ML20141N675
| ML20141N675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1986 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Loux R NEVADA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141N676 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 8603170494 | |
| Download: ML20141N675 (6) | |
Text
~
pf*' T ~" ,
t .
n 1
JAN 141933 ,
)
Mr. Robert R. Loux WM Record File WM Piciect - / __
Director h1-- Docket No.
Nuclear Waste Project Office PDR -
State of Nevada LPDR Office of the Governor .Mbutiptu Capit01 Complex Carson City, NV 89710 g
Dear Mr. Loux:
I5!h"IO bbk This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1985, in which you discuss the Comission's response to the staff paper entitled "Plannina the Review of the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Project Decision Schedule for the High-level Waste Repcsitory Program " SECY.85-40. We would like to clarify that the Comission's response to SECY-85-40 presents its direction to the staff on planning factorr that should be used in developing coments on DOE's draft Project Decision Schedule (PDS); it is not the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC) adoption of a project decision schedule. With that clarification, the recomendations in your letter for specific proposals for action by NRC are discussed in the enclosure.
In the spirit of the riuclear Wasta Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) we intend to continue to keep the states and affected tribes, infonned throughout the repository process. For example, we plan to keep states and tribes informed through the staff meetings which we discuss in our enclosed response to the specific recomendations in your letter. In addition to the provisions of the NWPA for state / tribal interactions, the Comission's policy guidance to the staff on participation requires us "to maintain close comunications with 00E, the states and affected Indian Tribes so that required activities and lead times are identified early in the planning process." It is important that these NRC interactions with states / tribes on staff reviews of DOE programs not be viewed as a substitute for the kind of direct interactions called for under NWPA between states / tribes and the 00E.
We appreciate your suggestions regarding a ceneric process for affording state and tribal participation in the various NRC actions. We think the appropriate procedure should be developed in the context of the particular action involved, taking into account the pertinent provisions of NWPA. We discuss the principal concerns raised in your letter in the enclosure. When the three sites are selected for characterization the affected states and tribes will be known and 0603170494 960114 PDR WASTE WM-1 PDR 1
~ J
s t '. .
a L\ '
,- ..- t 0h., ,' ,
C 4
,t,,,,~ .%
y s -
t,. . , V's.. 'vg~~
112/BL/85/11/26 e g y 419c,,o,
. \x ' ;
2
,ys .t
['
k Mr. Robert R. Loux x .-
\ s there will be many opportunities for state / tribe involvement. The merYts\of specific suggestions can best be addressed thereafter as each review br. ess
^-
. unfolds. '
% "1 2 J
I hope that our response has addressed all the concerns raised in your.. letter. N, , _ y[N%7'r
'If you have any further coments or uestions, please. contact Cathy Russ411 oat \
(301) 427 4020 or William Lilley at 301) 427 4798 from the j!3C's Division ofu Waste Management. .
I
( +
Sincerely, , w s ; .-
s i
p.
, 9',.-
1 Or1C inni signed)f- N , g' \ $
g MICHAEL J. BEI4 \ - , , -
< Robert E. Browningt Director \ ,
h Division of Waite Management '
-(
5' ; ..
.c. .e .
Enclosure:
w' 'N . s , 7 ,'
- ,' - C Comment Responses to letter from Mr. Robert R. Loux of October 10, 1985 i \
] 'g' N ,,
. \ ,'
s f
. e.. ,
1t ,, 'j
/
t ;(\"
L .\ .
\ -
k
) i
<* s % .
- i g
, \ <
't U y,; {, '\ '
3
( -,-
. , 1 L ,'
- k. % i
. Y v~ .
x t
t o %.
s
- See previous concurrence page. I l[ 1 DFC :WMRP:mkb :DW t WM '
p ...;........___.:.......__...:.
- WMRP :WM
. y :WMPC : ELD
.y...__..:.... ....:...........:}/.'
NAME :BL111ey * :RRoyle * :HJ iller :JBunting :JWolf :M d 5 .....:...)[ :RER,wdn 4 /_. ,
.....:...........:..__________:......_____:.._______...:___.........:........____:...L....a ~~
E :1/ /86 :1/ /86 :1/f/86 :l/ /86 :l/ /86 : l/ /Y[86 'ik
//Ef . '
-. r. :w
~
[+'; (
~
\
fpb; i fV 9 N : , , b
, s k e s s
b_ f. ,
4
,e ,
j 3 s ,
.h
? s ENCLOSURE J. Comment. Responses'to letter from Mr. Robert R. Loux f(% '
of October 10, 1985' *'
1 , 4 s
3 y
' *: - The numbers below refer to theLparaaraph numbers 2-7 and 10-13 in the letter t which;udespecif.icsugges't,' ohs:' 8-h b g' - . . ,
! A dom. &mt_ki\ 3
\
\;\
l, Ydyr' letter' propo'ses th$ states' normal involvement in U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
'pk ' + - i Comission (NRC) rulemak.ing be supplemented by a public meeting in which the states'apd other partiesMay brief the Commission on the adequacy of the '
l I
proposed rule to conform to the Environmental Protection /.gency (EPA) Standard.
Response
The . staff will review your,promsal with the Comission at the time it submits A to the Comission proposed and final regulations to conform with the EPA Standard. If the Comissibn finds that such a public yeting, Myou have proposed, would be desirable, it would make the necesse*f,strandements. The Commission's decision to hold a public meeting would bd based upon'the issues involved, including issues raised in your petition a'2 n by othe'r carties, as 1 well as other factors. In some cases the Comission has granted,' even requested, public meetings while at other times.it has denied the request.
hN .3 LoEnt(3) w ,
3 3
,' l ,
s te characterization could bscin before l Your the entire letter Sf teindicates a concern Characterization Plan' that#(SCP) h'Es been submitted to the Commission end to the states / tribes for coment. Your letter proposes a public meeting be held at which the DOE and the affected state / tribe may brief the Comissfort .an the appropriateness of the NRC's approval of the SCP. Also your letter empSasizes that U. S. Department of Eneroy's (D0E) SCP be ecmplete when received l'or coment'.
u y ,
-[ Response: ,
, As to your proposal renarding state input, the stah;would note, first, its expectation that the host state and affected tribes will have an coportunity to
- present their views, succestions and coments on the $CP to NRC. The Commission does intend to approve the staff comments on the SCP, and it is anticipated that the st3ff would indicate to the Comission important issues which have been raised by all interested parties during its consideration of the SCP. There is no occasion, however, for the Commission to " approve" or
" disapprove" the SCP. Once again, the Comission decision to hold a public meeting would be based on the issues involved at the time as well as othar factors. We are not aware of any plans by DOE to address, in the SCP, less
___-..__.-_________.________-___m_____m**_
h i
2 c
than all of the reaufrements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
In fact, our open consultations with DOE on the contents of the SCP have aimed to assure that th.e SCP addresses all significant issues and NWPA requirements, ,
in appropriate detail. '
Comment (4)
Your letter, indicates a concern that the SCP " updates" will really be a completion of those statutofily required elements which the DOE neglected to include in its original SCP. .
Response
It is our view that the NWPA requires a complete SCP to be issued prior to the
' start of the shaft sinking and we do not expect the SCP updates to be a completion of the statutorily required SCP elements. The SCP updates are expected to report on information collected, chances in test plans resulting from new information cbtained during characterization, and other similar
- nrogress reports.
L Comment (5)
In your letter you consider NRC concurrence in the use of radioa::tive raterial an important determination and propose the same process he used for the concurrence process as in the SCP process.
Pesponse:
Under NWPA Section 113, any plans to use radioactive material in site characterization will be described in the SCP. Accordingly, the NRC determination concerning the necessity of such use fNWPA Section 113(c)(2)(A)1
- will be made as part of our review of the SCP with the same opportunities for state and tribal participation as described in our response to Comment
_ Number 3.
- Comment (6)
Your letter proposes that the comments of the affected state / tribe on the 00E's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be received by the DOE and NRC prior to
, the staff's development of its own comments and that a public meeting be conducted within the 20 days in which the Commission must approve staff comments on the draft EIS.
Response
E-We expect to obtain input from the affected state / tribe when we review the DOE draft EIS. The Commission has requested in their comment on the Draft PDS that E
DOE add one month to the EIS review process to accommodate additional direct Commission involvement and "for const1tation with host States and affected
3 Indian tribes." (Pace 6 of NRC coments on DOE's draft Pro.iect Decision Schedule, enclosed.) It should be noted, however, that the specift:: process that will be followed by the Commission in detennining whether or not to adopt the DOE EIS will be. addressed in a rulemaking action that we expect to begin in FY86. States and tribes will, of course, have an opportunity to participate in this rulemaking activity.
Comment (7)
~ Your letter indicates a concern that the NRC's preliminary coments on the sufficiency of the site characterization analysis is, in essence, a determination that the DOE has enough information to support a license application. Your letter suggests that the Comission review of the draft EIS and the preliminary coments on the sufficiency of site characterization could
. be done together with a single coment period and public meeting (as proposed 4 in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6).
Response
While the staff agrees that the preliminary coments regarding the sufficiency of site characterization are important, they do not represent any
" determination" in the sense of a licensing action. It would be helpful to NRC, however, to have the benefit of state / tribal views at this stace as well as at all other stages in the repository program. We would stress the importance of ongoino informal discussions, including state / tribal participation at the technical meetings between DOE and NRC personnel (as provided for in the Procedural Agreement, 48 FR 38701, August 25,1983) as well as discussions with NRC staff on matters of interest and concern. As indicated above, the process that will be followed by the Comission in reviewing the draft EIS and in considering whether or not to adopt the final EIS will be the sub.iect of rulemaking in the near future. Again, the Comission will decide on the need to hold a public meeting on the EIS cements based on the information available at that time. We cannot. advise you at this time that a public neeting will be reeded. We will, of course, give consideration to your suagestion of combining our EIS comentary and statement of preliminary sufficiency of the site characterization data.
Coment (10 throuch 12)
In your letter you assume that the process of an appeal of a licensing board decision will be the same as in the reactor licensing context and make the proposal "that the affected state be declared a necessary full party to the licensing proceedino and not a mere intervenor." It also assumes the same process will be used in issuing a license to receive and possess waste, or to amendments to the license for repository closure of license termination.
y - . _
3.
4
Response
The assumption regarding the appeal process is correct, as it is covered (as in the reactor licensing context) by Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2. Anv hearing on a license to receive and possess waste er on amendments to the license for repository closure or termination would also be subject to the same orocedures.
It should be noted, however, that the Commission has not yet determined the specific procedures for acency review of an initial decision. (See 46 FR 13971, 13974, February 25,1981.} Also, admission of a' state to a proceeding as an
-intervenor would, in fact, make it a full party to the proceedino. The three year repository licensino schedule does not include an appeal to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel. Instead it assumes a direct and immediate Connission review of the licensina board decision.
Comment (13)
Your letter proposes that the state / tribes submit written comments on the coordination of NPC's and DOE's draft Pro.iect Decision Schedules before the NRC staff makes recommendations to the Commission.
Response
As noted in the beginning of this letter, NRC has no't developed a PDS. Rather along with other affected Federal agencies, it is cooperating in DOE's preparation of a PDS. The NRC's comments on DOE's draft Pro.iect Decision Schedule were transmitted to DOE on October 24, 1985 (enclosure 2).
Attachment:
Letter to B. Rusche dated 10/24/85