ML20154N721

Testimony of W Dircks Before Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs Re Waste Mgt Decisionmaking

ML20154N721
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/28/1979
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154N706	List: ML20154N704 ML20154N721
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220071
Download: ML20154N721 (8)

Text

_ _ _ _

- TESTD10NY OF 1.1 WILLIAM J. DIRCKS, DIRECTOR

'0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERI AL SAFETY ~ AND SAFEGUARDS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE~THE COMMITTEEL ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS U.S. Il0VSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

' JUNE 28,1979 I. appreciate:the opportunity to discuss the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's- programs for public and state involvement in waste management decisionmaking. Appearing with me today is Mr. John Martin, Director of the

. . Division of Waste Management.

. ~) ,

When4 I: speak of'public participation, I mean participation by all non-cFederal: agency groups:and individuals. I will limit my discussion to high-level.

waste (HLW) as requested. I 'do- not at this time, intend to review the responsi-bilities of NRC 'for. waste management. Rather, I intend to address public

, participation in 'NRC decisionmaking, state participation in NRC decisionmaking,-

and the Commission's views on state veto.

The Commission recently submitted to the Congress a report on "Means for l Improving. State Participation in the Siting, Licensing, and Development of Federal

O Nuclear Waste' Facilities," .NUREG-0539, dated March 1979. This report covers the .

' area of state participation in depth and provides specific findings and recommen-dations'for improving this participation. Some of the points I am addressing here'are. included in this report. .

-Public Participation in'NRC Decisionmaking -

There are two ke.v points at which public participation is most important and

-affects NRC decisionmaking. The first is during development c-f regulations and

.the.second is during the licensing process.

L 9810220071 790711 P pDR c0 MMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR W 4 . . . . . . . . . , .. . . , . . .

- _ '5

w , w... = . :. _ . . = ,

=..h. m_; .

.}

.,- i

,i c]

2 Development of Regulations The public has been involved in our efforts to develop regulations. In No" ember of 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed General Statement of Policy (GSP) outlining procedures for licensing geologic disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW). At the same time, a draft rule consisting of specific requirements which would implement the pro-cedures of the General Statement of Policy was circulated to the state govern-fl V ments for their review. Comments were received on the General Statement of Policy from thirty groups and individuals. Fourteen states commented on the draft rule.

As a result of these comments and the Interagency Review Group's Report to the President, the staff has modified the' draft licens'ing procedure and is planning to forward it to the Commission ~ for approval to publish for comment in the Federal Register as a proposed rule (10 CFR 60).

In addition, the staff is planning to submit to the Commission for approval to publish for comment in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Rulemaking which describes. the status of technical criteria which will ultimately be included

.in 10 CFR 60 and identifies the staff's current thinking on important issues which l <

l have not yet been resolved. In addition to seeking early public comments on the l proposed rule via the Advanced Notice of Rulemaking, we will publish results of i

i technical work in support cf the technical criteria to be included in the rule. J Notice of this will be made in the Federal Register and comments will be requested.

Licensing Process 3

In light of comments received and further staff evaluation, the staf f will propose to the Commission licensing procedures which are somewhat different from d

, < x o o }

i

b. 4

- those outlined in the proposed General Statement of Policy sent out for comments.

~

JI wish to-stress that no Commission decision has been reached on which procedures will be adopted. . As we in the staff presently conceive it, the proposed rule will involve the NRC and the public during the actual license process in four stages as follows. -The first stage begins when DOE has formulated plans for a l

~ prospecti-ve repository to the extent that it wishes to begin subsurface characterization of a specific site or sites. At this point, DOE will be required 1 to submit a site characterization plan to NRC. The plan will address the process

] by which the media and site were selected and DOE's program for further develop-ment of alternative media and sites. At this time, NRC will notify affected I

states of this proposed action. 'The plan will be reviewed by the NRC staff with opportunity for state and public comment on both the plan and a staff analysis of

?' .

the report. It is also anticipated that the NRC will hold local public meetings in the immediate. area of the sites to be characterized. -These meetings are both p to disseminate information and to obtain public input which will' be factored

~

in'to the7 final version of the staff analysis. NRC fully expects that DOE will involve state' and local governments .in its site selection programs. We will re-quire that this involvement will be described in the site characterization plan.

4 The second stage tiegins with the submission by DOE of an application for '

l construction authorization at a particular site, At this point, several sites

-will,have been characterized from which one site will have been selected. Formal i,

licensing proceedings will begin at this stage. A licensing board will be 0- appointed and the license application and accompanying environmental report will l undergo the first review.

~

2

~

Public hearings will be held prior to deciding whether

( to' permit construction.

+

6

.. . . .J D

o The. third. stage commences with an application by DOE to receive wastes at-the repository. Although not specifically required, public hearings may be held

.and;the public wo'uld have an opportunity to participate.

The fourth stage is the closure of the repository. Once all the wastes have 1 been emplaced, an. application will be made by DOE to close the repository, and the final review of the' repository will begin. The public will have an opportunity to participate in this stage.

.It should be noted that our contacts with the states to date indicate that each state will probably have different ideas regarding the extent to which they

-desire to participate in the licensing process. Thus, the proposed rule is structured so .that each state has the flexibility to participate in the process to the. cxtent. it desires or has the capability to do so. The staff intends to develop guidance to assist the states in plannin'g' for their participation.

State , Participation i.i ...:C ' Decisionmaking In coordination with the Office of State Programs, for the past two years my office lias bad an active prograr to bring about greater state participation in waste management decisionmaking and to exchany ideas with state officials.

We

-have participated in state legislative and administrative hearings and meetings on waste management and have sponsored a series of three regione.? workshops in September 1977 'to solicit ideas from state offi'cials on siting and licpnsing of high-level waste repositories. The workshops were attended by 170 state executives and legislators from 46 states. I would like to provide for the record the documents resulting from these workshops. A smaller meeting was held in Atlanta, Georgia;in January 1979 to discuss with state representatives means for improving state participation in siting, licensing and development of waste disposal facilities.

b m

i I

O O i

. .In addition,' based on the draft procedures, and in response to a report from i

the State of New Mexico we started discussions with the state to reach an agree- l l

ment on how New Mexico would participate in a review of the Waste Isolation Pilot 1

Plant in the event DOE submits an application to NRC and NRC has authority to l l

regulate the facility. As some first steps in establishing that relationship, l we have been exploring with the state agencies concrete ways in which the state can interact wit'h NRC. Some of the ways states can participate which are being explored with New Mexico could also be applicable to state participation on n

l 0 ,licensir.g of a high-level waste repository.

For example:

j. -

States could participate,in regulatory development especially in reviewing the basis of our regulations.

Stat'es could assist NRC in the review of specific portions of license appli:ations.

States could perform other technical assistance work, particularly -

in ,the area of environmental studies.

- States could perform environmental and radiation monitoring throughout

(') the operational period and after closure.

j~ -

States could participate by assignment of state employees to NRC or -

NRC contractors or by using an NRC employee on assignment to the state during the licensing process. *

( In summary, states will be provided with the opportunity to participate in the licensing process. As recommended in NUREG-0539, Federal funding should be provided to assist the states. I should like to note that legislation would be required to authorize NRC 'to provide such funding.

^

O o .

- - Commission Views"o'n State Veto ,

I have already noted that the Commission believes it appropriate to give

' statutory recognition to the-legitimate concerns of states in which waste facilities maybe located.

The Commission'made several recommendations in NUREG-0539 for legislation

. to improv.e the capabilities for improved state participation in the Federal ' waste management program should provide ~ additional recognition of ' state concerns. The recommendations requiring legislation include: (1) establishment of a Federally

. financed planning council composed of Federal and state officlas, (2) Federal

. funding of an independent technical review capability under the direction of the

. planning . council, and (3) establishment of a Federal grant program to allow host

^

states.;to participate more fully in the Federal waste management program.

' ~ '

.Up to this point, I have described Gays ~ that states might participate as active members in the process of siting and licensing nuclear waste facilities.

When we come-t.o the question of' concurrenc'e or veto, the issue becomes much more compl ex. 'In the Commission's NUREG-0E39 report, a number of factors bearing on-this questio'n are . identified- l

-1. The practical consequences of failure to achieve concurrence. Would this require a complete halt to the process at the time of the non

• concurrence? Or would activities of siting, licensing and development t be' allowed to continue pending resolution of the state's concsrn?

2. The' grounds on which a non-concurrence is made. The procedure might allow an interested state to exercise a veto without any reasons at y all or. the procedure might require a ftate to base its actions, using the record of the Commission's proceedings, on its determination 5that specific environmental or safety concerns have been violated.

( [ #4~~

L, x ,, .. . <

0

~

_3. .

The form in which a state might' invoke a veto. Should it be on the '

action of the: Governor, the legislature or some other body within l-l the state?.  ;

L. 4. .

The point- at which the veto might be invoked. We would prefer that tne NRC . licensing review .be allowed to run its course in an orderly

'and untrammeled manner. This process is designed to provide for  ;

1 .

extensive state participation and we feel that it should not be interrupted as a result of a state veto. Thus, if a state veto were I to be allowed we believe that such a veto should only occur after the l

O nRC hes essemb,ed a fully. developed factual record and a statement of the Commission's conclusions. Such a record would then be available and. could'be used in the resolution of the remaining differences.

.~ 1

. 5.':The authority to' resolve the~ differences. A veto provision should  !

H

. include'a means to resolve differences between an affected state and Fedsral agencias concerned. This might take the form of action on

.the part of Congress or a Congressional Committee.

, 6. The extent to which a-decision2 other than that of the Commission O.

wou,d be sob 3ect to review. .

.In summary, we believe that, if provision for a state veto were to be made, j that provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the circums'tances under which the veto can be exercised. This should include rer.uiring the state to exercise all reasonable means to resolve its difficulties.

t g .

• o .

b

.: l; . . .

Q) U,, l I

8- l 1

In closing, the NRC's high-level waste program is an evolving one. We recognize that there are unresolved issues in how to best achieve public involvement and will continue to explore additional ways to increase the productive involvement of the public and the state in the licensing and .

resulatory process. 4 l

l 1

J l

+

0 O

i I

I 1

l

)

l l

i I

).

l

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

i-

.~ . -

. . .lu , ...

D ATE OF DOCUMENT D ATE RECElVED , 'J E D A T E,5 REVISED DUE D ATE C *LETION D AT E CONTROL NUMBER

~ Su 07 11 79' 07 13 79 07 9 79 791016 OFFICE AS$1GNED N AME OF ORIGIN ATOR AND OFFICE

\M Rehn ' T ED0 REFERRED TO DESCRIPTION lleno to Commission fu CKmourer dtd 07/11/79"Udall Costittes Hearing on State Participation in Waste Licensing Process - prepare insert for record

. TR ANSITION TYPE (Code Option)

1. Add new items -

2. Delete items

3. Change item date

4. Update item status REMARKS W h7 i (close out)

L

5. Revised due date

s. correct item status } , dip _  !

r D13T R IB U TIO N l , -

. hs

?

ORM 300 U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WORK ITEM TR ACKING SYSTEM (WITS, N MSS) ,

! r ,1 '

t. .

~

1 l i 1

1 l

0 5

i I

i 4

4 9 .** .- r - - -e 1 ,. g . -~a . ..-- _ m g- yv .m