ML20154N068
| ML20154N068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/20/1980 |
| From: | Trubatch S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810210135 | |
| Download: ML20154N068 (5) | |
Text
--
(V1 6 V O
(/
UNITED STATES
,p' '" * ' %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ /7 j
O'w WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
Q[
August 20, 1980
(-
e t
N
- 7..
([%
!!Dt0RANDUM FOR:
Carlton Kammerer Office of Congressional Affairs NN
\\
- k I
FROM:
Sheldon L.
Trubatch h
Office of the General Counsel 8:
gg{rc
SUBJECT:
SUBSTITUTE BILLS FOR H.R. M, H.R.
6390
- v - -
AND H.R.
6865 B ;.
g wi,
, s1 L(])
Enclosed are written versions of the oral comments I provided to your office regarding these bills.
j Enclosure as stated Y
,, ~
v cc:
Guy Cunningham, ELD
( Jack Martin, NMSS
-Lee Rouse, NMSS
,, s.<~
O.-
s.
sw 7 '//1, 4390 fT6 f t
9810210135 800820
'gn, PDR COMMS NRCC i
, A>
~
o o
Substitute for H.R.
7418 As originally proposed, H.R. 7418 would have authorized the Secretary of Energy to establish without NRC licensing four demonstration repositories capable of being expanded to ultimate disposal facilities.
At the end of the demonstration. period, NRC licensing would have been required for any repository which the Secretary chose to convert to an ultimate disposal facility.
The Commission was' concerned that licensing might not be possible at
.that time because site integrity might be compromised by demonstration 2/
activities carried out without consultation by the NRC.
pv n~
The proposed substitute for H.R.
7<
8 would establish a program-clearly limited to demonstration purposes and would provide for 3
substantial NRC involvement.
Substitute H.R.
7418 would authorize the Secretary to establish four demonstration repositories which yyy MS would be no larger than necessary to demonstrate the safe disposal of high level radioactive waste.
Sect. 3 (c) (1) (A).
A maximum of 40 metric tons of radioactive waste could be emplaced in any
~
repository, but such emplacement must be performed to allow retrieval; and before emplacing the wastes the Secretary would
( h have to identify. a place certain for receiving the wastes at the end of the demonstration period.
Sections 3(c)(1)(B), 3(c)(2)(B) and (C).
Demonstration operations kop1d be required to end by the year 2000.
Section 3(c)(5).
No NRC license would be required because the Secretary would be authorized to emplace only federally owned waste resulting from unlicensed activities.
Sections 3(g) and 3(c)(2)(A).
-m However, the Commission would have a substantial consultative role.
The Secretary and Commission would be directed to enter into an agreement which would provide for LOE's submission : and NRC's review of a plan describing proposed site characterization activities, vaste form, and emplacement methodology.
Section 3 (e ) (1).
The Secretary would be directed to publish this plan, NRC comments on the plan, and a detailed statement explaining why the. plan was not revised to satisfy NRC objections, if any.
([)
Section 3 (e) (1) (B ).
In addition, the Secretary would require NRC approval before initiating excavation of a site for a demonstration repository and would have to comply with Commission requirements for engineered barriers.
Finally, the Secretary would be required to provide the NRC with safety analysis reports and afford the NRC access to demonstration repositories.
Sections 3(e)(2) and 3 (e)'( 4 ).
The Commission's recommendations regarding demonstration activities would be contained in an annual ~ report by the Secretary to Congress.
Section 3 (j ) (5).
l y
ab g
.m,,mg,.
.p.,aw y,,,,
eu-,-
r z..
r k-9.
W--
ed - +
s.
=
O O
2 This substitute for H.R.
7118 would give the Commission a substan-tial consultative role, but consistent with the lack of licensing authority, would rely on public and Congressional response to NRC -
reports to enforce NRC recommendations.
However, the bill would go beyond proposed 10 CFR Part 60 in requiring DOE to obtain explicit NRC approval before excavating a site for a demonstration repository.
This NRC approval might not trigger the hearing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 because Section
- 189a requires hearings for licensing actions and these demonstration repositories would be exempt from NRC' licensing under Section 202(4) of the~ Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
o
~~
l l
i
~
f I
J' I'
l-
o o
' Substitute for H.R.
6390 Substitute H.R.
6390 differs in.several respects from H.R.
- 6390, as amended.
The major differences are discussed below.
H.R. 6390, as amended, would establish the following federal / state concurrence procedure for a permanent repository: DOE would recommend a final repository site to the President.
The President would then approve or disapprove the Secretary's recommendation.
If the President approves,.the State Review Board established by the State-containing the site could petition Congress to disapprove i
that site.
If Congress overrides a state's objections, DOE could I
apply to NRC-for construction authorization.
The Commission noted that this procedure differs significantly from NRC recommendations because it provides for a resolution of state objections before L
the development of a complete record in an NRC proceeding, and creates the potential for undue Presidential influence on the NRC's decision by providing for his approval of a site before the initiation of an NRC proceeding.
- ()
Substitu'te H.R.
6390 addresses the issues of timing of 'possible
{
state non-concurrence by providing a State Review Board the opportunity to petition Congress for disapproval of construction after the t.RC grants DOE permission to construct.
Section 6(d)(3).
However, the potential for undue Presidential influence on the NRC decision remains in substitute H.R.
6390 because the Secretary would still require the President's approval of any site recommended for development.
Section 6(b)(3).
Substitute H.R.
6390 would provide for Presidential approval or disapproval of each repository site which the Secretary proposes to characterize.
Section 4(d).
H.R.
6390, as amended, would have required' Congressional concurrence in the sites proposed by the Secretary.
The Commission sees no obvious problems with the effect of this Congressional concurrence on the NRC's regulatory o-role.
This conclusion appears to be equally applicable to Presidential V
approval.
l l
s i
n p
p' d
'v Substituto for H.R.
6865 H.R.
6865 would authorize the Secretary of Energy to initiate a program for solidifying the high-level liquid waste at West Valley.
The Commission has supported this bill.
Substitute H.R.
6865 would significantly increase the Commission's role in any cleanup at West Valley by requiring DOE to enter into an agreement with the Commission for NRC review and consultation regarding the demonstration project, Section 2(c), and by requiring the Secre-tary to demonstrate and decommission solidification related facilities in accordance with Commission requirements.
Section 2(a)(3).
Review and consultation would include several of the elements l
discussed in Mr. Dirck's testimony of July 28, 1980.
The Secretary would be required to: (1) submit to NRC and publish in the Federal Register a comprehensive plan for solidification of waste, preparation of waste for disposal, and decontamination of solidification facilities [Section 2(c)(1), (2)]; direct that he publish any NRC comments on the DOE plan and a detailed statement explaining the f]
decision not to revise the plan to satisfy and NRC objections
[16 ) ; (3) consult with the Commission regarding the selection of x-a solidified waste form [Section 2 (C) (2)] ; (4) submit to the l
Commission safety analysis reports and any other information requested by the NRC [Section 2 (c) (3 )], and (5) afford the Commission access to monitor project activities for the purpose of assuring the public health and safety [Section 2(c)(4)].
This procedure is designed to provide public pressure for DOE compliance with NRC suggestions in the absence of direct NRC licensing authority over DOE.
One aspects of the proposed consultation appears potentially inconsistent with the NRC's previously stated position.
The Secretary, in consultation with the NRC, would be granted discretion to prescribe the solidified waste form suitable for disposal.
7"%
Section 2(a)(1) and 2(c)(2).
The Commission has stated that if
\\ /'
DOE chooses to solidify the waste in a form suitable for emplacement in a repository, then DOE must comply with the criteria in 10 CFR Part 60.
Substitute H.R. 6865 is consistent with the NRC's position only if it is understood that the Secretary's discretion is limited by the need to comply with NRC regulations regarding solidified ~ waste forms suitable for disposal.
DOE would be required to decontaminate and decommission waste solidification facilities at West Valley in accordance with NRC requirements.
Section 2(a)(3).
If this requirement is interpreted to be an extension of NRC's licensing authority, then the hearing requirements of Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 would apply.
No hearing would be required if this provision is interpreted as a separate grant of authority to NRC distinct from its existing licensing authority.
This latter interpretation appears more consistent with substitute H.R.
6865 because the bill would not affect NRC's existing licensing authority.
- See, Section 5(a).
,