ML20154P827

Forwards Comment on HR 5923.Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards Cannot Support HR 5923 That Provides Veto Powers Over Siting of Waste Disposal Facilities to State Legislatures

ML20154P827
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/09/1980
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20154P832	List: ML20154P827 ML20154P850
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230087
Download: ML20154P827 (3)

Text

. . - . . - . - - - - - - . . - - - - _ - - . - - . - . - - _

[ . -

p

+ 7l"y yW y gg y v .. y 4 43 6

& i. i MEMORANDUM FOR: Leondard Bickwit'

. General . Counsel FROM: William J. Dircks, Director

" Office of Nuclear Material Safety and. Safeguards

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON H.R. 5923 Pursuant to the request from Mr. Sheldon Trubatch of your Office, we have reviewed the above stated Bill.- The Office of State Programs has concurred l and the Office.of the Executive Legal- Director has informed us that;they will o no longer perform legal review of bills such as H.R. 5923.

'We cannot support H.R. 5923 that provides veto powers over siting of waste disposal . facilities to State legislatures. The State legislative ' veto proposed in the'. bill would be inconsistent.with current Commission policy set forth.in NUREG-0539. This. document, developed after consultation with State legislative and executive officials, found that a State veto would empower a .

relatively small . segment.of the nation's citizenry to halt or seriously-impede the Federal Nuclear Waste Management Program even if normal regulatory processes were to lead to the conclusion that wastes can be safely stored and disposed. NUREG-0539 recommends that if Congress does decide to provide

.for a State veto, the provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the

. circumstances.under which the veto could.be exercised. H.R. 5923 provides no such diarification. There are, for example, no criteria to link the State legislative decision to adequate consideration of public health and safety, nor is there a requirement for the building of a public record enabling all interested parties to be heard..

Specific coments on the bill are enclosed.

William J. Dircks, Director 9810230007 000109 Office of Nuclear Material Safety PDR ORG NOMA and Safeguards PDR .

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION E00 7956

Comments on H.R. 5923 WMPI r/f WJDircks, HShapar

, Subject File NGill STrubatch WM r/f Eleins .E00 r/f

• WMPI ~*WMPI NMSS r/f GErtter OCA RMacDougall J0 Bunting JSurmeier RRyan- RMacDougall 1/ '/80- 1/ /80 ,

'J0 Bunting HDenton REBrowning RMinogue

• See Previous yellow fem concurrencMBt'artin VStello i .m.. w . . . . .*.Vtt . . . . . . . . ...$

. . . . .uss....... ........................ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................

w. .J8.Ma.tti.n......... . ...W.JP.i.r.ds.... ......................... .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MM?5'?!,.T ....1 L. 89....... . . .. 1/. .*\. /.6 0..... . ... . . . . .. ... .. . . ... . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

w

, [ M c" M He jp.76I PS W 4840 _ 8 8.* **veaa em, enentene eeries t s ets , se e . see ,

I  %

e

% M 1 s xus I l 9 i

DISTRIBUTION E00 7956 WMPI r/f Subject File WM r/f' HShapar NMSS r/f STrubatch JSurmeier JOButning EDO r/f MEMORANDUM FOR: Leondard Bickwit A General Counsel " "

Mar OlA'2>00 d'II 6d5h 8 FROM: William J. Dircks, Director WJDircks '

Office of Nuclear Material Safety NGill l

and Safeguards Elei I GEr ter

SUBJECT:

, COMMENTS ON H.R. 5923 D n on RMinogue VStello Pursuant to the request from Mr. Sheldon Trub ch of your Office, we have reviewed the above stated Bill. The Office f State Programs has concurred and the Office of the Executive Legal Di tor.has informed us that they will no longer perform legal review of bills uch as H.R. 5923. '

We cannot support H.R. 5923 that pro des veto powers over siting of waste disposal facilities to State legis tures. The State legislative veto proposed in the bill would be in nsistent with current Comnission policy set forth in NUREG-0539. This docu nt, developed after consultation with State legislative and executive off ials, found that a State veto would empower a relatively small segment of e nation's citizenry to halt or seriously impede the Federal Nuclear daste Management Program even if normal regulatory -

processes were to lead t the conclusion that wastes can be safely stored and disposed. HUREG-0 9 reconnends that if Congress does decide to provide for a State veto, th provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the circumstances under which the veto could be exercised. H.R. 5923 3rovides no such clarificatio . There are, for example, no criteria to link tie State legislative dec ion to adequate consideration of public health and safety, nor is there . requirement for the building of a public record enabling all interested p ties to be heard.

We also c estion whether the State veto mechanism proposed in this bill (concur nt resolution) would be appropriate since it would appear to pre-er t the constitutional veto powers of the State executive.

S cific coments on the bill are enclosed.

l William J. Dircks, Director .

WMPI WP w m PI Office of Nuclear Material Safety I l JSurmeier:prh JOB ing K/%e T)W<p)) and Safeguards 1/ /nn 1/ s /80 // /re G drg.l.o. . s.g r;g s. ;. . . .... .. . W NMSS

......................... .....i.M................. ..z/........M , , , . .......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . .

,,,,,Cuments on H.R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5923

_..R..E.B... w..n. i..n.#.. ... .N. . . . . . . . ....WAirds... . . . .H. .n. . . ......................

. , , , ...................... ........................ . . 1. ./. . . . . . - 0. . ... .. .. .1../. . . ./. 80.. .. .. ....1 /. . . . . /. 8 0 lumnamu m m mou me * . ... > . v - " - '

- cq

>. 3 ,m COMMENTS ON H.'R. 5923

1. Amended Section 107(n)(1). Needs clarification as to when a Departrent of Energy " plan" to bu'Id a storage facility becomes a " proposal" .

requiring notification to the State legislature.

2. Amended Section 107(g)(3). This provision should clarify that State legislative approval would be conclusively presumed if the legislature did not adopt a resolution of disapproval within the time allowed. The six-month deadline for state action may also be unworkable, since many legislatures meet bi-annually or for part of the year, and only the Governor calls a special session.

We recommend that the time allowed be no less than six months after receipt of all the requested information,

.but not more than until the end of the next regularly scheduled legisla-tive session. We are uncertain whether the requirement for a concurrent legislative resolution could survive a constitutional challenge, since concurrent' resolutions can be adopted independently of the State executive.

. 3.

_ Proposed Section 93. Same general comments as for Amended Section 107.

4.

Amended Section 274(p)(1). This provision is not consistent with NUREG-0539 and, therefore, is not acceptable to the staff.

3 ENCLOSURE

, -j . emos > , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

\

,,,,,,,,,.....,h...

l ouassaese > ......................... ...................... .......................... ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................4..,,

ears > ......................... ........................., ........................ ....................... ........................ ...................'.s h )[g$76) M MM w ..w k W.S. SOWSWeteseNT PWSNT9NG OPPles t 9 994

• SOS

• 799

__