's proposal'to modify 1
the LSS rules to implement ' Alternative 3 with two exceptions --
(a)
The proposal to require that access to the LSS be provided three years before DOE files its application for the HLW repository is unnecessarily stringent.
The target schedule for the repository licensing proceeding, which is set out in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix D and section 2.1028, provides more than 22 months from the filing of the application to the deadline for the submission of_ motions for summary disposition for discovery'using the LSS.
An additional three years for i
discovery at the front end of this process is unnecessary and would cut down on' DOE's flexibility in designing and implementing the LSS.
I would suggest that we modify the LSS rules to require access to the LSS one year before DOE files its application.- That would provide roughly three years of pre-litigation discovery using the LSS.
(b)
The staff should clarify its proposal-to modify the LSS rules to condition NRC's acceptance of DOE's application for the repository on DOE's finishing the LSS - and making it available for discovery.1 With On page 12 of SECY-93-107, the staff states _that'"this change (to the LSSL rules).will tie NRC acceptance of the DOE application not only to completeness of their application, but also to DOE's success in furnishing the LSS-as a vehicle for providing all potential parties sufficient access to discoverable materials."
At another point, however, the staff indicates that it is 'not proposing to prohibit : acceptance of DOE's application
the substantial uncertainty over future budgets for projects like the LSS, it would be entirely inappropriate to, in essence, condition the whole of repository licensing on DOE's completion of the LSS.
Thus, I would oppose any proposal to modify the LSS rules in a manner that would preclude NRC's acceptance of DOE's application if the LSS has not been developed and made available prior to the time the application was filed.
3.
I support Option 3 (continuation of the status quo) for NRC's budget treatment of NRC's LSS costs, provided that A.iternative 3 for allocating LSS program and budget responsibilities is adopted by the commission and implemented by DOE, OMB, and NRC.
If another alternative which increases NRC's LSS costs above those of Alternative 3 ultimately is implemented, I would support the establishment of a separate LSS program-line item in NRC's budget (Option 1), as this would allow Congress directly to express its intent on the level of funding it desires to support NRC's LSS activities.
I commend the staff for its comprehensive reassessment of the difficult issues on the appropriate allocation of responsibilities for the LSS, and I would urge that the NRC vigorously pursue Alternative 3 with DOE and OMB.
)
altogether:
"If (DOE fails to develop and install the LSS]
before the license application is submitted, acceptance of DOE's application.for review for docketing could be delayed; or if requested by DOE and approved by the NRC staff, the license application could be accepted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G, without the full benefit of the LSS."
1 J