ML20140D032

Revised Staff Requirements Memo Re 860313 Affirmation/ Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc on SECY-86-57A Re Extension of Comanche Peak CP & Proposed Amends to 10CFR60

ML20140D032
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/19/1986
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Plaine H, Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 M860313B, NUDOCS 8603250557
Download: ML20140D032 (11)

Text

,

IN RESPONSE, PLEASE j

p0 "%q[%, UNITED STATES REFER TO: M860313B T ',

h n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f h WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 /

% / March 19, 1986

, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY REVISED MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations Herzel H.E. Plaine, General Counsel A-a,6

'IS FROM: muel J. Chilk, Secretary

[2~

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 11:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM,- D.C.

OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I. SECY-86-57A - Extension of the Comanche Peak Construction Permit The Commission, by a 4-1 vote, approved an order responding to a request filed on January 31, 1986 by the Citizens Association for Sound. Energy, which sought Commission action in connection with the extension of the Comanche Peak cons ruction permit.

The order (1) denies both CASE's request for a halt to con-struction and its request for the institution of a new con-struction permit proceeding; (2) denies CASE's request for a stay of staff's extension of CPPR-126; (3) rejects CASE's view

~

that significant hazards considerations are involved in the extension of CPPR-126; (4) refers CASE's request for. enforcement action to~the staff for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206; and (5) refers CASE's request for a hearing to the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for appointment of a hearing board to rule on the hearing request and to conduct any necessary hearings in accordance with Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2.

Commissioner Asselstine disapproved the order, preferring an alternative approach, and provide separate views.

(Subsequently, on March 13, 1986 the Secretary signed the Order.)

8603250557 860319 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR

, II. SECY-85-333 - Procedural Amendments to 10 CFR 60 Dealing with Site Characterization and the Participation of States and Indian Tribes The Commission (with Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Roberts, Bernthal and Zech agreeing) approved the procedural amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 dealing with site characterization and the participation of states and Indian tribes subject to:

(1) incorporating the following additionn provisions into Part 60:

(a) Host states and affected Indian tribes have an uncuestionable legal right to full party status.

(b) The NRC will review and concur in the necessity for the use of all radioactive materials, including radioactive tracers, on a case-by-case basis.

(c) The NWPA requirements that DOE defer the sinking of shafts at least until such time as there has been an opportunity for pertinent comments on shaft sinking to have been solicited and considered by DOE.

(2) The definition of " Indian tribe" and " tribal organization" should remain as they are defined in Part 60 and not be changed as proposed.

(3) The attached changes should be incorporated.

, (4) On page 6, line 4 of the first complete paragraph of the rule change "new statute" to "NWPA".

(5) On page 9, line 1 of the rule change "the responsibilities" to "its obligations".

(6) The Commission has agreed that this rulemaking should not be held up to tie it in with the Part 51 changes. Accord-ingly the last paragraph on page-9 should be edited to read:

"It is important to proceed with the present actions

without awaiting other changes to Part 51 that will be prepared in the light of the NWPA. This would allow for changes related to ...."

(7) The rulemaking package should also be reviewed to assure that additional modifications needed for consistency with

! the above changes are incorporated.

i l

1 l

3-Commissioner Asselstine approved in part and disapproved in part, he disapproved in that he would also have retained the present requirements to issue the draft site characterization analysis for public comment and staff analysis of those comments as~well as the requirement for NRC review of DOE's site screening and selection process. His separate views are attached and should be published with the Federal Register Notice.

The final rule should be revised as noted and returned for signature and publication in the Federal Register.

(EDO)- (SECY Suspense: 4/18/86)

. mm Attachments:

As stated 1

cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commi'ssioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech Commission Staff Offices

. PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips 4

d I

J l

i i

4 I

i

- - - 2 g-p -

m-- -e-- *w- + y:-- - - -p ----wc -m+g- r-- .-i---- -- - -5 g m ~ q e

/

11 CCV.*ENT NO.'6 Cor-e-: Serrary:

The rule shculd state that :ne SCA will be pr:vided to CCE within 150 days af ter NRC receives an SCP and that ::=ments related to shaf t sinking will be previced witnin 90 days.

A new section snould be acded putting into Part 60 :ne NWPA senedule re ui-ements for NRC review of the license a:plicatten. This would em:nasi:e NRC's dual obligations to ::ncuct its licensing proceedings in a full, fair and caen manner, but also to rea n its decisiens in a timely manner.

Res::nse:

The C mission coes not believe it is advisable to codify the timetables for these reviews. We interp-e: the timeframes in the NWPA to be direc Ory rather .

/

tha4 mandatory. NRC estimates that the review of an SCP cf high cuality and c ::leteness will retuire 5 months. While NRC will endeavor to complete reviews of the SCPs and license a: lication as pr0mptly as is consisten; with a

n.creugh review,-tne time.reputrec for review is hignly decendent on the cuality and c:::leteness of the CCE submittals.

Tne provic.ing ci se:arate c:rments related :: shaf: sinking af ter 90 days wculd no be pra::ical. The staff effort involved in the pre:aration and release of suen separate cc ments would significantly delay the release of the complete se: Of cc cents on the SCP. It is possible tnat sucn se:arate c:mments could nc: te released muca re quickly tnan could the entire set of c:rments.

We recognize tna; many potential licensing auestions related to snaft-c:nstruction (a critical path activity) must be adcressed'weil before tne start of snaft c:nstrue:fon and, in some instances, even before SCP issuance. The NRC's ability to. provide timely comments and guicance to CCE cn shaft-related activities is contingent on CCE scheduling effective interchange with NRC tefere cc mitments and decisions are mace on :nese activities,'s0 tna: CCE can c:nsicer and develop satisfactory resolution of any NRC comment in a manner not to delay CCE's senedule.

In any event, codifying sucn schedule provisions mign leave the sufficiency Of an cinerwise pre:er. proceeding or review in question and subje:: :: legsi cnailenge.

i i

4 L

. ~_ - - . .. - -. - .__ - . . . . - - . - .

t i

f

/ 25 a

i b

l

! CCM.*EN' NO. 20 C -e-: Sur.a y: -

Sec-ion 60.13 (e), wnicn cencerns NRC's finding cf necessity for ensite testing witn radica:-ive materials, sneuld state na: NRC will concur in :ne use of radica :ive tracers'if certain criteria are met, and that the rencval of these l trace am:unts a- the end of site cnaracterizat en snall not be re;uirec.

i i

i nescense:

60, it cetermined that 1: la:(ec i When :ne Ccemission ad:sted 10 CFR Far:

jurisdic-icn over the use of. radicactive material by CCE for pur::ses of site in is conclusion is expressly sta ec in the i -- .

A o, r R ,:., c.i* ..-/:.

cnara::ert:ation. -ine Commissien does not regarc. ,arn ... as hav ing C._, 5 c,a./ (a).

i regula;iens. 10 a As before, NRC may neither allow nor expar.ced its licensing jurisci -i0n.

croni:i: CCE's use of radicac-ive eaterials in site cnaracterization.

is The Nu: lear Waste Feli y Act d:es.c:nfer new authority upon NRC, but it limitec in scc e. 'h's is the au .:-i y to c:ncur tha: 00E's use :f radica:-iee na e-ill "is necessary : cec.ica ca 23..e for :ne precara-icn of the

~

) n r 3. r.. ..s.... .... , , . 4 . . . . .. .. .. .. .:.1 -2.:0... 3..... . ...-:< a.e.ae -

.. . a . .......c . . 4.

Sec. 113(c)(2)(A), 42 l

au-h:rt:a:4 cn f:- a recository a sucn can:ida e site."

C133. We

ie N .C : :cre3nce may be a legal precepuisite to CCE's use ,-

l l

'J.5.0.

cf radicactive material is":narac ert:atien, this limitation is derived fren i

1 the s atute itself anc not frcm any regulatory ac-f on, such as lice-sing, on The Cc mission merely makes a finding .cf

ne :ar: cf the C:: mission. - .

1s not a: Orc:riate for N.ansu :: sce:ify resi uai cuantit<.es

.n e ce s si ty . i nu s , 1:

Or ra:103 :ive materlat wnten woulc ce ,,al.l ow e c,,

ne 1

Wnile the sta u: ry previsiens of NWFA Se:-ton 113 (:) (2) (E) refer :

res::nsibilities of OCE, anc i; is no: ap:recriate f:r NRC'to c:nstrue :nese:ne i

c:lica: ices of.an: ner agency, it is not a::aren to the NRC :na We believe previsiens were intenced to apply to tracer a: cunts of materials.

that :nis provision in the Act was intended to crevent COE f rem -ea-ing afuel ce j fact: unlicensed repository by bringing in large ameun s of HLW cr scent 4

uncer tne guise of testing which was in fact unnecessary.

4 l

t, -

t I

- -- ,,, , - - - . - , - - - . - ~ . _ , - . , . - - _ - . ,_ .-,.-_,.----n.,.. ., .-,-. .-

O al CCMMENT NO. 25 Com. eat Su- ary:

Contrary :: page 16 of SECY-Sc-253, NWPA Secti:n 117 does provide new rights ::

s:1:es to receive information, and to be acle to co ment on such infor ation anc have sucn cc: rent c:nsicered and acted u cn by tne Comr.ission.

Res:Orse:

TheC:rmissionagreesthatj; co m ee i Section 117OftheNWPASy esta:lisneyjnew rign s for the States to receive informatten, c:mment enn e]sucn{

informa:icn, and have such c:rments consicered. Since :ne pr :csed regulatien inc:r: crates the language of Section 117, ne States are assure tna: NRC's regula:Ory program will accameccate any such rights notwithstancing the discussion of Section 117 in tre sta:ement' of c:nsiderations.

1 W 2' ^.L*. _ lT * * * * ~ ' *

\..

l

! - 33 t.

l i 4

i CCyy.ENT NO. 27 l

\

i Cc-ect Sum ary: l r

r J i

The term " semi-annual recorts" in Section 60.18 (g) isg[ incorrect as the NW3

} / and the precosed rule. require reports "not be less tha once every 6 montns" l It is inappecpriate that. the Commission waive its expectation for more than the i l ...inimum reporti ng f rom COE.

t v

i Rescense:

2 1

l As the comments noted, the rule does require that " DOE shall report not less  !

j than cece every six months" as required by the NWPA. Referring to such reports I i as semi-annual coes not prevent COE frem making more frequent submissions if 7 l accrocriate. t i i i

i

}

l i

j r I I I

I i

h I

{

I l

l i

i l

l l

t i

l i

r

{

._ .1 -

{j

-- - . -~ -

l.

35 t

CCMMENT NO. 29 Ccemen: Summary:

Issues could be =cre readily brought to the Cc:mi ssion's attention by establisning a notice and public cc Tent process for tne NRC review of the semi-annual SCP updates.

j i Resconse:

There is r,cthing tnat requires NRC to cc= ment en the semi-annual reports en site cnaracteri:ation, and there will not.necessarily be an NRC rescense' tc tne CCE cccurent. The COE semi-annual reports will go to States and tribes as well as NEC, and States and Tribes may comment cirectly to 00E en them. A notice l

and cublic cccment procedure would be tcc cumcersome and create the potential for ur.croc;ctive delays. Ho-ever,therule,[;s'd]provideforpubliccc:ent-the NRC rescenses to COE by having the Direc,:'or invite ccements. 2-d *"'r %

bas- addcd t: ;;; celc. /

Dots .

t I

i t

i i

1 i

t

}

9

. ,. ,,r y , , , - - -

7 -- -- ,-.r. - ---. - ic , ,p,- n -- , w-,-- , , , s , m.

.< 20 CC.YMENT NO. 34 Ccement Summary-i NRC should fund State involvement had cifficulty obtaining funds from CCEin repository planning because States ave h

iescense-The C:mmission explained, j believec Congress irtanded that COE snould assume , tnat itthin the pr for funcing State involvement take issue with this view. in repository plann'ng.e Federal responsibility

nis res:cnsibility, l the aperc:riate action for the Commiss any inconsistent or contrary provisions frem its regulation s to eliminate

ne State apcears to be its lack of confidence in CCE'The concern of authority. .

tnis is a matter for the affected States to wAs in the case of scrething true tnat the which Ccemission the Ccemissicn may, is authorized to resolveork is not or remedy. It remain.s out w 9

carticular 1% services ing functions required by NRC in order to be able tin ra:pr effectively.

e But, o carry cut its own as was explained at the time tne acti.ity NWPA. ' cratner rulethan was issued, as part this isschem of the regulatory best characterized a e for implementation of pp3 I(,oQ , ' ,-5'

,,,' c j. itS Gc tin d W/CH' AVL &D ") EA '* " --

9tc llGW0A.

i

\

i __

~-

i I

Separate Views of Commissiorer Asselstine I approve the procedural amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 in part and disap-prove in part. I believe the Commission has gone tna far in deleting two very important prcvisions from the Commission's original procedural rule.

These two irportant elements are: (1) the requiremer.t for NRC review of the Department cf Energy's site screening and selection process for a high-level radioactive waste repository; and (2) the requirement for NRC issuance of a draft site characterization analysis of DOE's site charac-terization plan for public comment, and sta " analysis of those comments.

The Commission issued its licensing procedures for a high-level radioactive waste repository on February 25, 1981. These licensing procedures included NRC review of DOE's site screening and selection process and NRC issuance l of a draft site characterizatier analysis for public comment. These were two provisiors which the Conmission at the tire considered to be important for it to carry out effectively its licensing responsibility of a high-level radioactive waste repository. The Nuclear Maste Policy Act (NWPA) was enacted in 1982. The Congress was aware of-NRC's high-level waste licensing procedures when it passed the NWPA. Congress did not object to these important provisions. However, the Commission is now taking the position that because these provisions are net required by the NWPA, then the Commission should delete them from its regulations. The fact that the new law is silent as to those two provisiens does not serve as a l r

i -2_

justification for deleting these provisions from the Commission's regulations.

I believe the Cornission should retain these two very important provisions in 10 CFR Part 60. The Commission's health and safety and envircnnental protection responsibilities warrant NRC review of DOE's site screening anc selection process. I also believe that NRC issuance of its site character-ization analysis for public comment will contribute to a more rigorous ard thorcugh review of the DOE site characterization plans, which in turn, will enhance public confidence. What the Commission considered important to carry out its health and safety responsibilities in 1981 is still important and has not been changed by the NWPA.

.- ---. _