ML20138R822
| ML20138R822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1985 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511190078 | |
| Download: ML20138R822 (7) | |
Text
.
I e
k 7
-STATEMEtIT BY COMMISSIONER JAMES K. ASSELSTINE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AtlD PUBLIC WORKS OCTOBEF. 20. 1985 Mr. Chairmar., I would like to add a few comments on the issue of the timing of the preliminary determination of site suitability under section 114 (f) of the Nuclear Maste Policy Act.
I believe there are four relevant questions regarding the timing of the preliminary determination.
- First, was there an egreenent between the Commission and DOE on the timing of the preliminary determination at the time of the Commission's concurrence in DOE's site selection guidelines? Second, was this agreement a condition of l
the Commission's concurrence in the site selection guidelines? Third, is the DOE's change in position er the tining of the preliminary determination a matter exclusively within DOE's program ravagement discretion, or does the i;RC have a regulatory interest in this matter as well? And finally, should the preliminary determination of site suitability be made before or after site characterization?
The first question arises because during the Coninission's July 29, 1985 meeting with DOE to discuss the Department's mission plan for the high-level waste disposal program, the Department took the position that there had not been an agreement between DOE and NRC on the timino cf the prelirinary determination at the time of the Commission's concurrence in 8511190078 By f ORRES OPGENCE PDR
a the site selection guidelines. DOE expressed the view that it had beer the Department's position all along that the timing of the preliminary determination should be deferred until a later date.
I think it is cler.r.
Mr. Ctt.irnan, that there was an agreement in June 1984 between DOE and NRC that the preliminary determination should be made after rathe-then before site characterization. This agreement was clearly stated in the Conwission's July 10, 1984 decision which concurred in the DOE site selection guidelines. DOE did not object to the Commission's characterizetion of the agreement at that time.
Moreover, the transcript of the Commission's discussions with DOE on the site selection cuidelines on dure 22, 1984 contains clear statements by DOE that the preliminary determination of site suitability should be made after completion of site cFeracterization. During that meeting, DOE acknowledge that the preliminary determination should be made after site characterizaticn I
because that is the point in time when enough data about the site is available to make the preliminary determination a meaningful statement, f!r. CFairran, I have attached to my statement excerpts from the transcripts of the June 22, 1984 and July 29, 1985 Cermission meetings as well as the Comission's July 10, 1984 concurrence decision.
I believe these docurents clearly show that there was an agreement between DOE and NRC on the timing of the preliminary deterniration, and that this agreement was based upon a judgment that site characterization was necessary to obtain the technical information needed to support the preliminary determination of site suitability.
1
On the second question, I believe it is also clear that the agreement between DOE and NRC on the timing of the preliminary determination was a condition of the Commission's concurrence in the DOE site selection guidelines. Fly colleagues place great weight en the fact that the Commission failed to label the agreement as a " concurrence condition" in the July 10, 1984 Commission decision, and did not insist that the agreement be written into the guidelines themselves. The fact remains, however, that the Commission included the agreement in the concurrence decision ard rcquired that a statement calling for the preliminary determination to be made before site characterization be removed from the guidelines. The context in which the Commission's concurrence decision was made further supports the interpretation that the agreement was a condition of concurrence. Despite all of the Commission's other conditions of l
concurrence, which had been published for connert. the affected states remained unanimously opposed to the DOE site selection guidelines. They argued that despite NRC's other proposed ccccurrence conditions, the site selection guidelines were toe vague and failed to specify the type and amount of information needed to deternine whether the guidelines were met.
As the transcript of the Commission's June 27., 1984 meeting clearly -shows, the unanimous opposition by the states to the guidelines was a natter cf great concern to the Commission and the agreenent on the timing of the preliminary determination was the means chosen by the Commission to address these state concerns and permit Commission concurrence in the guidelines.
On the third question, I believe that the Commission has a direct regulatory interest in the timing of the preliminary determination and that
t this is not a matter within DOE's exclusive discretion. The Commission's regulatory interests in this issue are threefold.
First, the Commission has the statutory responsibility under the Nuclear Faste Policy Act to concur in the COE site selection guidelines.
The purpose of this concurrence responsibility was to provide an irderer: dent check of DOE's site screening and site selection process. As I discussed previously, the Commission determined that the preliminary determination should be made after rather than before site characterization to ensure an effective site selection process. The states pointed out flaws in DOE's site selection guidelines, and the Commission's decision on the timing of the preliminary determination was an attempt to compensate for these flaws.
Second, the Commission has a direct stake in ensuring that D0E's site selection process works effectively to identify good sites that have a high potential es candidates for repository development, and to screen out poor or marginal sites or sites with features that may make it difficult to demorstrate their suitability for repository development.
In a very real sense, the quality of DOE's license application and the prospects fer an efficient and successful licensing proceeding depend upon how well'00E does its feb in selecting sites for characterization. He simply cannot afford to allow DOE to proceed with a weak or flawed site selection process that permits the selection of poor, marginal or unduly complex sites.
Third, the Commission has an independent legal responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act to consider alternate sites for the repository in its licensing review of the DOE application. While the
t Nuclear Waste Policy Act puts sone bounds on NRC's NEPA review, it does ret discharge the Commission from its legal responsibility to consider alternate sites in making its license decision on the DOE applicatier fer the repository.
Given these three regulatory interests, the tinira of the preliminary determination is, both as a legal and a technical matter, an integral part of the Commission's licensing and safety respnnsibilities under the NWPA and NEPA.
On the fourth question, I believe there are four reasons why the preliminary determination of site suitability should be made after rather than before site characterizatico.
First, I believe that DOE's current approach is legally impermissible ur. der the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
While the statute is not entirely cleer er the sub.iect and while the legislative history is somewhat limited given the absence of a conference on the House and Senate bills, I believe that the better legal view is that DOE cannot make the preliminary determirrtice, before cbtaining the detailea information about key site characteristics, includirg the geclogy, that will become available throuch site characterization.
Second, from a technical standpoint, it rakes no sense to make the preliminary determination of site suitability before site characterization.
As the states have pointed out to the Ccmmission, there is very limited information on many of these sites at the present time, particularly concerning geology and hydrology. Our technical staff has advised us that
I-6-
there are significant uncertainties about the key characteristics of each of these sites given the linited information that is available now.
As a practical matter, this informatier is not sufficient to support a determination of site suitability for repository developnent.
i Third, making the preliminary determination before site characterization thwarts the purpose of the statutcry provision, which was to ensure the consideratien cf reasonable alternatives.
By permitting one or two of the sites selected for characterization to drop out perhaps early in the site characterization process and by eliminating the requirenent to examine other sites in detail befcre selecting the site for the first repository, the DOE approach in effect make the consideration of alternate sites under NEPA a meaningless exercise.
Finally, making the preliminary determination after site characterization, or at least after substantial site characterizaticr verk is done, strengthens the site selection process.
It provices a streng incentive for DOE to select good potential sites and it assures that the site suitability determination considers the full range of relevant site characteristics, including geologic factors. Making the prelirinary determination of site suitability before site character zation, as DOE proposes, will mean that 4
some significant factors, sucu as the geology and hydrology of the site, will be given little weight due to the linited information available on these characteristics. This tppreech undermines the validity of the site selection process. For these four reasons, I believe that the preliminary
f I
detennination of site suitability should be made after rather than before site characterization. Thank you.