ML20154N946
| ML20154N946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/21/1979 |
| From: | Wolf J NRC |
| To: | Surmeier J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220139 | |
| Download: ML20154N946 (3) | |
Text
.
l
.Q Q
.m r.H f*. thy uN.n u,rm. ;
e
[ 'e? L t//,p, NUCLEAa at:Gul A f:J;Y cm. */.:'nnON
}
. :.e.
-,,, n c m,. c.-
s
\\" "N'./ 4 Septcc.ber ?!, 1979
.. l NOTE TO:
Surmeier, !!!/
m FR0ft:
James R. Wo1f I!]
lu SilBJECT: C0ftfiEtlTS ON THREE llASTE MANAGE!!ErlT HILLS i
This memorandum includes my supplementary suggutions on 5.1360 and S.1521, and Senator Hart's draft bill.
The comments are keyed to correspond with
).
9 the headings in your draft Enclosure 1.
Also, the coordination des-I!
I cription should note that OELD has no legal obj:ction rt.ther than that OELD has. concurred.
- d.
1.
Add the following:
ll' i
'However, with respect to S.1521, there is a need to provide for continued exercise of the authority presently p~
vested in NRC by virtue of sections 202(1) and 202(2) of the Energy Reorganization Act."
l-II.- The observation with respect to Hart's 5202(c)(2) applies as as well to S.1521, 5202(b)(3) and (4).
We would restate the 4, l comment as follows:
"llnder present statutory authority, fmC evaluates license applications to ensure that proposed activities will not ps result in unreasonable risk to public health and safety.
V This inquiry requires us to assure that the proposed course of action involves an acceptable level of risk; we need not determine (except insofar as NEPA's requirements regarding evaluation of alternatives is concerned) that the proposed activities incorporate the best available technology, the best possible medium, etc.
NRC uould not be able to make
' findings of the latter type without engaging in a thorough "I
review of relevant R&D programs.
We would be obligated either to engage in R&D on disposal technologies ourselves g.
or, at the very least. comprehensively review the DOE R&D E
programs to assure that the technology was in fact the best.
h Not only would this vastly broaden the issues that would require. resolution in tmC rulemking or adjudicatory pro-
,;u ceedings, but it would assign both developmental and safety-y review decision-making roles to the Corr.ission - a conse-h quence which would be in conft ict with the policies under-r; l
lyinn the separation of flRP ed FDna in the Enerqv Reorq?n-
- l / a t i...) 16c t. "
M 9810220139 790921
J O
o i
- ^
John Surmof er
-2 III. The additional corcent on Hart's 4(b) should reari as follows:
"The applicable stanetards are tho':e r.ontained in the Atomic Energy Act, !!EP", and EPA regulatia%.
threovor, it is not NRC's rMe to promulgata stSndards to protect thu environ-i ment from nonradiolcl cal hn:ards.
The intention of the i
drafters coul.1 be carried out more precisely with a small change.
Specifically, the language presented...[Here pick up the remainder of the cc:r.mont as written.)"
IV.
- With respect to S.1521, we think it would be in order to raise the question whether the propos' d inquiry is appropriate for.
{
e EPA, which has standard-setting rather than implementation responsibilities.
- We are not as certah as MC that a notice-and-corrment proc?eding would comply with the requirement:, of the Hart bill.
S.1 E 1 is apparently intended to require trial-type hearings; this ont could be clarified if sec.5(b) were amended so as to reft j
.o a public proceeding "on the record."
- With respect to Hart's sec.5(a)(1), the contuent should propse i
that " unreasonable risk" he substituted for "significant risk".
not the other way around.
V.
S.1521, sec.6 contains another reference to irradiated nuclear f.uel as something other than IfLW.
Our objection to this usage
.should be repeated here or, altornatively, the point should be made at the end of the memorandum as one of general applicability.
4 I
VI.
The vagueness of S.1360's provision, that State-00E arrangements shall p
be " binding" on Federal agencies should he explored.
Suppose the State and DOE, through negotiations, agree that a repository may be t
constructed at a specified location if certain defined criteria are met and that no persons should be heard to object except with respect to the matters involving the conformance of the repository to those i
criterla; and, further, that so long as the State and DOE concurred, no inquiry by any other agency should be allowed.
While such pro-visions may be extreme, they illustrate the potential for serious problems regarding the limitations that Congress intends to place upon the Commission's regulatory authority. (Other agencies may have similar problems - e.g., with respect to the exercise of their discretion to withdraw public lands for DOE use. )
- We suggest the following rewrite for comment 2, on Senator Hart's bill.
. u,,
"The Hart bill includes a procedure whereby c Commission i
t
o Joh'n Surmeier -
licensing decision would bn twirstated in the ovent of certain President hi det.onain6 tions.
1his raises e
questions regarding the su isail Hs v." the T'. c:id:..2's daterminations and the effect tt.at thm deter.ninations might have upon the reviewaoility of tne Cuntuission's findings and conclu:,f ons.
This pe<>blem should be identified to the Congress, perhaps with the suggestionr that *.hc President's action should be nonreviewable, tut that it should have no effect whatsoever upon the rirhts of persons with standing to obtain judicial review of the Comtission's actions."
'*We woVLd edd tutf0RoMina comment No. 3 to the discussinn nf Lne H&tliT1.
"The references to ' construction permit' should be changed
! ~/~')T s
to ' construction authorir.itinn', an previously noted.
i l:. (_
Moreover, references to 'Itc(nne' r.hould not-he accor.panied
(
by the adjective ' opera tini. '
This is important because
^
the license to be issued is not one allowing operation of
- a. facility, but rather one allowing receipt and possession of nuclear material."
~
- Comment No. 3 on the l' art bill should be renumbered, and it t
should be modified so to relate to "each reference to construction i
authorization or license..."
X.
The text of comment No. 3 should be revised to read as follows:
"Except to the extent that it has been granted licensing authority, NRC has no relevant administrative enforcement powers with respect to DOE activities.
In view of this limitation, the practical consequence of the provision that t
the NRC recommendation [ order ?], shall hc 'immediately l-effective' is unclear.
3 l'
dmes R. Wo1 Attorney L
Office of g e Executive Legal Director o
6 i
s j.
y,.-.
w g
\\,s, g.n w..,
- ~ ~ ~ - - -
~ "