ML20154P708
| ML20154P708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/28/1979 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Trubatch S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154P711 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230052 | |
| Download: ML20154P708 (4) | |
Text
.
' jd!A'
~
'0 k(/{/6 O
, 7. 4.1 l l
i
, M,oph9 MAR 2 e 19pg i
f
! MEMORANDUM FOR: Sheldon Trubatch j Office of the General Counsel f FROM: William J. Dircks, Director j Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
NMSS C0f0ENTS ON H.R.1852 (ED0-5618)
.O
- Attached are the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
)
l Safeguards cor.nents on the' subject bill. I understand that ELD
! will be transmitting their coments independently.
i
.j .(Signed) Wluiam J, Dirckie William J. Dircks, Director -
Office of Nuclear Material l Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated O DISTRIBUTION: ED0-5618 MSS:R/F l ki:R/F WM Files HDenton -
, EDO Slevine
! EDO:R/F KShapar
!, GErtter RRyan l Eleins NGill WJDircks 9810230052 790328 q PDR ORG NOMA 1 JBMartin PDR W Burns JBurns:R/F SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCE.
li, o,,,.., WM WM NMSS j
l
.u.ww. , JBurns :ng,, ,J BMa rti n,,, , ,WJD,ircks,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
LD/o; Exfod.* . 3/2.1/.7.9.. . 3/.2.1/.7.9.. . . 3I.. .../.7.9.. . . ,
) NRC PORM 313 (a.76) NRCM 0240 8 u.s. novsanusat *=earine ore.cs s e te - ass s ee
- , .m . -
o o NMSS COMMENTS ON H.R. 1852 As a general comment, we note that the bill seems overly optimistic about the status of current investigations and knowledge of deep geologic repositories. Although we are not opposed to statutorily inposed deadlines, the ones proposed here may result in decisions resulting from less than rigorous analysis. Further, we believe that the intent of NEPA would be subverted by confonning to its requirements as proposed in the bill. Specific comments follow:
, Section 4 We question the ability of DOE to propose the location and design details of a repository in the time period required (six months). Further, we believe that such determinations, even if preliminary in nature, do constitute a major federal action under NEPA and should be treted accordingly.
Section 5 The concerns stated regarding Section 4 apply also to this section.
In addition, we believe that congressional authorization to DOE to Q construct a repository should be dependent explicitly upon NRC licensing. Second, the requirement to prepare an EIS after selection of the repository site and design is inconsistent with the intent of NEPA that major federal decisions be formulated with knowledge and evaluation of environmental impacts. The EIS should accompany the determination not follow it. Third, we do not anticipate that DOE can prepare a license application in three months. Fourth, the Commission cannot review and act on a construction authorization in a
,; c -
o o 2
two-year period. The first application will be particularly time consuming since we will have no experience to date on licensing geologic repositories and because the technology is new and complex. Further, we do not expect our regulations to be in place in final form until January 1981. Fifth, NRC would not nortnally exclude consideration of alternatives from the license review. We do not recommend they be statutorily excluded.
Section 9 O ce) Tne biii apperently provides e totei of six months to comniete analysis, gather comments, resolve conn 1ents, and promulgate final standards by EPA. Although we agree guidance should come quickly, EPA should be asked whether this scenerio is realistic.
(b) The requirements imposed on EPA by this section are the responsi-bility of NRC. The license review which NRC condtets will include a full safety and environmental review. This section should be deleted.
O section io The responsibilities of the Advisory Committee created herein to advise DOE duplicate many of the current responsibilities of the DOE yet no staff is provided. The purpose and scope of activities of the committee and detail of investigation should be clarified. If the responsibilities remain as stated, substantial resources (personne1 and dollars) would be required.
o o 3
Section 11 We note with regard to subsection (b) that the DOE application for a repository is prepared independently by DOE and submitted to NRC. The Department and Commission do not jointly prepare the application.
Section 13 NRC is preparing regulations as quickly as is appropriate. We expect that final regulations for geologic repositories will be in place in early 1981. It is possible, however, for NRC to review a license O application using ad hoc procedures and regulations. Therefore, it is not necessary for the regulations to be in place at the time of the first license review.
Section 14 (b) We endorse the concept of extending NRC authority to TRU wastes.
(c) It is inappropriate for NRC and DOE to act as " joint lead agencies" in preparing required EIS's. We do not believe that it would be beneficial for the Corrmission in its role as the judge with regard to health and safets .id environment to prepare such evaluations jointly with the applicant (D0E). If such a " joint lead agency" concept were instituted, it should be understood that further examination of the EIS would take place in the Commission's licensing proceeding.
l