ML20154N299

Forwards Comments & Specific Suggestions for Possible Changes in HR 7418 to Bring Into Conformance with Basic Regulatory Framework in Commission Proposed Part 60

ML20154N299
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/03/1980
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Mccormack M HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY
Shared Package
ML20154N253	List: ML20154N247 ML20154N299 ML20154N304
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810210244
Download: ML20154N299 (5)

Text

IS@c N.5 M.. S:2..i M;.@5 56-S A_ P [ ~ 4 6. 3.5 4 5 M N $. $ ' I. N N ' ~

~,g*,[."....

I

......* /.." '.

w.

.s.

..a.....

..;.... u..

o,,

'7-

,, f.....

.. q-}._

..g g.

UNITED STATES

[

g -..

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

F WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

.+

'+-

June 3, 1980

.g The Honorable Mike McCormack, Ch'ainnan

~..

l Subcomittee on Energy Resuarch and Production Comittee on Science and Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 2051S imU

Dear Mr. Chainnan:

In connection with the Subcomittee's recent hearings, your staff has asked that the NRC provide specific recommendations and coments on H.R. 7418 prior to the Subcomittee's scheduled mark-up today.

Accordingly, I am enclosing staff coments and specific suggestions for possible changes in H.R. 7418 to bring it into conformance with the basic ragulatory framework in the Comission's proposed Part 60.

This is the approach recommended by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety ~ and Safeguards, which prepared the enclosed coments.

It should be noted that, because of the shortness of time available, it has not been possible to obtain review and coments by other staff offices within the NRC nor from the Comissioners themselves, n

I am also enclosing for the record the answer to a question submitted V

to Mr. Davis.

Sincerely, y

1. A$w W Carlton Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: - Rep. John t!. Wydler 9810210244 800605 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

/hc/ofogf" 3,

. E r2 Due s

y (j

.- /,.

SPECIFIC STAFF SUGGESTIONS TO H.R. 7418 1.

Change Section 2(a)(2)' to read as follows:

"Present scientific and technical knowledge is adequate to identi'fy potential repository sites for further investigation.

No scientific or technical reason is known that would prevent identifying a site that is suitable for a repository provided that the systems view is utilized rigorously to evaluate the suitability of sites and designs and in minimizing the influences of future human activities."

2 Change Section 2(3).p. 3 line 4, 5 and 6 to read as follows:

... necessary for the Department to build and operate full-scale high-level radioactive waste repositories oursuant to section 202(3) and (4) of the C)

Enercy Recreanization Act of 1974; and" v

3.

Change Section 3(1) p. 3 (delete lines 20-24) to read as follows:

... United States.

After site screening and prior to site characterization, the Secretary shall select 4 sites for site characterization, deemed suitable for further development into demonstration repositories after having submitted a pre-licensing Site Characterization Report for each prospective technology-demonstration repository to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (hereafter referred to as the " Director") of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereafter referred to as the " Commission").

This site characterization report shall include (1) a description of the site (s) to be characterized; (2) a description of the site characterization program including extent of planned excavations, plans for in-situ testing of radioactive and non-radioactive material, investigation activities which may affect the ability of fT the site to isolate wastes, and ' provisions to control any adverse, safety-

'd related impacts from site characterization including appropriate quality assurance programs; (3) the criteria used to arrive at candidate areas; (4) the method by which the site (s) was selected for site characterization; (5) identification and location of alternative media and sites on which DOE antici-pates submitting subsequent site characterization reports; (6) a description of the decision process by.which the site (s) was selected for characterization, including the means used to obtain public and State reviews during selection; and (7) any issues related to the site selection, alternative candidate areas or sites, or design of the geologic repository operation area which the Secretary wishes the Commission staff to review.

This site characterization review by the Commission will help insure that the technology-demonstration repositories could be licensed if one or more were deemed suitable for future full-scale licensed repositories.

For purposes of minimizing delays in th2 4

Change Section 3(1) p. 4 (delete lines 6-12) to read as follows:

... involved shall be isolated from the biosphere using a multibarrier approach to waste containment that will consist of both the geological medium and engineered barriers.

The Secretary shall develop a program to provide:

[.:

O.g O..

h..

j.

2:

'(a) a reasonable as:urance that the degree of

• stability exhibited by the geologic environment at present will not significantly decrease over the long term; (b) a reasonable assurance that the site exhibits properties which promote isolation and that their capability to inhibit the migration of radionuclides will not significantly decrease over the long term and (c) a ' reasonable assurance that the hydrologic and. geochemical properties of the

' host rock and surrounding confining units will ' provide radionuclide travel times to the accessible environment of at least 1,000 years assuming er.pected processes and events. The locations of the first two sites shall be identified not.later than the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 1982 and the third 1.

and. fourth sites' by thei end:of..fiiscaldyiear 1984." -

~ ~ -

.t.-

L :... -

5.

Change Section 3(2).pa-5-(delete lines,_6-12) to read as follows:.

e

. and. development ac'~iv~itiss' to characterize the geologic media interaction s

t with the engineered barriers required for eventual licensing of a full scale high-level waste repository and to demonstrate the safe disposal of wastes, taking into consideration the necessary handling, engineering, space, con-figurations, and. heat dissipation of such wastes.

Each repository shall be designed with a capacity that limits. the number of full-size radioactive waste cani.sters to the " size" required for the specific research and development ---

activity ;to' be~ performed as pre ~sented in,the site characterization report pursuant. to. pa ragr,aph- (1);. -These canisters..."

. n....

'~

1

.au 6..

Ch'ange Section 3(3) p. 6 (delete lines 1-4) to read as follows:

.. a

'~

."... but not limited to. vitrification. 'The Secretary shall consult with the Commission on the. appropriateness of the waste form and overpack canister

'Q design pursuant to the site characterization report in paragraph (1).

Such barriers shall be design to...."

.: r 3

7.

Change Section 3(4.)~ p. 6 (delete line 21) to read as follows:

~

..~. to b'e sited in each~ State.

In addition, the Commission also is encouraged to consult and-coordinate with appropriate State officials regarding the site characterization activities pursuant to paragraph (1) of the technolocy demonstration repositories which are planned to be sited in each State."

~~

}.,..

^

~ 8.-

Change Section 3(5.) p. 6 (delete lines 22-25) to read as follows:

. r.es.

.:: m :. r "i.)

Corisistent with existing law, all demonstration facilities authorized in this section shall be constructed and operate as non-licensed research, e

deveiopment, and demonstration facilities.

However, with respect to the activities. described in this section the Commission, pursuant to regulation or

. order, may require the Department to provide full and current information, may require the Department to respond to comments and questions, and may make visits

,_c x

~

()

~

O i

3-

\\

and observations wherever_such activities may be conducted, to the extent necessary to identify and assess issues' that may be relevant if the technology demonstration repositories are to be converted to licensed full scale repositories in order to exercise its licensing authority under section 202(3) or (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; provided that the Commission shall.not. require a hearing on the record with respect to the exercise of its authority under this sect. ion."

~

9.

Add new Section 3(6) at bottom'oflp. 6.:

M_:i....:=........

. i

+ u, n "The Secretary shall be~ provided the Tiecessary resources to address the i

legitimate concerns of the Comission pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (5) in i

order to assure that a full scale licensed waste repositories will be available at the earliest practicable; time." - -

p q

l i

- e

+

~

z. - -

~

j

-1

~

.(.)

4 9

4 e e e

g 8

4

.W 9

'fsj3,gg.

Q l

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD i

9

.J'.

QUESTION:

?.C *:'~ -

What'is tha difference.between the small R&D facilities mentioned on page 2 of Davis' testimony and the demonstration facility mentioned in H.R. 74187 i

)

l ANSWER:

a.

In the testimony, the phrase'"small research and development facilities,"

intentionally was.not-quantitative.. It was intended to conveyithe Commission's belief that any unlicensed research~and development facility of DOE should be L

limited to the minimum ^ size ~t' chnically necissary for the conduct of the research e

or development.

Thii~" size" may. vary with the research or development to be l

undertaken and the NRC b61ieves it'is unnecessary and, perhaps, unwise to specify L - O a quantitative value generally applicable to such facilities.

The NRC believes that the " smallness" of the activity should demonstrate, on its face, that the l

' purpose of the facility is research and. development, not full-scale activity.

In the case of H.R. 7418, the NRC did not initially comment o_n the quantity of i

waste nor the form of waste to be used in the demonstration since the NRC L,

believed the Bill to have more basic differences from the developing national

' program.

j 1

I l

O 4

i i

4 9

pc.r ' f ?'

• a c

_