ML20154P148

Submits Comments on Amend 646 to S.1521, National Nuclear Waste Regulation & Control Act of 1979

ML20154P148
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/14/1980
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220223
Download: ML20154P148 (14)

Text

r7

+

a

, *< t qv l

s a

JN]

[

%{

'g gg

. DISTRIBUTION EDO 7883-i WMPI r/f

-HDenton:

' gbject File HShapar WM r/f -

ED0 r/f-

'NMSS r/f.

OCA

, g H jdg{;

J0 Bunting NGill

(

JSurmeier Eleins l

REBrowning GErtter

)

'JBMartin RJaske WJDircks 1

!"EMORAMDUT FOR: Leonard Bickwit

~LVGossick-General Counsel Smith

~

TRehm FR0":

William J. Dircks, Director -

RRyan l

Office of t1uclear Material Safety and Safeguards e

SHRJECT:

CO*ENTS ON Af1ENDMENT 646 TO S.1521:

?!ATIONAL f!UCLEAR

k%STE REGULATION AND C0tITPOL ACT OF 1979

~

l

~ Dursuant-to the request:from Fr. Sheldon Trubatch of your Office, we have

.-prepared additional'connents on the above' stated subject. With two excep--

tions, Senator Hart's Amendment 646 is identical to the draft Bill on which the imC staff provided its views as reflected in'my menorandon to Pr..Trubatch, dated September 29, 1979: -(1) Senator Hart's Amendment would extend the,

Commission's licensing authority over all DOE waste disposal and non-short-term storage facilities; and (2) Section 6 of Amendrent 646 has established s

-the deadline of 1992 for the Commission to act on~ a construction application Lfron DOE instead of the 1984 deadline used in the Septenber. draft of Senator-Hart's bill' at which timo DOE was to have~ submitted two repository applications.

. The Office 'of State Programs-has concurred and.tha 0ffice of the Executive Legal Director has informed us that they will no longer perform legal review -

of tills such as Amendment' 646 to S.1521.

t gped) Vi@.

'41111am J. Dircks, Director '

j Office of Unclear "aterial Safety

)

and Safeguards

Enclosures:

~

roments on Amendment 646

-to S.1521 l

9810220223 800114 i

PDR ORG NOMAPDR i

• See previous yellow for concurrences.

}

j l

r?

.,,,k,

• WHPI'

• WMPI

• SP

• WM

• W!1 NMSS-

~*'""""""

' /11/.80

..J,S,ume.i e.r.;pr L~J0 Bunting,,,,,,,,,R,J a s,ke,,,,,,,,

,REBrowning

,,JB Ma rti n"*". ){JDircks 1

4

.-a==>

....... /{/ B0,,,,,l l

TT

........./. 8 0 1/ /80 1/

...../...../. 80 1

....1./.../../.8. 0.........

... 1/.. /. 80.....

l o

-c -. < --

+...:.................-...,............

.y

4

~..

n

=.,,.

,r g

y y

.A.

gy qg i

CD?^'ENTS ON AMEUD"FNT 646 to S.1521 I.

EXTF"SIO!! 0F MRC LICENSING AUTH091TY OVER 00E HASTE FACILITIFS Senator !! art's amendment would extend the Comission's licensing authority over DOE facilities used to store the types of waste enumerated above.

!!owever, facilities for the exclusive use of short-term storage of nilitary wastes would he subject to a DOE /NRC consultation and concurrence procedure which includes Congressional resolution of agency differences. The Bill also establishes a similiar " consultation and concurrence" mechanism for up:1rading existing DOE storage ' facilities.

In its testimony before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Pequlation, the Comission reaffirmed its two recommendations regarding the Commission's regulatory authority over POE waste facilities:

4 l

1.

f'?C licensing autbority should be extended to cover all new DOE facilities for the disposal of TN! waste and non-defense LL9; and l

2.

A pilot program, focused on a few specific DOE waste management activities, should be~ established to test the feasiblity of extending NRC regulatory authority on a consultative basis to DOE waste managenert activities not now covered by Np.C's' licensing authority or its extension as reconnended above.

i Thus, Amendment 646 would go far beyond the Comission's current position regarding extension of its licensing authority.

\\

I

\\

II. NASTF FACILITY LICFNSIFC STANDARDS k

l Licensirq standards, such as the one provided in Section 202(c)(1), that

~

I require a vaste disposal facility to present no significant hazard to the public health and safety or the environment are compatible with those in our proposed high-level waste ranagement regulation. This type of provision 1s general but still provides strong nuidance to the Connission in the licensing procedures.

i

.The staff, hovever, has concern o'ver the use of licensina standards that are cast in absolute terns. Absolute standards are difficult to handle when in regulations or legislation. The term "best available technology and medinn" J

contained in both S.1521 (Section 202(b)(3) and (O Amendnent 646, cection 1

20?(c)(2)) is both absolute and apenended and would he very difficult to resolve in a licensing proceeding.

Technology is always improving. uhat is "best" in 19M nay not 5e best for very long. Wile "best" usually means j

the rest expensive it is,not necessarily the nost effective alternativ'n to l

l

- = *

.va=== >

Em LOS!!Pr uve >

M b 518 (p.76) MRos 9244

• v.s. *

• v s a am m a? *a 'a t'a * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * *

',e r

v 2

-neet a given objective.

For example, this could mean that low-level wastes would be required to be disposed of in a manner identical to that of high-level wastes even though the public's health and safety and environment could-

he p otected with a significantly less costly technological alternative.

. addition,- the use of. the tem "best available technology" would negate any In.-

possible balancing ~ hetween such other factors as risk to public, socioe.conomic considerations, acceptance'of the site location by the public, and even the potential value.of undeiground nineral resources.

4 As a result, the staff reconcends that all of the absolute-licensing standards contained in Amended Section 202(c) and elsewhere in Amendement 64 deleted.-

~

The Commission must evaluate the 00E waste management plans and recommend any remedial. actions within one year of. their submissions. 'The staff con-siders that one year.may be an insufficient time in order to allow for any possible adjudicatory hearings and preparation of any environmental impact statements.

Except to the extent.that it has been granted licensing, authority, NRC has no relevant administrat've enforcement powers with respect to DOE activities.

In view of this limitation, the. practical consequence of the provision that the fmc recommendation [ order?], shall be "innediately effective" is unclear i

-III.

ALTERNATIVE FACILITY SITES The staff concurs with the sunmary and analysis on the above stated subject September 7, 1979. presented in the Sheldon Truhatch nemorandum to Mr. Droqgit The tem " construction pemit," used in this Section 3, as well as elsewhere Act of 1954, as anended, for production and utilization fa

" construction authorization" should be used for waste facilities.

The tem There' is considerable confusion resulting from the inclusion of low-level wastes and high-level wastes on page 2 Subsequent Sections do not always specify their applicability.

For excaple, the Section " alternative site of high-level wastes. applications" follows the current. discussions pertaining t However, as written, it would appear to cover lou-level wastes as well.

Furthomore, this Sectinn establishes by statute that all 8

future repository applications must include three geolnoic nedia.

geologic disposal is clearly the nost prmising candidate, it is also theAlthough nost studied candidate.

The P,ill would annaar to nrac1* 81+a-wh J wed opuons anc, therefor ?, obviate the j

.me& unnes.t..the..f.tllowinc chann need to study alternatives, n

....... ~. - - ~ ~

~~~ ~~-~~-

~ - -

meau m o.m meu me

• " = " " " " ' " " ' " ' " " " " " " ' ' " " " ' "

• 1

__m

~%4 Mph g

3 1.

Page 7, line 13, following the word "shall," insert the phrase ",for each hiqb-level waste geologic repository."

1 IV. STANDARDS A?!D REGULATIONS Section 4(b) of Amendment 646 requires that the Commission promulgate standards and requirements to evaluate alternatives that will protect the pihlic health, safety, or the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with permanent respository disposal of high-level radio-active waste.

The staff believes that the applicable standards should be those contained in the Atomic Energy Act, MEpA, and EPA regulations. Moreover, it is not NPC's role to pronulqate standards to protect the environment from nonradiological hazards as provided. The intention of the drafters could be carried out more precisely with a small change. Specifically, the language presented on line 16 (beginning with the word " standards") through the word "with" of line'lo should be replaced with the following:

" technical criteria which it will apply in reviewing, under the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA, an application for the..."

If the provision in Section 4(c) of Amendment 646 concerning January 1,1984 date were changed from " construction permit" to " site characterization plans," the staff believes that all dates specified in Section 4 would be achievabic under present licensing standards. That is, the Connission would publish the high-level waste management regulation (10CFR60) by January 1,1982; DOE uould be capable of subnitting site characterization plans in each of two or more States. by January 1,19M; and the Comission should be able to act on a DOE construction authorization application by January 1, 1992. However, it should be noted that if current language in Section 20?(c)

"best available technology" and Section 3(c) " construction nemits" are i

retained, we do not believe these dates could be net.

V.

C0f*ISSID'l MASTE LICE!!SIfm ASSFSSFFNT Section 5 of Amendment 646 directs the Connission to detemine whether technolony exists for high-level waste disposal.

This deadline is January 1, 1995. A negative detemination would trigger a licensing moratorium on reactor licensing.

The proposed proceeding would overlap the generic proceeding already underway by the Comission to roastess the degree of assurance now available that radioactive waste produced by nuclear facilities can be safely disposed of, to detemine when such disposal will be available, and vbetFer such

. wastes can be safely stored until they are safely disposed of.

l

~

. ~. *

===>

Nm o.m wacu aus

• u..... === av.- = =. m..i..........

w A

g%gp:

4ag g

%Qg

+

e l

e 4

l The significant difference between the proceeding in the Hart Amendment and the Conr11ssion Confidence proceeding is when the technology to dispose of radioactive wastes is detemined to exist. Under Amendraent HS, the detemination 4*

must be made that the technology exists on or before 1985 In contrast, in the NRC Confidence Rulemaking the Comission will detemine if there is reasonable s. assurance that a suitable technology will exist at the time it is actually

' needed for off-site disposal of reactor radioactive wastes.

The-staff is not sure that sufficient infomation will be available by 1985 l

to make a determination that technology actually. exists. This.is one reason a four stage, licensing process was developed for high-level waste management regulation. _ At each state of the procedure -- starting with the site characterization in several geologic media -- the tRC will make a i

detemination as to whether we have sufficient confidence to proceed to the next step.

f There is another reason the staff questions a proceeding in which the Comnission l

tmast nake a detemination on whether technology exists before imC has either ^

received or-acted upon an application for construction of a waste repository.

If the Conmission makes _a confidence determination, say in 19AS, that a suitable technology exists, this action would linit the !!PC staff from making an objective review of alternative technologies in a 00F application to be submitted sometime in 1937.

Tor the above reasons the staff reconnends that' the " existing technology" confidence provisions in the Bill be deleted.

VI. COMMISSION ORDEDS REGAnnifR WASTE GENFRATION l

Section 6 of Amendment 646 requires the Commission to order a reduction of maximum' allowed facility capacity by ten percent for every year after the j

deadlines for the Comission to act on a construction application from DOE j

(1992) or NPC findings of availablity of disposal technolooy (1985).

1 As discussed earlier, the present time schedule should provide an answer to l

whether technology exists to build a neologic repository by the early 1990's.

l VII. STATE PARTICIPATION 1

The staff continues to believe that it is arnropriate to give r.tatutory recognition to the legitimate concerns of States in Sich waste facilities may be located. However, if a veto concept is n'andated by legislation, it is i

recomended that specific criteria he 3rovided. The staff believes that

~ construction authorization and opera' nq license decisions should be. based on s t< cono imp ca l easin111ty, heutn and sate + y provisions, and Protect 1r n of the m c= w :t.1ranment..;..Ta..authnr.1:n..a.. ;.t.ntn...veta.uithaut..socc.f.fy.1 :n..thc..ntonnW...on...............

jd ich the veto < ill be based ' caves open tt e possibility that technict lly s6Y6W"sM"surd""Tsii5sN1"TWEiTTfEs".FrBurd"H'rV."bE";iFFF5VH'd

...v.*

~

anc-seau m m mcu em

• y...

at -

~ = =** n a

\\[

c-

' WMgggg,

'"#Qn U%

73%g y

o e

e 5

With exception of the Offico of State Programs, the staff recomends that such veto power be permitted only at the construction authorization stage after several sites have been fully characterized. This would mean that it would be late enough in'the development process to be based on meaningful i

information, but early enough so that large expenditures of resources will i

not have been committed by the federal governnent.

In a minority view, OSp recomends a fomal early site review and approval process similar to that for reactors, as an alternative to the case-by-case approach of S. 1521.

OSP considers that this would allow states to participate fully in the siting decision in advance of the full financial comitment to a specific repository construction program. Along the same line of reasoning, a state veto of an early site review action may, in the opinion of OSP have merit; but OSP sees no nerit' in a state veto late in the licensing action when a comitment to a construction program is made.

Furthemore, OSP remains concerned that the continuation of the case-by-case approach suggested by PtmEG 0539 and built into S. l'i21 would compromise participation by states in the State Planning Council proposed by DDE and IRG. OSP believes that a programatic approach in which states participate in the program plan would nean that t!RC would not have to create alternatives for every possible licensing action.

Section 7(c) includes a procedure whereby a Comission licensing decision would be reinstated in the event of certain presidential deteminations.

" This ~ raises. questions regarding the reviewability of the President's deter-minations and the offect that those deteminations might have upon the reviewability of the Comission's findings and conclusions.

This problem (

should be identified to the Congress, perhaps with the suggestion that the President's action should be nonreviewable, but that it shoul.d have no effect whatsoever upon the rights of persons to obtain judicial review

,3

's of the Comission's actions.

The reference to " construction pemit" should be changed to " construction authorization", as previosly noted. *oreover, references to " license" should not be accompanied by the adjective " operating." This is important because' the license to be issued is not one allowing operation of a #acility, but rather one allowing receipt and posession of nuclear material.

i The following clarifyino language should be added at the end of Section 7:

"As used in this Section each reference to Construction Authorfration or license shall also include any amendnents thereto."

orm.w

---

l~

.. w m.n m,,,

+.

mqng$;..

ntwwyry

~

N "S %#'QA,

"Yd #

s l

6

~

.VIII. LICENSI610 0F At!AY-FROM-REACTOR STORAGr i

)

. Section 8 would prohibit the Comission from licensing any fact 11ty of the,

DOE.for the temporary away-from-reactor storage of connercially generated nuclear reactor. The intent of this provision is not clear to us.

Is.it intended that DOE should not construct such facilities or, that if constructed they should not be licensed? Perhaps it is intended that such facilities, if needed, he constructed by private industry and licensed by t'RC? This section needs to be~ clarified so that the intent'is cicar. The Comission believes i

that away from' reactor storage facilities should be licensed.

IX. EPA WASTE-REGULATIONS l

The staff concurs with the 00C summary and' analysis on the above stated i

subject.

l l

i

( i:

L

(.

f.

B l

I

' enenssaans>

marsk

................,......................4...

BBC M3RM She (p.76) Nem 0240

• u.a. eevennesess, peess, eses encion iese - see rse'

~

I j' _

DISTRIBUTION ED0 7883 WMPI r/f Shapar Subject File D0 r/f WM r/f OCA k

NMSS r/f NGill L

RMacDouga Eleins JOBunti GErtter REBro ing RJaske MEMORANDUM FOR: Leondard Bickwit JBMa in Myrmeler I

General Counsel WJ rcks FROM:

William J. Dircks, Director mi Office of Huc1 car Material Safety Rehm and Safeguards RRyan C0tEENTS ON AMENDMENT 646 TO 6 152b '"fM IONAL HUCL

SUBJECT:

WASTE REGULATION AND COHTRO ACT OF 1979 Pursuant to the request from Mr. Sheldo Trubatch of your Office, we have prepared additional comments on the a ve stated subject. With two excep-tions, Senator Hart's Amendment 646 identical to the draft Bill on which the NRC staff provided its views a reflected in my memorandum to fir. Trubatch, dated September 29, 1979:

(1) Se tor Hart!s Amendment would extend the -

Connission's licensing authorit over all DOE waste disposal and non-short-term storage facilities; and Section 6 of Amendment 646 has established the deadline of 1992 for the orsnission to act on a construction application from DOE instead of the 198 deadline used in the September draft of Senator Hart's bill at which time OE was to have submitted two repository applications.

The Office of State Pr rams has concurred and the Offico of the Executive Legal Director has i onned us that they will no longer perform legal review of Bills such as 'Am idment 646 to S.1521.

F William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 1

,X

/

\\

l Encl ures:

/

Cort ents on Amendment 646 f,

o S.1521

/

/

,/

/

1 G>m 92 h5u r m ete.r ll YWO s, jV' p

e.t...............W..!.1.P..I..O...........

.....1...........[..... M W

N!1SS wac....

1pr)._,,a0B unt,1ng ske REB wning n

,g

..,,,,,,f,.,,/ 8 0

,,,1f,,f80,,,, '

...1../. 4../. 8. 0..........

...1/.//.../.80 1/

...../.2 /.80 1/

0 1

mc som m mm mcw.m

~

,y n

l

%gg g

s CO*FMTS ON AUFNDMFMT 646 to S.1521 l

7 7

g

>./

f f.

EXTFNSION OF ?>9C LICENSIf3G AUTHORITY OVFP DOE PASTE FACILITIES l

Senator Mart's a endment would extend the Comission's licensing authority l

over DOE facilities used to store the types of waste enmerated above.

l However, facilities for the exclusive use of short-term storage of'nflitary wastes would be subject to a DOE /N90 consultation and concurrence procedure which includes Congressional resolution of agency differences. The Bill also establishes a similiar " consultation and concurrence" mechanism for upgrading existing DOE storage facilities.

The Comission's report on Regulation of Federal Vaste Activities (t'UREG-0527) rade the following two recommendations for extending the Comission's regulatory authority over DOE waste facilities':

1.

int licensing authority should be extended to cover all new DOE facilities for the disposal of TRU waste and non-defense LLW; and j

2.

A pilot program, focused on a few specific DOE waste nanagtnent activities, should be established to test the feasiblity of extendinq l

NRC regulatory authority on a consultative basis to DOE waste managenent activities not now covered by ?!RC's licensing authority or l

fts extension as recomended above.

Thus, Amendnent 646 would go far beyond the Comission's current position l

regarding extension of its licensing authority. The staff supports the Comission' current position.

II. WASTF FACILITY LICEMSIM STAMDAODS Licensing standards, such as the one provided in Section 202(c)(1), that require a waste disposal facility to present no significant hazard to the public health and safety or the environment are compatible with those in our proposed high-level vaste nanagment regulation.. This type of provision is general but still provides strong guidance to the Comission in the licensing procedures.

The staff, however, has concern over the use of-licensing standards that are cast in aSsolute terms.

Absolute standards are. difficult to bandle den in regulations or legislation. De tern "best available technology and meditn" contained in both S.1521 (Section ?02(b)(3) and (4) Amendment 646, Section 202(c)(?)) is both absolute and openanded and would be very difficult to j

resolve in a licensing proceeding. Technoloay is always improving. tMat i

-+ u w +

~,,-,,is,,,,

iuin %on,, e,,,1 1.,,,,, s 4

%,+= 4m

,an.

,,,,,4 h most expensd ve it is not necessarily th ! most effecti ve alternativ ! to j

........L.......

==>

) YM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240

• u.s. eovaan===v raiariae on ics s e se - se se e rpf[O 9 t ta '*

-g :g 2

l t

meet a given objective.

For example, this could mean that low-level wastes would be required to be disposed of in a manner identical to that of high-level wastes even though the public's health and safety and environment could l

l be protected with-a significantly less costly technological alternative.

In addition, the use of the term "best available technology" would negate any possible balancing between such other factors as risk to public, socioeconomic considerations, acceptance of the site location by the public, and even the potential value of underground mineral resources.

In addition, under present statutory authority, NRC evaluates license applications to ensure that proposed activities will not result in unreason-able risk to public. health and safety. 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 evalua-tion of alternatives is concerned) that the proposed activities incorporate the best available technology, the best possible medium, etc. NRC vould not l

l 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 a comprehensive R&D program on all disposal technologies ourselves or, at the l

very least, comprehensively review the DOE R&D programs to assure that the i

technology was in fact the best. Not only would this vastly broaden the I

issues that would require resolution in NRC rulemaking or adjudicatory pro-ceedings, but it would assign both developmental and safety-review decision-making roles -to the Comission - a consequence which would be in conflict with the policies underlying the separation of NRC and ERDA in the Energy Reorganization Act.

I As a result, the staff recomends that all of the absolute licensing standards contained in Amended Section 202(c) and elsewhere in Amendement 646 be l

deleted.

The Comission must evaluate the DOE waste management plans and recomend any remedial actions within one year of their submissions. The staff con-i siders that one year nay be an insufficient time in order to allow for any possible adjudicatory hearings and preparation of any environmental impact statements. Furthermore, such a significant expansion of the Comission's regulatory authority would require additional manpower.

Except to the extent that it has been granted licensing authority, MRC has no relevant administrative enforcement powers with respect to DOE activities.

In view of this limitation, the practical consequence of the provision that the NRC recommendatien [ order?], shall be "imediately effective" is unclear.

i

• =>

1 wa==>

un>

- nec somma m u.m reos==

..~,...............

- { j l

~~~ g-

^

,y_

m 3

III. ALTERNATIVE FACILITY SITES The staff concurs }<1th the sunnary and ' analysis on the above stated subject presented in the Shcidon Trubatch comorandum to Mr. Droggitis, OCA, dated September 7,1979.

i The term " construction permit," used in this Section 3, as well as elsewhere in the Hart Bill, has a specific technical meaning under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as acended, for production and utilization facilities. The term

" construction authorization" should be used for waste facilities.

There is considerable confusion resulting from the inclusion of low-level wastes and high-level wastes on page 2.

Subsequent Sections do not always specify their applicability. For example, the Section " alternative site applications" follows the current discussions pertaining to geologic dispwal of high-level wastes. However, as written, it would appear to cover low-level vastes as well. Furthernore, this Section establishes by statute that all future repository applications must include three geologic media. Although geologic disposal is clearly the most promising candidate, it is also the most studied candidate. The Bill would appear to preclude alternative disposal options and, therefore, obviate the need to study alternatives.

We suggest the following change:

1.

Page 7, line 13, following the word "shall," insert the phrase ",for i

each high-level waste geologic repository."

\\

'\\

IV. STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS

'\\n Section 4(b) of Amendment 646 requires that the Comission promulgate standards and requirements to evaluate alternatives that will protect the public health, safety, or the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with permanent respository disposal of high-level radio-active waste.

The staff believes that the applicable standards should be those contained in the Atomic Energy Act, NEPA, and EPA regulations. Moreover, it is not NRC's role to promulgate standards to protect the environnent from nonradiological hazards as provided. The intention of the drafters could be carried out more precisely with a small change. Specifically, the language presented on line 16 (beginning with the word " standards") through the word "with" of line 19 should be replaced with the follouing:

" technical criteria which it will apply in reviewing, under the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA, an application for the..."

If the provision in Section 4(c) of Amendment 646 concerning January 1,1984 date were changed from " construction permit" to " site characterization plans," the staff believes that all dates specified.in Section 4 would be achievable under present licensing standards. That is, the Comission 21".di th ti W h ' d a t; 1 7 nt res i t hr DOC W ) by b r y

.,,, J 1982; DOE wculd be capable of submittint site charact erization plai s in eJEH"5f"G5"6M5F5"5fsfds"63 "JsHUHFy"1","TWi"s5d"tTis"C Wimribn"20Ul t!""""" ""'"

""""^"" %-able-to-act-* e-GGE-const rectten-etrthmizetiem eitl4 t+tien4y Jant ary-1v-~~~~

.m@m...b.ypq....J.t.. 99.u.g.g.e.s.p.t.e#,..t.y.g.t...g. Sv.gm.at...lo.sva..in..Se.c3.i.g. 20g.c.L.,,,,,

7mmnam m WW. ANT",! '.!!""!CL T.O.NML.17"O;Ot.U" "~ ~

~

~

4 l

V.

COMMISSION WASTE LICENSING ASSESSMEIO Section 5 of Amendment 646 directs the Comission to detemine whether technology exists for high-level waste disposal. This deadline is January 1,1985.

A_ negative detemination would trigger a licensing moratorium on reactor licensing.

I The proposed proceeding would overlap the generic proceeding already underway by the Comission to reassess the degree of assurance now available that radioactive waste produced by nuclear facilities can be safely disposed of, to determine when such disposal will be available, and whether such '

wastes can be safely stored until they are safely disposed of.

t i

The significant difference between the proceeding in the Hart Amendment and the Commission Confidence proceeding is when the technology to dispose of l

radioactive wastes is determined to exist. Under Amendnent 646, the determinatior l

must be made that the technology exists on or before 1985.

In contrast, in the l

NRC Confidence Rulemaking the Comission will determine if there is reasonable assurance that a suitable technology will exist at the time it is actually needed for off-site disposal of reactor radioactive wastes.

The staff is not sure that sufficient infomation will be available by 1985 to make a detemination that technology actually exists. This is one reason a four stage licensing process was developed for high-level waste management regulation. At each state of the procedure -- starting with the i

site characterization in several geologic media -- the NRC will make a l

determination as to whether we have sufficient confidence to proceed to the l

next step.

l There is another reason the staff questions a proceeding in which the Conuission l

must make a determination on whether technology exists before NRC has either l

received or acted upon an application for construction of a waste repository.

I If the Comission makes a confidence determination, say in 1985, that a suitable technology exists, this action would limit the NRC staff from making an objective review of alternative technologies in a DOE application to be submitted sometime in 1987.

\\

For the above reasons the staff recomends that the " existing technology" confidence provisions in the Bill be deleted.

VI. COMMISSION ORDERS REGARDING WASTE GENERATION

\\

Section 6 of Amendment 646 requires the Comission to order a reduction of maximum allowed facility capacity by ten percent for every year after the deadlines for the Comission to act on a construction application from DOE i

(1992) or NRC findings of availablity of disposal technology (1985).

eresca p swaams >

l j<=c-- -

i i

K m ;

p_,

'v,Lg4 s

5 s

The staff believes that the federal government should nove aggressively to solve the high-level waste nanagement problen, and that NRC is doinq just that for its regulatory role. As discussed earlier, the present time schedule should provide an answer to whether technology exists to build a geologic repository by the early 1990's. Our schedule is very tight but achievable and the fMSS staff believes it can be done.

It would be preferable, however, to see the government official responsible for solving our waste management problems be held more accountable for getting his job done rather than placing pressure on closing commercial react ors.

Neither the utility companies nor the general public have respon-sibility for the ultimate disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The responsibility rests with the federal government; however, the staff believes we should not continue to generate the wastes beyond the point that their storage becones a health and safety problem.

VII. STATr PApTICIPATION The staff continues to believe that it is appropriate to give statutory recognition to the legitimate concerns of States in which waste facilities may be located.

Ilouever, if a veto concept is mandated by legislation, it is recommended that specific criteria be provide 1.

The staff believes that construction authorization and operating license decisions should be based on l

technological feasibility, health and safety provisions, and protection of the environment. To authorize a state veto without specifying the grounds on which the veto will be based leaves open the possibility that technically sound and safe disposal facilities would not be approved.

With exception of the Office of State Programs, the staff recomnends that i

such veto power be permitted only at the construction authorization stage i

after several sites have been fully characterized.

This would nean that it e

would be late enough in the developnent process to be based on neaningful information, but early enough so that large expenditures of resources will not have been cornitted by the federal government.

In a ninority view, OSD reconnends a fornal early site. review and approval process sinilar to that T for reactors, as an alternative to the case-by-case approach of S. 15?1.

Osp considers that this would allow states to participate fully in the siting decision in advance of the full financial conmitment to a specific repository construction progran. Along the same line of reasoning, a state veto of an early site review action nay, in the opinion of OS9 have merit; but OSP sees no nerft in a state veto late in the 11cansing action when a connitnent to a construction program is nade.

i

- --- -M

~

i T,oss m o.m unau om

• = = * = " " " = " " " ' " " " " " ' * * " " ' ' " ' ' "

~

3, Ip.

f N

Furthermore, OSP remains concerned that the continuation of the case-by-case approach suggested by NUPEG 0539 and built into S. 1521 would compromise participation by states in the State Planning Council proposed by 00E and IRG. OSP believes that a programatic approach in which states participate in the program plan would mean that HRC would not have to create alternatives l,

for every possible Itcensing action.

Section 7(c) includes a procedure whereby a Comission licensing decision would be reinstated in the event of certain Presidential determinations.

This raises questions regarding the reviewability of the President's deter-minations and the effect that those determinations might have upon the

~ reviewability of the Comission's findings and conclusions. This problem should be identified to the Congress, perhaps with the suggestion that the i

President's action should be nonreviewable, but that it should have no effect whatsoever upon the rights of persons to obtain judicial review of the Comission's actions.

The reference to " construction permit" should be changed to " construction authorization", as previosly noted. Moreover, references to " license" should i

not be accompanied by the adjective " operating." This is important because l

the license to be issued is not one allowing operation of a facility, but rather one allowing receipt and posession of nuclear material.

The following clarifying language should be added at the end of Section 7:

"As used in this Section each reference to Construction Authorization or license shall also include any amendments thereto."

VIII. LICENSING OF AWAY-FROM-REACTOR STORAGE l

Section 8 would prohibit the Comission from licensing any facility of the DOE for the temporary away-from-reactor storage of corm rcially generated The intent of this provision is not clear to us.

Is it nuclear reactor.

intended that DOE should not construct such facilities or, that if constructed' I

they should not be licensed? Perhaps it is intended that such facilities, if needed, be constructed by private industry and licensed by MRC? This section t

l needs to be clarified so that the intent is clear. The Comission believes l

l that away from reactor storage facilities should be licensed.

IX. EPA WASTE REGULATIONS The staff concurs with the OGC sumary and analysis on the above stated subject.

= = = = = >

an>

-nec Mau m o.m acu==

.-