ML20154S701
| ML20154S701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/10/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810280063 | |
| Download: ML20154S701 (15) | |
Text
__ _
-.~.
e.=-
--, -g ar s
Q)e gg d'
j 2
}
DISTRIBUTION: NMSS 800285)
W!Ji 1 r/f Eleins 4rGbject file IAAR 101980 WM r/f NMSS r/f j
RMacDougall JSurmeier J0 Bunting R B" "9
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Acting g9Ma Executive Director for Operations Dale Smith J el Lubenau, SP FROM:
William J., Dircks, Director Richard Cunninghm/ Tom Carteri Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards fgf3rcks i
SUBJECT:
ANALYSIS OF H.R. 6390, UDALL OMNIBUS NUCLEAR LEGISLATION (NMSS 800285) l, Enclosed is our input on the subject bill in the requested format. The Office of State Programs has reviewed Sections 203, 211 and 212 and concur I
with the analysis provided in this memorandum.
Specifically our inputs consist of comments on the following aspects.
j i
Proposed amendment of the Act defining authorities and i
c Section 102 E
responsibilities of FEMA and NRC on Radiological Emergency l
Planning and Preparedness.
1 A requirement for an NRC report to Congress dealing with
..J Section 103 alternative. safety objectives for reactors, nuclear material rocessing and transportation and storage of nuclear materials.
j p(Jerry Carter, NRR was provided this input by the Division l1 l
of Fuel Cycle.)
p Proposed amendments relating primarily to radioactive waste l
)'
Title II i-management.
)
g i
Section 305
- Proposed amendment to the Act that would add certain requirements
[.
in the agreements between NRC and Agreement States.
t e
9810280063 800310
% illiar
., Dircks, Director PDR ORG NOMA Offic -
~ Nuclear Material Safet O j
i l-PDR a(eguards
! (
an OSPp,Qu'hC WMLL D'?'
/
TG t Rosmith RE ownin ria bn I
JLubenau 1
Enclosures:
3/C /80
/80 3/ /80 3/
80 3/4 /80 1
^1
/
I
...m
)
-eN 3b(Ik....HtRL.).d.....J.0R.ub.f.,,,
J.fHPJ
,,,,,l#
p,
S
.. g D a x. 1........
..yg.....r.c.k..
4 Ma.cDona11.a rJ1....J.hm.nier..
3/h...t..ng..3/[ /80
....f..v/80 3/
/.80
.... /..$..../80 3
....../.6/.80 3
c om>
! i, mc nomu m mm meu em f
N,.
n Sec. 102 u
O
/
A.
(1) Concept Paragraph a of Sec. 276 of the amended Atomic Energy Act, on page 7 of.the Bill, would designate FEMA to have the primary responsibility 1
for determining which facilities licensed by 11RC have the potential for significant. accidental offsite radiological releases.
(2) Past Action The Memorandum of Understanding Between tiRC and FEMA'To Accomplish a Prompt Improvement in Radiological Emergency Plannina and Preparedness (published 'in the Federal Register on January 24,1980) states in Section III' A that NRC will supply FEMA a listing of all fuel and l
materials facilities and identify those facilities uith potential for significant accidental offsite radiological releases.
FEMA may, if it chooses, question NRC determinations.
(3) Future Action
(]
We favor a continuation of the concept discussed in (2).
(4). Previous Position The Commission previously approved the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding agreement on this matter.
)
l (5) General Impression of Concept We believe that the prop (osed legislation should be changed consiste l
with the discussion in 2). This could be accomplished by replacing l
I the word "detennines" on the twelfth line, on page 7 of the Bill, with the word " agrees."
i B.
O~
(1) Concept Paragraph b(2) of Sec. 276, of the amended Atomic Energy Act, on page 8 of the Bill, would require NRC to provide FEMA an adequate l
opportunity for review and comment before making any assessment or
. ' determination of the tjeneral state of emergency preparedness with respect to any facility or material. The last sentence of the par,agraph states that nothing is intended to apply to or affect the respective functions and authorities of FEMA or NRC, "except l
to' the extent that such material or transportation is within a facility required to be licensed under this Act."
In addition, paragraph d(1).of Sec. 276, on page 10, states that no utilization or production facility license shall be issued until f4RC has determined "in cooperation with FEMA" that the licensee's emergency response plan is adequate.
s e
~
l bO
.S u r e
f p
v.
v 2
- (2)
Past Action-ThePemorandum of Understanding Between MRC and FEl4A To Accomplish a Prompt Improvement in Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness (published in the Federal Reaister on January 24,1980),
states that FEMA will take the lead in offsite emergency planning and the assessment of State and local emergency plans for adequacy, but NRC will take the lead for onsite emergency planning and the assessment of licensee emergency plans for adequacy.
In the past, HRC has carried out its assessments of licensee onsite plans without asking fella to review and comment on them.
(3)
Future Action We favor the concept that fella assess and determine the. adequacy of offsite emergency planning, including State and local emergency response plans, but not become directly involved in NRC assessments and determinations of licensee onsite radiological contingency planning actic s.
Radi'ological contingency planning is that part of emergency r^
preparedness contributed by plant operators to assure (1) that plants b
are properly designed to limit releases of radioactive materials and
. radiation exposures if an accident should occui, (2) that a capability exists for measuring accidental releases of radioactive materials, (3) that. appropriate emergency equipment and planning is provided onsite to protect worke'rs against radiation hazards that might be encountered following an accident, (4) that notifications are promptly made offsite to Federal, State and local government egencies and (5) that necessary recovery actions are timely taken to return a plant to a safe operating condition following an accident.
NRC believes it sufficient for FEMA to make any needed assessments and deterininations of planned onsite actions through reviewing and commenting on proposed HRC rules and regulations on this subject.
(4)
Previous Position The Commission previously approv'ed the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding agreement on this matter.
p) s (5)
Ge'neral. Impression of Concept We believe the proposed legislation should be changed to reflect the
. thinking expressed in (3) above.
Also, the exception provision in
- the last sentence of Sec. 276 b(2) needs to be clarified.
C.
. (1)
Concepi Paragraph d(3) of Sec. 276 of the amended Atomic Energy Act, on page 10 of the Bill, would require NRC to determine, in cooperation with FEMA, that the emergency preparedness of Federal agencies is adequate.
i
7 i
..y O
o 3
(2) Past Action In the past, the Commission has looked to FEMA, and its predecessor organizations, to assure this.
I (3) Future Action We favor the concept that FEKA, in cooperation with NRC determine that Federal agency emergency preparedness is adequate.
FEMA will nedd to make determinations of this type in connection with its other emergency planning responsibilities for non-nuclear accidents.
Direct involvement by NRC in making those determinations is believed unnecessary and undesirable.
(4) Previous Position The concept has not been considered by the Commission.,
l (5) General Impression of Concept We believe the proposed legislation should be changed to designate FEMA instead of NRC as having lead responsibility for determining r-A s) -
the adequacy of Federal agency emergency preparedness.
o i
e 4
.%)
l-1 e
3 1
s:
9
a
~
O O
Lf y
.l
- Sec. 103-(1) Concept Sec.103, on page 12 of the Bill, would require NRC to prepare and submit a. report to Congress not later than July '1, -1981, setting -
.forth alternative safety objectives respecting nuclear. reactors, nuclear material processing, and the transportation and storage of nuclear materials. Although the last sentence of ti.3 section implies that a cost'/ benefit analysis should be conducted, the section is unclear as to what kind of evaluation is desired.
(2).Past' Action We cannot determine' precisely what kind of evaluation is being sought,
.and, consequently, do not knew if a similar analysis has ever been
. (~).
carried out.
'(3). Future Action l
We need more definition of the concept before we can fully respond to it.
(4) Previous Position The concept has not been considered by the Commission in the form prese6ted in Sec.103.
(5) General Impression of' Concept The scope of the desired study needs to be defined, including some indication of the types and ' quantities of nuclear materials that need to be' considered.
()
P
=l 1
\\:
- o e es e
9 9
Subtitle A High-Level Waste Sections 201 and 202 l
(1) Concept Sections 201 and 202 are designed to implement the President's recent l
recommendations on high-level waste management by establishing a schedule l
and conditions for repository development from site characterization l
through commencement of operations.
To provide a reasonable assurance l
that methods of safe permanent disposai can be available when needed, the schedule sets forth a series of deadlines, ending in the issuance of an NRC permit to emplace wastes in a repository by January 30, 1996.
i Failure to implement the President's comprehensive plan in accordance i
with the schedule and conditions set forth in the Bill and failure to begin waste emplacement by 1996 would constitute "significant evidence" l
that the adequate protection to public health and safety required for licensing activities under the Atomic Energy Act cannot be assured.
No permit or approval to construct a nuclear power plant could be issued after the 1996 deadline unless an operating pennit for a waste repository has been issued.
O (2) past Action The President's recommendations to be implemented by this Bill were derived from those of the Interagency Review Group (IRG), and both stress two points.
First, because the suitability of a geologic l
disposal site can only be verified through extensive site-specific evaluation, actual sites and their geologic environments must be carefully l
examined.
Second, the development of a repository should proceed in a careful step-by-step manner, with an evaluation of the experience and information gained at each step before proceeding to the next.
The NRC participated in the development of the IRG recommendations and has incorporated these two premises into the procedural portion of the proposed high-level waste management regulations (10 CFR Part 60) published in December 1979.
This rule would establish a repository i
licensing procedure designed to verify the suitability of each proposed site through extensive geologic and other evaluations conducted in a step-wise manner with substantive State and public involvement in an p
assesssment of the information produced at each step.
O (3) Future Action The NRC staff expects to publish the technical portion of its high-level waste management regulation as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking late this month.
This document will set forth the criteria and require-ments for the siting, design, fabrication, construction, testing, operation, and decommissioning of a repository, as well as waste packaging requirements, and other aspects of facility operation.
Both the procedural and technical regulations for repository licensing are to be published in final fonn by December 1981.
NRC staff also plans to complete models l
to assess radionuclide migration in bedded salt by October 1980, and to publish guidance on format and content for both site characterization l
plans and license applications by September 1981.
It will not be until December,1985, before NRC will have completed all the guidance documents for use by DOE in its preparation of a construction authorization application.
l l
l (O
wJ LJ Suotitle A High-Level Waste Sections 201 and 202 (4) Previous Position The two IRG recommendations have been adopted by the NRC as part of proposed rulemaking procedures.
The Commission, however, has taken no position on the concept of using legislatively mandated deadlines other than to state that the deadlines proposed by S.1521 (Senator Randolph) were not realistic.
i (5) General Impression of Concept Section 202 sets forth the following timetable for implementation of the President's recommendations:
1.
January 31, 1981, for EPA and HRC promulgation of standards and requirements for licensing and regulating permanent disposal of high-level wastes; 2.
February 15, 1982, for DOE to submit site characterization plans to NRC for at least two potential repository sites in different geologic media, together with proposals on the form or packaging of the waste to be emplaced.
The site characterization
,s I ~;
plans are to contain the information required by NRC rules; 3.
November 30, 1984, for DOE submission of at least five site characterization plans in at least three different medi-, waste form or packaging proposals, and a report recommending the site DOE considers most qualified for a license application; 4.
November 30, 1985, for DOE to submit an application for a permit to construct a repository at the nominated site; 5.
June 15,1989, for NRC to report to Congress on proceedings on the construction permit application; 6.
June 1990, for NRC to make a final decision to approve or deny the construction permit; 7.
June 1991, following a year for expedited consideration of any judicial questions, for NRC to issuc a construction permit; and 8.
Janua ry 30, 1996, for NRC issuance o' a rarmit to emplace and load wastes.
)
As noted earlier, Section 201 provides that failure to meet this schedule would constitute "significant evidence" that the adequate protection to public health and safety required for licensing activities under the Atomic Energy Act cannot be assured.
This seems to suggest that if any of the deadlines above are violated, it may well be inconsistent with Congressional intent for the Commission to continue licensing any f acilities or activities requiring licenses under the Act.
Yet Section 202 would require only powerplant licensure to cease, and only if the 1996 deadline for approval of a repository operating license wastno met.
It is thus somewhat doubtful that Section 201(8)(A) was intended to provide the basis for an interpretation of the Act that would require a wticlesale curtailment of further licensing, but absent a clarification of this intent, such an interpretation would be arguable.
This nuance assumes added importance upon a closer examination of the practicability of the timetable in Section 202.
Even the deadline for NRC to promulgate its high-level waste management regulation (10 CFR Part 60) can not be met.
It is not possible for NRC to issue this regulation in final form before December 1981.
q Subtitle A High-Levei Waste Sections 201 and 202 Most of the other deadlines specified in Section 202 are not realistic and cannot be met.
While the staff considers the January 1996 dead 1.ne for commencement of repository operations to be achievable, the November 30, 1984, date for selection of a site appears questionable.
If the four to five alternative sites are to be fully characterized at-depth (sinking of a shaft, lateral borings, and in-situ testing), the site characteri-zation stage of the process will not have been completed in time for DOE to select a site and complete an application for construction authorization by November 30, 1985.
There are two Principal reasons for this.
Fi rst,
NRC does not expect to be able to publish its high-level waste repository l
licensing regulations in final form until December of 1981 -- almost a year after the deadline in this Bill -- and these regulations will form the basis for DOE's characterization program, since they will establish the information the Commission will expect DOE's program to provide.
Second, it will require about three years after the characterization j
tests are begun for the geology to reach an equilibrium of temperature, rock mechanics, and other parameters that can reasonably be assumed to p-replicate the conditions of a loaded repository.
DOE would thus be V
unable to get the information it needs in the time required, and the dates after 1985 would be affected accordingly.
If however, DOE were to fully characterize the five site at-depth and have two years to prepare an application for a construction authorization after receiving NRC guidance, DOE could seleat a s'te and submit a license application in the 1987 or 1988 time frame.
This would permit an NRC decision on construction authorization by the early 1990's and issuance of a license to emplace wastes in about 1996.
O i
l o
~. -. ~
St O.
o Subtitle B Low-Level Weste Section 211 5
(1) Concept This Section would assure that uniform minimum national standards for low-level waste _ disposal are followed for both Agreement and non-Agreement States and that financial and institutional arrangements for _long-term control of disposal sites are established. Upon satisfactory closure of the disposal site, the title would be transferred to the State in which the site is. located or, if the State declines, to the federal government.
In addition, the Commission, in consultation with EPA, would also be authorized to promulgate regulations permitting the disposal of low-level waste in or adjacent to sites established for the disposal of non-radioactive hazardous wastes.
(2) Past Action The desirability of new legislation for low-level waste disposal was i
expressed by former Chairman Hendrie in his prepared testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, House Committee on Science and Technology on November 7,1979.
He indicated that the
()
Commission saw two general areas where new legislation could be beneficial.
One related to financial and institutional arrangements for long-term control of disposal sites, and the other related to minimum technical l
and procedural standards.
At the request of Congressman Udall's staff, the Office of the Executive Legal Director and the Division of Waste Managenent provided drafting services on this legislation.
Most of the provisions of Section 211 are patterned after the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, but Congressman Udall's staff chose to incorporate the changes required for this legislation into the existing sections of the Atomic j
Energy Act of 1954 rather than establish new sections.
i (3) Future Action f
No action is anticipated with respect to this concept during the near future.
-O\\J
_(4) Previous Position While the Commission has not taken a position of this legislation, it did endorse the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 on which this Section is patterned.
No position has been taken by the Commission on whether jurisdiction should be extended over non-radiological hazards associated with such waste.
Nor has the Commission supported or opposed the siting of low-level waste in or adjacent to sites established for the disposal of non-radiological hazardous wastes.
.(5) General Impression of Concept The staff strongly supports the legislation prese ited in Section 211.
There is an urgent need for such legislation not only to establish minimum national standards, but more importar.tiy, to provide clarity to the States on what is and is not expected of them if they are interested l
l in securing additional low-level waste disposal capacity.
t e
t
^ '7
'O U,
Subtitle B Low-Level Waste l
Section 211 An addi'ional but clearly separable issue is that of naturally occuring and accelerator-produced material (NARM). OSP believes that NRC testimony should fully address the issue of whether or not NRC should regulate NARM. The States have requested that NRC seek this authority on three separate occasions.
One of the problem shipments that contributed to the closure of the Hanford site by Governor Ray late last year involved Cobalt-57 which originated in Massachusetts - a non-agreement State.
NRC had no jurisdiction.
NMSS does not concur with OSP's position that NRC's testimony on H.R.
6390 should fully address the issue whether or not NRC should regulate NARM.
The matter of NRC regulating NARM is a complex issue which NMSS has had under active consideration for some time.
NARM usage involves essentially the same wide spectrum of applications as that involving byproduct material.
The usage includes medical diagnosis and therapy, industrial applications, and consumer products.
It should be noted, however, that NMSS contines to support the concept presented in
- {}
Section 211(b)(3).
The Office of State Programs (0SP) notes that the concept in Section 211(b)(3) (page 49) would allow NRC to provide technical assistance to States even if rad waste is not covered by the Atomic Energy Act.
Technical assistance has been provided in the past (e.g., Ky), at present (Kansas) and will be in the future (ref. former Chairman Hendrie's telegram to the Governors).
OSP considers the intent to authorize assistance, even if the rad waste materials are not covered by the Act, is laudable but is the wrong solution to the right problem.
OSP recommends that NRC obtain legislative authority over naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive materials (NARM).
This would enable regulation of NARM waste generators by NRC. This was recommended by an NRC Task Force (NUREG-0301) and initially by the staff (SECY-78-211).
The Commission asked for additional information and the issue was again placed before it, this time with NMSS non-concurring with the recomendation n
(SECY-78-667).
The Commission did not act to seek the legislation V
because of studies then taking place examining the federal role in regulating radiation hazards but recommended, among other things, exploratory discussions with Congressional staff.
This, as yet, has not been carried out.
O
m 9
9 Subtitle A High-Level Waste I
Section 203 i
(1)
Concept Section 203 would provide for State participation in the development l.
and licensing of facilities for the disposal of high-level waste.
l States would be provided an opportunity for consultation and concurrence l
through the establishment of a nuclear Waste Repository Impact Review Board. After NRC approval of an application for a repository construction or waste emplacement, a Board would have 60 days to petition Congress to disapprove the Commission's actions.
Congress would then have 90 days to disapprove a Board's petition, by concurrent resolution.
If Congress does not disapprove a Board's petition, the Commission could consider a new application only if it contains.significant new information or substantive changes relating to repository construction or operation.
In addition, States could request federal financial assistance to mitigate social or economic impacts resulting from the operation of such facilities.
O (2) eest Actioa l
The Commission views on this concept are expressed in its report L
to Congress entitled, Means for Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing and Development of Federal Nuclear Waste Facilities, (NUREG-0539), dated March 1979.
(3) Future Action i
No future action is presently contemplated.
~
l l
(4) Previous Position In recent testimony, the Chairman and other NRC officials have indicated that if, after careful examination of the record on health, safety, and environmental considerations, after consultation with DOE, and after participation in NRC licensing proceedings, a State were to continue to object to a proposed repository, the licensing process should be suspended pending review of the record either by
- /7 -
Congress, the President, or both.
These officials recommended that lV subsequent to NRC receipt of any license application, the opportunity I
.for State non-concurrence should be provided after the Commission had decided to authorize facility construction.
L (5) General Impression of Concept The first opportunity for Statn non-concurrence in this Bill is consistent with the Commission's position that a State veto should be exercised after the NRC approves a permit for construction, but the second opportunity may be inconsistent since it provides another State veto after an NRC decision permitting the emplacement of waste.
I It may not be advisable to require an affirmative act of Congress to approve the State petition.
Instead NRC approval might better take affect if Congress does not act within the prescribed period.
OSP is not clear why a State law is needed to establish a State Review Board (Section203(a)).
I
//
3
,J (J
Subtitle A High-Level t!aste Section 203 The funding stipulation of Section 203(d)(1) would be equivalent to about $90,000 per year which would provide only 1 to 2 man-years effort by the State.
Such a complex proposal would probably need significantly more effort than this.
The Office of State Programs recommends that the State Review Board have input at a much earlier date, such as at the site selection time.
In addition, OSP believes that a 60 day period for the Review Board to act is too short a time frame.
Finally, it is unclear whether Congressional review of a State petition to overturn an NRC construction authorization would take place during the period for judicial reviews under Section 202(b), or after it.
Making judicial and Congressional reviews sequential rather than concurrent adds even greater uncertaintly as to whether even the January 30, 1996 date is feasible.
<S V
(O
'\\
(
_w
)ci -
~
Subtitle C - Interim Spent Fuel Storage
- Section 221 and 222 1
(1)
Concept The. bill would authorize DOE to provide for interim storage of domestic and foreign commercial power reactor spent fuel, subject tio certain limitations:
DOE could not enter into contracts with domestic or foreign utilities to provide for spent fuel storage after December 31, 1982.
700 met'y, DOE could provide capacity for storage of not more thanri Initiall if justified in a report to be filed with Congress.by February 15, 1983.
Contractual obligations with a domestic utility to provide for Federal storage would have to be based on a determination by DOE that the utility could not provide for storage of the spent fuel at its site or other commercial sites in a timely manner taking into s
account technical, economic and regulatory considerations.
NRC would have to concur in the DOE determination of need.
Domestic spent fuel' accepted for Federal storage would have to be discharged from the reactor before January 1,1990 and have cooled for at least five years.
Acceptance of foreign spent power reactor fuel would have to be in accordance with U.S. non-proliferation objectives and Section 131(f) of the Atomic Energy Act.
l l
DOE would not take title to the spent fuel and charges for the storage i
would not include transportation costs or costs associated with storage in a facility constructed for permanent disposal.
(2)
Past Action The Commission has maintained a neutral position with regard to Federal or private storage of spent fuel.
The Commission has taken no position regarding the limitations on the DOE program listed above with the exception that it has supported United States non-proliferation objectives and that Federal storage of commercial spent fuel should be subject to NRC licensing.
i (3)
Future Action The Commission would license either Federal or private applicants in accordance with its regulations.
,l l
(4) Previous position The Commission has neither opposed nor supported a DOE spent fuel storage program.
0 4
i l3 t
~,
pL)
V i
(5) General Imoression of Conceot The provision as stated, does not address NRC licensing authority.
This lack may create administrative problems for the proposed DOE program.
In previous testimony before the Congress, the Commission has held that it holds the authority pursuant to the Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to license any storage by DOE of domestic comercial power reactor spent fuel.
It has, however, requested that Congress make clear such authority in any legislation authorizing DOE to accept commercial power reactor spent fuel for s torage.
Foreign spent fuel poses a potential problem in that some foreign spent fuel might not come under the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant t'o the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Thus, explicit authorization by Congress for NRC licensing authority.may be required j
to cover storage of foreign spent fuel that did not derive from domestic j
industry production or. source material, i.e, because of government i
to government transfers.
i
/^\\
U The purpose and utility of the time limitation to enter into contracts and the initial limit on storage capacity is not clear.
It may result in a period of continued uncertainty in the industry regarding the availability of adequate spent fuel storage capacity.
It may result in a rush by domestic utilities and other countries to obtain a storage commitment from the Department of Energy.
The wording of the bill also appears contradictory in this instance since in Sec 222(a)(1) the Secretary can only initially acquire 700 metric tons storace capacity to fulfill contracts for storage, while in Sec 222(a)(2)(A) the Secretary must report to the Congress on contracts for storage above this amount.
The requirement for NRC to concur in the DOE determination of a domestic utili ty's need for Federal. storage capacity is inappropriate.
This would appear to place the NRC as a proponent of DOE's program and limit or compromise the consideration of alternatives in spent fuel licensing p
actions.
NRC licensing authority is the important issue, not concurrence V
in DOE need detenninations.
Prohibition on acceptance of spent fuel after 1990 under the DOE program for storage will probably have no effect since presumably if need for such storage exists at that time then Congress would extend this cut-off date or eliminate it.
The limitations on acceptance of foreign spent fuel for DOE storage seem appropriate.
J l
l 4
14 O
O Section 305
- (1) Concept The revisions to Section 305 in the Bill add provisions with respect to the-Codnission's' determination that the state is adequately carrying out the agreement and assuring that the Agreement States' process license renewals in a diligent manner.
'We assume that the new provisions apply retroactively to the existing agreements and not merely to any new agreements that may be entered into.
~(2). Past Action We have taken'the position that the NRC should develop a plan for achieving
- improvements in the Agreement State programs. One important problem in some states has been lack of complement of technical staff to handle
. broad range of technical problems.
(3)
Future Action We believe that it w'uld be usefs
% erovide at an appropriate place o
in Section 274, provisions whicF 4:o permit the States to enter into
. Q.
agreements with the Commission for classes or categories of radioactive material uses such as medical or academic uses.
The NRC determination of the adequacy of the states' proposed program would be based on only those categories provided by the state.
Because of the. wide spectrum of complexity involved in the various categories of radioactive material usage, the state would have the flexibility to select those categories or that degree of complexity best suited to its particular qualifications.
Conversely, the state could exclude those categories it was not qualified to reg 01 ate.
This then would permit the Commission to maintain regulatory control over the more complex activities and those activities which under federal law would be subject to environmental assessments and statements pursuant to NEPA.
In view of the proposed revisions of 10 CFR Part 51, which provide for the first time, a requirement that.a number of material licensing categories O...
be subject to environmental assessments and possible environmental impact statements, we believe pr vis ns should be included in Section 27,4 to require the Agreement States to perform environmental assessments for the same categories of activities they regulate.
This revision to 274 is necessary in order that these be consistancy nation wide with respect to the kinds of activities environmental assessments are performed on.
-(4) previous Position Revi.sions are in line with previous positions but do not go far enough (see (3) above).
(5)
General Impression of Gncept Changes do not go far enough.
Furth~er provisions should be added as outlined in (3) above.
4 9
4 A
........ _.