ML20148M775
| ML20148M775 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/1976 |
| From: | Moeller D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Rowden M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148M724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012240034 | |
| Download: ML20148M775 (87) | |
Text
F 'g -
[. yi g UNITED STATES p
% 4:. .
9j f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS O (.
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 (B% we$
g . . . December 20, 1976 Honorable Marcus A. Rowden Chairm n
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washintgon, DC 20355
~
< D SU17ECI: REPORP Q1 THE MANAGEMENT OF HIGH LEVFL RADIQACTIVE WASTES '1
Dear Mr. Padden:
At its 200th meeting on December 9-11, 1976, the Advisory Cormittee on Reactor Safeguards continued to review matters related to the long term management of high level radioactive wastes produced within the nuclear industry. This was also the subject of a two-day meeting of the Waste - .,
Management Subcomittee in Washington, D.C., on July 22-23, 1976, at which representatives of the Office of Management and Budget (CMB), American Physical Society, Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA),
r Netional Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, and the Nuclear by" Regulatory Comission presented information. Members of the Subcommittee y also attended the ERDA sponsored International Symposium on the Management j of Wastes from the DiR Fuel Cycle held in Denver, Colorado, July 11-16, 1976.
In addition, the Comittee had the benefit of the documents listed. d An interim report on this subject was sent to you on April 15, 1976. ~i q
The Committee recognizes the importance of the Interagency Task Force on Comercial Nuclear Wastes, established by OMS Memo of March 25, 1976, in' .
d improving the management and procedural aspects, in minimizing jurisdic- id tional disputes, and in clarifying timatables for decisions, reports, and j research~and develo,=ent results for the several Federal agencies having 1]
responsibilities with respect to comercial radioactive waste management. .
1 Technical and social issues are being addressed by special studies organ'- ;
iced by the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences /
National Research Council. Accc:panying these activities has been an ex-pension in the ERDA and NRC prcgrams for accomplishing their respective missions for high level waste management. j Provisions for public input and vi review are being provided and such participation is being encouraged.- "
Retention of Retrievability Ootion h a,
f)
The Committee has noted that the cpproach being evaluated by ERDA is to j place solidified high level radioactive wastes in a facility which has Tj potential ability. for permanent storage but which retains the option for retriev- 2 Since provision for retrievability in the first one or two dis-
{L C posal sites will allow time for development and validation of n.ethods for 7
Lu122400M
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden
-((sm Dece2rber 20,.1976 the NRC establish facilities at an early date. appropriate interim criteria for licen F p;
These criteria should include definition durability and integrity required through som stated m '
the end of which retrievability must still be possible. <
2 these criteria, consideration should be given to the voltraes of wastesIn developin which it might be necessary to retrieve and the actions to be anticipated follcwing such retrieval, including contingency plans for storage of the wastes through some interim period while Kore permanent arrangements are being defined.
In pursuing this effort, it may be appropriate for the ;3 NRC to develop volving retrievabilityandand describe a spectrum of hypothetical contingencies in-redisposition.
Associated Risks On the basis of its review, the Comittee has concluded that there is 'a - I ment, the differences in the regnitude of the immediat i with the various cogonents or portions of the nuclear fuel cyc1c, Most nuclear safety experts, for exemple, would agree that the potential for
~
[d>, icoact on the health and safety of the public from accidents is greater :"
for nuclear power plants than it is for a facility properly desihed for the long term storage of solidified high level wastes. The potential h.
of a chronic Icw level nature and would decrease s the first few hundred years of decay. The Comittee has been unable to develop to a Classor postulate any event in such a facility that would be cogarable' 9 accident.
Although this does not mean that there are no associated hazards, it does mean that the period of time during which .
long (months to years). responses to problems must be implemented will gene facilitate the application of corrective neasures.The option of retrievability s The Committee believes that there is a need for a better understanding of the long range risks associated with the disposal of high level wastes.
i I
After a thousand years decay, the relative hazard of the total quantity of long lived transuranic nuclides in such wastes would not be more than a few times that of the original uranium ore. ,
Because the wasPes would be in a solidified form and would be deeply buried in a carefully selected geologic structure, the actual hazard should be less. As a re-1 sult, even though inaccessibility for a period of hundreds of thousands
. 1
- j c.= =1 i.f
( H (k.- Honorable Marcus A. Rowden December 20, 1976
.. i=
of years cannot be guaranteed, it appears reasonable that one or rare of. f.K,.;,.
the methods proposed for the disposal of such wastes would be adequate to E~
provide protection for the public and the environx.ent from any potential -
long range hazards. .
International Asoects ,
I
. a The disposal of airborne radionuclides such as tritiuat, krypton-SS, and carbon-14. is a potential worldwide problem, and should be approached on -
an international basis; the same approach will be necessary with respect to the developr.ent of methods for disposal of radioactive wastes on or under the ocean floor. For this reason, the ACRS recorr:r. ends that the NEC undertake discussions with representatives of other countries and - ,
appropriate international organizations to establish global policies governing the release and disposal of radioactive waste materials. A -
unilateral decision by the U.S. to contain potentially airborne raterials, .
for example, will have only marginal benefits without the cooperation of other countries. Since the release of tritium, krypton-85, and carbon-14 does not represent an inminent problem, time is available for groups such e as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Co:rmission
(,
on Radiological Protection, and the World Meteorological Organization to
._ work c; operatively in developing acceptable procedures for ranaging these materials. ,
In the meantime, researcl . hods for rcanaging these nuclides, as well as foi possible seabed bu. ' solidified high level radioactive wastes, should continue so that adequa_e knowledge of the several disposal options.. ,
and their associated risks and benefits will be available for input into ;.
the decision process. -
Other Pasearch Needs
- In order to be able to properly design a perranent disposal facility and 1 to predict the behavior of the longer lived radionuclides deposited there- I.
in, there is a need to continue research on the long term transport of the transuranic elements in geologic structures and on the uptake and retention of such radicnuclides by plants and animals. .
c Schedule for Action '
The concern of the public about the waste ranagement problem requires progress toward resolution of this matter on a timely basis. If main- _
tained, the schedule for development of waste management technologies outlined by ERDA officials at the International Symposium in Denver ap-pears reasonable, provided concurrent duelopment of these technologies y=
i .
l' i
l e
m
-we. .
1
)
6 -l
" ' 0 1 Honorable Marcus A. Rowden p'.
( ~4- Decem'D er 20,1976 .
..a.. .
= .
along with other facets of the back end of the fuel cycle is considered an acceptable approach.
f The Coanittee plans to follow progress on the managecent of high level radioactive wastes as a part of its continuing responsibilities and will ;
provide additional coments on these matters as appropriate.
Additional remarks by Dr. Herbert S. Isbin are presented below. '
~
Sincerely yours, m ,
, & A E :
Dade W. Moeller p D Chairimn i !
6 Additional Remarks by Member Herbert S. Isbin ,
The NRC has been addressing current problems involving the accumulation '
of spent fuel in storage pools on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion,
- the NRC should establish pro ptly the generic guidance for regula, ting increased capacities for existing spent fuel pools and should initiate '
the developent of criteria for the construction of and operation of new
[U spent fuel storage facilities in anticipation of possible needs for in- si ttrcia storage. The concept of the Retrievable Surface Storage Facility for solidified high level wastes still remains a backup for deep, geological disposal. The NEC should initiate the developIent of criteria for the ,
construction possible needs. and operation of such facilities well in advance of any :
REFEPINCES: '
- 1. ERDA-76-43, " Alternatives for Managing Wastes from Reactors and Pos.t-Fission Operations in the LWR Fuel Cycle." f
- 2. Program Inglementation Document, "ERDA's Program for Management of Radioactive Waste from Ccmmercial nuclear Power Reactors," J May 7, 1976. .
- 3. , ,
NR-CCNF-ODl, Proceedings of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Workshop on "The Management of Radioactive Waste: Waste Partitioning as an j
Alternative," June 8-10, 1976, Seattle, Weshington. n
- 4. Mason Willrich, Draft Report, " Radioactive Waste Managerent and i Regulation," to ERDA, Septerber 1,1976. j 1
- 5. ANL 76-82, "An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Relihoility of Retrievable Storage Canisters for Containment of Solid High-Level ,
Radioactive Waste," Mechem, Seefeldt and Steindler, August 1976.
- 6. CONF-76-6701, Proceedings of the International Syrposium on the
" Management of Wastes from the LWR Fuel Cycle," July 11--16, 1976, Denver, Colorado.
- g '
L i p=
i
!- -1
^
'p
{...
fa NRC/ STATE RELATIONS TABLE OF CONTEffS
'{4
- 1. General Statement Concerning State Involvement in Nuclear Power Issues
- 2. NRC and the States -- Partnership in Regulation
- 3. a Section 102 Study ^"
- a. Executive Sumary
- b. Informational Article on State Siting Authorities
- c. Remarks and tabulation of responses from governors on preemption issue.
- 4. Agreement States
- a. Background Infomation
- b. List and Map of Agreement States
- 5. Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Water Quality
- a. Sumary of progress of negotiations
- b. List of States involved
- 6. Scheduling of Joint Hearings with New York State (Greene County)
- 7. Infomation on SINB and hEREPO
- 8. Infomation on Nuclear-Related State Initiatives l'
5 h.
l l
L. GENERAL STATEbENT CONCERNING STATE INVOLVE'ENT IN NUCLEAR POWER ISSU.S 7:
Tne NRC encourages the cooperation and participation of local and State authorities in licensing proceedings involving their jurisdictions. Representatives of State and local authorities ;w participate in our safety and environmental reviews and proposed regulatory actions which may affect their residents.
The NRC fully recognizes the legitimate State and local interest in protecting the health, safety, and environment of its citizens, as well as in such matters as economics and long-range energy planning. The NRC is willing to do everything within its powers to accomodate those interests and to cooperate with the e
States.
NRC recogni:es that the choice of a nuclear power plant or facility site is of major importance to the affected State, and that the State should have a strong input in this decision. p Evaluation and approval of a detailed design of a proposed nuclear facility should be a Federal regulatory function.
Eut there are, of course, statutory limits to what regulatory I functions the NRC can delegate to State authority. We :
cannot, for example, turn over to State govemments the authority !
.c to issue pemits to construct or licenses to operate nuclear facilities. Conversely, we cannot take away from a State '
any authority for issuing a water quality discharge pemit I.
granted to it under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
[
NRC's policy, from inception of the agency, has been and will be continue to be one of active coordination and cooperation with the States, as indicated in the following pages which describe our partnership in regulation.
I _
r l
5 l
[.l.
ia
():
y h'RC AND THE STATES -- PARTNERSHIP IN REGULATION v~
u l?.
-- In June, 1976, the NRC established an Office of State Programs y charged with assuring that the fullest possible assistance is given to States in their regulatory efforts, that State concerns :
are addressed in h2C regulatory programs, and that cooperation between State and Federal governments in the regulation of nuclear energy is maximized and wasteful duplication minimized..
-- AGREE'ENT STATES: Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, authorizes the hRC to enter into agreements with ~
States whereby the NRC relinquishes and the States assume authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The agreement is based on a finding by the ARC that the State's -
radiation control program is adequate to protect public health p and safety and compatible with NRC's regulatory program. J
-- At the end of 1976 there were 25 Agreement States regulating 10,700 nuclear material licenses. (The hRC administered another 8,500 such licenses directly.)
-- Negotiations preparatory to entering into regul'atory agreements are under way with 2 States, and 3 more have expressed interest.
?
-- 19 States participate with the NRC in monitoring low-IcVel radioactive emissions at the point of release at nuclear power plants.
-- Contracts for the surveillance of radioactive materials transportation have been executed between the hRC, the Department of Transportation, and 9 States.
-- ARC conducts training programs for State personnel to improve technical and administrative skills and to develop regulatory capability. In 1976, a total of 134 State staff members received 383 man-weeks of training.
-- The NRC is the lead Federal agency responsible for working .i with the States on radiological emergency planning. hRC has published for consent a Guide and Checklist for ,
developing State and local government radiological emergency plans.
-- The NRC has developed or is currently developing training courses for State and local government personnel, to be offered at Federal expense, n
l.'
- . 1 E
5 g Partnership - 2 p 4 C E y (
-- A one week course in radiological emergency response planning has been conducted 11 times over the past two years, and . . . .
b at the end of 1976 approximately 360 State and local F
governmental personnel from the 48 contiguous States had attended.
-- During 1976, 20 radiological emergency response exercises were participated in by State and local governments, and Federal field assistance cadres observed 12 of these.
-- Having concluded the Second Memorandum of Understanding with EPA -- allowing early issuance of water quality discharge permits for nuclear power plants -- NRC is now in process of developing agreements with the 27 States to which EPA has delegated the authority to issue these Section 402 discharge pennits. Draft -
k;.
memoranda of understanding have been sent to two states thus far, and negotiations are underway with twelve additional States.
-- At the first annual Federal-State Siting Conference, one of '
the recommendations for improving coordination between NRC [
and the States was the appointment of State Liaison Officers !
to be responsible for working with the NRC. Thirty-one States have appointed such officers.
(
-- On March 24, 1977 Chairman Rowden wrote to each State governor and requested their candid and direct views on whether the present Federal preemption over radiation health and safety (ste=ning from the Atomic Energy Act, as amended) requires revision, Twenty responses have been received to date, and of these,14 Governors indicated that no current regulatory scheme were necessary. changes in the
-- SITING -- an area holding considerable potential for State-Federal coordination; 27 States now have some form of siting authority.
-- Each year NRC joins with the States and other interested Federal agencies to hold a Joint Federal-State Siting Conference.
At the first such conference,16 reconnendations for improving coordination between States and the NRC on siting natters were developed.
NRC has adopted 12 of the recommendations .
fonnally, and implemented the remaining four to the extent feasibic.
-- NRC has just completed and issued for public comment NUREG-0195, " Improving Regulatory Effectiveness in '
Federal-State Siting Actions." (see appended Summary)
-- Joint hearings on environmental matters offer considerable
. potential for avoiding duplication and for saving time and money.
t During the past year, NRC and the 9
Partnership - 3 p
State of Maryland held joint hearings on the Douglas Point nuclear plant, and the State of Maryland has estimated that '
these hearings saved the taxpayers $100,000. Similarly, a protocol with the New York State Siting Authority was '
signed last year, and joint hearings are now underway on l l
the proposed Greene County plant. .j
-- HEC has published regulations which will allow States, as well as utilities, to come directly to h2C for an early site review, independent of a construction application.
-- h2C has underway a de unstration program with the State of Maryland to give experience in coordinating site evaluation in situations where a State has comprehensivo siting legislation.
-- Similarly, we are exploring the feasibility of coordination at the regional level, with the Southern Interstates Nuclear '
Board (SINB) and the Western Governors' Regional Energy -
Policy Office (WGREPO).
-- h1C has testified before the Congress concerning legislation
" to improve Federal-State coordination during the nuclear power plant siting process.
-- NRC has, from its inception, recognized the very legitimate State concerns over health, rafety, economics, and environment.
In the past two and a half years, the hRC has emphasized a policy of active involvement and cooperation with the States, and we are dedicated to expanding the reach of this policy.
j.-
4
s
)(g SECTION 102 STUDY G
g:, .
p
Background
'During the 94th~ Congress, the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy conducted several hearings on legislation to streamline the nuclear reactor licensing process, including siting proceedings.
Section 102 of the chief legislation considered required that m "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in cooperation with other t Federal and State agencies, shall conduct a study of methods to m improve further the procedures for Federal and State participation ~'
in the review and approval, in areas other than protection against :
radiation hazards and protection of the comon defense and security, of sites for utilization facilities. The study should give particular attention to methods for coordinating and reaching iE environmental decisions as efficiently as possible."
'Although the legislation in question did not pass the 94th '
Congress, in September 1976 the Commission directed the Office of State Programs to undertake a study of key Federal and Stata activities involved in the siting of nuclear facilities, ,
particularly in environmental reviews, and to develop recommendations for improved coordination of such activities. The study (kmwn as
- g. the Section.102 Study) was to be perfonned in cooperation witn other c
Federal agencies and the States, and was completed by late spring 1977.
Procedure .
A study team from the Office of State Programs (OSP) met frequently with staff and committees of the National Governor's Conference ~
CiGC) and conducted two two-day workshops with the NGC. The OSP also sought the views of the governors and relevant Federal agencies in formulating its proposals.
?
In addition, OSP convened the panels of outside experts who net twice to discuss respectively the concept of efficiency in the siting process, and state regulatory activities.
OSP also convened a task force of representatives from different offices within NRC to meet periodically to review the recommendations, that were being developed.
Conclusions The preliminary staff report of the Office of State Programs was completed in May 1977. The report presented a concept of a
" regulatory effectiveness" in which the decisions to be made by the relevant governmental agencies would be: $
3 e .
n
"]
- 1
,a e es e e
!l . )
i::e p 102 Study - 2 f
. .(j fy irr -
ll a
.. t5ne1y .
t: :
-- flexible- ,
I
- [
-- final- '
S
-- socially acceptable f.) {
-- equitable p"
-- feasible
-- trustworthy.
The study team proposed both ' administrative changes to improve e perceived deficiencies in the siting of nuclear plants as well -
as statutory changes related to: '
-- multistate planning of power needs;
-- amendments of ? EPA and the Atomic Energy Act; '
-- state deteminations of need for power decisions;
-- increased coordination of Federal activities.
Specific recomendations emerging from the Study included the following: .
-- that Federal legislation authorize coordinated early and open planning by all utilities and states or associations of states for all foms of electrical generatien. '
-- that the National Favironmental Policy Act of 1959 be amended to allow Federal agencies to accept for inclusion in final environmental impact statements environmental reviews performed by qualified states ,
acting under carefully constructed Federal guidelines. '
-- that states be authorized to certify sites for '
generating facilities. -
-- that state certification of need for power (facility) "
be final and binding on Federal agencies.
l
. .j
[i:
. E!!: i!
uu :::: :::::::
"~"
==='
.~ ._ _ . _ _ . _
t j =e.r 102 Study - 3
'(
- =
k t...
D:l - m
-- that' coordination of Federal and State regulatory actions 9 be emphasized in order to minimize duplication and create a comonly available data' base, . . . .
.d js j;;
The Co=ission was briefed on the study team's final report on Ij. 1 June 9, 1977, and authorized its release for public comment as ;
NUREG-0195. The Comission specifically requested that the ,
report be identified as a preliminary report of a study team of ..
9.
the Office of State Programs. !.'.;
=
A copy of the Executive Sumary of hUREG-0195 is appended.
t
=
m-e
- .4!
e in h
- l.Yll, W
v, e =
t
y._ ,m k m m.mammus.o m .xrvrrr w yx.**wri m m *12.'nt~m iL2 c . - l.
H g::
p:.:.
(9.
h!.:
. ', .a
- 1 IMPROVING REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS
, .)
IN C :.1 FEDERAL / STATE SITING ACTIONS
~ j'
, : s.
9 t
G PART 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
?
i:
l'. s
- t. .
9 :.
t i
s t 4:
f ::
L.
f.~.;
t:
... .I
(:: y" :.q
%.. r .i 5 'l V -l 1 l I.
i.
t:
t.::
-.r--.., '
j 1
l
i PART I CHAPTER'l EXECUTIVE SUMMRY 1h INTR 00UCTIC1 During the past few years, there has been a growing belief on the part of States, other Federal agencies, the utilities, regional groupings and the environmental comanity that the present regulatory system for siting nuclear facilities is far from effective. Many people suggest that too much time, talent and money is wasted in coming to decisions on environmental matters, and all segments of society do not feel well served. It is argued that the time sequencing on environment decisionmaking is wrong, and that there are many areas of duplication and overlap. The States are not satisfied that their role in siting decisions is sufficiently understood or recognized. Many statements by public interest groups and individuals indicate that in some way public confidence and understanding must be improved. There is much concern expressed that the public does not have timely opportunity to see or understand the long tem -
system plans of utilities and that the identification of specific sites takes place too late to avoid a clash of co :nitments. All parties with a stake in the outcome appear to believe that the delays built into the present system of environmental decisionmaking can and should be remedied so that tirely decisions, whether negative or affimative, can be r,ade.
STUDY PLAN AND ORGANIZATION in September 1976, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission directed the Office of State Programs to examine the matter of regulatory activity in environmental decisionmaking and to suggest what steps could be used to improve it. A study plan
- which was derived from regulatory experience and patterned af ter the provisions of an unenacted bill of the 94th Congress was devised and the study got under way using a study team from the Office of State Programs.
From sne outset, the study was directed at fact finding and the relation of known facts to the evolving practices of both States and Federal agencies. - Because of its relationship to the
?;uclear Regulatory Connission, it drew heavily on past or engoing efforts within i;RC to improve the environ. mental review process flew and special emphasis was placed on obtaining views and counsel from the States, particula *1y the question of State / Federal roles and relations, hips.
This new emphasis responds to growing recognition that States provide the principal means i for delivering the services which the Federal government provid:s. State and local concerns l
- f f ficiency in Federal / State Siting Actions - Datgiled Study Plan," f;UP.EG-0128, Office of f.
State Programs, U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Commission, 0.:tober 1976. L.
1-1
a: .
.a 0
, need to be considersd in crder to secure cooperation and suppport for proposals that are sven- hJ~ ....T
= .n tually developed. It is axiomatic that priorities developed at the Federal icvel need to be carefully related to the priorities of State and local levels. y:.
V Ifi Early in the study, arrangements were made to work with the staff and comittees of the Q1 i;ational Governors' Conference. The views of numerous State officials were sought through g ]
hl direct contact with the Governors, through exchange of data with regulator / offices and through two workshops held under the auspices of the National Governors' Conference. The. principal {f y .
purpose of the workshops was to determine State attitudes and to test proposals which might, be
' fis ,
considered.
[k U
On the Federal side, arrangements were made to review the f RC records of past efforts to h %
improve the Federal regulatory process. Previous studies such as the one headed by former AEC Commissioner Doub were considered, and current efforts by Federal agencies and several Federal
[
f z.
Regional Councils were examined and pertinent data assembled. The purpose and scope of the program were reviewed with other Federal agencies at two meetings organized by the Council on fI. '
Environmental Quality. '
b.
r; liithin NRC, a Study Task Force was formed to relate t;RC experience to study objectives and "
r to provide means for testing possible alternatives. Early in the study, research showed that '
q {'
there was insufficient knowledge of Federal / State interactions, and that the perspectives from ;n i external consultants were desirable. Two important panels of distinguished experts were formed '
l-to assist in two specific areas: 1) need for power or facility, and 2) the meaning of efficiency }
or ef fectiveness in regulatory activity. (This work is detailed in Part II.) The panels pro- !.
vided valuable insight into regulatory problems and possible solutions. Contracts with five [
individuals and groups were also used to cupplement the scope of the study in areas where the b study team needed additional professional support on specific subjects such as funding of f.
regulatory activity, legal review of statutes involving plann'ing and matters of regional organiza- '
tion. These reports are detailed in Part II.
f, 4'
SOME THRESHOLD FIllDINGS AND ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY L-The study team has, with assistance of a broadly experienced group of participants, derived I.,
a working definitien of regJlatory effectiveness:
f v
Regulatory effectiveness in environmental decisionmaking consists of a timely final
(.
action that provides for necessary change; is consistent with demonstrated societal objectives and the law; is equitable and practicable and is based on fully and candidly b expressed premises, utilizing e comonly available data base. . "- '
pl
^
The study team has' adopted this working definition, and it has been used by the workshops '.
and panels throughout the study. It is the criterion the study team used in framing the recem- b mendations which follow. _
ti.. j p
g h i
f:..
]
=
4
f f...
g On a related subject, the study team recognized from the outset a need to clarify the f5 ,
b meaning of delay _ as used in a regulatory context. It means different things to different people. '
The lead times involved in conceptual planning, system evolution and finally comitment to a specific project ending in a license application are not of the same nature as delays at a con- @
l struction site involving millions of dollars a month. Both types' of delay, however, are fre- -
p [
quently treated as a single entity. It is necessary, we think, to separate these elements and *
[
U to determine what steps taken early in the process prior to a financial comitment by a utility r.ced public attention so that later steps can be taken decisively and with reascr.able predict- g
[jjj 3 ability. . The study has shown that early disclosure of plans, and the time spent 4 carly rr .ew of these plans, is well worth the effort in tems of the potential for reducing delays t' ard the I end of the process. The study team believes there is little possibility of significan' ,y shortening the regulatory reviews of applications.
The study team has assumed that a national fuels policy is an important, perh: ,s crucial, 1 feature of any effort to improve r'egulatory effectiveness. The States recognize t it there is regional diversity in the location and allocation of mineral resources and environ ental impacts.
States believe that the Congress should address the tratter of providing equity ame g the States in the rnatter of distributing the costs and benefits of a national fuels. policy. uch a policy may remove from individual licensing actions the need to debate national fuels pol ty issues. In this way, the individual licensing action would be concerned principally with heal i and safety imes, environmental and local concerns, ine study also assumes that the principal thrust of regulatory changes to improve effective-nm should be concentrated on facilities which generate electrical energy. We make no recem-mendation with respect to production facilities (enrichment and reprocessing plants) because the ;.
number of such actions anticipated in the imediate future is small and because of the direct and overriding relationship of such facilities to national fuel policy. Participating States believe ,
that the present regulatory practices and dominant Federal role in siting such facilities should be retained, provided that the individual receiving State is given full opportunity to participate .
In such decisions.
Prircical Deficiencies in the Present process Using our definition of regulatory effectiveness, the study team identified a number of l deficiencies in environmental decisionmaking. These deficiencies have been pointed out to us {
by our study panals, our Stata participants and others who worked with us. We recognize also tany elements of the present process are sound and should not' be disturbed. The present process j has evolveJ in response to continuously changing circt.mstances.over the last generation'. It
- would protably be constructed differently if started anew today. But we have not the luxury of starting cnow, and we must build on the system we have, or modify it to make it more effective.
J Considering the stake in achieving stability, we recognize, therefore, that the procets should .
be chany,sd slo.11y, with care, and with kecn attentien to the real problems of tne future, not yesterday's problems.
. d M Cut there are serious deficiencies in the process 6.hich the study team thinks nust be p .d addressed if the process is to be made more ef fective. De have identified seven main defects: !
.I 1-3 -
1 1
l
- ~ . - _-- -- -
.~.
4...
N ;
e'-
W hy
^
Under the present process, the long tenn plans of utilities are too of ten not
,- (ff{l exposed to public review and comment until the last possible noment. k, :.
e Need-for-power issues are regularly litigated at Federal licensing proceedings. ' ' 'O h$
{f long af ter heavy financial connitments have been reade to individual projects by utilities and long af ter States have passed judgment on the need-for-power. *
{$[
e ld!E
. nu =
There is much unnecessary duplication and c/erlap in the present process. There if:? N is no system for relating Federal and Staf.e actions from the view of timing. k" ;. 4 1x= 3.
e Lg =:
There is insuf *!cient coordination between Federal agencies and the States and the h::;
f.5 proper role of each is not precisely defined. ' I1 I I
- q
. :a e v.
There is insufficient coordination among Federal agencies.
5 ;
- f. ' i.d e
The level of cooroination in many individual States is in9dequate. idi 3 H
gg k.
e The general public - the rate payers and taxpayers - feel uncomfortable with the d -
present process and generally lack confidence in it. They want a greater degree , tl of involvement, inore information and greater assurances that their interests are being served. , j I.
To remedy these deficiences and make the systen more effective, we have concluded that there 1.
i must be a higher degree of public participation earlier in the process. There cust be early disclosure of systems plans and sit 2s. f There must be a gre,ater level of coordination among C Federal agencies than we have had in the past. The States must have their role clarified and strengthened. ,
In sum, the public can best be served by a system which is orderly and predictable and one that is open and accessible to the public. These are the themes that run throughout the specific recomendations which follow.
The solutions we propose are complex and far reaching but so are the problems.
We believe there are ways, both under existing law and with new legislation. h .;;..::
in which the system can be improved and made more effective. F ""
.I
. t .'
A general recommendation is that any legislative modification should allcw for a reasonable ' I:
hp period of time af ter enactment during which applicants ray use either ad.ministratively revised .
- Ni procedures under existing legislatten, or agree to preceed under new law. In other words, any i
new system should be put in place carefully so as not to do mischief to applications in the pipeline. ei .
Special focas should be placed on (1) transition :roblems while States are building up their staf fs and experience to deal nore effectively with the cc.? plex and controversial
[
need-for-facility and siting issues (2) what the Federal role should be in aiding the States T t.:
- j
\
through this transition period, and (3) the desirability of focusing Fed?ral guidance en Q diminishing -- though not entirely climinating -- the diversity of State procedures and y ,
r.ethod:logies in expanding their regulatory roie. {l, y
n f O_ The study team recc= ends that for the interin period, the f;2C consider certain rule changes '
which in the opinten of the study team may lead to noro ef fective procedures. The e are spelled cut in Chapter 4 and are discussed briefly in this smNey. [
) 1 1-4
- i,
_ . . . . . . . _ . . . M.
.O u
Tile BROAD.00TL1riE OF THE STUDY RECOMMEfiDATIO15 FOR IMPROVEMEffT (h Again using the definition of regulato y ef fectiveness stated above, we have identified the broad outlines of an ef fective regulatory t rccess. Its primary thrust is on a system in which ..
federal ertphasis in on determining the effect of prop; sed actions and in which, States have an ,, {.;
increasing and core positive role in deternining the acceptability of actions within their -
9 purview. We see an increasing role for States in the determination of acceptability of actions which impact en local affairs and which require matching of State and local services to the needs _
h of large projects. By early involvement of States in the planning process and by cooperative utilization of the technical resources of the Federal government, we see the means for early s identification of suitable sites, for increasing the assurance that utilities can proceed with justified facilities and for,means to have more public participation in the process.
The preliminary staff report proposes that the Congress authorize a revised regulatory process which considers nuclear, fossil and other generation together for planning purposes, with greatly increased emphasis on early disclosure of utility plans and multi-State planning and voluntary participation by States-and combination of States in such planning. In the process, site reviews are separated from facilities review and certified by States as compatible with the long range plans of States. Another key element would be the acceptance by Federal agencies of the State determination of need for power as binding on the Federal review process. Under this new process, nuclear sites would be treated separately from facilities and would be certified by States. f: EPA would be modified to allow Federal acceptance of State environmental reviews when States are acting under carefully constructed Federal guidelines. States would be encouraged to adopt coordinated or single permit (one-stop) procedures and would be required to adopt at Teast mini:.wm standards for their process.
The proposal would place the Federal responsibility for environmental review on a lead Federal agency other than the fiuclear Regulatory Comission, perhaps the proposed Department of Energy, in order to better relate nuclear, fossil and other forms of generation. This agency in cooperation with States would cake regional assessments of utility plans and would certify these regional plans to the Congress. If States choose not to act or fall to qualify, the lead Federal eger.cy would act for States in the environmentai certification of electrical generating sites.
On site specific matters, i'RC would be se;) rated from environmental reviews process and replaced by the lead Federal agency which would review the environmental aspects of siting generating facilities, construction catters, and monitoring of operation for environmental conformity. FUtC would continue to be responsible for all matters of radiation health and safety.
A greater level of Federal coordination would be encouraged through a system of coordinating coa 1cils empowered to set tire limits on review schedules in public proceedings, but Federal agencies could avoid those schedules by making a non-reviewable determination that compil'ance with such schedule was impossible. The organic statutes nf the participating agencies would not be alterc '
The details of this wocess are developed below in a number of ways. In Chapter 2 scme legislative chans;es are outlined, along with their a@!antages and disadvantages, and in Chapter 3 L
l-S 4 * * * * * * * = .NW e .eew =
- ese a , , , , , , , , , ,
.# $i .
l
~'
~. j. 1
~W G
. L =
~
a regulatory scenario is set out to try to show how the various actions could be integrated into a co plete process. '
[nh
$5
- h. .
w..
The study team believes that the deficiencies noted in the present process can be properly addressed by the remedies we have outlined above. If such a program were enacted, we think that p '
. a.1 '
a number of significant improvements would be realized: . . A.'
"'9
-@5 h.
o Long range plans of utilities could be fully and candidly related to demonstrated @? ,
public need, using fuel choices fully integrated with a known national fuel j5 g policy. This would include nuclear, fossil and other fanns of generation. py -
e
.i.ong range plans would be fully and carefully explained to the public through i positive initiacive by utilities, the States and regulatory agencies. A lead b Federal agency would be accou.1 table for relating regional needs to national goals p .
g, ;
and would be accountable to the Congress for its actions.
9 e
States and associations of States using preapproved compacts, working with their ~ I.
franchised utilities, would relate supply and demand in regional areas to needed I-actions, public understanding would be enhanced by positive actions and hearings
- designed to tie future action to local needs. I' i
.l.
r e
Equity would be enhanced by periodic review of' future electrical systems through programatic environmental assessments by the lead Federal agency. Affected States I would certify that the sites identified by these assessments are related to the continuous planning process of State governments. {
i i
e Sites would be identified, assessed and developed in advance of need by utilities
- or the States or both. They would be related to the future electrical system in a '
manner understandable to the public. Certification of these sites by States, or if the State chooses, by the lead Federal agency would enhance Federal / State "
relations. .=.
o Major cc.mitments and financial investment by utilities would be made only to $
sites certified by States (or the lead Federal agency) as acceptable and at times k approved as consistent with State policy on need for power. (' !
t e NRC would confine -its activities to its statutory responsibilities for radiation
'f health and safety. NRC would make its expertise available to States in allJsite' certification actions. -
f
[o t .
i e Sites meeting GRC safety criteria and certified by States (or the lead Fedei tl E agency in the case of States not choosing to perform such actions) could be
- O occupied by utilities,and cunstructIon would be pcmitted on certification of need for capacity by the States. ~
]
p g a
, ?i..
16 : ;
. . _ _ .. l
. .-=.. .--.. ...
i'I
~
.~ -_- - ~- - . . ~. ,
- . . . .. . _ . .. r -- .-.-
i
. . l
==l
- y; e- Construction of standard units on pre-certified sites cormenced by utilities could 4
proceed at the utility's risk through one year of safety related construction. B:'
e liRC construction pennits' and operating licenses would be decided on' the basis of r6diological health.and safety matters.
- ~'*E i o Pemit actions by all Federal agencies at every level of planning, site certif t--
cation and construction would be coordinated through a Siting Policy Council. The b Council, and its ad hoc Project Councils appointed for each rijor generating p .
station licensing action, would encourage timely decisions on all Federal permits. {.y .g"j y .
Because the study depended-so strongly on the views of States, we think-it proper to recite .
here the views from the States participating in the workshops as presented by Governor Robert W.
Straub, Chairman of the Subco mittee on Energy Facility Siting of t:GC in an April 27,1977 coc7nunication to t;RC; 4
Procedures Primarily Affecting the States .,'
- 1. Environmental responsibility for site certification under f; EPA should be delegated s -
to interested states under Federal guidelines. At the very least, federal agenciesy I should be allowed to use state environmental analyses. :
- 9
- 2. The final determination of need for the power from an energy facility should be l cade by the states and should be accepted by Federal agencies. -
E 3. Electric utilities shoubt be reqeired periodically to disclose their long-range system plans to the states and the public. )?
- i
- 4. States should be urged to adopt coordinated siting systems.
9
=!
Procedures Affecting Federal Agencies
- 5. Generic problems such as disposal of' radioactive wastes should be separated from I consideration of individual sites and facilites, provided that this separation is ..
not used to defer generic problems for future consideration and that reconsidera- ,,, B tion can be given during facility proceedings in light of new information. j y
)
Procedures Affecting both State and Federal Agencies i d j 0
- 7. State certification should ng be required as a pre-condition for docketing of an p
.d energy facility application by federal agencies. d B. Establishement of general site suitability in advance of facility approval should "]
be authori:cd but should not be required
]
- 9. To the extent that Federal responsibility for site certification has not been ...
delegated to the states, joint or concurrent hearing by state and Federal agencies ^!
should Le authorized and encouraged. yj
. . . .E._
=- 77 S,
- 10. With early disclesure by utilities of long-range system plans, an.1 advance resolu-tion of generic issues or issues in specific site reviews, intervention on environ- i riental decisionmaking at the facility licensing stage should be severely limited 7 in the absence of significant new inforcution.
~
f.' ...?
-q i
1-7 -
F :
~.---' -
..
- L::
~
h
%E.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE ACTIO:15 W
.5 J,1 Multi-State Planning 1E it The study team thinks it is imperative that we settle on a national policy which allows the '
M public early accers to long term utility plans at the local and regional level and an opportunity p!i
- to ecment and to make its views known early in the process. !!o such system exists onder current
{
practice. We think that public frustration with the process is in large measure attributable to {U this deficiency. In the past, many decisions affecting' peoples' lives and property were made privately by utilities and by some regulators without adequate p:blic participation or cont:ents.
j,,
g, In the future, we believe those decisions have to be made in a more public fashion, in a forum to j." " '
which the public has early ac' cess and some likelihood that its views can influence decisions. We h 34 conclude therefore that Federal law should encourage the development and operation by States of a '
J*
multi-State mechanism for exposing to the public the long range plans of utilities for sites, for transmission corridors and for facilities. We think it bould be inadequate to suggest such a '
system solely for nuclear facilities because planning must now more than ever consider alterna- A tive fuels on a comprehensive basis. We conclude therefere that States should be encouraged by b' '
Federal law to enter into compacts with other States to carry out this planning and that a '
e - .
mechanism for financing such planning should be created. ~y The !!ational Environ-ental Policy Act of 1969 i t
- The study has shown a need to involve the' States in the coordination of phnhing which 1: EPA was designed to accomplish. While it may be possible by contract to utilize more fully the :
States' contributions to the preparation of environmental impact statements, we believe that a l
better approach would be to ask the Congress for an amendmint to the fiational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which would permit the Federal governrent to accept State site certification
', 'I including environmental impact statenent (EIS) preparation under certain carefully considered Federal guidelines.
- Lead Federal agency or State certification under !: EPA guidelines must also consider the l esthetic effects of the structures under tiRC facilities permit authority, and must consider I operational monitoring to ensure conformity of the operation to c0nditions of enforcement I designed to preserve environmental values under ,a system of forcel technical specifications. ;
9 We believe that flEpA can be made into a more effective decisionmaking tool by such an -
amendcent which would rely to a greater degree on State analysis and greater State familiarity -
with sites and environmental effects and which would pro!uce a single environmental statement.
The important points are three: 1) such a mechanism would be optional and flexible, 2) no State ~
would be required to adopt it, and 3) such delegation muld properly reflect local interests. '
The enactment would prescribe the standards under which it could operate. The States with active site review progra":s which participated in our workshops favor such a step. As it stands now, f3C in preparing the Federal IIS of ten duplicates the work of States. Ue see no need to waste
_ t ima , mney and talent on repetitin reviews of this ;crt. It is laportant that the environmental 1.tpact of all proposed actions be edequately assess <d and docum-nted properly one time. It is 1-8 P * *NO681DGAWS yiM e SG- --me6e g g gage _ h6 mgme eem
. -- - - . . .- . - ~ - - - .
shr gyE2
- " ==
not necessary, in our judgment, that this review be performed more than once. When fEPA was enacted in 1970 few States had or wanted an internal environmental assessment ' capability. Since ..,
(f f;fi 1970, cany States have developed this expertise and such a delegation of authority could take p advantage of this improvement in State capacity.
- . .- j;;. .
Strengthening the State Role
' The States with' whom we have consulted in the course of this Std/ unaninously believe that {;;
the "need for power" decisions ought properly be made by the States individually or in combination .
with one another. States see no valid reason for."nted for power" and related questions to be .b addressed at the Federal level. But, such matters are now regularly addressed at l'RC licensing EI d proceedings. The study team believes this is unnecessary and unwise. In our view, it would be desirable if the Congress were to amend Federal law to make it clear that the lead Federal agency must accept as binding in its deliberations "need for power" determinations validly certified by ,
the States under State law subject to reliability requirements of the Federal Power Act, and by Federal power marketing agencies.
We conclude that a strengthened State role needs to be supported by a predictable source, of ,
funding to accomplish advanced planning and the environmental certification of sites. While th,id N .
study makes no specific recormendation on funding sources, we believe that means outside the < , '
r'egular appropriation process should be found in order to provide for planning continuity.
The study team believes that there must te greater coordination at the State level of existing planning statutes enacted by the Congress which in one way or another enable and '
e .ccurage the States to engage in long tern planning. We refer here to section 208 planning under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.of 1972, the section 701 Ccmprehensive Planning envisioned by the Housing end Urban Development Act of 1976, the coastal zone planning en:ouraged by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. To foster this coordination, we believe p ,,
that Federal law should be amended to require that, before construction begins on a nuclear 5" d
, power station, the Federal government must have in hand a certification by an appropriate agency 9
of State government that the power such facility will generate is necessary to the Statet and that the construction of such a facility and associated transmission is consistent with the States' goals and objectives and the certificate must address the issue of consistency with the long term planning goals of that State, e.g., under Section 203 of FWPCA Section 701 of HUD Ccmprehensive Planning Assistance Program and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Pequiring such a l certification from a duly constituted State body recognizes the proper role the State must play in the process and assures proper public accountability. This judgment, we br*lieve, is properly ,
a State judgment, not a r.iatter to be determined by a Federal agency or a utility. We recom end that Federal law. require certain minimum legal criteria and raaxinum public participation. ,
~ ~ - ~Anendments to the Ato:nic Enernv Act ....
lIRC propos'ed a series of amendments to the Atonic Energy Act during the 91th Congress t.hich sought to address a mm.ber of siting and liceming probicm. The basic idm was tn facilitate F
t i
s E.
1-9 g;,
l E l . _ _ _ . - . , __
f; t
w; il
- construction on' pre-approved sites employing standardized facilities, combined construction *
. .g pernit and operating licenses and separation of site 'from facility questions. The bills would jy y also have given fiRC authority to issue interim operating licenses in advance of any required
.[h hearings under certain circumstances, and would have required NRC to participate with the Federal ($
Power Commission (FPC) in adequacy and reliability programs under section 202(a) of the Federal . . p,,
Power Act. NRC would also have been directed to encourage applicants who sought t.ite permits to -
engege in cpen and advance plannisi. ~ it 21
, .,)
The study team generally endorse: these proposals and recomends that the Commission seek hk #
their enactment by the Congress. While they are meritorious, standing alone they are not suf- )-
E.
ficient to achieve the degree of regulatory effectiveness we have been asked to identify. In j some cases, the previous legislative proposals should be expanded and clarifiedt in other case { -1 they should be tied to specific proposals of this study which follow. Generally, we regard f ;
the NRC proposals of 1975 as a step in the right direction, but not as a complete answer to the - ;
problem because they did not deal with eeerging State interests or involve the changing structure of Federal energy facilities siting regulation. The substantive standards and requirements in
- _"
the Atomic Energy Act pertaining to protection of the public health and safety and the comon '
defense and security would not be altered or affected by these proposals. Indeed in our contacts with the States in the conduct of this study we have found no enthusiasm among the States for i changing the present process which leaves radia' tion health and safety matters to the Federal .
government. The responses to Chair an Rowden's March 24, 1977 letter to the Governors on this question are recited at the end of Chapter 2, Part II.
Creater Federal Cecrdination If 1
The study team believes that the current level of coordination among Federal agencies is a ' '
serious deficiency of the present process, a deficiency which trust be remedied before the system could be fairly deemed effective. . E k We believe a greater level of Federal coordination--and hence a more ef ficient process--can be achieved if, in furtherance of the general goals of the National Environmental policy Act of 1969, Congress were to create a Federal Siting Policy Board or Council, chaired by representatives of the lead Federal agency, with membership consisting of representatives from all Federal agencies or departments who play a role in permitting or licensing of energy facilities. Such a council could deal with all Federal activities in connection with energy facility siting or could be limited to the Federal activities involved in the siting of nuclear utilization facilities.
This board would constitute itself into ad hoc Project Councils for each new application and ea'ch. /,.
rember agency would be required to state to the lead Federal agency in writing the nature,o'f its *!'
involvement in a given project and the time schedule in thich it expects to render a decision, o 1 Such a board or council would have no power to override a technical decision of a member agency z ond no basic change in the organic statutes of the agencies involved would be contemplated. Its q function would be to coordinate the activit.ies of Federal agencies and to set a time certain scheduleforaccomplishingtherevips.
[
[; Many of the proposals made here would, if enacted bring about significant changes in the regulatory processes of States and Federal agencies. Extensive study of the effect of these F 1-10 , _ _ . .
1
1
+ ==u MmU
- pC changes and consideration of the stieps involved in putting them into effect is clearly in order.
G..
The study team recognizes this and suggests that such changes be made over a period of time to avoid unnecessarily distvrbing reviews currently in the pipeline. Additional study of the iterits of' the proposed integrated sgtem and its components is certainly justified. .
F= ,
" g' ' lii:
~
h"E RECOMMEt:0ED ADMlHISTRATIVE INITIATIVES L...
3 Chapter 4 will detail a series of specific proposals for adtainistrative change which NRC [.2 pight consider, even in the absence of any legislative change, to improve regulatory effective- E 7, ness. An improvement is needed in the amount of early disclosure of proposed siting applications by applicants. Greater coordination among Federal pemitting agencies is essential, and increased ' 5 =
attention needs to be given to early resolution of water quality / quantity issues. There is need for coordination of Federal permit actions through sc:ne ad h*oc council, chaired perhaps by the new Federal Depart: tent of Energy. fiRC should explore the possibility of contracting with the States for the preparation of environmental impact statement. We conclude that Early Site Review
'should be used whenever feasible, and at some future date, no siting action docketed under Early Site Review Rules unless the proposed facility is listed under FPC Order 393-3. The further use $
of joint hearings with the States is a desirable goal. Finally, we see great advantage to States and l'RC in entering enter into agreements for extensive data interchange and other technical " g ,,
standards and computer program development. T.
These administrative initiatives are important as useful tools in their own right but also ; .l as interim improvements which can be operating as the Cc=ission considers making forral recom- j r.er.dations to Congress, and as the Congress addresses any proposals offered by the Adr.:inistration ,.
and the Co:nnission. We are convinced, however, that es ,ential improvements needed in, the process can best be achieved by legislation. '
h{
L n
l P
5 I d
}
~
. m
- 1 d
b
.J 1.~.
fC l-11 Y l F lij j= j
n- -
. . ._ . . .. .. ! r . ?! c.,,e .e - g ,.,, , ,=
sJ:.G J 'Jdi . w,dia.Lw.,4m4,wJ Laau Cdus my siww b,
, . . =.
.n, %w , , , --r. .%;-F. v .,, E zw g, m ., u..a.. ua
"' States are increasing their roles in the review of proposed .
. power facilities. This adds one more layer of governmental requirements to the licensing process. The result is likely .. E to be longer lead times and added costs for licensing By VICTORIA A. EVANS, Gilbert / Commonwealth Associates. Inc. ....
' i i An increasing number of states Tabia 1. states with siting laws regulating power facilities l t have new laws that require com* state Facility and minimum size or voltage regulated prehensive environmental reviews POWER PLANT TRANsMisslON t.lNE 5 of proposed new power facilities. Arizona 100 MW 115 kV I
These are in addition to existing Arkans.es 50 MW 100 kV and 10 mile long, .l federal requirements. Generally, all or 170 kV and 1 mile long 'l these revie,ws have to be comp'eted ca w a 50 MW e in nng;on an; lno ntey l , ,,.
- prior to any substantial commit- connecticut any 69 kV ments of resources. This prolifera- Delaware .any' anv' l tion' of review and its growing . Florida any " associated line** ,
! stringency is likely to stretch out Kentucky any 4o0 kV the licensing process ancI make it -
and any k rnore Coslly. Massachusetts . 100 MW 69 kV and 1 mile long I Two types of state laws have been Minnesota 50MW 200 kv and 1 mila long 34
{
l passed. Twenty-five states have passed laws regulat,ng i power fa-f, "1"*
[MW50MW
[V 100 kV and to mile long i cihty siting. These cover nuclear New Jersey any' any'
- a ,d fossil power plants and trans- New Mex.co 30o MW 2T kV 3 - '
i mission lines. i'ive other states New York 50 MW 125 kV and 1 miis iong,oc have environmental impact state- . North Dakota 50MW rn ment requirements for non-govern. -
g,,s.200 kV ment facilities such as power Ohio 50 MW 125 kV plants. Ores n 200 MW 200 kV i south Carolina - 75 MW 125kV Ecrly site planning and state cer- Vermont '
tification of power plant sitas and Washington - 250* MW 200 kV
- transmission corridors are required Esansin 300 MW 00 kV Wy n as too MW },assosated nne,,
, by the siting laws. Many also re-erm t are equi f r b th nuclear and f ssit plants in all 25 states.
e s or cili e d other *
', industrial facili!!es. These siting
, laws call for varying levels of en-vironmental review, but not neces. federal action, ' Including licensing in the case of power prc}ects which
- sarily the issuance of an environ- actions, which may have a signifi- are federally licensed, and hence rnental Impact statement (EIS). cant environmental impact. The come under the provisions of Many states have instituted a "one- state laws require that an EIS be NEPA, the new state laws may i stop licensing" process during prepared for private projects before cause costly duplication of siting
! which decisions on all state permits they are granted any state permits. studies, environmsntal reports, and j are made. This consolidation was The potential environmental impact other licensing requirements. H j intended to cut down on licensing of a proposed power facility has Licensing may be stretched out !
- time. State requirements for long- to be documented. under the stats laws, since utilities range planning call for early dis-h These two new types of state laws will have to disclose their plans closure of project sites, and most subject utility decisions, which earlier and conduct more lengthy H siting laws incorporate site certifi- formerly were private, to public field studies. In the long run, how- a cation into the one-stop procedure. scrutiny. Regulatory constraints on ever, any objections may be re- E At this time, also, final decisions siting have been increased, and solved earlier in the licensing proc- l are made on conformance with have expanded the criteria of site ess. This would simplify state l
,~
. environmental quality and other selection. The increase in environ- licensing in the one-stop procedure. l standards, mental constraints also may in- l The st:te EIS requirements are crease the acreage required for a similar to those of the National site, in particular for cooling ponds. Siting laws ~
Environmental Policy Act of 1959 in addition, t! -re can be imp *ortant Table 1 shows how the application which requires an EIS for any lano use implications. of state regulation varies from state
l
, - -. . . . _ _ . . . .l . . . . -
m x p
2_ .- -
ENVIRONi',lENTAL -
AND SITING LAWS [:jj
~
($
r ,, to state. In many statas, there'are jii minimum sizes of power plants and minimum voltages of transmis- , .;;lij
~ ""
f , slon lines below which the regula-L tions do not apply. In Delaware and 6
New Jersey, only power facilities In coastal zones are regulated.
. California requires facilities sited si.'
/ '/ in coastal zones to obtain an addi-tional permit.
1 Figure 1 shows the 25 states with ';j some type of power facility siting "i j , (.,, regulations. The most definite trend
-i STATES WITH PcwER VM FA0!uTYSm4ULAWS Figure 1. Left: States having siting regulations for power facilities.
Figure 2. Below: States having .,
l^ l STA TE5 WITH GENERAL INDUSTRIAL FACIUTY SmhG FROV!SIONS l environmentai Impact statement
____ _ _ _ -_____J requirements for power facilities in 1976.
]
[
~
, I
' i 1 l
- A
\
1 .
~-
\
. . L!
- :U
- j
% {~ .
- 9 l .
s J hi l :ia
- i J E j q l'YX>{ STATES ;YlTH 91VIRC:ll..'Ei/TA!. ll2= 'CT STATO.'E"~ SE:'!l:TEl'E!!TS (!::C' UXS H:;Wil) 9
)
a ,
3 ._
- Pov:~n t'3:': tv'tGtM:C.UST 970
,1 .
l p
_.g in the recent la'us is toward re- chased by the state are to be made pacts of a proposed action. Severa!E quiring preconstruction certifica- available to electric pover com- states require discussion of the.E tion for new fossil and nuclear panies and may be used by them economic impacts of a 'projecLJ plants'as well as for transmission without regard for any local or Texas and Wisconsin emphasize" lines. county zoning rules, regulations, or that the EIS is to include the benei 0rdinances. The law provided that ficial aspects of a proposed action.:
North Dakota's recent law appHes to the siting of gas and oil produc-sites which are environmentally Additional states have siting andE tion and uranium enrichment facili- acceptable and publicly approved EIS laws under consideration, ands ties as well as to power plants.
may be acquired in advance, of can Tbe expected to pass themt.
Montana and Wyoming siting laws actual need. This is to be done. State legislation, no matter hows also apply to coal conversion com- through interrelated actions of the comprehensive, wi:1 not solve aliF" utilities and government I agencies.
plexes, gas and oil production .
. siting, problems because often they; Vare technological or beyond the
'acilities, uranium enr!chment facili- ' 4 ' ' '
ties, geothermal plants, and pipe- EIS requirements scope of state authority.The federal es. -
. About a third of all 50 states have government has jurisdiction over general E'S requirements for activi, many aspects of sitmg, cften fed- _
A majority of the 25 states now eral ps.rmits are needed, and federalp has mandated environmental pro- ties of any kind that significantly laws have preempted state control.
tection as a fundamental policy. In affect the environment. Of these, 10 sistes and Puerto Rico require over standards in some instances.;
the past, regulatory agencies and the companies they regulated had EISs for private developments sucb- ,
,.,s the sote mandate to provide cheap, as power ' plants and transmisslbh Consequences of state laws '
reliao e electric power. The new lines. Figure 2 shows the 10 states Recent state environmental require {
state policies say that enviten- that have EIS requirements for ments reside largely uncocrdinated; mental issues also are to be con- power facilities. among various levels of govern ,
sidered by the certifying agency. Hawaii's EIS law affcetc private ment. As a result, state requir'e .
ments may be duplicative of federa -
Mandatory consultation with or par- activities on sites in certain sensi- review and entall a totally saparate ticloation of an environmental pro- tive areas and shorelines covering tection agency in the review of site much of the state. Most of these environmental document. One team or route permit applications is areas would be potential sites or son for lack of coordination is ab-:
provided for now in many states. corridors.
- sence of centralized faderal author-ity for licensing power p! ants andi Twelve of the 25 states established The Texas EIS pol. icy is discretion ' transmission lines; another is that o P interdisciplinary forums either to ary until state leg,islat,on i is passed. federal agency jurisdiction over- .
, review plans or to serve as the ashington's law only implies that EIS preparation varies from projecti fr certifyin9 agency. ManY. of the private activities are su,cject to EIS to project. "?
forum members represent environ- regulation because of significant '
mental agencies or interests. In impact on the environment. The State review of power facili!!as adds ~
the balance of the states, the pubh,c EIS provisions in New Jersey and me more level of government re-service comrnission, or its equiva. Delaware are included in the laws quirements. Moreover, rnsponding lent, is the certifying agency. requiring certification of coastal to these state requiremen s is diffi-zone sites.
cult, necessitating a considerabia Public hearings are provided for in 19 states, and nine other states amount of reevaluation and datr3 These state EIS requirements fol* collection. More importantly, th provide for public rnembership on I w the lead of NEPA as far as state provisions may expand th(s ;
site review boards. Both Y! ashing- p ints to be covered. NEPA guide-ton and New Hampshire require an criteria for power facility desigr ~
li es specify inclusim of the foHow- and operation,s including expliclL assistant attorney general to act as i g basic elements in an EIS,. consideration of a wido range o:..
counsel for the environment and 1. Des ription of the proposed ac- environmental impacts. This woulcll the public for the duration of the tin and the environment affe~d. have far-reaching implicr.!!cns foc proceedings- 2. Environmental impact of the pro- power facility location. ENC 5 '
Long range forecasts of loads and pesed action.
resources are required in 11 states. 3. Alternatives to the proposed These are 10- to 20-year forecasts, action.
I 4. How the proposed action rotates many to be updated annua!!y The ,_ ,, _
5 goal is to assure foresighted action to existing land use plans. controls.
}, on long ange facility planning. New Jersey, Massachusetts, and l A state inventory of power plant Califomia EISs must include a dis-sites has been developed by Mary- cussion of mitigating me2sures to
- land as part of an innovative and reduce the project's impact. New To otatain an extra copy of this uGele Jersey and California require an I cornprehensive law on long term circle 2c1 on Reader service card i energy use panning. Sites pur- analysis of the growth inducing im-
(g CHAIP3 FAN ROWDEN'S REMARKS CONCERNING' RESPONSES FfE! GOVERNORS "On March 24, I wrote to each State Governor and requested their '
candid and direct views on whether the present arrangement under ip the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, of exclusive Federal $
control over radiation health and safety requires revision, anel' E if so, what form such changes should take. E Of the 20 responses received to date,14 Governors responded that rg no changes in the current regulatory scheme were necessary. Reasons k cited for continuing Federal control are the complex nature of the facilities and the financial burden of establishing a technically -
competent State organization.
Two Governors (Oregon and Arkansas) indicated that the Federal Government should act as a coordinator of State activities, set .
standards and establish an Agreement State concept for -
monitoring and enforcement authority around nuclear facilities.
The Governors of Connecticut and Michigan indicated that the
~
f States needed to play a more meaningful role, and that Federal and State agencies should share decisions.
The Governor of Kentucky supports the notion that the Federal
' Government should own low-level burial facilities, and they should be regulated jointly by the State and Federal Governments. -
Additionally, he suggests that Federal regulation be extended to include the use of radioactive materials which are not '
presently covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
A number of Governors state strong support for the continuation of the Agreement State Program whereby the Commission relinquishes regulatory authority over source, byproduct and small quantities of S:01 to the States.
General opinion favors early notification of a State and neighboring States of the possible location of a nuclear facility within their State. All infomation should be made available to the State with sufficient opportunity for State discussions with the NRC and applicant.
No State indicated the necessity for a State to decide on the '
safety of a particular facility. Tne general consensus is that :
the States want to be involved in the process to assure thenselves and their citizens that Federal perfomance is consistent with -
State values.
E L
v -
~ ' . . . _ . . . - _ -
J/ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . - - - - - - -
' )
'y.= -
Em I$i
( Governors' Responses - 2' h
Of.particular interest to the Governors us the States' role in h planning for energy development. Nine governors indicated that if States should make the decisions related to siting, need for is power, land use, and the social and physical environment. '_
South Dakota suggested that the State's need for power W determination should be binding on the Federal Government. '
One Governor (Montana) reconnended that the Atomic Energy- k#
Act be amended to allow States to iJapose more stringent IF -
radiological effluent standards than those established by the Federal Government.
Each of these suggestions are being addressed in various NRC staff studies.
i; O
4 e
TWii
~
I
~..
(. .
~
p:
{...
r= .
N STATE " DERAL CONTROL OF RAD HEALTH & SAFETY OTHER TO STATE s .._=s W i; Virginia UK - No Program Energy development ..?"
decisions in planning E staces, not imole'snted m g Washington UK - Not Ecumenical Need for power planning, &
monitoring but not enforcement regional power pool fore-p casts, joint hearings, ~
early site review --
community of socio-economic impacts --
impact on on physical environment Virginia OK - Authority - Responsibility for Recover costs for monitor
-Monitoring ing & emergency prepared-ness _
Florida OK - but states should have authority reviews socio-eco enviror.;
to choose safest sites for nuclear impact, land use, reliability, fuel cost, health & safety Hawaii OK 16 30 OK Need for power, socio-ecck ,
environ, site analysis, joint URC/ State advisory council - license appli. fr review.
Nevada OK - for large facilities keep acreement state orcaram Oregon GK - on standards N0 on monitoring & enforcement of fed. rad. health & safety standards.
agreement states program for monitor.
& enforcement of operating reactors -- '
Funds i
South Dakota OK - State legislative approval of
~
social environ. review high-level weste repository (veto) state need for power determination binding on Feds.
Binding role in health
& welfare determinations in fed. decisionmaking process ;
l' ti ;::ouri OK Land Use & transmission, Environmental Review 0
i
W FEDERAL CONTROL OF RAD HEALTH & SAFETY OTHER TO STATE STATE 5
h cpportunity for problem solving & Tr.ansportation Connecticut '
meaningful reaction to unforeseen events .
Fed / State sharing concept - Fed Rad materials transport. -
Michigan standards for siting (seismic safety) Money for monitoring &
earlier State involvement in licensed transportation assess.
State & NRC OK - with State input Fed. funding of agreement New Mexico State Arkansas Rad Health & Safety around nuclear siting should be State power plants - more authority on funding of States, Fed. overall coordinator training site.
Massacnusetts OK - State as constructive critic .,.
of Fed, performance rather than .: - ' '-
primary reculator Delaware Mandatory State / Federal inte action State Rad. Environ. ,
OK with Frd. - may be regional body surveillance ta coordinate & provide expertise needed for State decisi:ns regarding ruclear .
Indiana OK - earlier State (and neighboring -
where affected) involvement in -
evaluation More strincent effort Montana Arizona OK Siting & environmental considerations Kentucky Agree. Program OK - Federal owner-ship of low-level burial facilities with .ioint Fed /St. ate regulation.
Haturally occurring & artifically c produced materials - Feis. should expand jurisdiction Louisiana Federal responsibility & control for State to do final detera nuclear waste disposal & fuel recycl. for need for power -
delegate final site Reactor licensing process could be grectly improved by greater flexib. approval authority to in Federal licensing procedures btates consistent with national goals. Soc-eco.
' & environ. inputs can l be effectively eval. at'.
)
Stato level.Emer plan. .l rad. env. surv. State rt.soonsibl i ti es l
I G BACKGROUND INF0DIATION ON AGREDIENT STATES PROGRAM Protection of the public health and safety has traditionally been a responsibility of the several States. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act, however, did not specify what role, if any, was left to the .
States in regulating safety in the use of atonic materials.
Many States became concerned as to what their responsibilities, if any, might be and many of them expressed interest in seeing that the boundaries of Federal and State authority were clearly defined.
In reponse to the States' concern, Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act was enacted in 1959, to recognize the States' interest in atomic energy activities, to clarify the respective responsibilities of the States'and the AEC under the Act, and to provide a statutory means by which the AEC could relinquish to the States part of its regulatory authority.
The AEC was permitted to relinquish authority over:
-- source material (natural uranium and thorium);
-- byproduct material (radioisotopes);
-- small quantities of fissionable material. .
The Co:nnission, however, is required to retain regulatory authority over the licensing of nuclear facilities such as reactors, exports and imports of nuclear materials and facilities, and large quantit.ies of fissionable material.
The mechanism for the transfer of the Co=tission's regulatory authority is by an agreement between the Governor of a State and the Conr'.ission. Before entering into an agreement, the Cocaission is required to make a finding that the State's -
radiation control program is compatible with the Co=tission's, t_nd the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
Thus far, 25 states have entered into such agreements and have '
taken over the regulatory authority described above. s.
It is necessary that a State have enabling legislation authorizing its Governor to enter into such an agreement. In addition to the ,
25 Agreement States, 19 others and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have enacted such enabling legislation. ;
1
[
i
l' is
, , Agreement States - 2 .
((Y-~ ,
E f...
s The Comission's staff is available to consult with a State -
which is interested in entering into a regulatory agreement with NRC. This includes consultation and the drafting of enabling legislation and radiation control and licensing regulations, as well as other aspects of the State's program. The Comission also provides training assistance in radiation safety and regulatory procedures for personnel in Agreement States and States ,
negotiating for agreements.
Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act provides that NRC may F terminate its agreement with a State if the Co n ssion finds that such termination is necessary to protect the public health .
and safety.
i Each agreement provides that the State will use its best effort ~
to maintain continuing compatibility with NRC's program. For these reasons, the NRC maintains a continuing relationship with each Agreement State to assure continued compatibility of the State's '
regulatory program and its adequacy to protect health and safety. -
This relationship includes:
l
- periodic meetings to review the current status of the t: State's program; -
-- accompaniment of State inspectors by NRC staff on -
- selected inspections of State licensees; -
-- exchange of infomation on a current basis covering regulations, licensing, inspection, and enforcement data; '
-- consultation on special licensing and regulatory problems;
-- annual meeting of all Agreement States to consider regulatory matters of comon interest or concern. .
o s
4 P-
\. .
- f a
~ ~
e.
p l:ii-Sit (m#
tit v
(
AGREEMENT STATES (;
\ -
R.
- N x .,
x '. ' -........
N ,
t
_ ~ 3.~ ,, .
N '*-
~-
\ /
NN... . y '"****
,y.
9- . .
s .
x~t s
m ssss
. '\'x ; '
s
\ \
x % 'x.Q
% AGREEMENT STATES .
s .
l l NON AGREEMENT STATES _
NRC AGREEMENT STATES '
ALABAMA A RIZON A ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA
- KANSAS KErJTUCKY LOUISl AN A -
MARYLAND MISSISSIPPI N E BR ASK A NEVADA
, N EW H AMPSHIRE l NEW MEXICO "q
( fJEW YORK i NORTH CAROLIN A NORTH DAKOTA
( ORECON 1
! :I SOU TH CAROLIN A ti. T ENN *SSE E .l TEXAS }
Y!ASHINGTON I 6 16 7 q l
3 i
D.:
5 m
[ SLEG1ARY OF PROGRESS IN NEGOTIATING NRC/ STATE FEDRANDA 0F - C[9 ..
UNDERSTANDING ON WATER QUALITY.
t li E
Following is a general chronology of the significant major activities IS P
related to NRC urogress in negotiating memoranda of understanding (hDU) with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) E States.
These are the States to which the Environmental Protection tii:
Agency has delegated authority to issue water quality. permits.
- 1. March 25, 1976 -- letter to all Pemit States . inquiring of State interest .
- 2. December 1976 - -infomal telephone survey of EPA pemit h States to determine State level of interest vis-a-vis level of E NRC licensing activity in the individual States. Sixteen E States fit these two criteria.
- 3. Individual meetings to explain the background and concept of g
the proposed hDU conducted with California, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, and Georgia. These meetings were conducted during '
1966 and 1977.
- 4. June 16, 1977 -- Draft hDU signed by Mr. Gossick sent to Virginia Water Quality officials. ,
L- 5. June 1977 -- Draft hDU to Georgia Water Quality officials signed by Mr. Gossick.
6.
Preparaticns for face to face negotiations with the following States are planned for the remainder of calendar year 1977:
California Washington Colorado Oregon South Carolina New York -
7.
Additional subject to twodiscussions are planned with the States below, factors: level of efforts required in the States listed above, and availability of NRC staff support.
Michigan =;.
Maryland Ohio Connecticut Nebraska Delaware .
6 Y
h a
- - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - w
, . - - - . . ~ . - _ . . . - - . - - ..
J
~ ~
)
1
\ e
. p::.
. t:'
EM k,
. NPDCS PERMIT PROGRAM .
t...
-:n
[A .
t Statcs and Territories E.
p :..
(alphabetical listing) i '
s ; ,
'ArPROVr0 , NOT PPROVED Y
- 1. Callfornia 1. Alabama ..
- 3. ~Connccticut.' 3. American Samoa ,'
- 4. Dalaware 4. Arizona
- S. , ccorgia . 5. Arkansas E
- 6. Hnwaii 6. District of Columbia t ^.i
- 7. Indiana 7.
l
, Florida ,
- 8. Kansas 8. Guam -
- 9. - Ma rtfinnd 9. Idaho *
^;
1
- 11. Hinnosota Q',' -
i
- 11. Iowa
- 12. Mississippi '
- 12. Xcntucky q
- 13. tIlssouri 13. Louisiana <
- -l 1.: . nontana 14. Maine
- 15. Nahraska 15. \.}
- 16. Nevada 16. ??ew Hampshire i-
- 17. Ncw York 17 New Jersey *
- 18. florth Carolina 18. New Mexico
- 19. ?!arth Dakota ..:
- 19. Okfahoma '
- 20. Ohio *
- 20. Pennsylvania *
- 21. Orogon 21. Puerto Rico
- 22. South Carolina. 22. Rhode Island .
- 23. Vornant. 23.
South Dakota '
- 24. Virgin Islands 24. Tennessec
- 25. Vircrinia 25. Texas L,. l
=4
- 26. Washington 26. Trust Territories N N
- 27. Wisconsin ,
- 27. Utah .
. 28. Wyoming 28.
;_. .}
Ucst Virginia '
\- !
[.yx ::;
, , li4
*- .A March 21,1977 1 ;;; . ..r
~
.s d
B
. q s.. . ,
d ,
. i-f
- rj
- 3
..7
'I
m%= 7 . SCHEDULING FOR'J0IhT HEARING' PROTOCOL h'IE NEN YORK STATE (GREE : I , f.!:h.. nY... 6/14/76 - publication of draft protocol between NRC and the New York State Board on Electrical Generation Siting and the Environment . for Certification of Environmental Capability and Public Need. Protocol to cover procedures for joint hearings on construction !3 of nuclear power plants in New York State. ~ g.. 9/76 -- New York approved amended protocol (embodying public coments) 11/9/76 -- NRC approved protocol.
'hi'.
12/7/76 -- Announcement of joint hearings on proposed Greene County plant; participants New York Siting Board and ASLB panel. , 1/10/77 -- Prehearing conference, Albany, NY, between Associate Examiners of the Siting Board and the ASLB panel. 5/16/77 -- Comencement of joint hearings; 78 intervenors identified. 6/3/77 -- Issuance of hearing schedule comencing July 18, 1977 and ' running almost weekly through October 28, 1977; in Albany. ,
=:
e
!... :. j i
4.a . e
.] ,
9 h
~,
"iE:h I.j
'?.' .
e 1
.. +.
\;m2,
i ( BACKGROUND ON SOUIHERN INTERSTATES NUCLEAR BOARD (SINB) SINB is the Energy Arm of the Southern Governors' Conference, a nonprofit, State-supported organization serving 16 member States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It was founded in 1961 and Congress approved compact legislation in 1952. Following are the meroer States: Alabama North Carolina Arkansas Oklahoma Florida Puerto Rico Georgia South Carolina Kentucky Tennessee Louisiana Texas Maryland Virginia Mississippi West Virginia Missouri SINB provides scientific and technical expertise on energy-related matters to state officials upon direct request., In , 1972, the Southern Governors asked SINB to enlarge its purview to include all energy sources and environmental quality. During the past several years, SINB has delivered technical services to States in such diverse energy-related areas as - power plant siting; energy resource recovery; energy research and development; radioactive materials transportation and management; interstate electric energy grid systems; all aspects of the , nuclear fuel cycle; bonding of small nuclear companies; and i advanced energy technologies. - SINB is engaged in a program under contract with the NRC to conduct a " Regional-Interstate Nuclear Facility Siting h Procedure Demonstration Project." The primary objective of , this project is to improve coordination between the States and with Federal agencies in advance resolution of siting issues. This is expected also to aid in expediting the Tiicensing review and approval process, and help achieve consistency in State regulatory actions. The approach taken by SINB consists of two separate but concurrent programs:
- 1. Demonstration of a regional-interstate nuclear facility siting procedure (a procedure developed by SIA3 under a ,
previous cont:act with NRC). The demnstration procedure will be utilized by the Duke Power Company and the various M agencies of the State of South Carolina to review the Upper Savannah River Basin for site suitability. State certification of advanced site suitability would sen e to verify the corresponding requirements of an application for Early Site Review under the regulations of the lac. , C.-
I L y SINB - 2 !. . . f C
- 2. Assist each individual State of the SINB region to detemine its own needs and capabilities for perfoming any functions httich it has established relating to nuclear plant siting proposals.
Because of the diversity of state functions and requirements, SINB will attempt to develop a consistent review of the varied functions of the different States. SINB has developed an outline of a comparatively full range of activities, and will conduct a , workshop meeting of State representatives on July 28, 1977 to discuss the functions of regional-interstate site review, and exchange ideas on related matters. 1 i
.J
_ - - .. _ ~ -. ... - . - . - - 1 e:-
.x,
@E:
( 10LICY OFFICE (hBREPO) BACKGROUND AND INF (il.z f* iii In December of 1976 the Western Governors' Conference voted to ' consolidate hEREPO with the Western Interstate Nuclear Board ^ Mountain S'ates,(WINB) and with the energy staff of the Foderation of Rocky .. hGREPO will over - energy resources, human resources,see five policy areas: ~ and water resources. agriculture, natural resources, - The following States comprise the Western Governors' Conference: ' Alaska Arizona Montana Nevada California Colorado New Mexico Hawaii Oregon Idaho Utah . Wyoming Washington Nebraska; membership. North Dakota, and South Dakota will be eligible for In consolidating to that office. with hEREPO, WINB will move its functions g Like SINB, WINB pmvides technical and administrative services, advice, and information to member State govern ents, institutions, the general public, and industry, concerning nuclear energy and radiation control. WINB also conducts or sponsors research studies for the assessment of nuclear projects or technologies and their impact this area. in the West, and has been working with the hE in
.J b
- . ]
'l k:.
W h r MICLEAR-RELATED STATE INITIATIVES F
'g ~ ff;:l e In 1976, nuclear initiatives were decisively defeated in all six States where thep appeared on the November 2 ballot. Arizona, iE Colorado, Ohio, and Washington rejected the citizen proposals ~
by the same two-to-one margins as did California in June 1976. In Montana, the edge was closer to three to one. The lowest 7 margin of rejection, three to two, came about in Oregon where the environmental movement is strong. j In Missouri, however, a seventh initiative, titled " Initiative Petition to Reform Electric Rates," passed by a two-to-one c margin. The measure basically provides that a utility cannot ~~ pass along to the consumer any capital costs incurred for-construction of new power facilities. This statute is expected to. be particularly disadvantageous to nuclear power development , because the capital costs and time required for construction of nuclear facilities are greater than for fossil-fired plants. During the construction period, these costs (principally interest costs) will have to be borne by the shareholders - rather than being passed through to the ratepayers.
=
At the end of 1976, only two nuclear initiative drives remained underway. Safe Power for Maine terminated its effort for a referendum vote on the " Nuclear Postponement Act" on March 24, 1977. In Oregon, the Coalition for Safe Power received approval to circulate a nuclear initiative measure entitled " Prohibits Nuclear Fission Power Plant Operation." Its purpose is to create a new Constitutional article prohibiting nuclear power plants in Oregon, except for exist % small plants used for research or medical purposes. It also prohibits the transportation and storage of nuclear wastes and fuels within the State. 1 The Coalition needs to gather 61,646 signatures by July 1, 1978, so the measure can be placed on the November 1978 ballot. _ a k- .' a l l
. . - . . ~ . - _ - . . _ . . . .. - - . -
l
..l i;;
is
?Gi ::.
_ r- [.]. l EE
,.g CONGRESSI0XAL/ LEGISLATIVE TABLE OF CONTEhTS ll1. <.
h.:.
- 1. Congressional Comittees with Jurisdiction over NRC 1
El v:::
- a. , House.and-Senate membership and scope of jurisdiction
- 2. - NRC Authorization and Appropriation Bills for FY 1978
- 3. H.R.18'-- legislation to streamline the nuclear licensing process . .
- a. Detailed surary of legislation
- b. Chairman Rowden's testimony on legislation
- 4. . OGC Memorandum on NRC Legislative Proposals
- 5. Legislative Status Report on Energy Facility Siting Legislation ~
- 6. Sumary List of NRC Appearances at Congressional Hearings e
i
.a
. .3
'l 6
c) h:. I. a .\ f1,
);.
- .-l
- I b'.! ::h y CONGRESSIONAL CO'sMITTFM WITH JURISDICTION --
OVER NRC ' t: Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Joint Committee
=
on Atomic Energy had jurisdiction over all bills, resolutions, or 3 y= other matters in the Senate and House relating primarily to the :" NRC or to the development, use, or control of atomic energy.
;:=:.
Tne Comittee was charged with oversight responsibilities, and with keeping House and Senate Comittees infomed on matters ~ relevant to areas under their jurisdiction. The appropriation of funds-for NRC Appropriations activities Committees. remained with the House and Senate a Tne 95th Congress abolished the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy and reassigned various responsibilities. The present assignments are as follows: - HOUSE - Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs ; Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment
- a. h1C authorization bill b.
f Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, E including regulation of research and development reactors and nuclear regulatory research. c. Special oversight on all programs affecting nonmilitary .
.u nuclear disposalenergy of nuclearand research waste. and development, including the
~
Comittee on Approprittions Subcomittee on Fablic Works
- a. NRC appropriations bill Comittee on Government Operations Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Natural Resources -
r a.
- b. Budget and accounting matters, other than appropriations.
The overall efficiency and economy of government operations
- c. and activities, including Federal procurement.
GeneralReceiving and examining reports from the Comptroller ' GAO) and submitting such recommendations to the House as(deemed necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports. d. Receiving and evaluating responses to GA0 reports .- (such responses are required by law). ]~ w i-l D l
- -- -,,4-,- -, -
l . . - COMMITTEES EXERgISING JORISDICTION OVER flRC: HOUSE (k y
-g JOIflT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY ,
Authority: (Under Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended)- Sec. 202. AUTHORITY AND DUTY.
- a. The Joint Committee shall make continuing studies of the i
activities of the Atomic Energy Commission and of problems relating to the development, use, and control of atomic energy. During the first ninety days of each session of =
~
the Congress, the Joint Committee may conduct hearings in either open or executive session for the purpose of receiving infomation concerning the development, growth, and state of the atomic energy industry. The Commission shall keep the Joint Committee fully and currently g' informed with respect to all of the Commission's activities. # The Department of Defense shall keep the Joint Committee fully and currently informed with respect to all matters . . . within the Department of Defense relating to the develop- D E ment, utilization, or application of atomic energy. Any Government agency shall furnish any information requested by the Joint Committee with respect to the activities or . responsibilities of that agency in the field of atomic energy. All bills, resolutions, and other matters in the. Senate or the House of Representatives relating primarily - to the Commission or to the development, use, or control , of atomic energy shall be referred to the Joint Committee. ' The members of the Joint Committee who are Members of n the Senate shall from time to time report to the Senate, m and the members of the Joint Committee who are Members of the House of Representatives shall from time to time report to the House, by bill or otherwise, their recommenda- " tions with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of their respective Houses which are referred to the Joint .] Committee or otherwise within the jurisdiction of the L Joint Committee. t b. The members of the Joint Committee wha are Members of the Senate and the members of the Joint Committee who are . , Members of the House of Representatives shall, on or before i ! June 30 of each year, report to their respective Houses ; on the development, use, and control of nuclear energy for p ! the common defenses and security and for peaceful purposes. ; Each report shall provide facts and information available to the Joint Committee concerning nuclear energy which will 4 assist the appropriate committees of the Congress and - individual members in the exercise of informed judgment on matters of weaponry; foreign policy; defense; international trade; and in respect to the expenditure and appropriation .,i of Government revenues. Each report shall be presented '
- )
l l
@ c E
Congressional Comittees - 2 . .J 0 Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Comerce Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations t* Subcomittee on Energy and Power
- a. The same jurisdiction with respect to regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear energy as it has with respect to regulation of non-nuclear facilities and of use of non-nuclear energy. n b.
Special oversight functions with respect to all laws, programs,
- c. Reviewing and government activities affecting nuclear energy.
and studying on a continuing basis all laws, programs and government activities relating to nuclear energy. Comittee on International Relations Subcomittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs Subcomittee on Economic Policy and Trade
- a. Export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware.
b. International agreements, including all agreements for cooperation in the export of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware. (. SENATE Comittee on the Environment and Public Works i Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation
- a. NRC authorization bill
- b. Nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.
Committee on Appropriations Subcomittee on Public Works
- a. IGC appropriations bill Coa:mittee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Arms Control, Oceans, and International Environmeni a.
International aspects of nuclear energy, including nuclear transfer policy. ? Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcomittee on Nuclear Proliferation, Science, Planning and Federal Services '
- a. hbclear proliferation i
(- j l
e p2 formally under circumstances which provide for clarifi- l cation and discussion by the Senate and the House of- ' Representatives. In recognition of the need for public understanding, presentations of the reports shall be made to the maximum extent possible in open session and by means of unclassified written materials. Under House Rules, 95th' Congress: Rule X. 5. (e) No bill or resolution introduced or received in the House shall be referred to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Membership: 94th Congress Membership: 95th Conoress
~
Melvin Price, Vice-Chairman John Young Teno Roncalia Mike McCormack ' George Brown [- 1 John Anderson Manuel Lujan - Frank Horton Andrew Hinshaw 9 e W e 1
=.
7
. , G -
~
E t . Cil _ n c COMMITTEE O!! APPROPRIATIONS h us til Authority: (Under House Rules, 95th Congress) - E Rule X. 1 (b) (1) Appropriation of the revenue for the support I : of the Government. (2) Rescissions of appropriations contained-in appropriat. ion Acts. . (3) Transfers of unexpended balances. F (4) The amount of new spending authority (as described in the G Congressional Budget Act of 1974) which is to be effective for , a fiscal year, including bills and resolutions (reported by .,,, other committees) which provide new spending authority and are ' referred to the committee under clause 4(a). : The committee shall include separate headings for " Rescissions" s. the " Transfers of Unexpected Balances" in any bill or resolution % as reported from the committee under its jurisdiction specified in subparagraph (2) or (3), with all proposed rescissions and proposed transfers listed therein; and shall include a separate section with respect to such rescissions or transfers in the accompanying committee report. In addition to its jurisdiction - under the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the committee ! shall have the fiscal oversight function provided for'in clause ; 2(b)(3) and the budget hearing function provided for in' Llause. # 4(a). .; Membership: 94th Congress Membership: 95th Conoress George H. Mahon, Chairman (D-Tex.) George Mahon, Chairman (D-Tex.) 1 Elford Cederberg, Ranking Minority Elford Cederberg, Ranking Minority 7 (R-Mich.) (R-Mich.) ~! h Subcommittee on Public Works Subcommittee on Public Works
' Joe L. Evins, Chairaan (D-Tenn.) Tom Bevill, Chairman (D-Ala.). I Edward P. Boland (D-Mass.) Edward P. Boland (D-Mass.) J Jamie C. Whitten (D-Miss.) Jamie C.,Whitten (D-Miss.) ,
John H. Slack (D-W.Va.) John M. Slack (D-W.Va.) Otto E. Passman (D-La.) Corinne C. (Lindy) Boggs (D-La.) $ Tom Bevill (D-Ala.) Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.) 5 George E. Shipley (D-Ill.) y John T. Myers, Ranking Minority Bill Chappell, Jr. (D-Fla) " (R-Ind.) Clair W. Burgener (R-Calif.) John T. Myers, Ranking Minority j] (R-Ind.) Clair W. Burgener (R-Calif.) L l Virginia Smith (R-Neb.) p l w a
- q q
4 m.... =-e+*='*,eg= 4** ' ' ' ' * " " * ' " ' " ' ' ' ^ E==e COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS - Authority under House Rules, 95th Congress N Rule X. 1. (h) (1) Budget and accounting measures, other than appropriations. (2) The overall economy and efficiency of b_
="
Government Operations and activities, including Federal procure- c. ment. (3) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the '." Government. (4) Intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and general revenue sharing. -(5) National archives. In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the preceding provisionsofthisparag)raph(anditsoversightfunctionsunder(1) clause 2(b) and (2 ), the c e of performing the activities and conducting the studies which are provided for in clause 4(c).
-i 4(c)(1) The Committee on Government Operations shall have the '
general function of (A) receiving and examining reports of the J' ' Comptroller General of the United States and of submitting such recommenJations to the House as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports; (B) ; evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reoraanize the legislative and executive branches of the Government; and (C) studying inter- " governmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and international organizations of which the United States is a member. (2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the Committee . . on Government Operations may at any time conducts investigations of any matter without regard to the previsions of clause 1, 2, or ~ 3 (or this clause) cor.Terring jurisdiction over findings and recommendations in any such invcstigation shall be made available to = the other standing committee or committees have jurisdiction over " the matter involved (and included in the report of any such other committee when required by clause 2(1)(3) of Rule XI). Membership: 94th Congress Membership 95th Congress . Jack Brooks, Chairman (& Tex.) Jack Brooks, Chairman ( D-Tex. ) Frank Horton, Ranking Minority Frank Horton, Ranking Minority
~
Member (R-N.Y.) Member (R-N.Y.) Subcommittee on Conservation, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natrual Resources: Eneray and Natural Resources: Leo J. Ryan, Chairman (D-Calif.) Leo J. Ryan, Chairman (D-Calif.)
q t Q
-.j m
(E ' y Subcommittee on Conservation, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources: Energy and datural P,esources: , ...,
..g ll a
Dante B. Fascell (D-Fla.) L. H. Fountain (D-N.C.) L. H. Fountain.(D-N.C.) William S. Moorhead (D-Pa.) E John L. Burton (D-Calif.) John L. Burton (D-Calif.). William' S. Moorhead (D-Pa. ) < Barbara Jordan'-(D-Tei. ) Fernand J. St Germain (D-R.I.) Jack Hightower (D-Tex.) ' Richardson Preyer (D-N.C.) Floyd Fithian (D-Ind.) is Gilbert Gude (R-Md.) Robert Drinan (D-Mass.) Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. (R-Calif.) Thomas N. Kindness (R-Ohio) Edwin B. Forsythe (R-N.J.) Edwin B. Forsythe (R-N.J.) :r Joel Pritchaid-:(R-Wash.) W L
.,Ir lI t
t 9
..~
l c
^
5!
'W d
f i 1
I~
'. 5 h;j;I D:
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGit COMMERCE h R A~uthority: (Under House Rules, 95th Congress) Rule X.1. (1) . . . Such committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect to regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear energy as it has with respect to regulation of non-nuclear facilities and of use of non-nuclear energy. In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the preceeding provisions of this paragraph (and its general oversight functions under clause 2(b) (1) such committee shall have the special oversight functions provided for in clause 3(h) with respect to all laws, programs, and government activities affecting nuclear energy. 3.(h) The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall have the functions of reviewing and studying, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs and government activities relating to nuclear energy. Merbershio: 94th Congress embership: 95th Conoress Harley 0. Staggers, Chairman (R-WVa.) Harley 0. Staggers, Chairman (R-WVa$) Samuel Devine, Ranking Minority Samuel Devine, Ranking flinority Member (R-Ohio) Member (R-Ohio) Subcommittee on Oversight and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investications: Investigations: John E. floss, Chairman (D-Calif.) John E. fioss, Chairman (D-Calif.) P,ichard L. Ottingu (D-N.Y.) Jim Santini (D-flev.) Robert Krueger (D-Tex.) Thomas A'. Luken (D-Ohio) Anthony Toby Moffett (D-Ccan ) Douglas Walgren (D-Pa.)
~
Jim Santini (D-flev.) Albert Gore, Jr. (D-Tenn. ) W. S. Stuckey (D-Ga.) Charles J. Carney (D-Ohio) James H. Scheuer (D-fl.Y.) James H. Schueur (D-N.Y.) Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) Philip R. Sharp (D-Ind.) Philip A. Sharp (D-Ohio) Andrew Maguire (D-N.J.) Anthony Toby Moffett (D-Conn.) James. M. Collins (R-Tex.) Andrew Meguire D-N.J. - l'orman .F. Lent (R-fl.Y.) Robert V,rueger D-Tex. Matthew J. Rinaldo (R-N.J.) James fl. Collins (R-Tex.) H. Henson Moore (P,-1.a.) Norman F. Lent (R-N.Y.) e Subcommittee on Energy and Power: Matthew J. Rinaldo (R-N.J.) David Stockman (P,-Mich.) Itarc L. Marks (R-Pa.) John D. Dingell, Chairman (D-Mich.) Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.) Subcommittee on Energy and Power: Philip R. Sharp (D-Ind.) William M. Brodhead (D-Mich.) John D. Dingell, Chairman (D-Mich. Robert C. Eckhardt (D-Tex.) RichardL.Ottinger(D-N.Y.) Richard Ottinger (D-N.Y.) Robert Krueger (D-Tex.)
o . . . . . . .
. W: ,
15. [jj (? - [ h . Subcommittee on Energy and Power: Subcommittee on~Enerdy and Power: : Robert Krueger (D-Tex.) Philip R. Sharp (D-Ind.) b; -- Anthony Toby l'offett- (D-Conn. ).
- AnthonyToby(Moffett(D-Conn.)
Andrew Maguire (D-N.J.) Bob Gammage D-Tex.) '= Clarence J. Brown (R-Ohio) . John M. Murphy (D-N.Y.) Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Calif.) David E. Satterfield (D-Va.) . . . . . .
"~"
James Broyhill (R-N.C.) Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.) John Heinz III (R-Pa.) Andrew Maquire (D-N.J.) '
~
Martin Russo (D-Ill. ) Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) Clarence J. Brown;(R-Ohio) Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Calif.)
, James fl. Collins (R-Tex.) .
W. Henson Moore (R-La.) David Stockman (R-Mich.) a
+
M
~~
o. vv e 4
~
H l N
- mq l
4 E f.b COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELA _TIONS Authority under House Rules, 95th Congress: g
" Rule S. l. (k)(14) Export controls includin
$s of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware." g nonproliferation hi p
"(15) ' International commodity agreements (other than those involving sugar), including all agreements for cooperation [E s
in the export of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware." [5 _ Membership: 94th Congress Membership: 95th Congress 9 Thomas E. Morgan, Chairman (R-Pa.) Clement Zablocki, Chairman (R-Wis.) William S. Broomfield, Ranking William 5. Broomfield, Ranking Minority Member (R-Mich.) Minority Member (R-Mich.) Subcommittee on International Subcommittee on International -- . Security and Scientific Affairs: Security and Scientific Affairs: y' '- Clement Zablocki, Chairman -(D-Wis. )t: Clement Zablocki, Chairman (D-Wis.) L. H. Fountain (D-N.C.) L. H. Fountain (D-N.C.) , Jonathan B. Bingha:a (D.N.Y.) - Jonathan B. Bingham (D-N.Y.) Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-Mich.) Gerald Studds (D-Mass.) Gerald Studds (D-Mass.) Anthony Beilenson (D-Calif.) Paul Findley (R-Ill .) William S. Broomfield (R-Mich.) Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Calif.) Larry.Winn, Jr. (R-Kans.) - Subcommittee on Economic Policy and Trade: ' Jonathan Bingham, Chairman (D-N.Y.) Andrew Ireland (D-Fla.) Eligio de la Garza (D-Tex.) Berkley Bedell (D-Iowa) John J. Cavanaugh (D-Nev.) Paul Findley (R-Ill. ) _., Charles W. Whalen, Jr. (R-0itio) i e V I
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS - [.( h.. Authority: (Under House Rules, 95th Congress) b. *
" Rule X. 1. (j) (17) Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, including regulation of research and dsvelop-ment reactors and nuclear regulatory research."
"In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the preceding provisions of this paragraph (and its general oversight function under clause 2(b)(1), the Committee shall have the special oversight functions provided for in clause 3(e) with respect to all' programs affecting Indians and nonmilitary nuclear energy and research and development including the disposal of nuclear waste."
" Rule X. 3. (e) The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall have the function of reviewing and studying, on a continuing basis, all . laws, programs, and Government activities dealing with Indians and nonmilitary nuclear energy and research and development including the disposal of nuclear waste." "
I Membership: 94th Congress itembership: 95th Congress ._.. James Haiey, Chairman Morris Udall, Chairman Ranking Minority, Joe Skubitz Ranking Minority, Joe Skubitz i-Subcommittee on Energy and Subcommittee on Energy and [ Environment: th'e Environment: F Morris Udall, Chairman (D) itorris Udall, Chairman (D) Joseph'P. Vigorito (D) Tano Roncalio (D) i Teno Roncalio (D) Jonathan Bingham (D) Jonathan B. Bingham (D) John F. Seiberling e John F. Seiberling (D) (D) Ron de Lugo (D) Ron de Lugo (D) , Bob Eckhardt (D) ; Bob Eckhardt (D) Paul E. Tsongas (D) Jaime Benitez (D) James Weaver (D) Paul E. Tsongas (D) Bob Carr James Heaver (D) George Miller (D) Bob Carr (D)(D) Philip Sharp (D) George Miller (D Mathew F. ficHugh (D) John Melcher (D)) Abraham Kazen, Jr. (D) i ! Alan Steelman , Ranking Minority (R) Edward J. Markey (D) Joe Skubitz (R) Nick J. Rahall (D) Sam Steiger (R) Bruce F. Vento Manuel Lujan, Jr. (P,) (D) Thomas J. Huckaby (D) Robert E. Bauman (R) Robert E. Bauman (R) Steven Symms (R) Joe Skubitz (R) flanuel Lujan (R) Steven Synas (R) l E Philip E. Ruppe (R) i David D. Marriott (R) Ron flarlenee (R) '1 flickey Edwards (R) l d l
. . .~ - . - .~ ..- . . . . -
1
. s= '. !!1-2 AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY-Continued g.:
a iw h t@3U3 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, MARKETING, W AND STABILIZATION OF PRICES (No. 3) ; [jj WaRer D. Huddivston, Chairman Richard '(Dn;k) Stone .ililtc.n it. &my Gtort .RGotern Edward Zorinsky Jme A. /lele r guw Jwes O. Hastland John Melcher Cctl Curri4 {# ~ Dick Ciarx Richant 1.w;ar , t t@SU3 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND GENERAL LEGISLAT!ON (No. 4) Patric'< Leahy, Chairman Herman Taldmadge Robert Dole Jcmes B. Allen .\filmn R. Young ' J-tmes O. Eastland SJ. //nyckawa F.. chard Stone Richard Lugar t@ SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT (No. 5) Dic'< Clar:<, Chairman Patrick J. Leahy Cert T. Cur /Is Hubsrt H. Humphrey llenry 1:ellmon ', t SUBCONMlTTEE ON FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL POLICY (No. G) Hubert H. Ilumphrey, Chairman Richard (Dick) Stone llenry Beller en Edward Zorinsky Robert Dole Herman Talmadga Richan! Lugar APPROPEATIONS 1235 DS03 , 224-347I , ( Jurkdiction: Appropriation of the revenue for the support of the Government Re:,cission of approprMtions ,t conta;ned in Appropriation Act.
- J;hn
- McClellan, Ark., Chairm:en Thomas c. Eag!eton, Mo. Sill /on Tonng. .Y.D.
Wair::n G. Magnuson, V/ ash. Lawton Chiles. Fla. Clifford Care, N.J. - John C. Stennis. Miss. J. Dennett Johnston. La. I:dward W. Brooke, Afass. Robert C. Byrd, V/.Va. Walter D. Huddlaston. Ky. Alark O. //arfield. Oreg. Wi!Iiam Pro.< mire. Wis. Quan:in Burdick N.D. - Ted Stewns, IIaska Caniel K. Inouye, Hawail Patrick Leahy. Vt. ', Ern:st F. Honings. S.C. Charles 3frC. Afinh!:n. Jr.. Sid. James Sass?r. Tenn. Richard S. Schwelker l'a. B:rch Bayh. Ind. Dennis DeConcini, Ar!z. Elenry /l< limon Olla. Lowell l'. Il'eicker. Conn. 1 MrY STA'JP A105.3: POSITIONS: LEGISLATi'/E RESPON318!Ll7Y: J:tmes R. Ca!!oway (224 7293) Chiel Counsel cnd Staf! Director
- y G M M:13w (Ms.) (224-1437) /ssst. Chief Clcrk -
.Ma:hnri Mmer (224-7293) Prof. Staff Member i . .i (f 01C Senate Court) .
;;i:Isen A. McG0wn (224-7265) Prof. Staff Mamber
.;r?. './. Oordc' (224-7297) Prof. Staff M::r .ber (1222 OSOB)
E :wa;d C. Brook.;. Jr. (224 7210) Prof. Staff Member (5010 Sena:e Comt)
',n rn:e Hanry i.Mr.) (?24 7202) Prof. Staff Menber (5323 DSOBi
; it Ke.;" 1,- (224-7270) Prof. S'aff Mert ber (1226 DS03, J
l Jon Atela ('C4-0205) Prof. Stal! Member (122S DSOE) y
- f. . '.
-Art A'jri;i,Oum LJb0ornm!'tGPS op3ratta throtH;M the ful1 Corar%'.t:9 ol's".e. '
} The Ser tie AgrIOUI!U"o CU'9 mitten dt:3igitalOS !.hbcomt.)itlDe jurise c:.ons by titie of the r.nticomn i::+e a:o e Tr.t; Cnairrman e nt.rtnh*:r3. nnd the Ranking Minotif y Membera a e ex oti cio membe s of A:t subcomniittvea of which t9:y re N0t; t
r;s.,f'st
- . - - .- - ~ ._. - . - - . - - . - - - -- - . .- -
-g 1116 '
' APPROPRIATIONS-Continued ~1 Is jn .. ;
I SUSCOMNITTEE OM PU3OC WORXS_ b.. m b
'" 224-7250
~
-. 1:r:2 DSO3 ,- .,
( .W Jurintiction: Energ/ Rosearch and Desetopment Administration ('except fc* fossilfuels research and dedcp. R rnent an:t rohted rnatters): Doparment o! Oc'en se-Gr/it: Department oi the Army: Corps of Engineers-Civu: D eoar*- r : rart of the Interior: Alaska Power / dministration; Bonnetille Power Administration; Burasu of Reclarnation; S0dh : - castern Power Administrat;on; Sou;hwestern Power Administration; Related Agencies: Appalachian Regional j Commission: Appalachian Regional D3velopment Prcgrams; Delaware River Casin Commission: Federal Pour n'
' Commission: Interstate Com:nission on the Potomac River Basin; Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Susquehanna ,
River Basin Commission; Tennesses Valley Authority; Water Resources Coun0;i. (.;i LJcha C. Stennh, Chairman Ernest F. Ho!iings AtarA o. //.,rfictd 5 Warren G. Magnuson - Robert C. Byrd J. Bennett Johnston ,t/ilmer R. roun;; $[ , Walter D. Huddleston- Clif/hrd P. Coe Quentin Burdick Ric/tard Sc/nieils ee p; , James Sasser Henry Be!irrwn [
*RIV2RS AND HAR3 ORS:
*Same memberr. hip as Public Works (sea above). +
*EMERGY, RESEARCH AMD D2VELOPMINT ADMINISTR ATION
~
'Sene membership as Public Works (see above). ;
??
SU3COMMITT33 ON STATE, JUSTICE, l 9 COMMERCE, AND JUDICIARY a 143A Capitol 224 7244 Jurhdi:: ion: Department of Commerce; Department of Justice; Department of State:(except: Contributions , fog U.N. Forc? in Cyprus, Migration and Refugee A3sistance);The Judiciary; Rolated Agencies: Arms Controi and C,6 gmamv.t Agancy, Coard for International Broad 0cSting, Commission on Civil Righ!s, Commission on Security 2 ch Coopera:iun in Euro;,s. Equal Emp!o/ ment Opportunity Commi34t0n. Federal Communications Commbian, ;.; Fe::ersi Maritime Commisai:n, Federel Trede Commission. Foreign C!aima Settlement CommisWon, Interna 6cnY f Trada Cummission, Japan United States Friendship Ccrnmission, Legal Serv;ces Corporation, Marine turnmM ' q' Commbsion. Olhna of tha Special Representative for Trade Negotiations Priva::y Protection Study C'ommWion. ' Renegotiation Board, Securi:ies and Exchanga Commission, Smell Business Administra!!cn, United States , informhtion Agen:y. Ernest F ;-1:!!ir"13, Chairman Thomas F. Eag!ston Lm.d/ P. Ireicke e .. John L McCfM!an Daniel Inouy? f;dn;,,rd Ir Brooke , Warren G. Megnuson . Quentin Burdi2 1/ ark O. #a./idd Patrick Leahy yi.d Stevent " Dennis DcOoncini i.. . . . . .
;.y lGY STN,:? AID 3 3: POSITION 3: LEGISLATIVI RESPONSIBILITY: !
PrN. Staff Member !
- '//arrea \ /, Kene
'.Nikett Van Kirk (224 7233) f!nnority Prof. Staff Marnber (1405 0303)
, :=
z
~
t
.x...
..j 2i m
i:: o
.r ;
1 iN
,, . . . . . . ..--~.~ .-- . - - - - - - -- ~ - - -- "
*3
. . 1 A
e ENVFRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORMS i a" 4204 DSO3 224-8176 ( z(e2 2 Jur!= diction: 1. Environmental po! icy; 2. Envircr montal research and dove!opment,3. Ocean dumpir g; L ;
?!".fr:es in f midiii : 5. Envuonmental aspects of Ou:ct Contmen:al Sholf Icnds. G. So!!d was:e doposal a.ad . ):
f.bng. 7. Eniironmental ofic ts of touc subatances, ott or than peshcides: 8. Water resou rces: 9, Flood contr.M and p.! m;.r No:nnnts of riters and harbors. including environmenta! aspects of deepwater ports.10. Pubhc wods, brb.:ges. - and dm;: 11 Water pollution: 12. Air pollution: 13 Noise po!!ution; 14. Nonteilitary environrnental regu!ation and p cow 3 of nucicar energy.15. Regional economic dc<elopment: 10. Construction and rnaintenance of hirpway3: 17. ji: Pubbc buddin'Is and irnproved grounds of the United S:ates generally, including Federal buildings in the Distric: of .h C4 .:m hia. y.1
'hnnings Randelph, W.Va., - Quentin N. Durd:ck N.D. Robert Stq/ ford, l't. E
' Chultman John C Culver. Iowa Howard 11. Ilaber. Jr.. ii.ntr. "
Edm:ind S. Muskie. Maine
. ' Gary W. Hart. Colo. James A. AlcCldre. Ida/rn i.Me Gravel. Alaska Wendell R. Anderson, IAinn. I'rrer l'. Ih>menIri. .Y..tl.
Lloyd Bentsen, Tex. Daniel tJoynihan. N.Y. /tdm R. Cliq/re. R.I. _ ;q 11ahedm It\diop. If *yo. .:: MEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONS!31LITY: - Leon G. BittinJs Senior Prof. Staff '/ ember - '_ Rchard D. Grundy (224 9395) Senior Prof. Stafi L1 ember p John W. Yago, Jr. (224 7042) Staff Director Phibp T. Curnmings (224 7843) Assoc. Counsel ' Richard M. Harris (224-7850) Assoc. Counsel , l'n<l R. Braithwaite (224-7859) Pro l. Staf! tJember Pau! Chimes (224-7841) Prof. Staf t fJernber Printir g Mainaleen R.E. Forcum (224-7844) Prof. Staff f.iember Administration, Dudget, and Personnel An., Garrahrant (224 8426) Prof. Staff Member Water Resources Ricnard T. Greer (224 8425) Prof. Stall f.tember Economic Development W.n!r/ F. Ilayden (224-784S) Prof. Staf f Member Ar"cid L. Katt (224-9772) Prof. Staff f.lcmber J .- e B. Putinton, Jr. (224 7846) Prof. Staff Member ( : bi:y W. Wal'<er (224 7831) Prof. Stall f.1 ember Gu ,rpe F. f'onton, Jr. (224 8430) .. Prof. Staff t/ amber fiandolph G. Flood (224 7852) Research Asst. (Calendnr), Bill S ntus , i~ Veronica A. Holland (224-7847) Prof, Staff Member Re(;ional & Community Chviene A. Sturbitts (224 7881) Research Asst. . Pauhne D, tAudhn (224-78%) Asst. to the Staff Director ' John D. Frcst man, (224-7d59) Prof. Staff tJamb ir t!. lien Whitodos (224-7850) Prof. Sta'l Member KMhisen Ann Korpon Prof. Staff Member ENVROPBlEMT AND PU3UC WORMS MINOMITY STAFF 4210 CSD3 224-7354 *
,.5Y ST A'JF AlDES:
POSIT!ON3: LEGISLATPM RESPONSIBILITY: [We/ Cuard Sta!l Director /Mmority *
. . ., .; Reayrun (224 78 i5)
Senior Prol, Stall Member _ i erned Haro:t {224-785S) As nc. Counsel /M.nority J.idj Parent? (224-78571 Pro l. Staf f Member r;: c ,er.n e C u:Jhpp (224f?49) Asst '. Counsob!Amority St., 3 Sween th4 622G) Prof. Sta'l tJc nbar J:m Range Asst Counstri Ji r.e;asthr u E. Schafer Prof. Stall Member p"nu ,
- Ih e Churman t.nd the R mk.ng Mmonly f/cmb r t.ro n> of fvan mi rnbers of all subcomnotbser, of w5pr.h thy ye:,x Wyfsr rm.m'.ars.
cns.;, i hm:w. uas d )d! *w I:n. A
'I
i t EMVIRCMNi2MT AND PU3LIC '.VORXS-Continued - 111 17 ~
- 1. ..:.
=
SU3 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUT!ON' . R'mun:.! Muskie, Chairman Gary Hart
,b~" Sm C. Culver Wendell Anderc.cn Rohrrt Strifftvd $ '
J. sher CI:cfre E Ala!cvIn 1I'all.qo t::. l::.
~t..:.
KW STAFF Af 0ES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONS131LITY: Loon O' Diihn'J3 . Prof. Staff t.iember = (224-7!;59) SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES $ Mlie Gravel, Chairman Lloyd Bentsen Pete Domnici 'k 9 Edmnnd Muskier Quanlin Burdick James .1/cChere ' olcicolm it'eillo;> :
' KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATP/E RESDOMSlHILITY:
- Ann GarraSrant (224-8426) ' Prof. Staff Member Wes Hayden Prof. Staff Member SUSCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION ,
Lloyd Bentaen. Chairman =9 _, John Culver Jahri Chefte it Ooontin 134rd.ck Daniel P. Moynihan Ra>l> cit Siq/)Lrd l'ete IXumertici *
- a. -
e.
- EY STAFF A!OES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RE3PONSIBILITY: E N- 1 George Fenton, Jr. (224-8430) Prof. Staff Men ber ' .
Hona:d Hat: Prof. Statl !,wnbar
@3U3 COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP.t1ENT g
; +atin Su/.'i k Chairman
. . .L loy:I Dentsen Wendell Andenon liwan!Sabr Daniel P. Moynihart !?ol.<rr Sr;//br.1 Jeolin Chs.fre KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS- I rG!SLATiV2 RES?ON AISILITY:
Prof. Stati Member 9 Rict.:ird T. Creer (224-8425) - GSUSCO:',Gili i cc uN RESOURCE P30TECTION . r Jahn Cui/ r, Chairman Gary H::rt J Interdn Jra!iop U%a Oravel Wontlell Andersvis th>wurd Iter;er, Jr. J.sa:c.s A:cci:r e y.
- 'E'/ STAFF NDES: POSI flON 3: LECISt 'TP/I RISPOMSi3!LITY:
TI chard O.iti!c Prof. Sinfi Membsr .
*/
y'-M l -3 t O NDJ 1"I'T : f"'..'.I N i ! C L E AR R 3 C Ulj7} C N __ C~.:7 H m:t, C_inir.mn til;ku Crusul Jn:nn Atcr!ure ; Edmund Mu hte Daqiul P f/inyn:h in Ihr.uwd ! d er. .tr. I'c:e ihe. swr;;ci ,
.I'EY STAFF AIDES: POSIT!ONS: LEGISLATP/E MSPO?iS;W.lTY:
Or Knnn Ctar.:t; Vmf. S'nf t Me.nbar H a.. n Wi.itusido (?;.'b7CM) ' Prof. Stati M... aNr
,.h ;,t'.fl m;r'29'12:ru Cmp!O/O'l l'y lhe full CG*T :nlt!94*. Current '.t.h;'smt*!tte9 spacl:,ibts art 1,stSI urt Mr t. oro-it i Sin, rimi: tees but nrie no! tiX1 t:> tro woch of t.iag! r stcommit!.i+.1. Sh!!:; oil gi3're.is r 3 pons;.;;d:, gn.
Thef fuli Cortimii!94 JI'lI Of0 ha! Un0orama'i. 3 i no .mtmd.i Envimamovi uni! Pnbhc Woth Committua d's;.lgna::.i :.ubcommi !M jun ... etic,r. by *4 of b tu sto so m i.'; elsne . ('um rin l.a li's:si:r t.a:"\lo.>raun i "' T t L9' s
. - . -. . . - , - . - - ._ =. - . , -. .
. . w 4w yy 4v h.[ , e ,a ir4m e % .-
11120' - .
/ _FOREGN !TELATLONS l
( 4229 DSO3- 224-4551 .;. Jurisdic!!on: 1. Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally; 2. Treaties and executi,* - agreements, except reciprocal trade agreements; 3. Boundaries nf the United States: 4. Protection of United S:a .rs - 2G.:;. -
~'
ct!!40n3 abroad and expatriation; 5. Intervention abroad and declarations of war; G. Foreign econc,qic, mil: tar /. ; - technical, and humanitarian essistance; 7. United Nations anci its afhliated organizations; 8. Internaticnal . conferences and congresses: 9. Diplomatic se'rvice;10. In:ernationallow as it relates to f oreign policy; 11. Ocean s and ; ,,, international environmental and scientific affairs as they re: ate to foreign policy; 12. International activities of the American National Red Cross and theInternationalCommitteesof the Red Cross:13. Intemationalaspectsof nucleM !# energy, including nuclear transfer policy: 14. Foreign loans; 15. Measures to foster commercial intercourse v ith . foreign nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad; 16. The World Bank group. the reg;onal ? denlopment banks, and other intarnational organi:ctions established primarily for international monetary purposes : (c4capt that, as the raquest of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, any proposed legislation ig relating to such subjects reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations shall be referred to the Cornmittee on 6 Canking. Housing, and Urban Affairs);18. Acquisition of tund and buildings for embassiss and legations in foreign countries: 19. National security and international aspects of trusteeships of the United States.
- John Sparkm4n, Ala., Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Del. Cli//or:f P. Case, N.J. .Ej id Frank Church, Idaho John Glenn,-Ohio /scob K /avirs. N
. .. Y E
Ciniborne Pell, R.l. Richard Stone, Fla. . Tancs Pcanon, Kans. p - George McGovern, S. Oak. Paul Sarbanes, Md. Gules 11. Percy Ill.
.,2.,
Hubert H, Humphrey, Minn. Roben P. Griffin. Alich. Dic'< Clark, Iowa limrard liakir, Jr.. Tenn. t#2Y STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLAT!*ls RESPDNSIBILITY: , Norvill Jories (224-4515) . CMef of Staff (S 116 Capiini)
/#hur M. Kuhl (224-4615) Chief Clerk (S 116 Capitol) ;
S9th Tillman (224-5381) Staff Associate (4304 DSOB) Donald G. Hr:nderson (224-4G51) Staff A:;sociate (4?29 DSOB) Robert Dockery (224-1433) Staff Associate (4304 DSOS) J.e . Ritch (224-5M1) Staff Associate (4304 DSOB) , tG iJf Moaney (224-4531) S:aff Associa:e (4229 DSO3) i George W, Ashworth (224-5331) Staff Associate ('004 DSOS) f brsthi Hensen (224-4051) Staff Associate (4220 DSOS) Rhrt Barton (224-4818) Staff Associate (42'9 DSOS) , Mary M. P.!cLaughlin (224-7053) Prof. Staff Member (S 116 Capitol) George Kroloff (224-4610) Administrative Asst / Press (4210 DSO3) ,~ Peggy 3rown (224-4651) Transcript Editor (4220 DSOB) Steve 3rjan (?24-4551) Staff Associate (4229 CSOS) Charles F. Moissner (224-5381) Staff Associate (4004 D308) Dave Sans Printing Clerk Pau ine 0.4kar (224-4651) Prof. Staff Member (4229 DSO3) , t3U3CONB1)TT53 ON A?mCAN .WAlRS Jurtu!icMen: This cubcornrnittee has responsibility corresponding to the Bureau of African Afhirs in the : D+putment of State.The subcommittee considers all matters and proLms relating to both.th-e d+,nendent and the j
;'.:'apendent areas of Africa. wi*h the excep'. ion of tne countries bordering en the Meditarrar":in Sn from EGf c! to ;
?,*:4rJcco which are under the Near East and South Asia. .
D!::< Oiar't, Chairman Hubert Hurnphrey James II. Peenwr 0
.GY OTMF AlCES:
PO31TIONS: LdCISLATIVE lHESpONst31LiTY: ) U Pau:;r::: Druer (224-4551) Staff Accociate (4229 DSOB) 7 i s
- .1 i
t/a. Fm,nce cubec + irough the full committee othco.
]
' H < Shn:rtnan a, Omb9r are u;; othcio membsra of nil wbcommi' a-$ of v.h.ch t: e e r4 "at.
1 ti.'. .lar m ankts . M
':J
.; i.y s" ton):tadmt;;l irll.ne ll<nok
-- - , _ _ o I
_ - s y-
' " FOREIGN RELATIONS-Continuect * '
111-21 y ..
.=. :a.:n
[ 4 tSUSCOMNITTEE ON ARNS CONTROL, OCEANS, AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIROMAL:NT'
.m f"
? i Jurisdiction: Matters partaining to .'ho control and reduction of armarnents; international aspects of nue:w f::
er.argy, including luclear transfer policy; suspension of nuct;ar tests; nonprofilarations; subjects su:h as the SA:.T ' , t a!ks; nnd $3curity agreements and ini:itary bases ebroad On issucs invo!ving conventional arms controlpo!!cies m p;l r:.ditary base agreements involving foreign assistanco co ntnitments it has inutualinterest with the Subcorrmit:3907 g a Fore:gn Ass!r.tance. This subcommittee is a!:o concerned with the prob l errs cnd activities invo!ving the use, $[.! ..; daelopment and cxploitation of ocean space and the international environment, as well as international marine' }),)l a!! airs pnerally. at ' ' Clalborne Pall, Chairman Hubert H. Humphroy Cherles Peref Scorge McCotern John Glenn Rnhert Gryfin 1hnwar,11)crer MIY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: George W. Ashworth (224-53B1) Staff Associate (4304 DSOP) Arms Control and Securlty 1 D.:vid Kcrane'y (224-4551) Staff Associate (4229 DSOB) Agreernents
- m tSU3 COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFMRS Jurisdiction: The continent of Europe, from Spain to the Soviet Union including Greece and Turxoy. Pteblems .
rciating to the Unl:9d Kingdom, Groenland. Iceland, and the pofar regions are embraced in this area. )
.' c:eph a. Siden, Chairman John Glenn Robert Criffin 1 Claiborne Pcll ChjTord l'. Case '=.. '
l'.3Y STAF.: AIDE 3: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIV2 R2SPONS131LITY: - s Jonn Ritch (224-5061) Staff Associate (4094 DSOB) ' ' N. S:e/e Dryeo (224-4651) Stafl Assoc:nte ( c29 DSCB)
~
f3USCOMMjTT22 ON EAST AGiAN AND PACl?!C Ai:FNRS = y
, Jur!P.!?c!icn: From China and Korea to Durtnn, inclusive, on the mainla7d cl As!a, Hong Kong, Japan Mo P pinas ?.':Jaysia, Indonesia. /sustraHa t.hd New Zeabnd. Omnia, and the South Pacific Islends. On t- .Mlp man?rs it has a relat::rd interest with Mc Subcornrnittae on int: mat!cnal Opct:ons.
John Gbnn, Chairman Richcrd Stone . Jamn rearwe
- N.iY STAFF AID 3S: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE P.E3PC?isi31LtTY:
Sath Tit' man (224-5331) Str2l1 Associata (4304 DSOB) tSU3 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE , 20') Set: ate Courts Anne, 22.;-752 ; Jurisd;ction: (1) U.S. policies, programs and U.S. participation in ;ntornatior. tf institutions nnr: a g wmim c.oncern0d with economic growth crid dave:opment, trad), or thw transfar of econo rd0 rcac" ces. Cry;dy or inc; roc:ly, to tas; davaloped countrias. (2) U.S. cncurity n;stsun;:a progrcms, fo eign mahtary ci S. wms trmint p %cias tcwstd forcign cou :trics and mi!!tary i: se at,rcumcats invoh;ne.; ferdgn ar,isbace. On h:wi i . %hg t anventiona: ccm3 control policy enet military b:.s0 t ;?bemantiinvoNing forNan assMtvt:0 coran%MS i;; .h e tuct h: gros! w;th the Arms Con!rc!. Occans, cnd international Env;ronmant subcomm!!!M; u ' (0) s.nte 2 r*t%g to lo r!, hunger. nu:rition cM penstal living c!anMrd;in le:s c!ne;oped c;'.:ntrin to ta-2.M nt tbt the
,ubst:aca oi lsr.'Ec ln loreign econom!c po! icy f all within the juri.;dic!bn ol!M uutco r.raitt as on fo ei .,n a.chtr.ca enJthe subcomrni:tos on Foreign econnmic po: icy, tha two subecmmittan tasy congder tha 1. mas join::y.
F u%r! H. Hurr:phrey, Chairman Josaph Biden, Jr. Cby/vfd r'. C,:.e Frank Church J:wai. X Ja @
! c/ C! ark Churh1 r ,cy
- 2Y STAFF AIDEG: POSIT! CMS: '
LEGISLA IT/3 ftE5?ON3:3tLtT?- 3090r1 M tatel Stnft Director
';onstance Freeman Staff Associnte 9ph Rou:,cuo Stall Absociate
.p a liich.irrhon Stnfl Associntn m r. t.h::snm Stall Associ t!c mt Hin.,ondip Sta!! A3:,cc; ate l'cr'ign ihhtions Subcommittee opurnM through tha full commd :u (Ahee r.. , ,: .. . e i .. . ,. : , .,.a.,. , , - ,
~. - . . - - -
. .. . _ _ _ - . . . .- .~ _ _. . _ . . . _
; I
. _ - . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . ~ . _
~.'.,
- 4 111-23
- .u.5 GOVERNNENTAL AFFAIRS h 3303 DSDB
$224-4751 Juris r,ction; 1 E4 cept as provided in the Congressional Budge: Act of 19N, budget ar'd acconnung measurea, vuer than appropriations: 2. Organization end reorganization of the c<ect.tive branch of the Governmf t't:
- 3. Intergovernmental re:otions: 4. Government information; 5. (Aunicipal affairs of the District of Colur9bia. 04 cept ,
appropriations therefor; 6. Federal Civil Service,7. Statt.4 of of hccrs and employees of the United States, including ,,,
!)l, their classihcation, compsnsation and benshts: E. Postal service; 9. Census ar.d co lection of statistics,inrJuding '"-
cconomic nnd social statistics; 10. Archives of the United States; 11. Organization and management of United;;;,State:: nuclear expurt policy; 12. Congressional organization, except for any part of the matter that amends the rules or ' F orders of the Senate. s
- Abraham A. Ribicott, Conn., Thomas Eagleton. pao.
Chairman . Char!rs II. Percy, Ill Lawton Chiles, Fla. Jacub K. Jarirs. N. }', , John L. FAcClellan, Ark. Sam Nunn. Ga. Henry fA. Jcckson. Wash. Charles .Vcc. Alaihlas, Jr.. . tid. John Glenn. Ohio Ted Stevern. Alaska Edmurd S. FAuskie, PAaine James Sasser, Tenn. l.ee fAetcalf, FAont. Ililliam Roth, Jr. Del. Richard 1.ugar, Ind. _ John C. Danforth.110. fl. John lleirr:,111. Pa. ' KEY ST AF," AIDES: POSITIONS: Richard A. Wegman LEGISLATIVE RESPONC:BILITY: Paul Hoff Staff Director and General Counsel , Counsel Consumer Protection, InteiligenCP. Oversight, Open Government, Lobby Reform. International Organizations. Anti: rust Elfen PAiller Enforcernent Counset Energy Research and Development Agency, Nuclear Energy, Health, Drugs 3de Damfield Counset Renog!iation p. t.ni flubleman Counsel i Lt>gislative Reorganizatio.n. General Dav!d Scha*lcr Counsel Watergate Reform (Special Prose-
-p d
cutor. Financial Da, closure, etc.). - p~
~ FAatthew Schneider Gun Control Counsel Consurner Protection. Regulatory John Childers Reform, Zerobase Budgeting -
Chief Counsel le the PAinority Overall - Erian Conboy Special Counsel to the fA:nority FAantyn Harris Consumer, Open Government Chief Clerk Lobby Refurrn. Open Gonrnment. Protection of Privacy. Women's Constance Evans issues fAinority Prof. Staff Memtser J 4 m'" f IE
- g. ,
c:vmnmental Affairs Comrmttee has a separate telephone number for document requestr 224 "iT91 na Chairrmn (c;;nlar and the Ra.nkmg iAinority fAamber are ex otheio members of allsubcommittees of'vhich inef a e r'ot nwrnt:ers t'" t 'usps vr"hr t;'orJ: mum bla inest, l's " 3 1S 17
Ill26 I GO'/5RNMENTAL AF.cAIRS-Contd. i l'.I. v. t?.) .E SU3 COMMITTEE ON REPORTS, ACCOUNTING Ai4D MANAGEMENT ^ c 151 R303 224-1474 {a. ! I.;. Jurisdiction: Investigatica of the c:f.cien:.y and econo y c; ep: rons of the Federal Contr:.~en: b re: pact to. (1) nccount:ng. finan:.r. oporting nnd a,;d:!ir.g of r;o.ernment ocligations and e>.p.3nd;;urc3- (2) t:. [":'. O.ctsight of Federal agency and prc;; ram ;>0:fom : :c : and eMec,*r.oress: Q the development and oficcherus;of fr.+ccl. bud. y etary, and progr;:rn m!or:rn: ion sy1Nms ar.d 006:9,. (4,i prep iration and subm;s:non of FC!?tal regu:ato:y agency budgets to Congress; (5) data co%::.on and cissem;r :: ion by Federal regu atory opercie : and (G) re.Q.u an;f evaluation of procedures and legis:a' an v..th re.tpac!!c Fecera! adv:sory commit::es.Federa:repor: 3 que stronr i.rcs. interrogatories. y",
!ii.
- .ilce Nvicalf, Cha;rman
EY ST/.F? AIDES: POSITIOr1S: LEGISLATIVE RESPONS;3ii.lTY:
Victor O. Rainemer Staff Direc:or E. Winslow Turner Chief Counsel John D. Ches3cn.1:1 Counsel Financia! Analyst. Rogu: story Concerns Jeanne A. McNaughton Chief Clerk Gera:d Sturges Prof. Staff f.bmber Federal Advisory Commit:eas Anno Boni Secy, g SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR PROLIFERAT!ON, SCIENCE, b" , PLANNING AND FEDERAL SERV!C: S w s a Jurisdiction: Matters over government planning, productivity. shortages, energy rnatters including nucl ear, S . pro!iferation. Federal postcl servicc. consus and stat:stics. _ MJehn Chan, Chairman SU3COMM!TTEE ON EFFICIENC'/ AND TNE Di3TRICT 0: COLU.',13!A
~~ J ar;3dction: District of Colar :bi.: (exact cc.rdin;j at pr;eng doa-J:.no no: a.adaMa). ,
.1Th a rm; E y;bt..n. Ch airrnan '
G r i-I. a .. k f ! . 6% .. ' O
. .
- g. . ,, '), ,j } ,f ,] [ f j ,p l} ,] ].. Q', *g {% g 9 * , E *,
(? rnin';tu::
; h'. d not bD3it rn3$1 2,;3 77 ( 'iin. rew m! ) c/!.. /' ,
i ' ll_ .y . (M,1.. SlMRRY COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS ON NRC FY 78' AUTHORIZATION e (in thousands of dollars)- DIRECT PROGRAM HOUSE SENATE ', hbclear Reactor Regulation $39,390 (-600)'
$41,480 (+1,490)
Standards Development 10,630 (-1,500) 12,130 Inspection and Enforcement 34,759 (+4,709) 36,050 (+6,000) e Nuclear Material Safety 17,746 (-4,844) 22,090 and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Research p 121,226 (-27,174) 148,400 s Program Technical Support 17,204 (+7,204) 10,180 Program Direction and 29,310 29,310 Administration , , t-Research and technical 15,000 Assistance Studies on _._
. Safeguards Advanced Reactor Safety 17,185 Research 9
TOTAL [NRC request $292,150) $301,950 (+9,800) $299,640 (+7,490) CCK!ENiS:
- 1. The NRC requested $19,147,000 for contracts on safeguards research, studies, and technical assistance. The House bill deleted all such proposed funds from the major budget categories and incorporated a -
total of $15 million for this purpose in a separate section of the bill. The overall reduction was based on a reassessment of NRC safeguards program needs in light of the President's decision against s Pu recycle.
- 2. The House bill also created a separate category for Advanced Reactor Safety Research. NRC had requested $20,765,000 for this purpose under Nuclear Regulatory Research. The Committe2 reduced
.the request by $3.58 million to reflect the reduced research needs related to the President's decision to defer indefinitely construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
L' 5
" ?:
- = .
, , . . s_.- -. .
, Budget /.uthorization - 2 '
{ - f:
- 3. The NRC authorization bill is presently awaiting a rule in t ':.
~
the House; the Senate authorization bill has been passed.
- 4. Both House and Senate Appropriations Comittees have completed work on the NRC appropriations bills. The House reduced the NRC ;
request by approximately $7 million; the Senate by $14.5 million. ADDITIONAL COMENTS ON AUTHORIZATION BILLS:
- 1. Senate:
- a. The $1,490,000 increase for NRR was designated to help reduce licensing lead time and to speed action on unresolved generic safety issues.
- b. The $6,000,000 increase for I 5 E was for 74 additional positions to expand inspection activities.
- c. No FY '78 funds are to be expended on matters related to the Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor or the Allied General Nuclear Services reprocessing facility if their license applications are withdrawn or construction halted.
- d. NRC's request for $200,000 for intervenor funding in the GESMO proceeding was deleted.
- 2. House:
- a. NRC is required to submit to Congress by 12/31/77 a plan for consolidation of headquarters operations prior to the end of FY '78. The consolidation is to be into two buildings -- one in downtown D.C., one in Bethesda.
b'. I Tne Comittee finds NRC's affirmative action programs ineffective, and requires submission of quarterly reports to the Comittee documenting continued efforts,
- c. Any safeguards research conducted by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Research shall be preceded by a Statement '
of Need approved by the Comission, the EDO, 'or the user office. E
L / ' SILMARY C0f@ARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS ON NRC FY 78 APPROPRIATIONS ~ (in thottsands of dollars) [ y:. DDECT PROGRAM HOUSE SE4 m Nuclear Reactor Regulation $39,390 (-600) $39,990 Standards Development 10,630 (-1,500) 12,130 Inspection 6 Enforcement 28,759 (-1,291) 30,050 Nuclear Material Safety 17,246 (-4,844) 22,090 and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Research 116,699 (-31,701) 143,400 (-5,000) Program Technical Support 13,280 (+3,100) 10,180 Program Direction and 29,234 ( ,076) 29,310 Administration Safeguards Contract 15,000 Research Advanced Reactor Safety 17,185 Research TOTAL [NRC recuest $292,150) $277,696 (-14,4S4) $285,150 (-7,000) CO: NESTS:
- 1. The House Appropriations Committee followed the lead of the authorication bill in providing separate appropriations categories for safeguards studies and advanced reactor safety research. These additions account for much of the reduction in t' first five program categories.
- 2. Consolidation of the Washington arca offices was recommended ,.
in order to reduce inefficiencies.
- 3. The Senate deletion of $5 nillion from the Nuclear Regt.latorf Research program was specifically related to the President's decision on the IRFBR and Pu recycle.
'b H.R.'18 S;:
H.R.18 is a bill pending before the 95th Congress which has . tho expressed purpose.of increasing the speed of the nuclear P power plant licensing process by reducing duplication and ;.. improving coordination with'other Federal and State agencies. E It is similar to legislation sent by NRC to the 94th Congress. h;. Es The key goals of the bill are as follows: ! -
--- to increase the availability and usefulness of -
infomation to the public in the earliest possible g stages of an application; a
-- to exclude from consideration issues that have been previously ' settled or that are adjudged to be without merit; *
-- to eliminate multiple reviews through greater integration with States and other Federal agencies; , .,
.; 4
-- to allow the issuance of interim permits and licenses '
where there are no unresolved health and safety issues, ' and to separate site approval from construction permit approval. 4 h
-- to dispense with reviews by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards when the Comittee and the Comission agree that they are unnecessary. ,
In his testimony, Chaiman Rowden emphasized three themes:
-- the need to relate nuclear power plant siting policy to the overall national energy policy, and the recognition that other Federal agencies besides the NRC have inportant authorities which can affect the future utilization of nuclear power in this country;
-- States and localities have a propor interest in approving or disapproving the construction of major energy facilities in their territory, but
-- there is an area of regulatory authority that can -
be effectively exercised only by the Federal Government - i.e. radiological health and safety issues. A copy of the Chairman's testimony follows.
- n
-9 f .
l ; o . . j
'" i;ll w:l s . ,, .
y 'e DETAILT.0 SUl01ARY y
.=.
l $:^. ':idi::" V: i H . R . 18 95th Congress,1st Session i:: Introduced January 4,1977 by Price. g j . i
- =
l Title i . SN ,; I idi
Purpose:
To increase the speed of the licensing process by reducing li; duplication and improving coordination with other Federal ' and State agencies l Sec.192(a) -- encourages release of information about radiation risks is ..I in a candid, non-technical way to enhance public understanding. 3 Applicable to documents, con;nunication and public meetings, - whenever possible. ~ (b) -- internal procedures for employee dissent i (c) -- use of pre-hearings for Commission decisions on whether ; a " genuine issue of material fact" exists (d) -- exclusion of issues that have been decided previously with respect to the application or similar facilities, sites or : P designs,from result modifications.unless " substantial additional protection" could : (e) -- early rptification of an intent to file en application to be published in the Federal Register (f) -- consolidation of Federal agency environmental impact statements > (g) -- coordination of planning and reviews with states and incorporation of state analyses and data in HRC's work Sec .102 -- authorizes a one-year study of environmental decision-making . Sec.193(a)(1) -- site permits may be issued before filing construction permi ts . (2) -- limited construction allowed prior to approval of : construct. ion permit ". s (b) -- construction and preparation for facility utilization 1 canoccurif (i) there is evidence that the site is suitable . S (ii) MEPA requirements are fulfilled - (iii) no significant health and safety problems oxtsi e ,
.. j
'l"
(.; :) '
y 9
. 4
.)
. =::=::: :)
.~... '
); .
g
..y. :
(c) -- A combined donstruction Permit and Operating License _ may be issued and published, g,7.. 7 (d) -- When'specified procedures are.followed, permits and ' licenses may be issued without a hearing provided no g
" factual disputes about a genuine issue of material r fact" exist. Antitrust reviews are stil.1 required t..m..
before a CP is issued. F~ (e) -- An interim operating license, may be issued before required hearings are complete, for up to 12 months. I.. Title II Sec.201 -- The Ad isory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviews manf . ing licenses, construction permits, operating licen. .s, and site permits unless the Coamittee finds it unnecessary and the Con:missfon concurs, Sec.202 -- Deletc3 construction permit expiration clause Sec.203 -- Allovn .he Commission to dispense with the required p 30-days notice if there are "noand publication significant for ap!,lication amendments hazards Sec.301-307 -- consist of editorial changes to incorporate the preceding amendments 9 4 l 1 - l , l l l L
.G .
5 i E5 c fk i& STATEMENT OF iMRCUS A. - R0WDEN, CHAIP, MAN E
~U.S. HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE-SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSOLAR' AFFAIRS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 13, 1977 e
t E
. - . . E r.::iti :ri: ;;;;;: ?~"
.. . .w - . . .
N$ g"E ]ght lq ee 4
' Mr. Chairman, members c f the- Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear - s.=> :s m
before you today to address the' subject of reforming the nuclear
- facility licensing process. y9 This is a matter in which.I have had iWE a particular and long-standing personal interest and one which I believe si i fully warrants the careful and timely. consideration of this Subcommittee
-E -
and the Congress. The basic statutory structure currently employed for licer. sing and = g regulation of nuclear facilities was developed over 20 years ago. The nation's energy picture and the role of nuclear power in sup' plyingt e, , U,.S. m energy needs are much different' now than in 1954. president Carter's D i;ational Energy Plan recognizes that it'is imperative to speak to - a national energy policy from the standpoint of today's needs and ' perspectives. C The restructuring of government institutions and re-eteluation. -
' W '
of policy direction which are central to this effort make it logical at , [ this time to consider an updating of the nuclear facility licensing process.- p 6 V:. - The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 generally provides for a two-stage nuclear power plant licensing process. First, a construction permit must be obtained authorizing construction of the plant at the site of k intended operation, and then an operating license must be obtained h:: b =! prior to fuel loading and operation at power. The construction permit p [ . . p review stage has focused' on the preliminary design of the plant and - ~ the suitability of the proposed site while the operating license review *"' stage has focused on the final design of the plant and the adequacy of G U
. actual plant construction.
[ 'd A formal adjudicatory hearing must be held, E
~
- ~
'l
- . - ~ -- ,- -
- .- + - - - .
_y jg 2
=t
- - L..;.: n
. Qf" even in the absence of any controversy, prior to issuance"of a construction permit and an opportunity for such a hearing must be $
$5 offered prior to issuance of an operating license. :The statutory !?
e
' Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards must review applications y
for both the construction permit and the operating. license. m
-The substantive areas addressed in the ilRC licensing review process are radiological health and safety, national security, enti- _
trust, and environmental protection. The first three areas' are mandated by the Atomic Energy Act; the last area, environmental ' 7 ,,;; protection, is mandated by the t!ational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and certain other Federal laws. The primary focus of. the Atomic iL n Energy Act..is on radiological health and safety, which has been M
" preempted" by the Federal Government in the sense that the States lack any authority to license or regulate nuclear reactors in this subject area. Environmental protection, on the other hand, has not a m
, been made an exclusive Federal responsibility, but is shared between the States and the Federal Government.
.e The process of planning, construction, and operating a nuclear U power plant is long and complex, and serves no interest as well as. one would wish. Those citizens who are concerned about nuclear power need .3 a licensing system that will provide far early and effective public .
5 participation before substantial commitments are made that tend to F. . .~. _ foreclose options. o Electric utilities need a licensing system that h th: will p'rovide for early and firm decisions on plant sites and designs f' L f.n C. . '
i . !
..3 i.!!
kk based on' predictable requirements. tieither of these goals can be - im
!F completely accommodated under the present licensing system. Also, @ ..
. nuclear power plants, likelmany other large industrial facilities, are . k =>
p f now subject to an elaborate mosaic of Federal and State licensing and :
- approval requirements that are largely the result of the " environmental h; -
movement" of the late 1950's and early 1970's. This mosaic has commend-ably resulted in increased environmental protection, but at the price
- of a fragmented and duplicative review process -- one that does not assure an efficient balance of energy aiid environmental factorg and that fails in critical areas to reflect the interests of the States, ~ -
w the governmental entities most directly affected. " d . The reform needed to address these and other matters in the '" nuclear l' censing process require q1odification of the existing L statutary structure. That is the challenge of this Subcommittee and t y the Ccngress. Before turning to my specific comments on the legislative proposals beft re you, I would like briefly to develop three concepts or themes whi..h I believe provide an essential context for your efforts to frame
- neeled legislation in this extremely complex area. c The first theme is the need to relate whatever siting and licensing
- system is eventually adopted to the process by which the country's national energy policy is being shaped. The Administration has taken uy vigorous steps in developing a coherent national policy for meeting si .w w a r
**rp r
... .. j
=
t Fi U.S. energy needs, and has coupled that policy initiative with !h
~
b? recommendations about restructuring and reorganizing Federal agencies P to make the policy process more efficient and manageable. In this t. e spirit, reforming the nuclear facility licensing process cannot be successful unless it is accomplished with a due regard for how the regulation of this one energy source is related to the way decisions are made on other energy sources. Hot only must nuclear licensing be related to treatment of other sources, measures for energy conservation, and the like, but it must be recognized that several agencies of the Federal Government besides flRC possess important authority to affect the future utilization of ' nuclear power in this country. Of course; the new Department of Energy will have a signal role in this field; however, agencies such as the - Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, and even agencies such as the Justice Department have responsibilities which will impact upon the nuclear licensing process. Mechanisms must be developed by whic' these Federal activities can be acccmmodated in a fashion which provide. an example of the kind of coordination we need to seek between Federal agencies and State governments, and between State agencies themselves. Which leids me to the secono major theme I would urge you to keep in mind during , your deliberations. i G h l l
... ~ -
** b
~
(b This theme is recognition of the proper interest of States and $;*/.' localities in approving or disapproving the construction of major F b energy facilities (including nuclear powar plants) in their territory. 7 During the first two decades in which nuclear power was being developed as a major U.S. energy source, too little attention was paid to the . h need to involve State and local governments in the decisionmaking . process on facility siting and licensing. It is time to affirm that the States do have legitimate interests and competence which can make - a major contribution to sound energy policy naking. Studies conducted,
;~
by the NRC suggest that this interest and competence lies primarily . in the areas of environmental analysis and public convenience and necessity field. There appears to be a general desire on the part of State authorities to continue to rely on the Federal Go'/ernment for regulation of the radiological health and safety risks attendant upon the use of nuclear power. I believe that such a division of primary responsibility makes sense. The need for uniform treatment, and the difficulty of assembling the expert staff required in the radiological
- f:
field suggest that the Federal Government should continue its dominant f rol.e in that field. However, when non-radiological questions about the appropriateness of siting a facility at a specific location arise, the balance of interests shifts to the States and localities which !? will be primarily affected by the facility. Our specific co.Tments on E , G legislative proposals before you will further develop this approach h p (c to dividing responsibilities between State and Federal agencies. E l i 1
'6, . 0 1
l . . 6 l'A 2 :c
~
1:. The' third primary theme, which emerges naturally from the second, W g a is to emphasize that there is' an area of regulatory and licensing authority which can only be effectively exercised by the national bg: government. I have alluded to the need for uniformity and expertise p!. in dealing with radiological health and' safety issues. There may be , other areas where the State interests in advancing the concerns of. - their citizens should properly' give way before b' roader national interests. - One such ' area --' one which is likely to be extremely e roversial -- is the' area of waste management. Here we see raisea most dramatically,
~ '
the question of whether there are decisions which, no matter how 3Q Y active the State and local role in decisionmaking becomes, must finally . be made by the national government.
~
As you will no doubt have perceived, hti e three principles or - themes I have just developed are closely inter-related. The inadequacies of U.S. energy policy in the past stem in some measure from the failure to see the connections among these areas. I hope that the Congress will give due regard to each of these concepts, and their relationships, as specific legislative proposals are revie',ted and refined. The Commission endorses the concept of licensing reform, both legislative and administrative. We have recently established procedures,
- by rulemaking, for early reviews and decisions on site suitability.
The procedures enable an applicant for a construction permit to obtain d 1 binding resolution of important site-related issues well in advance of llli u W
...t..,
. . . . . . ..:r:. - ,
'"Z;
= _ . , . . , _
I any' substantial commitment of resources. The procedures also permit Ti i any person, including a State or other entity, to request an NRC h; y I review of site suitability issues. Other administrative reforms we l have adopted include: B:?
-- w::
. increased emphasis on achieving consistency and predictability
. n in licensing reviews through the issuance and use of new
=j regulations, regulatory guides, and, more recently, standard F "
W review plans; - 3 careful, staff management review of the impositirn of changes in design and construction requirements, somet fmes referred
- f. ,
', to as "ratcheting";
=#
increased emphasis on standardization of nuclear plant - designs; and development and utilization of the " limited work authorization." Still other administrative reforas tay be desirable. Options here
?I include:
procedural changes to improve the quality of license applica- 9 tions subm-itted to HRC; modifications of the NRC staff review of license applications, , including measures that would increase public awareness at ! the very earliest stage of the review process, and provide additional opportunities for public invo vement in that process; increased use of rulemaking to resolve, or assist in the ! resolution of, major issues of a generic nature, which are routinely litigated in individual licensing proceedings; . ,,.s
=+
8 r= :J
' =
5::: (5 E g . greater coordination among Federal agencies involved in the .j
,. .:s
- p licensing process, and increased attention to early resolution
[ t... of water quality issues; if
. Le .
-- furt'her use of joint hearings with States; and agreements with States covering such matters as the exchange M of data for the licensing and regulatory process. E
' Administrative steps can be productive and useful tools, but some licensing reform issues require legislative solutions. A3 we see it, two basic concepts,' both of which place heavy reliance on carly public, _
. .ae '
involvement in .the review proc'ess, should be reflected in any meaningful-legislative proposal: separate and early site reviews and decisions (up ,to .
, 5 years in advance of utility filing of a construction permit application);
and pre-reviewed and approved standardized facility designs. Early p . O site reviews and decisions should measurably aid utility planning and add needed predictability to the regulatory process as well as focus public participation at a point in the nuclear plant cycle when that participation can be most effective. Moreover, while issuance of p" a site permit by the !!RC would not pre-approve a site for anything D other than a nuclear power reactor, the fact that a site had successfully ..
. (:
withstood a thorough environmental review would be of obvious benefit if a utility later chose .to locate a power plant using a different Lk energy source (such as coal) on the site. . 5 A clear statutory framework for pre-review and approval of Hj
~
li " ' standardized piant designs, outside the confines of a particular q 1
;.. ::a x ,-
^
7-
. .., , /
l g e=+ ... v
- g;;=-
4 con's'truction permit,or operating license' application, is the second ri
'~
element. Greater use of standardized facility designs, .in addition i.!j! =;;;
. M to safety benefits', offers significant advantages of design, construc- y+ ^-
tion,. and regulatory efficiency. In those cases where both a pre- . [F 1;: approved plant design.and site are utilized, the' Commission review ' I* ' necessary prior to actual construction or operation would be limited - r
!E Er to certain carefully defined issues so that previous reviews of both E -
site and design would not be duplicated. - These two concepts are accommodated -- and accommodated well --
~
in H.R.18, developed from a legislative proposal which the fiRC formulated and transmitted to the last Congress. Several variations' of this proposal have been advanced in the past three years; however, the basic approach in all o.f them is to allow the decoupling of site. and design reviews; to make attractive (through procedural and other advantag.es) the use of both "preapproved", sites and designs; but to . allow utility use of the present regime for at least an interim
- '7:.
period. These concepts have a solid underlying practicality since they mirror real-world needs and developments, in the private sector as C uell as in government. Industry and f4RC have already made major progress in the area of standardization (some representative figures . . g
.e a are:
J T
- d
.e e
.. l
. . gs 10- @
0 17 applications for preliminary design approvals (PDA) ,_[ _. ,__=- have been received. ?" EE -
- .10 preliminary design approvels have been issued. l iE :
25 nuclear units for which construction permit applications si
; as.
~* '
referencing a PDA have been received.
. . iM.yf f.
==
15 units for. which constructi.on permits referencing- . a duplicate plant design have been received. ;
=
~"
8 nucle'ar units for which a manufacturing license ' I:: application has been received.)
]
And our Commission, as earlier indicated, has just' issued early site , review regulatior.:. , y
, . . 4 The steps proposed in H.R.18 would, when fully implemented, . .
significantly and soundly streamline the licensing process, and at the same time be.tter provide for. earlier and meaningful public parti- =_3; j cipation. In addition to encouraging and better accommodating design l standardization and early site reviews, H.R.18 embodies a number of f i other.needed reforms: T; 9
- d
!]
'1
% 'g
'i 1
;1
. L 1
[i id
-4 z.,.++- : ::::, : ::: :::::::
.11
~
^=
'- abolition of the " mandatory hearing" at the construction permit stage when no member of the public asks 'for a hearing; *
' !5
, no ACRS review when neither the ACRS nor~ the NRC ' believes
. 5 P .
that a . review is warranted; .
.(g permission, when the public interest justifies, to operate 5 a fully-cor.s tructed' plant following regulatory review but li" before completion of the public hearing;
~
, , =w giving the NRC authority to encourage license applicants to . . _
~
engage in open and advance plannin~g; giving the NRC authority to issue a combined construction permit and operating license when a final design.is submitted . at the construction permit stage. I must emphasize, however, that these. legislative proposals, while highly desirable, do not go far enough. Although they way1.d,
~ ~
when fully implemented, take NRC off the critical path of the nuclear plant cycle, they do not address two of the.more glaring deficiencies of the present overall system: the duplication in environmental reviews performed by the States and the NRC; and the lack of coordina-tion in the review processes conducted by the host of State and Federal agencies whose imprimaturs are needed before construction of a nuclear power plant can go forward. Meaningful regulatory reform must come to . ..
- .~. .:ll '
grips with these matters as well. ~
- .)
l
.a 1
. im'"
12 G This approach to nuclear licensing reform -- the esasures embodied in H.R.18, as supplemented by proposals addressing the problems of- @ p intergovernmental duplication and coordination -- sharply contrasts [:; with the approach of H.R. 882, which wc';1d suspend new nuclear power plant construction pending a five-year comprehensive study of the nuclear fuel cycle by the Office of T3chnology Assessment and consequent Congressional action on the desirability of nuclear power as a continued national energy option. In deciding between the differing approaches, the central issue is the desirability of nuclear power as a national energy option. This, the Commission has consistently identified as fundamentally a political issue, for the polit.ical branches of government -- the Congress and the Administration -- to address. From a health and safety standpoint, it is the judgment of the Commission that licensing of nuclear power plants can continue within the standards set by the Atomic Energy Act. The Commission has no basis for concluding that nuclear power plants, as licensed and regu?ated under the Atomic Energy Act, present undue risks to the i public health and safety or common defense and security. Indeed, the Atomic Energy Act places upon the Commission the responsibility to l l ensure that the risks associated with nuc' ear. power plants are accept-able, and the Commission would not license them if the information (.S. available to it did not provide reasonable assurances of public safety i l and security.
[ . . . . . o, '
.J
... 13 g y
. ?? :.1
- $.. 5 EL But'H.R. 882 speaks to broader social issues concerning the
~
g general _ citizenry, above and beyond the basic' health and safety s 7 issues the Commission addresses in its licensing < process. In consid-. e , i ering such legislation, I believe the Congress should be concerned ; h: about its perspective. While the bill addresses only the use of i
- 0.
nuclear power as an energy option, it seems far preferable to confront 3 [i D the risks and benefits gf all energy. options -- and the consequences .
'"* ~
of foregoing any one of.them. As the recently published Ford Fodd'ation report makes clear, nuclear power is not a special case; it is one of several energy options, each of which brings to the equation its own - N set of' risks and benefits. Within the subject of a national energy
= policy, _ the question of the appropriate mix among energy options is c
.w clearly a relative one, wit'h no a_ priori basis for believing the ,
nuclear option unacceptable or inevitably inferior. I would expect m the answer also to be relative. While NRC clearly favors reform for the nuclear licensing process - - we have not as yet submitted our own proposals to this Congress principally' because of studies we have under way, the recom$endations F - B~ of which would be relsvant to Commission proposals, and because of the desirability of coordinating our proposals with Administratiob initiatives taken within the broader framework of national energy policy. As regards HRC studies, last fall the Commission directed its Office of State Programs to examine the matter of regulatory [ tE activity in environmental decisionmaking and to suggest what steps could be taken to improve it. We patterned the study after section 102 H il
. . . . 6; D
= =
7 l
- .J b
of what is now H.R.18, realizing that the study was warra'nted whether or not required of us by Congress. In condacting it, we have-stressed! - @ =; State participation. From an early point, arrangements were made to work with the staff and committees of the flational' Governors' Conference. The views of numerous State officials were sought through m W + direct contact with the Governors, through exchange' of data with f regulatory offices and through two workshops held under the auspices
~
of the National Governors' Conference. The principal purpose of the workshops was to determine State attitudes and to test proposals which might be considered. On the Federal side, arrangements were macie to review f RC records 6f past efforts to improve the Federal regulatory process. Pievious studies and current efforts by Federal agencies and several Federal i Regional Commissions were examined. The purpose and scope of the . program were reviewed with other Federal. agencies at two meetings organized by the Council on Env'ironmental Quality. The Study Team has just completed a preliminary report which makes several specific recommendations. The Commission is seeking broad comment on the proposals in order to' best assess their value and impact before we .. take a position on the report's recommendations. 'The preliminary report, which we are providing for your record, proposes that Congress ? 2 authorize a revised regulatory process which considers nuclear, fossil
.q and other generation together for planning purposes. The report also s
==
6
1 i:":: ..y e it
.'s (E
)8#
recommends greatly increased emphasis on early disclosure of utility plans and multi-State planning, and proposes voluntary participation g Another key M d
.by States and combination of States in such planning.
5 :
!5 pj element suggested by the report is the acceptance by Federal agencies [g .iq h a of the State determination of tieed for power as binding on the Federal : a review process. Onder this new regime,' nuclear sites would be~ treated . y;j separately from facilities. IIEPA would be modified to allow Federal acceptance of State environmental reviews conducted under carefully con-i
! structed Federal guidelines, one of which would be to encourage the 3 s. States to adopt coordinated or single permit (one-stop) procedures.
?!RC would continue to be responsible for all . matters of radiation health ,
and safety. - h A greater level of Federal coordination would be encouraged through p q a system of coordinating councils empowered to set time limits on review schedules in public proceedings, but Federal agencies could depart from q l these schedules by making a' non-reviewable determination that compliance- :s p :. uith such schedule was not possible. The organic statutes of the parti- [ 5 I cipating agencies viculd not be altered. pai As I pointed out, the Commission is presently revie.;ing the contents b y~ l of this study and has asked for comments on it from the private and governmental sectors -- State as well as Federal. We believe that the ; groundwork laid by the study can make a valuable contribution to the d W shaping of licensing. reform legislation. This brings me to H.R. 5376 and 5377, phich would grant States the I
~:::::
'~ ' =
~
3g
- - E authofity to disapprove the construction of a nuclear facility 4
~
m h..: within its " territory, .and to impose, as a condition to its approval - a of. a facility, safety standards and requirements more stringent than
=
those required under the Atomic Energy Act. ' - fT ER - As you know, Mr. Chairman, the NRC staff has asked State 5e. representatives to coment on these proposals. At.the NRC-sponsored g , c: flational Governors' Conference workshop in December 1976, State : e. representatives generally took the position that the proposals ilere a i". c . unnecessary because States already had the legal authority to prevent the siting of individual power plants, including nuclear facilities,
' ' within their borders. The Commission was anxious to be sure that this -
opinion sample was representative. Therefore, in late March, I wrote to the Governors of all fifty States, requesting a candid and direct statement as to whether the present arrangement of exclusive Federal E ! control over nuclear power plant radiological health and safety matters should be altered. , Twenty responses have been received to date, and at this time, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would offer for the record , a sample of my March letter and copies of the responses received. . I would like to summarize the responses. Only one State (Montana) j. recommended amending the Atomic Energy Act to allow States to impose. , radiological effluent standards more stringent than those established by the Federal Government. Fourteen Governors stated that no change -
.a in the current health and safety regulatory scheme was necessary: Two i ,
believed that the Federal government should continue to set standards g ; l l
.i l
l. i .:
i 17 ' Sa
$ o=- ,
and establish an Agreement-State mechanism for State monitoring and' enforcement. Three States opted for shared Federal-State , decisions. =*
+
4 For my part, Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support an approach which would require, as a pre-condition for the issuance of an NRC
. construction permit, a determination by the State in which the facility is to be located that the plant is environmentally .
acceptable and that there is a need for the power to be generated by the plant. URC would continue to perform the assessment of ,?'x radiological impacts. - It is important to emphasize that a variety of radiological safety p requirements different than ours could have an adverse impact on our h efforts to improve the assurance of safety' and to stabilize and make more efficient the regulatory process through standardization. ~h I have already spoken to you about the safety and licensing benefits we see deriving from standardized designs. Changes in the design effected by varying and disparate State standards would inevitably impact the
/
standardization concept. Before we review a standard plant in detai), we make sure that the design pararreters used to assure protection,c against site related characteristics and the control of the release of radioactive materials are sufficient to make the design widely [L applicable. A result of the States imposing different protection N . i (.
'j
- 7.n::- .:-
y,, , - -- _ _
. 18 f.; ,
k. (i f4 requirements' than have been incorporated into a standard plant design f.j. , would be to limit the number of sitas at which the standard plant could be located. For this reason, I disagree with the proposals of both bills to permit States to impose safety standards more stringent
- than those imposed by HRC. Beyond this it is important that any measure permit necessary Federal and State reviews to be conducted in parallel, not in series, and both bills appear to envision a sequential approach which could engender unnecessary delay. 9=+:
This brings me to the final 'two bills, H.P,. 2675 and'H.R. 5369, _ dealing with State siting authority over ERDA nuclear waste facilities. The Commission believes these proposals can more appropriately be addressed in detail by ERDA witnesses. My personal view, adverted to earlier, is that certain aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle present issues of national importance and responsibility, and construction and operation of nuclear waste facilities is plainly one of them. ~ As you know, the Energy Reorganization Act gives the Commission *= licensing responsibilities over ERDA facilities which are intended to be primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes. He are working closely with ERDA for an early decision on .a
. c.
storing these wastes, a decision which I consider to be clearly. in the national interest. In this regard, I want to emphasize that my reservations about H.P,. 2675 and 5369 do not mean that I view the p States as having no role to play in the siting process for an ERDA 5 5.'
~ * . ,
39 ...= Y -
.n-(f .
.e waste facility. Land use p'anning authority and the representation -
of its citizens gives the States a significant role, and liRC intend.s e. is, that its_ procedures for licensing a proposed ERDA waste facility will [:.! E include full opportunity for a State to advance its legitimate interests. [ : r Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be . pleased to answer any questions that members of the Subcomittee ~ may have. G S
'a
.: t S
s '
, $E$a
- -)
4 f:i ig (::: [.kk l l t l E-l'-5 iSE l _ _ __ . -}}