ML20198G931

Errata to SECY-85-333 Re Amends to 10CFR60 Involving Site Characterization & Participation of States & Indian Tribes. Footnote 1 to Page 21 Extended to Include Note of Review of Issues Prior to Site Characterization Plan Issuance

ML20198G931
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/14/1986
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
References
SECY-85-333, SECY-85-333-ERR, NUDOCS 8601300015
Download: ML20198G931 (2)

Text

.. .

JANUARY 14, 1986 C O R R E C T I O N N O T I C E TO ALL HOLDERS OF SECY-85-333 - PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 60 DEALING WITH SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND THE PARTICIPATION OF STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES (COMMISSION ACTION ITEM)

ATTACHED IS AN ERRATA SHEET FOR SECY-85-333.

ATTACHMENT:

AS STATED THE SECRETARIAT B601300015 860114 PDR SECY 85-333 PDR

?

)

SECY-85-333 Errata Sheet 1/13/86

~

i-ENCLOSURE A (draft Federal Register notice) , page 21.

! The footnote on this page (footnote 1) should have a statement added to the end of the last sentence so that the last sentence r reads at'the time of site nomination,and review of issues related to long lead time exploratory shaft planning an G rocurement actions by DOE prior to issuance of site characterization plans.

h i

i a

+

L f

i

/

p-n<muomewwmanammmwwwww2

,e

.. .y 8, ' 4

% ..... /

RULEMAKING ISSUE October 21, 1985 SECY-85-333 For: The Commissioners From: William J. Dircks Executive Ofrector for Operations

Subject:

PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 60 DEALING WITH SITE CHARACTERIZA-TION AND THE PARTICIPATION OF STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES Purcose: To obtain Commission approval of a notice of final rulemaking.

Catecory: This pacer involves several policy questions.

Backcround: The Ccomissica publishec proposed procedural amandments to 10 CFR 60 cealing with site characterization and the participa-tion of States and Indian trices en January 17, 1985 (50 FR 2579). The staf f received comments frca fifteen organi:ations on a large number of issues. The final amendments presented here were developed following consideration of thesa ccaments, as well as censideration of comments receivec from the ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee.

Suc mary: The final rulemaking recommended by this paper will conform the Centacts:

E. Regnier, NMSS, x74781 J. R. Wolf, ELD, x2c694 C. Prichard, RE3, x74536 '

%! I

-o - .

)Q / 1 >lj

.Tha Commissioners 2 procedures for licensing high-level waste geologic repositories in 10 CFR 60 to those specified by the Nuclear Waste policy Act.

~ Discussion: Licensing procedures which set forth a regulatory framework for licensing high-level radioactive waste (HLW) geolcgic repositories (10 CFR 60) were promulgated in final form on February 25, 1981 (46 FR 13971). In publishing the proposed procedures, the Commission recogni:ed that provisions of Part 60 dealing with participation might have to be changed in the future

should the passage of pertinent legislation take place (44 FR 70408). This did, in fact, occur with the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 -- 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seg. (NWPA). The NWPA sets forth in considerable detail the roles and responsibilities of NRC, tne Department of Energy (00E), States and Indian tribes, and the ger.eral public during the process of siting and development of HLW geologic repositories. The NWPA requires that 00E consult and cooperate with States and tribes at many specified points throughout the repository siting and development process. 00E is required to issue its site characterization plans (SCP's) for public comment, hold meetings to obtain public comment, and provide funding for States and tribes to participate in, and inform their residents about, the process. Additional procedural steps are required of CCE between the time DOE identifies a potential site, and the submission by 00E of an SCP. The contents of the SCP are specified by the NWPA, and are different from those given in the original Part 60.*

A major difference is that the SCP would no longer contain LSection 113(b)(1)(A) of the NWPA allows NRC to recuire submission by 00E of "any other information" but this is not an unlimited grant of authority. Such other information, must be germane to "a general plan for site enaracteri:ation activities to be concucted at such candidate site."

Tha Commissioners 3 site selection information; this information would instead be presented by DOE in environmental assessments (EA's) which 00E is required to prepare for each site.

In proposing procedural amendments to Part 60 to the Commission (SECY-84-263), the staff stated that amendments were needed to (1) provide a framework for State, tribal, and public participation consistent with the NWPA, (2) avoid duplication of effort, and (3) conform the licensing procedures to the site selection process specified by the NWPA. The staff also identified some changes which it believed desirable to better reflect NRC's pre-licensing consultation and guidance process as it has evolved since the licensing procedures were promulgated.

The staff pointed out that some of the proposed changes to Part 60 could be expected to be the focus of particular interest by States and tribes. These were identified as (a) the deletion from the SCP of NRC review of DOE's site selection process, (b) a perception that the proposed changes would represent a significant diminishing of opportunities for State and tribes to participate in the NRC pre-licensing process, and (c) the nature of NRC review of DOE's environmental assessments.

In the course of preparing the proposed amendments, the staff actively sought comment from States and tribes. Several meetings were held with States and tribes, at which the proposed amendments were discussed, and a number of comment letters were received. The staff documented its effort to seek comment in Enclosures B and C to SECY-84-263. Following the submission of SECY-84-263 to the Commission on June 25, 1984, additional comments were received from Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, and the Environmental Policy Institute. The staff identified four significant issues contained in these comments and analy:ed them for the Commission in SECY-64-253A, Novemoer 8, 1984. These issues were (1) NRC review of DOE's site screening and selection 1

I I Tho Ccemissioners 4 process, (2) the decoupling of Part 60 and Part 51 revisions which are needed to reflect the NWPA, (3) the elimination of the draft site characterization analysis, and (4) concern about the basis for standing of States and tribes in a licensing hearing.

All but (4) had been discussed in SECY-84-253. As a result of the analysis of the four issues, the staff concluded that these additional comments did not provide any new information which would lead it to change its recommendation to the Ccmmission contained in SECY-84-263.

A total of 15 organizations commented on the proposed rule.

i While many specific, detailed points were raised, most of the discussion centered on a few underlying' issues. Once again, NRC 1 review of DOE's site screening and selection process, the decoupling of Part 60 and Part 31 revisions which are needeo to reflect the NWPA, and the 1.ck of a draf t SCA received heavy comment. In addition, many comments focused on the lack of any provision in the proposed amendments requiring 00E to refrain from sinking shafts for the site characterization peccess until a reasonable time had elapsed for review and comment on the SCP's.

Oraft Site Characterization Analysis There were several ccmments about the deletion of the draft site charactarization analysis (SCA). Under the rule as proposed to be amended, NRC would issue a single, final SCA on 00E's SCP and would invite public comment on its SCA, for consideration in the ongoing staff review and ccmmentary on the DOE program. However, NRC would not issue both a draft and final SCA. Commenting States believe that they have substantial expertise which NRC should consider in preparing its SCA. Scme States want to have the benefit of NRC's expertise while preparing their own ccmments. It was noted that the Director's invitation to

Tha Ccamissioners 5 State / tribes for comments on 00E's site charactert:ation plan was discretionary. Concern was also expressed that NRC will not have to respond to State / tribe comments on the SCA, and may not actually address issues expressed in those comments. Some commenters believe that the opportunities and procedures for public and State involvement in the repository siting and development process under the NWPA are not substantially different from those contemplated when the previous regulations were promulgated. From this they conclude that there is no reason for NRC to change its procedures by eliminating the draft SCA on DOE's SCP.

The staff agrees that there is a need for the States and tribes, as well as other members of the public, to have an opportunity to participate effectively in the review of the SCP. Prior to passage of NWPA, the provisions of Part 60 afforded the only assurance that they would have this opportunity. The new law provided new guarantees for public participaticn. Specifically, avenues were provided for commenting directly to 00E on its site screening decision and site characterization plans. In the staff's view, these changes were significant and raised the question whether the review procedures in Part 60 were still necessary, or even appropriate, t With respect to the need for NRC awareness of State and tribal views, we believe there are effective means for obtaining such views and the benefit of State and tribal expertise without circulation of a draft SCA for comment. In the first place, the preparation of the SCP will have been preceded by the extensive informal communications between COE and NRC - all of which will have been documented in the public record. These include, especially, the many technical setings at wnich the States and tribes may participate. The technical meetings afford an opportunity for the States and. tribes to bring their cc,ncerns about relevant iss es to the attention of NRC as well as 00E.

l Tha Commissioners 6 Second, the staff has always welcomed the submission of comments i from any interested parties, at any time, and will continue to do so. Third, as provided in the rule, NRC expects to review and consider comments made in connection with public hearings held by 00E on its SCP. Fourth, the rule would provide for the l solicitation by NRC of comments on the published SCA; while this would not require a detailed analysis of any particular comment,

it would help to assure that NRC would not overlook any matter of

substance which ought to be brought to the attention of 00E.

Finally, under a change that is reflected in the final rule that l.

is recommended here, NRC would provide opportunity before publication of the SCA, for the host State and affected Indian

, tribes to present their views on the 00E SCP and their suggestions with respect to comments thereon which may be mace by NRC. The avenues for receiving State and tribal views, as summarized above, will be sufficient to enable NRC to review and comment to 00E on its site characterization plans as contemplated i by the NWPA.

Some commenters argued that the draft SCA should be kept because

.it would condense the numerous technical issues and discussions, j which will be quite extensive and will take place at a wide range

. of locations and times, in a way that would make it practicable i

for them to be involved and to ccmment effectively. However, the principal issues should have been addressed in the documentation of these technical meetings. Specifically, the meeting minutes l

or transcripts are placed in central locations (vi:. public document rooms) to facilitate public access and review.

j Moreover, the issues will still all be addressed or " condensed" in the SCP (and the SCA as well), where all parties will have an opcortunity to consicer them. The staff's analysis would not be

The Commissioners 7 needed in order for other reviewers to be able to comment effectively on the SCP.2 Moreover, as indicated, there are plenty of opportunities for NRC

, to be made aware of the issues of concern, so that they would be dealt with in the SCA. But, most importantly, NWPA contemplates that the States and affected Indian tribes will present their criticisms to DOE directly. Under the statute, the Commission, States, and affected Indian tribes have a parallel reviewing function. This is different frem the scheme outlined earlier in Part 60, and the difference should be reflected in the language of the rule.

15:03 commenters argue that the elimination of the draft SCA implies that NRC Cight not actually address issues that commenters wish to raise. As already n:ted, hcwever, comments will be solicited on the SCA that is actually prepared, se that any actual oversights can be addressed. The proposed rule (560.18(f))

provided that the Director would publish a notice requesting public comment on the.SCA. This was intended to provide greater assurance to NRC that it had not cvtricoked any issue of substance and that its analysis of the SCP has addressed tha issues in a reasonable and understandable way. The staff expected that all comments received would be reviewed, but that no documented record of such review would be made. A consideration of the comments received in response to the preposed rule suggests that the language might give rise to expectations that NRC would analy:e all comments on the SCA more formally, and that any fcfluro to do so (or any inadequate analysis of comments raised) might give rise

.t3 a lawsuit to require NRC to carry out a fuller analysis. The Commission could eliminate this contingency by amending $60.18 to omit the requirement for pubife comment on the published SCA. The staff does not recommend that action, however, as it regards the opportunity for public comment to be a valuable lcontributiontoeffectiveNRCreview. The staff maintains that the language

would net require the undertaking of a formal analysis.

s .

Th] Commissioners 8 Site Selection Information There were comments concerning the deletion of site screening and selection information from the SCP contents. Some commenters favored the deletion, more opposed it. Unfavorable comments were based on a perceived lack of any NRC review of COE's site screen-ing and selection process. However, the NRC has played a role in this precess. This role has involved the review of site data to identify licensing issues at the earliest possible stage; review of environmental assessments which provide the basis for site selection decisions, review of'other site specific documents; and concurrence in the siting guidelines. Also, we expect to review and comment on CCE's scoping documents and activities for implementing NEPA in the repository program which are to be developed pursuant to CEQ rules, and to comment on 00E's EIS.

1 .

The issue of concarn in connection with these amendments is not whether the Ccmmission should be involved in the site screening' and selection process; but what should be the required content and the scope of NRC review of the SCPs. It is clear to the staff, from the NWPA, that the site selection issues previously dealt with in Part 60 were to be separated frera the site characteri:ation plans and dealt with, instead, in the

environmental assessments. The regulation was filling a gap by requiring site selection information in the SCP. That gap no

longer exists.

Shaft Sinkinq l

Some ccmmenters suggested that the regulation be amended to require that 00E not proceed to characteri:e sites by sinking shafts until NRC and State review and ccmment upon the SCP are ccmolete. The NWPA does acpear to call for the SCP to be the t

,. 9 The Commissioners 9 time to take up shaft related issues. It is not unreasonable to interpret the NWPA to mean that 00E should wait. Thus, we are in genera' agreement with the commenters' view of the NWPA requirements on this matter. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, "The Commission believes that Congress intended that 00E should provide the plans sufficiently far in advance se that ecmments may be developed and submitted back to 00E early enough to be considered when shaft sinking occurs, and at all times thereafter." However, the staff believes that this question is essentially a matter of statutory construction of the obligations of 00E under Section 113(b) of the NWPA and that the ,

apprcpriate course is to leave it to 00E in the first instance to construe and apply the law. There is no compelling reason for the Ccmmission to incorporate its interpretations of such a provision in its own regulations. 00E has stated 3 that shaft sinking will not occur until sufficient time has elapsed to allow for review and comment on the SCP's.4 Simultaneous Promulcation of Amendments 7

Some commenters recommend that all revisions to Part 60 and Part 51 to conform them to the NWPA should be promulgated simul-taneously. In particular, they recommend tnat the revisions ,

concerning NEPA requirements acccmpany the revisions currently being promulgated. They believe this is necessary to assure that

, 3Mtssicn Plan, 00E/RW-0005, June 1985, Vol. I, pg. 59 and Vol. II, pg.129.

' CStates have recently expressed continued concern on this matter. For example, in a July 18, 1985 meeting on Generic Exploratory Shaft-Design and Construction, representatives of Texas and Utah, provided further explanation of the need for a requirement that 00E wait to receive and consider comments on the SCP before shaft sinking, and of their concern with the NRC/00E staff arrangements for resolution of shaft-related issues prior to the SCP. They pointed out that tne Sitates are not yet prepared to participate in this early resolution process.

Th:y have believed that, according to the NWPA, these issues would be discussed in tho SCP and would be tne subject of meaningful discussion in the comment on the SCP. They are concerned that they do not new have the resources or technical expertise to participate fully in early resolution of such matters.

s .

The Ccemissioners 10 a cceprehensive and integrated approach is taken and to eliminata any confusion regarding NWPA and NEPA requirements. They argue that much of Part 60 new rests on NEPA authority so that failure to include NEPA in the currently proposed revision casts a cloud over the Commission's view of its authority to carry out early site reviews. This issue was raised earlier and was discussac in l SECY-84-263A. The Ccemissicn has not put off considering its l

! responsibilities under NEPA as modified by the NWPA. In develep-ing these preposed regulation changes, we have specifically evaluated whether it was necessary to take any steps during the site screening stages to assure meeting our ultimate NEPA respon- I sibilities. The issues in this amendment are separable from j other NWPA mandated matters, including the NEPA concerns which  ;

l will be addressed in the Part 51 amendments. I Chances in Final Amendments The staff made a number of changes in the final amendments in response to comments received. However, substantive changes were limited to these; (1) providing for public ccmment on NRC responses to COE's semi-annual reports on site characteri:ation, and (2) p-ovicing opportunity for the host State and affected Indian tribes for each site to be characteri:ed to present their views to NRC during preparation of the SCA, Ccmmission resource needs to implement the provisions of 10 CFR 60 have been reflected in programmatic budget recuests. Thus, no significant now resource expenditures will be required by issuance of the amendments.

The C:mmissioners 11 Recommendations: That the Commission:

1. Amorove for publication final amendments to 10 CFR 60 dealing with site characterization and the participation of States and Indian tribes, and the accompanying Statement of Considerations, as set forth in the draft Federal Register notice in Enclosure A.

2. Certify that the revised rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This certification is necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C.

605 (a).

3. Note:

(a) In accordance with section 121 (c) of the Nuclear Waste

?

Policy Act, no environmental review has been performed in connection with this action.

(b) The comments received in response to the proposed rule are contained in Enclosure C. The staff's analysis of these comments is contained in Enclosure B. The

, proposed Federal Register notice (Enclosure A) refers to the latter document as "the Commission's analysis.','

(c) Sections 60.62 and 60.63 of this rule amend information collection requirements that are subject to the Pacer-work Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U. 5. C. 3501 et seq.).

Office of Management and Budget accroval of the information collection requirements in these amencments has been entained (CMB No. 3150-0127, expiration cate l 11/30/87).

I

The Ccamissioners 12 (d) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed by the Division of Rules and Records of the Certification regarding economic impact on small entities.

(e) The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Ccmmittee, the Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and the Subecmmittee on Energy and Power of the Siouse Interstate and Foreign Commerce Ccmmittee will be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure D.

(f) The Office of Public Affairs has determined that it is not necessar/ to issue a public announcement for these amendments. However, a copy of this Commission paper package is being placed in the Public Occument Room.

(g) A regulator / analysis is contained in Enclosure E. .

(h) A comparative text of the proposed amendments is included in Encio.sure G.

r .

(( -

N W1111as.J. 01rcks Executive Director for Operations ERefesures:

A - Federal Register Notice " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories: Amendments to Licensing Precedures 3 - Precedural Amendment Cements - Cement Sumary and Staff Analysis C - Peblic Cement Letters D.- Graft Congressional Letter E - Aegulatory Analysis .

F - Federal Register Notice - Proposed Rule 2-

e 13 P

Ccmmissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.c.b. Friday, November 8, 1985. ,

Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT Friday, November 1, 1985, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for cnalytical review and coment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments -may be expected.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OPE OI OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY l

l l

l l

1 l

l

J., a A __#a.. ._u .- - __+m _. - L- - - - ---2.h--mA- a m _ _ _ --- .-- -- h.e-- A. A--- - - - m. --.c- --

A.%Mw_ - 6- A .- . - - * - -. _ _ ~ - - - - - a 4 o I, , ,

e I.

O 1= +

i

• J d

b i

i s

b I

e

1. e

?

4 I

D 1

4 4

r i

i 1

i

) DCI.0Si!RE A 4

1 4 . ,

e i

l-S 4

4 l

l

)

}

s l

i i

i i

f 4

I e

G J

i 1

I 4

I Y

• e 1

l

- _ . _ , - _ , - - . . . _ , . _ _ . _ - , _ - , .. -_ . , _ . - , _ - , . , _ , . . . _ .-__m._,_._.., , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ -_ . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , . . .___-,___ ____.__ _ _

[75g0-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 60 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:

Amendments to Licensing Procedures AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission, ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is amending its regula-tions applicable to the disposal of high-level radicactive wastes in geologic repositories. These amendments deal with precedural aspects of site characterization and the participaticn of States and Indian tribes.

Among other things, the rules set forth requirements applicable to the Department of Energy for submitting site characterization plans. For the most part, the amendments to licensing procedures are changes rnade to reflect the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

EFFECTIVE DATE: [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clark Prichard, Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) a27-4536.

SUPPLFMENTARY INFORMATION:

Thard<mwen A_

[7590-01]

EACKGROUND On February 25, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) premulgated licensing procedures for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in geologic repositories (46 FR 13971). The enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C.10101 et seq., brought about a need to revise seme of the procedures in 10 CFR

60. The NWPA set forth in considerable detail the procedures to be followed during the process of siting and development of HLW geologic 4

repositories, and the respective roles of NRC, the Department of Energy (COE), and States and Indian tribes. These amendments contain the changes to 10 CFR Part 60 that are needed to conform the licensing procedure', in the rule to the provisions of the NWPA. In adcition, the amendments contain some changes considered desirable in light of experience gained with the. pre-licensing consultation process since the prcmulgation of the procecural part of 10 CFR Part 60.

On January 17, 1985 the Comission published proposed procedural amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 for public ccmment (50 FR 2579). The proposed amendments contained revisions to (1) the content of the site characterization plan (SCP), (2) NRC review of the SCP, anc the issuance by NRC of a site characterization analysis (SCA), (3) means and timing of State and *.ndian tribe consultation with NRC and participation in NRC reviews, and (4) notice and publication by NRC with respect to site characteri:ation docurrents. The Comission received a numcer of comments on the pecposed amenc: rents, all cf whicn have been carefully considered.

The principal issues raised by these centents are ciscussed bekw.

)

l 1

2 __ _ __

Enclosure A

[75g0-013 CCMMENTS A total of 15 organizations comented cn the proposed rule, addressing a variety cf concerns. Five of these issues call for extended response in this statement. These issues are: whether NRC shculd issue a draft site characteri:ation analysis; the deletion of site selection informaticn frcm the centents cf the SCP; whether COE should be recuired to receive and consider coments on the SCP before starting to sink a shaft; whether all amendments of 10 CFR Part 60 and Part 51 to ccnform with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, especially these related to NEPA requirements and the present amendments, should be prcmulgated at the same time; and whether host States should autcmatically be afforded party status in licensing prceeedings. Sar:1 aries of the ce m ents received en these issues are presented belcw. Copies of all the ccments, and the Ccmission's analysis of them, are available in the Ccmission's Public Document Room.

a. Draft Site Characterization Analysis There were several coments about the deletion of the craft site characteri:ation analysis. Under the proposed rule, the NRC would have issued an SCA, a final set of coments on COE's SCP and would have invited public cement cn its SCA for censideraticn in the engeing staff review and cecentary on the COE program but wculd not have issued both a draft and a final SCA. Sorto cementers agreed witn eliminaticn cf tne draft SCA. However, mcs; c menters requested that NRC continue to issue its analysis in toen a dra't and final form. Cc=enting States anc tribes believe that they have substantial expertise which NRC shoulo 3 EncloSVre A l

[7590-01]

consider in preparing its analysis en the DOE SCP. Scme States wanted to see NRC's draft SCA to have the benefit of NRC's expertise while preparing their cwn ccmments. Some cementers emphasi:ed a belief that any schedule delays resulting from issuing a draft SCA would not be important. Some cementers believed that the opportunities and procedures for public and State involvement in the repository siting and development process under the NWpA are not substantially different from those contemplated when the previous regulations were premulgatec. Frem this they concluded that there is no reason for NRC to change its procedures by eliminating the draft analysis on COE's SCP's.

The Ccmission understands the concerns of the States, tribes and public that their views be heard and considered. The Comission intends to be fully aware of State, tribe and public views before, during, and after the site characteri:ation plan review. The States ano tribes will be routinely infonned of the information made available to NRC and NRC's cements thereon. The States and tribes are able to participate at NRC/COE technical meetings. As is now being done, the NRC staff will ccntinue to have discussiens with State and tribe representatives and will respond to written submissions from the States ano tribes. The NRC will also follow closely the NWPA mandated opportunities for State, tribe and public interaction with COE to be aware of the concerns whicn are expressed by the States and tribes in these forums.

The need for opportunities for State, Indian tribe, and public involvement is adcressed extensively by the NWPA. The procedures established by the statute provide means for inferming NRC cf issues of concern. Given these specific precedures, anc taking into account the scheduling provisions of the NWPA, the publicaticn of a draft SCA is no 4 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

longer warranted. It is not recuired by law. It is important to note, hcwever, that there will still be an cpportunity to cement on NRC's SCA l as the rule as amended requires the solicitation of such cc.ments. NRC will make further coments to CCE if the State and public cements on )

NRC's SCA provide substantial new grounds for making racemendaticns or stating objections to DOE's site characterization program. (It should be noted, however, that NRC coes not centemplate a formal coment analysis.)

To furnish additional assurance to the host State and affected Indian tribes that their views will be considered in NRC's preparation of its SCA, a provision has been added to the final regulation providing an opportunity, before publication of the SCA by NRC, for those parties to present their views on the COE SCP and suggestions with respect to NRC coments thereon.

b. Site Selection Infonnation Scme cementers opposed the deletion of information concerning 00E's site screening and selection process frem the SCP centents. Scme ccm-menters also comented unfavorably on a perceived lack of any NRC review of COE's site screening and selection process. A few cementer; supported the deletion of such information from the SCPs.

The Cemission has carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the comenters who stated that site selection informaticn should still be included in the SCPs. The Ccmmission continues to believe that such information is neither appropriate nor required in an SCp.

In regard to the gereralirec ccncern that NRC shculd be involved in the site selecticn process, it is n:tec tnat the NRC has playec an important role in this process and will c ntinue to do so. The sites E Fh

[7590-01]

under censideration for ncmination have been the subject of continucus scrutiny by the NRC staff to identify licensing issues at the earliest 1

possible stage. Available data are examined en a regular basis and site j specific documents such as the environmental assessments are carefully reviewed. There are also activities specified by the NWPA which afford the NRC an opportunity to directly influence the site selection process.

These are NRC concurrence in DOE's siting guidelines and review and ccm-ment on the site characterization plans. NRC expects that, under the EIS scoping process pursuant to CEQ rules, 00E will keep NRC fully and currently infomed of its plans for implementation. We also expect to review and cement on DOE's scoping documents and activities for implementing NEPA in the repcsitory program which are te be developed pursuant to CEQ rules, and to comment on DOE's EIS.

Thus, the issue of concern in this rulemaking is not whether the Commission should be involved in the DOE site screening and selection process generally. It is, more specifically, the secpe of the infonnation to be included in the DOE submission. The new statute, while generally conforming to the earlier NRC regulaticn, cmitted the provisions dealing with NRC review of site selection matters. The Comission construes this action as an indicaticn that the site selecticn issues previously dealt with in Part 60 were to be separated frem the site characterization reports and cealt with, instead, in the environmental assessments. Under the NWPA, the Comission's role in the review cf DOE's site characterization plans is to cetermine whether they are appropriate in light of the Ccmission's regulations. Attentien will be directed :cward the adecuacy of the characterizaticn of a particular 6 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

site; and this is different frem, and not dependent upon, the ,

i considerations that led to the selection of that site.

c. Shaft Sinking Some comenters suggested that the regulation should be amended to require that COE may not prcceed to characterize sites by sinking shafts until NRC and State review and cc:r ent upon the SCP are complete. One comenter suggested that the regulation be clarified to specify that ccmpletion of NRC review is not a condition precedent for shaft sinking.

The Ccmission is generally in accord with the ccmmenters who regard NWPA as requiring that DOE defer the sinking of shafts at least until such time as there has been an opportunity for pertinent ccmments on shaft sinking to have been solicited and considered by COE. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, "The Commission believes that Congress intended that DOE should provide the plans sufficiently far in advance so that cements may be developed and submitted back to COE early encugh to be considered when shaft sinking occurs, and all times thereafter." The question, therefore, is not whether the Comission agrees with the objective of those commenters to defer shaft sinking until after ccmments on the SCP have been received by COE, but rather whether this requirement should be incorporated into the Comission's rules. What is involved is essentially a construction of the obligaticns of COE, as a matter of statutory interpretation, urder section 113(b) of NWPA. Unless there is a compelling reason for the Ccmission to incorporate its reading of such a provision in its cwn regulaticns, the acpropriate course is to leave it to 00E in the first instance to ccnstrue and apply the law.

? hwJtaaweal

[75g0-01]

The Comission finds no such ccmpelling reason. It relies, in part, on the opportunities for information exchange which are available to it under its established working arrangements (including the Procedural Agreement, 48 FR 51876, described in the preamble to the proposed rule).

One of the cbjectives of these arrangements is to enable NRC to review and coment in a timely fashion on those issues that may have a bearing upon COE's decision to proceed with, or delay, the sinking of repository shafts. Many issues related to the shaft sinking have long lead times.

These issues are being taken up by the NRC prior to the SCP under the aforementioned open working arrangements. Moreover, the Comissicn is aware that COE itself has indicated its intentien to wait until it has ccmpleted a review of coments before proceeding to sink shafts. Tne Ccmmission observes that COE's failure to await, and to take into account, pertinent NRC cements might result in later licensing difficulties,

d. Simultaneous Promulaation of Amendments Some comenters reccmmended that all revisions tc Part 60 and Part 51 to conform them to the NWPA should be prceulgated simultaneously.

In particular, they recomended that the revisions concerning NEPA requirements accompany the revisions currently being prcmulgated. They believe that this would assure that a comprehensive and integrated approach is taken and any confusion regarding NWPA and NEPA requirements would be eliminated. They argue that much of Part 60 new rests on NEPA authority so that failure to include NEPA in the currently prepcsed revision casts a cloud over the Ccmmissicn's view of its authcrity to carry cut early site reviews.

S Enclosure A

[7590-01]

The Ccmission has not put off censidering the respcnsibilities under NEPA as modified by the NWPA. In developing these changes to the regulation, the Ccmission has specifically censiderec whether any procedures might be needed at the site screening or characterization stage, so as to assure that the Ccmission would be able to meet its ultimate NEPA responsibilities. The Comission concludes that they are not.

The Comission's Part 51 regulations govern the Comission's responsibilities for cenoucting environmental reviews associated with its licensing ano regulatory functions. Section 121(c) of NWPA, 42 U.S.C.

10141, clearly states that the requirements and criteria set forth in Part 60 relate to the Ccem ission's responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act and do not require a NEPA EIS. The Part 51 changes, en the cther hand, will relate to the Comission's NEPA obligaticns at the time DOE applies for a license.

It appears that, under NWPA, NRC prelicensing review cf NEPA issues was, in fact, not intended to be extensive. Aside from its ccccurrence in the siting guidelines, the statutory scheme calls for NRC participaticn to comence with the filing of the site characterization plans by COE. Furthermore, unless 00E fails to follow the procedures for identifying sites to be characterized, as specified in NWPA, there would be no basis or authority to insist, for NEPA purposes, that particular sites be excluded or that other sites be selectec for characterization.

In light of the Commissien's understanding witn respect to its respcnsibilities, it is important to proceed with the present acticn without awaiting cther changes that will be pre;csed in the light of NWPA. This is especially the case so that the changes related to site

• Encicsure ? ,

1 1

. l

[7590-01]

characterization can be implementec in a timely fashicn as CCE prepares its site characterization plans.

The Ccmmission ackncwleoges that the authority citation for Part 60 includes a reference to NEPA; that is appropriate because the regulation specifies NEPA licensing findings,10 CFR 60.31(c), 60.41(d), and contemplates the inclusion, in a construction authcrization and a license, of conditions to protect environmental values, 10 CPR 60.32(a),

60.42(a). These sections in essence, merely require that the construction and cperation of a repository ccmply with NEPA requirements.

They do not represent a reliance on NEPA authority as a significant underpinning for Part 60. Part 51 of NRC regulations, which deals with NEPA implementation, will however need to be changed - specifically to (1) define the alternatives that must be discussed in an environmental impact statement, (2) exempt the prcmulgation of NRC licensing requirements and criteria frcm environmental review under NEPA, and (3) set out procedures that will be follcwed by the Commission in determining whether or not to adopt the DOE EIS. The alternatives are, for the most part, prescribed by NWPA. The exemption of licensing requirements from environmental review is also an explicit feature of that Act. The procedures for adoption of the DOE environmental impact staterrent will be governed by NWPA anc the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality. These changes to Part 51 will be needed in order to conform NEC's licensing process to applicable law. Nothing in the present acticn impairs the Ccmission's ability te make the recuired changes to Part 51 or otherwise to meet its NE?A obligations. Thus, in ceveleping this current amendment tne Ccmaissien has specifically considerec wnetner any procedures might be neeced curing the current site screening process to 10 Encicsure A

[7590-01]

assure meeting its ultimate NEPA responsibilities. The Ccmission concludes that they are not. Nothing in the upccming Part 51 changes will affect early site screening involvement. Accordingly, this rule is separable from the amendments to be proposed to Part 51. It is needed now by DOE, and there would be no justification for delay in promulgating i it.

e. Party Status for Host State The point was raised that a host State is entitled to full party status at the cutset in NRC licensing proceedings and should have the rights of such a party. An absolute right of participation in NRC licensing proceedings should be declared by 10 CFR Part 60.

Under section 189(a) of the Atcmic Energy Act, a2 U.S.C. 2239, a person "whose interest may be affectec" is entitled to be admitted to a licensing hearing as a party. Under this statutcry provision, there can be no question that the host State has a legal right to be a party.

Nevertheless, as in any judicial or administrative proceeding, certain rules of practice are essential in order for the party's interest in a matter, its contentions with respect thereto, and its claims for relief, l to be made a matter of reccrd.

Rights of participation in NRC licensing proceedings are referencec in 10 CFR 560.63. The tests of standing are set out in 12.714. These tests are clearly met for host State participation. The stancing tests woulc be met for affected Incian tribes as well. (It is also noted tnat States anc arguably affected Indian tribes can :articipate uncer 10 CFR !2.715 withcut having to take a positicn en issues by 11 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

supplementing their intervention petition with cententiens as required by 12.714.) There is thus no substantial basis of concern with respect to the issue raised by the ccmmenters. Once the State / tribe is admitted as an intervenor, it would enjoy the full rights of a party. These include, with respect to all matters affecting its interest, the rights to introduce evidence, put on witnesses, cross-examination, full notice and service of all pleadings, full rights of discovery, and standing to appeal. Non-host States may also participate in licensing preceedings as parties to the extent they meet the tests of standing set out in 10 CFR Part 2, or as interested States.

CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The final rule centains the following substantive changes frem the proposed rule as published on January 17, 1985.

Authority Citation Section 14(a) of Public Law 95-601, 42 U.S.C. 2021a wculd require l

that DOE notify the Ccmissicn as early as possible after cemencement of planning for a particular repository. The Comission was directed to I notify States in turn. As implied by the preamble to the proposed rule, the Comission considers these recuirements to have been supersedeo t:y NWPA. The authority citation has been modified accorcingly.

Exclusion of Defense Waste Facilities The Ccmission's licensing authority extenes to two different classas of hign-level waste disposal facilities: repositories used l l

primarily for civilian waste (inclucing spent nuclear fuel) and '

l 12 Encicsure A

[7590-01]

facilities for defense wastes. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Sec. 202, 42 U.S.C. 5842. NWPA applies only to seme of these facilities

- namely, those used at least in part for civilian wastes (i.e., not exclusively for defense wastes). Sec. 8(c), 42 U.S.C. 10107. A ccmmenter suggested that the pre-hWPA procedures should expressly be retained for defense-only facilities, as they were not covered by NWPA and the statute accordingly did not support any change in NRC requirements. The point has merit. However, in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 8(b) of NWPA, the President has new determined that the development of a repositcry for the disposal of defense HLW is not required. There is thus no longer any need for regulations dealing specifically with a defense-waste-only repository.

To reflect this ccnclusion, and clarify the scope of the regulations, Section 60.1 is being revised so as to limit the application of the part to facilities " sited, constructed, or operated in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982." Also, the reference in 560.17(a)(4) to a geologic repository that is not subject to the Waste Policy Act has been deleted.

i Authority Reference for Site Characterization

~

One ccmmenter noted that the reference to former 10 CFR 151.40, in connection with the requirement that DOE is to conduct a program o characterire multiple sites, has been superseded by the NWPA. In l

response to that cement, 560.15(c) has been changed to indicate tha-Sec.113 of the NWFA (42 U.S.C.10133) is the basis for the site characterizaticn program reouirement. The proposec :mencmen s had simply I

renumbered this section frca !60.10 t !60.15 witncut change.

i

'. 3 Encicsure A

,,H

[7590-01]

l Authority for Early Site Review by NRC ,/

/ ,

In response to the cement that the NRC/4hould not rely on the COE-NRC Procedural Agreement as authcrityIor early site review, the

/

footnote to 960.18 is revised to delette the reference to the DOE-NRC Procedural Agreement. The Comis[o relies upcn the statutes listed in the authority citation. /

/

/

Public Cement on NRC C'oments to COE on Site Characterization l

One comment stitec that issues arising during site characterization could be more readily brcught to the Ccmmission's attention by estab-lishing a notice and public cement process for the NRC semi-annual ccm-ments to DOE on site characteri:ation. Just as the Comission will solicit coments on its cements on COE's initial SCP, it wants to allow for public cement en any Comission cements on COE's semi-annual i reports. Section 60.18(i) has therefore been changed to include a provision that the Director shall invite public comment on cements which the Director makes to COE upon review of the DOE semi-annual reports er on any other coments which the Director makes to COE on site characterization.

Obtaining Host State and Affected Indian Tribe Views en the SCP Although the Ccmission continues to find preparation of tne draft SCA to be unnecessary, some recogni-icn of its intention to welecme the views of host States and affected Indian tribes is warranted.

Accordingly,160.1S(b) has been changed to prcvide an eccertunity for tne host State and affected Incian tribes fer each sita to be characteri:ed la Enclosure A

[7590-01]

to present their views on the COE SCP and their suggestiens with respect to NRC ccmments thereon.

Consultation and Site Review As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, prior provisions pertaining to participation of Indian tribes have been incorporated in the substantive provisions applicable to States. Further editorial changes (i.e., references to " tribes") have been made to acccmplish this purpose in 560.62(c). The final rule, in !60.2 also sets out the full text of the statutory definition of "affected Indian tribe".

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Nuclear ' Waste Policy Act, this rule coes not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement under Section 102(2)(C) of the Naticnal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of Section 102(2) of such act.

PAPER'AORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT l

i This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget-Approval No. 3150-0127.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT CERTIFICATION

'5 Enclosure A

[7590-01] .

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a signifi-cant ecencmic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule relates to the licensing of only one entity, the U.S. Department of Energy, which does not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

LIST OF SUEJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 60 High-level waste, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal .

ISSUANCE For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani ation Act of 1974, as amenced, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C.

553, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is adopting the following amend-i ments to 10 CFR Part 60.

PART 50 - DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN ,

I GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES i

1. The authority citation for Part 60 is revisec to read as l follows:

l 15 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5842, 5846); sec.10 Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 121, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141).

For the purposes of Sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C 2273), il 60.71 to 60.75 are issued under Sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22010).

2. Section 60.1 is revised to read as follcws:

160.1 Purcose and scoce.

This part prescribes rules governing the licensing of the U.S.

Department of Snergy to receive and possess scurce, special nuclear, and byprocuct material at a geologic repcsitory operations area sited, constructed, or operated in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. This part does not apply to any activity licensed under another l

l part of this chapter.

l l 3. Section 60.2 is revised by removing the definitions of "Incian tribe" and " Tribal organization" and inserting, in the appropriate alpha-betical location, a definition of the term "affectec Incian tribe" to read as follows:

! 60.2 Definitions.

As used in this Part --

17 5ncicsure A

[7590-01]

"Affected Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe - (a) within whose reservation bounoaries a monitorec retrievable storage facility, test and evaluation facility, or a repository for high-level radioactive waste or spent fuel is proposed to be located; (b) whose federally defined possessory or usage rights to other lands outside of the reservation's boundaries arising out of congressionally ratified treaties may be substantially and adversely affected by the locating of such a facility:

Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior finds, upon the petition of the appopriate governmental officials of the tribe, that such effects are both substantial and adverse to the tribe.

560.10 [ Redesignated as 160.15]

4 Section 60.10 is redesignated as 160.15. In new 160.15, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

? 60.15 Site characteri:ation (c) As provided by Sec. 113 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (12 U.S.C.10133), 00E is also required to conduct a program of site characterization, including in situ testing at depth, with respect to alternate sites. )

1 60.11 [ Removed]

5. Section 60,11 is removec.

6. Sections 60.16 through 60.18 are adced to read as follows:

18 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

i 60.16 Site characterizaticn olan recuired.

Before proceeding to sink shafts at any area which has been approved by the President for site characterization, DOE shall submit to the Director, for review and coment, a site characterization plan for such area.

I 60.17 Contents of site characterization olan.

The site characterization plan shall contain --

(a) A general plan for site characterization activities to be con-ducted at the area to be characterized, which general plan shall include:

(1) A description of such area, including information on quality assurance programs that have been applied to the collection, recording, and retention of 'information useo in preparing such description.

(2) A description of such site characterization activities, including the following --

(1) The extent of planned excavations; (ii) Plans for any onsite testing with radicactive or nonradioactive material; (iii) Plans for any investigation activities that cay affect the capability of such area to isolate high-level radicactive waste; (iv) Plans to control any adverse impacts frem such site characterizaticn activities that are important to safety or that are important to waste isolation; and (v) Plans to apply quality assurance to data collecticn, reccrding, and re:ention.

19 Enclosure A

l

[7590-01]

1 (3) Plans for the decentaminaticn and deccmmissioning of such area, and for the mitigaticn of any significant adverse environmental i l

impacts causea by site characterization activities, if such area is l determined unsuitable for application for a construction authorization for a geologic repository operations area; (4) Criteria, developed pursuant to section 112(a) cf the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to be used to determine the suitability of such area for the location of a geologic repository; and (5) Any other information which the Commission, by rule or order, recuires.  ;

(b) A cescription of the possible waste form or waste package fcr the high-level radioactive waste to be emplaced in such geologic reposi-tory, a description (to the extent practicable) of the relationship be-tween such waste form or waste package and the host rcck at such area, and a description of the activities being conducted by CCE with respect to such possible waste form or waste package or their relationship; and (c) A conceptual cesign for the geologic repository cperations area that takes into account likely site-specific requirements.

1 60.18 Review of site characterization activities.1 (a) The Director shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice that a site characteri:ation plan has been receivec frcm DOE and that a staff review of such plan has begun. The notice shall identify the area to be characterized and the .NRC s:aff members to be consulted for further information.

20 Enclosure A

9 '

[7590-01]

(b) The Director shall make a copy of the site characterization plan available at the Public Document Roem. The Director shall also IIn addition to the review of site characterization activities specified in this section, the Comission contemplates an ongoing review of other information on site investigation and site characterization, in order to allcw early icentification of potential licensing issues for timely resciution. This activity will include, for example, a review of the environmental assessments prepared by COE at the time of site nomination.

21 Er. closure A

[7590-01]

\

1 transmit copies of the published notice of receipt to the Governor and legislature of the State in which the area to be characterized is lccated  ;

and to the governing body of any affected Indian tribe. The Director shall provide an opportunity, with respect to any area to be characterized, for the State in which such area is located and fcr affected Indian tribes to present their views en the site characteri:ation plan and their suggestions with respect to ccmments thereon which may be made by NRC. In addition, the Director shall make NRC staff available to consult with States and affected Indian tribes as provided in Subpart C of this part.

(c) The Director shall review the site characterization plan and prepare a site characterization analysis with respect to such plan. In the preparation of such site characterization analysis, the Director cay invite and consider the views of interested persons on DOE's site char-acterization plan and may review ano consider comments made in connection with public hearings helo by DOE.

(d) The Director shall provide to DOE the site characterization analysis together with such additional comments as may be warrantec.

These ccmments shall include either a statement that the Director has no objection to the DOE's site characterization program, if such a statement is appropriate, or specific objections with respect to COE's program for characterizaticn of the area concerned. In addition, the Director may make specific reccamandations pertinent to COE's site characteri:ation program.

(e) If CCE's planned site characterizaticn activities incluce ensite testing with radicactive material, tne Director's ccmments sba::

include a determinatien regarding whether or not the Ccmmission concurs 22 Enclosure A

. . l

[7590-01]  ;

i I

1 that tre pnsi:aind use of such radioactive material is necessary to provide data for the preparation of the environmental reports required by law and for an application to be submitted under s 60.22 of this part.

(f) The Director shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of availability of the site chart.cterintion analysis and a request for i public comment. A reasonable period, not less than 90 days, shall be allowed for comment. Copies of the site characterization analyses and of the ccmments received shall be made available at the Public Occument Room.

(g) During the conduct of site characterization activities, CCE shall report not less than once every six months to the Commission on the nature and extent of such activities and the information that has been developed, and on the progress cf waste form and waste package research ano development. The semiannual reports shall include the results of

, site characteri:ation studies, the identification of new issues, plans for additional studies to resolve new issues, eliminaticn of plannec studies no lenger necessary, identification of cecision points reachec and modifications to schedules where appropriate. 00E shall also report its progress in developing the design of a geologic repcsitory operations area appropriate for the area being characteri:ed, noting when key cesign parameters or features which depend upon the results of site characteri:ation will be established. Other topics related to site characterization shall also be covered if requested by the Director.

(h) Curing the conduct of site characteri:ation activities, NRC staff shall ta permitted to visit and inspect the locations at ahich such activities are carried cut and to coserve excavations, torings, arc in situ tests as they are done.

23 Encicsure A

[7590-01]

l (i) The Director may cement at any time in writing to COE, expres-sing current views en any aspect of site characterizaticn. In particular, such cements shall be made whenever the Director, upon review cf comments invited on the site characterization analysis cr u;:en l review of COE's semiannual reports, determines that there are substantial l new grounds for making reccmendations or stating objections to DOE's site characteri:stien program. The Director shall invite public cement I i i on any coments which the Director makes to 00E upon review of the COE  !

semiannual reports or on any other coments which the Director makes to l l

DOE on site characterization. I (j) The Director shall transmit copies of the site characterization analysis and all cements to DOE mace by the Director under th1s section to the Gcvernor and legislature of the State in which the area to be l

characterized is lccateo and to the governing bcdy of any affected Indian tribe. When transmitting the site characteri:ation analysis under this paragraph, the Director shall invite the addressees to review and cement therecn.

(k) All correspondence between DOE and the NRC under this section, including the reports described in paragraph (g), shall be placed in the Public Document Room.

f l (1) The activities described in paragraphs (a) through (k) above constitute informal conference between a prospective applicant and the staff, as described in i 2.101(a)(1) of this chaptar, and are not part of a preceeding under the Atcmic Energy Act cf 1954, as amended. Acccrd-ingly, neither the issuance of a site characteri:aticn analysis rce any other ccmments of the Directer maca under this secticn ccnstitute a ecm-mitment to issue any authorization or license or in any way affect the 24 Ensiegure A

a ,

[75g0-01]

authority of the Commission, the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Boards, other presiding officers, or the Director, in any such proceeding.

7. Subpart C is revised to read as follows:

SUBPART C - PARTICIPATION SY STATE GOVERhf4ENTS AND INDIAN TRIBES 9 60.61 Provision of information.

(a) The Director shall provide to the Governcr and legislature of any State in which a geologic repository operations area is er may be located, and to the governing body of any affected Incian tribe, timely and ccmplete infonnation regarding determinaticns or plans made by the Ccmmission with respect to the site characterization, siting, develop-ment, design, licensing, construction, cperation, regulation, permanent closure, or decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities, of such geologic repository operations area.

(b) For purposes of this section, a geologic repository operations area shall be censidered to be ene which "may be located" in a State if the location thereof in such State has been cascribec in a site characteri:aticn plan submitted to the Ccemission under this part.

(c) Motwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Director is not requireo to distribute any document to any entity if, with respect to such decurrent, that entity er its counsei is included cn a service list prepared pursuant to Part 2 cf this chapter.

a cR Rh

[7590-01]

(d) Copies of all ccmmunications by the Director under this section shall be placed in the Public Cocument Rocm, and copies thereof shall be furnished to 00E.

i 60.62 Site review. ,

(a) Whenever an area has been approved by the President for site characterization, and upon reouest of a State or an affected Indian tribe, the Director shall make NRC staff available to consult with representatives of such States and tribes.

(b) Requests for consultatien shall be made in writing to the Director.

(c) Consultation under this section may include:

(1) Keeping the parties informed of the Director's views on the progress of site characterization.

(2) Review of applicable NRC regulations, licensing procedures, schedules, and cpportunities for State and tribe participation in the Ccmmission's regulatcry activities.

(3) Cooperation in development of proposals for State and tribe participation in license reviews.

! 60.63 Particioation in license reviews.

(a) State and local governments and affected Indian tribes may participate in license reviews as provided in Subpart G of Part 2 of this chapter.

(b) In addition, whenever an area has been apercvec by the President for site charactert:aticn, a State cr an affected Incian tribe may submit to the Director a proposal to facilitate its participation in E6 _ snelosure.A

o .

[7590-01]

the review of a site characterization plan and/or license application.

The proposal may be submitted at any time and shall contain a description and schedule of how the State or affected Indian tribe wishes to participate in the review, cf what services or activities the Stata or affected Indian tribe wishes NRC to carry out, and how the services or activities proposed to be carried out by NRC wcula contribute to such participation. The prcposal may include educational or information services (seminars, public meetings) or other actions en the part of NRC, such as establishing additicnal public document rocms or employment or exchange of State personnel under the Intarsovernmental Personnel Act.

(c) The Director shall arrange for a meeting between the represen-tatives of the State er affected Indian tribe and the NRC staff to discuss any proposal submitted under paragraph (b) of this secticn, with a view to identifying any modifications that may contribute tc the effective participation by such State or tribe.

(d) Subject to the availability of funds, the Director shall approve all or any cart of a proposal, as it may be mccified through the meeting described above, if it is determined that:

(1) The proposed activities are suitable in light of the type and magnitude of impacts which the State or affected Indian tribe may bear; (2) The prepcsed activities (1) will enhance ccmmunicatiens between NRC and the State or affectec Indian tribe, (ii) will make 3 pro-ductive and timely centributicn to the review, and (iii) are authcri:ed by law.

(e) The Directer will acvise tne State er affectec Incian tr'be whether its prcposal has been accepted cr denied, and if all or any part n m

. o R

[7590-C1] l l

l of proposal is denied, the Directcr shall state the reason for the denial.

(f) Proposals submitted under this section, and responses thereto, shall be made available at the Public Document Room.

l 9 60.64 Notice to States.

If the Governor and legislature of a State have jointly designated on their behalf a single person or entity to receive notice and information from the Ccmmission under this part, the Ccomission will provide such notice and information to the jointly designated person or entity instead of the Governor and legislature separately.

9 60.65 Reoresentation.

Any person who acts under this subpart as a representat'Ive for a State (or for the Governor or legislature thereof) or for an affectec Inoian tribe shall include in the request or other submission, or at the request of the Ccmmission, a statement of the basis of his or her authority to act in such representative capacity.

Dated at Washington, DC, this day of , 1985.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Ccmmission.

RM Rnalagsro A

P e I

i 0

0 0

0 E! CLOSURE 3 4

h 8

t 9

PRCCEDURAL AMENDMENT COMMENTS CCMMENT

SUMMARY

AND STAFF ANALYSIS COMMENT NO. 1 Comment Summary There were several comments about the deletion of the craft site cnaracteri:ation analysis. Under the rule as preposed to be amended NRC will issue a single, final set of comments on DOE's SCP and will invite public comment on 1:s comments but will not issue both a draft and a final set of comments. Some ccmmenters agree with the elimination of the draft ccements.

Most commenters recuested that NRC continue to issue its ccmments in both a draft and final form. Commenting States believe that they have substantial expertise which NRC should consider in preparing its comments. Scme States wasted to see NRC's draft ecmments to have the benefit of NRC's expertise while preparing their ccmments. Some ecmmenters emphasi:ed a belief that any schedule delays resulting from issuing draft ecmments woulc not be important.

Some commenters believe tha: the cpportunities and precedures for puclic and state involvement.in the repository siting and develcpment process under the NWPA are not substantially different frem those contemplated when the previous ,

regulations were promulgated. Frem this they conclude that there is no reason for NRC to change its precedures by eliminating the draft ccmments on CCE's SCP's.

Resconse:

The Commission understands the concerns of the States and public that their views be heard and considered. The Commission intends to be fully aware of State and public views before, during, and after the site characteri:ation plan review. The States will be routinely infor=ed of the information made ,

available to NRC and NRC's comments thereon. The States are able to attend ,

NRC/00E technical meetings. As is now being done, the NRC staff will continue to have discussions with State representatives and will rescenc to any written submissions from the States. The NRC will also fellcw closely tne NWpA mandated opportunities for State and public interaction with CCE to be aware of the concerns which are expressed by the States in these forums.

'de note that ne ccmmenter has suggested that the NRC has any statutory duty to publish its comments en the site character 1:ation plans in draft for public cccment. The NRC celieves that the NWpA nas assurec encugn accitional occortunities fer State and public involvement and changec the timing of the SCP's sucn that the NRC can te acequately informed of State anc cuolic views without puclisning its ccements in craft and thus the excenditure of NRC resources requirec : cuclisn craf: comments is no lenger narran ac. It is imcortant to ncte na there will still te an accer unity :: commen: en NRC's comments en :ne SCP. The rule as amencec recuires :ne sclicitation cf sucn l

ccmments. Fur:ner, this single NRC issuance cf comments will cccur a:

E CLOSU2E 3

2  ;

)

approximately the samt point in time as the issuance of a draft would have occurred. Thus, to the extent that $tates want to rely on NRC expertise, NRC's comments will be available to them at the same time as they would have had a draft been issued. Effectively the only difference will be that NRC will not republish its comments. However, NRC will make further comments te COE if the State and public comments en NRC's comments provide substantial new grounds for '

making raccmmendations or stating objections to 00E's site character 1:ation program.

To provide additional assurance to the host State and affected Indian tribes that their views will be considered in NRC's preparation of its comments, a provision has been added to the regulation stating that before publishing its comments on an SCP the NRC staff will provide an opportunity for the host State and affected Indian tribes for the site to present their views on the COE SCP and to review and discuss planned NRC comments on the SCP.

I I

3 1

l CCMMENT No. 2 Comment Summary:

There were a large number of ecmments on the dele fon of site screening and selection infomation frem the SCP and the perceived lack of any NRC review of COE's site screening and selection process. Most of the ccements opcosed the deletion of site screening and selection informatien from the SCP and more generally commented unfavorably on the perceived lack of any NRC review of COE's site screening and selection process. The commenters primary arguments were:

NRC's cbligations to protect health and safety under the Energy Reorganization Act and the Atomic Energy Act require that NRC review the DOE site selection process and engage in a ecmcarative analysis of sites. Moreover, NRC's NEPA responsibilities, including ' consideration of site selection issues, remain unchanged. Under NEPA, NRC has a responsibility to use its expertise to evaluate and compare the choices as the list of sites is winnowed down. The coligation to consider alternatives is contained in NRC licensing stancards and, accordingly, the issues should be acdressed at the earlies pcssible time.

N'dPA requires NRC to " oversee" COE's site selection decisions. The authority to require COE to sub=it "other information" in the site charactert:ation plan is sufficient to enable NRC to obtain and review site selection information.

Moreover, NRC will need to make a c:mparative evaluation of sites in order a satisfy EPA assurance requirements promulgated in accordance with NWPA.

Rescense:

The prior rule required submission in the SCP of informaticn concerning the criteria used to arrive at ne candidate area, the method by which the site was selected for characteri:ation, and the decision process by wnich the site was selected for characteri:ation. The site characteri:ation analysis was to contain a discussion of the items of information requested and an opinion by the Director that he has no cbjection to the COE's site characterization program, if such an option is appropriate, or specific cbjections to COE's proceeding with characteri:ation of the named site. The NRC was to examine COE's site selection process bearing in mind that each site selectec for characteri:ation should have no obvious ceficiency relative to meeting the technical criteria cf 10 CFR Part 60. (44 FR 7Ca09)

The information su:mitted on the site selection process would have included information en the screening process by which CCE's "Octentially acce;::acle" sites were arrived at as well as information on the process for selecting :nree of these sites for cnaracteri:ation.

The NWPA estaclisnec a pr: cess in wnicn the siting guicelines anc :ne enviccamental assessments were ::reparec crier to the SCFs, anc information :n the site selection process was not incluced in the saecifiec c:ntents of the

k 4

SCPs. With information on the site selection process no longer required in the SCP's, NRC's review of the site selection process takes place in its concurrence in the siting guidelines and review of DOE's craft environmental assessments . 00E's general process for site selection is now specified by the NWPA. The criteria for selection of sites and details of the selection process are contained in the siting guidelines in which NRC has concurred. However, it should be noted that the guidelines were not used in the screening process to arrive at the nine "potentially accectable" sites whfen CCE identified. The procecure of starting the site selection process for the first repository with the nine sites which COE had choosen from the site investiga:fons condue:ed prior to the NWPA was incorporated into the screening procedures specified in the guidelines. The Commission accepted this procedure in the guideline concurrence action. Thus the guideline screening prcecures were amplied only to selection of five of the nine sites for nomination. The senedule of events set forth in the NWPA required COE to icentify "potentially acceptable" sites before the guidelines had been developed. These sites were required to be identified within 90 days of the passage of the Act before the guidelines were to be developed. In reviewing and concurring in the guidelines the Commission did not review the screening process by which COE arrived at the nine "potentially acceptable" sites. Information about this screening process would have been included in the SCP's but, under the proposed revision, is no longer provided to NRC in the SCPs. Although the NWPA makes no provisions for NRC review of 00E's icentification of "potentially acceptable" sites for the first repository, some commenters believe that NRC should continue to require this screening information in the SCP's.

Several of these comments excress the opinion that the Commission should play an imoor: ant role in COE's site screening and selection process. In fact, the Commission has been doing just that, anc it will continue to do so. Each of the sites under consideration for nomination and selection for the first repository has been the subject of continuous scrutiny by NRC staff. Public meetings have been held to inform NRC with respect to relevant issues at these sites, NRC onsite representatives follow developments at the respective sites closely, pertinent literature and data are examined on a regular basis, and site-soecific documents such as the environmental assessments are the sucject of detailed scrutiny and comment. All of these NRC activities are designed to identify potential licensing issues at the earliest possible stage. Ey communicating concerns in this fashion, it is hopec :na: COE will therecy be able to make its screening and selection decisions in a more informed manner.

In addition, there are a numcer of activities specified by NWPA which afford NRC an occortunity to have influence in the site selection process. One of tnese is One provision that the guidelines for selection must nave the concurrence of :ne Commission. In fact, wnen guicelines were suomitted, the Commission insisted ucon several changes before it was crecarec to concur

nerein. The cocortunity to review anc comment ucon CCE's site 1 cnaracteri:ation plans will afforc a fur:ner cocortunity to communicate our ,

views regarcing One suitacility of a site to COE, anc it 4s to ce excectec tha cur comments will nave some influence in tne COE cecisionmaking process.

1

5 Finally, NRC will have a role in commenting ucen the environmental imcact statement to be prepared by COE and, in this context, will have an copertunity to express views with respect to the selection of the site which COE proposes to develop.

The issue, therefore, is not whether the Commission should be invcivec in tne COE site screening and selection process generally. The question is much narrower. It concerns the scoce of NRC review of CCE's site characteri:ation plans. Before NWPA was enacted, the NRC regulations did provide for information regarding site selection to be incluced in the COE sucmission. The new statute, while generally conforming to the regulation, omitted the provision dealing with NRC review of site selection matters. The Commission mus: now decide how this deliberate legislative action is to be given effect.

In short, the Ccmmission has concluced that the activities described accve provide appropriately for NRC involvement in site selection. There will be ample opportunity for our views to be made known to CCE, and it is to be expectec that they will heed any well-founded concerns that we may express.

Eut it is not the Commission's role, under any of the statutes cited by the ccmmenters, to select a site. That is the responsibility of CCE, alo~ng with

ne other parties identified by NWPA. It is decidedly our resconsibility to make our concerns abcut the licensability cf particular sites known to CCE as early as possible. In our view, the regulation will serve this need well.

The Commission's duty, under the first statute cited by the commenters, the Atemic Energy Act, is to protect health. It has long been the Ccemissicn's position that the precess of multiple site characteri:ation crovides a workable mechanism by which 00E will be able to develop a slate of candidate sites that are among the best that can reasonably be found and frcm which CCE will select its preferred site. The provisions of NWPA now require that COE adnere to such a process. It is no: the role or responsibility of the Ccmmissien c oversee the compliance of CCE with its statutory cbligations. Rather, consistent with 1:s custcmary practice, the Commission would consicer only wnether a license .

application meets prescribed criteria. In the case of a geologic repository, tnis will include an examination, among other things, of the isolation characteristics of the site. The application will not be granted unless these characteristics enable the Commission to make the findings, with respec: to healen and safety, that are required by Part 60. If the site in questien dces measure up to tne standards established by rule, issuance of a construe:f on autneri:ation or license, as the case may be, would be in order. The same issue arose in connection with the Ccemission's original licensing prececures, see 46 FR 13973; as was snen stated, the Ccmmission perceives no reasen to acca a different philosopny here.

The Ccm=ission agrees :na it is a repriate, under the Energy Reorgani:atien Act, to censicer as:ects of the geolcgic recesitory, in some manner, in acvance Of :ne su:missien of a license a;olica:icn. Eu: such consicera:fon is neecec caly insof ar as 'it is relevant :: the licensing fincings tna: :ne Ccmmission wfil be called u:en :: make. Accercingly, :ne Ccm=ission is actively engaged in the review of informa:icn cevelc;ec by CCE witn res:ect :: any site tnat may

6 be the subject of a license application, but the purpose of NRC's ongoing review is to analy:e the prospective site in terms of its conformance with licensing standards.

Under NEPA, the Ccemission does have a responsibility, of course, to consider alternatives to a proposed action. But the Nuclear Waste Policy Act largely defines the alternatives that are to be considered - namely, the sites which have been charactert:ed and as to which the Secretary of Energy has made a preliminary determination of their suitability for the development of a repository. Although the Commission is directed to adopt the environmental imoact statement prepared by CCE "to the extent practicable," it will not be able to do so unless that EIS is an adequate statement to satisfy NEPA. (On the other hand, the Commission can make the environmental findings specified in 10 CFR Part 60 if the EIS, together with any needed succlements, is acequate.)

Accordingly, NRC included in its review of the environmental assessments for the first repository a consideration of any issues arising under NEPA which were likely to result in the DOE's EIS being determined judicially not to be

~

adeouate. Moreover, NRC will c:mment on the draft EIS tq be prepared by COE with respect to a site rec:mmended for develo: ment to the Presicent. The focus of NRC comments is upon the reasonableness of COE's statements and conclusions, for CGE's EIS can only be found to be adecuate if it satisfies the so-called

" rule of reason." It is anticipated that amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 (pertaining to implementation of NEPA), currently in preparation, will specifically provide for NRC c:mment upon the 00E draft EIS. Although the scoce of the review need not, and will not, be as comprehensive as the commenters consider to be desirable, it will be consistent with the statutory framework as understood by the Commission. Further consideration of the issue will ce in order when proposed amendments to Part 51 are issued for public C:mment.

Whatever the ultimate resolution of the scoce of NRC review of NEPA issues may be, it is largely beside the point at this time. The present rulemaking deals with the contents of site characterication reports. It is clear to the Commission that the site selection issues previously dealt with in Part 60 were to be separated from the site character 1:ation reports and dealt with, instead, in the environmental assessments. The proposed amendments are' designed to conform to NWPA. Accordingly, it is entirely proper to amend former secti:n 60.11 to bring it into line with NWPA. While it is true that the Commission may reouire submission by DOE of "any other information," tnis is not an unlimited grant of authority. Such other information, under the introdue: cry clause of section il3(b)(1)(A), must be germane to "a general plan for site charactert:ation activities to be conducted at such cancicate site." The

hysical attributes of the site, as they may be understood, are of course essential to a review of the site characteri:ation activities to be carried out. But it is difficult to c:ncluce that the manner in wnicn a particular site was selec ec, in : reference :: : ners, is relevant to an analysis of :ne

=recosec pecgram to enaracteri:e it. Uncer :ne NWPA, this information elongs in :ne envir:nmental assessment and not tne site characteri:stion re ort. The

7 2

7 Ccmmission will therefore retain its original position, as sa out in the rule previously proposed.

It is not necessary to speculate upon the effect.of any " assurance requirements" that may be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA Standard has now been issued, and the assurance requirements contained therein do not apoly to facilities subject to NRC licensing.

l

\

l I

l l

1

8 l

COMMENT NO. 3 Comment Summary:

The procedures of existing 10 CFR Part 60 should be retained for the licensing of repositories for defense high level waste. The NWPA based changes being proposed should be applied only to commercial high level waste repositories.

Resoonse:

The primary reason for amending 10 CFR Part 60 at this time is to conform the provisions of Commission regulations to current law. To emphasize this point, section 60.1 is being revised to provide that Part 60 applies to the licensing l of DCE to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repository operations area " sited, constructed, or operated in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982." Uncer this language, a repository used exclusively for wastes generated by defense activities of 00E would not be covered by Part 60 - since the procedures prescribed by NWPA do not apply to such defense facilities. Sec. 8(c), 42 U.S.C. 10107(c).

The commenter is correct in noting that the proposed amencments would eliminate the existing rules for a defense waste facility without providing an alternative structure. Furthermore, in the commenter's view, since NWPA does not apply to such a facility, it does not necessitate any change in the Commission's licensing procedures with respect thereto. However, in accorcance with the procedures set out in Sec. 8(b) of NWPA, the Presicant has now determined that the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste resulting from atomic energy defense activities only is not required. As provided by law, the Secretary of Energy will now proceed to arrange for the use of a repository that is subject to 10 CFR Part 60 for the disposal of such waste. There is thus no longer any need for regulations dealing specifically with a defense waste-only repository.

One element of the commenter's concern relates to defense high-level wastes that would be disposed of in some facility other than a geologic repository.

Both before and suosequent to enactment of NWPA, such a facility would be

• licensable by NRC under Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorgani:ation Act.

Licensing would not have been undertaken under Part 60, however, since those regulations apply, by their terms, exclusively to systems " intended to be used for, or may be used for, the disposal of radioactive wastes in excavated geologic media." The changes being mace therefore nave no bearing ucon the issues of concern to the commenter with respect to such other facilities.

'l 9

CCMMENT NO. 4 Cemment Summary:

The rule does not explicitly require COE to receive, review, or consider the comments cy NRC cn the site characterization plan before proceeding to sink a shaft to characteri:e a site. Some ccmmenters suggested tha 10 CFR Par: c0 be amended to recuire that COE may not proceed to characterize sites by sinking shafts until NRC and State review and comment ucen the SCP are_ccmplete. One commenter suggested that the rule be clarified to specify that c mpletion of NRC review is not a condition precedent for shaft sinking.

Resconse:

The Commission is generally in accord with the com= enters who regard NWPA as recuiring that COE cefer the sinking of shafts at least until such time as there has been an opportunity for pertinent cc=ments to have been solicited and considered by COE. As stated in the preamble to the preposed rule, "The Ccmmissien believes that Congress intended that COE should provice :ne plans sufficiently far in advance so that c:=ments may be develcped and sutmitted back to CCE early enough to be considered when shaft sinking Occurs, and at all times nereafter." The question, therefore, is not wnether the Ccmmission agrees with the cbjective of those commenters, but rather whe:her it should be incor: crated into the Commissien's rules. What is involved is essentially a ccnstruction of the cbligations of COE, as a matter of statu: cry construction, under section 113(b) of NWPA. Unless there is a ecmpelling reason for the Commission to incorporate its interpretation of such a provision in its own regulatiens, the aperocriate course is to leave it to CCE in the firs: instance to construe and apply the law.

The Commissicn finds no such compelling reascn. It relies, in part, en the opportunities for information exchange whien are available to it uncer its established working arrangements (including the Procedural Agreement described in the preamole to the proposed rule). One of the objectives of these arrangements is to enable NRC to review and comment in a timely fasnion en these issues that may have a bearing upon CCE's decision to roceed with, or celay, tne sinking cf recository shafts. Moreover, the Commissicn is aware that 00E itself has indicated its intention to wait untii the ccmpletion of a review and cc= ment period before proceeding to sink shafts. Notwithstanding tnese consicerations, should CCE proceed t0 sink shafts prematurely, anc in violation of NWPA as inter;retec ty the commenters, its actions could be enaliengec by tne filing ty a State, affec ec Indian tribe, or other aggrievec car:y, uncer section 119, of a petition fer review.

10 COMMENT NO. 5 Comment Summary:

The terms " Indian tribe" and " tribal organi:ation" which are currently defined and used in the rule should not be replaced with the term "affected Indian tribes" which is defined and used in the NWPA. The proposed. change would limit participation by Indians and preclude particication by tribes not currently designated as "affected". ,

Resconse:

In proposing to make this change, the Cc= mission believed it was complying with the statutory direction of Congress by defining the parties to receive saecial consideration as they were defined in the NWPA. After reviewing the comments on this proposed revision, the Commission remains persuaded that this is an appropriate course.

This is not to say, however, that the Commission does not recogni:e that as a practical matter, it may be aapropriate to engage in consultations with tribal organi:ations other than those designated as "affectec" uncer Section 2(2) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The principal purpose of the provisions for state and tribal participation in NRC pre-application reviews is to assist the staff in identifying potential licensing issues early, so that both NRC and CCE can fully prepare for a thorough review curing the formal proceeding after an i application is submitted. Because tribal organi:ations other than affected 1 tribes may raise pertinent issues and may later successfully petition for leave  ;

to intervene in the formal proceeding, it would be prudent not to rule out l consultation with tribal organi:ations during site characteri:ation.

]

l I

7.

11 CCMMENT NO. 6 Comment Summary:

The rule should state that the SCA will be provided to COE within 150 days after NRC receives an SCP and that comments relatad to shaft sinking will be proviced within 90 days.

A new section should be added putting into Par: 60 the NWPA schecule requirements for NRC review of the license application. This woule emphasi:e NRC's dual obligations to conduct its licensing proceedings in a full, fair anc open manner, but also to reach its decisions in a timely manner.

Resconse:

The Commission does not believe it is acvisable to codify the timetables for these reviews. We interpret the timeframes in the NWPA to be direct:ry rather that manda:Ory. NRC estimates that the review of an SCP of high quality and ccmpleteness will require 5 months. While NRC will enceavor to c:molete reviews of the SCPs and license application as premo:ly as is consisten with a thorough review, the time recuired for review is highly ce:enden cn the quality and completeness of the COE su==it:als.

The providing of separate comments related to shaf: sinking after 90 days wculd not be practical. The staff effort involved in the prepara icn and release of such separate c mments would significantly delay the release of the complete set of comments on the SCP. It is ossible that such separate comments could not be released much mere quickly than could the entire set of comments.

Me recognize that many pctential licensing cuestions related to shaft construction (a critical path activity) must be accressed weli before the start of shaft c:nstruction and, in some instances, even before SCP issuance. The NRC's ability to provide timely comments and guidance to CCE on shaft-relatec activities is contingent on COE scheduling effective interchange with NRC cefore commitments and decisions are made on these activities, so that 005 can consicer and deveico satisfac: ry resciutien of any NRC comment in a manner not to delay CCE's schecule.

fn any event, cedifying such schedule provisions mign: leave the sufficiency of an c:nerwise prc er proceeding or review in question and subject to legal cnallenge.

12 )

CCMMENT NO. 7 Comment Summary: ,

l The regulation should include the provisions of N'4PA $112 (f) which provide an I exception under certain conditions to the requirement that 00E sucmit a site l cnaracteri:ation plan before proceeding to sink shafts at an area. '

(Essentially a "grancfather" clause for site cnaracteri:ation at EWI?).

Resconse:

The NRC does not believe it is necessary to include this provision in the regulation. It was never ascertained wnether this provision would have been acecuate to permit CCE to continue characteri:ation activities at EWIP. In any event, DCE has chosen to discontinue characterization activities there until after an SCP has been submitted. The siting guidelines which COE has  ;

prcmulgated as regulations would probably now foreclose the use of this exemption.

13 CCMMENT NO. 8 Comment Summary:

Language of procesed rule in Section 60.18 (e) dees not make it clear that NRC concurrence is a legal prerepuisite to the use of radioactive material in characterization.

Resoonse:

When the Commission adopted 10 CFR Part 60, it determined that it lackec jurisdiction over the use of radioactive material by COE for purposes of site characteri:ation. 46 FR 13974-75. This conclusion is expressly stated in the regulations.10 CFR S 60.7(a). The Commission does not regarc NWPA as having expanded its licensing jurisdiction. As before, NRC may neither allow nor prohibit DCE's use of radioactive materials in site characteri:ation.

The Nuclear Waste policy Act does confer new authority upon NRC, but it is limited in scope. This is the authority to concur that CCE's use of radioactive material "is necessary to provide data for the preparation of the reoutred environmental recorts and an acclication for a construction authori:ation for a repository a such candidate site." Sec. 113(c)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 10133. The language of the proposed rule appropriately implements this provision.

1 14 CCMMENT NO. 9 Comment Summary:

A host State is entitled to full party status at the outset in NRC licensing proceedings and should have the rights of such a party, not those of a mere intervenor. An absolute right of participation in NRC licensing proceedings shoulc be declared by 10 CFR Part 60.

Resconse:

Under section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239, a person "whose fnterest may be affected" is entitled to ce admitted to a licensing hearing as a party. Under this statutory provision, there can be no question tha: the host State has a legal right to be a party in the proceeding. Nevertheless, certain rules of practice are essential in order for a person who seeks to be a party to be admitted to the proceeding.

Rights of participation in NRC licensing proceedings are referenced in 10 CFR Part 60. The tests of standing are set out in 5 2.714 These tests are clearly met for host State or affected Indian tribe participation. There is thus no substantial basis of concern with respect to the issue raised by the commenters. Once the State / tribe is admitted as an intervenor, it would enjoy the full rights of a party. These include, with respect to all matters affecting its interest, the rights to intreduce evidence, put on witnesses, cross-examination, full notice and service of all pleadings, full rights of discovery, and standing to appeal. Non-host States may also particioate in Ifeensing proceedings to the extent they meet the tests of standing set out in 10 CFR Part 2.

In addition, section 2.715 provides for the participation of an interested State (as well as counties and municipalities) in NRC proceedings even if it chooses not to litigate particular contentions in the proceeding. In this role tho State has an opportunity to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission without taking a position on any issue; it may also file procesed findings and cetition for Commission review of a Licensing Ecard decision. 10 CFR 2.71S(c) extends this opportunity to participate as a interested State not only to the State in which a facility will be located, but also to those other States that can demonstrate an interest.

l

i

)

o .

15 CCMMENT NO. 10 Comment Summary:

To avoid any impression that all site investigation and characteri:ation activities should allow for the precise identification of licensing issues, add "to tts extent sna relevant information becomes available as a result of such activities" to footnote i to 5 60.18.

Resconse te agree snat all site investigations neec not necessarily allow for precise ficensing issue identification. But, we do not believe that this is implied by the footnote. The commenter may nave misinterpreted the intent of the footnote. The footnote was merely intended to provide aeditional information with respect to NRC involvement in reviewing 005 prelicensing activities, using the review of CCE's environmental assessments as an examole.

I i

l l

l l

s

-l l

16 l

CCMMENT NO. 11 Comment Summary:

Preposed 60.63(b) would allcw States / tribes to submit precosals for participation in site reviews "at any time". To maintain an efficient licensing process this snould be changed to " timely".

Resconse:

In the current Part 60, there is a requirement tnat a State / tribe proposal must be sutmitted at any time prior to decketing of an application er up te 120 days thereafter. The change to "at any time" in the prop' sad amandments is in recogniticn of the possibility of precuctive anc timely proposal ceing submittec outsice such a time frame.

NRC review and acceptance of proposals, covered in 60.63(d), will be on the basis that they make a timely and creductive centribution to the review.

. . i 17 l

l l

CCMMENT NO. 12 Comment Summary:

The preposed changes to Subpart C cf 10 CFR 60 were not necessary. NRC seems to be withholding information and censultation with States / tribes until a fairly late stage in the prccess of site selection.

l Information to be proviced by NRC under 60.61 is triggered by tne submission of the SCP. Consultation in site review is triggered by the Presicential approval of a site for characterization. By this time, NRC and 005 will have conducted technical meetings and the EA's will have been developed by CCE and reviewed by NRC. Part 60 should c:ntain provisions to allow formal State / tribe interaction witn NRC to tegin earlier.

Rescense:

NRC policy is te encourage interaction with States / tribes to the maximum extent

cssible within the limits of tne Ccemission's authority. NRC actions taken so far in tne process of site selectien--inviting State / tribe

articipation in the concurrence on the siting guidelines, for examcle--bear this out. There is no basis to the assertion that hRC is witnnolcing information. The proposed amendments reflect enanges in the senedule for activities made by the NWPA.

The law sets the point at which formal interaction between NRC and States / tribes begins at the site characteri:ation stage. The proposed amencments do not represent a major change from the schedule for State / tribe participation under the current Part 60.

i.

13 CC.YMENT NO. 13 Comment Summary:

10 CFR 60 and all NRC materials should write " Tribes" with a capital "T" because the werd " Tribes" is capitali:ed in the U. S. Constitution.

Resoonse:

The style for caottalization has changed since tne Constitution was wrftten.

In proper mcdern English usage, the "t" in tribes is not capitali:ed unless used as part cf tne name of a specific tribe. (

Reference:

US GPC Style Manual, January, 1973 page 43). We note tnat the NWPA does not ca::f tali:e "t" in tri::e s .

1 l

l 9

19 CCMMENT NO. 14 Comment Summary:

The Director's invita:1cn fer State / tribe c:mment en the SCP should no: be discretionary, but mandatory. Section 60.18 (c) of :ne rule shoule state that the Otracter "shall" reques c:mment.

Res:ense:

The preccsed amencments provide tha: :ne Direc:cr's invita:fon c c:mment en tne SCP by States and tribes be en a discretionary basis. The staff believes na: this should be retained. The Director snculd have the discretion :c cetermine, in a : articular instance, wnether it woulc be acvantagecus to solicit and censicer public comments en COE's site characteri:atien plan before issuance of a site cnaracteri:aticn analysis. The extent to which early reviews have afforded an opcortunity for interested persons to identify issues of concern, ne need for additional excertise that might nc be fully available at NRC, and the impact upon achievement of the scheduling cirectives of NWPA, are some of the fact:rs that might ce c nsidered.

. 4 20 CCMMENT NO. 15 Crmment Summary:

A pudlic document room should be established in the town nearest the site.

Rssconse:

NRC presently makes every reasonacle effort to assure public access to in formati on . NRC has the discretion to estaolish public document rocms anywnere to facilitate oublic access to infermation. Uader 60.63 proposals for the establishment of cublic document recms will be considered by NRC. There is no neec to scecify in Part 60 requirements for the locatien of public cocument recms.

l l

o , i l

l 21 CCMMENT NO. 16 Comment Summary:

The commenter was concerned that the criteria for acceptance of proposals in Section 60.63 (d), that the proposed activities be timely, would be used to limit State / tribe participation. Experiences to date with the repository program and expectations regarding pressures exerted on decision makers as the program progresses create a concern that " timely" will be the focal point of the criteria, rather than " productive".

Resoonse:

The Commission acknowledges State (tribe) concerns that the NWPA schedule for activities could create these pressures and place a strain on State and tribe resources. NRC presently is making every effort to keep States and tribes tell-informed on activities so as to allow States and tribes time to plan for the types of participation which they may desire. However, the Commission must also acknowledge that there is a schedule for repository licensing. and that the timeliness of proposals has to be a factor in NRC consideration of them.

. 4 22 COMMENT NO. 17 Comment Summary:

I A footnote should be added to Section 60.15 (c) to indicate that the reference to Section 51.40 nas been supersedec by the NWPA Section 114 (f).

i Rescense:

The Ccmmission agrees that the reference to 5 51.40, wnich has here:cfere been

removed frem the regulations, is no lenger c

rrect. It nas ac:crdingly been 4

deleted fecm sne final rule. The correct citation for ne requirement tha: 00E is required to c:nduct a program of characteri:ation with respect ::

afternative sites is NWPA itself (in carticular, 5 113, 42 U.S.C. 10133). In

. response to :ne ecmment, therefore, tne final rule refers :: the statute ratner l than to ne superseced regulation.

1 I

i 4

i 1

b i

\

l

]

l I

4

-+ --w+-.~,---- -p w -+y- , _ , - - - - - - - - - , - nw.e < --

-w v--,,mry w----=- --- ----+-------------y---.--

y  %

7 _

_m9--.-_-,. -9+-+

s .

23 CCMMENT NO. 18

! Comment Summary:

)

Mine safety considerations might require more shafts than are strictly necessary for site enaracteri:ation, and the existing limitation in Section 60.15 (d) (2) on the num:er of ex:leratory boreneles and shafts should be revised to ac::mmodate this need.

Rosconse:

Ine issue is cutside tne secpe of tne present rulemaking. The Ccemissien actes, newever, tnat if safety consiceratiens de cictate tne sinking of acettional shafts, it would not be " practical" to limit tne number of exploratory borenoles and snafts to a smaller num:er. In Other words, tne I

needed flexibility alreacy is provided by the rule in Section 60.15 (d) (2) by ne statement tna "the number of exploratory borencies and shafts shall be f!mited t the extent :ractical -- ." (emphasis supplied)

24 COMMENT NO. 19 Comment Summary:

In Sections 60.15 and 60.17 the term " area to be characterizac" has been used instead of the statutcry term " candidate site." Both NRC and COE should adhere to the statutcry terminology to the greates extent possible, in creer to avoid tne confusion that would result from the use of different names fer identical concepts.

Resoonse:

The term " site" is used in 10 CFR Par 60 to refer to the loca icn cf tne centrolled area - a very definite area with limits relatec :c :ne isclation enaracteristics of a carticular geologic repository. "Cancicate site," as defined in the NWPA refers to a region of considerably greater extent. NRC be11 eves that the introduction of the term " candidate site" into Part 60 .ould increase, rather than recuce, the likelihood of confusien, since in that event tne word " site" would be acolied bcch to the small and cefinite location of the

" controlled area" and to the muen larger and vaguer area ecmcrenanded in NWPA by the term "candicate site."

25 CCMMENT NO. 20 Ccmment Summary:

Section 60.12 (e), which concerns NRC's finding of necessity for ensite testing tsich racicactive materials, shculd state that NRC will c:ncur in the use of radica:tive trac.ars if certain criteria are met, and tna :ne remeval of these trace amcunts a: the end of site cnaracterizati:n shall net :e re:uitec.

Resconse:

then the Ccmmission adopted 10 CR Part 60, it determined that it lacked jurisdic:fon over the use of radioactive material by CCE for :urposes of site

nara::ert:ation. 46 FR 13974-75. This conclusion is expressly statec in :ne regulations. 10 CFR $ 60.7(a). The Ccemission does not regar: NWPA as naving expanded its licensing jurisdiction. As before, NRC may neitner allow nor prohibit CCE's use of radioactive materials in site enaracteri:ation.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act coes c nfer new autnerity u:en NRC, but it is limitec in se::e. This is one authority to cencur na: OCE's use of racica: f ve material "is necessary to provide data fer :ne =re:aration of the requirac enviconmental re: orts and an anclication for a construction autnori:ation for a recository at such candidate site." Sec. 113(c)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 1C133. While NRC concurrence may ce a legal prerecuisite to CCE's use of radicactive material is enaracteri:ation, this limita:icn is cerived fr m tne statute itself anc not frem any regulatory action, such as licensing, on tne cart of the Ccmmission. The C mmission merely makes a fincing of necessity. Thus, it is not a:peceriate for NRC to s:ecify resicual cuantities of radioactive material wnich would be " allowed".

While the statutory crovisions of NWPA Section 113 (c) (2) (E) refer :: :ne resconsibilities of CCE, and it is not ap:repria:e fer NRC to ::nstrue the obligatiens of another agency, i: is not apparent to the NRC :na these provisions were intended to apply to tracer amounts of materials. We believe that this prevision in the Act was intanced to prevent CCE fr:m crea:Ing a ce fact unlicensed recository by bringing in large amounts of HLW or s:ent fuel uncer :ne guise of testing whien was in fae: unnecessary.

26 CCMMENT NO. 21 Comment Summary:

7:e prevision for NRC insoection of site characteri:ation activities centained in Section 60.18 (h) should be qualified to specify inspections in accordance witn the Procecural Agreement.

Res onse:

The cited paragraph is a restatement of language c:ntainec in existing 10 CFR S 60.11(g), with editorial changes only. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act did nc alter :ne relationship between the Ccemissien anc CCE curing site enaracteri:ation. Accordingly, it is approcriate to retain the regulatory language that nad previously been approved. Moreover, the Prececural Agreement is merely a meenanism for implementing NWPA anc not an incepencent scurce of regulatory autnority. An explicit reference to the Precedural Agreement in the text cf 5 60,13 cculd be misunderstcod as implying that tnat instrument was a basis for the regulation.

I l

l 27 i

CCMMENT NO. 22 Ccament Summary:

The SCP's should contain sccioec:ncmic, trans: rtatien, environmental and institustenal information at tne same level as for the technical elements. This part of :ne SCP's shoula also be updatec anc reviewec my NRC every 6 men:ns.

Res:ense:

The Ccmmission believes that any information wnich it equires, other nan the items s:ecifically called for under i 113(b)(1)( A)(1-tv), shculd :e pertinen to its review cf " site characteri:ation" activit es at :ne site in cuestien.

i The term " site enaracteri:ation," as definec in Sec. 2(21) cf NWPA, refers to activities " undertaken to establish ne geclogic conditicn and ne ranges Of

ne parameters of a candidate site relevant to the location of a re; cst:sry, inciucing berings, surface excavations, excavations of explora::ry shafts, limitec subsurface lateral excavations anc terings, and in situ testing neeced te evaluate the suitabili:y of a candidate site for the 1 ca:icn cf a re::sitory, but not including :relimina:y borings anc gecpnysical testing neecac 03 assess wr.e:her site cnaracteri:ation shculd be undertaken." This cefinition is so cl:sely patterned after the earlier defini:f on in 10 CFR Part 60 as to imoly tha: :ne Commission's usage was being acepted. Inere is ne statement in the re:cr:s on the craft legislation to incicate the centrary.

In using tre term " site characteri:atten," :ne Ccmmissien has c:nsistently focusec uccn those tests that must be undertaken to previce One kincs of geolcgi: information whfen will be needec in cecer for CCE :: be a:la ::

recare a license a:clica:1cn, anc for tne C:mmission :: make licensing fincings with res:e:: thereto with reasonable assurance. Since :ne ac:fvities that are the subject of the instant ::mmen are not " site characteri:ation" within :ne estaclished meaning of :na term, :ne Ccmmission must cecline ::

require their submission in the site enaracteri:aticn plans.

The C:mmission cces ne: mean to imoly that the informa:icn is not im:cr: ant.

Hcwever, under the Waste Policy Act, that informatien is recuired :: be obtained anc circulated uncer a variety Of me:nanisms :: hor than the site cnaracteri:atien clan. These include the envirenmental assessments f:r :ne several cancidate sites, ne environmental im:4:: statement na: is Ore:ared after site characteri:ation cas been ::meleted, arc :ne informati:n :na: is developec Oy CCE uncer the c:c:erative arrangements enterec int: witn :ne States anc affectac Incian tri:es.

9: reeve , the C:mmissicn -ec:gn*:es :ne value, f r N!?A :ue:cses, f :ur-en:

informatien fr:m CCE *f:n resce:: :: tre :::ics incicatec in tre ::mment.

- weve , uncer CEO -eguia:1:ns. CCI is ai ta:y -acudrec :: ec; age i- an ea-iy anc ::en sc: ping :P cess f:- :stermining :ne s:::e of :ne issues :: :e a: ressec in an envircemental im:a:: statemen acc for icentify*ng tre significant issues relatec := a :r:::sec a::!:n. This :r::ess, ::u:Iec witr i l

1 l

• J 28 the censultation previsions of Section 117 the of NWPA, accresses the c:ncerns of the commenter. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Commissicn to assert its regulatory authority so as to require CCE to fulfill its duties under these other provisions of law, l

l l

I l

i

o . ,

l l

1 29 i CCMMENT NO. 23 Ccmment Summary:

All revisions to Part 60 and Par: 51 to conform them : the NWPA should be premulgated simultanecusly. In articular, the revisions concerning NEPA recuirements snculd ac:: meany the revisions currently being pr:ccsed. This could assure sna: a c:merenensive and integra:ec a::rcach is taken anc that any confusion regarding NWPA anc NEPA recuirements is eliminated. Muen of Part 60 nce rests en NEPA authority so that failure to include NEPA in tne currently proposed revision casts a cloud over the Commission's view of its authority :s carry out early site reviews. It may also skew the scope of envir:nmental assessment review by =recluding reviews of alternatives anc c:m:arative analysis.

Rescense:

Tne C mmissien has not put off c:nsidering the res:ensibilities of the C:mmission under NEPA as modified by the NWPA. In caveloping these progesec regula:icn enanges, ne C:mmission has specifically evalua:ec whe:her it was ne:essary for the Commission to take any steps during the site screening stages 2 20 assure meeting its ultimate NEPA responsibilities. The Commission conciuces that NRC pre-licensing review snould not be exnaustive, anc in this regard it differs from :na c mmenters. In light of the Commission's uncerstanding witn rsspect to NRC's res:ensibilities, it would be im cetant and appropriate to proceed with the present action witneut awaiting other enanges that will be crecosed in the light of the NWPA. In view of the need to :ublish these enanges related to the site characterization plans price to :ne racidly aper aching time wnen CCE pre ares these plans, it was necessary := c:nsicer these changes first and se:arately. These issues are se: ara:le from other NbPA-mandated matters, including NEPA concerns. The NEPA related amencments ::

NRC rules (1) will cefine the alternatives that mus: be discussed in an environmental impact statement, (2) will exemp: the pecmulgatien of NRC licensing reputrements and criteria from envircnmental review under NEPA, and (3) will set out the precedures :nat will be follcwed by the C mmission in cetermining wnether or not to ace:: the CCE EIS. The alternatives are, in princi:al part, defined my NWPA. The exemption for environmental review of :ne promulgation of licensing rules is also explicitly stated by that Act. The ,

procedures for adcoti:n af the CCE environmental im:act statement are mandate.d generally by NWPA and regulations of the Council en Environmental Cuality. All  ;

cf these matters are reactly separacle from the Orc:esec amendments.

Furtnermera, :ne C:mmission coes net antici: ate na: :ne 10 CFP Par: 51 i acenements will accress :ne c:mmen:ers' ::ncerns ever the :re-idea-sing -ev ew cf :ne CCE site selec:icn recess. Theref:re, ;ucl':ation :# :ne ale eec n::

e ceterrec.

l t

__,,----._,---.-_.,,_-,--_-._----.-.-.x--c-_. _ . _ _ - - - - , _ , - . m,_ - - , _ ,_ - _ , - s ~.--~ - _ - - -- . -

- o e s ><-g-

. o a

e 30 CCMMENT NO. 24 Comment Sur. mary:

The NRC should make clear that its licensing autnerity is not constrained or restricted by the NWPA. The resconsibilities of NRC as expressec by 10 CFR Part 60 are essentially unchanged by the NWPA.

Rescanse:

The responsibilities of NRC as expressed by 10 CFR Part 60 are indeed essentially unchanged by the NWPA. The specific procesed changes to 10 CFR 60 i

are not explicitly required by the NWPA, but are what the Commission considers are necessary to make its regulations consistent with NWPA requirements and provisions.

4

-- -, ,n - --,, ._.

31 l

COMMENT NO. 25 Comment Summary:

Contrary to page 16 of SECY e4-263, NWPA Section 117 does provide new rights to states to receive information, and to be able to ecmment en such information and have such ccmment c:nsicered and acted upon by the Commission.

Res:ense:

The Commission agrees that to some extent Section 117 of the NWPA may have established new rights for the States to receive information, ccmment on such information, and have such comments considered. Since the proposed regulation inc:rporates tne language of Section 117, the States are assured that NRC's regulatory program will acccmmccate any such rights notwithstanding :ne ciscussion of Section 117 in the statement of considerations.

I l

I l

32 CCMMENT NO. 26 Comment Summary:

l In Section 60.17 (a) (2) (iv) the phrase "any adverse imeacts frem site j characteri:ation that are imoortant to safety" has been substituted for the statutory phrase "any adverse, safety related impacts frem such siteThough i characteri:ation activities-- ."

between these two pnrases, less confusion will be caused if the statutory pnrase is used.

Rescense:

Cmitted Tha ecmment only quotes a portion of the phrase that was substituted.The statement of wore the words "cr tnat are imcortant to waste isolation".

consicerations explains that the change was made to clarify that could (1) be significant with respect to radiological safety prior to permanent closure or (2) affect the ability of the10repository CFR'Part 60to satisfy the contains ptrformance cojectives pertaining to waste isolation.To meet the intent of the a definition of the words "important to safety". statute the term "imco used. We note that this comment was made on an advance draft and was not repeated in the comments on the proposed rule which was acccmcanied by the statement of considerations exclanation.

33 CC.M. MENT NO. 27 Ccmment Summary:

The term " semi-annual reports" in Secticn 60.18 (g) is incorrect as the NWPA and the pecposec rule recuire reports "nct c'e less tha ence every 5 men ns".

! is inacercpriate that the Ccmmissien waive its excec a-icn for scre nan -he minimum recorting fecm CCE.

Rescense:

As the ccmments ccted, the rule does require -hat "CCE shall recer not less than ence every six men:ns" as recuirec by the NWPA. Referring Oc such recor:s as semi-annual dces not crevent COE frem making =cre frecuent sucmissions if accrepriate.

34 i l

i I

COMMENT NO. 23 Ccmment Summary:

The rule relies en the Procedural Agreement for authority instead of on I statutes. Relying on the Precedural Agreement does not give the Ccmmission the foundation it neecs to carry out early site review activities; the Ccmmission has authority to cerform sucn review activities uncer ne Atcmic Energy Act.

Part 60 sncule no: :e cased upon the Prececural Agreement.

Resocnse:

NRC cces net rely ucen the Procedural Agreement as its authority :: perform early site review activities. The authority is tne Atomic Energy Act, the Energy Reorgani:ation Act, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Precedural Agreement is merely the mechanism that has been develoced to imolement these statutes. Par 60 is not based on the Prececural Agreement, but upon the statutes cited above. See Authority citation. In respense to the ccmment, however, the Ccmmission has deleted the one reference to the Precedural Agreemen fecm the proposed rule. See the revised fco: note to $60,13.

It is imcortant in this regard to observe carefully the precedural framework that is laid out in NWPA. While there are some cc;crtunities for early NRC carticipation, nctably in connection witn its c ncurrence in the COE siting guidelines, the statu:e does not otherwise provice for NRC review until COE nas croceeced to :ne site enaracterization stage. It is at that point that the law calls for NRC to carry cut its first site-soecific review. In ceveiccing regulations, NRC should adhere as closely to NWPA as possible. I: is therefere

referable to require submissions from 00E enly at tne times indicated by that iaw. See also res:ense :: Comment no. 2.

o .

35 COMMENT NO. 29 Comment Summary:

Issues could be more readily brought to the Commission's attention by <,

establishing a notice and public comment process for the NRC review of the semi-annual SCP uodates.

Resconse:

There is nothing that requires NRC to comment on the semi-annual reports on site enaracteri:ation, and there will not necessarily be an NRC response to the COE cocument. The 00E semi-annual reports will go to States and tribes as well as NRC, and States and Tribes may comment directly to 00E on them. A notice and public ccmment procedure would be too cumoersome and create the potential for unproductive delays. However, the rule could provide for public comment on the NRC responses to 00E by having the Director invite comments, and this has been added to the rule.

36 COMMENT NO. 30 Comment Summary:

NRC should retain in Part 60 provisions requiring NRC notification to local governments.

Resconse:

The NWPA gives States the responsibility for informing local residents of any activities of the State, COE, or NRC with respect to the site (Section 116(c)1(b)iv). In light of the procedures established by the NWPA, the proposed amendments to Part 60 which would limit NRC notification to States and Indian tribes are entirely proper.

The NWPA calls for notification of " Governors, State legislatures, and tribal councils." The notification procedures for Part 60 should conform to this. No change is needed.

t l

k

o .

37 COMMENT NO. 31 Comment Summary:

To offer explicit, comprehensive comments on 5 60.15 through 60.18, knowledge of the mechanics and schedule of interaction between NRC and DOE in the site characteri:ation process is necessary. One or more NRC/ DOE / State / Indian meetings should be held to develop the mechanics of the SCP interactions.

Resconse:

There is no reason why explicit, comprehensive comments cannot be offered at this time on these proposed rule sections. The NWPA and this rule define the general process for interaction. Distribution of preliminary drafts of the proposed rule, prior meetings with the states and Indian tribes, and the comments on these proposed rules have given the interested parties opportunity for input into developing this general process.

At a later date, a meeting of the interested parties may well be appropriate to work out the details of the mechanics and schedules.

38 COMMENT NO. 32 Comment Summary:

The Statement of Considerations should state that staff decisions (such as the denial of a State participation proposal) can always be appealed to the Commission.

Resconse:

It is appropriate to leave the procedures for seeking Commission review informal, as is the case for most administrative actions that have been delegated to Staff. Should the staff decision prove to be unsatisfactory, the aggrieved State could elect to try to persuade the Commission to review the action. Alternatively, it would have the option of seeking judicial review without having first to exhaust other remedies. (Adoption of the commenter's proposal could result in an aggrieved party's being required to appeal to the Commission whether it wished to do so or not.)

39 COMMENT NO. 33 Comment Summary:

Since 00E is not fully cooperating with States, the Commission's reduction of opportunities for interaction may foreclose effective State participation in decisions concerning the repository. Thus, NRC should not reduce opoortunities for State consultation Rescanse:

Notwithstanding the formal changes in Commission responsibility, NRC encourages consultation with interested parties, so that information would be available routinely with respect to NRC's views. The commenter's concern with respect to 00E's cooperation, or lack thereof, is not a matter properly to be addressec by the Commission. Procedures for such cooperation have been set out in Sections 116 and 117 of NWPA. If the implementation of these procedures is unsatisfactory, there are opportunities for judicial review and legislative oversight. It is not the Commission's role, however, to regulate 00E's interaction with the States and Indian tribes.

i l

l

40 CCMMENT NO. 34 l Comment Summary:

NRC should fund State involvement in repository planning because States have had difficulty obtaining funds from DOE.

Resoonse:

The Commission explained, in the preamble to the proposed rule, that it believed Congress intended that COE should assume the Federal responsibility for funding State involvement in repository planning. The commenter does not take issue with this view. If, as appears to be agreed, NWPA vests DOE with this responsibility, the appropriate action for the Commission is to eliminate any inconsistent or contrary provisions from its regulation. The concern of the State appears to be its lack of confidence in DCE's exercise of its funding authority. As in the case of other comments of this nature, discussed above, this is a matter for the affected States to work out with 00E; it is not something which the Commission is authorized to resolve or remedy. It remains true that the Commission may, in appropriate circumstances, turn to a State for particular services required by NRC in order to be able to carry out its own licensing functions effectively. But, as was explained at the time the proposed rule was issued, this is best characterized as a standard procurement activity rather than as part of the regulatory seneme for implementation of NWPA.

- l 41 CCMMENT NO. 35 Comment Summary:

The rule should provide a mechanism to involve the Department of Interior in site screening and selection. A procedural agreement similar to that between COE and NRC should be executed between COE and the Department of Interior.

Resconse:

This rule is not an appropriate vehicle to provide a role for the Department of Interior in the site screening and selection process. The 00E has the primary responsibility for executing the site screening and selection process. If the Department of Interior wished to become involved in this process, they should discuss this involvement directly with 00E. This amendment to the licensing procedures is being undertaken to reflect the requirements of the NWPA. A procedural agreement between DOE anc COI would also, of course, have to be negotiated directly with 00E.

42 COMMENT NO. 36 Comment Summary:

The type of information and level of analysis required in the SCP should be specified in greater detail in the rule.

Resconse:

The Commission recognizes that the level of detail called for in SCP is not defined precisely in the regulations. There must be sufficient detail for the Commission and other statutory reviewers to be able to comment in an informed manner. The Commission believes that requiring more detail in the rule would not be practical given the different types of sites. See, also, the discussion in the preamble to the procosed rule (50 FR 2585).

NRC has issued a draft revision of a regulatory guide (Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.17 - Standard Format and Content of Site Characterization Plans for Hign-Level Waste Geological Repositories, February, 1985) which suggests the types of information to be provided in the SCP and a uniform format for presenting the information. ,

? .

I 43  !

COMMENT NO. 37 Comment Summary:

Since NWPA Section 113(c)(4) requires the reclamation of a site determined to be unsuitable for a repository, NRC should require DOE to plan for such reclamation.

Resconse:

Section 113 incluces two related provisions. Paragraph (c)(4), cited by the commenter, requires " reasonable and necessary steps to reclaim the site and to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts caused by site characteri:ation activities." Paragraph (b)(1)(A)(iii) calls for 00E to submit, as part of its site characteri:ation plan, " plans for the decontamination and decommissioning of such candidate site, and for the mitigation of any significant adverse environmental impacts caused by site characteri:stien activities" if a site is determined to be unsuitable. Thus, DOE must mitigate adverse impacts and submit plans for doing so as part of its site characteri:ation plan. Also, under the law, COE must " reclaim the site" and submit plans for " decontamination and decommissioning" of the site as part of its site chara:terization plan. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it would~seem that the proper construction would equate the concepts of

" reclamation" and " decontamination and decommissioning." Accordingly, it is to be expected that COE would in fact describe its plans for site reclamation as part of its site characteri:ation plan. The Commission would not need this information, however, since the site concerned would not be one subject to NRC licensing authority (since, by definition, it had been determined not to be suitable for a repository). The proposed rule is thus consistent with NWPA and appropriate to serve NRC regulatory needs, and it will not be changed.

i 4

_ _ . ~ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ - . .

44 COMMENT NO. 38 Comment Summary:

It appears that NRC/ DOE proposes to limit general public involvement to compliance with NEPA only and to minimize State, Indian tribe, and other Federal agency involvement. According to S 60.18 (a) NRC is proposing to no longer afford the public an opportunity to consult with staff and discuss issues of concern during staff review.

Response

The commenter is incorrect in thinking that the proposed rule is a joint  ;

NRC/ DOE proposal. This is an NRC regulation. 00E is the license applicant and l has commented on the proposed rule the same as other interested parties. l Public involvement is not limited to NEPA compliance and in fact is now I expanded by the combination of the NWPA and the proposed rule. By looking only at 5 60.18 (a) the commenter has incorrectly concluded that the proposed rule deletes the opportunity for States and tribes to consult with the staff during the review of the SCP. Such consultation is provided for in Section 60.62.

l I

l

)

l 1

9 45 COMMENT NO. 39 Comment Summary:

The rule should require DOE to submit site characterization plans before large-scale disturbances occur. Only " preliminary activities," which should be defined, should be exempt from the site characterization plan review.

Resconse:

Section 114(b) of NWPA states that DOE's is to submit its plan for site characterization activities "before proceeding to sink shafts." This is the' language that appeared in the proposed rule. The ccmmenter would apparently wish to have the Commission construe this provision in a manner that would obligate DOE to make its submission before undertaking activities, other than preliminary activities, related to site characterization. Indeed, this could be meritorious, since 00E would then avoid expenditures which might subsequertly turn out, in the light of comments made by the Commission, the States, and.affected Indian tribes, to have been improvident. The difficulty with implementing this comment, however, is that the statute is explicit. The requirement is that the submission ~be made "before proceeding to sink shafts" and so long as COE cceplies with this provision, the Commission can cemand no more.

46 COMMENT NO. 40 Comment Summary:

States and tribes should be notified of meetings between NRC and 00E held under the procedural agreement between NRC and DOE in accordance with the spirit of Section 117(a) of the NWPA.

Resconse:

NRC agrees with the desirability of notifying States and tribes of meetings between NRC and DOE and has been providing such notification. NRC will continue to provide notification of such meetings, of the subjects to be discussed, and of the coportunity to participate at an appropriate level. No change in 10 CFR 60 is necessary.

9 e e , o ENCLOSURE C l

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS l

l

1) Nevada

2) Edison Electric Institute

3) Environmental Policy Institute 4)Cinnecticutt

5) Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy 6)N:tional Congress of American Indians

7) --- mis-docketed 8)Nctural Resources Defense Council i

9) Ecology Alert )

10) Minnesota

11) Texas- Frishman

12) Texas-Smith

13) Coeur d' Alene Tribe of Idaho

14) DOE IS)Tekin. Indian Nation

16) DOI 17)Yakima Indian Nation *

18) Utah

19) Nevada

• i

• These letters restate earlier.cocments and request =eet ng l E"CLOSU?2 C i

with Commission "T'-d?

l 1 . .

15CHARO H. SRYAN STATE OF NEVADA nosett R. Loux c -.- -

o.  ;

9

)

I l '

. 29f5y2 NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE .,- ..,,,

OFFICE OF THE GOVE.RNCR 'N Capitel Complex Carson C!tw Nevada 89710 .

(702) 385-3744 March 4, 1985

'. .st3E EUMEfA g g see I a t - - -

Secretary of the Commission .~, o z-/]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ## #

Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing & Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find the Comments of the State of Nevada regarding amendments to le CFR 60, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste in Geologic Repositories: Amendments to Licensing Procedures, SECY-84-263.

Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

S erely, ,

,W ROBERT R. LO Director RRL*jm Encls. u

. . <. c ,

h e

m o

e W^

M ad mM a - g

?

, COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA REGARDING PROPCSED 10 CFR PART 60-DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVE.L RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES:

AMENDMENTS TO LICENSING PROCEDURES

, 50 FED. REG. 2579-2590, JANUARY 17, 1985.

The State of Nevada comme'nted previcusly on NRC proposals to amend 10 CFR 60. On August 17, 1984, Robert Loux correspcnded with Mr. Robert Browning responding to the July 2,1984, request by Catherine F. Russell, State-Tribal Coordinator, NNWSI, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material

. Safety and Safeguards, that the State of Nevada submit comments on a sWf version (SECY 84-263) cf a proposed rulemaking amending 10 CFR Part 60. The version published at 50 F.R. 2579-2590 is essentially identical to the earlier staff version on which Nevada's comments were submitted. The change of the word

' ~

"must" to the word "shall" in proposed sections 60.17(a) and 60.18(g) and (k), and

, the minor change of wording in section 60.18(e), appear to be the only changes in

. the text (other than spelling). Inasmuch as so little change has occured, Nevada l renews all of its comments offered previously. For use of reference they are enclosed herewith.

r

~

.Section 60.18 l

Section 60.18(e) would now require that the Director, when ecmmenting upcn i the DOE's site charactenzation plan " include a determination regarding whether or l not the Commission concurs that the propcsed use of such radicactive materialis necessary to previce cata fer the preparatica of the environmental reports recuired by law and for an application to be submitted under section 60.00 of this part."

i The earlier staff versica provided "the Director's comments snall include a 1

determination, if apprcpriate, that the Commission ccacurs that the proposed use of such radioactive materialis necessary to provide data for the preparation of the environmental reports required by law and for an application to be submitted under section 60.2 of this part." We assume that this change is respcnsive to Nevada's earlier comment that "the Commission is charged with the responsibility to make an independent determination whether the use of radioactive material is necessary to provide adequate environmental data for a repository ecastruction authorization." However, Nevada dces no't believe trat the language as changed makes clear that the NRC's concurrence in DOE's use cf radioactive materials in characterization is a legal prerequisite to its use.

Proposed section 60.18 otherwise remains essentially unchanged.

Comments made by NRC staff at the Commission's meeting of December 11, 1984 raise Nevada's concern that the ecmmission's actual practice regarding review of DOE's site characterizatica plan will be different than trat pecposed in sectien' 60.18.

At page 35 of the transcript of the Commissien's meeting, the following colloquy occurred:

" Commissioner Asselstine: I assume that the way that is going to work is, you are going to get site characterizatica plans fcr those individual sites, and they might not ecme allin at once.

"Mr. Brownmg: That's right, that's why that is shown as not a particular point the way the ens are.

" Commissioner Asselstine: Okay. But the sequence will always be that you will get the site characterizatien .

Mr. Brownmg: Before the shaft . >

" Commissioner Asselstine.-they will be reviewed. Any comments ce concerns willbe resolved. Then you go to actually doing the enaracter-i:ation.

"Mr. Browning Yes. What we".1 peccably have to do !s to focus in cn those comments and cencerns that relate to sirJdng of the shaft and 1 e

e give special attention to those as cpposed to necessarily resolving all our comments en the site characterizatien plan, some of which may not have anything to do with this snaft sirking.

"Commissicner Asselstine: Okay."

Section 113(bX,1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that the site characterir.ation plan be submitted to the Commission and the state in which the candidate ' site is located fer their review and comment "before proceeding to sink shafts . . . ." Section 113 (bX2) also requires that public hearings be held en site characterization plans before DOE proce' mis to sink shafts at any candidate site.

NRC's proposed section 60.18 does not clearly state that the NRC's review anc comment upon the site characterization plan must be comolete before DOE may proceed to sink shafts at a repositcry site as Nevada thinks the Act requires. Mr.

Browning's comment at the December 11, 1984 NRC meeting suggests that the NRC might be prepared to allow DOE to begin site characterization while some NRC concerns remain outstanding. Preposed 10 CFR 60 should be amended to clarify that DOE may not proceed to characterize sites by sinking shafts until NRC.

and state review and comment upon the characterizaticn plan are complete.

Section 60.83 Proposed section 60.63 still fails to declare overtly that a state within which a nuclear wasta repository is proposed to be placed will be a full party to the license proceedi:ug. The proposed section merely refers to participatien in acomjanee with subpart G of part : of 10 CFL That sut$.dit p. ovides for state interventi@n In licensing proceedings but dod not declart that a cage wsuld ed a fd1 party to the 'Joenstg peestding. The text preceeding the pr: posed rule at 50 F.R. 2534 states that "affectec states ed Indian :ribes will te entitled to participate in the licensing proceedings.' Yet the language of preposed 10 CFR 60.63 makes no such declaration.

o - . _ . . _ _ _ _ .

Nevada contends that, as a state entitled to participate in repository site selection and development, it is entitled to full party status at the outset in NRC licensing proceedings. As such a party, not a mere intervenor, the state should be entitled to equivalent procedural rignts as the Department of Energy at all stages.

This would, of course, include the right to introduce evidence, put on witnesses, cross examination, full notice of all pleadings, full rights of discove.7, and standing to appeal.

The propcsed hile leaves a state's party status open to later determination.

That determination should be made now: party status guarantoed by rule.

e S

S e

l 4

. . 1

, o ..

COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

{

REGARDING AMFNDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60-DlSPOSAL OF HIGE-IE/EL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES:

Amendments to Licensing Procedures, SECY-84-253.

The State of Nevada submits these Comments in respense to the July 2,1984 request by Catherine F. RusseH, State / Tribal Coordinator, NNWSI, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These Comments are made with the understanding that staff is proposing a rulemaking, amending S 10 CFR Part 60.

The State of Nevada does not waive or relinquish the right to participate in and comment freely in that rulemaking by the submissien of these infccmal comments

~

n and reserves the right to raise any issue. therein.

Regulatorv Amendment Consecuent of Passasre of ttwe Nuclear Waste Poliev Act.

Earlier this year the Commission sought comments on proposed regulatery refcems concerning its ge'neral rules of practice centained in 10 CFR Part 2, some of which changes were necessary as a censequence of the passage of the Nuclear l Waste Policy Act. In the preposal to which these ecmments are adcressed the staff proposes amendments to the licensing procedures cf 10 CFR Part 60 as a l

consequence of the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Nuclear Waste Foucy Act creates new respcasibilities for the Nuclear Regulatcry Commission ar4 l new rights and responsibEities for affected states. In ceder that the Commissica correctly integrate the Nuclear Waste PcHey Act into its regulatcry framewerk in

~

a way wnleh previces the states and other interested parties with thei fun rights uncer the Act, the Commissica should promulgate au new rules reflectit:g the A

p -

passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in one rulemaking, thereby guaranteeing a single, integrated approach and preventing potential contradiction, misunderstand-Ing and confusion. As the discussion below win reveal, both Part 60 and Part 2 are relevant to a state's role in the repository licensing process. That process may or

( may not be best conducted under the current general rules of Part 2. f State Rights to NRC Informatfore -Consultation.

At page 16 of Enclosure A to SECY-84-263, the staff states c.s follows:

"Under the Waste Policy Act, the Commission is directed to provide ' timely and complete information regarding determinations or plans made with respect to site characterization, siting, development, l design, licensing, construction, operation, regulation, or decommission-I ing' of a repository, Sec.117,42 U.S.C.10137, but this affords no rights to States and Indian tribes beyond those already in law. H.R. Rep.97-785, Part I at 74." -

This basic assumption is Incorrect. It is based upon an incomplete reading of the authority on which it relles.. Under S 117(aXI)[of the Nuclear Waste PoIIcy -

'Act, 42 U.S.C.10137(aXI), a state containing a potentially acceptable site is entitled to complete information from the NRC, as well as from DOE and "other agencies involved.' Section 117 does provide new rights to the states which did not .

l exist before the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

I l

The authority upon which the staff relies is found at page 74 of the Report of l the Committee on Energy and Commerce on HR 6598, which contained the language now found in S 117 of the Act as passed. The complete relevant text is as follows

" Consultation With States and Indian Tribes Section 11Rax1) cirects tne Secretary, the Commission and all other invcived agencies to provide the governor and the state legisla-ture and, where appropriate, the governing body of any Indian tribe affected, timely and complete information regarding determinations or plans made with respect to the siting, design, construction, operation or regulation of a repository. While it is expected that the appropriate state and Indian officials will be informed of pending decisions in time

for these officials to provide their comments and be afforded the opportunity to have their views heard price to the time when a decision

.becomes final, it is not intended that this provision give the appropriate state and Indian officials any additional rights to infccmation beyond those already provided in law to parties and the states regarding the licensing decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission prior to the public announcement of such decisions. It is expected that the Commissicn will provide the apprcpriate state and Indian officials with timely access to information regarding determinations or plans avail-able to the Commission with respect to an application to construct or

' operate a repository. This provision dces not vest these state and Indian officials with any new. statutory cause cf acticn against the Commission regarding the internal deliberations of the licensing board, the appeals board ce the Commissicners regarding matters which are under consideration or which are in dispute, or impose any requirement that the Commission and its hearing boards must censult with the appropriate state or Indian officals price to deciding an issue which is within the licensing authority of the Commission."

It is clear from a complete reading of the relevant report language that the Committee en Energy and Commerce intenced that the rights g anted to states under 5117(aXI) be limited only to the extent that they do not grant to states access to the deli:serations of a licensing board, appeals beard er the Commission.

"Cinformation regarding determinations cc plans mace with respect to site char-ecterization, siting, development, design, licensing, constructicn, operation, regu-lation, er decommissiening" may at times be within the internal deliberations of l scch boards er the Commission but generally speaking and certainly at this early l stage, would not be, l

The State of Nevada is concerned that it be entitled, not only to receive complete information, but to comment upcn that infccmatien within an NRC procedural framework which allows the consideration of and action ucen that com ment. Unle::s such a framewcrk exists, the statutory grant of a rignt to complete and timely infcrmation becomes meaningless A relevant case in pcint is the prepcsed amencment to 10 CFR Part 60 celeting the requirement that the Site Characterizatica Report (plan) be made 3 __ . - .

available to state and Tribal officials and to the public because it is caplicative of

~

the statutory requirement that the Department of Energy do the same. See discussion at page 14, Enclosure A, SECT-54-253. Though Nevada wculd certainly agree that current 10 CFR S 60.11(c)is dupliestiye of the statutory requirement, S 60.11(d), and (e) are not. Sectich 60.il(e), in particular, requires not only at least a 90 day comment period, but that the Directer's final site charactenzztion analysis "take into account comments received and any adcitional intermation acquired during the comment period." The State of Nevada is cencerned that the Co'mmission not forego its ro'.c of listening to the states and heading their comment, in defference to the Department of Energy. As the State of Nevada -

became so completely aware in the proerg of NRC ccacurrence In DOE Siting Guidelines, the Commissicn has a capability of listening to states and censidering their comment which the Department of Energy may not have because of its mission orientation with respect to repository development.

The Licensing Process.

Relevant Statute and Rules.

It is basic that the NRCs g ant of a license to ccastruct a high-level nuclear waste repository !; controlled by 5114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 USC 10I34, and by "the laws applicable t:2 such applications," i.e., the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganir,ation Act of 19~4. Though it does not now specifically so provide, one weuld assume that 10 C?R Part 2, subpart G, Rules of Genera,1 Applicactlief, wculd apply to repository licensing proceedings. Of course, 10 CFR Part 60 would apply, and prier NRC decisiens and case law censtruing both are relevant.

l e

Assuming this to be the ccmplete bocy of law describing how NRC repcsitory l licensing would cecur, numercus questions now exist about a host state's relo in the l

licensing process. ,

l Host State as a Party in License Proceeding.

Neither 10 CFR Part 60, in its current er proposed form, nor 10 C7R Part 2, subpart G declare overtly that a state within which a nulcear waste repcsiterf is proposed to be placed will be a full party to the license proceeding. Because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act describes the significance of state participation in waste facility licensing, a host state would certainly meet judicial standards of standing and would be an eligible intervening party as that concept is utilized in 10 CFR S 2.714(f) as proposed in 49 F.R.14698 earlier this year.10 CFR Part 2, subpart G would control , standards for state participatice In license proceecings under the

- proposal contain'ed at page 12, Enclosure G, SECY-34-263. This pmposal Is not, however, adequate in the eyes of the State of Nevada. Any state which centains a potentially acceptable site fer the construction of a repositerj should be declared a full party in the future license proceecing by rule. As suen a party, not a mere intervener, the state should be entitled to equivalent procedural rights and amenities as the Department of Energy. This wculd, of course, include the right to introduce evidence, put en witnesses, cress examination, full notice and service of all pleadings, full rights cf discovery, and s*anding to appeal.

At page 18, Enclosure A SECY-54-263, the prepesal states that ".Ufected states and Indian tribes will be entitled to participate in the licensing proceedings."

It would seem that the sta.ff agrees with the ocvious eenclusien that states are I

entitled to be full parties. Yet the propcsed rule leaves a state's party status to later determination. That determination snould te made now, a party status guaranteed by rule.

One problem with the deferral of the determinaticn of hest state party stan;s is ble exclusien of a potential host state from meaningful interacticn with the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission in prelicensing matters.

For instance, the NRC/ DOE Procedural Agreement, Enclosure F, SECY-34-263, provides for a significant amount of interaction between the license applicant, DOE, and the licensing agency, NRC. The only role allowed states in this NRC/ DOE interaction is the ability to attend technical meetings under paragraph 2.e. if a potential best state is to become prepared to adequately protect its interest in a repository licensing proceeding it must stand on an equal footing with the applicant, as a party with full right to participate in the prelicensing process along with the applicant and the licensing agency.

Site Characterizatica Plan.

As discussed at page' 23, Enclosure A, SECY-84-2S3, "the proposed rule omits.

• the mandatcry draft site characterization analysis described in existing 5 60.11.

However, the proposed rule does provide that the Director may invite and censider comments on the DOE site characteri=ation plan and that he may also review and censider the comments made in connecticn with the public hearings which DOE is required to held." P:wesed S 60.13(c) in fact requires the Direter to review the site characterization plan and prepare a site characterization aralysis. Though the Director is required to publish a notice that the analysis is available and allow 90

. days for comments, there is no requirement tt 't comments received from states er other interested parties to the site characterization analysis receive any substan-tive weignt. Unless such a provisien is included, a state cannot be assured that its comments will be heeded. While the Nuclear Regulatcry Commission may be worthy of a state's trust that it will heed state comment, this requirement stauld be recuced to rule to insure state involvement.

6

The State of Nevada agrees with the statement, at page 14, Ene!csure A, SEC.Y-84-263, that " Congress intended that DOE shculd previde the [ site charac-terization} plans sufficiently far in advance so that comments may be develcped and submitted back to DOE early encugh to be considered when shaft sinking occurs, and'at,all times thereafter." -

Use of Radioactive Materialin Chara?ta.-i=atica.

Section 113(c)(2)(A) cf the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,42 USC 10133, specifies that the Department of Energy "may not use any radioactive material at a candidate site unless the Commissica coneum that such use is necessarf to provide data for the preparation of the required environmental reports and an application for a construction authorization for a repository at such candidate site;". The discussion at page 24, Enclosure A, SECY-84-263, and the amendatory preposal.at proposed S 60.13(e),'page 8, Enclesure-G, SECY-84-263, do not correctly apply the statutory requirement. The discussion at page 24,' Encicsure A, suggests that the statutcry language only confirms that DOE does not need a IIcense to engage in site characterization using radioactive material. Though a full 11eense, as that term is cedinarily use[ may not be required, the NRC must " concur" with the i

Department of Energy that the use of radicactive materialis necessary to provide data fer preparation of the required environmental reports. Note that the same )

= 1 verb, "cencur," is used in this centext and in S 112(a), NRC statutory responsibility with respect to guidelines.

i Propcsed S 60.13(e) suggests that either the Commission's cencurrence will ce l

• granted "if apprcpriate", er another reading, that the Commissien will cencur if the site characterization plan includes the use of radicactive material. Either reading is inconsistent with the requirements of the statute. The NRC is enarged witn an

?

o .

independent determination whether the use of radicactive materialis necessary to

~

provide adequate envirenmental data.

Comments Herarding Preocsed Tert.

Section 60.17(a).

The term " area to be characterized" has been substituted for the statutcry term " candidate site." Though Nevada is. sensitive to the justificatien for this change, stated at page 19, Enclosure A, SECY-84-263, the introduction of this new w,

term can caly create controversy and uncertainty over its meaning. We suggest returning to the statutory language.

Section 60.17(aX0Xiv). .

The phrase "any adverse impacts from site characterization that are impert-

, ant to safety" has been substituted for the statutory phrase "any adverse, safety-related impacts from such site characterization activities . . . ." Though it is not clear at the outset what is the difference between these two phrases, less ccafusion will be caused if the stat: tory phrase is used.

Section 60.18(e). ,

l See discussion above at pages 7 and 8. '

1 Sectien 50.18(f). (j). .

See discussion above at pages 6 and E.

l Section 60.18(r).

The term " semi-annual reports" is incorrect as :he statute and propcsed .-de require that the Secretary report to the Commission and the governor or 8

legislature "nct less than ence eve y 6 menths." It is inappropriate that the Commissien waive its expectatien for more than the minimum reporting from the Department of Ene.g.

Section 60.18(1).

The caveat contained in this subsecticn is appropriate and ccerectly stated.

Note that the issue contained in this caveat is the same issue raised by the Enew and Commerce Committee report 97-785 discussed at page 3 above, rather than the issue for which that report is sited at page 16, Enclesure A, SECY-34-2S3.

Section 60.63(a).

The subsection as drafted does not grant potential best states full party status in licensing er proceedmgs ce prelicensing activity. See discussion at pages -

- 5'and 6 above.

Conclusica.

The Ccmmission should utiltize a totalintegrated apprcach to the enactment i of rules consequent of the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These integrated rules should provide fer full participatien by affected states, defining their status as parties in any censtructicn autherizatien preceeding at the cutset.

'As part of the prelicensing activity, an affected state should be entitled to ecmment on preposed NRC acticn with the expectation trat comments will be heard, and when meritericus heeded. Fct instance, the NRC's site characterization analysis shculd be finalized only after the cppertunity fcr state comment. When regulattens are adepted, new concepts should not be introduced by variance from statutcry langtage, except where necessary to acre g estly cefine statutcry i

l requirements.

l 9

w 1

mse we F -m 4 .:m.sc s wu.s. s ce = es:c cc sa R4 as19 .-

~ ~

EDISON ELECTRIC -

l N ST1 T U T E ~~=^= ="*="" ==" .

"" ?m it.est n n Aas 7:- 0 C 20C26-:cP

• e 2:2: 522 M; March ifj,1935

. ..s.. .

Secretary of the Cc= mission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Decketing and Service Branch Re: 10 CFR Part 60: Dispcsal of High-Level Radicactive Waste in Geologic Repositories; Amendments to Licensine Precedures (50 Federal Recister 2579)

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Thic letter is submitted en behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Grcup (UNWMG) in response to the abcve-referenced notice. In general, we believe the proposed revisions to procedures pertaining to NRC .

reviews of license applications for the dispcsal of high-level radicactive waste in geologic repositories appropriately reflect the provisicas of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C.

S 10101 et sec. ("NWPA" cr "the Act") . We do have, hcwever, the following specific ecm=ents.

First, as proposed, section 60.16 requires, withcut exception that, before proceeding to sink shafts at any area which has been approved by the President for site characterica-tien, DOE must " submit to the Directer, for review and ce==ent, a site characterication plan for such area." section 112 f f) of the NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 5 1013 2 ( f) , hcwever, prevides an exception to this provision. In addition, and in accordance with the Act, the rule shculd be clarified to specifically state that, in any event, cc=pletion of the NRC's review is not a conditien precedent for DOE's cc=mencing to sink shafts. Acccrdingly, to previde consistency with the Act, section 60.16 should be revised to read as fc11cws:

(a) Except as previded belew in sub-section 60.16(b), before preceeding to sink shafts at any area which has been approved by the President for site characterication, DCE shall submit to the Director, for the ccm-

=encement of review and ce==ent, a site characterication plan for such area.

(b) Nc:hing in this section, hewever, is to be censtrued as prchibiting CCE frca continuing engeing er presantly planned site Amcmec;ed by carf. .. ,. ,

/

O e Secretary cf the Cc==issien March 14, 1985 Page Two characteri:ation at any site en CCI land f::

which the lccation of the principal berehole has been approved by the Secretarv. of CCE by .

August 1, 1982, except that: (1) the environ-mental assessment described in sectica ll2 (b) (1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Ac cf 1982 shall be prepared and made available to the public before preceeding to sink shafts at any such site; and (2) COE shall nc continue site characteri:ation at any such site unless such site is among the candidate sites recc= mended by the Secretary of COE under the first sentence of subsection 112(b) for site characteri:ation and approved by the President under subsection 112(c) of said Act; and (3) the Secretary shall conduct public hearings under subsecticn 113 (b) (2) and have complied with recuirements under section 117 of said Act within one year cf the date of its enactment.

Second, footnote 1 to proposed section 60.13 indicates that "the Cc= mission contemplates an engeing review of ... infer =ation en site investigation and site characterization, in crder to allow early identification of potential licensing issues for timely resolution." The fcotnote goes on to give, as an example of this activity, "a review of the enviren= ental assessments -

prepared by DOE at the time of site ncmination." Environmental assessments, however, are prepared at an early stage of the repository site-selection process. As a result, they shculd not be expected to provide early, detailed identifica:icn of poten-tial licensing issues. Acccrdingly, to avoid any impression that all site investigation and characterization activities should, necessarily, allcw for the precise identificaticn cf licensing issues, the wcrds "to the extent that relevant information becemes available as a result of such activities" shculd be added to the end of the first sentence of the f:cenote.

Third, Section 60.63(b) allows a state er an affected 2ndian tribe to submit, "at any ti=e," a preposal := the NRC tc facili-tate participatien in the review of a site characterization plan and/or license application. Obviously, however, to assure an orderly and efficient licensing review, such propesals shculd be submitted in a timely fashicn and not delayed until a pein: where they might be disruptive. Acc=rdingly, the pr: posed rule shculd be =cdified to place a reascnable limit en when the preposal may be submitted; such as, for example, net la er than the firs:

prehearing ccnference in any pr:ceeding. In adfition, throughcut secticas 60. 63 (b) and (c), "NRC" is wri::en as "NCR." These typcgraphical errors shculd be ccrrected.

e '

Secretary of the Cc=nission l March 14, 1985 Page '"hree We appreciate the opportunity to ecmmen en the proposed rule. If you have any questiens er if we can otherwise be of assistance, please let us knew.

Sin rely yours,

, ) p .

? *-

tering 1. Mills Vice Prehident, Nuc M Activities I.IM:jhd

. a w3 innren ras u -dd g CG F2 AS79)

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY I N S .T LI..U T E

. :. v -

March 14,'31955'I5 EC5 U. . .. .. i

. w. . . :.

Secretary of the Cc==ission '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission 1717 E Street NW Washingtcn, CC 20535 Atta: Occketing & Services Branch Deab'Mr. Secreca:7, Attached are the cc==ents of the Enviren= ental Policy Institute concerning the Cc==ission's p cpesed revisions to 10 CFR Part 60, "Dispcsal cf High-Level Radicactive Waste in Geclcgic Repcsitories; Amendments to Licensing P ccedures."

These cc==ents are in response tc the Cc==issien's notice fc: cc==ent published in the Federal Register en January 17, 1985(50 FR 2579).

Respectfully submitted,

/

. avid Serick, Directc; Nuclear Waste & Safety P c ect 2 Attachments I

l PO/b J-I L

ly) ,g.9 x , t/M Sc-

'y' p' ,

[b! "

.. .n' - i v. _i (b..-t

. Jg.l sf / W 0 /5

• < c, la

• .',j,,-).

/,y l'- 4 Q M / ' ' /

i

.~r sd r E503:cc416 85C319 l 6 *C 2579 PDR I

% *c:w._ EAR 191963 n ......

L 2

• D Sts:. 5.E.. Lhmg::n. D C. D io3 .27, 3&3 0

March 14, 1935 In the aa::e: of:

10 CFR Part 60 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste in Geologic Repositories; Amendments to Licensing Procedures M MENTS QE, my ENVERONMENTAL POLTC? INSTITUTE QH 990?OSED AMENDMENTS D 3 CZ,1 E iQ LICENSTNG PROCEDURES E2R GEOLOGIC REpoSTroRTES Intfoduction The NRC proposes to amend its current regulations for licensing high-level waste repositories to bring them into conformance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act(NWPA). While we acknowledge that some co.nforming changes are in order, such as the redesignation of the Site Characteri:ation Report and changes in its content to conform to the requirements of Sec.113 of the NWPA, the proposed changes far exceed those required for conformance. Furthermore, NRC has arbitrarily chosen to conform some provisions of Part 60, while effectively suspending others, such as those related to NEPA. Finally, NRC proposes adoption of rules and procedures, such as its review of the Department of En e r gy's (DOE) draf t environmental assessments (IA's), which are based on a Procedural Agreement rather than ste?.utory authority;

'a questionable basis for regulation and thre, 9ning to future interpretation.

E Phitrn-117 Su s 3 end s M iQ Rec" 4 ._nts The proposed rule identifies five " principal aspects" of NRC repository licensing procedures under review fo: enformance to the NWPA. NRC rather arbitrarily decides to address only two of the five in the proposed rulemaking. While it could be argued that NRC is merely " reviewing" the need for conformance in the I

remaining three areas, such as the definition of high-level waste, the proposed rule would actually suspend those aspects of Part 60 that are related to the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). As such, there would not be eff ective regulations pertaining to NEP;. authority nor would NRC exercise such authority.

The severity of this action is heightened because NRC is also suspending regulations which are related to its NEPA authority, ]

such as its review of the DOE's site screening activities, but which may also rest upon the NRC's Atomic Energy Act ( AEA)  ;

autho:ity to protect publi: health and safety. ,

l 1

1

o . <

l We must also point out that NRC is currently reviewing the l EA's in anticipation of filing comments coincidental to the March 20, 1985 close of the DOE oublic comment meriod. NRC is not considering a range of site 'screenini; issues'related to NEPA and I its overlapping health and safety authority (see 50 FR 2579-2590, i

also see Becwning/Cunningham memo, " Role, Scope, and Issues in Environmental Assessment Review" dated October 10, 1984, attached) . As such, NRC appears to have already implemented the suspension of key elements of the existing regulations in the absence of any notice and certainly prior to the promulgation of final regulations pursuant to this rulemaking. This raises serious questions concerning NRC compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

Aside from the APA question, NRC arbitrarily proposes to suspend its regulations related to NEPA and early review of DOE's site selection activities on substantive merits. As stated in a footnote in the preamble (footnote #1, 50 PR 2580), NRC intends to defer NEPA related aspects of conformance to a subsequent

. rulemaking since such issues require modification of Part 51.

While reliance on revision of, and conformance ' to, Part 51 may have been a logical argument for def erral of NEPA-related issues when the NRC staff first circulated draf ts of the proposed rule in mid-1983, the logic cf this argument has long since f aded.

NRC revised Part 51 on March 12, 1984(49 FR 9352).

With Part 51 and the NRC's basic NEPA policies revised a year ago, there is no reason not to incorporate such changes as =ay be necessary to high-level waste repositories i n t h.1 cu r r en ril_e m a k i n e . The fact that repositories were not specifically addressed in the Part 51 revisions only argues i:.:: the inclusion of such revisions now since the bulk of Part 51 issues have been addressed. By electing to use the Part 51-confor=ance argument for suspending NEPA and early site review related aspects of Part 60, NRC creates a Catch-22 situation. NRC can't review DOI's siting program, even in the environmental assess =ents(IA's),

because there aren't any regulations, and there aren't any regulations because NRC's regulations have to be suspended because they address CCE's siting. program.

Even if the need for a separate, protracted NEPA-related rulemaking were valid, which it is not, the Com=ission has arbitrarily suspended Atomic Energy Act-related regulation in the process. As the Commission acknowledged in issuing the cGrent version of Part 60, the Commission has a " health and saf etv" responsibility for review of DOE's siting program and t$e suitability of DOE's sites that parallels the Commission's NEPA authority to require early site review. As stated in the -

preamble to Part 60, "The Com=ission recognizes that, under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, a con-sideration of alternatives might indeed be apurom:iate, where necessary c: desirable to'pr'otect health." (46 FR 139712, Feb. 25,19 81) 2 l

Unless the NRC reviews the methodology and other pertinent aspects of the DOI siting process in the EA's if that is now where DOE and NWPA address such issues, than it cannot know if public health and safety is being compromised. NRC's refusal to review

...the methodology used by DOE to compare sites or upon the relative merits of one site against one another..."(50 FR 2583) is contrary to its early site review obligations to protect public health and saf ety.

As is clear from the draf t EA's and background documents, DOE has selected sites on the basis of such criteria as the " ease of constructability" rather than public health and safety. A central feature of the DOE site selection process, the selection of sites based on the need for diverse gechydrologic provinces, is not provided for in the NWPA and is essentially a management decision to hedge against DOE's decision to screen sites based upon inadequate data. This DOE siting policy is. contrary to the requirements of protecting public health and safety because there is no assurance that the sites chosen are those most suitable for i protection of health and safety.

i While we might agree with NRC's that the current requirements in Sec. 60,11 to include the method by which the site was selected and identification of alternative sites are required by the NWPA to be addressed by DOE in the EA's and NRC should also alter its Sec. 60.11 requirements to address them in that form (50 FR 2583), we completely disagree that this change somehow negates NRC's interest or obligation to address those issues. If issues, such as site selection methodology, are to be included in the EA's, as NRC proposes, all the more reason why  ;

NRC's review of the EA's should extend to those aspects of the EA. Instead, NRC proposes to exclude those aspects of review while categorically concluding that l "Such review is not necessary to fulfill any of its statutory responsibilities."(50 FR 2583)

This is an astounding statement given the fact that the current rule includes such requirements specifically to fulfill such statutory responsibilities, especially NEPA. In light of NRC's f ailure to conf ront what alteration there may be in its NEPA responsibilities as a result of the NWPA, we must conclude that NRC's NEPA responsibilities remain unchanged and that the current requirements for review of DOE site selection must re=ain 1'

intact. Chey =ay be transf erred, by rule, to NRC review of the IA's, but they may not be arbitrarily suspended as proposed.

i As explained more fully below, we do not believe that a procedural agreement with DOE may serve as a substitute fo:

statutory authority fo: regulation c: the exercise of that 1

, l 3

l l

1

o .

authority. NRC had a statu:ory " interest" in DOE's siting progra= when the current regulations were promulgated. It either continues to have that authority and may regulate and review DOE's program under that authority or it does not. A procedural agreement does not , no: cannot, constitute regulatory authority.

Finally, it is our view that NRC's authority and responsibility under NEPA remains unaltered by the NWPA and that NRC authority under other statutes is similarly unsubordinated by the NWPA. To the extent that the NWPA does address NRC's '

authority, it underscores NRC's independent role as a regulator of DOE's high-level waste repositories.

EC Propeses 12 Restrict Review m:iccmment g h Cha-acteriestien Aaalvsis NRC proposes to drastically alter its requirements for review and comment of the Commission's Site Characteri:ation Analysis (SCA) . Rather than release a draft SCA for public review and comment, NRC now proposes to issue a single, final SCA witheat benefit of comment. Comment on the SCA would be provided for in a 90-day comment period after publication, but NRC would not be required to take such co=ments into account as now required in Sec. 60.11(e) .

The NRC rationale for d:cpping the draf t SCA and terminating an opportunity for review and co= cent of the NRC analysis before is issued a a final report is questionable. The principal argument for such a change appears to be the " scheduling mandates of the Waste ?clicy Act"(50 FR 2584). The other " arguments" as to why this change should be made, such as the anticipated

~

" extensive period of interaction between DOE and the states" and the number of technical meetings between DOE and NRC under the Procedural Agreement do eca, con::ary to NRC, provide a basis for dropping the draft SCA.

The purpose of the Draf t SCA is not, as NRC imnlies , m e r e',v to allow states, Indian tribes and the public to g'ain access to inf ormation on the DOE program. The Draf t SCA also allows the states, Indian tribes and the public access to information about the EC program. As stated in the preamble to the current rule, NRC intended that the draf t SCA be used to c: ovide errertunity 121 pub lic c.u:2c1 e ihrt EC s t a f f anniykie 21;tfg m y cha ract e r i rit t e n repert.

While it is understandable that the NRC staff does not wish to have its analysis subject to public review and co= ment, a series of technical =eetings or DOE interaction with the states does not substitute for a for=al opportunity to review and comment on a critical NRC docu=ent any more than those nee:ings c: DOE hearings cons:itute a subs itute fo: the site characteri:ation plan (SC?) c: the SCA itself. To the ex:en:

that NRC believes that the SCP and the SCA are essential componen: of its review cf DCE site characteri:stion activi:les, the opportunity to review and com=ent on that analysis is 4

I

! similarly essential.

The dra=atic changes cited by NRC in the DOE program are not, in fact, of such magnitude that they alter the original justification for the draft SCA. For example, NRC assumed, as noted in the preamble to the current rule, that DOE would provide an opportunity for public comment on its site characteri:ation report prior to submittal to NRC(46 FR 13975, Feb. 25, 1981).

Likewise, the current rule envisioned the preparation, by DOE, of an environmental impact statement for site characteri

ation. The final rule was modified, by adding a footnote to Sec. 60.11, specifically to allow DOE to incorporate information in its EIS into the SCA including the compilation of State, Indian and public views.

i The new procedures for " interaction" under the NWPA that NRC

cites as justification for dropping the draft SCA are not substantially different from the level of " interaction" already j

contemplated at the time the current rule was promulgated and do i not justify alteration of this part of the rule.

An argument must also be made that the very activities, such as the large number of t'echnical meetings between DOE and NRC, cited by NRC as a reason to delete the draft SCA requirement, in fact, argue for retaining the requirement. Rather than "f reezing" the co= ment and review process, as the NRC puts it, the draft SCA is simply needed to " condense" the numerous technical issues and discussions. These discussions, by NRC's admission, will be quite extensive, will take place at a wide

!~

variety of locations, and times. It is only reasonable to " sum up" or " condense" the product of those meetings, and their i relevence to the DOE site characterization activities.

NRC must conduct this " summary" and draf ting activity in anv j event in order to prepare its SCA. NRC would certa' inly bit i expected to benefit f rom public review and comment, including comment from those interested parties, who for reasons of ti=e i and resources cannot possibly be expected to attend the numerous j and scattered technical and DOE meetings.

1 j The draft SCA is also necessary to the preservation of an independent NRC regulatory role. Absent the draft SCA, even close observers of the technical meetings, will have little reason to believe that NRC's final conclusions were based on an independent evaluation and not swayed by "back:com" negotiations

~

with DOE. As an organization which attended the NRC/ DOE staf f negotiations concerning modification of the DOE site selection guidelines in the spring of 1984, we believe an independent analysis and statement of position, prior to final issuance by NRC, is essential if any semblence of NRC independence is to be assured. In the case of the guidelines exa= le we do not

• elieve that NRC staff independence was effectively p, reserved.

Lastly, the NRC raises the questien of the NWPA schedule and i

implies that a 90-day comment period, and period for NRC response 5

i

t to com=ent, would substantially interf ere with the DCE's ability to comply with the NWPA schedule. We do not believe tha: this limited comment period, which addresses the adequacy of DOE's site characteri:ation activi:les and thus the ability of DCE :o meet all subsequent milestones, would i= pose such a delay.

The NWPA schedule, such as it is, is a variable process which DOE is supposed to articulate in its Mission Plan (under Sec. 301) and in its Project Decision Schedule (under Sec. 114 (e) . The schedule is not a rigid one and the Act p:ovides for extensions of timetables including those imposed by the Project Decision Schedule.

DOE has demonstrated its own indifference to the NWPA schedule in numerous ways. For example, Sec. 301(b) requires the submission of a final mission plan, to guide establishment of the overall program schedule, within 17' months of enactment or by July 1984. DOE has missed this deadline and is expected to be almost a year late in issuing this critical document. In another example, DOE essentially withheld issuance of its final site selection guidelines for five months, approximately 150 days, after NRC published its concurrence in the Federal Register. We do not believe that the integrity of NRC's high-level waste regulatory progra: no: the rights of public, states and Indian

ibes to review and comment should be co=cromised to =ake u=

delays in DOE's schedule. ,

In any event, NRC's responsibilities and authority to protect public health and safety and the environment are insulated from the schedule. Among other considerations we ref er the Commission to the colloquy between Rep. Swif t and Rep. Udall during final House consideration of the NWPA on Dece=ber 20, 1982. The colloquy states in part, "By setting dates in this bill for DOE and NRC decisions we are setting sta:: tory goals for the

epository ac:ivities authori:ed in this legis-lation. Nothing in this bill, including the establishment of decision dates, is inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission to protect the public health and safety and the environmen:."

(Cong. Record, December 20, 1982, p. E 10523)

Consequently, the NWPA " schedule" does not justify deletion of the draft SCA requi:ement. NRC should also establish a notice and comment p:ocess for the semiannual site characteri:ation r epo rts (p:opos ed Sec. 60.13 (g) / current Sec. 6 0.11(g)) along the lines of the ec=ments allowed on the SCA. This would p:cvide all parties with an opportunity to bring issues to t.5e Co==ission's attention invclving ongoing site characteri:stion activities a:

the sa=e ti=a th<. C:= mission was cendue:ing its review.

6

. 0 1

\

Ti-ine 21 gf:.2 cha-meteri-meien IL,n g issue NRC correctly notes that the NW7A contemplates a number of steps in site selection and nomination which will preceed the

• point at which a site characteri:ation plan is to be submitted :o NRC. Under the current Part 60, DOE is to submit its site characterization report " ...as early as possible afte commencement of planning for a particular geologic repository operations ar e a." NRC implies that this point in time is dramatically dif f erent f rom that now required by the NWPA and l, doesn't help the matter by leaving out of the text the added distinction that the planning is specifically for "a particula:

! geologic repository operations a r ea." This misleading omission

! occurs twice, once in ,the NRC's discussion of changes to the site

! characterization report (50 PR 2582) and again concerning the characterization analysis (50 FR 2584). By so doing, NRC distorts

' the actual point in time originally envisioned in the current regulations for submission of the report and makes it appear that the current version of Pirt 60 requires submission

• at a j substantially earlie:.. period of time than the NWPA.

The definition of a " geologic repository operations area" is,

"...an HLW facility that is part of a geolcgic repository i including both surface and subsurface areas, where waste handling activities are conducted."(Sec. 60.2(1))

NRC implies in the proposed rule (50 FR 2583-2584) that under the NWPA f ramework the submission of a site characterization report comes at a later point in the process, after extensive

data gathering and agency interaction, than originally contemplated in Part 60. Examination of DOE's timeline for

, repository development in the April, 1984 Draft Mission Plan for I'

the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (see p. 3-A-39, vol. I and pp. 2-22 ep 2-26) indicates that planning for a

. particular repository operations area at a particular candidate

) site cannot b ;in until the site specific concep:ual design 1 stage. As DOE notes, 1

l

"The conceptual designs for repositories in basalt,

! salt, and tuff are in different stages of development.

For salt, several generic designs are available for l use. Howevet. niace steeific h hazz m heta j nei eted, nie.-s-ecifts eeneseeumi destens y.in sc.:

c=mmence until C.11 For basalt, the description of the site-specific design system has been published and an up-dated complete conceptual design will be com-i pleted in FY 86. Preliminary repository concepts have been developed for tuff, a full conceptual design report planned for FY SS."(Mission Plan, Vol. II, p. 2-26)

(Emphasis added)

We question whether this " planning" for a particula:

repository operations area, as distinct f:cm size screening based upon conceptual design, occurs at a later point in time i

i 7

. - _ - _ _ . . - _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ . - - _ _ _ _ . - - - . . _ . . . _ - - . _ - - . . . _ - - - . - - _ _ -_

1 than contemplated in the curren: version of Part 60. As noted in these comments, the current version of Par: 60 contemplated that DOE would conduct a site selection process and ec riete a 1n21:2 3201A1 1:2A21 11111:201 2 111 R122ciad tila chAIA21111111120 A211211111 Ehich E2nid i 212d2 111 ec-sideratien ci that 11:2 selectien preces . Ir does not appear to us that the curren: DOE program, in apparent compliance with the NWPA, varies substantially from that contemplated by the NRC i in promulgating the current version of Part 60. i l

NRC has grossly exaggerated the impact of the NWPA on the DOE repository development process over that contemplated by the current Part 60. That the NWPA requires submission of the size characterization reports prior to characteriza: ion shaft sinking.

is simply no: that differen: from current requirements. The fact that DOE's site screening process is more visible does not alter the principal requirement that it have a particular 1i1 before it can plan for a particular repository operations area.

Furthermore, the question of how many days, weeks, months, or procedural steps prior to sinking the shaf t DOE should submit the plan is still at issue. NRC cannot, of course, simply accept the strict letter of the NWPA that DOE submit the plan the day before it begins drilling tha shaft. The NRC staff, we should all agree, needs a significan: period of time to review the plan prior to shaft sinking. The blanket adoption of NWPA language, in the proposed Sec. 60.16, that DOE submit the plan before sinking the shaf ts does not, in our view, provide ample delineation of when the plan should be submitted. It does not assure that it will be submitted at a point in the process which will assure time for NRC review prior to shaf t sinking.

In its :eal to revise Part 60, NRC has made f ar too much of the requirement in the NWPA that DOE submit a characterization plan prior to sinking a shaft. The NWPA requirement is no:

substantially diff erent f rom that contemplated by the curren Part 60 and can jus: as readily be seen as a s::1cture on DCE ,

that it not proceed with any aspect of site characteri:atien, ,

including shaf t sir. sing, without submitting such a plan. NRC's proposed changes to Sec. 60.16 are not adequate to assure timely review by NRC of the plan prior to shaft sinking.

Likewise, the NRC's arguments that substantially = ore public and agency interaction and site screening are required by the NWPA prior to submission of :he plan than contemplated by NRC are also exagge:ated and not substantively different than contemplated in the current regulations. Therefore, the "scheddling" of the site characterization plan in the NWPA is act a basis for deleting the draf t SCA require =ent.

precedursi Ae-eere-t c2--ee sub-t itut e y.2: Etatutc ry Au-he-ity The p:cposed :ule is heavily dependent upon the P:ccedural Agreement between DCE and NRC as a basis f o: changing Part 60 and for imposing new procedures, such as :eview of the EA's. While 3

a we cannot object to the Procedural Agreement as a means of implementing the Commission's regulatory authority vis-a-vis :he DOE high-level waste program, the Agreement cannot substitu:e for l

statutory authority or even for regulations implementing that authority. The Procedural Agreement should be based upon Par: 60 l and not the reverse. NRC either has authority in this area or it j does not and oblique arguments about the need for early i

identification of licensing issues hardly constitutes a basis for future interpretation of Part 60 and future Commission actions.

l As stated earlier, we do not believe that the NWPA

, subordinated any prior NRC authority in this area and clearly i intends to create an independent regulatory role for NRC. We point out that the current regulations, 10 CFR Part 60 were promulgated February 25, 1981, before any congressional action was taken on nuclear wasta legislation in the 97th Congress which enacted the NWPA. All relevent committees were mindful of the .

! regulations and in many cases central elements of the regulations were incorporated into the legislation as the NRC notes. We conclude that Congress essentially concurred in the NRC i . regulatory scheme as provided in the current rule.

?-.mem. e s.1 w --se was . 4 ritne4cai a:;i inadecure.

Although the NWPA presumes that defense and commercial high-i level wastes will be commingled and placed in the same i repositories, Sec. 8 of the Act provides for a Presidential exemption. As the NRC is no doubt aware', DOE has also proposed that some high-level wastes that are not " easily retrievable" be ,

j disposed of in a manner other than in geologic repositories.

This policy is articulated in "scopin's notice" f o r DOE's

- environmental impact statement (48 FR 14029, April 1,1983) and in the draf t DOE report prepared in support of the Sec. 8 decision

(DOE /DP-0020 (D raf t)) "An Evaluation of Commercial Repository i

Capacity for the Disposal of Def ense Eigh-Level Waste" July, l 1984). A provision is also incorporated in the 4th Working i Draf t of the final EPA high-level waste standards (May 21, 1984) ,

providing for an exemption for disposal of certain high '.evel i 1 waste f rom def ense activities f rom the EPA geologic disposal standards. Consequently, we believe that it is especially important that Part 60 explicitly apply to defense waste j disposal.

l l Def ense waste disposal outside of the NWPA, as noted by NRC, l would not occur in the same manner as commercial vaste. The step-by-step procedures in the NWPA which NRC cites as a basis i for alteration of Part 60, including the site nomination process, l would be absent in the development of def ense facility. In point

' of fact, the p:ocess would be virtually identical to tha:

envisioned by NRC when the current rule was promulgated, with the i exception of the additional state and ::ibal consulta: ion and cooperation requirements provided in Sec. 101 of the NWPA.

4

{ Logic would dic:ste that in the case of defense vaste, where

no NWPA changes occur in the DOE repository siting and i

l 1

- - - - - - _ - - - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ --_-__-_-_ _ ---_--__ ___--_~ _ _ _-. _ __. _ _ . . _ _ _ _

F develop =ent process, Part 60 should re=ain unchanged. Instead, NRC concludes that it could "...still ef f ectively discharge its health and saf ety responsibilities..." if the proposed NWPA-based regulations were applied. NRC does point out that this would not hold for NEPA-related responsibilities (50 FR 2568), but che only change NRC proposes is in the contents of the site Characterization Report. No other changes from the proposed i regulations, such as retention of the draft SCA, would be provided. .

This proposed "fix" whereby NWPA-based changes would apply to a non-NWPA defense waste repository is wholly inadequate. NRC is simply preposing, apparently out of convenience, to acmiv~

inappropriate regulations to defense repcsitories; regulat' ions NRC argues in the proposed rule must be substantively different from those currently applicable to defense vaste facilities.

Given the additional institutional  ::ictures on defense activities, such as limitation on the access to early information about waste forms, since DOE is self-regulating, we are doubtful that the current Part 60 is adequate to provide timely information to NRC and to other parties. Application of the proposed regulations to' defense facilities would only limit further the ability of NRC and other parties to gain timely information and participate effectively in the process.

subpa-t c cM- m M,g n m nt-er, and c--te m ted NRC argues that the NWPA has now required DOE to prcvide states and Indian tribes with full rightz of consultation and cooperation and consequently the Commission's original concerns, expressed in Part 60, have been largely alleviated. What is not stated here, and should be, is that the commission's own authority to consult with state governments and indian tribes is substantially unaltered by the NWPA. For example, Sec. Il7 (c) which authori:es DOE to ente into written agreements with states and Indian tribes contains a specific cavea: that they shall no affect the autho:ity of the Commission. While we recogni:e that NRC has limited resources and may wish to limit its assistance to states and Indian tribes, the changes in Supart C are unnecessary and unsubstantiated by the NWPA.

The participation provisions of Subpart C appear to be triggered at different points in the site selection process.

Information, to be provided under Sec. 60.,61, is triggered by the submission of a site characterization plan (see Sec. 60.61(b))..

Censultation in site review is triggered by Presidential app: oval of a site for charac:eri:ation unde Sec. 60.62.

In both cases, it appears to us that the Commission is withholding inf or=ation and consultation until a f airly late stage of the site selection process. By the ti=e the SCP is sub=itted, COI and NRC will have already begun site specific technical meetings will have condue:ed lengthy site selecti:n activities. Because the amount of time which elapses be: ween nomination and submission of the SCP is expec:ed to be only a 10

I

. o matter of months, it would seem realistic to allow states to begin formal info:mation exchanges and consulta ion at a =inimum at the point when NRC and COE technical exchanges begin.

Consultation with NRC should occur as early as practicable, probably at the point when a state is notified that it is a "potentially acceptable site" under Sec. 116 or when preliminary investigations are begun for a defense repository under Sec. 101 of the NWPA.

cenelumien on February 25, 1983, NRC promulgated standards governing the procedures for licensing geologic repositories (46 FR 13971-13987). NRC now proposes to revise those regulations. We believe that NRC has the burden of demonstrating why those regulations should be revised in any substantive manner. NRC has not demonstrated a legal or evidentiary basis for the proposed

changes, which include the arbitrary suspension of key elements j of the current regulations.

4 NRC's principal clhim for the changes rests upon an exaggerated and misdirected interpretation of the NWPA which it reads as requiring major alterations in the DOE progra= not j contemplated in the original regulations. Contrary to NRC's view, i the changes required by the NWPA are not substantively different

! f rom those originally contemplated in the current regulations j and do not require the magnitude of changes in NRC regulations '

which the NRC proposes. While minor corrections may be necessary i

to conform Part 60 to the NWPA, NRC's proposed rule f ar exceeds l the degree of conformance appropriate.  !

l The changes NRC proposes would drastically restrict the opportunity to review and comment on NRC staff determinations

relating to the regulation of repositories. NRC would also 4 arbitrarily suspend those aspects of the cc

:ent regulations  ;

related to NEPA. NRC is currently reviewing the D O E's ]

! environmental assessments, which by NRC's admission contain the NEPA-related elements embodied in the current regulations, but is j not considering those elements in its review.

NRC's comments on the EA's are expected to be p:cvided to DOE by the close of the DOE public comment period on March 20, 1985.

Consequently, NRC has effectively implemented the proposed rules related to early site review prior to their final promulgation.

NRC has also suspended certain requirements of Part 60, especially those related to NEPA, without notice. We believe this raises c:itical questiens concerning NRC's possible violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

11 i

6 .

CCT 10 35; FEMORANCUM FCR: - Richard E. Cunningham, Direct:r Civision Of Fuel Cycle. NMSS ,

FRCM: Robert E. Sr:wning, Cirect:r Civision of Waste Management, NMSS

SUBJECT:

RCLE, SCCPE, AND ISSUES IN ENVIRCNMENTAL s ASSESSMENT REVIEW As you requested in your memorandum of August SC,1984, on partici:ating in the Oc :cer 12 meeting on trans:ortation in Colorado, tnis memorandum discusses one role and se:pe of the NRC review of CCE's Envircreental Assessments (EA's) and issues for the candidate re:osit: ries. The discussion of the role and scope is frem our EA Review Plan whicn has been develo ed 5 over the last several months and is now undergoing management review.

'de will advise you of any changes that oc:ur before the Cet:ber 12 see:ing.

RCLE The information : resented and referenced by the EA's will c:ntain data, inter:retations, and assessments available :: date on each of the cotential re:osit:ry sites being considered by CCE for ncmination. This information is im:or: ant := NRC reviews f:r prelicensing (Site Characteri:ation Plans .

.(SCP's)), licensing (License Acolicatien for c:nstruction authori:stion (LA)), and ado::ing t: th'e extent practicaole the Enytronmental !m act Statement (EIS) prepared by CCE.

The NWPA does not re uire NRC review and c:==ent on EA's or :: otherwise

- participate in the acmination process beyond the C:mmission c:ncurring :n the siting guidelines. It is nevertheless the intention of the NRC to review and c:mment on the EA's-(similar to other pertinent technical document:) in creer := assess CCE's a::lication of the siting guidelines.

Ac:crding :: the siting guidelines, CCE will make findings in 1:s EA's wi:n res:ect :: qualifying, discualifying, favorable and adversa c nditiens

na are presented in :ne guidelines. The NRC staff will review :nese findings and provide to CCE tts views en the data, interpretations, and asses ments that support CCE's findings. The staff will also comment en any potential licansing or EIS issue that CCE snould censider in fis ncmination decision. Furthermore, in ac::rdance with the NRC/CCE precedural Agreement (Enclosure 1), comments on the EA's are a useful meenanism for the NRC staff to identify potsntial licensing and EIS issues :nat may be antici:ated and that may need to be adcressed in CCE's activities curing site characteri:ation. .

Mi R!s rd P:!e 'N 4 ; m es: /

/tC40 -

'. ute: Mo.

PC" #

C:::ntu:::n:

e o ee s 4

.e t-- g e.

8 O 9 m , 8 e 8 ,

- . -.-- - 74J - - - ,,

, e '

m u m a il y i T =w y' CCT10 s4 Because the statuta cuits any refarence to NRC in connection with the EA's c.-

the nosaination procass, the NRC staff will not coseent on DCE's judgment regarding the relative serits of one site against another; this responsibility lies with the 00E. The judgments DOE must make in comparing sitas involve an intertwining of "tachnical judgments * (e.g., thermo-mechanical essponse of the host rock) and "value judgeents" (e.g., trade-offs between potential effects on national parts as opposed to prime agricultural land use). Rendering value judgments on the relative merits of .various sitas is clearly the responsib1Tity of the OCE dur. ins the screening procass. This is not to say that the MRC staff would be silent on safety and substantive environmental concerns. However, in the absence of such concerns, the responsibility fer weighing the relative mari.:s of one sita against another is DOE's.

• The staff's decision not to c:ssent on the relative merits of sitas is consistant with the Commission's policy under the recantly amended final rule, t.icansing and Regulatory Pol. icy and Precadures for Environmental Protectica 10 CFR Part 51 (29FR9352, March 12,1984). The statament of considerations in this final rule s:atas, "As an independent regulatory agency, the NRC does not select sitas or designs or participata with the applicant in selecting proposed sitas or designs."

.%re specifically, NRC's review of the draft EA's has tw general objectives

' which relata to NRC's responsibilities in prelicensing/ licensing (i.e., safety evaluations) and adopting the EIS, namely:

(1) prelicensing/licansino: The NRC staff will identify and review potential

- 11cansing issues and associated data, intarpretations, and performancs assessments which may be important during sita charactarization, that might result in licensing problaes and which should be adcressed by CCE in the EA's.

(2) Adcetine the EIS: The NRC staff will identify and review potantial EIS issues ano associated data intarpretations and assessments that might result in the NRC's being unable to adept COE's EIS and which should be addressed by CCE in the EA's.

The EA's, which follcw the siting guidelines and NWPA requirements, will be somewnat c:molez in their structure; however, NRC's review responsibility and approach is simple. That is, for each desft EA submittad by 00E, NRC will review the findings and conclusions presented - to the extant they bear upon the foregoing resconsibilities - and independently datarsine if taey are su bstantiatad. NRC will use this evaluation as a basis for identifying potantial 11cansing issues f:r timely s sff resolution.

.................. ..................... ........ "." " " " " . " ..... ". " " " " " .""""""*""*" ".""""*"*""" *."*.."*..en i .................. ..................... ..................... .......... .......... ..................... .... ............... ................

iCC FChe sta sice scs w AC.1240 A w:f f t'* 1 A 3 D C' #*

• O " 8*

• S V *"*'*****'"'~'

.-. - . - - _ _ _ . - . - - _ - _ _ . __ -. . _ _ . - - - - - - - _ . ~ - - . _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ -

e ,

l

=.....-

y a g y 1

1 1

007 10 3:4  !

l SCOPT The following critaria define how the data, interpretations, and assessments that DOE used in applying the stting guidelines to the EA f taas in Enclosurs 2 will be reviewed by MRC. ,

(1) Adequata substantiation of assessments, intarpretations, c:nclusions '

and findings.

(a) Adequate consideration of available data. .

(b) Adequata consideration of alternative intarproutions, assumptions, or performance assessments.

(c) Adequata consideration of uneartainties resulting free all sources including data collection, analyses, interpre- '

tations, and performanca assessments.

(d) Intarnal consistency of information including data, interpre-tations, assu=ptions, and methods of analysis and evaluation.

(e) Adecuata documentation in EA or refertncas to support intarpretations, asstantions, c nclusions.

(2) Potantial licansing and EIS issues identified and adequataly censidered.

As far as issues that are likely to arise at the October 12th meeting, our feeling is they will be related ts transporution of weste and scent fuel similar to those discussed at the meeting in Columbus, Ohio on August 1, 1984 The wasta transportation issues most ccenonly identified are safety, routing (especially weather and grades on I-70 in Colorado), routing models and methodology (use of sita specific and corridor stata specific data),

energency resoonses, insti+,.utional responsibilities, impact on t=urisa and traffic (Enclosure 3). The Policy and Program Control Sranch is currently preparing a paper on transportation issues in high level wasta which they will fonverd to you as seen as it is available. If my staff can j be of furtner assistanca contact Sill Lilley of my staff.

Original Signed by Robert E. Browning .

Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Wasta Managament, .V.53 Eulos m

1. NRC/CCE Procedural Agressent

2. MRC's EA Review

3. Rocky % ntain News '!EE 78EV!CUS ,CNC"RR NCE'

, ne. -

.. nene l gn . wm as -

e i"""' ";CEl Ng"" '"RE3 1rown t n'g"

"'"4} 3Ci7 TFf 7sf" ."..'R3fiyT""""'"

un> 9 4 ..10../..../. 8.4

. .10../...../. .... . .... . . .N. . S. ......0 1

....... . . . .d... ./.

1

. . .85

...... 8.. .104. . . . ./.$. . . ./.E 4

• • c me n. v s n e o' **' "'" *"* OFFICIAL RECORO COPY

• w 5.o m ass-.: i

0 f .

Feders! Rettster / 'v*cl 44. Nc.1M / 5.u.sday. Aur.:st :3.1533 / Nett:ss 3;; n o

• tr.t . sect to me MEA $cf4=r Adv:5cr fer taterfaca de:3 site iavestt:sucs concu=ed at a ca didate ::te er ce Cr:us wh3cnytewf and :cTu es/ and s:a czarneer.: sues :f snes for a sunnussies cf m: ens en ee natun and ecestsef ge drafts of 41) c:ces ecc tecicyc re;csst:ty eder the Welsar estent of ::te c:ancen=a:cn ac: vines pdes er:ct :c tastr t;::3 fcterarcec to Weste Eciscy A:t of13813e text cf at a cand! are site se ce it.!:rmanen esp 1AEA Se n:cas sad We ca :n t e 2:s agnement a ;; lisaed belcw. devesc ec hm su= ac::vt::ss.

AEA Me=

er States 'cr esecssta. som runf>p wommance ec=fac :

Taseg tr.co acestet :he ::rt===4 2, y3 e e,.gj:, g,,,,,,",','...y,

. Mr. Re er: L 3rswmns. Acung Cincer. "

. receive 4 5= ce Me=ter Sutes tr.J Cir.aics of Wsste Manage =e .t. Nuclear As early as ;rsc::a:ie, f:llcwing 5 :aer Arnscry Grous ths: mccf as Repatery Ccemossor. Mad Sic; a.:2,. area ;rtase Celd worx. NRC en.sas the ersh as necenary f3 reas f.cf, Wasamster.CC; 513:(3CI)C:*. representauves wiu be stancesc at eac:

streement tsl:te f:rwartir3 :t is the 4::n,.

site uncargomt u:vesttgaues princ;ady

, IAEA Cirec*cr Case el wtm a g ,,g ,, g,,,3,neg, g,,,;g,g,,3,, g ,,3 to serve as a pcmt of;rs=pt tectrunendauw thaa at be ac ssted. to, n p a u n. knformanensk escange and censultacca and to pretur.::ardy SW,,A, 11. s. ersuena,

ert,cf this age. met cl C4de Foe sh. Necear A tsistory N- -

myram.3afsty Mar. e 3,,,

idenc*y c=ncerr.s about sue Radioac:ve L%ents and Wastes i:v,eugstens reia :3 to ; cts: al At:smg :n Nue: eat Tower 71sats/* o O

• U**"'#d*** d'**"78"C" Licacatzg 1seum.

. heen cevetated. na wort:::; wi M"" *""*# #*** D#*'"**

constaa:s of Mr. E. H!reky fren; N.,; .J A:r, meest SW de U/., *

• 38 C:ecoslovenia: Mr. A. Migas:: hm Nucleme Reguluvy Caseestannes sad Tract the tuce $ss egne=act !a

,, Iaper.:Mr. A. 3. )' esse. man frem tse the U 5. Departinues of Ersrgy estered Juse, and fer so long se sits Umted Xirgier= acc Mr. l. C. Cye: . Idet.tifyts: Gesidleg tv:nespus for caiscer::aitse ac vices are betag (Sargent and I.uscy E g=eers) hm tse Interf acs Durans Site Ja viru sados and 71erdes er are c;mgrisa. CCE anc U.S.A. certietec tre : .tual drtit :( Sts Site Charsaarar.acas NRC wiB scr.acu.e sad held t est:ss gmde ft:m an 1AZA ceilacen. nas desit g" p.,** ;ened:ca3r as pr=v4ed = =le secca.

was su:secuently =cdined by t:e IAEA * #83 A 8*"'"U" A wr:ttaa rescr: agress to Wy tota CCZ s Tec= cal Revtew C =m:ttu fer {#*",A 8' ** * **

g , a:d NEC etu be prepand!=r eac C;ersuc=. anc we ars =cw schet:ng 0 " ^8

• CS' 2 3 '3f " # ' * " *d-puche c:=ent es a mec Ged eraft Cm .rmmWC m *a lps--

(Rev. :. catse June :4.1383 C:=ents (CCE) wtil oceeres m car.r.ac=sa wun 8 I8COCN " 388 d' A'M me Ycarsmed d a fon betw n s O CT.'a:4 NRO tact. cas staf reestved by tse Cirect:r. C(..ca .

seclogte recesitcry usser ce Nuc!aar te remw a:4 cc-4 en tearmte:ca Nucisar Regmatory Resear=, U~ cf sI*x W ec @ ;*uanna h sms missu s, Waste Tsucy. Act of 15ar '*he purpose Nuda Refu. sty {,,CWasat: sten {. of these pocactres is to saan that as taense. . sam z;cca sCcecry =f

. by Cceterit avadacte nfer ;c::s eed cata:a:4 1383. wd be part:4.any useful to tre in!: maton Cow ta mam'atee Wwee tse two agencu whic wd fa's.4' ate agree spos at *tsoca et, e;;rearaes fer U.S.rsynsentauves to $s Tecnical t e eczmetaan cf scatecWi.::lermat.co Review C mmittee anc tse Senser the acc==3hsnme 't by uc eran cf tu waadWas hn m me and data as seeces to fer.5:ste S7C -

Adviscry Crcup m ceveloptng tietr , ,g,3 ,3g g3,,,, , anon unfry mwwe and @ cons ar. Car s<d

castrana cs its acequacy ;not to taetr

• gg,,p.,,,,,,; waga peiggy Ag [ywpg), resoluces of suc ycte*:041 Uce.*?g

"*'" IAEA ""C"IS- The agreement is to assure that NRC tsme. ,

Siq;e :=sies of ta:s draft Safety b. Penos.!c manage =ct =eecru v!

a Ccice may se octassee by a wettten nutva a d:rseunona request to tre Ctractor. C .cs of Nuclea# ta=esy hasta to enacie NRC to review. D* told at tr.e sits.epec 8 :;rmc!e<.A evaluate. and camment on taose CCE *P828'*r :"assary. But at isast Rerdatcry Rosearca.U Nuclear 4'2anerty t i rev ew de s'ummary *tr4:s

, ,=.,su a d .=er' h rt m a n .:

Re U~ystatory

- ~33- Cam =tssace. Wasningten.

ace =resece atts CCE's ;rcuct cecsica of tse ter.r.:2:al =ntmss:ta revtew ::e seedule and thervey fachtste enny status ef cutstaea::g c= car .s eed

!$U.S.O 12:40 , scanttScanon of potenuallicansmg tssues: dac.se ;:ase for tesolu::cs =f

4.e4 at Westangtsa. C.O : hts tsta day of issues for umely stag resolutaen. The outstaar.1:3 itess azd isr.;es *o t;;cata

. Ausut test. esmment ta to assure that CCE has t e scecuas of tecn: cal ese:4s 4:d For tse Nacear Angulatory Cam =:saios. prompt ac=ne to NRC for c:acassions om# sc:ces cesceo !:r staff resctu::en Reese 8. Misspe, and explanace:s relauve to tse tatent. of c:.tr. items r,garcius sits Cheetar. Cree e/%sleer Aervia:ary reeening and pur;ese of NRC =mmenta caractenzauca progrs=a: and T3 Asesemn. and evaluanons on CCE acavtttes and consult en waat generte peasca ts

.rer. a m ps - a , so tast UCE can be aware. en a ca.rrent acvisacle atd :ecessary f:r NRC to saume esse m basta, of the status of NRC actor:a ;nsare. Um'acaved =asan=ent issues reistive to CCE acavtues. will be prompuy eievated to up;er Th:a b,;.w.i Agreement shaji te manseemen* for renclunos.

NMC/CCE Pmscoeured Agreement subsect to 13e previsions of any ;rstect C. I:riy technical :seenngs wtil be assacy: Nucear Regulatory de= sten sc:ecule tast may hereaftar de acessied to c'lsc:aa wn 'en NRC C:mmissten. estanissaed by CCE, and any commen:s en CCE doc ::ents sue as ac tone Not:ca of NRC/CCIP-ecacural ersiasmee inst may hereafter te Site Characten:ancs Fia s. CCE's se=:.

A;mment, ac :me By N C. ;umant ta law. != annual pet ne mens. anc 4 cam an par :cmar.actams Mersin s:ad be rtsens to feste* a nut as, cazratant:nq sunsasaary: Se Nue:sar Rer44 tory  : nstraed to L.=ut tre autaenry of de of : m= acts and 'as :nf:rmsuca :r Cammission anc tse Cesartment cf Car .russica to reguate tee suom ssien of sc vttres ::eecec f:r stad rescasus: rs EnerTy save stenec a Prececural :nfr.rmanen as part cf a gerieral;aan fer t e c:m=ents.

Agreement :cer.ufytag pc; s ;nac;iss site caracer.:.:uca acuvtues to se d *: fer=uiseq ;ians f t ac:v:::es

• l 1

• l l

i o .

n Feceras Reestar / Ve!. 42. Nc.156 / ~~ ur::ay. Au;ast :!.1983 / Nett:ss wh:ca CCE ws!!:nde:.no to deveep  : stas:li.no ='.:ssa. Pown requested that the C:=m:ss; 3 trJer:nacon seecec fer staH neosuuen Accert! Marsan.

cf ;ote::ual!aca ing Lasues. DCE wG halt c:e st:ca of Ms=a Yankee unul1:e p.eyce pirveser. .weleep werrepelicy Act .

meet wit: NRC :;rsuce an overr:ew

• ice?!se ).as cemens: ste ? hat tt P.as p ;3cf C"IcsL U.J.Coerr- en a/7.rerry.

cf the ;ians so ::at NRC aa c===ett ace:uate hencal bat.n=3 and veg;;.a. 7 :n:. acecuate ha .=ai su:::r:  :: raise n taett su!Sce:.y. Dese discusaacca yen, c. ,,,,, camai nq=nmut u ununue w 3 =e aeid suine:ectly earty so tsa: .; ,,,, g,,,;,, g y g . ue:4r :.*3:/ery .  ::staner. t make an: en4ngas ::

a::y =enges that NRC c:==ects may ,3g g g ,p , u. U.S..% ccese.1 m .ce n :amtes .svest=:n:s nes;r:c ty :ne enf ad car. h e duly c:ns:de ed by CCE is camsuzaren.

a ment:er not to ceiay CCE acuvines.

NKO. anc tu ;tevide br me (an:=3 :f n . am rm , , :ts s:ste:wn anc 14: sta :! s;ent f.e!

e. Schedules of actmnes ;ertam=g to awa cose no w at tre end f 4:s 3:ansac tc . " St.fa .

tec: steal metungs win be made ;ubhcly P:wn :!so asked that tne C:=::uss;:n availacle. Pcts ust host States and lO'*"et he. E-::t cu-as-211 deter =:se waat amcunts Mame Ya-J. t affeced Indian trices wiu be asuned 33mi,,;g =;;,e tg p,;ng, ter act t=vsted ,t: atta:: ta== :al =aeu=;s y,,3, yan,,, 43,,33, p,,,, e , M:::uss=m:3 a :its::sai of::ent

vered = t:us sect:s (Secu== :. fusi and cr:et 2 ensuen cf a trust Meausgs). .ne scuncaten we be give2 m y,% agg,n,, p,,,,f g.a.g,g c: a =many tasis by the CCE.nese Memorsneum and Creer I:38 2

• Coa 2'" menru wcuid ac=:mulate unui ssecac, tec =calcoeur.ss wC be caen a,,S.::e g3 ,,=).,3, g,y, p;,,,. ,

nut =ss wita c:e=cers cf tse ;ubuc . :mC:==tsstes has c:: side d a:d gif,,,, ,,,3, gy ,g,,,y,,7,1;ng g3, 33, meang par = stad to atte:s as ccservers. 3]"'Q,e , ,' Ci scu geeste.. , ,'h A C:m=isatens' c:ncer:w.S han=al tt

~ ' "~"

• e-

",,,, cf .far~ ~~' ~ ' 3 :3.tsu :ent:s of Safe Power f:r  ;= iecs of a lice .see is U=:tec to ce Matse. E:ml C. Carret*. Ica: 3. Cnen nists: wMeh 2:n ;r:Mems may N.,e

s. Dsta colleced d:::: site and lo:n lera as le:ilecuvety -Safe M D' 3?5' : ~ CI ~4:": heaan and lavese.ascens m.11 he =ede available to 7:wer*1 fer se:ca punuant to 13 C.TR safny> A3egaucas a: cut Asanca

.'."AC en a cut e .'. c:st=.=3 barts af'tre  :.re. Safe Pcwer sougnt an creer to c5=h:en at an c:esu g fachty at:

e CCE (cr CCE =nca=:r! quahty

..sw cause way Mame Yankee Atemi: n:t te the :selves a suff!=ent basis f::  :

assursace enesis inat are : .'tennt in '

7:wer C =:any ( Mame Yansee" er acnca to restnet ;erau::s.1: ce deter == tag : st :e data has tes: "'icensee") seculd etet be er end to C:=. ussica raismaa:..g. =ted by : e obtamed sat de==ected ;te;er:y. c:se:ntmue :;e suon :(lts nucear Cittcu. wie au==ata: t:a ha:=e.

b. DCrs a:elysee and evaluat; :s =f ;own stant at Wiscasset. Mame. ;n  ::alihau:: review f r elect:: ut. lines.

d ta w !;be :ess ava ahla to NEC.a a Ugat :f Safe Pown s allegan=ns of -

ar P.R. ::?!". Se C m=?ss::n noted me g,.,.,,jy . . .., Mame Ys mee han=st :m: :amiity a:se ce cf en:asca s:st !=ancal to eterste tite Wiseasset faclity saieiy ;r::ie=s are : evttahiy !=. mad wit

4. Site Spe-:fi:Sc. t;/ss and ctsoen of spent fuel now st red c:=st-cat: tag :n safety.* nus. even tners and to be generstec cuant tne nad me C::r.:usaica retamed sta

r

:.:rtaistent,,,

cuns. A~gs =umauy

i. wit. ;r=viceaT NRC eed en with Mmamder of ce licerismg pert:c. De han=al qualificau::: review ute spec..c sa=:les to :e used by NR* C:==suica nas c:nciuced that cen:al requiremests. a snow::s ::e Ma:r.

cf tais ;suucu lay witam tas C; rte:r's Yanzee was underge=g Sancal

' = steccast analysts and 1scret:en but tietee that sucsequer.t d!C=ities would act by itsett require

• ~3~d u c A-

. caveinements ; : vide accat:crisi jusu*.cauen for the Cinc t : ceessen. inst :e Cam =ission natt ctersucas at

, , Agency .,a of ., . .. .etzen

.,. 7,,, p 3.,. Cn tae etner sand.

A ,:: :mygy,,,tgy,ts ,gg,ge gy -

l

't s ut:derst:cd taat Ln!=:=snan =ade d'Ctfdf-4!8fT*LA' ClMC F8 4g et.,a:ie 13 e...er Age :y ....ar

. . . .. 3 dacticn tne Cactm:sst:n is :ssums tne ,.""8'8""**

o ,,,":p a seus.eg ru seerveie se agns: :t = y to used at =st. age: y's memerancum and orcu to ensarge tre '*"*"".'."W

,3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,c,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

ion na q;.;;., .3, ,; y.,.3 cut its discussica cf tas tasses raised by the see....e.

,,,r ,. ,3g .,, , peuucs .seses.u ,ae,w me,comm m eeesac * * -

la its pennen fe.' a :tiew tause creer 8m ** esma 4 "*w as auw"' s*** e.

f. p. .,te! .esectv,.trAJtrements Sete Power alleged a su=:ar of '""'"'**""*"18C'"***"

,','ce.iu,",ee."e.'se its rues.e. a unsweins we crcusttetances tac:cating ;cer financal e,u,ies eueduusee end usee a.e. er e .u ie

?*:ir:1:ec" JCa**ctects te c=nesson of Mains tenae,*. 8 Saie reece..e ie eenseree w nmie e a 4e., e,.e.

=t :emtr.t".Jt 4Divf ;=.*tC;tes w d be saana of F R.13rst. .e na nesee ed ene =eoves 'M 30$ct:7'et WN'*.J,313 JG re Cf the tsDe ' te . -- - evesse af the 5.arvive eweeeet "E M8 'h** **' D****' *** t.senene em

P.ts fr3jecegnereon,tcs*ec.

t 4 esteretinta. Bene egrTv!stects w$ be'e m, to t.a. cm t.-. tae. . e.inase c ee,eee;ae ~

- .ee 1 - j ,**f* ,',' ** N "a"* * * *

,,,,,,, , y , a y , pect., gas a gees.g ca ,. J.an, gefgy ttdcred t: Ine ::scS: 7ts?st'.s ;c redect ""gne sweave oreasnetances inc.as f tt t,'ae og Amurese Cadeerwearon ese Jewsom-m

'Jt3.cf.tf:Psit tA sites act ;"'sigg; *.nee see,ase temwe einte of tu csevsee, e ,C.aemsm M *: ; T.a. M ".s. *F E@ AI' siese ed ewooea Pos Ier puremere etaw tsee . C83L

• puren.aea reenaamaacer e ase same. ara es rumeer * ~6e cJats.neas e ca.e .e e.t setit seew *ene.

• • U ?s". ( :*, ',*.t3 a g!1 e m t *t s r. 8 d b e Ne6 ;sJ esos is see ist ucy sev= meet irts caessaa .a .* , ". O. 0.rt m a he f. great c.mus,en en

es:*.st ls .:r .:nty l:: ns :( .!:r=a3 * *** **** C*a*" ma' *w a 7 m a * ^C* ss.m 4..= 7w. ..,3 a33.

. * . . e ,, .. ,..w.. .e., e. ..w.. $ **ae u a wa===a >==e== 's ea=3rve ";wp

""'s".*e'"= 't no ni N Aimese t.:sen 4 e Me g,,.,,,g ,gg,, .ig g g,,, ,,,g,,g , g ; ,g,g ,,,,,,, gg gg gg, g,,,, 9,,, ,,,,,, g ,,,,.,, ,n,,, g gg ,,gg n ,q 49e'7$'tt N f IJa " af. ! ale:nC e e.j af tse.eene Y 4Amee 4 esseenseen essegee sa Seesie4 etesta f Me .me.e tees ess*msflee .'he c4.aLease.ee g

JM e*3aticf! fr e3 *r.a*ge) 3j .*t;cf*.s. s ge eenseien at .nmine si ass.:4ena. ssemee sep !N assase e me Gree 6astaesa he .e is wi

". spa 2 Lier :: su.!a 'tefts w'.! je ~ * ' * * *"eas p je n =aurs ue de am 'n.no e os a ==maaw, **m maaes uen as

C;.Te:*ed . a '.i.'".et/ 'FAr.nff. 7w 'asutsusr raevseewee is eenftene tme wa a

..sewee sessemnese en ersa.asse se eare*ee

• . usmaae, esensuse asserseas es pneue mesata ase neiery n_ _ - . . - ---

l . o ENCLCSURE 2 SCOPE OF NRC'S EA REVIEW EA!TEMSIDENTif!EDINSITINGGUIDELINES NRC REVIEW

l. Cecisics .creets; f;r Nomination

• None (addressac by Commissien cencurrence en siting guidelines)

2. Site cualification/31squalification '

00E fincings witn rescect tc the guicalines Technical evaluation used to supcort fincings Data, interpretatiens, perfer-mance assessments suc;crting taennical evaluations

3. Gt:ry:*:legic !c~ ting Determination '

Technical evaluatiens used to determine the geenycroicgic settings Data, interpretations, perfor-mance assessments suc;crting

, technical., evaluations

c. Cemcarative ! valuation of Sites

• Ncne regarcing cenclusiens or

, witntn Geenycrclogic Setting metaccciogy Substantiation of cenclusions

5. Suitability for Cevelopment of

• Suitability cenclusien Repository

• CCE findings wit.1 rispect to the appropriata quicatines Tecnnical evaluations usec to support findings -

Cata, interpretatiens, perfer-manen assessments succerting technical evaluatiens

4 l

ENCLCSURE j! (Ccnt'c) ,

SCCPE OF NRC'S EA REVIEW EA ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN S!7ING GUIDELINES NRC REVIEW

6. Suitability for Charactart:atien

• Suitability Ocnclusien

' CCE findings wita rescect :c the accrepriate guidelines Technical evaluaticns usec to supcort fincings Data, intarpretaticns, perfor-

• mance assessments succcr:ing tecnnical evaluaticos

7. Cc=carative Evaluatien of Site

• Ncne regarding the relative Agains: All 0:ner Sites merits of cne site against anctner Sucstantiatien of ccnclusiens

3. Effects of Sita Characteri:ation Puclic Health and Safety

• Prccesed site cnaracteri:aticn (Raciological) activities Potantial effects en rescsi: cry performance Data, interpreta:1cns supporting accve Public Health and Safety

• Ncne (Non-Radiclogical)

Envircr. ment

• CCE fincings wita rescac: Oc the apprcpriate guicelines Technical evaluations usac c succer findings

- . . - - . _ . , - ,. - . - . ~ -- , .- .

. o

. 0 t

ENCLCSURE 2_ (Cent'c)

SCCpE OF NRC'S EA REV!kV EA ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN SITING GUIC5 LINES NRC REVIEW

9.

• Al:ernative Activities for Site Alternative plads. for s1:e Characteri:atica c Avcic Effects

• characterira 1cn at-ivities 4

in No. 8 aceve

10. Regional anc Local Im acts of

• Propcsed rsecsi: cry facilities Repository -

anc cgeratiens Effects en repesitory cerd er-cance, environment, transpor-tation and sociceconcmics Data, interpretations succcr:-

ing acove CTHER EA ITEMS

11. Descriptions of the Site and Cats, intercretations, perfor-Regica mance assessments

12. Descrictions of the Repository

• Preliminary designs Cast;n Data, interpreta:1cns, perfor-mance assessments succerting preliminary casigns S

l I

)

l

_ _ __ ., - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -l

4

e j] 3 s .;. . t. . . 4.s  !

L.g* li *!! *et'. *a

N d g # S 2 *3 y L8% w u 3 e g .g g a s,. h C F;d g% _s cm 5: gCai H h ,n.

m- .

a = wWu 3 3 4 A 58 A 3 9 e !seu n mapga

. m tEa 2

- hwaa d y - .per

.EpJ.mait e s %7 "Cnce the site is sc{e..es * . '

(cder:!:y genentea g:g,n'Iy*] .,'T' " $

,8y een, SCE L.INOS..

.'cwms.a AYs sme wnie.

r

e: es!!y :mpessante;* 3ripa,. .,% f t!ntil e eence:: ree:ntlyft:mgaes:eEtC

te ::d ha3: at:}~"eted c:, gr!. I

84*d3 al t" cts c:r yie; de:e.!y 1ity18-

- l

,,,)* Jf >:st.t "I don't :a:ng ty,, s:: , g.nmgg,, g .

.:nsu:!e:r Ce bombfuei.  ::ca:wsre to ~'h

' - ~ es 1 mure r:c::.cuve d-: et same :( g3, ;g3,n,ng ,a,t.g g ng cn iticcinim:,.:.,:y r g u nu p g g Un at 2e fece=1 tevet w t:ca c:uld rt:uit

-Y 2e :nd *f me c:n :: / Ocs:ng a pcte.:.

t.. d %.ng.r r..g y, 3 3a g 7,jf 3.,3 , ,{c,

,, ,inang,ruseog3,;,ge;,.g;,gcr,'_g,g, .

re: non ft: m state :g;;e:: 3, gcrt:uon(s:.er,g,gege.g.gg,.

• n *c m C as:. c.f se;, w eeg , , m .,, ' .

,he

• 'Jaue cea:eas :r:und a.;t.3,e,- e, umcus dis:r:c* Cencar.s be mes; tre:'.'" .

, 'I d C

• 1 g*Ver?.r. eat wilt lce::e :gs 33.. ste r

,c, vet e. ::-:en..e w:::, g, amp m .te

. . "rCR.~a *yk;, a:::g:aw.es :( t3:g . ute.y ;teseau sa:n ur. ... i,.g.

3ry en:rts :eue.e it .s naty, ards its !! under acemat ::nej ::n27'.$r.

f aneje er:e ;r:;:si ,ves:er::3:,3 , 434!.3D at ma hour :: ce -".al.'

cr t -*el to a runaway tr. ct inla t

'y"ac".wher.Ja:;u.atee;=,Ce125of Ef,*43. , 5:ac C : s. - us .s a ::ug **~*4'. ?v s

• 6P-wy :r:f!!c :: :r.e gg,.:,p . *"*

i L,d i34 c.:s:. afere men: et :34 ,:3.,, ",nn 8- .

" :ny stand:rd,* i

'u:' ear fera:m .4 ;r:e,:,.;, Cr at:d C:!st:::: :rf. ::;s ::ngggg

\C*0 fit's :: 14 me fecer:I pr leenen,3, '""* ".e 3:::e su!! 3:2 . .,3

, 2q ,,,

g', ,,.or .r:32:;ru::en ::fr: :: wcu!d 'nt!uenca fett,

,u

- Inter!ute *). wRica . ;;sse: :* --.. '

"Ih 2:rty ca.ougr. ;r me ;r:< if

1. ~ve* fri Jer:s* tae Raexy 3; g,{.,'f. we :ct seen we ::n res :ngj. tis 3.g:.*. ;ny t ,

, One .cder-L stu:y est:= :,3 gag 37 ..t:ss:ro. Oenver 3 giggy ,, ,g ,nygr,, )

.1*L  : :n:::r.tr: der tr::X::r*ym nes. . *"n**I 3II4"8 "NE *dl C*.w'* W $,

t

'y f 4'! un :( sigt.!y r:d;;;;tFe wu'e uown to ere, uges m 7,37. ar r. !! we 4-it

• uu, Jr?:ve : :ae Jum; eye.y go m. , * *"C' 'CYCnd M I! r.:ve scme sc*a .

utes. .,I 1 : rs : .4y every g y, :. raldr -.. nus preciem2f. et. ** * ,

'n t '"4"v .tM: te nigsw:vs .n : " " ....,,*..

• Caus tc:ng .::eq :: 4ai; ;3e wu.,, gn inor:bCf:*es. gesiguqs::N,g3::ngfg33,g.,y,g7,

.go ,.hy.? ::dity :: m . m . g n.g.,,', ,.3

.4fs.er 13:3 =c.:3 a :pyg, g.,,.;./ ja g .

y vy t:r;e..:n ,,,..g,..g y g '.tg e:r e,-t. ,hp. :j e-u. .,3 ,, g .* *

(

t C,,anEt

- if I. 3 ar.4 !.;1 in 0 ,ny,7,etesm g ".W mc: co. ~ ' ~ - ' .

8#~* IU* U'I3 RUT 'nt 2f"Ehriy ta": ;eo-40 Mil,'*:)3., c:usteg the !:rges., tr:gri,e 4 fa in 1=ver s hts::ry and under:ccr..g ~

• • 1. '#' DJ #"inl :'"It 3!y :!:*-.e g.

r 30 " vulnert::e the e:!7 is to ac . dent:

l m vc,1ving Mac r=:us ,-,2:,,yig, .. ...

bth '0?4Cc3 of 3:ent ::te!c:r f et, ce q~- *: p 0' 82 7 ==ed -*

, ~ : % .. --9 :"C82

[. .. H f:dic:cteve sbestar.cs on ga M *'" M *'. 2

{4:%y *cn ! I4 :ftn(Me r:4d gg, beferg :.re, * " 3 '" *

~~14 AJW Icnt it will :. e to 84fect : d #8tu . :s 7tt?

c:nstrue: 2 turnp. m e . e g . .m a

. y .. .;9 l WI $cT*3;:n3 atot:t **:ert (: (CC*.te me ** **

d,., 1 4 3 ca c;u!g Mav e : *"* ie.* -- i.rn ract

• o.." . " .u.4

. * . ..s...

" . . " . ' 4. . . . . " . ' . ' . ' ^ . .

gn be- ydr*gw,. Jet und:r Jeny, :.ygg:gg y, at::n.

Tae gee:::ns :n to: g m:de :oe/*

- 9..--14, =' '

mJ Frt Sid::r :f ce f.r.v:::nme::1 1 ..'.,".. h ,'.

Psticy lr.st.:ute in '.Vassingt:n. "C:lcr:Jo a U e ; ", .: *

..ll *'.:se...: ::y :f it ::tsr. t get i:veh*ad

%4 e

,,i 0

k.

t a

.I

V l

4i .

3 ..g

,...g,-.

....  :..gy

-- wa;;3 n in tw1 t

I . ...v.

mere n:s seen : tot of actly.

ism m tne arts wase:: seems to frtgaten pec;te. said ?cy Carr:sen, DCE*J trze.s.

crt tten enief. Sus these saipments have ,

tee: meved desta or mjur!:e 40 ye:rs witacut ever any f.o pr-Clems :y. It ts s f:c: mere have been -Whether it's the MX missile er .ue! :r waste cisposal. the West is picred cr. !cr der.ts.* dar ta,:n c:nven: ice.31:cti.

sites bee:use thert's a 1:t cf rocm cut aere ar.d we scn't aave the ;olit: cal :!:ut we '

Carrisan s:id tse increased volur.:e of see. D Colo. seed to 3rtnet;t it." said Rep. Rav Kog:v.

shi:mer.:s wcn't thre::en 134 public. he

• comends tast the sar;;eg ::sks are inde' -!n Utah. 38 pere 2?.t of the land is st. act:ble.  !

• ownedment gover:: by the federat governme::t. If the Cther ha::.rd:us mater !: d:n't have . wants to de

! sed tasy own. s ener or;cstt was:e en the k:nd of ret rd we te t:!kir.{ about late. they see here." Cart sen said. Cas:line ts ccrald' going to 40 tt."

ered an ac:eptatie pee;1e every ye:r.r:se ted it k:!!s a !ct f Eut Sen. Cary Hart. D Colo.. csutiened th:t the not.tn.my.

!!ec.But etr.e s :y ;ut!!: ::n=ert. ts ;ust!.

won't solve :ae ;r::hacitle* t. yste ph21csc;ty .

n:s sta!! asa t ac:d :r g:scline, it's -Frank!y. :s :n Amer: :n ud an ele::.

ed offic:31. I tt:nk it is irru;ensible !:t radio:et:ye n:s:4. And =cre :ss't a hip pec;!certoan r:y act in ce West. Or Fast :r tevel r.::!aar :is;ust s:te it:t works any. Scut wnere :n tne wer:d r: nat:enal;r:yl ;2rt:c21 e =. r state. Dts .s a Frsnet.n. ger.er:1 c:p: r.:w.* s:i.15teve u sel f:r hip. level 7eennelegy. ratter :::n politics. P. s :o r:2.icact:vt ut.s:e wit tte Te::s gover* pre't:al." he said. n act's office. sot in the place wn:::ts stuf! has to be ;ut So far, tae r.:::ca's 76 . : clear react:r: has tte ! cast ;cti:1 have gener:ted ;3.000 tens :( w:ste. It's c:1 musefe. But wnere it is ce ufest. Ar.d tn:t dec:sica util te m:ce by the preside::t stored in pools of water at ce react:r of t3e United States.",

sites. But taey are llling up.

Fe, waste sht; menu h:ve t..ve!ed me Nine sited:r ac::e:r w:ste dumps have . natico's hipways or railways in recent teen ; reposed.

years beesuse 13ere is no nat:cnzl cum;.

ne tares Utsh, en theinter:e the West art ne:r of Cayen! d: Ma. Mcab. mere:Fr:rn 1371 t: 13s1. an av 1 and enper:me* enge of 16 c:m.

tacnal P:rk; :n ce U S. governme:nt*J Ha::. nignty r:dic:e::ve wss:e::w:1 sa:;ments :f ar.ar. ere tt:npried feet rese: r::::n :aar R:: .!:..d. Wasa. sed *

.J ' n:.it atL.:s::e */egss.

Nev d: test site 65 elles ner.a:'sest e r.id..14!" !! % . m en:: w:dr *,n.

of ereise sagasfic:ntly cae;: 2 itte is b::!f.

It's also ;cssthis that 2 temporary site .

may be asut!!sned :t a feder21.insulla. See NUC: F.AR. ;sge 24 t I

t:en is Idaho Falls. Idsto.

! ne Nucie:r Waste Pelley Act of 1987.

requires th:t three ;csstate sites he selet**

• ed early next . vest. A !!ast atte is to be enesen ny 1287 r.nd o;e. ed in 1993. But the teg:st: tion is frsught with loc;telas and vcuntracie:!cr.s wases open tae door ice l -

• e rs of cardtenge.

'~

A10 cup men nutfe:r w:ste is in the E.:st. Mill:t and Caers tet Oe 4;te wiII De in ce Wes:. wnere N;u!:: ten: ne: rest ce

re;csed sites

re lower cr.1 :aflue. :: anc re ma.rt::ve tess pnliti.

suppur.:ve of ce e.ue!aar indus:. i.

t h

a 1

)

+ .

.J 4

.i.

.3 .

i  :/ a. . . . .:/ :- s" 4v O un :a '

• .'lew s 'a a.v a

- -e ....- ...-

i I

L r

Canunued from page 3 rele:se radicact:ve gases 2::d parte! s into The Ce;4rtmer.: of Energy estimates cat tae air. ney c:uld :e innaled :r se::!e en fr:m *1J.200 :s 410.000 truck sns;=enu r vege: ::en, scii er water anc eventusily te

. 23.000 :s 45.J00 ra:t sr.:: menu wculd be eges:ed. Pe pie near a racicacuve s;ti; necessary to trans;ct: tae wu:e ;r:duced wculd a:scre radiauon :arcug: ce sk:n or my : e :urren:ty :: era::ng ra:! ear react:rs by ;nnaling it.

over :ne:r

• year lifet:mes. Cepencing :n tae amcu .t :f e:; sure, tae t.*p to 1:3 true.ts w:uic te en the r:ad e!!ecu can :e :mme:iate Or latent, suen as enry day by tae year

• 00, ac::rd!ng to a increased esacers, tarta defect: cr genenc 1981 te;er: ty ne Nauct.sl Acsdemy et mu:2:: r.s. -

Science s Nauenal Resear:s C:ene:!. . In 1930. tae NRC estima:ed taere would "Only cne mess up ::uld c:ntsmina:e ce be ne:rty 2.100 :n. :ediate cestr.s and even Calcesco R:ver se ciese me econem:c c:n-  ; .cre :ancer vienms : .:uld sue: a :alamity neen:n te: ween tae Ds:er. ar.d 'Nes:ern occur at lur.en hour m d:wn:cwn .'itannat::n.

.iic:es :!cas *.73 f:r years." sa:d get!ciu: The ;r:s;ecu :i an ac:: der.t are also Rev Y:ung, a : nsui: ant :::ne Sierra C; am. deadly f:r Ccieracans. '#h:!e fewer lives Tracx ac:::enu in ger.eral. metudeg mt- wcule te : cst t! an se::cer.: :c:urred ::: I 70

..:t :. :::ent:. :c:ur at ce rate :( cr.e eve./ m :.e moun:stes. me !=:a:: :n Cater:::'s 4:0. 00 m::es, ac::r:ing :: CCT. ski and t ursm .ncus:r/ eculd :e :ev:su:.

But ce Nucie:r Regu!a::ry C:mmi:s:en in g, says tae ;r::a:tli:y of an ac:: dent severe "Ects. I.70 and

• 75 :esd ft:m Oe East to encug.. :s treak a cask is ste:!ar to :aat of a Cenver w .ere a m:11ien :e:;ie are :1ving.*

cas4 :etag strue.t :y a me e:r - cace :n saic Calcrado Per: :( In: y d! ts::r Cee several mt!!ien vests. Har:: .an. "Lsennt.lly, we nave no ::ntr:1

• ne er.sks : .ktsin scen: fue!." a seme ~ crer tae fees. !! taey want := tr:ng it waat mtsiracing term te:suse it impiies tar:ugn C<nver. taey viii."

mat tr.e fue! Mas ! cst d.s ;cwer. In fact, it :s '#ho saculd res;:nc :s sue: an 2::: dent is milliens :( ::ces =cre ne:osenve taan an c;en quest:en. An NRC re;:r: esumated f.esa fuel. tr.at a "=ccel state sys:em'* wculd ces:

Fuel :sst Mas teen :rndiated it. side a r:ugniy !!.i m:::icn. " States s:::c; n': nave nuc!est react:r for sevt.-:t ye:.-s is c:nsid- to fect inat til!.* c:nten:s Tet2s' Fr:snman.

crud s:ent ween tan ent::ned uran:um it Eut federal res;:n:;t;!;:y !:r emerger.cy c:n:2.r1 no c..gtr I:mcca ;r:per!y. res; rte r.!!tes lin e ::m!: : :: Cenver-When it is removed. it must te s*: red They may say y:u 2:n't f.eed :: train under w:ter to c:cl it :nd cuntam the radia- Iccal pec;le tecause me:r ;e :ie are always ucn. cn es!! tut we :aw how well est werked Even after an unshie!ded fuel assembly with the ::r;ed: in::de .:. sa:d Rep. Patr:-

has been cut of a reacter for si: montas tu c:a Sc:::eder C-C:fo.. w:o was tagniy :::1-temper:ture enceeds 100 degrees Fahren- cal cf the gove-n=ent's .e:;:nse :: ?at Me :. St:ncing :ne ystd away, a ;er:ca acciden:.

would receive a lett.at 2:se of raclauen :n 13 Fruntnan '.s cal!!ng !:r a study :t ce ruk 3econds. . .at:ng var:cus routes. He and tt.ers 00=-

In an ace: dent, a damaged cask c:u!:! ;1.:m cat res;or.sitt! sty f:r safe,!y :rans;crt- ,

1 i .

t I

I s

w26

. . '" j:n*n, r.

.'F. .

, P W"

?r,.

i

W.

3l25/ 3.t Recxy "cun 2i n '4ws lE */ d " . DDC ,

f 6

r.:

I e

p..

S l.:

,i t '.

ing : .e waste :s :e:ng test in 2 ::.T :: st:c - Har: sa:d Oe Reag2n aden:::s: auce ud  ! g.

snuffle. dedgei its r:sponsittihy to im:lerne:s t e ,

b5

CE trans;crunen enief R:y Car-s:n Nue:ese Waste P:licy Act. "There :s ;ienty said 3:s depar: ment's ;cllcy requarts cart:- cf lau:ude for tse s:2tes to cesi ett: it." he j.

ers :o follow : e reguladons :f tne Ce;2rt- said. "!! Ce feders! agene:es wanted cis act j ,. .

ment :f Tr:es:crunen. to worx, they wcule s:t cwn ut:: the suces is ..

W.

CCT's regu!a:::n H5t 154 dire u nuc!est and make it wore."

sai:me.eu to te ::ans; rted en inte:s:2te 17-A sumter of states, inchding Utan. Ne- i .

ang. ways. ta't:ng ty;2ss r utes ar:und c:::es tr:ssa. Wisc:ns:n. 3!incescta and "v's.s.i: g. -

wnere feasib!e and avas:a:!e. ten. have ined is get ma::: { ::brman:n CCT's ent:r:ement Of atter ?.a=r:: us deveic;ed fer CCE at Can ?.:cte Nau:nal 3e materals sa:;;ing regulat:: s. is act g:ce. Latcr:ter:es :n Tennessee.

r cr etam:te. :ne :::cx car y::g :cr edes Ce to new ::OE Pas res:sted ta:se efSru.

e:: :ver .:r ed :n Cenver sacule nave by- CCE's trans:crunen ness Cart:sen stad g.- -

passee me ::: . ':ut dica t.

ere :s " scree m:vement := ace:mmoca:4 Mere : tan :N !:c:1 and sute ;urs !c:: ens ce su:es' requesu. at uve :anned :r restt:c:ed : e trans;ce: :f C:lcesde Mass t aszed kr ce in!:r==:::n. #

r2c:cac::ve was:e at:ug :ne:r c r".=uns. C<nver intends to ask Se sute :s make a nes.

OCT .as muved :s ;re sempt sever:1 such fermal recuest sa:d Ov::ver's Musa.re.

Le nard Sicsity, in::e :s Cov. ?.uaard D.

IE-cr:i::::ss But resisuces ::ntinues to 1.amm said ::e s:ste s ~2 dewing de CCr E tude. '.tiustgsn passed a law ;renstient ;!se.mng pr: cess."'

4l r trans:cr: of nucle:r waste is czsk.s wr.ic On ce = ;;ing que: den. 52s4y san:! Col.

uen : teen ;nys:c::: y :es:ed. Since acne craco is ":rytag :s traex d:wn 2:: prxess. p usec :- ::e t.*. nite: States ':a c::derg:ne sue: 'We need to see*wnac ::ey aave a:d west g

es:3. ::e Stica:gse 'aw e!!ecuve!y tans au- it rnea:s. 'D:e cur t:: CCE ;lan says it :

!est sr.:; menu. routes wet.!d te sef e :ed :y c:m=et:=! [

"""he real issue." said F .saman."Is taat sas;;e-s. Any mede! :na: :re ::u enere <b.

su:es f.eet .chtesu:n a::u: : tar.sporuten ses;ments w:u!d go :s of im::e: un.:.. We h*

r so ::ey es: respos:i prope-!y acd be in. den t 2:cw yet if ::ey would go by rail ce .

L volvec in tae prxess. Up to now l'OE Ms highway."

been u::wdileg and unable to prev:de us Truck.s car /img any Mr.2rd:us ;rodnet:. in su!!!c:::: inter =at:en." including radioac:ive ws.i:e. are alesdy i  :

C:lerado and ".,*nver barely hve begun prenitited fr m *rsveling :ar ugh de I:sen-

,r cen4Wer:ng restr:ct:ve laws aimed at :ucie- acwer Tunce! :n I.*3. Ins *e:d. : ey are r:ut-i ar tra .s:urt and Cey have tee:: s!cw to asK ed ever L:ve!::d Ps.sa. whic:. 8:rt f Er.:Ty $

t-

!ct suc . :n!cr=atice. dire :ce Har.=r.: Octas. :s : sscaertu.s eve:

-C:e:rly, Cs!crado shculd do what it ess en a gecd 4:y. -

[- '

to ; ass stt:ng laws ca reuu:g and safety "So se're saving cese true.'ss go over a 7-r precautices." said Scar:< der. "Tien su:es wind! g, c:. ring road su;tesedly because p-save ;as. sed !:ws, ce gover ment Ms sa:d it's safer." Ear =an s: d. "Is est gocc? I j st's teen ;re em;ted. . . They " used laat d n't re:1:y want nu !est 4.s:e I:ing Over is ie-; ever.t:cv aut :! it."

L.sve!and P:ss r :..e :u.::nel."

-/ [!

x 1".

1(

l 3

~

l ih <

{ j F. i i

I

+ .

m .: f) -

osE 2 3 0 illag g (EDFA M79) w..owu

. eq.

.f...

-s

• "ac" _. @M 4g' svarc er cos ~ cerieur ex c=vvive e a cas g v ;;g 7 -.arreae

.v. e. . : .. . e. . ,. -

March 12, 1985

.1ccw =c;t. pig ..'g, iU er.5 Secretary of the Cc.rission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission .

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Public Dccu=ent Roc =

1717 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The State of Connecticut offers the following cc==ents concerning the preposed rule for " Disposal of High-Level Radicactive Waste in Geologic Repositories; Amendments to Licensing Precedures" as published in the January 13, 1985 issue of the Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 12.

The propcsed federal rule appears to restrict the role of the public in determining site suitability of high-level nuclear waste repositories. The proposed rules, which would amend existing precedures, would eliminate the require =ent for a draft site characteristic analysis, thereby circumventing enarly public cc==ent. Ecwever, Connecticut's experience with riting iccally unwanted land uses (LULC's) has benefitted frc=

genercus participation precedures.

The concept of 14 i ting public participation is aisc centradicted by several recent theories published en this subject, including " Siting Hacardcus Waste Facilities" by Dave Morell and Christopher Maggrian (1992',' Ballinggr Publishing, Ca= bridge, Mass.), " Siting Ha::ardous Waste Manage =en: Facilities" (1983, the Conservation Fcundation, Chemical Manufacturers Asscciation, National Audubon Scciety) ;

and "Tacility Siting and Public Cpposition" by Lawrence 3acew, Michael O' Hare, and Debra Sandersen (1983, VanNostrand Rhinehold, New York). These publicatiens stress the point that ne siting atte=pt can be successful, in the sense of =4 ai 4 d g ec== unity and perscnal disrup:icn while assuring a fair and timely decisien, unless all parties at interest are afforded access ec cc=plete incormat cn ::c= :ne very beginning.

x 10,1Q .

'/ ' ' 1

. k, .,..

. ... /- :E. ,.  :. A :/. i l.IC S $$

~

-[J ' ' ' s sll'r:/,

s J

3(;:.! VIL O ee C gag 19 5 i .- -

~

c Q*d).,o IO,oh,?" W /

, w1 ,-, by ces. . . . . . . . . . . . -

..cCUTIVE CHAM 3ERS

-dARTFORD, CCNNECTICUT Secretary to the C== mission March 12, 1995 Page 2 Even thcugh the subject Waste Siting Act dces not require that a draft environmental assessment be made available fer public com=ent, the DOE intends to do so according to the l Federal Register Notice. If they intend to do so, the regula:icas l should clearly so state. Althcugh the present administration  ;

may be sincere in its intent, the intent of future administrations cannot be assumed. Any means to encourage adequate information flew at all stages of such a project will enhance the likelihecd of an error free and acceptable decision.

The experience of.the Connecticut Siting Council in siting decisions regarding any " unwanted" facility indicates that restrictions on public participation in such decision, disguised as streamlined regulaticns, prove counterproductive.

Any ti=e or money saved early en will almost certainly be lest to more vigorous and effective public opposition and court challenges at later stages of a project. In fact, a recent study by Charles River Associates, a consulting firm in Besten, Massachusetts, indicates that delays late in a construction project are far more costly than those encountered at early stages.

Thank you for this cpportunity to review and com=ent on this proposed rule.

Sincerely, /

. l WILLIAM A. C'NZILL Governor

. SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY INC.

v. ..s  :..m

3. o Soci: i . Avenue - Sut:.; .ee- Ne , ve n . Ne , ye n ieeis .:::' f:.e - i g e

n . .- -

.wiro .R. edoresten - Executne tree:er n=: ' , -

k!:=l

b .':::' /4, omom. n., c .

od 51 March 15, 1985 -

r s o

.s .- .23U Mungry f G ,'-.,.

n. .- s.

C$ es ""." Sa=uel c

-ec eca y J. Chil':. t .

. a. : . a. . -

.. u .y

- - - . g IUk! i g

c'aw 'J.P.,a- ?."

MLMSCR$ g.rt s h.w.e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission Washington, CC 20555 MM'J9

!O"s c.~ . a - RE: 10 CFR Part 60

• • -' *,'--'", Disposa1 of Eigh-Levei c":"#cZ,,

• Radicactive Waste in f:1*:: J Geologic Repositories:

a'.':".t P u, A=end=ents to Licensing

?.^t:.*: ,-' Procedures (50 FR 2579, S c~.- *

• cm w e . =~ Januar" J 17 # 1985) 5 e i. C c- a ,,.

=

c..' c.

Dear Mr. Chilk:

s, Tc-z.h I .C a e c.

c- .

o 4o Scientists and rnginee:s fcr Secure Ene:gy has C == .a c Ja.s.o E }L Dh.e c7 ~u~ reviewed the proposed rule amending licensing precedures Sm W M

'""'".t;""'

M for high-level radioactive waste repositories and wishes e- -

4 me M.sa e i.. .;.'.l--a to ccmmend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the

. ~ u.

' - - ~ - Department of Energy for their sensitivity in dealing 4,-

we

+---.t..-s.-- with this important stem in the nuclear fuel cycle, uu -

& =. av C r A J M.

5 n C.nta.v*

L m. m.re D"

n k'.". " While the passsage of the Nuclea: Waste Pc1 icy Ac:

ai =.em.r C ee M "_*-*

c , of 1982 Oy Congress ectablished a definite Federal tr a.e.cC _P.ae,..

(. * :- ~ , . policy for was:e dispcsa1, i: a1so presented the n.

. ..c. . .

gy g,,L, L- Cc==ission with the task of prcycsing revisions to pre-cws L=. a C omm B e u - vicusly adcoted erecedures to reflect the crevision of

s. . a n. ~ - - -

Ed T.4.,*

-c ea,

- 4. .m 42 the Waste Policy Act and wich the ccccrtunity to take c- a i --

c- . z. ,. c . . . .

. , . . - into consideration sc:..ent:..,ic exper,ence gained in tne .

Qu A re - - c=.

T a E.s ,

r~~ P. c e

• wu ~'% r, ,". } O ,

l l ..-%ss

, e. ,e

.n a_ r

,o j 7.  ?. ti.1, ., -

?.","."L,

/, -Q.. w -. d MI)}ob ..

9.) $ W s /J/,<n.

p . ,... v- '

-Ac s

[....... --

. , "y J,,iji r. W.

~a.,,.,,.,, lJ > .r

$A' A,-=;;y N 13 % y 7c: rte:: C yle I:ss - Mii: Af*: rs trec:ce 2eit Eye Scree NT- Sutte Wt Vashtngten D.C. 20Co0 !!C2] 223 3361 Z.'sstie

. Ougen.."h.2 -;'c::er t Reresen:snte 64 C:stro screct . San Te:neses. C:hfcent pit'+ $13) 552 --!!

e

• Samuel J. Chilk March 15, 1985 last three years. SE2 analyzed the revised procedures with regard to:

(a) the public's ability to com=ent; (b) the implementation of the Commission's statutory duties; and (c) the timely development and implementation of otherwise safe high-level radioactive waste repositories.

We note that public input and review is mandated by the Waste Policy Act and that under the proposed rules the citizens in the states being considered 'or nomination as repositories will, on an engoing basis, he given ample opportunity to co= ment on the proposed plans. In fact, under the NRC/ DOE Procedural Agreement, " States and Indian tribes will have an opportunity to be informed routinely concerning the information made available to NRC and NRC's comment thereon and to attend NRC/ DOE technical meetings"1 and further, "to bring their concerns to the atten-tion of the NRC.=2 The Waste Policy Act authorizes DOE to fund a variety of State activities facilitating public review and com-l ment and requires DOE to report on the site characterization 1

i 1F ederal Register, Vol. 50, No.12, Thursday, January 17, 1985,  ;

Pages 2583-84.  !

I 2 Ibid, page 2534.

o .

Samuel J. Chilk Ma:ch 15, 1985 activities at least twice a year to the commission and to State and tribal officials.

The Waste Policy Act places primary responsibility en CCE for investigating the suitability of several areas as waste repositories. We find the procedures enumerated in these pro-posed rules f acilitate timely development of repository sites because they have been designed to allow the investigation, review and cocment phases to be carried out concurrently and in parallel rather than censecutively thereby cc=pressi g the peried of time involved without cutting short local input or jeep- 1 ardi:ing the resciution of safety issues.

Seeing meaningful revisions of N?.C's procedures as = oves l

toward leaner, better and = ore efficient government, SE2 can not agree with Co=missioner Asselstine's views because they. would at times add a layer of duplication and at others lengthen the process unnecessarily.

Sincerely, 1

h,w N ES~

Miro M. Todorovich

. Executive Direc:c:  ;

l

s

. JUEE m iSEE Eig ~~b

~

S A S'1 9 ....:.

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF A31ERICAN INDL-L'VS

'. a~  ? Mhc 11 ?*:07 March 13, 19C% . .2lf. :

exacmv einac en -

y;,,c.

s.

c,.aan s.e . .ae, =ari.

exec'ava ecuuirrua  :

,,,,,,,,,, The Honorable Sa=uel Chilk

.n u ., c.u,.c,=,. Secretar-r of the Cec ission .

PimSTVICS PetSICENT ,..S.

U Nuclear Regula:c.ry Cc-ds.sion.

aashg_ngton, D.C. 20500 i..r m, .n.,a.. . c: -

mecemosmo sacngtaav

>...n.

04* a *' c**a RE: Cec =ent en ?rctosed Chanze te T.ausune

~a. an 10 CFR 60. Par- 60 05.T.88. 83rr.# $4WA AmeA vtCS P8ES30tMT3 AssacesN amu weeg.a c.,r.o.

3v Hand

• . nee. a.,e s.eus

• Aa.aucuspous Amu a

.'.".s'*8*'"

Dear Mr. Secretarv:

AMacamKO AAEA

~'a ua -

• * " " -'his rescends := the recues for cc=nen en rule changes Oc 10 CFR 60, Par: 60, crocosed by the CILu.h45

. . si. AAEA Nuclear Regulatory Cc- d ssion (NRC) (Tederal 8'*"""'"*"""

Register, Vol. 50, No. 12, Tanuarv 17, 1965).

'"",,"f..'**^ This c en: is offered bv the National Ccngress

• • '*"" of A=erican Indians (NCAI) . The NCAI, established m....a. u, ou.sAama

. . in 19u. to prc=ote Indian :reaty> ::adi:icnal,

- - - - cultural and proper:7 righ:s , is the oldes: and wusmocas ameA larges: nacional nenbership orZani ation of A=arican E"".""' Indian and Alaska Nacire gove 2.=ents and people.

'vCATHEASTIN8. AACA l*",' ' 7,,*,',,* Although the NCAI is concerned abou: c:her prepcsals

e. ,4,o for change :: 10 C7R 60, our fors=cs: objec:icn r"a~* " " ' "a 'v~= regards the prerosal to change Subpar: A. Section 60.2, De## 3-d a s , wherei mcw.o Aau

a and ,,,tr:.ca.L organ:.:ation,,n the :er=s would.ce " Indian replaced by Tribe"

.ne ter= "affec:ed Indian : ribe," as defined in the

".*".'",'",'*^*** Nuclear *4as:e ?clicy Act of 1982 (N*J?A).

J.ce.a 9.a. ,, L.s.s.a.

a an* ous'.'a"**** ~4e strone 'y objec: =c chis preposed ch.ange because t a. . 1: would serve em 14 3- .

partic:..pa:.cn cy an alreac.y 5,y narrow category of Indian ~~ribes in the NRC high-3 ~c.- , level waste geologic recosi:: 7 licensing precedures.

w The c ccosed chanze wcu!.d creclude ca--' ' a:icn by ~

34 tribalSr-sanc:icned erza=iza:iens wE.ich nair be re-

$'1 i

~.

L. '.-

c,uested' by nere :han ef.e tribal gove-interes: cf ces:-sav'.ng and infe:=a:icn-sharin e and

-'--e '

4 4 -

4 cachnical assistance.

-;: se s5cO:5C a 350015 s.~, png pq

%

• FCR N NN

r. 46 5CFR2579 t

' - .d Y ".: . ,

304 D STREET. N.E TASHINGTON. D.C. .:0002 . C00) 546 3404

~.c /),

hNk

~- m, Ac.v.cuced ac ty cod...,.y? , e Y}

~

NATIOEAL' C ONGRESS OF .-DIERICAN I_ ~DIANS

1. ./ ljhe I.e::er - EC Secre a: r Chi'k _

. Re: Cc==ent en Fr pcsec change :o 10 C7?. 60 execave ainscrea 3a e.n 3.3, ,c,o'S _

sa * .- c,.

~ ~

c s.". "aEe ~'~o exacavecouun es aesioent s'.'.',,,T.",

Mos: i=ocr an lv, de crecesed change would creclude the carbici atien of Thibes cha: are not an ihis :i=e marvies .siev., "aff'ected ti-ibes" t.:nder the W?A. '~here are Only

!?*.it. ., c, , dree -'ribes a present that have peci:icned for and seco onno saczerant --E 8a, red na_:_:Sc .a.n s w aw .s . ,.<c s _w ._.a_u es z _.. .u.e

.. .. .::._s_.

• a --

o".a.se. .* Cs,.n.**.

nand..second, recositerv S:ates have =c.: c.e:itien.ed for a::ee:ed, s tatus , and .s c=e =ay no t ce aware :na:

r.ae.muni.a

.  : hey are po encially a::ec:ed To cor ac: this inf m~ -. ~ s .

=ation gao, cur organiza:,cn nas a cen::act w_:h :n.or-AatavlCE pet 310Emr3

• _ e Depart =ent o:- .nerzr Oc cevelop anc. cisse=inate _n:c -

4

" ~~

".'2 o-. n.- s .'f "".*'" =ation en the mi?A and related issues to Tribes cha c~.u'- ' b e ' a_=_=ec ed b.v .'..e s __' ~_' .. a. 6 .. a:'.s a :c -_ .a __' cn.

2,auau,,e.ncus

,,,,,,. . "" 'ssues.

_ . . .c=

c._'

. ..'.e ."ed.e_ a_1 3-- ve-.. e '

. es ..o. k..cw a *= where che sizes, includi=g the MRS size, or de ::ans-u.a u na u a , c ._..w _3.a_ c,.. , ..._ , s .aa_ _, -_ue, _

..u.e . .. .p e.- s u..o t_, _, .. ..e w , _ , c._,--a s .

. , . . . ..a

, , , . - ,a participation ..m y _ ri.ces da: =ay :e a::ectac ey enese e.u.a.ca

. .s uu issues.nprospectively,

but are nce designa:ed as "af-s ,,u .,n.u. _ec_.ea ncv.

aunuu un e",",*"s= . We are concerned da the EC , bv. ade::inz. de =cer . .

m,,,,, u , ,,o d~a_=.a=ans *.._' o, o .= ~.*. e %. 2A , =ay ' . ..*. e _ '_ ' ~ ' _ ~, a- ~_ '_

amaa-~~

cation are no:bv he Tribes su.,.o*ec: dat.have land and uvsage c: congressicnal_ ra:ri_ghts:_ed cha:

wus.s.CGER -. A.EA Creaties. Section ,,.(2) a or de AgrA =enciens both federally defined tossessc: r or usage rights and cen-wenn.u..,s.tr.a=

. uu g._.e s 4s ena-l' v. . a w' _#_2ec' .=.a 'es, .'. e i_ a . . .=. ' . e _' .. 3 c...=

5-==== =eched of establishing rese:ta:icn bcundaries and

.*cene 4.u

.e .. a a .

Indian ecu==:-r. Indian ecun:r.r is defined in Sec icn ll51(a) of 13 IJ.S.C. and de Court has in:e pre:ed mari aoaan as.,,,,,,

i: to =ean

,.. e _ .

include all rese:._-

. s e.__ .a ..a.. , . .. u. e_e .,3. . - a .

tation,_: a __ ~__. ands_.e _ s.. ..

, vid,:hea_- .,.. s e .,.. .

b. sacuasearc uaA lands which are subject :D restrictions agains: a'.iena-

~ -d - '-

-- * . .~ t"" b s - $~ di ,* 3 -' e ' s s -*- ~ c a~ c~ a v. aa-=,--

a -

. '.a'~ u, * - r - --

' 3 ,, ,t '. --* an a r r - c -- = --- s a c

- -- --- ~~

CY- *S- = s s - *--- ed scur.u 4 e. . u ..stsam u u * ~. 3

_ .-~~~.o. _ __a n - _f

_ .k. - a-' .. . . .. d . 'r. h.a. ._*.

- = sa - .C

",a..s -- - ._,'"_. ... e s .

.c.'.ca.

~.a. '

~_.e,

_ ea__,310 ', ~ _' '_ '__' ~~.. ac. =.s *.. ave

• e a. .

_#e de _ a.'.'_,, ' e__.ed ' '

. as ese_.a ' ..s c. ...d'-~ - . u.~.~_f,

. .e.._. u " - .2. ass'...a_' s e . .' a e.. a , h...= r . '.ve C . ' = _ a ,

a- 5-" .._' s _ .s. .'_ve ~e . ~ ~ = d __ =. s r. d .~ ~ " _ . ' e e. _' a '_ ~ ~..a

... . . .V. _ a -

. a .. Ca. . u.. a_ _..J a_ a. ( w_ .. s- _ a. ., a- .._,s _yg.a. g g f _..v a _.- _ _vg a. -e_. a

-_ >- -..g g3_ ,- _a

.. .,. gn_2 < .3. _ . - _..u. ,.

.r e__ _ f . a.. --- ._. _. a- -- _.a-. eg, 304 D STF.EET. N.E.

• WASHINGTON. D.C. 20000 + (202) M 2404

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF -DIERICAN INDIANS ,

'd ' fos Letter - NRC Secrscar7 Chilk i are:mvs oinseTen Re: Cc = ent en Fr posec Change Oc 10 CFR c0 su.a s- March la, 1985 l c - 4c'"'

Pag = N... ee DeC'JTIV COMMITT 5

• =ssecant a*c*uc=

"*"***** including the National Environ =en al ?cliev Act, M*STV'CE P9ES30E*e7 r: -

the A=erican Indian Archaeological Reli5ious Rescurces Freedc=Ac:,

?rcesction Ac: all "and t c:,he

*"**"'*'C'*""

which recognize Tribes, their rights and crecer:7, irrespective of their establish =en =eched. 'Since E'.M"*c..*'.*.*

c- '.'"' the NRC rule and the %'FA address, in the first a

fa***ua'n c m. instance, c. rec. er.:7 t. hat would be aff.e.cted by 2-. a-- s . nuclear waste, :ne :ccus here shoua,c ce en the uu vica msiosars charac:er of cha: proper:7 and rela:ed jurisdic-u nnosam u u :ional syfta=s, ra:her :han en the crecise =anner cPf.'"*s in which.t. hey were federally defined or recognized.

ALSUQutmout ASEA

"'""* t"

,. For the p: esen:, we urge tha: the NRC leave the

~~

,,.a u o defini:icns as they are, considering fu:ure changes

n. r a.s the sizing and transportation issues a.re nera w,,c.: aan :ccused and as Tribes are a: leas: as in:c:=ed as

< = ,

.,r....

are the States cdav.-

.ss an overa ,, cec =ent, we veu,d apprec.,. ace changes t.uneAu

. uu .

in 10 C7R 60, and all NRC =aterials, cc wri:e " Tribe (s)"

" O *,**.t

, " *** wi:h a capital "T," as "Sta e(s)" is vri::en with a

~~ capi:a1 "S." Cur guide fer this is :he ini:ial

.usseass una governing dec=en cf :he Uni:ed States, which crevides C "* in the Cc arca Clause cha: Ccngress is au:hcrii:ed :c e ntw asre u u regula:e cc=erce "with foreign Naciens , and a=cng :he l several Sea:es, and wi:h the Indian Tribes" (U.S.

i 3%',','."' uu Consti ucien, Article 1, See:icn 8, Clause 3).

~ e.,,,. . . .

sea , . .

Thanh '/cu Icr vcur sericus cons:. ..cerat:.On oc cur l acert.amo AsaA *

e.a **=aa Cc=en: .

• we ssense .

s c assewraansa

sa reaw 88as.n d.n. er Lee.a.

3ingg;g1 7, j sourwsAsrta.e amaA .

l 4 Amca.en.e g, g i\ .

i w  % \ _%w - s O 7

Sunan Shcwn Narje Executive Direc c f

804 D STREET. N.E. . TAS*i1NGTON.

r D.C. 20000 e t000) 546 9404

m .

Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.

1350 NEW YORK AVENUE. N.W. , . . . . .

SUITE 300 WAS HIN GTON. D.C. 20003 , , ,

2027 33-7 3 00 'c.;

saw rer opce trastenopce las tasT 4:so stattT , ,* :3 x tras y. start; N ew vo an, s.r. s aid 8 March 19, 1985 -w x.r n s'c rie d.- c A Ct r. 9 4 t o 5 sis 949-oo49  :: g: g 4:n-o3 YS

.)ccAEI WW Samuel J. Chilk pqcensr0 EUL1 l i 7

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sfa F 4' 45N Wa shing ton , D .C . 20555 Attention: Decketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

"'he Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) submits the following comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission's proposed rule regarding " Disposal of High-Level Radicactive ~4aste in Geolcgic Repositories; A=end=ents to Licensing ?:ccedures" (50 Fed. Rec. 2579, January 17, 1985).

NRDC welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Commission's proposed revisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 60. It is cur view, however, that by eliminating the requirements in S 60.11 for the Commission review of the Depart =ent of Energy's (DCE)

. site selection p ccess and the issuance for public ce= ment of a draft site characterization analysis, the Co= mission misapprehends the appropriate role it is to play in the selection and eventual construction and operation of a repository.

Further= ore, many of the reasons given by the Cc= mission for these revisions are based en its interprecation of various sections of the Nuclear Waste Policy Ac': which are inapplicable to a defense-only repository. Cur ce==ents fccus primarily on the need fc: Cc= mission review of DOE's site selecticn p:ccess and fc: issuance of c d:sf t site characteri:a icn analysis. de wish to undersecre, hcwever, the particular .eed for :hese wo p:ccedural steps in ccnnection with the licensing of a defense-cnly reposi: cry.

.N*ew England Ofer:3 5 0 sosTos Pos? xcro st;:st;xv. str.on--i it; :37 o4 : o Public Onds I ts:::ute: i;:o nacz sTxzz; . :Esvra. cc. Sc2c6 303 3;;-3; 73 g too*'. Reculed P30er gggcwledg?d D c!d * '

T

_2 I. The Commissicn Should and Must Review the COE Site Selection Precess The pecposed rule sets forth two justifications for' eliminating the Commission's review of site selection information now required by 5 60.11 -- that there is no statutory authority for such a review, and that such a review would come too late in the process to be useful. Concerning the first justification, the Ccamission reasons that the site selection infor=ation does not belong in the site characteri stion report (renamed in these revisions and hereafter referred to as the site characteri=ation plan) , since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) specifically includes a discussion of these items in the environmental assessments (EAs). The Cc= mission, however, apparently does not plan to review this information in the draf t or final environmental assessments. According to the Commission, there is simply a lack of authority for it to engage in any form of review -

of DOE's site selection precess.

The second justification for the proposed revisien is that, with the passage of the NWPA, the site characterization plan is not required until after the sites under consideration have already been subject to extensive scrutiny. The proposal concludes, although the point is not self-evident, that Commission review of the site selection process wculd be

superfluous in light of the information already gathered about each site.

These com=ents will address each of these justifications in turn. As a preliminary =atter , however , it is cur basic position that the Commission should undertake a continuing comparative review of the sites throughout the site selection process. In this way the Cc==issica can =cs: effectively exercise its eversight and decisionmaking respcnsibilities concerning the siting of a repcsitory. Althcugh it would be preferable for the Cc= mission to review site selection information in the site

characterization plan rather than in the EAs, the form of the review is nct as important as the fact that such review takes place. These comments, which focus on the necessity for Commission review of site selection inrcrmation contained in the site characterization plan, can also be applied in large part to the review of site selection information contsined in the IAs.

A. The Commission Has the Statutorv Authc rity and Resconsibillev to Review Site Selection Information In our view, a comparison and evaluation by the Commission of the sites to be characterized is not discretionary. Rather, the Commission has the authority and responsibility to conduct such a review under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Energy Reorganization Act, the Atomic Energv Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Other portions of the Commission's Part 60 regulations, which are not the subject of the current proposed revision, also make site selection review advisable.

1. Nuclear Waste Poliev Act The Commission is clearly reluctant to engage in the comparative evaluation of sites at any stage in the site selection process. In explaining this reluctance , the Commission sets out some of its responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to emphasize that no specific provision provides for Commission review of site selection information. In our view, although the NWPA dces nct specifically require Commission site

! selection review, or for that matter environmental assessmen review, the structure of the Act and the Commission's extensive participation at all other stages of the crocess lecically require the Commission to oversee DOE's site selection l decis ions . The process the Nuclear Waste Policy ,Act establishes, i from the identification of potential sites, to nominatien, to characterization, and to eventual site selection, is a single site selection prccess. This continued selection from among i

alternatives is the core of the repository siting process.

Consequently, NRDC believes it is essential for the Commission to be involved in the decision =aking as site alternatives are elimina ted .

Moreover, contrary to assertions in the proposed rule, nothing in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act " calls for" site selection infor=ation to be excluded from the site characterization plan. 50 Fed. Rec. 2582, January 17, 1985. To the contrary, while the YdPA specifically requires inclusion of such infor=ation in the EAs and does not require its inclusion in the site characterization plan, the Act also provides that the Commission may require DOE to include in the site characterization plan, "any other informa tion" it der,t;s necessary. S 113 (b) (1) (A) (v) . Clearly, in light of this bread discretion given the Commission to require the inclusion of any information it deems necessary, the fact that site selection information is not specifically named in 5 ll3 (b) does not mean that it is excluded, as the Ccmmission i= plies. Furthermore, the Commission's failu:e to review similar infgG14t on in the draf t l

i environmental assessments, demands continued inclusion of this information in the site characteri:ation plan so as not to compound the error.

As a separate matter, Section 121 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop general requirements needed to assure protection of l

1 public health and the environment f:cm manage =ent and disposal of high-level wastes. Once the EPA issues final standards, Section 121 of the NWPA requires the Cc=missicn to revise its Part 60 regulations to becc=e censistent with those standards.

The =ost recent working draft of EPA's standards (to be ccdified in 40 C.F.R. Part 191) establishes seven " assurance requirements" that are designed :o p:cvide confidence that a rescsite y will =eet the long-term centainment require =ents. Cne

o .

l l

of these " assurance requirements" p cvides that the Commissica undertake a cc=parative evaluation of the three sites in cede: to determine which of the three sites ' natural properties provides better isolation of the wastes. IPA intends that this evaluation play a significant role in chcosing a site; consequently, the Commission's refusal to ccmment "upon the relative merits of one site against another" (50 Fed. Rec. at 2583) ccnflicts with this requirement.

It is true that, as more detailed information is gathered during site characteri:stion activities, the determination called for in 5 191.14 (e) can be made with greater and greater accuracy. Eowever, since the Commission claims that suhmission of the site characterization plan begins its formal, substantive r ev iew , the time to make preliminary determinations, based on the extensive information the Commission admits is already known about a site, is in its com=ent on the site characteri=ation plan. Such determinations would assist CCE in carrying out its site characteri:stien activities, and enable the Ccamission to identify areas of special cencern within any one site, as well as alert it to issues affecting repository safety ecm=cn to all three sites.

2. The Enerev Reorcanizatien Act Even if the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not require the Ccamission to review CCE's site selection process, this does not mean, as the Commission see=s to conclude, that it is necessarily precluded f:cm such review. Section 202 (3) & (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act establishes the Commissicn's licensing and regulatory authority cver all high-level nuclear waste repcsitories. The NW7A recenfirms this in 5 ll4 (e) . This authority enables the Ccmmissica to regulate CCE activities pric: ,

1 to ccnstruction since, in the wc ds of the Ccmmissica, *0CE activities that take place before an application is filed and may l

I affect the long-term safety of the repository cbviously may preclude receipt of a construction authorization." .46 Fed. Rec.

at 13971.

This earlier Commission interpretation of the secpe of S 202, in the preamble to the 1981 final rule, contrasts markedly with the present view of the Commission that there are some areas in the siting process in which it cannot participate. In our view, Section 202 evinces an active Commission involvement in all aspects of repository development, including final site selection. By not reviewing site selection information v5erever it may be found, the Commission is impermissibily limiting the scope of its duties.

3. The Atomic Enerev Act In addition to preserving the Cc= mission's authority to license repositories under the Energy Reorganization Act, Section ll4 (e) of the NWPA also recognizes the Commission's independent authority to protect public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act. NRDC believes that the refusal of the Commissien to compare sites by reviewing site selection information comprcmises this responsibility. As noted earlier, the NWPA establishes a process by which potential sites are eliminated frem consideration in stages. The methcdology used to eliminate these alternatives, whether the number of sites is being reduced from 9 to 5, or from 5 to 3, er from 3 to 1, is obvicusly the essence of the Act. The preposed revision denies the Commissien the ability to influence, in the most direct, basic way, COE's site selecticn decisions. As reccgnized by all concerned, the geological features of a repository are by far the =ost i=portant factor in ensuri..g safe isolation of high-level wastes. In our view, therefore, the refusal of the Cc=missica to play a central role  !

in a cc=parative analysis of sites is an abdica:icn of its public health and safety respcnsibilities. i i

i 1

J

_7_

4. The National Environmental Poliev Act The National Environ = ental Policy Act (NEPA) also manda:es direct Ccmmissien input inte LoE's site selection process. In fact, the Commission's original justification for the Part 60 rule was compliance with NEPA. 46 Fed. Rec. at 13922. The Ccamission has offered no explanation for why this essential ingredient of the Ccamission's NEPA compliance, namely the evaluation of alternatives, is no 1cnger valid; it states =erely that a Part 51 rulemaking will come later. NRDC believes that, because Part 60 rests in part en NEPA authority, NRCC and ccher interested parties should be allowed to see and ce==ent en those

' Part 51 revisions while censidering the revisions of Part 60.

In the meanti=e, NRDC can draw only one conclusien f:cm the Commission's refusal to avail itself of oppertunities to review 00E site selection and to engage in comparacive analysis of sites in both the EAs and site characterization plans -- that the Commission has decided that such review is not its appropriate role. However, the Commission cannot escape its responsibilities by refusing to recognize them. Consideration of alternatives is necessary for the simple reason that adverse environ = ental i= paces of site activities can be avoided or reduced thrcugh proper site selection. Thus, the Commission's required role in the siting process of a repository is not only merely to ascertain whether the repository meets the technical criteria, guidelines, and standards established by DCE, NRC, and EPA, but also to use its expertise to centinually evaluate and ccmpare the range of choices as the list of sites is winnewed dcwn.

5. Existinc 10 C.F.R. Part 60 Recula:icns

should be noted that an ongoing evaluation of CCE's site selection decisiens will better enable the Cc==ission :: =ake reasoned decisiens regarding censtruction authorizaticn and license applicatiens. Eventually the Cc==issicn will have to

_a_

evaluate alternatives in determining whether to issue a construction authorisation (S 60.31(c)) and whether to issue a license (S 60.41(d) ) . Although the relationships between the sites will change as more information is received about each site, the Commission should not wait until site characterizaticn is complete before beginning such a review.

Failure to engage in a comparative analysis based en current knowledge will result in the amount and complexity of the information simply overwhelming the Commission when it finally has to evaluate alternatives as required in S 60.31 and S 60.41. Issues should instead be addressed at the earliest possible time. This would allow the Commission to make tentative judgments, and would alert it to any change in circumstances.

Consequently, it is not only appropriate but highly desirable for the Commission to keep itself, DCE and the public infor=ed regarding its current views on the comparative evaluation of sites.

B. Commission Review of Site Selection Informatien is Accrocriate at the Site Characterica:icn Plan Stace The second justification the Commission offers for refusing to review site selection information is that such a review would come too late in the process. In =aking this claim, the Commission fails to recogni:e the purpose of review of site selection infor=ation, which is to provide Cc= mission input into COE site selection decisiens =ade at varicus stages of the process. By not reviewing site selection information in the draf t environmental assessments, the Commission has missed a critical oppcrtunity to =ake a c0=parative evaluation of the potential sites. Thus, CCE's determina:ica of which sites to nominate, and which sites to recc==end to the President, will be made without the Commission's independent evaluation of CCE's tentative decisions. The Cc= mission's next f 0::al cpper: unity to ccm=ent on site selection decisicas is in its site

characteri:stion analysis. The Comission should direct this analysis toward the critical step of chcosing one site, i

II.

The Commission Should Retain the Part 60 Provision -

l Recuirinc the Issuance of a Draft Site Chacterization Analysis for Puolic Commenc NRDC strongly supports the retention of the provision in Part 60 that requires issuance of a draf t site characteri:stion analysis for public comment. Issuance of a draft site characterization analysis will involve the public in the decisionmaking process and assist the Cc==ission in preparing its required analysis. 44 Fed . Rec . at 70409. NRDC believes that formal public input into the Cc= mission's analysis will force the Commission to scrutinize more carefully COE's site characterization plan, which will result in a more reasened analysis by the Commission. In contrast, removing the public comment requirement will emasculate the Commission's role as an independent regulator of COE's site characterization plan.

The Commission argues that a public cccment period is not i

appropriate because the Commission will already be aware of all the relevant issues and public concerns. Issue identification, however, is not as important as an cpportunity for the public to comment upcn the adequacy of the Cc= mission's analysis, and its characeri:stien of the issues. The process wculd ?orce the Commission to take into account concerns of the public, examine more closely its own assertions, and, perhaps =cs: important, act as an inter =ediary between COE and the public. These will cccur only if a draft site characterizatien analysis is issued for public ccmment.

The Cc= mission claims that ef fective cpportunities exist fc:

5ta:es, Indian tribes and the puclic to influence the site characteri:stion peccess through fc: mal and infor=al ec==en:

during the siting peccess, the COI/NRC P:ccedural Agreement, and

the Section 60.18 (f) process. First, although these methods are used to ccamunicate to the Ccamission and to some extent to inform interested parties of the Ccmmission's activities, none provide that the Commission must actually address issues expressed to it. As the Commission knows, it is one thing to be

" aware" of public concerns, it is another to have to respend to I them. There is also no assurance that the concerns of States, Indian tribes or the public will be the concerns of the Commission, thus expressing these concerns to the Commission does  !

not provide any reasonable assurance that they will have any influence on DCE's site characteri:ation activities. Secondly, l 1

neither the comments to DOE on its site characterization plan nor I the informal comments to the Commission will be specifically directed at the Commission's analvsis of the site characterization plan.

i As for the Procedural Agreement, altacugh the Commission may l view it as the principal mechanism for evaluating site char acter ization , the Agreement is less concerned with providing  ;

for public input and more concerned with NRC/DCE interactions.

While NRCC is in favor of the purposes underlying the Agreement, and belicves it can be used effectively to ensure better co=munication between the the Cc= mission and DCE, the Procedural ,

1 Agreement simply does not provide any means for ensuring l l

Commission consideration of State, Indian tribes, or public l concerns. There is no comparisen between a ?:ccedural Agreement that provides for notification to States and Indian tribes of l I

technical =eetings, which the puolic may attend as cbservers, and an open public com=ent peried en a draf t site characteri=atien i analysis. If the Cc==issien is actually going to rely on the Agreement's precedures as pecviding an ef ficacicus means for DCE and the Cc=missicn to cbtain input en site characteri:a icn, then the least the Cecmissica can do is to make the public participatica previsiens less inadequate by prcviding der l

l l

l l

l

1 I

i notification to the public of the meetings and respending to public discussion and commen in a formal manner.

Finally, Section 60.18 (f) requirer the Director merely to invite ecm=ents en the site characterization plan. Not only is the Director not required to respond to the coz=ents, but in all likelihecd site characterization will have begun before the comments are even read.

NREC does not agree with the Cc= mission's contention that comment and review on a draf t site characeri:ation would be at cdds with the ongoing dynamic review process it envisiens. The Ccmmission implies that comment on a draft site characterization analysis wculd " freeze" the entire review process. Though NRDC supports the Commissien's notion of an ongoing evaluative process, NREC also supports establishing a windcw through which all the accumulated knowledge can be viewed at once and the inte: relatedness of the issues involved in site characteri=ation examined. If the Ccmmission is suggesting that any analysis will have to deal with only the infor=ation available at the time, NRDC agrees. There is no reason, however, why this analysis cannot be meaningful. Site characterization is not an " arbitrary point in ti=e," but a critical stage in the precess, which is why the NW?A requires COE to issue its site characteri:stien -

plans for comment and to hold hearing: near the site, anf. why the Commission must ecmment on CO2's plan. Any freece of the analysis p:ccess veuld in fact be difficult, since during the period of cczment and review the Cc==ission and CCE wculd presumably be exchanging info:mation under the terms cc the Procedural Ag reccent, and during site characteri:ation CCE is required by both the NWPA and the Ccmmission to submit periedic upda es on its characterisaticn activities.

NRCC st:ccgly disagrees with any notien that the scheduling p:cvisiens of tne Nuclear ~4aste ?olicy Act require tha: One draf:

site characteri:stien analysis net be issued f=: publi

comment. Considering the infrequency with which actions have up to now met the deadlines established in the NWPA, we find very curious the Commission's emphasis on the 3 to 4 month period it would take to receive comments and respond to them. Also, as the Commission is aware, the original proposed rule specifically found that a public ccament period could be met "without undue schedule delays." 44 Fed. Rec. at 70409. If there were no reason to receive comments on a draft site characteri=atien analysis , NRCC ag rees that it would be desirable for the Commissien to " complete its review and provide ccm=ents to COE...in a prompt fashion." As discussed above, hcwever, there are very important reasons that comments should be received and the Commission should not neglect them.

I Respectfully submitted,

& 4/ W -

Barbara A. Finahore Charles E. Magraw Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Avenue N.W., Scite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 783-7800

6 E nur numeh

)I Eb.. .; w o;re u.t.h,l

'. gox c21 et.ocx3: ens t7euJ @ A@.,pf V, EE.r 14 -85 E !.ecethy, sec*y

. .g+

Se c 'y - 1 RC .^:.

.' .7 3 2'34 ' Re; Proe sed rule - high sash, DC 20 "5 -

2evel waste discesal Ted Eeg - e an 17-85, p 2579

.e 4.,  : 2A., w.r m- E.G e. e sn 6. ,2: c.m.p. .. ,. 4.,,ypr

.>.t.. <c

~. . . . . ,

Gentleren =

We corrend your sta ter.et t (tege 25eh col 1) that sver thcugh the

" Waste 3clicy Act makes to trovisian fc7 the Ccrrisgic: te cer-ert to 0E on i ts envi.rceret tal asse sseer.ta. . . it is f. eve rthele ss the intertice of ti.e Cerrissf en te review and corrett en the ervircr-certal assers:erts, a s rell as o the r t6chrithi (ce;rer ts. ,,"

This is tco ir crtart an issue to be irralredb? 2egal baii.-srlitting over wco does whet, and to which, Be tti r to have =any ccetrols, ard reviews by the ru'rlf: et everv ster of the wey, ther ret encugh.

Af ter all, ICE e.rd 17. .C will be trenaring designs fer rerosi te rie s interded to last for thousands of years. So, addi icnal r:rths, or ever years, suert it plerning and review she';16 I ct be cer:sidere d time wasted.

Je e.lse sugge st this is tec irecrtant en issue to be entrusted _e>

clusive2y to state er local officicis. Ie Iced hsving vete-ge tting

( re rson ali tie s, too many of these fc12s have the IQ cf a greurdheg.

n: : ~ .a.A c o w A.: r. c.do s c.;.-...s ,o- A . _ .. ..a n . u.A.

Ila.. c :

1 - Ne corcur.

2 - Je also sugge st that 60.1E(c) be re-wcrded te read: " ...the Lirecter shs11 invite ard consider the views o f interested rerscns on A. 'a site characterirEtion nlars er.d shall review

...etcP (3y t:.e way, who is tLis Directer?)

? 4e corrend ye' r decision ir 60.1S(f) tc 211cw a pericd cf "nct less than CC days" fer rublic ec. rent, ,

t. - itsalip ite su ge st a tublie decurer: reom au Crati02: 27 be estrblished in tt.e court house or c!her rublic builcing ir ,

the tewn ter re st the si te <. ir which e.'1 decure- s, cc rre s-

. . u . .i ~.

. c '. w# a. .. e a. . -. .e.-

. .. a. . ~ . . * . . * . .e. . . . . '.-a. v e. . e 17s ec*iCr.

1; , .4.-..

....c.....

. : . . ..e..

.> D.,. w , 4. . . + c....s C ,. , , . e, , . , , .,, e. e..< -C,.. s , ,..,+44-..-

.. ........s .

eve: divi sive, we ieel :.e :*orie whc wi'.1 live e r ti.e s:*e Pheuld be gi ve' a re sre c* ful he r.rf r.g. : u rF

• fird *he cc- cn-sense views of sc e c!d fFr-*er .?v 'u st yt:2'rr'tre t r.e "e 70e r* S" .

4 eT1iVT.*er

- l 4

W C3M. . . .. J0 -

1

- usPR-Go m ,

'~'

Goerncr's Tesk Fcrce en High-LeNel Radicactise Weste  !

-: 1 1

1

, - 1

. (

CD 4 I k

.2...,., ,-

.g . .e March 17, 1985 ~~aed oSU s --

-c w

Secretary of the Cc= mission c.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission  !

Washington, D.C. 23555 .

Attention: Cccketing and Service Branch 1

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Attached are the State of Minnesota's cc==ents en the proposed revisions to 10 CIR 60, as published in the Federal Register en January 17, 1985, Sincerely,

, y hyf*f s M Jr

• Tc= Kalitewski, Chair =an Gcvernce's Task Fc ce on High-Level Radioactive Waste I:cicsure t

},<s 1a 1 )-

. v

,i

1. f. , , <- l l N

' ,.r 0. :< g [.*..-

,).

,: y .

i .. 'y . i .: i '. .'-

J.,

~ , . . -. -! <

, ,, ,. < , 6 ;,, .,, J L j.-- /

,- t

., e It . *.# i '-

gg 2 3 g .

@500270292 r CR r- 9 35CO 5 acxnew;gey y ::,t, ', _ . _ . _ _ #

bC SCFR2579 PCR Pcc n CO a Cec::d Scze Ctg

• 5 0 Cede 5c

• St Ceti. MN 55Cd

• 01T 2%-2dG3 w

i

. ~,. . - ~

. STATE CP MINNESCTA - - -

CCMMENTS CN THE PRC?CSED AMENDMENTS Co 10 C.F.R. PART 68 .

. .f ,

i The State of Minnesota has reviewed the proposed a=endments to 23 - ;

C.F.R. Part 68, " Disposal cf Eigh-Level Radioactive Waste in Geologic Repositories.' Minnesota wishes to ce=:ent on aspects ci the ,

proposed amendments relating to the participation of states and affected Indian tribes in site characterization analysis and licensing eeviews.

1. Minnesota strongly disagrees with the proposed rules regarding

. the centents of the site characteri:ation plan. Because the guidelines lack any provisions requiring DCE to set forth its

. meth'do for selection of sites fo characteri:stion or desc:ite its decision process, we believe that the NRC .shocid request that such information be provided in the site characteri:atica plan. ]

! Requiring such information by the NRC dcas not tendlict with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) or duplicate informacien al:eidy provided by DCE. The Waste Policy Act specifica that DCE will prepare an environmental assess =ent for each site nomiAated for characterization. The centent of these enviren=eatal assess =ents ,

is specified and includes the type of site selectica LAJer:ctie8 previously required by 19 C?R 60 in the site charactarization 1 report. Ecwever, the site selection infor atian pertales o.71y to the selection of the 1121 nominated sitece and not to the _.

, selection of the three candidate sites; it is tal dupiicative of information previ6usly required, l There is no provision of the NWPA that precludes thw NRC f:Om considering site selection infot:ation; insterd, Section 13 (b) (1) ( A) (v) of NWPA authori:es the NRC to :Aqu4st 'Any other information required" for its :eview of a ceneral plar, for sits

characteri

ation. Because the site selec len infer:3 tion "c: the three car.didates sites is not available elsewhereu.and because the NRC dces have the authority to request such infornati n, we believe it should te included in the site characterizatica plan.

We are t:cubled by the reluctance of CCE to p:cvide the nethod and decision process used in the selection of the three candidate sites and the reluctance of the NRC staff to review and cccrent on such information. While we would like to believe that the select en would be based on technical considerations and the desire to pecduce three viable alternatives, this reluctance leads us to the conclusien that otter considerations will enter into the decision. This should not be a conce:n of the s:ates alone, but also should be shared by the NRC and the staff. The willingness tc icok a: the quality of the data available bu: act its application, cc=part=entalizes review activities to an unreasonable and unnecessary extent. Taking this ' blind' position is also inccasistent with the NRC's pas: efforts to develop a participatory cle in the p:ccess as early as pcssible.

L

1 l

. \

It is difficult ta unde: stand why the NRC finds it inappropriate l to sc==ent en sits selecti6n inic:=ation, particularly if sites l 4:e selteted that will 7aisa potential licensing issues. There  !

is no way to avoid tha pelitically sensitive aspects of site l selection; they are present at tech stage of the p:ccess. Ra:her '

than be a party Oc pr:cedures tha% pro =cte an aura of secrecy, the Ce-=ission, in the interes: cf ensuring that sites selected for cha:acteri:2: ion are the best a=ong the five no=inated, shcult ac . pursuing,a cou::e = ore cha:seteristic of an independent regulato: than a CCE facilitatort L

We wish we cotid shara the NRC's confidence that these CCE decisicas will lead to a licensible site; however, the general nature of the guidelines and DCE's position on past issues, such as the preli=itary deter =ination of suitability, have not been 4

reassn eing. We hope the NRC will retain the =ethodology and decision precess in the centents required for the site ctaracterization plan, thereby providing other parties, if not the NRC, with the opportunity to review and cc==ent on these issues.

1

2. Minnesota firars the current language in la C?R 63.11 that provides for public cc==ent on a draf t site characterizatien analysis prepared by HRC staff. Che NRC assu=es tha cngoing censultation and centact between the NRC, CCE and the states and affected parties eli=inates the need for any for=al public icteraction Vith the NRC. The NRC, however, should not assu=e that the states c: other interested parties will have the resources to participate in a =anner si=ilar to that of NRC and COP. . This was apparent when si=ilar assu=ptions were made about the DCE/NRC staff concurrence =eetings. Even if states and interestad parties are to pardicipate at tha: level, they lack scae of the technical expertise needed to carefully and fully fcilow and understand the p cgress of this p:cgra= in all its ce=plexity.

Che states and 'affected parties would find i: ex::e=ely helpful to have a document, prepared by technical experts, tha: analy es and identifies key issues associated with various aspects of the site characteri:ation p:cg n=. Many of the states and pa::ies involved would depend en the NRC to provide this analysis before they suh=itted their cc==ents to Doz. This is a cri:ical point in the repository siting progra= and every eff::t shculd be =ade by NRC susff to enhance, rather than res::ict, public c0==en: and participaticn.

The desire to =aintain an ongoing CCE/NRC interacency peccess is cc==endable and shoulf be enceuraged; hcwever, it should no: be considered a substitute fer for=al public review cf the site characteri:ation analysis. If scheduling =anda:es are :: :e e=phasi:ed, then we sugges cha: this in:crac:10n be depended en to reduce the a=cun: of ti=e needed by staff := prepare the analysis and cc=pensa:3 for the ti=e required for public review of that analysis.

o 4

a

/

~

3. The p cposed a=end=ents, if adop cd, vculd change 13 CFR Par: )

60.63(a) to read as fcilcws: l State and local govern =ents and affected Indian ::ibes may

_. Carticipate in license,:eviews as crevided ir 9ferar O ef vart 2 ef this charter. (Emphasis added.) . _ _ _ _ . . _. _ . _

This proposed rule is nothing = ore than a re=inder to states, local gcVern=ents, and affected Indian tribes of the existence of 19 CFR Part 2, which governs procedure in NRC adjudications and which dees =21 provide a state, local govern =ent c: affected Indian tribes an absolute right to participation in NRC licensing proceedings even though the licensing p cceeding will have a direct i= pact en the state, local govern =ent c: affected :ndian tribe.

Minnesota believes that the p:cposed rule a=end ent shculd be changed to provide an absolute right of participation in NRC hearings en licensing a high-level radicactive waste repository to these stata, local and tribal govern =ents which are affected bv the ::ccosed recesitorv..

. . . . The decision being =ade in such a pecceeding will p:cfcundly affect these entities. The tossibill:v. that these entities could be excluded f:c=

participation should be re=edied.

Minnesota's position en this =atter is p:c=pted not only by the i=portance on the repository licensing =atter, but also by the recent efforts of the NEC staff to *:efor=* the NRC's rules of practice so that states, local gover==ents, and affected Indian tribes could be prevented f c effectively participating in NRC licensing hearings of any kind. The staff's suggestions fc:

"i=p:cving" the licensine erecess were .cublished en A=ril 12, 1984 (49. Fed. Reg.14638) . In a letter dated May 25, 1984, Minnesota strongly objected to those suggestions. A ccpy of tha:

letter is attached. Minnesota continues to believe that these suggestions would adversely affec all fu:ure in:ervenc s and would reduce the public's confidence in the NRC as a licensing bcdy.

Minnesc:a urges the NRC to change the p:cposed language of la CFR Section 60.63(a) to read as fc11cvs:

Cpen request, the govern =en: of any sta:e, county,

=nnicipality or Indian tribe aff ected by the loca:icn of the propcsed repository shall be granted par:y status in any hearing conducted by the Cc==ission en the license ac.c.lication held pursuan: Oc Subpart G cf Far: cf this cnapter.

4. The enirtine 13 C7R Section 63.63 se:s fc:th criteria fc:

~

app cval of state p:cycsals :o f acilita:e stata participa:ica.

The p:cpcsed a=end=ents wculd renu =ne: Section 66.63(b) (2) Oc be l

l Section 63.63(d) (2) and a=end i: :o read as fc110ws:

I I

l *

• e The proposed activities (i) will enhance co==unciations between NRC and the state or affected Indian ::ibes, (ii) will make a productive and tirelv contribution to the review, and (iii) are authorized by law. (I=phasis added.)

The addition of the wc:d 'ti=ely" in describing the type of contribution of a state or Indian tribe that would be locked upon favorably by the NRC could be used to further limit the participatulon of a state or Indian tribe in the review of a site characterization plan and/or a license application. While Minnesota recognizes the need to conduct the proposed activities in & =anner that does not unduly delay license reviews, we also recognize that the states do not always have the expertise and personnel im=ediately available to address complex issues that will be considered by the NRC.

Based on our experience to date with the repository progra=, as well as our expectations :egarding the pressures exerted on decision makers as the progra= progresses, we are concerned that the word "ti=ely" will become the focal point of this qualification, despite the benefits that might accompany state participation. The key word is " productive" and, if a state can nake a productive contribution to the review, the NRC should be willing to acccc=cdate reasonable needs of states in providing that contribution.

-4 -

1 l

l l

. . muut,.,94, STATE OF .TIINNE.SOTA

,' .;g

~,M{ .. ., -

o rrst x n e ni: .s tn ..< u:v ci w a u. , ,,, ,ce,, 33 ,, ,, 3 to 1

-- . ,-- . n oa . ,c.: si i u s ,ie.

ST. pat *L 331 s -

H UB ERT H. H L.. . .P. . H R.e.,.,,. ill m..i t t st i . wi nost sotoss tr3ani on .

atn.

Ancasty ctsta^' muse us s i us uno May 25, 1934 .

g .t ri.cs. ..in .w  :

Secretarv.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Ccesission Washingten D.C. 20555 1 Re:'Reques: for public c=esents en suggestiens for precedura' changes in nuclear power plant licensing precess, 40 Fed.

Reg. 1469S (April 12, 1984)

Dear Sir:

On April 12, 1984, the C0==ission published a recuest fer public cercents en suggestiens for precedural enanges.in the nuclear pcwer plant licensing process. (49 Fed. Reg. 14693.)

The State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General and its Minnescia Pc110 tion Control Agency, (hereinafter "Minnescta") has reviewed the suggestions puclished in the Federal Register and wishes to ccement on five aspects of the suggestiens, as d.iscussed _belcw. -

1. Creatien cf a screenine Atcmic Saf ety and Licensine E=ard. It has :een suggested that 10 C.F.R. Section 2.721 be rev:. sed tc authcri:e the establish =ent of cne cr =cre Screening A::=ic Saf e y and Licensing Ecards. The screening bearfs would rule en requests for hearing, petitiens for leave :: intervene, and ad=issibili:y of c=n:entiens in all initial licensing creceedine.s.

The Minnes0:a sur.cris the adce. tica cf this suc.c.estien. '....c.-=..-....c.'.c.=.~.c.-

c - =_ a . .' ~. n ~ '. s .~ =. =. . . .'. .~. ~. ' c sa '_. '_c _c and predictability with respect te the rulings =ade by the 3 cards. Under the present system, an individual A::=:c Safety and Licensing Ecard is appointed eacn ti=e a request f: hearing is received, and -hat individual 3 card =akes its cwn deter =ina:icas en requests for hearing, petitiens f::

• eave :: .

intervene, and the ad=issibility of centen:icns. 3ccause each 3 card is not necessarily aware of what is being dene by c:her 3 cards er what other Scards have dene in the past, there is potential for conflicting rulings en si=ilar Minnesota believes ina: i=preving censistency reques:s, ,etitions, and cententiens.

and predic: ability as te these rulings by creating screening beards vould benefit all parties.

e. A + -

_~ AN ECUAL OPPCRTUNT'r EMPLOYER

- r  :- w'7 ~ t -; j ;

• T- =

. 2. Aceivine Judicial Standards of Standine.

suggested tnat 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714 ce amended so ThaT io It has been ' -

j person wculd be able to initiate a hearing en a nuclear pcwer i plant er intervene in a hearing en a nuclear pcwer plant unless I that persen can =eet judicial standards of standing.  !

Specifically, 10 C.F.R. Secticn 1.714(f) is propcsed to be amended as follcws:

(f) Ruling on request for hearing or petition to intervene. The Cc= mission or the presiding officer designated to rule en the interventien petition or request for hearing shall, in ruling on the reques: cr petition shall (sic] consider the follcwing facters, l among other things: )

(1) The. nature of the requester's er petitiener's I right under the Act Oc be made a party to the proceeding.

- (2) The nature and extent of the requester's er petitioner's prcperty, financial, or other interest in l the proceeding.

(3) The possible effect of any order which =ay be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's er

.- petitioner's: interest. No recuest for hearinc cr petition to intervene =av be cranted unless the

___ _.. Cc= mission or One cresid:nc effacer desienated to rule' "

. ... . on the recuest or cetition determines :na the recues:cr

. . or the cetteloner meets 7udicial standards fer standine.

Minnesota strengly objects to the sugcestien because it is contrary Oc express provisiens of the Atc=ic Energy Act (Act).

Secticn 139 of the Act provides, in relevant part:

In any pecceeding under this Act, for the granting, suspending, reveking, er a=ending of any license ar construction per=it, er application to transfe: ce n t r:1,*

. . . the Cc==issica shall crant a hearing upon the

. _ request cf any cersen wnese interes: ?.a v be affected bv the creceedine, and snail ad=:: any seen persen as a -

party to sucn proceeding.

(I=phasis supplied.) Under the Act, any persen *wnese interest

=av se a#*=r-=>" has standing to request a hearing er Oc intervene in a hearing and the Cc=missien is required by the Act to grant suen a hearing reques: er admit any suen persen as a party. The sug.gested mnend=en: veuld require a persen's reques:

_3 or petition :c be denied if the persen eculd not meet the =cre strincent tes: that must be met to establish ..dicial

u standards-for standing.

Judicial standards for standing are discussed in the leadin~s case _cf Assceiatien of Cata Precessine service creani:stiens, ~

Inc. v. Camo, 397 U.S. 150, 90 5.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 18 4 (1970).' ~~

In tnat case the United States Supreme Ccurt anncunced f two-part test for standing. Standing exists if "the plaintif f alleges tha: the challenged action has caused him inJurv. in fact, econcmic or c:herwise," and if "the interes: scught to be

~rctected Y bv. the c==clainant is arguablv. vi-hin the ::ene cf interest to be prctected er regula:ed by the sta:ute er constitutional guarantee in questien." 397 U.S. a: 152-153, 90 S.Ct. at 829-830.

The sugc.ested amendment goes bev.ond the re",uirements cf the Act and is thus beycnd the Ccmmission's statu cry authori y.

Therefere the Cc==ission cannot adep: the suggested amendment.

. . 3. Chancine the Recuirements Relatine to Cententions . It has '~

been sugges ed na: 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714 be amended := change the requirements relating to contentiens. These changes, as discussed belew, are significant, and Minnescta cbjects to these changes.

First, the suggested a=end=ents wculd change the ti=e for filing of contentiens. The existing 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(b) allcws the persen who requests a hearing er petiticas te intervene to file his er her contentions 'nct later than fiftaen (15) days prior to :he hciding cf ne special prehearing conference." The sugc.ested amended 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714 (c. )

requires -he contentiens and supporting infer =a:icn  ;

Oc be s u ".~ .' . . = ^

• a . .. . *. . .' ... e . ". e . e . .' . .' c . .

w^.~ .- =. e, " e s . ." . . =. d . '

Secenc, the suggested amendments wculd grea.lv. '

i . crease the w.. 2..-....c . . . . e .. .. .= ... .w . .w e

.w

=. c. u e s . s = *. =. a . . .. -

.. =. . . . . <. . . s ., .

i .n e r". e.a.e . o . . .~. v '. d e .i .. .# c .. .- . .' e r. s " ~.. c .- . .i . . g . . . *. - .. . . =. . . . . . . . s .

~. " a.

. present regula:icc, 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(b) en'y w.

requires the

.w a , es ,. . ,

ea . . . c n..n.4cc

. . se.. c. . ..w . . . .a 4. . w... ...s .a ...

s ~ e ". ' .' .'.. ~ ' .v . '

. * *

• s " , e. . . =. ^ a~.. e r. ' =. ^ .~ =. w" .' a .' . r. .' 0 '. . .= . .=. .

I l

$~.,.4(e,.(.t) 6 , ~..u.a

. .- =""',, . . =. s u *..na.i s .' . .. c .' . . a .' . .' ' w ' .c, .

l l

l - wa es :.. .w. c ......:..

(. ) .

.s w. 4 e.s .xe.a a.4cn c.

,. . . . .. ..e (ii) A cencise statement cf the alleged f acts er exper:

c ya .i .a. .' n w h .' -h s"r

.. . .c . ..'. e c ..- . s.a. .' .... a..A. w h .' .*. =. ..". e

. e . . . . .n =. .- ... =nd,-

'. .' .m. e c. ' *..*. e .' .' .' .i . . c, . . " . = . .- = ", ". e s . .~ .~..- .

te relv uc.en in preving its cententiens at the hea:Ing,

together with references to the specific sources and documents which will be relied upon to establish such facts er expert epinion.

(iii) Sufficient infor=atica (which may included infor=ation pursuant to 52.714(g)(1)(i) and (ii)) :o '

_. _ _ s.how that a genuine dispute exists with the acclican ~~

1/

cn an issue of law, fact er policy. This snewing =us include references to the specific portions of the

. application (including the applicant's envirenmental and saf ety report) which the requestor er petitioner disputes and the supporting reasccs for each such dispute, cc, if the requestor or petitioner believes that the application fails to centain certain infor=ation on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification each such f ailure and the supporting reasons f or the requester's er peti:icner's belief. Cn issues arising under NEPA, a petitioner shall file I contentions based en the applicant's environmental l report. The petitioner can amend those contentions or I file new contentions il there are data or conclusions in ,

the NRC draft er final environmental impact statement c: I appraisal that dif f er significantly frem the data er l conclusions in the applicant's document. Amended or new contentions based cn NRC environmental documents shall

~,

be filed an.d ruled upcn in initial licensing preceedings )

in accordance~ witn paragraph (j) of this secticn. .

(E=phasis supplied.) ,

The suggested amendments relating to con:entions create an imeessible situatica fer intervences. Ordinarily, in accordance w::n ne provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.la5(d), the Ccemissien informs the public, in the Federal Register, abcut a prepesed license er license amendment thirty days bef ore the due date !=r the filing of requests for hearing er petitiens := intervene.

This has, in mes cases, been just barely enough time for a pc:ential intervenc: to make a decisien : hat i: is interested in filing a request for hearing er a peti:ica Oc intervene and :=

file the request er petition. Addi:icnal ti=e is essential :o allew for the drafting cf cententiens. Under the suggested  ;

amendments, potential intervences will nave a maximum cf thirty '

--1/ Histerv has shown that intervencrs in Cc= mission licensing 1 preceedings are just as likely := have a genuine dispute with ' l

na Commissien staf f en issues ci law, fact, or policy as with the applicant. If this suggested amend =ent is intended f to limit litigatien of disputes only to these between the l applicant and the intervencr, this suggested amend =ent is net l reasenable. l

days to obtain a copy cf the license application and supporting information, review tha t infor=ation, acte all problems, develop ,

a case-in-chief, put it in writing, and sub=it it wi:hin the I deadline.

The require =ent that intervences must submit, alcng with their contentiens, all of the information set forth in the i suggested amendments to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(g)(1) a= cunts to a require =ent that intervencrs have ready their case-in-chief at the ti=e of filing the request for hearing er petitien to

. intervene, pric: to the cpportunity to conduct disecvery. This -

require =ent is much tec enerous at the peint in the proceeding where the only decision to be =ade is whether a particular contentien is admissible. It is more enerous than the require =ents in any judicial preceeding. Minnesc a reccgni:es

, that this infor=ation must eventually be developed in order to have a meaningful presentatien of the issues. Hewever, this information should not be requa. red at such a preli=inary stage.

Under the suggested amendments, the cnly perscas who have a hcpe of submitting an admissible contention are these who have been privileged c have received a copy of the license amendment as the same ti=e as the Cc==ission staff received it, who have follcwed the Cc=missica staf f review and the draf ting of the proposed license or license amendment, and who have been preearing their case in chief prior td the publica:ipn of notice in the Federal Register of the existence of the license application. In a state such as Minnescta, which is a non-agree =en: sta:e, it is doubtful that anycne, including the State and its agencies, could submit a successful request fer hearing er petitien := intervene.

In Minnescta's experience, the present rule all: wing contentions to be filed just prier to the special prehearing i

conf erence has alicwed suf ficient time :c prepare meaningful cententions and the sta:e=ent cf bases required by the present rule has provided sufficient information :c alicw :ne Licensing Scards to rule en their ad=issibility. Therefere the presen:

rule shculd be retained. The suggested amendments are unreasonable and sncu'.d be rejected by the 00==issien.

4. Recuirine a Demenstration of Scecial Need f:: Cr:ss 7-Examinatica as teen suggested :na: 10 C.F.R. Sec::cn 3.733 and 2.743 be revised c per=i: cross examination caly upcn :ne request of a party filed within 10 days af ter servire of :ne I written testi=cny concerning a particular issue and li=i:ine -

! c: css examina:icn caly to these parties whc have submitted an admissible cententien on the issue. A =cticn to cr:ss examine

must include a detailed cress examination plan and a statement as to why written testi=cny could not establish the same peints.

Minnesota regards this sugges:icn as entirely unacceptable.

The major purpose of a Cc=missica licensing hearing is to adiudicate disputed facts. Trial- tyc. e .crecedu.r..e.s.. a r e no t cniv.

appropriate but essential to develop a full and ccmplete hearing record. The richt of parties to cross examine witnesses in an adversarial proceeding is a fundamental characteristic of tee adversarial process arising frcm basic constitutional principles of due process. There would have to be an extraordinarily gced reason to re=cve that constitutional right entirely frem persens who did not happen to file a cententica on a given issue. Scen a gcod reasen is not demonstrated by the discussion of this -

suggestien. In fact, no reasen is of f ered by the discussien cf this issue.

There are perfectly legitimate reasens why an intervence =ay wish to, and should have a righ: tc, cross examine witnesses en issues raised by another party. Many intervencrs, including

. states, have limited rescurces to devote to Cc= mission licensing pecceedings. They be forced by this fact := coordinate their efforts with other intervences and to divide up the work with respect to issue in which they have a commen interest. Thus two intervenors may, to avoid duplication of ef fort, agree between themselves to assert dif ferent cententiens but to support. each other with respect to the presentation of evidence.and the crcss examinatien c:. adverse witnesses concerning these contentiens.

In addi:ica, given the complexity of the sucject matter, an intervencr may discover that it is vi: ally interested in an issus which it did not initially identify. The Cc= mission has ne valid reason to cut of f the rights of parties to fully participate in all issues wnich are the subjec cf the hearings.

Even where the suggested amendment allcws a party an eccertuni:v :: =ake a =ction fer :ne right := crcss exa=:ne w :nesses, :ne ter=s of the sugcestad amendment is a de fac:

remcval of the right te cross examination. It is totally unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a party who has been served with petea:ially volumincus testi=cny and exhibits :c acec=plish, within ten days , the tasks cf reading and diges:ing the =aterial, preparing a detailed crcss examina:icn plan, and preparing and submitting a written setien to the presiding officer. Ne persen who has ever been a party to a Cc==issicn licensing prcceeding eculd sericusly sugges tha: ten days veuld

~

be sufficient := accc=plish all cf : is.

The time schedule established by this suggested amendmen:

. _7 contains sericus potential for abuse by parties with substantial financial rescurces. Tc example, an applicant who wishes to ensure that its witnesses will not be cross examined has the cppertunity te present the intervencrs witn thcesands of r ages cf testimony and exhibi:s whict. would be clear'y . beyond the capability of the intervenor to review in time to file a motion for cross examinatien.

Minnesota emphatically objects to the suggested amendments regarding cross examination and urges the Cc=missicn not to censider them any further.

_ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ 5. Limitatiens en Filine Procesed Findines of Fact,

~ ~ ~ ~

Cenclusions of Law. and Excections. It has been suggested"Ehat 10 C.F.R. Sect cns 2.754 aad 2.762 be amended ~ ' c~~fimf E Ehe filiEg" ~

of proposed findings of fact, conclusiens cf law, and exceptions on a given issue enly :0 these parties who raised the issue in a contention. Applicants and Cc= mission staf f, hcwever, wculd net be subject to this limitation.

Minnescta strenucusly Objects to this suggestien, as it will not further the Commission's interest in be er decision-makinc and it will severely ll=it the full participatien by intervencis.

As discussed abcve, intervencrs =ay have a significant interest in contentions raised by cther parties.f There is nothing -

inherently unf air ahcut a party ' submitting its views as to the state of the record on an issue which has been duly raised in an adversarial preceeding. The filing of proposed findings of fae:

and conclusions of law dces no harm; en the centrary, it could be of help to the decisien-makers. The filing cf valid exceptiens by persens cther than these who put an issue in centreversy is i

likewise no threa: to scend decision-=aking. This suggestien is I not sueported bv. a n v. valid ratienale and shculd nc: be adepted bv.

I the Ccamissien.

Minnescta appreciates the cppcrtunity := ccc=en en the suggested a=endments, which, if adepted, would have a p *cfcund impact en the abili:y ed Minnesota 0 participate in any future Cc=missica licensing preceedings. In general, the suggestiens are inimical := intervencrs and Oc the public. The suggestien I

that these amend =ents wculd "i=preve" the hearing process is

\

1 l -

i

ironic. The ' improvement" wculd censist of the eliminatien of 1 all hearings ct.ier than these requested by applicants.

Very truly ycurs, HUBERT H. ECMPHREY, III Attorney General

. _ . By .

W, ., &

{CCELUfF.OLSON

. D c 'b ' .LSENECHAL MARSENE E

\

special Assis ant Attorneys General e

. _ . ~ -- , - - - - - - .-

~~ ~

• S i.t1 1., ,

/ ',[ .JIICEE N ]

- (,a Q j/.

~. q t .~. (52 mF2m .'A579

?.:L.f .. . . . . . ,

i OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

.v.Arix WedTE s71.TE C1.7tial .

GC.E'A08 .

/.U:7IN. TEXAS 7'J71 --

Seo:e-'.cer i,1922 Mr. Reter- 3r wning

. Nuclear Regula::ry Cc::nissicn

'dashingt:n, D.C. 10555 RE: Procedural A.mendments :D Nuclear Regulatory C=. missicn 10 CFR 60, Oiscesal cf Hign-l.evel Radicactive 'dastes in Geoicgic Re::csi:: ries Oear Mr. Browning:

'de have reviewed the draft materials dis;ribu;ec :: sta:e represen'a:fves at the meeting en August 19, 1982, at Callas, and evaluatec tre varicus ;rc-sesals raiative 0 Our interes:s in particica:ing in Nuclear Reguia::ry C:m-mission activities and cecisions as :ney relate to discosal of hign-leve!

nuclear wastes in geologic re osit: ries. 'de have also reviewed the existing accrecriate secticns of 10 CFR 50 to determine wnether amendments are needed to nave the rule conform to pr: visions of the Nuclear .las:e .Dolicy Act of 1982. 'de have de:ar:;ined that, wnile seme minical level of amencment to precedure is needec to achieve c:nformity with -he Act, further amendmen; may be ac rceriate to enhance the efficiency acc T.aintain -he sucstance c' an assured caccr:Lni:y for intera tien :e:waen an t- ares:ec sta a 1.c NR~.

'We have er.csen as a for-:a- 30 a re:::nia ; e .- ec es: #:- ::m e :,

a revisier.. in raie fers, Or :he a: r:aciate sa::Nr.: :f IC C :. 60. 1; .

aili 'inc ycu. as ne:his craf: c:visicn a::acrec. .'acn :' t ."' :a 'a- t i t ir :

ve craan n'eavily 'ecs sectice.s of :re e.<fs:4rg IC 074 sh as ae!' as fr:m :ne cuo cra': cro:csais cres: :a: tr .<. a'i:: -eat ng. :.. ?

':cus .ias isegei On id::icn 50.!! arc fu:cer: C :' .6 . e, as nas jcurs.

Out feu will c::e scme ajor :ence:t ai 2:cis ::n 3-.- s e 3/' /52 Cra':.

! :nink ycu . vill fine :::e :rocosal, over3II, r.: te succor:'ve :/ my 5:: 2-ment in :ne Callas meeting :: the ef'ec :na: we and ::ner s:a:es are seeking sn assurad ac:ess :o NRC ac:ivities anc cecisions :na: af'ec: ;s as cc:an::ai nes: states for a hign-levei nuclear was:e renesi:Ory. '4e al :

want :na: ac:ess :o be one tha: does nc: resul: in an unnecessary ~urden  :

en the NRC or :he s:ates, yet will result in a fall anc c:nstrue:ise rela-tionst.h :e: ween :ne ;ar-f es.

WEEiec Ey E.9. . . . . _ . _. O/!2 5 5 p#

4W

. o e

'r '

d

.- '!r.

% e' . e : G cc.,r, ' rig

• G.- . me. a.. .,, :

i..- a..

r a g.' .

0 Y u . vill nC:e in tre a!!aCnec

. q y n '.. .. 4s 3 .. en. a.. ...

00sec rule ame# cme". s Ina: ..e ad

.. . r a. ......e.m...a..ws;, ...e.. .2 . a.

. . . i. e.. c; ...., .. .. . . . -: s. .e. . . ....:...,

w e '. . .s .* *.* .* s .w.* '. . # . .- . u v -' i. w- . . ..

- a. . s. . .- ..'.,-4..#. '... ,: .

,,p.  : '

a g .. r a. ,s , ......

s.. c. . .; - , . c u. . a. ".t.*r.'..--

. ... . 4. ..

. s *, , -

.. . . .. ,. . n .e.. . .,...ng

,e.s e. . *y .a.

.rj a .a=. .=.g .s e.y *. g g g=,y . .1. I a. w. ad **

3 ,., .

...ys

. b r'i . 9.4-

-a

• . . a. . . c . .- *..* a. A . ..

.a.*. 4. * .s ..a

.e. .s .a. e....i r

a. *. ..  ;*s

.f . : . , " . * . . .sm. t j yn. . .. u r , rt. . a- e..g I. a..*

. . .ar. .=. .s ! a. . 2 .....

p - :.

al ernative process of <.nica su:stantia'iy :ne same 'es I: 3 !an :e .s = i a.

achieved oy M.; and :ne s ta:es, ca: in a mariner :na: is less : nsum :ise of time and rescurces cn ; e :ar Of all :arties.

O f:r r. ur Orc:csoc cnanges t0 Su::ar- C, ne nink, reserve : .a c nc ur.1 y crmal in:arsc::0n :etween :ar-tes, wnile es:2:.::ssing . a :: Ore :erm ssive means of acnieving that interac:icn. In addi;icn, we ha e a:: emet c ::

incluce only tacse :r: visions or' :ne .

se priata in light of :ne :revis cns cr. exis:ing Subcar- .

a - C tha::ne c:. luclear ..as:e .ol We a:preciate :ne c::cr uni:y :: res:ced in ycu, craft Or:ccsais regar:ing TGC Rule 10 CR 50.

!/ you nave cues:icns ;r c rmen:s regareing our ::r:ocsal clease ce not hest:ste :a curi :c m,:. . alli f.e catm/ :o 1iscuss this ratter fur:Ner wit:1 yCu anc your s:aff, a jcur :Onvenience.

Sincerely, '

/...,p.

~ . -

. u . ... _. ; ~ .a.<-----

1)

~

Stave risnrran, Cirect:r

.Vuclear Was:e ?r: grams Of#i:e

,.*....3

......3...

c: e

c im.? s 3 r< ner: . .';t ti:nal G0ve nc r i / * *iNi a C.-

pe=s M% w. ;m k. .~ ~2 ~* " - ' ~ - " "~ ~

. . . . . . . . . , u .-

r. . . .., .. . . , ...

. _ . .. . .j. ..

. ... . ...... . . . . ....y,..

.c ......e.... . . , ....,..

. .... .. r .

. . .v

... . ...s-. ..- .- . .. :. ... ,.-

, . ...m . . s. .. .. . .. . , , ,

. .o.

e.... . . >.

.. . ., s.... .

...n.r.

. e..

.r. n. ..,

.e . ..

. .c .. .. . a...a.. .. ..

... .. .e.,

i n,

. .. c i..c , c ..,

..p. ,, ge n.... c, .e g ,

'. 2:2, c,,..e,.. . . . .

,.e.,

1*:d (42 U.S.C. "542, 5545); ta: . 10 ar.c 14 C.'*.<.*.,*.

%c. L. 5 f01, c.C C.1 ( .* *4 G. .C.*e**

.4.(..a4 .s .e.s .

~;:

...S).,sep

.. , e, ,= 0, . .

27 .C * , , , ... q.. m:...;:s, *

.s. .,.. . .C .-

(' 4(.a y. .<. [. g.i..a.. S )t, . ,

4, . .. t . 3,,

.t .a , . .

w ;

64.0

e. ..

'., . g e

.. a.=/ . 2 =

., , c;, ,e, ., .. .

=0 ..b. 9U. , =. 1. .

.? . C .a e . d.

. . a. .

4.V* . 7 is s.yd.ege. 6

6. ./ 4. .a. . e. n.*. d. .a. a ,

= 4. r.

• b. a. .a . .a .* *...e d. .a. =. 3 1 .,.z...,

.s.. ... .

.... z. i. .,.. a.. . i. . . w, a.

2*s.=.=.d.*q**.*..*.*'.

. a . ...

.. , n... .. a J z. e. ,. . ,.

.t M. IS. t/ t.b. 3.'i , .**. . .J . .

. . . .. z. ., . ... ..a..

l".S .$ 4.f .*

w ,.J . 4. . .g.. J J.. . 4. . 4. .

. d c. .

...s .

i

.. ... .u.

.. 1 . .

y e ,

9 w

. 3* J. J. 4.. ,. . 2 4

. .i .. #. 1.*.

4..* 5. .- s * *a. .* .a.. e 2. n

.2. # #. ,. v.* *. 2 .ad 4.

1.*. *. 4. 2. .. .*. * . 5. .=.e *

! .e . ,a J. 4 .,. .

.. G .u sC *t 2. 3

. .n.g ,. .. . s f,.i.,

• t j e. f 2C .. ,..J. t. c. a4" .

e

.e,g e..J. . ..

. 2.a. a

l. .e J. . .. 6 ."

.2.~. 4 .". '.* . a ,' ..

'/ d *

• J * * '"

• ".8

.. ~. 8##.*.'..*.*.* a

....,n ***

.... . . .~ .... .,) .( .. , e. { , . 4.. w. ,. . . - *

. ,e. ac. ...,, , n .2v...

1

,s.

. 4 5 .3.. . 3 . ... n s. .s .e *:

. . 1. . . .: .

m e. .

- k I

m g

r (z,' s - C r .3 ., n ,, .... ... . . . . , .. u a > 4. . ., . , . 2.....,...

. . = .. . . . .

4

.. . p u_

w. o n 'i ,. ,. . t. . (. . . .n.. . .. .. .;. t . a s.

. .s

. . . . .i...

a g .r,- Fl a..'. '. ..- .... ,,= ...=. . .c- .-. .. ' .. . < . - . ' . .-.......i...a..'..... . 2...~ .". .-

a ' .q - ,,

F

,,..,.e..

<. .. .. <,,, z., n. a. i. .... .<,, . c :.... .. .. .-...<

,. . ,.a.

4-

. 5 3. . '. '. i c.' n t a .v a.- . a :. .". '. r. . ...a . ..' t. '-

. . ._. .=..a- ....=.. .--/ s '. . = t

.. . 4 c.iarac: art:a::cn activ,ities, ,.,. s"cn area is ce:arninac s

".,. s u i '. .* l e '. .- . .= -. . l '. ..= .'. e n #.. r a . . . . s .-". c . '. c . . 2 ". .*.. . '. . .= .'. .7 g

fer a geolcgic rescsi::ry c; era:1cas area, O e

R

() ,

. 4....is,

... ca y .. t e. . e . s..o. r. g a.n . . . . ., . 4.

. .. . . . . . ., ". . 4- r, ., ) c. . . e .u~cie.s .

E

'Ja s ..= Fo l i fc Ac . c ' ' c..e". . ..- '. a ". s a. .

. . .. ..=..=.~4...a.'..=.e".'...=.

bili:y c' soca area for ne !cca:icn of a geclegic cices' :ry; $

anc

[

s.; eny ...er . ...

4

. e... .

4..n .n.c

. . . . . - . . . . . =... . . .. . . . __4.,2. ... .,

. f. ... er r e.,,

I rec.uires . E

- e t ., ) n s,ess.4...:., ...w. c . . ..e- .ce.ci

. . 14 .v .> .e . .= 'cr- .r ..ce..s ..-x.=:.=.....-=.

. . . . g w

iiiga. lev:1 racica::Se aas:e ;c :e 2c:11cac n su:n ;acic; c U w

.,..,<..r.

. . . . . . . . . . ... a..... . . i.. ... .< . . t..-. .. .- .- n ... ,... < . = . . . -........ =.. = ...

. . . . . st

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

. . . . s.. ... .. ..... , 3 .. ...  :.r.. .... ,. .. . . ,.....,.,

. ..v...:. .... ..e ...

... .. . . ..... .. , v. a . s.c .s ... ., s. e. . a .<.

a . . ...e.. .. :. .. .. . .

e. .. 1. ,... a. .i. . .... .... .

. . . , .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .ss.

. . . . . , . , e. c e. , <. . ...... .. . . ,.n.... .. . . . . ...,.

. . . . . ..a... -

,. ..z .. .. ,. h t

e .,as..

. .. ,.a,.k :a . ...c

.. . roi.,....s . . . . . ... a c 4

s R

......w.

.. . . s .... . a ). e2e.{. , to.p s.e, W o . ',

g. m e. a. - se. . . } C ; a. .s.e. .e.

a ....y. ..

.,. 4. 9... ... s. ..

,s M-

.... . .,.., .s . in.. .. .... ... cn.. ,,.2:./. es ,,

.....,....,i

.. .w. .. ,..J,...._,..

. ... .4 R R

iit w

w..

. hs

• =

....9.*..- . s . ...s.1..ar..$....

2

. . . \. 4 .W . J. .e d. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .s . 4.~.J. 4.se

. . . 4 f

4 M

ha

=

• ! #..,.... *- 3 3. . d. g *. ..g p

,' g. I, . . c. r. 0. .W S. . *. ..* * .f . .1 . . $. .s , . . .. . . E. ...

. 3. F. * . J.

. . . .. 4 ?. $ P.1

.c.i.

. . .1. s gt.., .. ..ge... . . . . 7.

s ,.<n.n

... -;a.,..

. . . . . .,.4.,,s.

.. ~

6_

ik y Ca ...c . " ?.. '

• 2. .' '. : .'.=.w.'. 1". .. . - ,1 a .n *~* *. '.ee,u n . ~.. ~ . =..c. . 4. . .= 9

= .

. t

.s

. .: .  %. l N,:

l 5.w..s ?. t 4. d a .. 4 4. ,., ...

. . . , . . .2

. e . ... ., . .. .C . . . . . ,. s

... .... . . . . . e m.

. . . . . . . : .r . . . .

.4 .t 1 . . . . . . . . . . s. .o .. . ....

.s,.

.... 4. . e. 1 .,.,. ..i. ...n.

.i..  :

.., ,. ,s = j 2., .

e ,3. s .

. . , .: .3

. . . . $..,..,,,,,..,,.;,,.4...

. . . ... 3. .

.. .s 4. e. .e a12 .. ..G .:..i..+iC .a -

.. C. ._La.. ....w,., .... .. . .a wir,,..r a

. .. ,. a 1 . .n r..3n . .j . . * . C..jc.... . ,,s. .:

. ig e ,U .w.1 4. a. .. . Es. .,, . 4. ,. .

. . . . . .. ,..,.4... c.a .. ... ..w,.e . .. a.. y e. ..r.. . .. .

. ,.4

. . . 1,r 24. S 1.. i ia ....,,.3 4 3 4i -

.. 6.E c. ..s.. . . n .a n l o,.n ..

.. .3.,.22.

3 4 e..

is 10Catad anc *. One g verning 20dy -f 2 ny afft;;s , ..ciar. ;r- 3. *

\

• t., .8 . 7. . . .s Ly r,, . ... ..

e.n.<...* 1  :.g

. ... ,'n .. . e .e . . .. ,..g,...,.4.,...

.. e

... ..c. . . . . . . , l ., . : ...

,. . .3 . 9. c . .s .4. 2 *.a s . sri .

. .. ... . ... .. 3. n ...c.g...d.$ ,.i.. ,..,

. .6 .c .e. .c. ..

3 L... . e.

P.an.l r.

s . )' 6.. g g 4. .,. ..

. . . . . a..3'is,

. 1

4. 5 ...". e .I$. '.* 2 " 3 'i 7 0.

' #. .' *m*.

• F..'.*.d'.**. .

D

,'..".'I.*.'.*

a. c r 1'n See. . 4. c.. .: ,w . .. ( a s j , r ..,.L,.,

.. < . c. ..-e.e. . . c,..m

. . . a . as. . ,.. .. a,. . . e.,.s.e,

'actan trites, and in:arestad :erscas ani:n ne wiii enview

.....a

. . '. d a. - in .

..r=.a.a. i..g .a .*..2 . . . 2 r.* w- . .s . . .- 3. . . . 2..;...- i* .*

.. .s . , ...4... r. 3 ...4 ..a

. . . . .. dn ..,.....e,..,....

, .1 *, -" .. 3 -

tj ..,.. a ..s.t*

. . . . i 3 *s w a. . . .. y .a g., .3 .. ....g.. .. ,. ......,

. . . . . 3. ..

,.re3.. ,s. . .

...a 4 6. ,. .1. . . . .

3,.

e. . ..e

?...

. .. . 22.

. 1

. . .: . 3..

• w. .. .. ..... .. .. .. ..

.. c. a,.. 4. ..

• 1t.s.s..

• 4 . . \ { 91,1 :( . ,\ w.e. ... ..

. . . . i L. . '.. .: s ,, g .e ... , .= M. . t. . .  ;,

.f .C. . . .a.

'. :. .: .=..s.. .n. .* .. . ..: ..' t r ,. e. ... .. .

,'.9 . . . *:

s. / 4'.v 2 .

.s .. . . . . e. .. ..a ... ..,...

. . . . . . 1..e

.. e...

. . . . ...,.4. . .... .. 3 .3n . c.,.,.. 4. ,. . 1' .4

..2 ....s. . .. . .4. ... .4 . . .

.. . : 3 .4....:

. s p.s .w. s..e. d.

.. s. a.d. ... .,. . 3 ..2. *. ,. , c.<.a , .s , 3 g . .4.. .4..,. .

, 3. ?. .. 4. ... .. .

.s .. .,s. .... .

..s.. e- ..s .=. 4. . e.

, ,. , .e .

....,..r

. . . . . . 3 . 1.' .. .f . s.

.. ... . . .,. . s... . . .

. s s.c ...

... . s,4...... .s..3 ....j....,4..,.,

.. .. .,. .3. . . i. g ., j . . ,s.

. . .. 3 7/. s f ... ...e .,,... ... .. .,.. . 4. .f...,4 ....

a u... .

. . . g .r ~ *# '

.?t *..* .#. .'* . . . v' . i ,. . . ,' s .".

...,d

.i.. 3.c..C . .. e2 .. .. . ...c.a

...4 . . .., 3 .. 4 .e L. . . gs. 4..e.

. . . .. . . . . nl.. . _ . , , . .

..:... .s

.,,.Pe  %' . "w

• N . .

4 c ' :: 7.*c. : tN 8 c'"da 2 ? .a .- i l

j

. . . . . .2 .i 1r.,.... . . . . . .,. .. ....,..

4.. .. .. . . ...

.4 . . .

. .... ... . . ...'I 3...4 .c

.. a . ,. . a. .,4.

...4.c, . ..,_

, . . . . . , i e. .. . ...

... a g.s .....-a.. .,.. e.s .2. . -

.r.2..8 .r .e . 4. . '. #. 4. .- -

. 3 ,,. .. 4. . .... ,, i . .. ..

... ,.,3. c ,.. . .. . v..e... . r.:..=... <.. ...a. .. 4....,.

...s . ,.n ,.,e,

..e.,.,.,,...

.. . . . . . . . . . .r... cu ..

4. . 4. ,. .... .;.. .

..~. ...,<c. ..

.....,.a.4.. .

. . . . . . .... . . . 4. . .. .. . . 4.

. .s.. ..e.. 4...

_ . . . . . .s... .. . 2 .. ..a

..4.

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

(e) *f 'OE's plannec sica chara t

..e .

c ari:1:icn ac:ivitie.s faciude casita

. . . . 4.

.: wi .'. .*a r. 4. . 2 . - .t v e ..~s ..s . 4. .- 7. ,

". e .4. .-.= . . . . ' .e .......a......<...="..

inCi,.,d i 4 s.a.s..4.

.. .a.a.r.n,

. i. 1 .... 1a..,

c.. ... C,...... 4. s s 4. c cccc'.!rs Mat the prescsed use cf suca radicactive .a: arf ai is necessary Oc ;revida da;2 fcr ;r.e ;re: art:icn cf :.e anytrenmen a'.

.....a .s.r4 4. s.g ,. $aw

. i

,a

... e. e . .3 . .s.o... .4... ,. . 4. w. n .c . e sa

. _4...s, aa

. . . . a. r .s .e.. t._

. . . . w. Cf .w. 4. ! ,.a .. .

\' "C ~. :Q..n

. ge. g.s .. ..eeg n.e.

s.y s. g 4. c. .... .4. .... . . . . ... .=t.:

..e 4 e. . 4.. . n (* ,s jf t'

t.)

1:

. t....,s..... . .s .. 3 . .a. ..e .

m4 w..s.e.. .. 7 un. age. . 4.5 ..a,c.4.w.n

. . .m.g'I'e ..

.. . n..ns.{. .

.. . 2 a "".~. ... '. ~.~. 8. 5 *. ~ . . ~ f 5 5u.".".'e e . 2 ' *. .*. .* *. ' 4. .* .* *.1 *. *. . ". r **

?. 4. c .= .*. e. .. .*. '.r..*.*.'.

. .7 g J. . J. g ,. .. . . . h. a.

3 u . .g y 4 .. . .y q .F *2 ***

....."....a ***A** **,

.... .. E*.".".*.,*..O.2.".I***.

.. . .3..**

1,....a. , . 4.

. . ,. .sw.c.

. . . s '. :n,,

. 4 . ( . , e .. ... . . 4.. .. .3 - 2 .

4. ., . ,...

{1

. 3. ./. . 1. .. .

. g.e..,.. .. ... .,,.

,.. s. ,... . . ,.. . .,........

. .r .r . . s e g , u r . w.. . e.

• J j r s.e. . 8

.s ...f .. . . s. e.n. i ..: a .m. .e...e e . . . . g ,, . ; # 2 ,. . * .4

.. . . . . . . ...r .

. . . . . .. .s. ... ...e. .

t i.i .

.; ; .ur....y 4.e u.., ...,. .: g 4. . ,2. . . r 3. s.c . . r.

.. .. ... .. .. . e.. 3 c . ....s.. . 4.... .

. Ce . e. . g*t'.

. 3. . .r.. . . ... . - 'ag.4 ..ar.

... .c.s s.ip.s

., ey ..it ..w..... .. .w.

. . . . .. . . . . .. .. . 4. .2 . 4. w. ., ...

.w .s.....

. .e . . . . . 5n..t...

w .. . . . . . .. e. 4

.e . C . .. 4. .t . 4. ..e ..... . ...: 4. . .t.

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

.sg

.. aa.. ... s y s. t.

. . s. ,. 3

. .. ..n ...

. . . ..,. .. .s.e.g -. s.

4 5 *. .* #. .* .* *. 1. . ."..,4 .e .. ** .

. adage r!!Gir:r. inc cavaic::en .

Ihe 14*iadMUAI ??" F"3 in4II

4. .. .t.u t ....... s. e. *i . 4. w e.

$.4 3 c a.s .e... . s.* . 4. .s . 4. ... . e.. * . .- i. s. .e . ... * . tt 4. .s .e..

.. 4. . :. . . 4.. , n

.t e'.f i ,. .,u e t , ytan,.

e.. P 4s. . 4...C .. . aj c....

.. 4.3.s .

..,,w..

.. i .t ..

M _ _ , p m .D**""*

%s

.3 G., 4. s d. e s , 4. ....

a. .... ,.... . . 3 .- e.

t w r..d.:.$ .- . .. . .#. s. e ?.....a.: . - s. . . . e. . .* '. . 5 .-*e . .

a i wu,n. .t. a. s. c., ... . e..

C .i w.e e. t. ,.w.. s. ...w. . . i...n. ... .. .. ,.. e ,. .,. .. .. ....C <. a.... z. ....

. , . e....... ,

e. c..... ., . . '4 e ,. . .w . . ... . .. ...r0

y. . 4. .s.

.. .. ;.. w,-*

....a 3... .......

. . . . .4... .e . .-.s.ee. .

3. ., . e v..1 . - g '. . ,- .. .

d s e d. . . . .-3

.w. 3 s .= . t. . :- ' . .- =.. . e. e. ... - .- < a.e s---..'.... .

.n.gg .

.. 7...s.g.. s. . . , ,7.,

-. .. . . . . . . .. . sgg. , .......p. . . . . . . . . a. .s..

. .e

. .. a. . , r. .. ,

key design partme:ars er fea: Ores whien :e;ene u; n :ta resalta o f s i .a c.... .s c...,4.

.. . 4.e.n .s p ] 6 e ,.., .a. i <. .,

.s. .

.. n. . . r . ......

rela:ad :s si:a charac:ari:a:icn shall 41sc te :: verse if re tested by the Direc:ce.

a

. u. \, . e.

.... ..z. .. .u

.. ., s . a . . ... . . . : . . ,

.... .. . a r ... ..:. ... ,.'.. n

. . . . . .n-. .'.e'. .'.e.< , s'G.r. . c. .1 '. '.

s a,..s s.e n.e .. s .. v<.s,.. . Sr..a Ins.e,..

... i..a. .. . . ....e .ses.. ..<..s . . . . ,..

. .n.s . su .

. 4

.. 4. 9 . 4. g 5.. .. .. , , r . '. = . .. ...: . .- . .-. .*.. = r". e 2.xs .2 / a .d. .-. . s , '-w . . '. . . , s , .$ . ..-

4. i.. . ,g... .,s.,

.. .. as .7.y .. .. ... . .n.

r<.

. , .. <.,,..,.,y

... ...g ... g.. g .,.<..g a...,,;...., .. -.

.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . , . . , s ., z. ....,

....... a

. . . .. . .s . ew,. a. n .a n;" a s . e . . . '. . d. ..$

.. .* .. .* .' r. '. . .= .'.. ...

. .- ....s....-

. , . , . . .. . . . .. . . i. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . ,. . .. .. .... .

. . . .. .........n... ..... . . . ....n .... ... .....

.. c . ... 3.% 4

.2., .., , . ... . . . .

.e t ., , . . . . . . . e.

. . . . . . . -. .J ; .2 . . . 33 y ,w,

g a, ,1 .e ,se .e., F .h.,II ..s.e.g. .,

i.i i . .. a 4... e... 1a.s .. . . . . st..a.

.. .a

... ... ...e.ei. ,..,,

1 1.1a .y s4 s 4.Me  % t.b.. j nC * . e..aa . '. - .e 4 . a w* .~.g r p .s".. . s. g -a*

• n e, g = 4

.a c.e.. . .s.e

=

unear section ic.13(dl, oli c:::ents :: Cc made by ni 2ncer

.. i,. se..<cn

.. . ..e n.w..e... .C .

,,a t ,. n a. , . . . . . . 1 . . . . , . ,

6 e

. .. ..n . e. 7 e..s.e 1 e.s.

.. . ..a

. ... . .,..se..se.

. . . .. . e.

'..e.,.,e.

3. y ,. e. ..4. .;. .g. w. .;.

.e t. g n s g .* t. . a.r. ...s s. . y. 4. .s .3

.. 4. g.

Mh r .. _. -_D IM. _. . __._-=de**-*-* _. .* ^

e

s .

• i

• \

1

/

[ (N) $l5 :

. y

./ Orr:5?O.*0&nCe OSIWtitn 25 JCo~0".$ .

gnOGr .'eIt'

• .nii sac *'er.,-

. v ." .j..44

4. -w .. p..

i .%.,.,

.. pg..p..

ef

.. .4 3gs.. 4- ., .. .<g , ,

g . ., ,2. .s . .... i.s,

. 3,

. . . . s*. e

.e. '6 .s r.s 4. . es.. *

. . *i 4. e. .e c. ..r.a.e. ..=.p.. m.. . .

0

=t m, a.-..3,..<.,4.....

t.3 .... .... ..,w..:...

.. . .... j -

2 . % ra .n s (' ,'. ) .. . .-. %' . . u' , '

2..v s.

-  ::nsti u:a inf:r .ai ::nfa. enca :e ween a

res;e

:1ve ap.clicant and t.Me staff, a: .

da:criDed in 52.101(a)(1) of ::is c.ta::ar, anc are no: par; Of a pr:ceecing uncer :ne A::=ic Energy A 3

of 1954, as amenced.

e J

l f

e

. es. e memH - eq qema.

• dem,

- . + - - _ _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ . . _ . , _ . . . . , . . , - _. .. _ ~ _ .

.....-4 w n .*

, .;...... .;; .n o

....r...........

...w.....: .

. .g g ...

..a.; ..s, .

. ./ ;. . . ..,t.3{ .a ea . . , . ,

w . .i.,...e . . s . ......

.A. ..

g

. de. . 4. . .n b . .: 6 r .e../ . 4, .e ss. w n : .

. . . . n.. 3 ..s..g .

t' 3 i

\

"h g *, j ,.s. e.... . . ...

. . 3*.*i .

. . . .f . 3 e.. ..

.. ...r

. a.

..3....

, ,g, , . . . .. .. . .. .-. . , a 3 ,, e.,..

w. .q ..a. ... (. .$ j ..w

..; ,s ,. 4.. . s. .. . j ,. ,,

. . . . . . . .3 . ..w

.s....,.3., J, .4

..3 ,., ..

. . 2. c 3 ., ,., ... . , 4, ,., .;, . 4. ,., .s. , 3.

.g

. . k.e  ;...go.g .4.. 9 w. w sy ...: .s . .j g a. s:.,.ss 4.

.! n% . c n .. .

. 4 4.

. s.e . .,4....a *s y o3 n,.. .... *1. y 2 ... =

i n . w. . ...a ..4. C n .,,,2.

,. 4. ,

,3

... 2 . .. 4.

3 s . 4. .,.sn ..

• , n .,. ..4. ~. e. s.y .. ..e. ......4..

. s.,4. ... g

...a .e e.* * * * *

• Q 5 . *. *.

.. , 5. .

w"...' .**.' C *. .. *

• d.. ." .*.dC .7 51 *. '. *. 3a , -

-*d*

w'e t a l e. s , ...c.e. *. ,

.2.;.., ' . ' . .*

• i

• 3 C*.n5 * :"JC

• i co , Ca

. er3 ;iCn, re7.:11;* Cn, ':er*.'anen; CIC%t.;ra , cec *r.*2.~.ir..

.s n g . 4. . ~

e. .2.1 *. l ***.e.a. ". * #...

5 ". " #. .$. .,." *

• T C '. ' '. *. d..*#. *.. '. 2 n y .* *~. .~.~. 3 c* ".

."8.*.*..*..*.*.V 5 L. . n.... . ei.....

.o.g

.., j ... . . e. ... s p.

I s. ,'. .

g J. n.g..,.. .. :w. . .r .. .. ! 3 )' , .. g n. d. . s..... .. .. . . .

4..e .. g

.w . =. . ,.

. 4. g . . . a. J. ., ..

. . J. .. . . .

s n,v d.aw*"...a a. . **

. .s .q v *

. s..q ' 4. *,v j #. , w 'i ..*. - s. .e .* a. . . **

- *".a..*.

.a. .., . . . . m. .e. . 4 e . $ n..e -..e... e..e ,s. ) 4. $ h. . . s...u..n.... .s.

s. . a..s ac ..(~.4. .s *. i. a- .. . 7 s, , .a. .s.. e. ....pgws. . .. .v.

.. y. . .

e C. .aiS

... C ..sn..sF.

..., ,.4.... 4e ,.

.4} t

..... . .. . ....w..

: . 4 e. p. .. . .3 w.y ... 3 4. e s. . .. .

. .. . r....,.

" . . ..3,g a.......z..... . . . a t. *.

..3 . 2 . ,., .s. ..

. n..

4. . .. ".... . i. j . ,

....t. . : . . -.

. 4. .2 ., ...,,,e.

.n .. . .e . 2.. .s r., t . . t. .r .v.,.

... ...s...

4.,.... .,. .-

.... . ..... .(. .t s.. ncj .

.g.,,

,,3 j

,, .,. n .. . . r,.

. ./ ,s. ] ., ,. .t 2 $ .4

• ..S . . . ' #. *. 8 ****'".*..S".'.".*.'.*.i

.".J.*.*.*. ."S.".'F.*.. ~.

4 #. .'

i

, . . , . . , . r i n d . .'. .*. .*.. * '. " e . * *. .* .' #. . . .... '.*. *. * .* * * * * ' . ". '. d. / O '. '. a * *. .i.**..,' *. *. .' #. #

, . , . . , , , , . .....i. .,4... . ..es .s.../,s.., g a.se . . .s . .o.

... . . . . . . . . . . e. . ."c.sn

.'. ...ag.

g, s a. . .4...

a . ... e, g 4 . .. . a.

4. n . ,.,, . .4.s......,

s . . . /e EW , ... ..

...". e * .r". y*

• S. *. .' *.#.

..'.S **

• d

. . .' . 5 C *. .s .e . .- 2 ..* '. * .*.

,W".***N."*****-

_3..- -.--..-. -

9

/

, 1-.. ..

.. .. .. .. .<. .<j. . . . . . . .n.,

...-a,..... . . . .

- e......;... s . . .

.r..e . e..

.. . ... ,..,.,.a..

. . . ... .e

• $.. .c. . 3 ..e. ... ...: . ...

e .., .

() ge. .. ... .3 . < . .. . ... . . . ..;. . . . .4en ...,3.:

. ._ e ..... .. 4. ., .c..

. . . ... . , .-.. ..e .=<. ....

( s. 3, e.s

.m .u ; u. .. . . ,.....,

- , .. e. . . 4.., . ... 4. . e., . ..e.

......... ....n ques-icas er c::=an:s in ac::r:an = ui:n sec-icn 5c.1a(:)(2; := nRc

. .e. n..

. . .. .... .. .. ., . .. .. . r.. .... .3 3 e., 4 ..,

.... s...... . ....,,......

. . . . . . . . . . . 4.r. .

.n...,..., ..

n 3 .r..... r ,. e.

. .. ev i e.x anc c. n s *. ..= .- e u c., .. - =.. . . . - -a

=.nc .~. 4. .e .d. .. . . ' . . . .. .

r.. . .s . < , . , .~.e s t ..

. . c .a , c. . .. . r4. . .. <. .n.. . . i.-.j. s 4. s . ..

t.. .. . ..,

s ha i,) 4 s t .. a r .. ,. , n c ,.. ,...

. . . . ..s .. .. c. .. ._.e . . . . .... .. ..._. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . ., n . .... ... ..

g.. ...

. . . , u w. ..,. .., ., r. . e.... . - .,. . c. .c . . -e..

,. ,<... e.,..<

<. . ... ..c..-..,

. . - .. .... n  :.v.:..s,.,. ,

( w-) w., ns U 1. ". .i ..a. .J r. w' .= .- 7 d

. s sa . .d..., ..~$v '...-."...=,

. a....g c .er

.inv.,e .2 .-a.v i .=w a f .= .a a. l i .'. ': e .".R C re a,u l a .d. . n s . l '. w .=, s '. . . 3 y r . . =. s.". ra. s , a r. ..= . .'. a '.

r .

....e .". l a. .'

and tha ype and sc:pe of S:2:a ac-ivi:ies in :ne li anse review and

' d s 'i? .a c..a . .=. ..* r . ..' .'.. n p* i a n .-=.v i ew. ". ., a c -. '. .d. . ., . s . .* *. *. <. . . .= 1 1 .' a. .

. = . .=

. V g j 't . 3,;

. ... ... .. .. .g es.

. .. 3 .,4... ..a .e.. . .s 4. . . ..

. s v a. l..a . '. . . . .... . . - c..., t. a.

. .. . . e.... .

. . . . . . . . . 4.. ..

.] ... e ..1.a e .s ..... . . t.a.

. . e.. -e t *.4..

e, .' e. . . . . c.3. *. e. s...3

. . . . . . .  ;....4.......

. . . . . . * . . + . y s. e. . . .g .e. . .

...., .e *

.. i.. 6 :. .

.a ... .s . te . z.e. .. . .e. . . s. .s .e..... .... s. . e . -. .. ., ,.,..s....,.s

.... '6 i .s .e..q. .s. .s3* p_e. =. ./i . e.. , ... * .2 *s. *

. v. 4. s. 9 e. J. .e. .e...

. . . . . . . .. =. .

4

...t.. .....se.

.a. i. ,,,,.i..

.a $ ...s.e a..s ., s. s s. . =.

ya.e. f ... ...... a ,e,,.....,.... .,..

. . e. ... . . . . . .... ... ... ;

• i .

,...1 . .p #e 0.,*s

.. ... .1 *

.. . . . .i s. . .s ,=.* .. a. 3. ?. .. . . . . .3 .d. 4...s a..r. 4.... . .. . 3

. . . s. ./ ..

. s.n

( ..g

... .{.3

. .. . . ....,..4....3

. . . . . . . . ..... g g .. 4. .f.. ...f , , ., ... . . ..... .,

c/ .p .

j ..w.3.,. ,. Q ...;;.,.4...

---

._._-.-w------Y

\.

. A : .,2 ; g ' s e.ra. .a. *. 2 '. ..

,..s.. '. .- 4. . .s . 3. . .. s .i e. .... . . 4....e.

..a 3. 2nj. . e. . .. e ,. , 4 .. ,. . :.,

c cke:i :. Of g . ... s .. j e. ** *-a s .d. n .r ..a.

.. . . .. ..a ...s ,r e. ..g

.e...

s.s..se.

f),

g *..

. . ,g g .s. T. g J.o f . *. g

. . . 4. . . . g . d . ,, .

. . . . . . . ......J.c.. . *

. 4. .e .1.. .. **3** a - 5 c ...t. .. .

- .. . .. 4. . ... . /. *

.3.. . . ./ g . C i" :

. . . . . . . d .a.

or *.i"".

. . . . . . ..,6  ; .. .2 -

... ".r *...a a.r .. .

....2

. . e. '.. .. ..s.* .se.

, . ... . .y

.2*d.. 0h 0 " 1.1 .C 1 C O 031

• C.na * *.C A .

0.. *.: ...r....us.2 .,. '. s.

. 4... . * . .... 3. .

.s

.' w s .? . .~. 5 n j..3 ..,gf.

.. ,. r a..e a .a. *. .* d.

1. . ." r .. .a. e. i .d a r.. $

• d. .a.n , i. .

.nc *i .3 , .., . . 4.n y.ar., 4.. J. . s.

- = ray..ed.en

.d ,,y ...g

. . ".s.3, . . . ina n.....

, r..a e.s. } e. .c . .s. .. .

.. 4. .4. ........4..;,...

4. . s. . ....

. . 1 ,.. n , ..

4....4. ...

c. 'i .', .x ,,ge.,t. g.e p.. .

-s.

. . 4. (.  : nc9 . ,. .a.

..,.s

,..ae . , . . ,. 4..t..s.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . .. 4. .

.y

.. eyjgw . 4 a.

. . . . g.r *t...4. . 4PY . '."*.*.*.#.#.'.".'*.*.*.*..

. *. #. #. 1.* ". 4. '

'n c. '. ". .*. '. '.

wisha's ;0 rtview.

g.i a . .r.S l imi na F.V C.*. '. *.* .d. *., *.. 4. C n 'v #. ". . .a *. . 2 ."'. ' '6 . ' . '.' . "

'..*.#...~..'*.#..~.~.*'s.r.'..*.".*.*.4 .

.c.. ,. ..c. . p. l a n t .. $U. ... .. ....

. . ... ... . ,s.. e. . .,

. . .. . .. .. .. ., .4. e ,..s. . ..

4. . 4 n. . .t i

review.

.. .. . . .. .. .. ..$ s, r ., .,.. .. ..,. .. 4 .

. 4.. . . ... ... . :...a . . . . . . .

...... s.... 2.., 4=.....s.4

. . . . s. ....: .. 4.. - . .

. . .......,i ..;4

.. . . . . . . 3. . . .. .... .. , .,. ..t....

2.A. , g n q g ..

. .. : .?.s.3

. . . . . .. ... . . . 9,. j .,3.., .3 *

.......,..."..e.".*...I'..""..*.*.*.*.*.

... g... ..

w. . ..

t. a. r.. .. .. .. .. ..

. :. . ' . a . .ya'. *.t

. . .

• 0,. . . , s i t.

,t ,

.., . .....4..,.,,... ... .nc . ... .. ,. ,.p. . ..

s. . .. . .< .. . e. ... .

3

.... ..... . . . . ,.3 ... . . ..... . . . . j. ,. e. .... , ,. ., a ,. ., ,.

.es:ings :e:.veen the .-2*r* en:2 tytt Of 23 "O *3 2

• ni E lu f f ::

.s. . ~.

- s 3,.

.- s p.s f

e. r: .s e.a .i.. .a ... .e,p.

y .p...,3I sn

.. .4....s

... 4., .e.,.4.

c.. ...:u.. n. ..(. s -,j, 4..... ,... . ,, .4.._.~,.,

3.

r. e e.. .. .. j e. ]. 4. .g ... y ._. ..

,4 2. . . . . . .s . .a .. _, y

..n.. . . . . . . ,

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

. ... . . . . .... e. 4.. ,..... . . . n . /.. ...

. . e...a.

r' . .

. . e 01.-=. . .. . s n.$.1 , 1 a . . .vaa.'s . - .- .in.v ,.a r . . e. > -

. ,. .-. .. .. s a 1 .21 4. . .. = j-

~

be ::cdified ;*.rcucn the .et:ings da:C.-ibed accve if i is  : ce ar.;.ec

.m.a.

.. w .... ,....

...r.sc, . .C..

.../1

. 4. es (1).gji' g

a..n. ..s.a.. .o C .. . ~....t n f . . . 4... S e. .. a.,sa. 1 .' :..C ..K., ...a e.....,

. 2 ..

I. .- ) .., j t j g...

. . . . j L .. 3

,. .. .. s.. . . g ..4. .g. *i .y .. ..:

. ... i 4. ,. .s , 3 ,,,/. 4,..,

... .. . .3.,.,..i...

ei .s

. .. .. .ar.se.3..rd. m.4. c. .sc.4.yt...

., .s.... .

. . 3. I . .f. a. , .n,,

4 (1 , S-1. .m.e

.. . gr n1'.e.

4.es .u.]. Taw.

s....

• m... . . s. .r. e. .e '. a. n Q# . ***

.. ni e.. e e,9.s.))

t

. .s ... 3.

. . .. . e...4...se 4. . 4 - .

.* eya.,.a.

...s. . ..egj

.... 4. . ,4

. .: . ..e

. .t.s4

. . . . , , J. #. 4. . 4. g } g #. *=.g .4 s ...

43. ..

. ..: .? .s. ...s.

m . . . . , .,.J.

..e

... ...,4.. 4. . 2

..,*t *

... .a ce a./41 *6 d.% +6 .3. ... ..... .: .... . t. 4. ., ..,.. .,.. a...

l 3 i 1 .* r .* .*.. v .".' .- . .- #. .$ ,r*.. *

."* sal d.4' *

.=,'..$'.*..*e..

. . . e .* .s '. 4. 3 '. .* .*."2 . . d '. I.' *. .* *. .*

y 3., . i. . , ...

. .. .. .. . . . . .,, .r. . 4. ,. 3 4

l i

- . i

., -.a

... ,.3

. . . . 4. ,v.4. . . . .4. . .

...g p."..*saI

. .'i .s'.**.4.2'i

. ".'..s s..*s.-.*..** . - #.

.. ... 4

. . l '. ' . . - '

.e .

. ...,..,11

. . . .. .J

...4.s4. . .

i l

' 'f.

A CUy s f J I ' Or :asa * ; es., 3,. ./,3., t .i... .s

- -~: . .e 4. y a. . , . ... 9 i; :..

i

• O ..Q..

• • . . . . . . . . ..q .,

l I

i l

1 I

, .. - q _-k -. " @'.% ~ _ew__-^ -

^#

1

o .

. l

. . I 1

l ege..w4.n 4.0..*:. ;,r..

. . .4..

. . . 4. n ,y .?.C.an s 4 .w,,

I I

a

...., C C . . . .o . . .. ... ., . . . . . . .

.w. ie & O Luc 0 . 7, . i ...0 .....e.s

c '. . . . s i u .

=

. ~

.t .

a e.

. .e. .: . 4.

. a .e.n. s. ..,. .. c.a.as. .

I, :.e 2;ver.e 33 g,3gis.3.gre c 3 g:3 3 - ,

. .!Cin?.ly designa:ad en :neir tenalf a single pers:n er en:ity :: recaive actic and i n.r. . . . . . 4.

.......w .au 4 $.,4. C n .J ng g. r .w 4....

o .

. . .4. a. ,..r.,

... r.

. . . . . . . . Wj]*i ,...y s UC.7 .a.. *.T c,e, *

. . . . ~ #nfar""~$*d.C.7

. . * . * *. e .' ". '. 7 *. *. ,v d, a- c. i. 3. . .ae .= *.r .e..n

.s e. .a.- 4.n . d *.y

. .a..' . 8 2.

cf :te 3cvarr.cr and i.agis14:ure sa;ar: alf.

e . :.... :. .

.en... a. .. . ..a.4.na.i

.w. . . n The Oirac se sy ta' .

a in : ac::un: ::a cesicasi'i:y :f av: icing :uci':2:fcn :-

, 3c.4.c, c.n s,

.e.s. . . ..x.4.

u+s.4...e

. . .. ..,,s

.. .... u. ._....,

. . . . . . . .u. . . ....,n. . ... ... ,. .,.. ... . . .

e. ..is :....

... ... r. . .... . ...

. . .e.x.

. ,3.. .. ...$s

.... .. . ,c . . .

4. ,...

...... ..,......,a.

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

, ... .. .. .., , a .- . 4 's .- . r. .- =. .' . . e .

e f

,. --Q '**

. o s .

a

[',b., M o

i[g v..t.,oecscst0 RVtf '

QA -

I.h***

.'s a. .'f c.??!(Ed FR A579

.- OFFICE OF THE GCVERNOR MM A WNITc STATE CAPtTCL cena%:n AusTih. TEXAS 73711 .

Sep: ember 19, 1984 Mr. Robert Grewning, Director Division of Waste Management U. S. Nuclear Regulat:ry Ccmission Washington, D.C. 20555 I

Dear Mr. Brownir.g:

We appreciate the opportuni:y for continued consulta: ion eith you and your staf f on the draf t revision of 10 CFP. 60 - " Disposal cf High-t.evel l'adioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories *'. While we find no objecticn to most cf the prcposed modi'ications, there are :eversi key ;cints on which we are ccmpelled to cernment: (1) cpportunity for state corren: cn the NEC site enarac:eri:ation analysis prior to its submission :: :ne Depar:me 1:

of Energy. (:) irrevocaolo cem! ment by NRC to 2x;11citly res;,cnd to the affected s'. ate comment en site character 1:a:fcn analyses, and (3) a defined mechanism for appeal to the Ccmission of state participction decistens

y the Otrce:or of the tiRC Office of .Nuclecr Material 'afe:v and Safeguards

( *4"$5 ) . te; ien references below ap;:1y to the July,1984 draf t revision to 10 CFR 60 (Cocument 75g0-01).

Iter.:s (i) and (2) at.cve corcerns sub:ar: 8, sections 60.1 thecugn 60.16

..ddres sing site characteri:stion. In order to offer exoticf: c:rrents on

9ese sections, '.aculecge n of the techanic: and schedule of in:aractions

• r aesr. 5R.~ anc ME in tre site charsc:eci:at on troccs: :s recessary. 7 .c 4

' x % r ;.a::e policy R pr:vides broad .Jufdance or :his . Or:mn or :ne v p-lesel waste eft;csa :.; gram. ~he ;c:. also pr: vices !,, :5.c:i:n 117 rha : :n Mmi;;i.m st :11 ;r .ide tWy :na trolate ir.f arne:i n tr.r. a. r,r'!

4 wr :niagt,. !'w ,. 3rac t-d:ation plans. " 9stiter.: wi th W.'.a crNii b,n .

.; : :% Act, de ce:Wer.d : tat or.e or ecce meetings te nela for CCE, *;L.,

.cten is) ncs; states, aca af fe:ted Indian tet:es to deveic; the mechanics Of :M interactioni s,.troun:ing ne cite cnarac:eri:3ticn ;lar . site charac:er-t:a;'on aralysis. ec.nents of :Me affec:ed states and Indian trines, and tre in t:atice of 51:e :nsracter ntion activities. Until this :: recess is a:c-a:eb cet fned -c carec: ;re:are cc crthensiv. Oct:'. tents ;n PN portions uf 10 ~~4 60 adcr+ss b<g ;,artict;ction in :ne site enaracter4:ation pl.anning pec;e.t.

.a spt:s cf ::'e ecse:31"*/ presentec ty :he lacs of detafi for the site

narscceri:aticn 'ianning Orcce::, ne Nave are:arec cctvents en the curren raf; etvis f r, c# " C CFE. 4 0 (;J S ec en a.s i#." *.* 00 regarcire; r%ta?'s of trit

rcces s. Tr.e tr.ree i.ey 4559tcottens ara

(a) r.ne CCi aill r.ot c:: ence si te M25iSSE Q L*.%?IW4-id 2:1 ctit. . . .L . ,. . ._ . . T ;

_,.,, g-; . n - w. ._. .

Q .

g. '.

k

,. Mr. RCbert Growning. Direc:Or 4

Civisicn of Waste M3nagerent

!.rp temt.cr l'8 It1M Pa ge .

,  :.n.. ro . ter i:a L fi.e. .an? i i :n r iria i e.1 rr. c.u racr..** i..s r inn .in iIy 5: s nas ceen

u. brit!.si tu th.Mn vid addre ed. (b

.  ?*:e NFC ill te 311:cate suiti:ien:

i tmo :o . .:rol e :.: . .: r.crenam> ' .e proces s fo. .ines serent r,f f.* e CCE si te ch,$ra teH:attrin :lan, a: d (:' :he COE site ca.Ir;cteri:ation ian al'i de

.'cdt'iec ::. accress :ne issue; ; resent.*d in tne site character':iticn

.inai;. is :.ofore .it.. .h3r :r..r':3per ,egins.

• en e....e a h.u .3. <ir.a; ccs

. , w cr. t ' Cf 4 :,0 cann::: ce prr arec un:il these ic;r issues we cefini::vely scar. % c.,

W1:n respect to the cpportunity for state input, the revised rule cntains : o relevant provisions. At subsection 60.18(c) the Direct:r et t. MSS is permittec (but not required) to " invite and censider the views Of interested persons on 00E's site characterization pian". This mechanism

cculd allow scme affected st3te input but only at the discretion of t.te Direct

r. ar.: the c:mrents would not be ecsed en a draft site enaracterization analy>is, in view of the removai of t'lis provision in the draf t revisien.

. The etner relevant provision (subsection 60.13(f)) of the draf t revisien instructs the Director of t: MSS to request public ccreen: on the site char-acteei:J:icn a:1alysis, but it is our unders:ardinc that the oppcetunity fcr coment will occur af ter tne si:e characterization analysis is tutmitted to the CGE and fut ther tnat the cc::. rents will then tireply be filed in ite !:RC Public Cocumen: Rcom.

. "'e submit that offices and agencies of each ;o*ential host state are urtie.:ely :Jalified, because c' extensive faciliarity aith geotec :ci:31 2r d

her fa Ors regar0ing the pc:entiai cites and vicin::ies :: iden:tf/

relevant iss:.es to b: addres;.4 in the site barte:crt:sticr' :lons and the ar41/ ses of tecse rians. Fe exar:We, in 7t tac, we s'te e.t: t.ed ca e 'r:n

• he ~eds Oa; art'*en: Of ' dater 3 1 snu*ces ce ct:3Iity a*d aM'IStiIit'. # v.1 :e '"

fret.; a v.J:Tr-cesririg unit ina: had cct to2n c9nsider*e by 00C. Th!, ref :-

• i*ica

.. C? a r. i r,u a s :a te *,te::ec-!13 ,,a s , f r. f W: . "J t *

• hy *.re *.7C i t' ';" M I-mis . ,

"tr.

i !cg . 9 : y '.t2:0 i s e t * *. i .* .. *. i an ht the . i d *. J . i i .:rr. s ' a g . .r.q *;s 4

• M P.

' ".: "

• d, e.*;s ! *;w. M: e 'Aas e *fc i ?:es."

• he *.ej fitr u .are r 't2t: l a;.s t in *.he; I ' *t n:hN '# .ce ; ,a; ;!sv:

. A r t' ;..I a :et i t. d r.[ . f *.h k b ef '. 4 5 1 m3 na gCT'9 * ! 3 *d i di Y " * '# / 3 2 I . k"

• b ;. r : " : c; r:5iden: '47 tr.! 'n:Or:gJr07 EUVI.% Cr J~ . f: '.J.IT3r 'a430e "anaty:ec t (?!C-lJa42. Op. 93-M) . Altscug*'. *no *iucle!r Waite 20i*cy *C:

re:,u'res tnat, nearinqs te neld in the vicinity of Sites *o e 5Jricteri*cd.

cur es erience saggests tr.at LCI resconse'; t: 'nese :"Ter:s will n : be 40 equ a ti:, The critical lice'ising role play 90 Oy flRC 3hCuld enr.an:e ne Ilbs!!ha of OCE attenden :: conce ns iden'.ified by the 5:3:*s if *re MC 1inds ::cri; in :ncse c 'tcerns anc ;3sias thC're Cn :: CCI in tne it e Cn4"3C*

tcr1:3:i".r. an3Iysis.

Wtth res:e:: :: cur c:n:ern Pat :te 'IRC res;cnc dire::iy te :: men:s :'

affec:ed sta:as. :he key role cf :nese s:1:e in :ne nign.ie<el was:e manage-

.ren issue is clearij articula:ed in :ne Neclear Wat:2 ?:licy Act. Sta te leaearship of :ne affected s:s:es it 'dentified as the fccal ;oir.: for in:er.

ac ti 3't between *he feder3I gCvece,rrent and af fected "ar*ies. 3ec3use Of *na:

. 0 4 . . .

3,,. ., -

. v.r 9etert Gr:we %j. .lirrector tivis t.Jn of Was te "anagement teptencer l ') . ISN

, Fage 3

-j

~

r.n pons itiil i t;r. C. essential that :he e. tite recc.ivo direct ecspcnses ::

c;nena .;;r.ii t ti ' *.a f.r.: era l au tro-i ti e; n i, f vecges . .;cc:sents -- surs

.s :ne site .hara.tari:st an 3r.,ily is. We, tnere f ore, i tec:m .;*.d al tera t s.cn et 10 CFR 60 :: v:ciude an irravocaele etmsitmunt for direct T.CC res onse t:

s ta ta ccm.J nts un that coc.went. Congress rec:qni:cd tne states' critica! -

ne ed for full ird reation and, furtner=cre, grants specific autnority to ODCain tna; inforcation in section 117 of tne Nuclear 'daste Eclicy Act.

Finally, ites (3) above concerns Ine ;rovision in sutgart C, sutsection 60.63(e) which s*stes tnat the Director of NMSS will accept er deny state carticipat'.on pro;csals. In view of the relatively su' cjective determination re';uirec :: r.ake such a decision based on the specified criteria (subsection bO.63(c)), we are concerned that a mechanism te defined fcr appeal of unfavor-able cecisions to the Ccmmission. Based on discussions with you and your staff on July 17,1954 and August 9,1984, we understand that staff decisions can always be appealed to the C:mmission itself and explicit statement of that option in 10 CFR 60 is r.ot required. This uncerstanding, if correct, sufficiently accresses our concern about this provisions. We strongly su; port your suggestien tnat language noting this opportunity for a;ceal to the Commissien te included in tne Statement of Consideration for this rule.

We appreciate > cur providing a copy of joear draf t revision of 10 CTR 60 for review. I ho:e these c:mments era helpful in this revision of the hinn-levrl radicactive wo3:e cisposal rey;idticq:.

i Yours truly, i- (

Q...N Ca . . . i t ~ . i t .1 1 2 : ': . e t c * .

%clase hatte e r:g. mt 'J ? l a

..h.. -

L., *. t

• V .. E e ". '. r... i t '. , Oles *cr , NUCI43f" Wa!*O OrcQrsmi l}f f'ir.'

w ._ __ _ . em 4 ** e.M , wmM ^

^ ' "

.g.. . - . .

y i m e s suae.a

~ -

D.0 J . . .. . - .m A ..;.d.iacce us " -

0y

tve n n of neanning ana Hsturns 7escurces G 3 F 2 ! -'h-7 *4 COEUR d'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO  :' 4. u-C.:eur 3*Alone incal Meaccuas ers FU. MME.A. ICAMC 8251 an p. , .- 2 d .,,

wh

• u.#

w. -i s,a

.io ua.- . .t ,e ec.e.

,. .e . ig -e .- . . . ..:; i . .. .

Secretary cf tne C =issien G E,-G. .;.. .EP. m U . .C . .Nu c.' .=. .= .- R a. ., u ' .e. .. . '/ ". ... . .. .i s .e. .' ..,

.- '.iasning:cn, O. C. 2C555 A

.fi e.r .

. . ., s .s

s. c ....ent ,... . .e w - .~ .. .,. e, , .. . ._:..c.. k .4 . .,,.

. .. .. n . . , ,

.t.=.=.

( ee. .a., g ar... < a._.a.e , ye .: .

u

.y

/

/ .

f. . c.< . .g , e.nc , .c....

ec status" as cefinec urce Thus Sec.tica.

.c. 0 , .Nc . _' .* , 0 . "..'.

....-,, s n .y u nc.sa.n i a ..u

=e Nucles: 'aasta ec licy Act of ics .

7=. ) , _' _' .'..' '. ' . .g. .. .c

. ., . . ....m e ..c /_s..-3 n 2.....-

.' "." .~.= ..'. ~.. . ,

C_z,. n n . , . ,

6C.2 wculc cnange

., sa . e . .,, AnCa.n a i ._ a u .n

"'ncian as

. Trite" ,anc " Tribal.v..a e..s-e * ~ ,. .s.. ..

C: ranica-

, nn.<

. ~ .

. =.c.,u.i . =s . *w.. . - . "-f'=".. = . . s.a "s" *e ca .=.....'... .. y ', .e ....-."..=.v.

a .'

w

"..e....=.~.'.. .

. .sc"_1 .._ _'.~.3 .. *. y c"-..- ". ..=. . .' r. ' . .c- . .a .==..-..=.v.

. .as #, cu.e,- .~ 6 e ... a.. ;r ...

.='e'. Tee.n .. . . .3 6. 3 . c.. .. .36.1e#

.m.e. . .. " e. #. '. m. e. . .w. 2 -.a..e.' ..

even *hcugn Laxe C:eur d' Alene ( cne- tn i --

. -f anien lies wi=in the C eur c' Alene Incian Reservati n) anc me . C:eur d' Alere River epc

.5 . >

.. .tu .u. s, .s.s a ..-= c. . s.e.e", -="..c.c=.", . =. ." cx.*.-..="*..-'~.~.

J.a.n ,..n wy . rat .s..u. ..4.: n u.,.n u c, C , a , a a../ .-.i..,..C

.. nT

. .e_4 . i.4 w . . . . . . . . . . .

. u = t.a .e . .-..~. .ee. '-an . fw- . o- .. - cs.i ' .../ , and aver. 'm .cu~3 4 ~a . . _* .* ' s Reservaticn lies ccanwind f::.a Panfc:c in :n area arere ene scil <

• as N. aq '. anscc.-*..=# "-....

.. . i. as 'a. away .=.s .,.-. .r.n *.y ' .e . =v

. , . .. .'c _' _' . 3 <-

N.i r~rs , i.nden a.l w ' .. , , .

. .".ar. #. .- 'w.-

i ~a ..a-i,c.- . a.- *. cf ' . e f a. .=. .

. '.' e .. ~.= f.* . .." '..' w

r. .* S .f .1 env, e.a.t e .- 2 . e.' .. **.'_' _.= ~, 3_' '/ .* . .g Tc. .= .' .~. ,e. .- ..*.. % .a

. .= . a.s.s . g.a.4.

. . .. eg y-. a... : . .g . r e.- a. . . ~. .~'.' .."

• s . .e V e . C . ~-- .. * .. . ar. # .' .* . . .' . . "

3

. .4 .,. . ..a. , ..gg . .z .ge..y g e.....

4 s , t, . . .gg,.

. . . .:e, , egg 3 3 w.~..

- ..4g . .

... . ..=.~~3...,,e.t./,..,..

~ . . . . . .

- -: s .s

. AC ... t ._.z .u c., .e.~

.a ,s./,..

-b ..

.~ .,.., . t 3 e, n;4L...C._4

. .. .. W .4 %.. . .: e , .4. ,.., . .e.yq . ... .: , .10.4C.. w,a 4 .e. ., . _ .. . e.e n . .

w

.  :.%nza .eng .1..3.1 ., .y e . .. ~ae. .a ,

. .. .n .ss..c....

oe..w .. ~ _aan ~. e...- a s ..a,/ .. o . s.. .. a _

, .y u ,ats .i n. 1_4 ce,.s ... g -ey 8

g.3.e. . . . . e' .m.e . ..a.... . . ,d. e .,' _t.o.r a.

. 7. ..3 6.~m .t.e .. u.=.

,,,, ,, a.n. . _4 ._.. _ty . x e.t . .- 'C *'.". .#.- -..  ! * ".O .. . . *.* ss , *V a. .". '."*~-',."..:.".'~*..-*..*"..*..#.=.' . ' * - -- -c

't .,, .

..c"., a

= . ,

. . . .Tc rCs ..,_4-.

.t .a .....t .1 y a..'t...es ... ..-~. .. cny .

.. .a i .. .a .n ., : .../a. __ee .m .~s u-

.arwa.

-w . .spc e. C"_i "

,..-V.'.*

. .. S. ...,.*. .n. S.*-'/ an .i ~.. . T.".' a.s ar..'. - . ... --. . ~.~*a.".

j *N N'

.,a.<,, .e .ee.14e. w.a f.t. ...4 ..4 ,. , ,,, s n3pe..,r_..,,

.-.s , .. - . . .4.W. o. d m.y a..q

~ y_ . .e.w. J. e.r.. .

y .g

. .w.a

. e e ... e. .g ..:..., p, 3 .4.

. ..g . ( s. w.a. . , . ,p

. .- e.e. .a .4 .j. . 2. . ec 4. g . .

u a. f. c. ..ap._typ . 3 4 ... . 2.. ...m. g ... -. a. ...,q ,

, - p. g. =. 8 . .4 . ..

o e '**

D C~.w o c ee.. . #. ... . I *.y ,

g. *

/ \.,, / p  %#

~ . .

j,,!*-.es C. 9*m.ge..

.o .cn __.. .

Natural Eescur es ?larr.e:

~

E e

n.s .e 'c.

pg;hrged Df *d. .. . . . -- -

.usts suen.*

.O- , am as ?R- -0 i

57JFA d:19 Department of Energy Washington. D.C. 20585 T

s. * .

e.s u.

3

.t. Sa:t:el J. Chilk Sec:etarf c! the C:r.uissicn Attenticn: Cecke:ing and Seriice Eranen U.S. Nuclear Regula:Or/ Cmmissica

'Ashingten, D.C. ~3555 Cear .t. Chilk:

0.e Cepa =ent of mergy is pleased :o respond :: the :acues: cf =e Nuclear Pegula:Or/ C:cmissica (NRC) f:: c:cce : s en =e pr pesef p:cce-dural a:end=ents :: 13 CTR is, punlished en Januarf 17,1935 (5J Federal Fe:ister 2579) . T.e prepcsed m:end::en s snculd bring =e :egula :. n :n une wi= =e !,tclear Waste Policy Act of 1932. A: sched are cur c::m.

ments with racer: rended al:e: native language -here app griate. .v.cs: ef cur rec acended changes : the p::pesed c: existing :ules are in the line--in/line-cut f ==. Rec:cre:xfed additi:ns are underlined and rec:m mended deletiens are in brackets. Ic: each :ec:::cended c.ange, e have added a brief :sticnale. We are available :: meet with ;2C c:ncerning the enciesed ccm e.ts.

' Sincerely,

/'

// . t 1 U~ & l'A :. : . Jr Een C. 2.uscne, ;;:ec:::

Cffice of Civil:an .bdicactive Waste ."2nage en:

mclesure:

! CCE C cnen s en tac F::pesed Fevisiens :: ' J .'TR .22:: 5J

. . s Ow* .,,,., ,

m 6

~

l

• ~ u n' k x c eec.-e n = = t.... n .. . ,...

/

i .

i I

CCE C= cents en NRC ? pesed ?evisi:cs = 13 :"TR Far: 53 l 1

C1u.un_. . S -mJ _cw r .cr me.. . . _:..s l

..J .. w. ..w. s . .- .~..

CCE nc:es ha: de firs: f:c=c:a = page 2f 53 ef de p :pesed 1

- 'e identifies ca: e.e C:n=en: Of .2pplicati= Secticn (63.2'.)

will be reviewed af:e issuance cf :he %E 5 :ing G:idelines. We would enc: cage the NRC :: pr:pese any necessary revisiens ::

this secticn as seen as practicable in ::de: :: ensure ::a: any additienal data deced necessary by the NRC staff te make a finding can be fact::ed int: de site characterizacica ac:ivities and :: =ini=i:e any unnecessary delay in de license application prepara:icn activities hien CCE has already bec.::.

In additien,'C:cmissicne: Assels:ine requested c:rrents en two ma::ars set f::th at page 2538 cf de F ccesed Pule. With regard :: the first pein: =aised by C=missiene: Asselstine, CCE agrees with NRC that discussicn of 9.e site screening and selecticn pr: cess in te site characterizatien plans is neither necessary nor appr:griate. This inf:=a:icn will have al:eady received extensive and sufficient public review, incitxiing a review by the ! sic s-aff, during precaratien cf :ne site specific envi crnental assessments. Theref :e, CCE agrees wi:n =e deletien of de re:p:ireen: in de existing la CTR 63.11 as pr:pesed by NRC. The sec:rd pein: raised by C:rmissi:ce:

Asselstine deals wie the timing cf public review cf SRC's site characterizatien analyses. CCE agrees with NRC that circulation

. cf a draft site characteri:stien analysis f:r public ceccen:

is nct necessary and tha: de rule should be pr:mulgated as new pr:pesed. Crxier the prepesed rule, de public will have a sufficient opportunity t: c mment en the site charac;eri:acien analyses and :: =ake de NRC aware cf its cence=s at any time during the site charac.arizacien p : cess. Also, CE will be interacti.g extensively with NRC and de 5:stes ard Indian

tes pric: to the release of de site characta:ization plans.

n:is vill allcw all parties a: pit Oppc::=1 y = c:: rent :n CE's planned activi:les dcing site carze:eri:a:icn.

2.3 SEC*:0N-EY-5EC*:CN MAI.YSIS (ne t::darlined wc: ding shculd :e inser:ed fe: 2e reas ns specified in de ratienale.)

Succar 3 63.15 (c) NRC has stated dat it will be revising 13 CFR Par: 51

(presently t

make 1: censis:en: wi e 2e >WPA. Pending this i o 63.13 (c) ) revisien, NRC shculd f:c=cto the c::ss reference =

i Par: 51.43 in See:icn 63.13(c) :: indica:e ca: :WFA '..as i ., superseded de curren: Secticn 51.43(d) This f:c=c:a

, shculd identify sec:ica 1.*.4 (f) of the !WFA as containing de envir:rrental :eview p :visi:ns applicable =

high-level nuclea *as:e :sp sit::ies.

i l

60.lf (d) (2) The m:.:e cf expina:::y bcrencies and snaf.s s..all be limited = =e ex:en: practical, censisten: wi .h ccesining de inf:=a icn needed f:: site caracteri-

=aticn, and v.= =ine safety =nsiderations.

.uticnale: Safe:y censidera= ens =ign: :e:p: ire x::e shaf.s =an are s=ic.ly necessarf fe: si:e caracteri:::icn.

60.16, In :ne p:cpcsed revisiens : =ese sec.icns, ce wc:d 60.17 " area" is used synenscusly with te ta=n "candidata site", as defined in de !WFA and =e Siting G:idelines.

Alecugh 2GC has expressed a preference =ct := ad:p: ce satu ::7 ta=s in this case, ZE s=:cgly believes that hath agencies sh uld adhere == ce statut::v. ta= incl:c.v.

= the greates: ex:en ;cssible, in crder := avcid de c nfusien da: wculd result f::m de two agencies having differen names f:: identical cencepts. Ac=:dingly,

X:E urges ca: E adcp ene te=s "candida:e site", and make any addi icnal enanges necessarf :: give i:s regula:1cns t=e maxd=tn c:ngruence wid statu=rf te=sinclogy.

6J.13 (d) 'dithin 150 days cf receipt cf a site daracteri:sti:n plan fr:2s CCE, =e : ect:r s..aia p: vice :: CE =e s:.a c.aracteriza ien analysis :geter v.:h such additional c ccents as =ay be warrented. These ccmrents shall include either a state:ent tha: de Oi:ec::: has =c cbjectica to de CCE's site character-1:stien preg:sm, if such a state:ent is app::pria:e, c: specific cbjectices with :esm :: T E's prog:s= f=

c.aracteri:stien cf the area concerned. In additien, the Cirec r cay =ake specific rec =cends i:ns pertinen: :: Z E's si:e enaracterizati:n p::g:s=.

~4i:nin 90 days Of receipt cf a site enaracteri:2:i:n pian d::m CCE, =e C::ec== scali :::vice :: :cE s:ecific v 6.E:3 ra t , in =e 01:ect:r 's vie'd, secuid ce cens: cered =v cE :nce :: ce sin.cnc :f exc10: aery scaf s.

.u tienale:  ?.e sinking of explcra:::7 s..af ts a: a ca.xfida:e sita i is a c:itical path activity in eacn si:e enarac.ari:2 icn p::q:=n. The si:e cnaracteri:a =:n preg:s=s me:selves are ::i:ical ,:ata activi:les in

a everall waste .anage:en: :::c.:aa. Acc::dingly, it is essential ca: a spe:ified ti=e he esclished f:: significan: even .s =a: = tid affect tacse cri:ical path ac.iv::ies. The c=cen:s cf E :n a si:e enaracteri:a:i:n pian is =e of =cse significan: events. The sugges:ed =difica=:n

Sec.:en $J.13 (d) ,= vides f= w such specified

d=e intervals: first, a nin:y (90) day .:eried v. =in

,nich ::FC will p::eide :: % E = se : p ifi: c=::ents o

i .

~.

. ,3.u. g. . y

..4,..w .. .. .. . . s .'<...., .w.. ,.?...$. . .-v. .. =.' *,-

=e se:end, a 13J-day period f:: issuing =e : vers 11 site c .aracter::a:icn analysis. The nin:v (90) fav. . .

period is : nsis:en: s: h te i=e being .:la .ned f::

uclic review and c

r:r:an: :n the SCP 's. This w:1; ensu:e :1.tely censidera:ica of al'. c:cr:en-s p:::: =

sinking of explcrat ry snaf:s and =ini=1:e :.e pctential for delays.

63.13 (e) If CCE's planned site charseteri a ica activi:les include en-si:e :esting wie :sdicactive .a:erial, : .e Cirec.::'s c:x:::en:s shall include a de:e=ina:icn, if app:cpriate, that ce Cxt:issien cenc=s ca ce p::-

.cesed use of such radicactive material is necessarv. :: ,

previde data f:: ce prepara:ica of :he envir:nnen:a1 repcets required by law and fc: an a:Flica:icn : he s=mitted under 60.02 cf enis par .

~he C: rrnissi:n will concur in de use cf : dicactive

=acers if, a: =e enc of c :e enarac eri:2::en, eey w:11 ::e cresen: in =e ceclecic races :Or/ ::ers::=s area :n cencenJat:ces less can =cse alle'.ed v Tacie II,13 C?. 23. T .e rer:cval cf =ese cace a: cunts a: =e enc Of s :e =aracterica::.cn snail .::

_ce .r.ecu::9c.

i Fatienale: the regulaticn dces nc: differentiate he: ween "13 mule t:ns of spent fuel" (te :axi=u: ac:cun: pe=issible under section 13 (c) (2) (a) (i)) and s:all a: cents of :sdio-active teses:s. The p : posed change is necessarf :=

alicw DOE the flexibill:y = use :2dicactive escers if neesssary in c:nducting si:e =a:ac:eri: sci = ac::vi::es.

60.1S(h) Ouring :ne c:ndue: cf si:e = arse eri:s:icn ac::vi:ies,

.'FC s:sff shall he pe=it:sd .. . as tney are d=e .i.n.

accerda. ce wi= ce 7::csd=al Acree e .: a xi i= le entinc. .

1-  :::yec: s=ec:f:c acreenen: :e: ween NFC anc :cE :n effec:

a: =a: 2=e.

Faticnale: CCI suggests ca: ce regulatien specifically reference ce existi.g CCE/NRC F::cedure Aq:ee:en: and =e pr:Je::

specific implee .:ing agrecen: :: preci'.xfe a .y gestions c .n.es;.,4 ,. . . , .4

.s..., .. . . . e .* y l .' .+.

.e. . .i .' .' .v, .

i l

! New Secticn 60._ Ti=ely C:ct:issien Acti =

1

?.e C:ct issicn small issue a final decisi:n 1:::: vine c:

c sacer: vin: =e issus .cs : a cens::,:c:::n au .n:: a-

.::n nec la:a: -.an --

L .*anca:/ 1,1999, f:: de first sucn 10:li:2 i=

a xt Januarv .,. ' M2, f:: =e se::nc x =

a:pt ca::cc: ::

l

. r i

i o l 1 OA ex ira:icn Of =ree . wars af:e: -he da:e :f i

=e surrnssien ci suen a::ptica::en, exce:: ra: re i cmrnssien rav extanc suen ceaci: .e :y nc: x-. -- -

12 m n =s if, nce less ran 3J d.ays :ef :e sucn ceadline, ce C:crnss:0 *: c: cpi:,es wi= re recc:::nc recuireenes esta=i:sned :y law;

-hichever is later.

Patienale:  ?.is recam:erx!ed new sectica celd recogni:e ce 2C's respcnsibility unde: Secticn 114 (d) cf :ne m;A ::

aach a decisien en censtructica au:hcri:stien v. din the eine:able set forth derein. ZE believes :nis .:=e-table to be st:ingent, and derefore also calieves da:

a seecific regulatory provisien to de effec. cf =is recarcendatien is desirable, in c:da: to ephasi:e : e 2C's dual cbliga:icns to cendec: 1:s licensi.g p: M -

ings in a full, fair and cpen ranner, but also to reacn its decisiens in a timely =anner.

4

i .

.cese maess a ccum tas:y n .fl -i CSd/3E M 7p

/3' HAa>tox. weiss & JoanAy ...

aCCa s singg~,n n sul'E dsc 3 A s 6 escQ 8 C EV V = a m a.C 9

• E'.E 8 *C % C c . ' .v 8 = warss tacarsas.ss:c wiLL:Ame s. Jo e:AN. m e.... . . , , , - ,

cienccusaan

p. . . p. . - i . . ,, . ,

gp c--

=cen n. tcustcy ~-

April 8, 1985 Samuel Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 00555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Enclosed are the Comments of the Confedera:ed Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation on the Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 60, 50 Fed. Reg. 2579.

Sincerely yours, i

R '"

Qg . 40.au )

Dean R. Tousley ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY TOR THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION Enclosure cc: Mr. Melvin R. Sampson

• Mr. Russell Jim '

Mr. James B. Hovis h %M by eastf. . . .W. . . . 9 5

......L P

.. , e:=

r .

eu

• t %1*.9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

___________________._________________ y y i ."4,p.~A 4 - . *-

g.g.

Disposal of High-Level Radioactive )

Waste in Geologic Repositories; ) 10 CTR Part 60 Amendments to Licensing Procedures ) 50 Fed. Reg. 2579

_______________________________.. ___)

COMMENTS OF THE YARIMA INDIAN NATION Pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission notice published January 17 1985, 50 Fed. Reg. 2579, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation subatt the following comments on NRC's proposed amendments to licensing procedures for disposal of high-level radioactive waste in geologic repositortes, 10 CTR Part 60. Except for the two matters discussed below, the Yakima Indian Nation has no objections to the other proposed amendments to Part 60.

I. THE CCMMISSION INCORRECTLY CONCLUDES THAT IT LACKS AUTHORITY TO REVIEW DOE'S SITE SELECTION PROCESS.

The proposed amendments to L0 CTR Part 60 would eltatnate the provision in 10 CTR S 60,11 that' the NRC review DOE's repository site selection process. The Cocaission concludes that, since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ("NWPA") does not explicitly provide for NRC review of the stte screenLng and selection processes of the Department of Energy, '*"s;uch a review by NRC is not necessary to fulfill any of t:s statutory r e s p o n s t b t i t : t e s . 50 Tec. Reg.

2580, col. 2. The Yakima Indian Nation strongly disagrees.

1~ .

= .

Apart from ignoring clest statutory authority to engage in a review of DOE's site selection process, NRC's fatture to do so would be a policy mistake with profound implications for the likelihood of success of the national radioactive waste disposal program.

A. NRC review of DOE's site selection process is not only authorized, but is required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

The lack of explicit NWPA provisions for NRC review of DOE's site selection process--other than the Commission's concurrence in the general siting guidelines--does not dispose of the gossible sources of statutcry authority for the Commission to do so. On the contrary, the NWPA quite clearly provides that NRC authority to promulgate technical requirements and criteria (i.e., Part 60s is pursuant to "other provisions of law." NWPA W 121(b><1)(A;.

The NWPA spectftcally mentions as such authority the Atomic Energy Act of 1G54 42 U.S.C. I 2011 et seg. and the Energy Reorgant:stion Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 9 5801 et seq. . Thus, Congress did not intend in the NWPA to prescribe the scope of NRC review of DOE's repository program. Rather, the authority for NRC requirements and their appropriate scope are dortved from those "other provisions of law."

The Atomic Energy Act. as amenced by the Energy Reorgant:stion Act, is the NRC's organte statute. It assigns to the NRC the primary responsibi'ity for assuring that tne public healtn and safety and the environment are adequately protected

from the hazards associated with activities involving radioactive materials, including disposal. Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act explictly establishes NRC authority to itcense and regulate high-level waste reposttories. 42 U.S.C. S 5842.

In sharp contrast to questions of nuclear power plant safety, the primary determinant of the adequacy of a high-level radioactive waste repository over the very long periods of concern

! will be not engineered features, but rather the natural, geologic 1

characteristics of the site chosen. Congress emphasized this point when it required in the NWPA that detailed geologic considerations should be the primary criteria for the selection of sites for repositories, NWPA $ ll2(a), and when it established elaborate procedures for the selection of sites. See NWPA 19 l 112-118. This primacy of natural site conditions in determining the adequacy of a proposed repository means that siting is the ,

absolute essence of the NRC's mandated public health and safety and environmental protection responsibilities under the above-cited statutes.

i The repository site selection process is by far the most taportant aspect of the adequacy of the reposttory program. Thus, for NRC to declise to review that process in the crucial early stages of selecting sites for charactert:stion would be a basic abdication of its public health and safety and environmental protection responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy 4

Reorganization Act. NRC cannot hope to adequately discharge tes responstetit:tes by deferring tts review of the sites until ine stage of repository constr'Jction authortsation.

3-1

_-__.m_______. - r

Moreover, the Commission's' responsibilities under the National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA") require it to engage in evaluation of alternatives as a part of its licensing process. Under NWPA 9 L l4( f) , the Commission must, to the extent practicable, adopt the environmental impact statement submitted by DOE with its application for construction authorization as its own. Under the same section, the alternatives considered in that EIS for purposes of NEPA compliance are those 3 candidate sites with respect to which (1) site characterization has been completed under section 113: and (2) the Secretary has made a preliminary determination, that such sites are suitable for development as reposttortes consistent with the guidelines promulgated under section 112(a).

Thus, the sites which DOE selects for characterization now will be the only effective alternatives that the Commission will have to consider in fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities. It was precisely in recognition of this fact that the Consission required, as a condition of its concurrence in DOE's siting guidelines, that DOE agree to make the "prelistnary determination of suitability" at the end of site characterization instead of before it, as DOE had proposed. The Coasission recognized at that time that if DOE did not have strong incentives to select the most suitable sites for characterization, the Department asght later come to the commission with an EIS which considers unacceptable alternatives.

tor the same reason of satisfactory NEPA compliance, the Conatssion must play an active role in revtewing DOE's comparison and selection of sites for characterization. Indeed NEPA was cited by the Comatssion as its primary au:hority for the ortstnal 4

promulgation of Part 60. 46 Fed. Reg. 13922. The same NEPA responsibilities which prompted the original promulgation of Part 60 including its requirement for NRC review of DOE's site selection process, remains unaltered'by the NWPA.

In the most important court case interpreting the Commission's role in NEPA implementation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circutt wrote:

NEPA requires that an agency must--to the fullest exten t possible under its other statutory obligations--consider alternatives to its actions which would reduce environmental damage. That principle establishes that consideration of environmental matters must be more than a pro forma ritual.

Such a full exeretse of substantivo discretion is required at every important, appropriate and conduplicative stage of an agency's proceedings.

• Calvert Cliffs Coordina ttnf Commit tee, Inc. v. U. $. .etonic Energy Coss/ssion. 449 T.2d 1109 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

(Emphasis in the original). The oni"y alternatives which the Commission need consider under the NEPA modifications included in the NWPA are the three sites which are selected for charactert:stion by 00E. NWPA 5 ll4( fl . If DOE selects for charsetert:ntion sites which are unlikely to prove to be suitable alternatives for NEPA purposes. NRC will not have an acceptable EIS which it can adopt.

Since mitimate NRC satisfaction of its NEPA responsibility is being profoundly affected by present DOE actions in selecttng sites for charsetert:ation. there can be no question but that this is an *tsportant, appropetate and nonduplicstive sesse of ,tne, proceeding wnten requires NRC's ' full exercise af its substantive d i s c r e t t o n '* . Only aggressive NRC revtew and overst4nt af the Od!

5-

1 l

l selection of sites for characte'rt:stion ein ensure the Consission's ability to adopt the DOE EIS.

Tinally, the NWPA explicitly does not compel the Commission I

to amend or narrow the scope of its licensing requirements. NWPA 9 114(f) states, in part:

nothing in this subsection shall affect any independent responsibilities of the Comatssion to protect the public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act .... .Vo thla g in this Act shall be construed to amend or otherwise detract from the licens2ng requirements of the .Yucler (sic]

Regulatory Commission as established in title !! of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. . . .

(Emphasis added.) Congress was well aware of the existing provisions of Part 60 when it passed the NWPA, and incorporated many of them i n th e A c t . However, in light of the above language, it could not be more clear that Congress did not intend its fatture to incorporate all of the details of Part 60 to the Act to be deemed as implicit rejections of them. Inconsistent provisions, such as the Commission properly addresses in other aspects of the instant proposal, obviously warrant amendments by the NRC. On the other hand, where Congress was silent on a subject already addressed by the Commission in Part 60--such as NRC review of DOE's site selection process--Congress made plain its intent that NRC licensing and regulatory requirements not be deemed tsplicitly curtailed by any proviston in the NWPA.

Thus, the Commission's conclusion that the NWPA by osJssJon somehow proscribes its review of DOE's site selection process is patently incorrect. As discussed above, Commission responsibtlities under its orgsnte statutes and NZ?A require such a review, and the NWPA is entir'ely consistent with those requirements.

Recommendation The Commission should amend Part 60 to explicitly mandate thorough NRC revtew of the draft EAs, including the methodology used by DOE in the comparison of sites. Provision for only s partial NRC EA review in the NRC/ DOE Procedural Agreement is not sufficient, since the NRC's failure to review DOE's comparison methodology is a basic abdication of its statutory responsibilities, and the Procedural Agreement is too easily amended without the benette of pubLic partictpation.

8. NRC failure to review DOI's site selection process and comparison methodology would be a policy mistake which significantly increases the chance for another major failure in the nation's nuclear waste diaposal progrsa.

Policy considerations apart from any statutory requirements argue even more strongly for NRC review of DOE's site compartson and selection process. If DOE askes sertous stssteps in tes site selection process ias virtually all of the affected parties believe they are dotng now), the Coastsston's only recourse at the ttae a final stre is selected will be to reject DOR's appitcation for a construction authort:ation. Certatnly the adverse implications of such a development for the successful and timely taptementation of a reposttory would far outwet4h any posatble costs associated with a less deferential Commission stance on site selection for charactert:stton now.

Sertous federst efforts to locate a r e p o s 6 '. u r v have seen

. thbarted at lesst tw.cs tr. tne past my the t ec nn'.c a' 2 r.1 po!.t'. cal stting blunders of 30K's prodocessor 14enetes. *he extenstvo 7

4 i

I state and tribal participation prescribed by the NWPA for the atting process ought to do much to improve the politicai atmosphere, but it does not substitute for thorough technical oversight by the agency responsible for protecting public health '

and safety and the environment--the NRC.

In sum, the Yakima Indtan Nation strongly supports the position expressed by Commissioner Asselstine, 50 Ted. Reg.

2588, that NRC should retain the 10 CTR 1 60,11 requirement for NRC review of the site screening and selection process which is j now to be documented in the environmental assessments.

Alternatively (but less desireablv), the Commission should require i

a thorough site selection discussion in the site charactert:ation I

) plans pursuant to its authority under NWP,A 1 113(b)(11(A)(v), and the Commission should thoroughly revLew that discussion in its L

! site characterization analysis.

II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD RETAIN THE PRESENT REQUIREMENT f0R {

ISSUANCE OF A DRATT 5!i! CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS /OR PUBLIC l

, COMMENT.

• r The Commission contends that the 10 CTR 1 -.J.ll requirement s 1  ;

for tasuance of a draft site characteriaatton analysts ("$CA",' for public comment is no longer needed becsuse of the new ttsing for a

site charactert:stion plan t*SCP") and the prior opportuntties for I

1 interactions ameng DOE and other progras participants. While the j NWPA does provide for additional opportuntttes for DOE interact.cn .

wLth states and Indian tribes prior to issuance of the SCP. that 4

t does not obvtate the uttltty of Coastsston issuance of tes SCA in

{

draft fors. t I

l

. g.

i .

l '

In addition to providing a' vehicle to involve the public in '

the decision-making process, the issuance for public comment of a 4

draft SCA also serves as a means of assisttng the Commission in i

j preparing its owr analysts. That function, which the Yakima r 4

Indian Nation believes is very important, is unaffected by any  ;

l

! changes imposed by the NWPA.

t Expertence to date in this program has shown that the views of affect states and Indian tribes and public interest

groups can

) be very important in the development of the Commission's positions on important tasues in the waste disposal program. for example, the Commission's stance on DOE's proposed general siting ,

i guidelines was obviously quite satertally affected by the  !

arguments presented to the Commisston by affected parties on that issue, the guidelines were stanificantly taproved as a result of ,

i that influence. Since af fected states and tribes have the benefit i

1 of NWPA funding for their participatton in this program, their resources are better than usual to provide well-considered coenents.

,I ,

f

• he abaltty of the affected parties to present their own [

l comments to DOE on the SCPs is very taportant, but those cassents [

do not have the impact of the comments of the reguistor. Once t

again, the experience with the atting guideltnes ts an excellent '

example of this point.  :

t Most of the revtstons wnich the Commission j sought in 00E's proposed strtng guideltnes were basteslly the same as revisions which were sought by the states and Indian *ribes far l

, a year prior to tnetr sub3tssion to the Co331sstJn f3r '

j concurrence. 303 (and th9 leRC Staff' !srgely 14nored Our c033ents 4

i

.g. '

I I l i

i I

l l

until they were pressed by the Consission itself in its conditional c:ncurrence decision.

The Commission's SCAs can in a like manner be beneficially  !

(

affected by an opportunity for consents by affected parties prior to finalization. It is no slight to the competence of the I consission Staff to state that NWPA-funded affected states and -

t tribes might identify important issues and arguments which the staff overlooked, but would want to include. Neither cassents to e

DOE on the SCP nor informal opportunities to comment to NRC under the Procedural Agreement will substitute for an opportunity to comment on NRC's analysis of the SCPs.

As far as the scheduling sandates of the NWPA are concerned, the Y1N feels strongly that the benefits to the Commission and the i program to be derived froa comments on draf t SCAs far outwetah the l t

costs in terza of delay. In addition, the Consission can specify }

4 relattvely short comment period (e.g., 30 days; and refuse to i l

grant extensions.

'4hile this would be less than ideal from the  !

viewpotat of prospective commenters, it would be far better taan no opportunity to comment at all. ',

f To conclude, the Yaktaa Indian Nation strongly supports the view of Commissioner Asselstine that the present requirement in 10 I CTR S 60,11 for NRC tasuance of draft site casrsetert:ation analyses for public comment should be retained. Nothing in the t NWPA requires or even suggests the deletton of this procedurs; step, and the potentist benefits of it far outwetah the poten::a1 costs.

I I

L

. e Respectfully submitted, J I r&,Res.. K. . -pwsa Dean R. Tousley NARMON. WE!55 & JORDAN 2001 5 Street. N.W.

Suite 430 Washington. O.C. 20009 April 8, ASSOCIATI ATTORNEY FOR 1985 TRI YAXIMA INDIAN NATION

.ecacao ms U.nite

. d States Department of theInterior coaggmagg)R4ocsceu g'

7.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 89.%"J8 ER 85/134 APR 11 1935 Secretary of the Commission I E 15 ANT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 u, ggl.i g'Q,{E vl.T Dear Sles The Department of the Interict has reviewed the proposed Amendments to !.! censing Procedures for Disposal of H!gn-Level Radioactive Wasta in Geolcgic Repositeries as noted in the Federel Ree! ster on Januuty 17,1985, and has the following comments.

Genersl The revisions as proposed would no lenger require the preparation of desit Site Characterization Analyses 'SCAs) by the Nuclear Regulatery Commission (NRC) for the Department of Energy (DOE) Site Characterization Plans (SCPs) for candidate repository sites. As preposed, only final SCAs would be required. No pt.olle comment would be Invited untu the SCAs have been completed by NRC. This revision decreases the opportunities ter this Department to alleviate potential conflicts er issues concernir4 naturs1 resources under cur jurisdictlen. Likewise !ssr.es within our areas of expertise mignt not surface until well into the SCA process. Aa explanation fer this revisten is given on page 2584 of the Notice. The stated reasons for this enange include (1) the extensive opportunittee for Interaction between NRC, COE, the States, affected Indian tribes, and the puolic regarding the sites recommended for characterization, and (2) schedullrq mandates for the Nuclear Waste Polley Act of 1982 (NWPA). Given that the review opportunities afterded the general pubtle are also eur only cppcrtunities, we are concerned that NRC's proposed charges w!L111mit this Depe*tment's part!c!patien in the licenstrq of repcaltories untti very late in the decisicn proceu.

We agree that numerous opportunttles are available to interact with DOE during pre-

!! censing activities (e.g., oppcrtunities to comment en draft Environmental Assessments and SCPs and to present testimony at related hearings). Ilowever, during this same period of time, specific cpportunttles to interact directly with NEC, the ultimate licensing authority, are relatively limited. The review of draft SCAs would provide suen a speelfte oppcetunity. In addition,it is unclear that the scheduling mandates of NWPA will not accommodate drstt and final SCAs prepared by NRC (see page 26 (Figure 3) and page SS (Tacle 3), Preliminary Draft, Project Dee! sin Senedule, Radicactive Waste Management System, DOE /RW-0018, January 13451 We recommend retalnir4 the present requirement for the preparation of a draft SCA because it allows fer early conflict resolution.

We would also urge that the final rulemaking provide a meenen!sm to !nycive any Federal land management agene In site screening and selecticn wncse management responsibillties may be a["fected by a geologic repository.Otherw!se, the effected agency might have to ecpe with senecules develcped independently cy DOE 4cd other entities.

WMd b e.3d,, , , N

Secretary of the Commission 2

A procecural agreement simuar to that between DOE and the NRC shculd ce executed between DOE and any affected Federal land management agency to assure that intermaticn flow Is maintained to facilitate each ceganizatien's mission with regard to site investigation and character!:stien, and to ensure that affected land management agencies are informed of and invited to au tecnnical meetings.

An additional concern is that NRC's future plans include revisions to 10 CFR 51, which governs its procedures fer NEPA compliance under the NWPA. With suca revistens, NRC could lessen the level and effectiveness of the Department of the Interter's role, in reviewing license appilcations end the development of disposal activities. We urge the Department of the Interior be altowed to review any propcsed revistens to NRC's NEPA compliance procedures.

Soecific Comments to 10 CFR 60, Subpart B Propcsed Revisions 560.1" - This section specifles the contents of the SCP that DOE must sucmit to NRC as part of the Ucensing process fer a repository. We recognize that there are several changes to this section that are necessitated by the provisions of the NWPAt however, there are other revisions to this section that we believe should not be made and are not necessitated by the NWPA. Feremost, we recommend that NRC retain the requirement for DOE to identify in a SCP the criteria used to arrive at the candidata ares and to describe the precess by whlen the site was selected fcr characterization. Althcugh the l

preamble states that NRC anticipates that such infermation would ce provided by DOE in the environmental assessment to accompany the SCP we do not beneve such intermatica I

should be deleted from DOE's plan, which serves as the "reeced of decisicn" dccument fer the propcsed site. The decision process fer site selection shculd require DOE to identify, address, and describe the means by which issues of concern raised by the puol!c were then considered by DOE. Further, our review of the assessments ter the nine sitos issued for considerstien in December 1984 by DOE indicated many conclusions reached in these EA's were based teen erroneous reasonings. However, suen intermation wiu be fuuy addressed in the environmental documents accompanying this plan, nothing more than an executive summary of the issues and an iteratien of DOE's analysis and dec! sten need be presented in the SCP.

We recommend that NRC speu cut precisely what type of information and the level of analysis that mu:t be reflected in DOE's SCP and its overall Ucensing appliestien to NRC, because the infcrmation required in this prepcsed rulemaking is vague. We celleve the NRC should quality the intermation needed ter adequate review of eppliesttens. To merely state that the DOE win understand and provice Intermatien to the level of detail required by the NRC and other statutcry reviewers (e.g Department of the Interior) is not adequate. Considering the fact that the NRC and DOE appear to be attempting to lessen oppcrtunities fer the general puol!c and other Federsi egencies to participate throughout the dec!sicn precess, it is difficult to know how reviewers, other than the NRC, may be acte to request further intermatten er analysts from DCE.

We recommend that NRC's requirement fer COE to plan for not en1'/ mitigating significant adverse impacts tut a so reclaiming the site en retainec althin tne prescsec rules. Under parsgrspn (4A3) of this sect!cn. NRC dees not require DCE to ;ian f:r rec!alming t.'s site, but merely to plan fee mitigsting any signi!!c;.n acverse envirenmental Impacts that coeur as a result of site enaractert:stion. We cel!.sve u______ _ _ _-

Secretary of the Commissica 3 regulatory :evisien is a serious omission by NRC in !!ght of the fact that reclamatien plarnirg is required by the NWPA [43 U.S.C.10133(cX4.].

560.13 - This section considers the review precedures fcr site characterization activities. We recommend that NRC retain the provisions for puolic participation rather than adopt the enanges as proposed in this cccument. As stated aoove, it appears that NRC/ DOE preposes to limit general puolle involvement to compilance with NEPA only and to minimize State, Indian tribe, and other Federal agency involvement on decision documents. NRC will continue to publish a notice in the Federal Register that a SCP has been received from DOE and that NRC staff review has begun. ifowever, accceding to paragraph (a) of this section, NRC !s preposfrg to no 1cnger afford the pub 1!c an oppcetunity to consult with staff and discuss lasues of ccncera during staff review, but merely allow the public to contact the NRC staff fer intermation on the pecposal. Also, alcng the same vein, paragraph (c) of this secticn prepcses that NRC may invite and may censider the views of interested perscns. We believe the preposal is a much less respcnsive policy than presently exercised by NRC under its existing regulations. These regulations state: "The Directer shall publish a notice of avallaallity of the draft...

analysis and... request comment.... The Directer shall then prepare a final... analysis which shall take into account comments received and any additional infermutien acquired during the comment period.(10 CFR 60,11(dHe)l.

We hcpe these comments will be helpful to yeu.

Sincerely, g- Cid.,~- .*-

i a *C Bruce Blancnard. Director

1. Envirenmental Project Review i

I

.........,...... CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS

.ma n. . n .. .

np - ' ' '

m

[/Jkinta hulidu .YJ'NH mm a' ses :esesi:x m

,. ... m s c :"**

PULJ O c 50 RM 25 M 13 Mm 18 M133 April 17, 1985 CF7E*.5- !* cnr u? -

CC04E :NG e tE?v:0 SF:.HCH i

[

l Hencrable Samuel Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regula:Ory Cc==issien Washington, D.C. 20555 g-Ret 10 CFR Par 60 Amendments 4

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Cn January 17, 1985, the Cc= mission issued for public cc= ment p cposed amendments cc 10 CFR Part 60, Licensing P ccedures for Disposal of High-level Radicactive Waste in Geologic RepEsi: cries, 30 Fed. Reg. 2579. Because of the coincident deadlines for submission of comments en these proposed amendments and en the draft envircnmental assessments for preposed repository sizes, the Yakima Indian Nation filed its ce= cents en these a=end:ents late, on April 8, 1995.

As detailed in our cc==ents (enciesed) , the Yakima Indian Nation feels strongly that the p cposed amendments, if adopted as proposed, would sericusly undermine the Cc= mission's ability to fulfill its c stu: cry respcnsibilities in the nuclear waste pecgram. Moreover, the proposed amendments would greatly increase the likelihood that the national nuclear waste disposal p cgram '

would experience very significan: unnecessary delays c: cc:righ:

failures in its impic=entatien. In brief, we believe the Commission staff's reluctance to engage in a thercugh review of the Department of Energy's site screening and selectica peccess constitutes a fundamental abdication of the Cc=mtssien's public health and safety and envircnmental protection respcnsibilities under the Accmic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Energy Rec ganicacica Act. Moreover, centrary :o the ccamission's pcsitten expressed in the p:cposed amendments, nothing in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act either requires c suggests such deference by the Cc= mission cencarning the selec: ten of sites for characterication.

Because these issues have such p cfound implica:icns fc: the Cc=m:ssion's respcasibilities in this crucial na:Lenal p:cgram and fc the success of the ,::cgram itself, :he Yakima Natten f eels tha: they deserve a higher fagree of scrutiny than :he Cc==issi:n might cefinarily deve:e :s such a rulemaking. Ic this reasen, we

.):e a r :::

a h >e:;ad h ca rd , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hencrable Samuel Chilk, secretary April 17, 1985 Page 2 request cha: the Ccamissica schedule a public meeting hefere voting on promulga:icn of a final rule to receive cral comments en this proposed rule f:cm the staff, affected states, Indian tribes, and represen atives of the general public that have submitted comments en the p cpesal. Such a session, similar to the enes which the ccm=ission held during its consideration c f the concurrence in CCE's general siting guidelines, would serve :=

illuminate the issues in this vi:al rulemaking for the Commissioners ' benefit, and, whether or nce it changed the oute:me , would resul in a better-informed Ccamissien decision.

The Yakima Nation urges ycur favorable censideraticn of this request.

Sincerely yours,

.L i - /f: = -l ME:.v:N R. S M ON,/

Vice Chairman Yakima Tribal C:uncil MRSils Encicsure

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

Disposal of Righ-Level Radioactive )

Weste in Geologic Repositories; ) 10 CFR Part 60 Amendments to Licensing Procedures ) 50 Ted. Reg. 2579

)

COMMENTS OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION Pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission notice published January 17, 1985, 50 Fed. Reg. 2570, the confederated Tribes and Sands of the Yakima Indian Nation submit the following comments on NRC's proposed amendments to licensing procedures for disposal of high-level radioactive waste in geologic repositories, 10 CTR Part 60. Except for the two intters discussed below, the Yaktme Indian Nation has no objections to the other proposed neendments to Part 60.

I.

THE COMMISSION INCORRECTLY CONCLUDES THAT IT LACKS AUTHORITY 70 REVIEW DOE'S SITE SELECTION PROCESS.

The proposed amendments to 10 CTR Part 80 would eliminate the provision in 10 CTR 9 60.11 that tha NRC review DOE's repository site selection process. The coastasion concludes that, since the Nuclear Weste Policy Act ("NWPA") does not explicitly provide for NRC review of the site screening 2nd selection processes of the Departnent of Energy, "(sjuch a review by NRC is not necesanry to fulfill any of its statutory respono tb t it t tes. $0 fed. Reg.

t.

e 2583, col. 2. The Yakima Indian .Vation strongly disagrees.

Apart from ignoring clear statutory authority to engage in s review of DOE's site selection process, NRC's failure to do so would be a policy mistake with profound implications for the likelihood of success of the national radioactive waste disposal program.

A. NRC review of DOE's site selection process is not only authorized, but is required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Heorganization Act of 1974, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1060, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1980.

The lack of explicit NWPA provisions for NRC review of DOE's site selection process--other than the Conmission's concurrence in the general siting guidelines--does not dispose of the possible sources of statutory authority for the Commission to do so. On the contrary, the NWPA quite clearly provides that NRC authority to promulgate technical requirements and criteria (i.e., Part 60) is pursuant to "other provintons of law." NWPA 9 121(b)(1)(A).

The NWPA spectfically mentions as such authority the Atonte Energy Act of 1954 (4 U.S.C. S 3011 et seq.) and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (40 U.S.C. 1 5801 et seq. ) . Thus, Congress did not intend in the NWPA to prescribe the scope of N3C review of DOE's repository program. Rather, the authority for NRC requirements and their appropriate scope are derived from those "other provtsions of law."

The Atoate Energy Act, as noended by the Energy 3eorgani:aeton Act, is the NRC's organic ststute. :t anstgna to the NRC the primary responsibility for assuring that the public 0-

a .

health and safety and the environment are adequately protected from the hazards associated with activities involving radioactive materials, including disposal. Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act explictly establishes NRC authority to license and regulate high-level waste repositories, 42 U.S.C. 5 5842.

In sharp contrast to questions of nuclear power plant safety, the primary determinant of the adequacy of a high-level radioactive waste repository over the very long periods of concern will be not engineered features, but rather the natural, geologic characteristics of the site chosen. Congress emphasized this point when it required'in the NWPA that detailed geologic considerations should be the primary criteria for the selection of sites for repositories, NWPA 5 ll2(a), and when it established elaborate procedures for thi selection of sites. See NWPA $9 112-118. This primacy of natural site conditions in determining the adequacy of a proposed repository means that siting is' the absolute essence of the NRC's mandated public health and safety and environmental protection responsibilities under the above-cited statutes.

The repository site selection process is by far the most taportant aspect of the adequacy of the repository program. Thus, for NRC to decline to review that process in the crucial early stages of selecting sites for charactert:ation would be a baute abdication of its public health and safety and environmental protection responstbtitties under the Atonic Energy Act sad Energy Reorganization Act. NRC cannot hope to adequately dtscharge its l

responsLbilities by deferring its review of the sites until the l l

3-

stage of repository construction authori:ation.

Moreover, the Commission's responsibilities under the National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA") require it to engage in evaluation of alternatives as a part of its licensing process. Under NWPA 5 ll4( f) , the Commission must, to the extent i

practicable, adopt the environmental impact statement submitted by DOE with its application for construction authorisation as its own. Under the same section, the alternatives considered in that EIS for purposes of NEPA compliance are those 3 candidate sites with respect to which (1) site characterization has been completed under section 113; and (2) the Secretary has made a preliminary determination, that such sites are suitable for development as repositories consistent with the guidelines promulgated under section 112(a).

Thus, the sites which DOE selects for characterization now will be the only effective alternatives that the Commission will have to consider in fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities. It was precisely in recognition of this fact that the Commission required, as a condition of its concurrence in DOE's siting guidelines, that DOE agree to make the ' preliminary determination o f suit abili ty at the end of site characteri:ation instead of before it, as DOE had proposed. The Commission recogntmed at that time that if DOE did not have strong incentives to select the sost suitable sites for characteri:stion, the Department sight later come to the Commission with an E!: which considers unacceptable alternatives.

For the same reason of satisfactory NEPA compliance, the Commission must play an active role in reviewing DOE's comparison and selection of sites for character 1:stion. Indeed, NEPA was 4 .

i cited by the Commission as its primary authority for the original l promulgation of Part 60. 46 Fed. Reg. 13922.

i The same NEPA '

responsibilities which prompted the original promulgation of Part 60, including its requirement for NRC review of DOE's site selection process, remains unaltered by the NWPA.

In the most important court case interpreting the Commission's role in NEPA implementation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote:

j NEPA requires that an agency must--to the fulles t ex t en t possible under its other statutory obligations--consider alternatives to its actions which would reduce environmental damage. That principle establishes that consideration of environmental matters must be more than a pro forma ritual.

Such a full exercise of substantive discretion is required at every important, appropriate and nonduplicative stage of an agency's proceedings.

Cal ver t Cilffs Coordina ting Commi t tee, Inc. v. U. S. Atomic 4

1 Energy Commissloa, 449 F.2d 1109, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

(Emphasis in the original). The only alternatives which the Commission need consider under the NEPA modifications included in the NWPA are the three sites which are selected for characterization by DOE. NWPA 9 ll4( f) . If DOE selects for characterisation sites which are unlikely to prove to be suitable alternatives for NEPA purposes, NRC will not have an acceptable I

l EIS which it can adopt.

Since ultimate NRC satisfaction of its NEPA responsibility is being profoundly affected by present DOE actions in selecting L i

sites for characteri:stion, there can be no question but that this is an "important, appropriate and conduplicative stage of (the]

proceeding" which requires NRC's full exercise of 1:s suostantive

discretion'. Only aggressive NRC review and oversight of the DCE selection of sites for characterination can ensure the Commission's ability to adopt the DOE HIS.

Finally, the NWPA explicitly does not compel the Commission to amend or narrow the scope of its licensing requirements. NWPA 5 ll4 ( f) states, in part:

nothing is this subsection shall affect any independent responsibilities of the Commission to protect the public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act .... Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or otherwise detract from the licensing requirements of the Nucler (sic]

Regulatory commission as established in title II of the Energy Reorgani:a tion Act o f 1974. . . .

(Emphasis added.) Congress s was well aware of the existing provisions of Part 60 when it passed the NWPA, and incorporated many of them in the Act. However, in light of the above language, it could'not be more clear that Congress did not intend its failure to incorporate all of the details of Part 60 in the Act to be deemed as implicit rejections of them. Inconsistent provisions, such as the Commission properly addresses in other aspects of the instant proposal, obviously warrant amend =ents by the NRC. On the other hand, where Congress was silent on a subject already addressed by the Commission in Part 60--such as NRC review of DOE's sice selection process--Congress made plain its intent that NRC licensing and regulatory requirements not be dee=ed implicitly curtailed by any provision in the NWPA.

Thus, the Commission's conclusion that the NWPA by os:ssion somehow proscribes its review of DOE's site selection process is patently incorrect. As discussed above, Commission responsibilities under its organic statutes and NE?A require such 6-

~

a review, and the NWPA is entirely consistent with those requirements.

Recossendation The Commission should amend Part 60 to explicitly mandate i

th'orough NRC review of the draft EAs, including the methodology used by DOE in the comparison of sites. Provision for only a partial NRC EA review in the NRC/ DOE Procedural Agreement is not sufficient, since the NRC's failure to review DOE's comparison methodology is a basic abdication of its statutory responsibilities, and the Procedural Agreement is too easily amended without the benefit of public participation.

B. NRC failure to review DOE's site selection process and comparison methodology would be a policy mistake which significantly increases the chance for another major failure is the nation's nuclear waste disposal program.

Policy considerations apart from any statutory requirements argue even more strongly for NRC review of DOE's site comparison and selection process. If DOE makes serious siasteps in its site selection process (as virtually all of the affected parties believe they are doing now), the Commission's only recourse at the time a final site is selected will be to reject DOE's application for a construction authorization. Certainly the adverse implications of such a development for the successful and timely implementation of a repository would far outweigh any possible costs associated with a less deferential Commission stance on site selection for characterization now.

Serious federal efforts to locate a repository have been thwarted at least twice in the past by the technical and pell:ical siting blunders of DCE's predecessor agencies. The extensive 7 .

+ .

~

i state and tribal participation prescribed by the NWPA for the i

siting process ought to do much to improve the political atmosphere, but it does not substitute for thorough technical oversight by the agency responsible for protecting public health and safety and the environment--the NRC.

In sum, the Yakima Indian Nation strongly supports the position expressed by Commissioner Asselstine, 50 Fed. Reg.

2588, that NRC should retain the 10 CFR 5 60.11 requirement for NRC review of the site screening and selection process which is now to be documented in the environmental assessments.

Alternatively (but less desireably), the Commission should require a thorough site selection discussion in the site characteri:stion plans pursuant to its authority under NWFA 5 ll3(b)(1)(A)(v), and the Commission should thoroughly review that discussion in its site characterization analysis.

II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD RETAIN THE PRESENT REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A DRAFT SITE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

The Commission contends that the 10 CFR $ 60.11 requirement for issuance of a drsft site character 1:stion analysis ("SCA*) for public comment is no longer needed because of the new timing for a site character nation plan ("SCP") and the prior opportunities for interactions among DOE and other program participants. While the NWPA does provide for additional opportunities for DOE interaction with states and Indian tribes prior to issuance of the SCP, that does not obviate the utility of Commission issuance of its SCA in draft form.

8-

In addition to providing a vehicle to involve the public in the decision-making process, the issuance for public comment of a draft SCA also serves as a means of assisting the Commission in preparing its own analysis. That function, which the Yakima Indian Nation believes is very important, is unaffected by any changes imposed by the NWPA.

Experience to date in this program has shown that the views of affect states and Indian tribes and public interest groups can be very important in the development of the Commission's positions on important issues in the waste disposal program. For example, the Commission's stance on DOE's proposed general siting guidelines was obviously quite materially affected by the arguments presented to the Commission by affected parties on that issue. The guidelines were significantly improved as a result of that influence. Since affected states and tribes have the benefit l of NWPA funding for their participation in this program, their resources are better than usual to provide well-considered l

comments.

l The ability of the affected parties to present their own comments to DOE on the SCPs is very important, but those comments do not have the impact of the comments of the regulator. Once l

again, the experience with the siting guidelines is an excellen:

example of this point. Most of the revisions which the Commission sought in DOE's proposed siting guidelines were basicall[ the same as revisions which were sought by the states and India tribes for a year prior to their submission to the Commission for concurrenca. DOE (and the NRC Staff) largely ignored our comments l

-3 _

1 i

l until they were pressed by the Commission itself in its conditional concurrence decision.

The Commission's SCAs can in a like manner be beneficially affected by an opportunity for comments by s'ffected parties prior to finalination. It is no slight to the competence of the Commission Staff to state that NWPA-funded affected states and tribes might identify important issues and arguments which the Staff overlooked, but would want to include. Neither comments to DOE on the SCP nor informal opportunities to co= ment to NRC under the Procedural Agreement will substitute for an opportunity to comment on NRC's analvsis of the SCPs.

As far as the scheduling mandates of the NWPA are concerned, the YIN feels strongly that the benefits to the Commission and the program to be derived from comments on draft SCAs far outweigh the costs in terms of delay. In addition, the Commission can specify a relatively short comment period (e.g., 30 days) and refuse to grant extensions.

While this would be less than ideal from the viewpoint of prospective commenters, it would be far better than no opportunity to comment at all.

To conclude, the Yakima Indian Nation strongly supports the view of Commissioner Asselstine that the present requirement in 10 CFR S 60.11 for NRC issuance of draft site characterination analyses for public comment should be retained. Nothing in the NWPA requires or even suggests the deletion of this procedural step, and the potential benefits of it far outweigh the potential costs.

10 -

\

l i

Respectfully submitted,  ;

Dean R. Tousley I HARMON. WEISS & JORDAN 1 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 April 4, 1985 ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY TOR THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION t

l l

[

',,.- '015 tare Caocol Su.!dieg

! air Lame Cirv. t.,7 34114 4A' G N

[h,P^

7 r 'y Te'ecnore 301 333 43.*: -

Nf NO

high level nuclear waste office Norman M. Sangerrer. Covemor p3me, p 3:u,,,. ; ,, ,

laca mt!- an AssocM I.

20 April 17, 1985

'85 M 22 m 50 CFT'CE OF SEGi ,'.

~0CXEiiM & SEP /::.:

5?ANCH Secretary of the Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, O.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing at d Service Branch

Dear Sirs:

On January 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission ::u0lisned a notice of proposed rule-making addressing modifications to 10 CFR Part 60 necessitated by provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. This letter serves as the cr,ments of the State of Utah High-Level Nuclear Waste Office on tne proposed rule.

As a general coment, it is noted that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act contains unique provisions for state participation in nuclear waste repository siting, construction, oceration and decomissioning procedures. This special role of the states reflects a recognition that state participation is necessary for an appropriate level of public confidence in the safety of the disposal strategies called for in the Act.

Clearly, the NRC also plays a unique role in the repository program.

ProvisilnsoftheNuclearWastePolicyActcallforNRCinvolvementinthe program,from the drafting of site selection guidelines, through site

charact9?ization plan review and cocur.ent, to the end point of repository l decomis21oning. NRC involvement throughout the program is necessary for its l

. ultimate acceptability to the public. The states' participation in licensing  !

is tied.directly to NRC involvement. These considerations suggest that tne NRC sho61d interpret its authority under federal law in a manner that provices most liberally for NRC and state participation in 00E siting and licensing activities.

On a more scecific note, a clearer definition should be added to the regulations for ' preliminary activities *. The COE ts not obligated to submit the site characterization plan to the NRC until tne 00E olans to ccmmence snaft sinking. As preliminary activities may be (nvironmentally disructive, it -ay also trigger state regulation recuired state :ermits. '

.i;~J n - *e n n W4c:td cv c37'2. . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . m

Secretary of Commission April.15, 1985 page two Therefore, the definition of preliminary activities is of great importance. It is urged that activities performed in preparation of sinking a shaft, including design boreholes and surface preparation be considered part of the shaft sinking process so that such activities can be effectively .

evaluated along with the site characterization plan.

As is noted in the section-by-section analysis of the proposed changes, under the heading of " provision of information*, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Commission to furnish timely and complete information to host states and affected indian tribes regarding its determinations or plans.

The 00E and NRC have undertaken, through procedural agreements, a series of meetings wherein the two agencies exchange views on the adequacy of certain activities undertaken by 00E in view of NRC's interpretations of the requirements for licensing. The Commission is urged to assure that the states and affected tribes are given notice of such meetings, of the subjects to be discussed, and of the opportunity to attend and participate at an appropriate level in the meetings in accordance with the spirit of section 117(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Finally, in regard to Commissioner Asselstine's request for ccmments en retention of requirements for issuance of draft site charinterization analyses for public comment, we would urge in this and in all other cases, that the NRC only retreat from the provisions of present 10 CFR Part 6A to the extent mandated by the law and no more, and that the Ccmmission otherwise maintain the current level of involvement by all parties in site characterization planning and review. The Commission is again referred to our general commentary at the beginning of this letter.

In addition to these comments, please see the attacned analysis of changes to the regulation developed by other state reviewers.

We hope that these comments will be of assistance in the preparation of the final modification to 10 CFR Part 60.

Sinca ely,

/

R N]1 W '

atrick . Spu gin f 0 rector 4 V

I POS/hud cc: Toni Ristau -

enclosure

ANALYSIS OF PICPOSED ZE7ISlCNS 70 10 C72 PA27 50 Summary The purpose of the proposed revisions to 10 CF2 Part 60 is to revise the regulations that treat state. and Indian tribal participation in the siting and. licensing process to confoes with the provisions of the Nuclear Vaste Policy Act of 1982. The por lons of 10 CF2 Part 60 that are preposed for revision to make the regulations confors with the provisions of the Nuclear Vasta Policy Act of 1982 include:

Section Existing Section Title 60.2 Definitions 60.10 Site Characteri:stion 60,11 Site Characteri:stion Repor:

60.61 Site leview 60.62 Filing of Proposals for State Participstian 60.63 Approval of Propcsals 60.64 Participatica by Indian Tribes 60.55 Coordination The Nuclear 2egulatory Coe=ission (XEC) is required by law to cooperate with the states, and the NEC recogni:ss the value of stata participation in sit-ing and licensing decisions. Ecwever, the cocperstion betvsen the NEC a:d the states, as presently defined, consists mai:17 of issue definition and information exchange. The states are not granted a full advise-and-consent role in the decision process under current interpretations of the applicable statutes (The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 2eorgani:stion Plan No.

3 of 19;0; and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) or regulations (10 CFI Pse: 60).

Another problem with the way that the 10 CF2 Part 60 regulations are struc-tured is that the NEC's role is basically only advisory until af tee site characteri:stion is co=pleted, as the Depart =ent of 1:ergy (DCE) is not required to obtain any type of license or formal approval from the N2C until after site characteri:stion is completed. The NEC does not beco=e involved in the process for a particular site until after a site characteri:ation plan is submit:ed by the DCE for that site. State involvement is tied to NRC isvolvement, as a State is not considered an intarested party for purposes of these participation provisions until after the State is identified within a site characteei:a: ion plan. This is well after the conclusion of the environmental assessment process.

It is not clear in the Act or in the regulatio:s what role, if any, State comments ;rior to the site charactarizatice ;hase have is influenci:g either NIC or CCE decision processes. As : e Act and the regulations both define the c:amencement of the site characteri:stics phase as the beginniss of shaft si:hing, there apparently is no regular mechaniss available to the States to 1: fluence activities that ecour price to that ti=e. Though 24:7 serious environ = ental consequences can result from these ";reliminary" 1

c

~

activities, the only redress if the COE or the NEC ignore State concerns l about such activities appear to be through the courts under the provisions of Section 119 of the Nuclear Vaste Policy Act.

Soecific Chantes proposed for 10 C72 part 60 Specific changes in 10 CFR Part 60 (and their implications for the State of

Utah) are summarized below.

ne changes proposed for Section 60.2 (Definitions) do not affect state par-ticipation in the siting and licensing process. In order to provida con-forming definitions with the Nuclear Vaste Policy Act, the definitions of

" Indian tribe" and " tribal organi=ation" have been dropped, and a definition of "affected Indian tribe" la added, ne definition of "affected Indian tribe" is the same as that provided in the Nuclear Vaste Policy Act.

! no " preapplication review" portions of 10 CFR Part 60, which deal with site characterization activities, have been extensively revised. Substantively, these revisions define the contents of the site characterization plan that DOE must submit to the NRC prior to the co=mencement of the DOE's site char-

, aeterization activities. In addition to information required under the old version of the " preapplication' review" regulations (old 10 CFR 60.10 and 60.11), the DOE must submit plans for decontaminating and decommissioning

} the site characteri:stion area, including plans for mitigation of any sig-nificant environmental effects, if the area is deemed to be unsuitable for i

development as a repository. no DOE sust also submit its criteria, devel-oped pursuant to section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Po: icy Act for reposi-tory activities covered by that section of the Act, or o'her siting criteria utill:ed by the DOE for other types of sites, utilised for determining the i

suitability of sites for location of a geologic repository. De level'of informatlon required for waste forms or waste packages has been upgraded from a description of the research and development efforts related to waste packaging to a requirement that the DOE provide a description of the waste form or package and its relationship to the natural barrier systems peculiar to an individual site. De conceptual design for the repository that the  ;

DOE must submit must take into account "likely site-specific requirements."  ;

(Sao proposed 10 CFR 60.15, 60.16, 60.17, and 60.13). ne language for t

! these additional regulatory requirements is quoted directly from Section 113 of the Nuclear Vasta Policy Act.

l Also, it is important to note that both the Act (Section 113(b)) and the regulations (new 10 CFR 60.16) require that the site characteri:stion plan be submitted to the NRC *before proceeding to sink shafts at any candidate i

site." Previously, the NRC required the DOE to subalt site characteri:a:ica j plans as early as possible in the DOE's planning process. nis implies that  !

certals preliminary activities, such as drilling and seismic exploration, as well as construe:lon of access, could occur prior :o COE submission of the site charsetori:ation plan, nus , tas only effective opportunity available .

to the NEC or the states and tribes for review and co= ment on such activi- l t

ties (if it is available a: all) is at the Environ =en:al Assessmen: stage. '

)

l 1

= ,

Once the 32C racsivas a ce;y of CCZ's site characteri:ation plan for a given site, the NEC sus: prepare a site characteri:stion analysis and make this analysis available to the public for co==ent. nis scalysis =ust be trans-mitted to the host state and affected Indian tribes, along with an invita-tion to cem=ent. In both the old and new versions of the rule, the NEC will publish a notice of opportunity for ce=ent in the Federal 2etister, and will afford a reasonable co==ent period, "not less than 90 days," for ecc-ment by interested parties, including states.

no NRC must provide the site characteri:stion analysis to the CCE, together with whatever censnents the NRC feels are important, and the NEC =ust include a statement either than the Director of the NEC has no objection to the DOE's proposed sita characteri:ation program, or specific objections to and/or reco=enda:!ons about the DOE's ;eoposed program. nese new provi-sions are similar to those in the old version of the rule.

Additional sections have been added requiring the CCE to include a descrip-tion of and justification for any planned onsite testing with radioactive saterials (NRC approval of such planned testing is required), and a require-ment for semiannual progress reports by the DCE to the NEC during site characterization activi:les. De use of radioactive materials at the site characteri:stion stage is governed by the Nuclear Vaste Policy Ac: (see Sec-tion 113(c)(2)(A) and (B)). ne require =ent for a semiannual progress report appears to be an NEC require =ent not explicitly covered in the Ac ,

justified by the NRC's laterest in expediting licensing decisions. Le new sections of the rule sale sandstory reporting of progress and issues by the DOE to the NRC. ne NRC say, when it receives these reports or cocznents from other interested parties or on its own initiative, cc:=nent to the DCE at any time during the . site characteei:stion process, and the NEC may also raise objections to the DOE's conduct of the characteri:stion process. In both the old and new versions of the rule, copies of any such correspondence are to be made available by the NEC in 1:a Public Docu=en Reem.

Se final poetion of this section in both the old and new versions of the rule indicste that consultations between the NRC and the DOE are infor=al consul:stions and tre not regarded as a part of a proceeding under the pro-visions of the itemic Energy Act of 1954, as a= ended. De new version of the rule adds a disclaimer stating that the conduct of informal conferences does not imply tha: the NRC will issue a license or any other authori:stion, and that the authorities of the NEC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards and Appeal Board, and the presiding officers or NRC Directee are unaf-facted.

Subpart C of 10 Cy2 Part 50 defines and orders participation by States and Indian tribes in the site characterization and licensing process. Ce Nuclear Vaste Policy Act contains several er;1icit secticas treating State and Indian tribal participation at various points in the ;rocess. Cnfort:-

cately, except for the State " veto" provis!:ss (Cection 115(b)(2)), which can only to implemented af ter a s!:e is for= ally ree:= ended by the Presi-dont to the Congress, this participation is =ainly limited to infor=ation and c ==unication. Neither the statute nor the ree,ulations at 10 CF2 Par:

60 appear to offer the opportunity for true in:eractive cooperation, coordi-nation, and decisiccsaling between the NEC, the CE, and the Statas and Indian tribes.

3 _. . _ _ _

Old 10 Cy2 60.61 will be entitled " Provision of Information", and the revised "Sita Isview" provisions have been moved to 10 Cy1 60.62. The section on provision of infor=ation provides tha: States and affec:ed tribes will be notified regarding NEC deter =inations or plans =ade with res;ect to site characteri:stion or other geologic repository activities. Mcwever, these provisions are not triggered until a geologic repository '=ay be located" within a State. For the purposes of this section, a repository "may be located" within a State when such State is identified in a plan sub-mitted to the NRC by the DCE.

The "$1te Review" section has been moved to 10 C?2 60.62, and the old see-tion 60.62, entitled " Filing of Proposals for State Parti:1pation " has been eliminated, ne site review provisions are not triggered until an area has been approved by the President for characterination and a request for con-sultation is submitted in writing to the NEC by either the State or an affected Indian tribe. Consultation is defined as toeping the parties informed of the Director's views on the progress of site characteri:stion; review of applicable NEC regulations, procedures, and schedules; and cooper-ation in developing State proposals for participation in licensing reviews.

Old section 60.63, entitled " Approval of Proposals," has been eliminated. A new section, entitled " Participation in License Eeviews." has been substi-tuted. Participation in licensing reviews is defined by the rules of prac-tice before the Nic provided in 10 CF2 Part 2 (Subpar: G). States and affected Indian tribes may submit proposals to the Director of the N2C for participation in the review of site characteri:stion plans or license appli-cations. The State or tribe may also request =eetings with the NEC regard-ing any such proposal. The NRC may then, subject to the availability of funds, approve all or part of the proposal. To be approved, proposed acti-vities must be suitable in light of the type and magnitude of potential Impacts,' must enhance communications between the NEC and the state, sust make a timely and effective contribution to the review, and must be author-1:ed by law.

Old section 60.64, entitled "Partleipation by Indian Tribes,* has been ell:-

instad, as Indian participation has acw been incorporated in the various sections dealing with State participation. A section entitled " Notice to States" has been substituted, nis section ;rovides that the Governor and legislature of a S:sta may jointly designate a person or entity to receive information and notification from the NRC on their behalf.

Old section 60.65, entitled "Coordina: ion " has also been olisinated. nis section allowed the Director of the NEC to tahe into accoun: the desira-bility of avoiding duplication of effor: in acting upon multiple partic!;a-tion proposals. However, the Nuclear Vasta Policy Act now specifically grants participation rights to the States and affec:ed Indian :ribes, and Indian partici;ation, for era =ple, cannot be foreclesed even : hough a pro-posal for State participation has been submitted. Thus, the old section is no longer applicable. Old section 60.65 is now tit'.ed "1spresentation,' and it esquires any ;eeson or entity acting in a re;resentative capacity for a tribe or a State to sub=it a basis for such au:hority upon esques: by :he NEC.

4

1

. . \

l

. ]

. . I

[tCHAND H SHVAN M'M N M N'I steweHf M , en ig

., c., #..a.e-e A.g., v am i

i Wp

~

• cND ww% ~97 UShR NUC1. EAR WASTE PitOJECT OFFICE n ti u or u u ,s s..a Capuun Cois t.lca 15 APR 22 R2:14

. C.....a niv..s. a a m o (7021 hs5 3744

.FC..t ... ....ca u.c t

(; %,. img:& $@t '.*g,y ,.

3 RANCH April 16, 1985 Cc==issioner Nuncic J. Palladino Chair =an, Nuclear Regulatery Cc==issicn 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chair =an Palladine:

on January 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission published fer notice and ec==ent at 50 FR 2579-2590 a=end=ents te 10 CFR 60, "Dispccal of High-Level Radicactive Waste :.n Gecleg c Repositeries: A=end=ents to Licensing Precadures." Cn March ,,

1985, the State of Nevada submitted ce==ents for censideratien en the afore=entiened prcpesed rule amendment.

As reflected in the published notice, the aspects of the licensing precedures that the Cc==issicn has under review concarn (1) the role of the NRC during site screening and site character-ication activities, and (2) state, tribal and public participa-tien in NRC activities with respect to geclegic repos.,ter.es. .

believe that cur cc==ents on this prepcsed a=end=ent, an,- cur engeing interaction with the Cc==ission staf f, reflect cur concern with these issues.

I a=, therefore, requesting, at this time, a =eacing with the Cc==ission in crder to =cre fully elaborate and clarify cur concern with this =atter. A meeting similar to the ene con,ucted .

by the Cc==issicn on the CCI siting guidelines (10 CTR 960) wculd -

WU,t,'~, y.i % & li'.

- t-b4* b, /IN 5 S *

,j

,),.. , . . . g ,,t.

.G l!

- d., ,. . . . . h, p's . U * <' '

• ,.. r a .., 5 .m--

t AC$r*C"'M **

• C3 S ...,,.,,mgyy E504;90360 350416 PCR PR

. 60 50FRm70 o-p ^^

t 5 . .

e provide a good opportunity for the affected states and tribes to discuss these issues and concerns directly with the Cc==ission.

This request should not be interpreted as a request for public hearing, but for a meeting in keeping with the excellent interaction and relationship that the affected states and tribes have had with the Cc= mission.

I look forward to' hearing from ycu in this regard. Shculd you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Robert L. Leux Director RLL/gjb cc: Co==issioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Cc=missioner Thcmas M. Roberts Cc=sissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Secretary Samuel J. Chilkv' Mr. Robert 3rcuning

o .

E'IC*.0 ST.,RE D I

k 1

ORAFT CCNGRESSICNAL LETTER

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for your information is a ccpy of a notice of rulemaking to be published in the Federal Recister, i

On January 17, 1985 the Commission published prepcsed precedural amendments to 10 CFR 60, its statutcry authority to license and regulate the disposal of l high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories (50 FR 2579). The

• Commission received eighteen ecmment letters on the preposed revisions to the l procedures in 10 CFR Part 60. The final amendments reflect changes suggested by some comments. There were a number of comments related to NRC review of COE's site selection precess, issuance by NRC of a draft site characteri:ation analysis, and the issuance by NRC of amendments to its NEPA procedures which the Commission could not acccmmodate.

The enclosed amendments make certain revisiens to the precedures for site characteri:stien and tne participation of States anc Indian tribes in the J

process of siting, licensing, and development of'a geologic recesitory fcr high-level nuclear waste. The proposed amendments affect the means and timing of State and Incian tribe participation. Hewever, the Commission believes that the amendments do not significantly alter the basic principle of providing for the fullest and mest complete participation of Statas and Indian tribes

possible within the limits of the Commissien's authority. We will continue to keep your ccmmittee informed on rulemakings concerning high-level radioactive waste.

Sincerely, Robert E. Minogue, Director Offica of Nuclear Regulatory Rasearch

Enclosure:

As stated DC'.C S"?1 3

9 .

e e o

e D 4'M.0

%=w.w 0' . ? "L s

1. s I

L i

l i

Fecula: cry Analysis 10 CF9 Part 6C

1. Statement ef the Freblen The final rule 10 CFR Part 60, " Disposal of Hign-Level 4.cioac:1ve hastes in Geclogic Repositories," as currently written (46 FR 13971), cen: sins ;rece-dures for site characterization anc the participatien of States anc Indian tribes in the siting, licersing, are cevelcpmen: of high-level racioac:fve was:e recesi: cries. The Nuclear 'iaste Policy Ac: of IgC, Public Law 97-405 (Nuclear b'aste Policy Act), es ablishes in censiderable cetail -he prececures to be fc11cwed in the prccess of s1:ing anc licensing a geclogic re;csitory.

The ':uclear Waste Felicy ;c: cont: ins s;ecific provisiens for si e charac:eri:a-tien and Stata anc Incian tribe carticication in the ; recess of siting, licarsing, ard cevelocmen: cf nigh-level racicac:tve was e recositor:es.

Fevisions to the prececures given in the final rule 10 CFA Far: 60 fcr site craractert:stien and tre partici;a:1cn of S:stes anc Incian : rites are being pu:;lished in final fert. Fcr *he ecs: part, :ne revisions are reeded in crder to reflec: the previsicns of the huclear '.ias e Policy Act of 1930, particulsrly as they relate to site cParactertra:icn and tne ;articipaticn c/

States ard Incian tribes in the crecess of sitirg, licensing, and development of cis;csal facilities. In additien, newever, the C: mission is :sking this opportunity to clarify its precedures in the ligh of further t.ncerstanding and experienca gainec since the pr:mulgatica of the prccedural rule.

C. C5fective The cejective cf the prepcsed regula: cry action is Oc make certain char.ges in 10 CFR Par 60 to reflect precedures for site cnarse:eri:a:icn anc fer Sta:e ar.d :ncian tribe partici;atien in the ; recess cf si:ing, lican:teg, are cevelcaing cf hign-level racicactive was:e reccst:: ries est2r'isnec cy :re l:uclear haste Felicy Ac , anc to clarify the C:=f:sf on's cr:cecures in I:gn: cf tre 2::C*.0 sC.: :

, , s n,e-

.a., vi : .

l l

i i

! i i f e.vcerience gainec since the precuiga:icn or the prececural rule 10 CFR Fart 50

, several years ago, t

i

2. Alterrattves ,

(a) Leave the final provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 (46 FR 13971) intact. I

{' (b) Celete reference to State anc Incian tribe participation in the '

j precess of siting, licensing, arc cevelecten: cf a reposi: cry in 10 CFR Part 60, anc publish procedures for State and Indian tribe participatien as a regulatcry [

guice.

i i l

{ d. Consecuences i

l (a) Prooosec Action: Publish final amenceerts :c 10 CFF Par: 60 to bring procedures for site enam *i:aticn arc State and Incian : ribe participation ,

in the siting, licensin( 4 ceveloceent of hign-level racicactive waste  !

repositories in accordance with the 1:uclear '/aste Policy Act, anc to clarify I j the prececures in light cf recent experience.  ;

The creposed revisions in 10 CFR Part 60 wcule bring tne final rule in [

conf:rmity witn the fluclear Waste Pelicy Act. They wculc clarify the ;rtce-

]l l t

j cures for site enaractert:ation and State arc Indian tribe interac:1cn with tre ,

I;uclear Regulatcry Cc. mission in lignt of recen:1y enac:ac legislatien arc the experience gained over the las; several years. The clarification of these F

j procedures would benefit States anc Incian tribes by giving tr.em accurate.

l realistic infer =ation abcut cpportunities available to States and Indtan : rites to participate in censultaticns with t.Se t'uclear Regulatory Cc =f ssicn. This i

would in turn make the process of siting, licensing, arc develecment of high- t i

level racicactive waste gecicgic repositeries core efficient. l The most effective way of prcmulgating the revised prececures wculc '

j te as revisiens to 10 CFR Par: 60. The premulgation cf the revisec precacures 1

j in :nis for a: .veuld acec:ali:h ::'e cbjective witn no ur.necessary celay in l naking the revistens puclic. j I l l

L i

!, i I 11/30/83 l 1 i

i (b) Alternative 1: Leave :he previsier.s of ne final rule,1C CFR Part 60,  !

intact. l This alternative wouic be inacequate because it woulc result in inconsistencies be: ween :ne final rule,10 CFR Far: 60 anc the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These incensistencies would leave uncertain the epocrtunities for participation of States and Indian tribes in the flRC activities related te siting, licensing, and development of a high-level radicactive waste geologic repository, and could leac to costly and time-consuming inefficiencies in the procesc.

The staff also considered a variation of this alterna:1ve wnere cnly minor enanges would be cade to conform terminolcgy in 10 CFR Par: 60 to the Waste Act, as an ac=inistrative rulemaking, withcut oppcrtunity fcr public careent. This variatien wculd result in the same uncertainties anc inefficiencies in the licensing process.

(c) Alternative 2: Celete reference tc S: ate and Incian tribe participa-tion in 10 CFR Part 60 and publish precedures for State and Indian tribe carticipation as a regulatery guide.

If :nis alternative were acepted, participa:1cn cf S:atas anc Incian tribes woule not be goverrec by the regulations of *.0 CFR Part 60. Publisning proce-cures for State anc Indian tribe participation as a regulatory gutce wcuic give only suggested guidance. States and Incian tribes nave incicated strong preference for formal procecures. The regulatory guice acercacn wcule nc: ce sui:able for tnis reason.

S. Cecisien Rationale The NRC staff has evaluated the proposed ac:icn anc two alternative ccurses of action. The precedures for site characteri:stien anc State and Incian trice participation in the siting, licensing, anc cevelccren: cf nign-level radioac:ive was e geologic repost: cries mus: be revisec :c bring :nem in acccrdance wi:n the !!uclear Waste Policy Act, and to clarify tne precedures in lign of recent experience. Revising tne precedures for State and Ircian tribe par:1cica-icn by means of revising the final rule, 10 CFR Par- 60, is tne ecs: effec-ive metnce of acccmplisning :nis.

11/ C/t!3 2

. _ _ - . _ . _ __ __ _- . = _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _

t t ..

ine stafr. receivec numerous public cc: rents en :ne arcposec precacurai aranc ents. hhfie many ccreents sector:ec tne gereral icea of enanges in 10

{ CFR 60 :: brirg i: in cerformi:y with the ? uc! ear 'raste Policy Act, i reccer cf cc.Tcents favered recentien of scce cf the aspects of IC CFR 50 wnich were i proposed for revisien. Sene cementors were against crcpesed changes wnich j woulc remove site screening and selection informatien frcm the SCP

{ recuirements. An acditional propcsed changed, celetion of tne recuirenent fc?

a craf: SCA to te issued by t.RC in advance of tne final SCA, crew sc e j urfavortoie ccmment. !!evertheless, tne 5:3ff nas not fcuno sufficient reasco j to change its cecisien to chcose the procesed acticn as :he preferrec '

alterna:tve.

1 1

l 3

i, l

4 l

I i

i i

? i i  !

i l l, 1

l i

i I

l i

. m

. ...b

= p / C .g .

t r ----._ _ . . - .._,.._. _ _ _.___ _.- _ ,___ ,.. _ .,____ _ _ _ _ , _ _ - . . . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . . - _ _ - _ _, _ _ _ _ . - , , , , _ _ . , , . _ _ . _ . - - - . - _ . _

% 0 e

O e

O O

i l

I

4. v

. s .

, i j.

NM4rML b::f Federal Re gister / Vol 5C. No.1*. / Thunday. January 17. '.E P*'a csed DJe5 " MU

\vn ccm;eut:en. emplo) nent. PART 1407 *,U3;iNE2CN ANO ./ to CS Part 50 p eS! ment. ;rocu:tmty. innes at:cn. er CE3ARMENT qthe abdity of U.S.. based enter;nses Ctsoesas cf Hist >-Leve4 Recloac"Jve to compete with fcreign. based 5.c wasce in CecicSic 8 ecositor'es:

enter;nses in domesuc or es;ntt 1ect t Nr:ne / ATmendme*tta to Ucwser g Pec<ecures "m ark at.s-

' *01 ' S*

• P'" * * * ""d h * * '* aesac r: Nuclear Regulatory 3,c.3 c, j It he'sbeen datermtced dat the ,g,3,,,,y 3,c ,, 3 3,,,, g_ , ,, ,,,3 3,,3 Cacanssion.

Regulatory Flembdity Act is cet , g g g;,3,c,7 ,eg f, a,cnosc Pr posed .-Me.

applicable to this preposed t.ue sicce CCC is not' required by 5 U.1C. El or i t407.1 Puroo

,/ sv==auf: ne Nuc!e sr Re#atorv any other provision oflaw to publiah a Cosamassion is proposms revisions to nouca of propesed rufemaling mth D 8 P"'1 D"' ' 8.d8 # 8 **d p+ecedures with respect to NRC reviem c nditices underwa2ca perscas (Le, an of Scanse applications for discosal of respect to the subject matter of this r de. !r.dividual or acy focm cf business htgn- evel radioactve waste in geoloeic Thie program /.acuvity .is nct subject to encry, such as prepnetorship* repositones. For the mest part. the ~

the previsions of 7.zecutive Crder 1:"A* partnersh:p/ccrporatiott, asacc:attoru or rertncna redect the ;rovistons of the which requires intet pvsrnrnental coopersuve) ray be suspenced and Nucear Waste Policy Act of :M?

consulta' ion md Staw and local deoarred frem centrset.ng mth the parmculativ as inev re! ate to site offic:ala.See the Notlea nisted to 7 CR Commooi:y Credit Carporanon (CCCI c: arac:en:auen and ne parnepaucn of Part :013.Subpart V.puhusbed at 44 FR and frco otherwise paruct:bt!ng in States and Indian tnbes in the process

3115 ljune 24.196:1 \ progrs=s ad=:rustered or financed by of sitmg.!icensing. and development of See:ica 4(d) cf tae CCC Charer Act. COO cesposai facilities.

as amended its U.S.C. T;4b(d;). / marte: Qr-ment ;ened expires '.t..rch au:hontes CCC to adopt. amend. and i 1 +47.2 L.a.oension are cocarmeat. 11 was. Comments received after repeal ruies and regulations goveront ,' De previsions of 41 C"/R 4-1SX) er *. tarch 1119M will be considered :f it :s the mannerin which its business may be, seg. snad be applicable to a'.1 CCC pr .ct: cal to do so. but assurance of conducted and the powers vested i'n it suspens4cn and deberment proceedinis. cocsideration cannot be given except as rnay be exercsed. In accordance wit , except that the authonay to suspe :d or to comments fr.ed on er beforr dat date this autbonty, the replattens at ? CFX. debar is rese-ved to the Execunte Vice accatsstm Submit wntten c:mmcats Pan ;4a set farta the precedures under p.es: dent. CCC. cr his cesay.ee.

whi:n CCC may debar or suspens .u d sucesuons to: Secretari ci'ne Cammiss:en. U.S .%c! gar R'egulatory inda duals and firms frcra centrac:ing I tac 7.2\ !anois. g,33,ca Wasnington. CC 0335.

with CCC and frem otherms' .' CCC suspension and debrment A:tennon: Cochet:ng and Service parne: palms in prov2r.ts acm:n:ste'ed receedirigs. shall r.ct be 3;;li:able to Sr.nch.Capies cf ecmments received oefg.anced by CCC. In orter to confor= centrac:a en:ered into by CCC .tr: der its :r.ay be esamined at the Qmmission's C. s suspension and deb rment price suppcrt o;erstions 4::d other CCC P.b;ie Occurnent Room.171T H S.reet regu.datier.s mth those of t:e a 4 p s in mer enacm- NW. Washteston. CC.

Cepartment of Agittulture. Cw ,, g. ,,, g ,,37, ,e g e ,.

proposes to revise Pstt 14C7 to adept the C:ars P-charo. ;Insion og g,ciauen Ce? art =ent's susp'." pica and 5 des At Wwursten. DC an Jeru.arv tt.

3,3, . enstems and Ear n Scences Cf?.ca of der ar nent requ!.iu.ons foued at 41 CTR 4.-l.300 er sec. and to prov1ds dat (Il E=emt h,.

\ g, gg g g g,.,y, g,g Nue! ear Regulatory Comrnission.

CCC sur;ensa:: and daoar=ent ,4,w.me hce Msic.er. A-r.wv C.,re r w,,3,pggen, ;c ;g333, :,;,73 nn, go,,

proceec.ngs tha!! not be eco;icable t4, Cr;erer en.g , , .ga N" *#~ ** * """#""""*

pn su ro t2 .s o Nuc; ear Reguiatory C;==:ssu:n ropsma mta persons in the:r cacactv ** u e e:ce uo m

'as producers and 8:1 the autenc y ts

\ (Carnmissten e+ NRC; in !94:

mmulgsted procedurn fu ScensW suspend er daher is revtned to tne

" " "' I "' I '# "

Exec:uve Vice Prssident. CCC. ce bas .\ f*r*c*is:csal of

,c htsn-levei facicactive desi3"eg. . ~

[NUCLI.AR RECT.Th.lLTCRYwssies in geolor:c recesitones (44 FR In order to exoedite the review of da COMM S CH 7 .g g g g,

rovtsacra of this ;eeposed F ale t

5 iltat g ;tp a CJat esa has estaolisned 4 atfinue of potennel CCC suspenston and Feuct44 ;cnc) for v.4.h ascus.L debarment proceecings. it has been Nocient Waste Peitcy Act :(198 . Puo.

deter nined dat the corecent penod Crttana W RecpeciM ecerca in L yt-4:3. 4: U.S.C.101ct (Wssie poucv

• should be limited to a pened of 00 days. Fornsal Ucansmg Prochgs Atti. $ etion 1:1 c(the Was:e pain.y ~

Ac:ardmgiy. commen'.s must be Qmfe:;gn Act directs the Cornmission. not !ater received an oc before fect 14ry 12.p15 .

than jansary 1. :M4. to ; :mulUte m crcer ts be assured of:=ns:cersuca 'u1 83 Coc.14-0644 beg'nraag n pa.** tec.:racal retuttements and cr:tena that

• I** , a mil aceh in acc.-sung w tial of Subiects is

• C72 Pstt Ir.Cf wee. emcee 1964. de word ge7 ens c.sarcroving in;ense ao:aca:icns anh Adt:uristratave ;rsc*sca sed a ;ested Us de hzadL 4 Sa wers res:ect to geoi:rc recositones. De

/

" Records

• incuid have a;:estec :rkJs C emission nas ese:Jec nuh tbs

/ proce a.re. Govern nent ::n:-acts.

p.naars.. piacs. Se headin4i s C2'f*c 'd !0 Pd r wre :ent by :u:Osam* Onsi

/ Ac::rdin;iy. it is creposed dat ? CD as set fer:;: 4:ove. \ teentest entena (+3 T'. 09t4. bre :1 1m:1. De Cammissien .s now ru.*ca n Part g? te revised to read as fedows: sa.;.macree *wo.4 w j

2N C'.: 5 G.? :

?3 &?%.QW; mm __ _ _ . ,,:.& *- - .ww

. nR**Q: .S.i2'd.D. : : -f-: M --s % %,;- ,,~:E";:2. ._ ,yR--3a*l

- -- m --

l

• 560 Tederal Register / Vcl. 30. No.12 / "S.ursday. January 17. Isas / Prepcsed Rules 1

3 i

a review of;ts priviously adopted the seed for cecperanen with de States censult infermally in advance with NRC '

procedures. One objective is to reCect wid respect to de control of escianen staH. At this early stage.NRC wou!d the provistona of de Waste Policy Act. hazards. de Federal government was point out asoecta of a locacen se!ected In addit:ca. however. de Ccmmissten is auder :ec to regulate the dis;ceal of by DCE wns:h =ight require ;ecal l taking this opportunity to cianfy its han.;evel radioacnve waste to pretect attaceca cr present specal ;mblems precedures in de light of experience ;uclic health and safety (4: U.S.C.

Isined over the past three yeer in ' and NRC would heia to detine the kinds 021(cl.13 CTR I!c.13). Nevertne!ess. of tnicr nation neeced for licenstng consdtat: ens en the SCA reviews of the Act recept:es the need for decstens. As cated. repcstt:ry CCE siting proiects and in light cf the cooperation with de States. 42 U.S.C.

catensive prelicensing interaction c:catructicn (tacluding stsing cf the

!(a) and it is Commzasion pracace to main npository scalt) wedd require procesa now underway between NRC. consuit with State and local the states, and CCE. IIcanning actics. Site charactm:stien gever=menta en =atters of cc= men would cont =ue duttng nwsitcry The pencpal aspects el the !!cens:nq t=terest.'

procedures dat the Comnussics has ccustn:cecn. with the data to be Recept ==g that hartherlegtsla:ive reviewed before issuance of a 'lcense under review c:ncera (1) the reie of gu: dance would help to dahe audon:iq eceipt of radoa:uve <

NRC dung site screerung and site appregnate fer=s of censultaccc and =atenal Upen c=cuneccement of 5"AC's charactertzation acuvities. (:) State. cocperscon. C:q ess in 13 3 directed infor=al rev;ew. S~rtC would ;ubush s tnbal and public parne;suen in NRC da Cc==ussten to pre:are a n;crt c3 =ctice in the Tedsen! Katister, send activities with rncect to geclogic =eans ferimprovu.g the opporrutudes re;csitenes. (3) NRC responsibthties copies ofinformaten sucmitted by CCE for State part:c;ston in de process f:r to State and !ccal cincials. and cEst to under the Nauonal Enytronmental Peiicy sicq. .'!censt:c. and deveioping nuclear =eet with incse et'!'.cials to provide Act INEPAl. (4) recedures and waste srcrage er disposal faelities. NRC infermsdon and exciere ;cssib.lities ci standards for identifytag categones of

• Audenzanca Act for R$ cal Year 193 matertal as h:gadevei racioacuve Seir part=;acen m tae licenseg Pub. !. 35 471. Sec 14f b). After  ; recess, wastes. and (3) changes. especally with c=nsultacon with de States, the respect to centent of the !! cense Com=1ssten succutted its report to After solictig and c:nsider:ng views.

s;plicauen. ::eeces to c:nform tAe the Cacissico next proceeded to :ssue a .

Congesa in 1977. 5/ect?s far /cprovmg licensms recedures to de tecnnical prepcsed rule. Cne si;:uhsst d!Herence j Siets Peme:;ct:en m t.ie SitinE . from de ;cucy state =r:t was est CCE '

cnter:a.'ne present. lemaking  !.;censmg and :evelo:rnent af r ejeral

rencsal deals with de fint two of wadd be per 'ated 'o sh s= d*s and <

Nuclect Weste Eccilir. es. NURb3a3. engage a site cearscte..r.acen actvities taste topics: because de two are so re:nnted in Neelect Weste Isolerierr intertwirted they will be tnated P!/et P! nt(WIP. oft Cvempt Hect:ngs at cepth befcre fermallicensmg together. proceecings wen c:==encec. CCE's Beren be Sucomm{ttee an Cvemgnt site charac:en:acca plans wodd Background "## r###* .l In 1974. when the Aterme Energy en Intener * '4cad######

lasurer #I A,,#jf: irs Deth severdeless be isviewed in r

j Car.g !st Sess. 514-401 (19731(the NRC C.:mmission's,func: tens were enviced [c:.sidetable datad ortuntry for ;ubuc b acvan:e.

c:==ent es an wid

etween de

.;tergy Resest:h and Repcrti. ne NRC Report. *3ased ca tse premise dat State invoivement in any NRC :!ran site chanc:an acen analys:s. f evelocmer.t Ac=mistrauen (E.ACA) cauonal nudear weste =anagement ne precased rule ec:r;orsted decadec  ;

and the .%ciest 3egulatory pregam is a enecal els:ce:t m =aiung .rorts  :

C.smnussion. Canaresa provided the pregram werx.* taciuced seversi

, Q.rens to ensun extenaan.,,, fe, eg, g 7yg;g generally dat ERCA hign.ievei waste prececuni and suostannve g,g, g. . .

discosal fae:ht:es wen to the subiect to rec ==e canons. .. designed to allow affected States to NRC's regulater/ and licenseg sudenty e past n'ent ;ctsiba 4 ne value of such State htvo;vement- E*#*iC$.o (42 U.S.C. M4:1. NRC's reie with respe:t fer de Carn:ntastco aa weil as for de *'*" D' "l"' C' ' A' C#**' 8 8' # '

to sucs faelities remamed unchangeo States--was em;hasized sa de NRC ' " ** " "I '"'8 0 .

a and can:thees.',3.1. ate : wn d nitu when de fun:::ons of ERDA were transferred in 1577 to de ew devejo;ed a frs=eweric forlicensing geolope re; *sitcries for higndevel

. .e C; tnissien

.serud. howem. _' aj ,=;mszces for j

Ce;artment cf Ehergy (CCE)(4:U.S.C. ndioecitve weste (10 C~#3 Part 201. De State pardcuden we2.d be reviewed  ;

7131). first step in dis prec.e s was de in de dgnt d any;c: rent stampf y Although de A'omic Eneagy Act Cacun:ssica's pubucanon of a Pr:ecsed enangu :nat =ay 9 nacted. g reccgnties de :nterest of de States is C4:ersi State =ent of 7-siley i62 FR Menom. ;t nctec cat de extet d a de ;esceld ases cf alcmic energy and 1329. Novem er 17,19711. Bis State ;amenanen tay :e 45m:d by J decament centec: lated that de ,4r.sianu ac=a cap cams ,

. tumi peies. nice .. mn ie d re we Coctmission woufd make ll:ensing discussed in de NL. Ae;o.-t (44 TR =

.maneaaan. .. :s cn Nre si. An egcs ces = to dete.::unauen.s 54f:re CCE c:=menced ~80% g"8"g , , ,

d' #- 1 5

cn ha n e re ws e a wum .+.sv Act wuhe ee vue,c: si e ewmer esea u.r4 Me= n w. c:nsa ae ton c( a nrositst / shaft. CCE wcu:c be enc uraged. :: wever. in "ne t'naa ;.de addec ;rev szens w:th r";e:* to netice e and :s-ic; ann h- .

j ntices wics a c.ersimise nae a.. retsov, =

menm .unn.n,n a nomree we w w Incisa ::-ces. H weve . J:asmuca as .g Acv 4.ct we sascueee .aiar n :No assierieet a agg t;,,1,* 7::2 e e coin car.:st d a t$3s a<arate .ug,g, F ge,3=,3,, c3 g, 37 ge,,, 7;,,

,3,,

Cansxta eise.i el me aestmi en cd M.W e 'veermL .mos eage.s e ne sw se ce r4 e, Aree c ;ctated :ut no se' Ous defic:t !c:e1.rt ene mec mwis .ar, 3 ies avancauce c5 am t.wegr A a os t m Saman r* anac-seems Of cC;ctrarates f:t State ans ;t. U:

saunce wc= ouresone a......es a me eeeiis precyc.an .no c.,iec. naamesmance at s

e esmine mswraw Be caniest se see canam retores regg store temu wites =92 esco-! *e prec;accc. Se ;tevu.cn3 *1:st ad 1 secnae =*J N evewee now sevanes x OCf. t rgerust sour-e es r?*e se sucest.eiam 've 7een prOcC14d were scCcleJ W" cut

.i

.... s ss ce. re, caer +e wase %.cv tr!s ase u,ca veise. ses ines secc.et i 44.a egue'e ria:e.

one me enc v en ramt r, use sian .*e=e n.  ::to si narge N TR!K r. ':msay e

)

.z.r.er w;en O4 Ja wp.auan si tp .es v eeste  ;*. ; Gall.

Se C.wsunteseen e.sw a ee mue ihnennens hre  : scoe.. *.e ta. ore mances [

inne a :c n...e me.n eauw c.m m ,,a e.., e Acne s;T-sasse a feieras g 3, .;.MC:M f*L M rde Is u # c ar. c w .  ;.

24. m.e % re,c.a is e V7 esse rhasy 44L m c: nnaam os t.se Iw.y cn==.em et Ll1 eaa a t I u.s u. .:nteestate's cat. C *cuemAM #

• • 4 (:1sn C23rsetenne sever"li sifas at e**n. , l t', l i

9.'

Federal Re4ister / vol. '.c. No. :: / Thursday. lanuarv 1;.1965 / P c;csed Ruies

""  ?.r.3:

u, ;nmanly so es to enable de opper unity to identify and c:ns: der a Carnmission to discharge its NE?A charactenunca analyus to CCE. As bread range of uelic concerns: ttus acted above. these pro:et.res were d nsponsibilities with respect to would amst NRC in the preparauen of a designed to solic:t =mments (nat wou;d esa!uatien of altematives. Wii dis in carnprehensive and ressened analysis, assist NRC to prepare a :cmprenensiv-nund. CCE would have been requind.

De site character:utica re; ort would and nosonec . nan sis.

as discussed belcw ta include include mere thao e desen;t:ca f the infor nation concarning tla sste selectten sate ana the ;rcqtam to be under*a's en to 4. :nuit: tion (f :10.*:. j McWCU process in its site charactenunca chsrsctertre the abdity cf tha site to report to NRC. Under Part 50. NRC staff would schieve waste isolauen. !! would also censuit with State govemment no 3g g discusa "the =ethod by whics be site Tnbal oIIicals. as wmten nquest. to was selected for site keep them informed of NRC views cn De pnnepal aspecta of the existing characta .:atica . . . and . . . a lice

• sing procedures that are of present the pregnsa of site cnaractan:auen and desceptten of the decision process by to notify thens of NRC =eennes and interest relate to (1) submission of wiuch the site was selected for CCE's site character =ation re;crt. (:1 charactenzation. including the mear.: censuitatiana with CCE. NRC would public nctice cf reces;t of the site used to cbtain public. Indian ental snd nsxnd to wntten pesncn er character *:stien repcrt. ( ] de earnments frem these oi!!cals and States views dunna setecnon." transmit seen res;ceses to CCE.

pre;sration of a site charactertution Altemauve tuecia and sites at wh::h g anahsts by NRC. (4) censultatica CCE intends to can,f cut site Cartsuitattort would not be limited to ssie characten:atton, but c:uid me!ude a between NRC and States and Indian charactenution wculd be ident:!'.ed.

l enbes. (5) participatica m NRC rev.ews. CCE's re;crt en these top cs wee!d review cf NRC!! censing precec'.res and g and (5) procedures fer de formal de type and sec;e cf State and Tnbal emble the Commission to censider hear:ng process. It wil! he useful to acnvities in tte bcense review pe : . :ted whether additional informanen c:ght be by !aw as wed.

review the present language of 10 C7R needed by the Cernmissica in Part 60 with res;ect to these ite ns c:.*charg:nyats NZ?A responst'.dinia l41

s. I E*03 "c!3 5'* k W E:f'#!#a* M before turnmg to the changes tt:st we FR 107.*:;. iff MM/

pre;cse to acept.

.$ 2 Notice endFdlic:riva /f M til De NRC Report (at 13-:4. :~-:t g h

1. Site C3crecterr: rion ?.eport (f oo.!!/ distinguisned between :::r:vernent of As directed bYeee*ica 14(el cf the State parte:: anon in me NRC review NRC nquires that CCE submit a site 1980 NRC Audonzation Act. NRC rules s  ; recess on :ne one hand and. en the charscten:st:cn report as early as provide for actice to the Cover .cr snd possibie after c:m=en:rment of tne Ctate lepslature of the State of c6r N c- at d s .

pianmng fer a partcular geclosit: proposed situs whenever a site -. independentS ' tate nytew" of a repository c;ersucu ares, and pnor to enancten auon report is received. Mm e u dis m -f x!a n sue characten stion.' 3ath the um:ng Aldough not recu:nd to do sa by law. waste. ne Re;ct:Idenuf:ec severai and required content of this nport NRC woutd also (1) transm:t cocies of gy,ny,, 7,7 g,,,, ;,,=c=3,,;3 ;3 33g n;itect trie statutory direcuve in section e site charsctenuti:n re;crt to taese , g,, g 3 g.g3 8.

14f a) of the NRC Authon:ation Act for addtnsees. (:) previde sinular nonce to under exisung !aw. nese tec.uded i

Isaa. Pub. I. n.act wcich provides: .ccal officiais, tnbal organiutions. and su;-

• ,qu"crt from NRC in the form of

stionsi er micema uen :et-/:::s.

Sec. t 4tal .uy pere:a. aarney. or other enu y ;roposing to deverop a siersse ce

, dispo c feet!ity. iocudsnq e Last dispe j r g

"ec]arpt of[de sue c arsc Intergovernraental ex:hange ef ;ersormel uncer te enunon$ ',.Persennel y' ,,,,'[,",.o' A t. an.,. fe ,U)f fachry. lar hasn4eved rneioactive wutee. c, contracts fer techs.: cal services eeced irraciued nucent rescee tuei. scot non!, repcrt advise wruen a=ong otherand that gevernmental eingwul

... al by the Commission. Besides the t!'e Cammisuca se early as ;oasicle siter the cOcals r:ay requesacensuitatics w1;h hMS conu .enemment of slann:na for a parucular

repcsed facwty. The Cae

:tissaca saad us NRC stad. - "'8'i"I I'** I, S*E*" I'* I'.d e ude turn nottty 'he Cavernor and the State L Site chc::crerr:: tion Anciysis

. recern:: tendedat d be CJr:g*es,s

~ establish a grant ;r: gram to adow the feestature cf the state of,~.mposed situs lf Mill States to paruc; ate more fily in the wnenever the Cac:::nsaica r.as knowledp el De rules provide that NRC w1;I 8*'h P' DC'*i- 7-deral waste management Agrart."

rev:ew the site characterizat:ca n;cn P2rt f.0 pr=vides f:t Stats ne Commissiert. is ; reposing its and prepare a drait site charsetanuten partic;stica in the review cf a site IIcensmg procedures. made spectic analysis which discusses de reference to this statute a:d expla:.ned enarseten:ati:n re:cri and/:r Scanse i:for= tat:ca subcutted by CCE, and dat a;;1intion. A pre;csalinitiated by the that its rule would ecsun that $s a requeat for puolic ccmment es de State weuia desc-be how the State notice from de Ce: art =ent wtll. In fac:. drait site characten:anen ansiysis is to wishes to parue:;ste in de review and initiate a meanu:giul. sucstanuve te ;uciished in $s Federsi .tapsten bew it piana to fac:!itate !ccal review * (44 FK tHCol. De site ce;ies are to be transmated to tse State g:vern=ent and ca:en ;ar :cpation, characten:stion re;crt, tegeder wid a..d !ccal omcals acd Tobal and it wcu!d inc!uce fu:cing esumates .

the NRC staff assess =ent thenciand crgantunens who had ;nvio.: sly of work to be d:ne under c:ntract wita meetm;s between .'.'RC statT and State r-ceived notica under ::e ruie. !! was de NRC. Sutiect to the avatiaoday of oiTicals and other i:terested ;ences, antici;ated dat NRC wocid h:id !oc.ti funds and lessi::nstnamts. NRC e:uid

• assans an esriy occorr.uuty fer other ;ubiic meet:ngs in :he im=eciste sna f a: prove siate ; :pesats t .at it Cnds wd Feceral and State agences and de the site to.be enarsc:en:-d. beta to public to became i=volved in the ennance commun: canons witti me state dissem:nate infor=ation and to cbtain and centet:ute precuct:veiy to NRC's

testori making precas s' with res;ect pubbc :n;ut. but thta is not an ex;iic:t lic23se rtview.

to CCE's ute c: arac en:stics acc sue recu:re=ect uncer ce twe. After a tlnder the State ;ar :c;anen selecti:n peccses./2 tid. Se rtnew c:mment ;ence of at !esat 90 ays. NRC previsiens. ;r ecsa.a can be sue.metec

recass wcu[d ;r;vice NRC an wcuid transmit a Snsi sue -

by any State *;otent:ady sdet:ec~ by

_,.w ....n u.--  ;;. - _ _ y_ - '  : # w w-- ~ -n _

• . CC Tederal Register / Vol !O. No.1* / Thursday. Ianuary 17. Isa5 / P ocosed Rules the sating of a re;csit:ry even if the USC.10:04 frec:mmendatica fer prospec: ve re;cs tery site is m a NRC mth nspect to this agtney's deveicpment)).ne designat:an of a site Smc:fons.Neverdeless. an examinaticn different State. By de sarne tonen. as swtable for applicatica fer a Indian tnbes potentially affected by o(de datails of the Weste Pelicy Act construe: ten authonzanen will nc't be h gh!!;sts differ nces from Pst: ac which the siting of a repcsitory may submit eifectve over State chjec: tens except proposals fer ;artic:patica m me same need to be taicen mts sc: cunt. In pursuant to a Congressional resolutien addi:icn. there are some changes--

manner as the States.

wcich thereafter becomes !aw (Sec.115 .eatucularly with respect to funcing Of a for=c/l %ensm2 FrDctchtes C' b State particpaticrH. hat would have De NRC rules provide that notica of ne Waste Po..ucy Act recenfrms the been cestrable even in tne absencs of authonty and responsibtlity of the the new leg:siatica. ne ne-d for specSed events (docketing, heanng.

proposed issuance of license, issuance Com=ission to review a spec:fic revisicas can be analy:ed using the re;csitory prcposal, pursuant to the of1;censel will be published in the sa=a hesding as bef:re.

Federal Registen :nere are additional Atcmic Energy Act,in order to prctect s;ecac recuirements for nouce to State e public besith and safety, ne Waste # ## #" 'W#

Policy Act provides fcr Cam =ission As is the cue under de existing and local ctTic:als (and to Tabal review ;nct to site character:ution. as organtuuons if a re;csitcry is to be regulat:cas. it is ap;tc;nate tnat de located within an Incian reservation!.10 wed as in a formallicensmg prec.ecing, sucmission ofinfer=aden abcut a site CFR :.101-2.106. Affected States and and for e C:m=usien determinauon as and plans fer charactan:sden cide site ,

Inoian tnbes desinn.g to parne:pate as a to whether a re;csitory cf a particular shculd be de cecasien fcr commenc:ng denan at a spec:fied site will pr:vice j party to a licensmg proceed:ng may NRC's imtial substan::ve nv:ew. 4 a equate isciation of radicacuve weste. However the Waste Felicy Ac: :ec:Ees petition fcr ! eave to miervene: and tney j may also parne:pa:e in a mere limited - De Waste Felicy Act =4kes no s;ec:fic a :: umber of act: ens CCE =ust take previsien fdr de C =m ssicn to e::gsge g capac::y as ;rovided by de aegulat:cn. bef:re nch inf:r=suen is recuired !c be 10 CFR :.14. J15. in crindependIntly revtew, de

recesses of site senenmg and subautted to NRC. Tunner. de Waste Pelicy Ac

calls f:r NRC :o revtew l

ne Needed Redsiccs selecton. De C;rnmission's only informatics of nanewer sc ;e dan 9.at One of the purposes of We Waste presented parecipe:Icn in this selecrien w ach. under:0 CFR Pan 60 was to be k'

a process ecmes as NRC's review and included in the CCE sim  ;

en the ece. gvr ent att c ncurnace in gu:delines fcr the c aracten:aden re;crt. }

rne Sta:e 2cver .ments, and between the Mc:mmencancn of si:es fcr, egsst:nes Under ! C . Se site respec ve Feceral agencies. wid II'* IU'h U UAC MI2," NC c aracten:aden n;cn was to be respect to the cas;csai cihtgh-;cvel de Commasica will review CCc.""'#. cratt funushed to NRC *as estiy as ;cssible t radioactive waste. ne Act ;resenbes in ennnamental assessr:ents as it would al:er c mmencement c:;!anamf fer a [

3 est detail procedures for DCE :o renew any ccerin!cncatica en *e cettsult and c c;erate with the States investissucn and site charactenudon. ;arce!ar,,ngsitcry. In ceneast. da, (and alTec:ed Indian tnbest wid rescect as ceder to allow eerfy ident:ficat:ca of Waste Pency Act requ:ns that pCE ant nommate several sites (after no. ding to determmmg de suitacdity cf an arta potenttallicensing ssues for :t=ely puclic heanngs and c::nsuMng mta :se for a repository and wits respect to resoluuon. Rev ews wdl be carneo cut govemors of affected Statesi and that g other :ssues ansmg :n cannec: ion wid ,,

the planmng, sinng. devefo; ment.

us ac crd md de prececural agreement par:cular 'ocatices wcuid ten be _ . 3

':etween NRC and DCE for ta:enace rec mmenced as candidate s::es wruce.

uns: rue:ien o=eranon. or c!csure of cunng site invesdgatten and :: g if appreved by the Pnsident would be .

suca a fac:lity !Sec.117. C USC. :01:?). chancte intien.' e!!asle for site enstsc:er::stien.

DCE is direc:ed to make tmtsal grants to While the Waste Policy Act States wi:A pctentially ac:2;taoie sites .estaelishes new ;recectfres fer de high-ne new law marks this t:=e-hefers CCE prccmeds to st: x st: sits--as t.e for a repositcry and. nbsequendy. o 'eni wasfe =anageme=t pregrs=. :he point when the site casrsc:en:sti:n

ravide farcer ;rsats to any State in Comanssica remams endrely fne to  ;!an is submitted. When the whics there is a site approved fer Q, censu4 with de States and In

ian Cecunissten rev:ews dis ;1an. de ute charactenzadon (Sec.116(c!. C U.S.C. *nbes, at its own imt:ative er detts. 3 10:08). ne latter grar::s are to enacle to be characten:ed ml! dnady have 1 with rescect to any matter ;<raimr g to been the subject of extensne sc .:eny. It j the States. among other teings. :o review DEC'8 ft~f.:latory role. Although s;ec!!c m!! have been desenbed in an potentialim acu of de reposi: cry upcn c annels are establisned f:r States and enytrenmental assessment in w:uch the the State and its residents and to .ncian :nbes to engage in ecnseitation siting guidelines are a;;iied and wul provice mfermatron to such resicen:3 and c ope stfort wita CCE. dese cannct regarcing th'e acevtties of CCE cr ce have :een dise:ssed at ;u:iic meennp ,p su:sutu:e f:r direct intenceon Mth at wuich public ===ents wn! have Commission with respect to the s:te. a CCE is also directed to ;nvide inancial been sci! cited and rece:ved. !t also m;I .

• P ee ew Acweese w a tse u.s.%:n, have been reviewed by bots CCE and and tecamcal assista.scs to a State in 88WaW8=ca aus M'3 ;carmai et q whica a n;ository is to be !ccated. al er EN ** ** W F"" *" f"'*"* ** ce Pnsident in de c:nne of e

• W:e se a Jr.esngeoca ams sus esarsc'erustacek  ::: 2: anon approva ; recess. r.x:ensive K*p NRC has issued s c:nsc senca a m zes. w., s :.,ex n, ,%,a.,u ata gacen=3 ;repsms =2y bave been autnen:atten. in cr:er to m:ugats ce (cwnens .s en.

a impac:.s of ceveicement cf the W *****c.o es'3unwe um an

'acud* * "'s 8"M 8aiu u:ma can ec cut us ::n;u:cucn mth ceze a acevices.

re;ository, ibid. ne Waste Peiicy .*. ~ " " " ~ ' * " " " " " * " " * * * " ' A also c:ntams rest..reme .ts cat ene."evacuncn

c. CC p.-rscum c: we.ni 4

.'aa ce_ ara uem . CCE may ne very weil :eed ic =are s ere. in r.n xt ,,, =cices anc =mmi:ments m :ne =urse hold puoi:c heann;s at sever 2 sta;es of wniv :vennas wm srvas anis urecee :re. a of suca :ata gacenng e.at =uia have a

• sire selecucn at:d =arscien:st on (Sec. m *8 e a**"- "e** e C':E m V C sq nficant besnn; :en tne safety and .

P t.; 'bCf. C U.S.C. ICi :lncmina:: n!; E I cec.11*03 C.I. C U S.C.1010 ****

ana .-on ' *:sdeuena

• Y. . . no w*.*.'m*c*u

+ ..ce'a*s

'*ia'"* e*v* sa:Ility :( a re:::si:Or/."hecnihnt P

a.ee.n .% .n3 .memu..=sm :me cf bcrencies fcr 'esnt'l;uncses, f:r -

(cnarae:entation): Sec. !!4f a,(1). C  ;=mn=3 te sneae as casernr6 .

exa:1 pie, ccuid at?ect :te :ntep:ty cf a l*

~.

t .

.. l .

Federal Re cste- / Vci. 50. No. :: / Ta .:nday. Jan:.:a. e i.- 19a3 ! P-c::csed Rules -

m3 re;ositerv that m:ght be c:ns:ructac at CCE to cem; art sit-s er upon de cwor' unity for :.:nsuitatica therten the site. C:ose ::orcinancn between relatne ments of One sue asonst wns me NRC s:ai!

' CCE and NRC ta taenfore :eeced ;ncr another. Suc . a res.ew by .OC is net to submission of ce ute r,ecessary to fulfi:I any clits staratory ' D O:###'*fM # AMCE#'#-

) CnaraCten!.sUoft rsDoft so as to faClitate ris;Cnsibilit:es. .ver:cver DCE wid be s waste pency Ac: recuire:.5rf:re the early idenuficanc s Of issues of seiec:mt sites ustng guai.:elines m wanca CCE preceecs to si.ax sr.ai:s at a

otential safety sign

T.cance ans so as to the NRC wa.il have sinacy cen ur rd. cancicate site. tnat CCE sub nit its ice afforc an c ror'unt:y fcr NRC :o We reger::t as 4;;rc;nate.nowever. c. ara: ten:anca pians :o .NRC !as w ei!

provide OCE wid tc:eiy views. and fudy cen.ststent wid de ociect:yes as State and tncal cific:ais) fer review Under the Wasta Poiicy Act, the of de Waste Pchey Act fcr de .NRC a:d ecmment (Sec.11:Ibl. 4: U.S.C.

information wh:ca ta to be submitted to staff to provide to CCr. cur ent Ic:Mt. ne Cam:nissten beheves that the Conmissica fer review and expressions ofits views en the quaq.. Cen;-ess mtended that CCE should cornment ;nce to site chanctentation is of de data avatlante an. [he potent:a'

.:cens:ng tasues .at : ey e ant:c:;ated de m As sh '.4 far 6 similar to exasung i 50. . Ecta Pst: 50 acvance so dat ::mments may be and the statute cad fer CCE :o dese.be and .at may need :o be acdressec in CCE's site mvesngarica and ute caveicce . - a.n: su:mitted haci to CCE the sua the r"r -- aosed sue -

etny encuen :o be censice ed,when

" ara-:enzanen ac""vute a - c* tuai c.:. arac:e.. .stien se mties.

shti: stniing ec:u s. and at al. :.me re;csitor*e design and canam V'ew o Lwe cr gemg ,,e*T s t er. As ex lal*.ec ecoVe. ,.33s t

infonftation wita res:ect to waste form COU33 '*3 I5 0 U 8' .* *. '. I --.;3~.. -s -. ..

6 remed to change both the ti=n; sna tmP*Sd'C3302n3"

• 'e .C c. t: assure tnat its cata an,.'"3

" "3 -* n8 cr ackaimg.

r However, sevent '

categenes et efor=ation which we e -n:ent Ci +'e CC c"-

• t

• Ca' d***n 2--"

' report to contenn to de Was:e pe;;y as2esmes an made a an'am'e to he' previcush listed m 160.:: are omated y under ":e' Waste Pohey Act frcm the Act. Des;de dese changes. howem. H ,",e7 d-] gx s recuind su' m:ss:cn to NRC--notaciv.

c tne Cem=tsgen ;!ans to be inveived at "," ^'7 "." 22d e,v c,, an in fa c.

5 wer: ,w...e site was eu!ier sta es m' mewm data C".ei:;e. a rr cesi Ape-ment the eihoc .y ceiIected by CCE as we'!,as :ts .

uncer wn:ca r.v..e.n. .w is :c have acesss to selectec for site ::aracter :stien. :ne ;ni:rmanen as it :s :enera:ed anc.

idanaticanon an:.4.ocanon of atte .ative

-gnms fcraath- "- a~" T" o-al data- .: -

a c *.

ne msemnt fer ac:ccmisning mis- mapeg"ap. sgC is"'P' :o c "'

media and sites at wmen CCE inte-ds .

to Conduct site ch3ncten22nen. Ed a .= # T' #& # W #='=I r*"' *-*"' o 3 3cVN-t s a:r* tCy "arda:e

! "I C f"" * ". 3-cesen:nen ci tne dac:non precess :v '

and :s tems implemented reuune:y. .as. tne Camr:uss:cn ex ec:s that wruca 'he : te was setec:ec ict *

nn

cal mnns cf es aama wn, .

enaracten:sti:n (ir.:iuding the nees  ?. .W:!:e cad ?ul:llen::ca ythe,nteragea,;y;;c::::

.e thatbeg:n3

.Jse. a ,o ociala ?Ubiic. .t ,;.n .e . 4' a a. - -

as e r0 IC*/ . . ... ,.rC  %. ; E 3 .s...., . t:

6 .

.es..e

. e. . .

g gre y .n CC..c. s ::Os:Ctrauen of J sde.

5ta e view s ca. nag seie,.nc.,J. oa cre ncetmatmg a sit 2. tr.e e sentar; y;;.en :nvesugatens : ave ;r:gressec

,e

. . . Waste eclicy Act snll = quires a o .::..e. gy snam.. tuy e ov e._..c r

, far enough to war ant smkmg of shafts, discu.ssion cg the omitted items. ,.ut m a anc 'egisaature cf me State :n whic3 it .3 cur ex;ectation that NRC will separa:e decanent :silec an such sue is loca:ec or de gove =4 aLeadv be adquately mictmed w:S environmental assessa ent yac. s f.6' 'gr,c.,d b d~ "a "' a * = # "- es:ect' to data generate: :: date anc

• 7 ' '~

*' M *.' C U.S.C. .n"* *.*

). '4".:e , suc: site":s accatec. as tar c"se a may :e. e3t Sgc s c:acerns wcuid alreacy

re

aranen of an enytree.=en a' cf such nominuien and de bas:s f:r ba% e been !:cused and breug .t to 'tae

. assessmentja to be ;n caced {y c ;wn. suca necunanen* [Sec. :::!bC;(H). C g.~ ._.,

'" et r- das to be

.ws herd by CCc anc ce ter, atter r" u' .- . . :sse NR'C'CE. 'T*2.ss"-"sm3

. a.t .. . ".. . .

hes,n.CE with govertersec:ed el an..nsuitanen sa~

by t. .

heanngs and a presc:a. bed revtew 7 ~." QT3 .j',Z"..e"sa r ess" n'a States 4:d. Althouta not recuine to cc ~ - ocess inveivin ,N" td. eauai

" aa;revei- =cments : t.C c as"r'":"u;ovice rea by the so ' y tne '.Vaste Pmic7 A~ *'C,E "CCc.must suomtt s te enarac:en auen .* Vasa':* *" i-- 'k~ t a " ~ "'t fas ucr " ' '

intends to came envirenmental atans to : csa sar:e otT.c:ais. f:r nytew .,,

assesstnents in dnft fcrm avsdable f:r 'and c:mment: :en:.;;: ntty, ccg ;s  ;*"#=8"",#, 00ancm" ne'n anahus y" pu.iHe :cceent. Ad this oc:as 23 nautrtc' to submit such ians to NRC ' suited 'cr '"

I W'## u E*##a"~'*

~ V9' , ~

c:nnecnon with t e nommanon el a site (Sec.11;(bd 1. C U.S.C. :Or). " ' * * "

1. <7"-

• ' " ,su "' "*'- 3* t'"'

pner te Pr-sidentai av:ew sed Mthough ;ucUcauen ci notice m de ** * ** ## " * #'#

approval of a candidate ute for ute Federni Rc*sstee ts nct .e*a:~d uw --..t"..t".""

cnara::an:ator. ex;.ess;y-CCE must = axe :ctn :te ' ' ' ' " '

ne Waste Peiicy Act makes ac env ren:sental assesamen: ans 'ne site A CC3Cm1 ;ubli: --v,ew process weid 4.so fac:li:ste CCE's ac:ll:y 'o

rev's

cn fer me C mmsoon to charac:armauen ::an "svulacie to me pucile' (See:. ::::bitt:tC'. :::Ib CW A1.  :: tam c:mments en :ts ute c:smment to CCE :n trs env:renmental  ::aractanzat:ca ;ia . from me States assessments er oderwise to parnc:pate C 11 S.C.120-%}. ne Ccem:ss::n in the ncematon ;r: cess. D :s ant:c:;ates that CCE wt!! ;:ve nea:e .n and Scisa tr tes as wed. De W2ste

he Federal Re p. star as de means fer I-si :*/ Act 3:Tercs an c per unity f:r nevert: c!ess tre :r.tennen :f the Ccem:ssros to rev:ew and c e:=ent en assur:ng adequate pu uc avada:C:y :( Oese ent:!es :: e-:3:r.:ownt::. ,

he ennenmental assessments, as wed dese dccuments. agn*=e-ts wun ove spec: y23 as ciner 'ec rucai d:cuments :em1' Since CCE .5 nG= red :o - aie :s sua :receder-s fcr : nsudancn anc

nstsc:e-canen pian avn acie to State =c:e at:ca Sat c:uie .nciace ecty pre:ared by CCE. :n orcer to assess en anc trmai c::.c:a:s an:'s me ;u:Jc. --t ew. .Wreover. me NRC/DC E a conunuma :ssis ce :nier- .an:n  ?": ec: Td Ac rement 3:s .r's 'ast cadec: d :o cata sr.d 'as ;r'strte fer ne du0dcative ;:rovist:na uy e n- ovec ceve;e; ment :( acditienst mi:r- anen T: m ?stt 50. Even so. bowever. :t masas 3:a:es anc Mc.an : tes wni have an fer a ;ctennai Ucense a::hesner, sense for the Cam =:ss::: :: :::.dy  ::: err.nuy to :e .ni:r- e: reuuns;y Hewever. tre .VC 3:aiT wou.d act acincwiecge recect :i CCE's --" * "'e 'n fo r a nc a. : ace c:mment 2:en :ne medecc.c3y used by subr:su n so as to pr;vice n:nce :f de svada:.e to .'GC anc NRC's ::r.r e .:s

.o.. . -

1 Sg Federal Register / Vol. 30. No. t? / Thursdsy. Ianuary !? 1%5 / P c;osed Rcles thereon and to astend NRCICCE techmcal rnettings. nghts to States and ledian tnbes beycnd & F:r trall ctnei.~g? : cec'ures -

Under esistmq 10 CFR Pan ec. CCCs these ainady previded In law. H.R. rie'.  !

97.rPl Psn I at 74. De ;repcsed U* .# " * '. . .'" CF ^'! ***'7*#8 '"

submissica ci site characten:ation amendments contain conformtng 6e banc Heensing sann wbch F.ac, ,

plans was to occur, as already reed. Men desd,ed :nde Commissica's

• as early as ;casible after tariguage imclement:ng this requirement.

ne Waste Policy Act enarges CCE with Y'tlens. It ex;tensiy provides for [

commencement of;iannmg* for a .

the resconsibility to "consuit and cenncenuca d a CCE ap;ocancn.

4rtica!4r re ositcry. nere was no cooperate wid the States and kdan subiact to cenam deed!ines ~

n ,

j assurarice that esdet NRC oc other Accrda sce wid de laws appiicade to interested parnes would have had pncr t.ibes in an eikrt to resolve tear  ;

micr nation about the site er any cencerns about the safety, such appucanus (Sec. :M c US.C .

ocportumty to rnale conerns known to enyttemmental. and econom c impacts of 10:34). AITected States and lecian tnbes /

a repository. States may make wid be ciutled to par sepate in de DCE. It was in this context that de d

, censmg proceecings. 'l Commission deter =med that NRC comments and recommendations to would preparu a draft site CCE regarding any actnties taken The cew requ:re=ent that CCE and J enarac:ert:stien analysis (cr pub;ic tander:his subt:t!e." and this may be NRC provide ntneiy and cocelete funded by Innts fmm CCE 'Sec.

review and cornment before devesc;mi irJermatten to the States and rnbes. Sec. '

a statement cf the agency's vtews fcr 115(c:t XBi(v). C U.S.C 1m:51. CCE ia 11 Mal. C UJ.C 10:37, would ac;iy to i consideration by CCE- dim:ed to take State and Incian  ::p2Ecsnt miinteces in de fer nas Under me Waste Policy Act,however. ccncerna into account to de maximu:2 aciudicatory process. ne ru!e ;tesently CCC: submission comes after an extent feasible'(Sec. Inbj. C U.S.C nnec:s Sis, and de Carn =ission nnds j extensive cened afinteraction between te;31. According!y. in ex;cctation dat no need :o rnec:!y de fem:al replatcry i States and nbes wil: ccczmunicate samn kr ticansing acunnu at CCE anc me States. 2tTec:ed bds n tt:bes. and the ;ubsic. and after d:nctly with CCE with respect to its site 2*clope nps:tenu. l y,

P esicenttal review and ac;roval cf me . characten:ation pia .a. te provision . Sec:ica.by.Sec:!an Acclys:s s.tes recerntnended for charac:en:ation. that de Cirec cM mpond to i By the time a site chatsc:enzation ;Ian questions and ccmments of:he States In bgnt cithe kngeing g is to be submit:ed for renew and and inbes en CCE s placa has been considers:icns, me Commission is '

c:mment. Me e shou!d have been ampie

, deie*d .

repesmg to reuse its licensmg cocor unny for NRC to have become However de Cecrnissien has ;mcemans wid nscect to ciscosal el i accuamted with bosh CCE's provams sistdy d a hm m high.ievet wute us gecictic repcsucc.es.

and de puclic : ccncerns. S.nce mamtain a diaicpe with de Sta:es. D' MC**8 8'CU "'OY'S** " '

technical meetmss under the P ocecural y,n g,, g a g .2, analysts prendes addinonal -

Agreement wid be cpen. mtemted uclic ex;;anstcry icicrmancrs. All refen=ces s'ecpe. of nis suchmtenum is unchw~ h a.e to Tide ;o. C:up:er !. Code of .,

parnes will have an cocortantry to dialepe may g.

red,ral Regeiatians. Other ny: sacr.A

.'odow the course oiNRC ac intses and

,o

. bnes their concerns :o se attentien NRC'

[ yd

• Y ** N

inciucing c:anges dat =ay be ne-ded :o  ;

of NRC Further ocpertumnes for pub ic d age fit lic r.smg ceniorm with the Wute Peiicy Act's -

invchement are creviced by law. smca re 'm provisiens for envircamental rev:eww. .

CCE must also sern te comments of will be the subiec: ci separa:e the States and :::bes. and hoid ;uclic

3. h:posc!sfar S:::e Per::cipa:!on ruiemak:ng.

'1' heannss in the vientry cf be site. Fer Subpan C cf 0 CFR Part oc provides a C:r T P::n m Sab;ce:A these nasons. :ctether with the for the alis;cf precosais by Statr_: anc schecuiing mancates of the Waste Indian tnbes for part:c:patien in rev:ews gg gqg,j,, -

Peiicy Act. the Comm:ssion beheves it is cf sue charscianzanca,repcrts and ne terms '-'ndian the" sad 'ch t!

no longer necessary ~

to ;recare a drait Ucense a;;dcaricas. In refpense to such cqam:stren* wcuid no !cnger a;; ear in "

[.

site caarsetennation anaiysis en wnics ;mposals. NRC would censider

uolic comment is sougni. De prowJng ce- am ecucanonal er Part eo and de defruttens ci de te

ns '{

Commission particulany asks ter views efor naricis,se wces and funding work have denfers bee : deleted. ne term 1 on this proposed change. dat dieStile pre; cees to pen'or=t fcr  ::Tec:ed bef an :nbe." as deEned in de J

!! should be empnasized. however, Waste Pc;icf Ac:.is tha ;reper j de Coc2rmsaiort uncer ccntract. In desipation kr $cse enc !es dat are Mar NRC will have been engaged in as suppor: of 24 rewew. j engom; enew cf CCE: acuvities even enutied to nonce and other nespinca j With enactneet o( the Waste Peiicy under the rule. no ;recosed : 2ie before sabmission of a site g cnatactentation plan and that ce Act. aether ty to f.md a bread vsne y cf incorcerstes de staratory :eli.. rien of v State acnnties. inciuofr.;; sms to "ai'ec:ed !adian :nba."

comrnems of interested ;arnes ::ay ':e enacie a State *'o review ac:1vicies . .

]

submnten at any Ome fcr cenziceratica .or purposes o(determimng sny ,g g pg g gggg as a part ci mat aview ; recess. pote nal eccnoc ic. social. puhi!c hesid .,

ne secnens es bis subpart have be-n

• C"# M ## and safety, and anytm :metttal impac:a* 3 cf a :esiteey has bese verted m' CG nr.umbe ed se as is allow Sr inse-nen <

Under the Wsste Pc:ic/ Act me cf addit:ensi prne sl previs: ens. if 2 Sec.11Nct(I'l3Mi), c U.S.C ime: se- needed. at a :u::re care.

• Cammissten is dincied ?s ;revide A afsc Sec !!?!bll*XAMi} (;er simng :o hmelv and esme:ete inter :aticn anec ed hersa :nbest ne sccce of Secreen en:5 tformer:y f :n 'Of /ite M ngarc'.ng ceter- .msticas er ;ians made ..

• • 1. "" [

.NRC arvstanes evattacle may ce wita rarcect to site cherecier:snce. 'imited by tats seer:tery ci ectier.

g smng. cevelopment. des ct. "rce sine. Noenarse. 2 Hewer . at.y.e eie :ne s cf Ccmmiss:ca 3,,,,,,,

constrac icn. cce-stren. Tu:anen. :r succert wcuad not be sifec ed as g .gr,, f d acemmissiottire cf a r*;ositcev. Se:. '

e u.ainec in r -ste- dets:1 in *he ne fer: er scenen i SC.11, cs !tened 11". C U.S C. itn3*. but !*ra arTercs . o sec=cn.by.sec::en anatyr:2 beicw. p:

" Site cha-sciert:at cs necrt"':as been e' t

-* 1

Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.1: / T*nunday. f ar:uar. !? IM5 / P-::csed Rules  ::535 reusec :o conform :c lhe %sie Policy when :he contest ;e-:ama to the arsa m suine:ently ciesn shcuid addi::enil Ac:. lt nas been diviced mio three which waste hannlirts acavines an infor=auon be neecei me Commissica wc:4o9: m creer to ;rcude a c!esrer- cenduct ed. would ntsm tate cetien. by Orcer. ic toit:nal strue:ure. f5 art 50 defines " hest r:ci" as me .egtre furmer subetssions.

The ' site cnarac:enution report" has 2ecicpc medium in wnten ce waste :s As noted. tne Commissica has been changec to a " site charactenzsiion ern laced." According!y. the rule nien inciaced an expiic:t s:stement that the pian." Note that this me!udes mon dan to the waste-nost recx n:stiensnip m, g,ne.ennnon pians scould spel DCr., s " general pian f:r site instead of the relat:onshio of tre waste e n CCE's quality assurance ; : grams.

charac:en:ation ac:rvities:" conformin g form or packagmg and de geo!cgic btmg i E11includu sus bnpage.

) to Sec.11:!b). 42 U.S.C.10:00, it must medium.De statute n:erence to :he but it was not included in the soo mccr; orate infonnation on was:e packaging for the waste c:r counte ; art prov:sson cf ,.a.e Waste form and paciapng as well as a to Part Ms .* waste packane., and theresponds conceptual repositcry desien.ne prcposed rule retams thelatter term fcr MC7 ^C'" Hawn n. smce a pnnespa.j

""f s:re enatactennacn is to deveicp change from "re;cr " to ";Ian" better pur oses of consistency.

l' conveys :o setue dat CCEis desenbing ne Waste Policy Act recuires DCE to data dat have bn= obtained an. ,,

include in its general plan for si:e dccu=en:ac in a fashicn whien wn.

a program to ociata information whien

'! can be used later to evaluate a site. as charactertution acuvities "any csher sunen ljcensing findin;s. de NRC nv;ew sncu:d be e ncarned with me c;;osed to a presentanon cf data which infer =at:en recuired by de a;cnach whten wc. :s :aking :o data would ailow a preliminary tudgment as Commission."The Commiss:on has so to site acce;tabdity. De NRC review far !dentified only one such i:em- cei:ecuca. recer m;. and retenacn as we:1 as to the c:ntent of the mformat; n precess at th:s sta;e is not directed to nameiy informatien with respect to advising CCE whetner or not the site is quality assurance. Cther infor nati:n wat:h CCE seeia to assemble. secause or is not satisfac:ory, but rader whether rnay hereaf:et be feu.nd to be needed to cf me impenance it et: aches to mis item or not the charactenution Oregnm (1) enable the Commtssica to determine de Commissica c:nsicers an ex;itc:t

. wdl genera:e data needed for ar vmg at whether the proposed site nqutrement f:r submissica of subsecuent licensing determmations

~

enatacter :sticn activities are in!creat:on on quality assunnce and (:1 will adverseiy and s:ptficantly apprognate:if so, the Comtnission pectrams :o ce necessary.

affect the acility of the geciepc would establish its requirement either We have also incer; crated the repository to achieve the presenbed by rule (;arucularly if the.:nformanen statutcry requirement that CCE is to perfor: nance obtect:ves. would be valuable on a genert::4sist er m:iude in its general pian a statement :i by order in a particu.lar case. Althcuan the en. tena i.c :e used to determme Sect:cn 60.:S x:e chercc:.tn:ct:cn ..

the Comm:ssten s oclisattens to c'eserve suitaciaty et de site for the iccar:an of s EN# I'W"s-

~

the statutory schedule mast be heeded. n;csite:/. Zecause stte characten:stica ne requ:rement fcr CCE la submit a there is nc reason in ;nnc:ple why the wn! be a prerequisite for acphcation ci site charactenution nport aspeared m su missien of other mic=tation c:uid sc=e guidelines. see Sec. ::::hi(!!(II(iii.

! 60.: tal. As befcre. the dccument (::ow no: be cedered even after the site 4: U.S.C.10:00. we anuc:; ate tnat me a ;lan")is to be submittee to the charse:ennat:en pian had been fi:ed. il site charac:enutica pian wd1 also Direc cr of NRC's Office of Nuc!ent required for the Commissten to inc'ude a desen;nce of how CCE will Matenal Safety and Safewarcs.The discharge its review and ce==ect use the in!crmat;on asthered dur":g sne pur;ose cf the submissics ( for review nscensisdities etTecuvely. c: arac:enution to c'etermine if me site and com=ent'] is denved frcrs :he ne Waste Pelicy-Acts nie ence to su::acility guidelines are met.

Waste Pelicy Act. Si=dar:y. de timing plar:s :o centrol any adverse. "safery- De Waste Pelicy Ac: appliss en!y cf the subrntasion ( fteiere ;recesc:ng to related"irnpac:a frem site wid espect to geoicyc n=esitenes trat smk saatts ] redects the new statu:ct7 enatacten:atton acuvities can be traced m 'md. at W M m* fu *h dmai directicn. to former ! 60. lal(5;(iill. De cf was:es frorn c:vslian nuclear ne resulatton niers to . Commtss . cn : cencern'anginally was charac:en:stien at any area which has that DOE address these aspects ci site . ac:mt:es. Sec. 3. 4: !!.S.C.1c:04. :! CC.E d

been acpreved by the Pres: cent for site charactentation that (1) ceuid be "" '8, :eveico a fadty uc!,usively .,cr was:es _ m atomic enem de.ense charretenunen. Suen an ares would be s  :;n:ficant with respect to radiciopeal a " candidate ute* as denned in de safety pnct to permanen: c!csure or (21 3 C"V;"*** 'I * "IC "* V'#IU'!'.'8 2 ' s

> Waste Policy Act.ne regulatica avcida could affect the seility of de repcsatory suheet to Ucensma ,h E,;tp'er t~e tnat term. hcwever. because it airesdy to satisfy de perier=ance ceiecnves E'M 3 fi' ^5 2 t3 0 " A C'- ' "

Ca=misu:n has censidered weedst t,.e .

defines

• site' in a different wsy. pertam:ng to waste iscianca. De pect?csed n:ia centams !anguage &at c:anzes preposed herete.wn:ca an, See:!cn o.at,. Canten:s c/ site I2fiCY M.econstve :: de Waste ,rc..cy reiIec .3 dis construe: ten ci de statute.

cncree:encerion ; ten. De Camtntssten rec gn::es ttat :ne AC" "C*d be a=,pmnate wim ns:ec:

This sectica restates, with =ct requested level of detad is :ot speilec to sucn defense tac:!ities It se: ears ' car cut prec:sely. Such lle:ns as *a Se Cc:nm:ssicn. acnng unser amancac changes, de information whic: tne Waste Policy Act requ;res to be cesenpt:en of the ana* and "a Part so. ceu:d still etTecnveiy disccarge submitted to the Cecmissten for nytew c:nce;tusi desigt for the ge lege its hes.th and safety responsdilines :ct and comtne'st. repcsitcry 0;erattens area that :ases such defense waste fac:lities. But. :n d:s 3ecause Part to dennes ht;h-;evel # into ac==unt likesy site-gec:!!: secucn. Se provistens dat prescn:a ite radicacuve waste to inc!uce scent recutre=ents* must not be read Us c:: tents cf tne site cnarac:enution nuclear fusi. the latter categerv cf !sciatten.ney must be uncerst:cd to piar: ceed to recc; ize cat :eiense<niy, matenalis nos refer--a to in i M.17. require sul!I::ent detati f:r me fac:!ittes wcuis not have any sepi::2:ie Cor nstant wid other provision.s of Carn = snen and etner statu: ry sitmg entene "deveiceed ;:u.rsuant !=

Part 00. as term ~3ecicyc re:csitory revTewers to :ye scie to temme::t :n an Secten :::tal cf me Nue: ear Wsste operat:cns area

• irader dan *3ectogic tnicced manner. So cens:n:ec. :ne PNcy ACf' .nsteaa2. In that :sse. se repositcry

• cr "re:csucry ) is e=;ioy-d Cemrnission be:ieves anat :cey an

.ae r*cu:res cat tne site r

. : . & :v * .: O W h *.;,,,,-p w w . v --- - - k . y - o; m -a f .h.. r y n q . f tm ry--

--a.,_. , m,*

1 1

ll.538 Tsderal Register / Vol. 50. No.12 / Thu.rsday. January 17.19ss / P epcsed R:les f

a charactenution pien set out the eiting site chancte-ization ;Ian and dat he saaea-w :ta wd! be renewed-4.s other "

entena actually used by CCE. clay also renew and censider de CCE documenta mf! be.-for de j Cs enviroc= ental =arten. de comments =ade in cecnecuen wt de purpose el esriy idennScat:en f i strusnen is tners en:piax.ne Waste p ablic hen. ngs wnich Doe's :s n== red potenttal!!cansing issuas fer P.=ely P: bey Act !1mitations with respect to de ' to hold. Moreover. Se Ctr-eter wtil reschrtten. i se:pe of the Catsmission's publish a nonce of availabtI:ry of a site ne Waste P:licy A:t requins the l envirec= ectal respennbdities u der characten:aden analysis and willinvite CCE repcrt to the Cec.= ssi:n (and to NEPA-=bich we would i=plement in host States, affeced Inctan tnbes a::d StIte and tnbal authentest at :esst the modiSed procedures at the site all other interested perser.: to review semisenually en the naru.re and extent characten:auen stage-.would not ap;ly and comment thereen. Ccetments of site charactenration acavities and ~ i ta a repository u. sed solaly fcr defensa received in respone to such i vitation be infer =ation developed fr:rn such c wastes. Accordingly, the Commissacn mil be renewed by the Direcer: and acenties. De sa=e cancerns were would expect to require that CCE i where the Direcer deter =mes tat dere addressed in eximeng i En(g).ne  :

sub:zut. md its site charactert:ation an substantial =ew ;rcu=ds for =aking Cc==iasion believes da two I plan !ct a defense facdity, dose sta=a cf reccame .datica er stating obtectens to fer=uiadons ars essannally de a=e. '

in!:rrmanen with respect to ute CCE's site c:aracter=aden prefit:t- but 6at de cere dataGed venics in be screen:ng and selectica bat a; pear in Sese cenesres mn be exp essed to NRC regulatsen ;tendes a c!es.rer exisang i an(al but wnten an cot CCE. statement of the infor=auen dat is I inc!uded in this preposed tule. Beesuae ceeded. Ace .edingly. de pre; sed .-Me I the information relates to ne Direct:r's rtMew of de nte. .

characten ation plan is substantiatly cec!cr=: ciesely to the Cc:t=:ss.ca's i imple=entaten cf NEPA. it wou?d he equivalent to de final site incer; crated in revised ic CTR Part n estiier rule.De cast sipificant change.

characten:stion analysis pr-sc=be bY ni ectsg the ad:nca el a statut:ry rader than Part 60. , exacng 1 mu.ne refenn=e to the dincave to :CE. is dat de ;rcus cas Seccen m!S Review c/ site , nc*o a ": mmpts"n!!acs de ' ire scw expressed in mandatory chc.r c:.er::ction ccuvscsx. ^*N CY AC ?M"* C3 ' * ("shall") terms. Alaa. We ensung uie

, icr:nacon ta eub=1tted to de tn Aa under existing i 60.n(b). the Commissica for " review and cern=ent."

includes a provisics fcr subaussion of adcinor.si nyct s en my *:me.d -

f; Ca=miss:cn will pu:li,sn sotice of ne proposed ru.e refe~rs to a requested by ie Cint:ct: as moci!!cd. '

receipt of CCE's site cnaracten:anco "stateme:t" of objectena by &e such other to;ics :aust still te c vered -

ian. Although $1s may cu

stcate , Cirecter. instead of a Direc:r's as requested by de Cine cr. but de S.

uuctmacen ;uonsned by CCE,it wid opinion cicorecien.: by de Director.

sene to identify, to asyene interested. instesd of a Cirector'e "c;:::ca": de informanon may be in:::ded in tne u uannual a f i

n=pregnate ;cints of :::ntact with:n the later term wss unnecessanly equivecal .ggigen,3 mes. t;ct s De inunc d NRC atai!. Sines alternsove anu are Cincomil It is tatended bat de chiectens weuid "*" #" '""" "E " ~..

~

=ct aqutred to be !da nfied ta the ute be directed at de :sture cf $e nte c:aracanzatica plan. the propc4ed rule charactenzanen act:vities betra 'E N "C"M' *~ "N.2

' '" # ** f' cauts any reference to such areas. reposed and not to de suttsbdity of de

!.anguage penaining to consuitatics b.as atte as suen; of coune. ifit appested Y ~ '

i been revtsed to cortform with preposed that a particdar site exhibited such a 1 Subpart C. prefound descency that it cetdd not be "****""*"****N***

3 Siradarly. :orwt6 standing du;iicanca c:mpensated fee adequate3 7i n de !!p.t '"e ;reened ree ;mndes S de y of =coca by CCE Se Cacinussics wt!1 cf dats frem any site charac en atte= C.ir-cter to tnnsnut ts State and rsal r.

4 s:ve direct notics to Stata and tnbal pregram. Se Di.ecer : uld obre t to de c:T:caa cepin cf a(c m=ents made to oEcala concaming receipt of DCE's site pregnia in its enn.ery.)ut the characten:ation plan. Under the Commisuca rege~!a bis is highly CCc t= der i Mia. . is :=ch: des nct ecly de site characten anen anahus j

'Ud CC"*'"'8 C" 'h' I' 4 pre;osed rules, this informatios would be fumished to the ci5cals entitled to im;rcoable given de ;rocedures ener to characenzanen plan "but also any eeer N submissica cf a ute c:aracter= aces y t=ely 4::d complets information cader ;Ian to NRC sp-c:.!!ed in the Waste C"C"*"'8

• 3C2 tre Dr-c:r caccses a de Waste Pelicy Act.Becauss such pollhy Aet. Cab " 'Y CI C G M 281^4 C::" 38 ne i:ciusien of a !'r#teg with esceet v:ews.@Oder cer reecedence berween c5cain wedd alnady have received ecptes of $e ute character.:: ton plar_s to the necesairy f: sing rsoicecdve NRC anc DCE wt!! he placed in be g; ,

hm DCE. ce nonce frers de matensiimple=ents the roectic Nau,c Cocument Reca but md act i Cammission wc.!d not be acecmpanied di.eccen in Secton n:fe:(::(Al. 40. aucuneiy be cistnbu'ed a de i by aeditiensi c: pies the eef. However. a U.S.C. !Ct: t the Cor mirsien has damnated cScals. "he emisses gf me g copy of de site c:aracten=atica plas ;nviously conciuded cat the sse cf recutrement that be Ciree:r censicer -i would be placed in the pubic Coc ment source. specal m:c!est. and bypn:d et c:r==enta received Srn States in y Roem. [E.tuceg i 80.M would req =n =atenal fce purposes o(site ac c:-isace wth ! mn c:nforms to the a locsi omeals, and also the geverners of charsctanza:ica does not requira a chaegn to Siep4n C Soch cemmers 1 contgueus States, to be etTceded accce bra NRC nas require =ent has be-n

!!cansa.10 G i ec.?. and the e is r:o =ay, however. be retietec and t resson to believe that de Waste PeHey neewed as a:;re:r've in inciudusi B deleted in the lir:t of the erw narttery Act was inte=ded to chance thu vtew. C2"s and. as noted. ::==ents on ee C provmons.) Sicca CCE is not recm.-id to pre;ere nte chancienssoco maiysts wn! be 1 Fct ce essecs set cut hi the an env:renmental im act statement with invited and will be aev ewee. and ruca a ciscussion a ove. de ;rece+ed rde mt:ect to site enar1cte* : anon. see Sec, review may be the basis fer t.S ct e !er L.

ecuts the standatory drsh sne n:f dl. 4:U.S.C. tet:1 de -ferences := to et;ress go CCE accitionai L c aracteczsnce analysis desc= bed in tvfe ences in et:st::q i eo.M !o sudt .ecemmencanons er c reences. h exisang { mu. Ho never, the premmed statement have been etnitted. A foomc'e E.xce t fer ?cc e -diter al : aren. t ruie dcies ;tende thse de Cirector may to the text of :.% .zie ;cints o.at. etne ;mv:ssens of int 3 an 'ae s me f i= vite and cansider comments co DCrs bowever. $st CCE's envtronmentsi as es: song reguianc s. r.

!F i.

3

s

, 6 g

Tetral Registae / Vol. 30. No. U / T ursday. [anuary : T ::a5 / P ecostd Rules ';. 87 0 CTR Pct: 50.Ssep<. crc eintrucated tviennca :s a::y ccesuaat:en a preccsal to fac:!itate its ;ar c:;aima nas subcart deals web par-!c:;auen acivide by NRC dat ars =cre by State severnments a:d Ecsaa inbes c ::e nuew cf a sue charac:en:auc.'

acc ept:stejy ano direc:!y camed cut by ;Ii: and/cr license acciscsucr:. The l La the Cam ussica's licanstrt; and pre. CCE uscar dose precahns. Dus. anaccg requin=ent mat prc;ciais be ticename acevices.De rde of the cccstste=t with de Wa: e Pcticy Ac . ,dx irted so Later : man 12:3 cays aff er

. States and (nbes m recository udag and D '8IiC"' COUCC~"2EI M 8 '3t8 . doch.8r.tg of a license s;;ticsuen cas ces efopment is addressed is ' peat detail caarac*em.acen sucm ss: ens it.cuzd be been eiic:inated: althougn ear:y bv sesersi pmvisions a tne Nucisar derec:ed to CCE for u.s consideranen Waste policy Ac:. While the and res; case. a::d acuficanen subcussio..s an desirscie. we can rea61y ccnc::ve of cases c wruca Comrtusinen findJ *ast acce changes c concer ang hisC meetings er , , pgpeggi, 3ygu.,e g n ,.,ng, g ,

Subpart C are seeded in ligst cf dese censukatens wuss gc some ?* license sp;i:cauen eculo be pronsions. !! remains cut intentien to proviced by CGr .ictmthstanc.:n3 dese danges, hownn. it nmacs the impie=ented :n me mutual mterests ci sncourage c!cse wer!cna niatiens mth ide Qmmssion dat de pre;nsmg ennty and me the States and tnbes. De rensions and designed to c.>anly ..,e = cans swy wh:.c h

. NCY,tsuon with interested censu.

.r d aart.ies Cometss:cn. m. nee :r'u;s of semees er this can be accomp.ishedr in a manner respec: to site chancier.zatics sacu.ed ac mtaes that t.G. .C c ht censider n

conforrsing to m. e saw .,aw. couragej. As ccw. L:fct-.at:en preytd!n? wowc i,nc!=ce those

.se wou.en,d be avan,able rou:ceiy mth educartenal or:r cr=3::ca semces sad Sec:lcn M Provisica off.~fcematfon. respect to NRC's vsews cn t:e ;rcy:ss "I * '*d ' C * * * * * ' "" " ' C " '

• nis sectica implementa de of sne charsc * :s"aa on PGC C**'UI I U.,Cb '

trquinment :n the Waste coficy Ac g ye gdeveio; ne Ccmmission has etaitted ccse Sec.11;(3h 42 U.S.C. ICly?, that NRC "

,I8 I" E*#"*dE23 C'EC3'. I^j,. =ent f cf . . .

g g ..,ei .

furnish tt=c!y and cc= mete m:ctmetion cc ate . nidc'd d to hest States and a:Tec:ed edian :nbes Althcugh the Waste Pciicy Act does Siate we,rk~ in. sue;o-: cf :ne lice..se resarding its dete mmation.s er plans. It no: ; rov:ca formally Sr NRC acunty review. m, u.ut of ,,.e ..,at:e o

ecacy .s. c:.

.;plies. ins..ofar aa Ca==iss:en pr:ct to Pnsice.ncal a;;reval of ac area a ncmg

.e. .. c. suca work to imcreve de r=spenstt.uties are ccnc:rned. frer:2 de for site character: cst:on :s i'

time a site enarse:er::stacn re;csalis noted in rev: sed. ithere SSwu . anc &s.lSt :e's espac:ty :c rev:ew a ice,nse be ap;!icct:cn is .s responsibii:ty c. - C:.

suamitted throughout the en"tre lifa of coercination dann; de eariier stages of a site screenmg an.a site c arsc ent.acca N.nd,it :s to be fi.n.ancac cut cf de

u. ear %.aste cu c. *A. e do not ru.e cu:

de e; utcry unugn3

.,dece rnsti s sio nin g. , i,.cn si s:ent wi th is acccrdance with de .' ccedurs! de pcssibility that de NRC may other u. sage me ar: 50. de phrsse A; tement between .%C and c.C:.; w centrac mta State gevemmen:s en sce ai prev 1st-nm has be+n =ade in dat occ.ssion for ;sr:ctier services da: re permanent cicsi.n. or .ecentam:ninc? a pcment hr States and bdza tr ces l and diar: tan erne may : quire in c-der to be so;e to

s md insteac c.,nt.ecista:utary su..sca te fac:!i::e:

to r-c4:ve notta and :c attend NRC/ dischar;e cur statu: cry tercons&:!1es

,decomm:ssioneg. CCE =aetsgs so 'ts to ename tec !3 e!!ecuve y. na execut:ca of saca Sorte of e = cst s:p.i.,.;csnt e=3att k:cwWi;racly, on an early and centreets would be carr:ec cut =cer cc=murucatiens =ay ec::s st of ongotet basis, in sua charac:tJ22cc3 views- estab,lished pr surement ;mcecur.=s anc deter unauens = ace in the c:urse ei wcmd be suciect :o a;-licac:e . .

. De cppcrtmity to request that de limitatices wie necec5 to cctncetitive

,icensing practica. partes preceedegs.

en :..e serv ce Unce

!ist in aur u.e3 of C! rector consult with ns :ect := the N7C biddbg and avoidance of cca emew of site charactensstica ac:iv es such proced gs are, reemred *o b* ls .ct ll=ited to pres; ca.ve best Sta:es. ic: .... . ces 41 CF2 C: acte !(Fecemi served wid neuce et ad reievant p;y.], Men g,g j acon 3). A fur: 3,f piesdings decstens. crcer. etc. ne enent to w'rucE a Staie may be reason for handm.; suen centrac:s Accordmgiy. the Q=missicn wt!! use affected by de prospec .ve !cestcc under de senemi pn'icarv .e=necessar/. ns Corn nissto: annc:pa:ts. is 'dgnt cf da ,. art:cpa te is license n news as Waste Pelicy Act. see S4c. infer =atien,recu2 red to be 5ciuced :n provided is the Cc==:ssion s .cies cf de p c;cias aos v:o been eccified ta 11e(cut}[3)(iv). 4: U.S.C. :C ,3. dat de prsence. Local govern =ents are cen!cr:n to :ne !!=2ta::en cf sec;e. Se States weuld estaclisa 2;;r:pnata  ::eneccedi $s centest because they wasta P:iicy Ac: ray have fun .er precedures to acdress IccalJover== ant =sy have starcing. acart ! cru tne State d' =::ed be c;;criurutes Sr sis:es :s and citran cen:1.- s.) '

Skce the concerns of de States and is whics dev sre :ccatec. :o carnc:cate - ct:vs funcir4 fico de .9 C. me in a Ucensm;;receed.n1 as a par / cr Cacci:.suca :s ei *ne new *:.s: C:ng:s sifectec bdan :=bes wC be ceal: wid ;an:c;cate in a =crs Ur;.:td c.ipscr!. . .tenceu mat CCE rneu.c ass.me 2s pnmanly under da starute:/ See10 C.rR * :4. ; r:Ne t.

7td* ' re::ces.bdity kr actvmes ci censultation anc coopers:c: ne trpciar:cc reta:na a c-cv' sic:: .'er de prucedures, the Cc .:s desenc+d 4 ?Actena 115 anc mcc has a State er sifx:-c incian the :c sec=it 1:3 at:0 mar n . acuvt::!s r,. ct.no be b

I m-'#'- _

m~ -.= -.s- L :3_.;

- -. m , ; -

y  %. .: . m. :-4:r. .--3.- o :v- .. '  : ~~ ~ m .*

~'

.. -. - -w.".+62.mr.%;.e.n - cs:-p.gg:

. Try ~%. =. w~~

. M, N. m->< % x.._f- . - -i h, , - -

---~.g ; y o , wcew.2.w.<

.m m._ .m. .a~

i w d- . :2 11 n.

4 2 38 Federal Register / Vet 'o. No.1:: / ~~.:unday. Januarf 17.1%5 / P c csed Rules I t

Snanced out of de Nuc!eer Waste Fund cf19es. as amea.ded, and de Nuclear rather than out of NRC apprepnet:cas. PART 50--CtSPCSAt. CF HICH.LSVSL  ?

Waste Policy Act cf131 and act just ;W1CAC~.VE WASTE 3 W CECt.CC C 1 Eusting 1 MS4. pe-tatmq to the NRClCCE ;*ccedural A;nement.

particpat:cn of Scian tn5es. has bee REPCSITCMES j tscorporated m,the sucstancve Cc=m ssioner AJseisune would also

rovisions app!tcable to states.De retain de ;tesent nptn=ent is t3 C7R 1.De sudony Otaten for Part M ,j change has been c

sde kr editonsi M11 for NRC issuance of de draft site , centeues to read as faticws: -

rassens and is net intended to affect de chumerM-a dp kr @

h N m 31. n ' c. E 3't. et. 4 ngnt of ai!eced Indian enbes to ~~ t.;, as. sa 5'm n m- ;.1 ns. e4.

paruc:pate like the States is the Cc==iss:ccer AsselsWte would as. :e,s. a, amene,4 3: Us0..rt. :c ; -

activ taas desenbed in Scopart C. a;;ncate cc==ent es whatter these m m m 11 ** 't. *.rn * .*2 secs.

. i

.,, n .aSut m .isa N UA C m t h Existing i 90.SS desling wsth two tie =ests sbcuid be retamed in the coercmatten af =uit:;te proces.als. has met: Sees.13 and 16. No. L n 'ct. n Stat. j C:= mission's npiatens.  : 19:USC :::a med :asu. se.1:1.$.:.

been deleted. De Carn:rassten cee=s it . .

t.n-un ss Stat. Luu4:USC 4=:': iec.

.. M"niy eat =uit!;f e preposaia of de '#**'""**#'*l ',* E# # .

)

1 t INO L F- *M. ^,e Stat. == 9: USC ,

kmds considered e:i;dle for aces;tance Pursuant to sec i n ::::c1 of the *

• 1 I-under Subpart C would present any Nuc!aar Waa:e Policy Ac . dts pre;csed b' '#' #".'?".'. *' 2,e. =; t.a D s t :n a s (

undue ad=tnistrative diiHeu! ties: da rule d:es nct nquin de prepara:ica of #

• cntena for approva; cf proposals ,q , g]e], f', ,', J an enytrocmantal i=;act state =ent (especally the findiq cf ;recucuv' under secten ICL':;(c) of de Nati:nal s=e:dec H: U.S : =01o').

can . uticn to the lice:tse review) Snvir:n=entai Peiicy Act cf MC9 cr any 1 Secnen 50.* is revised by re'nov'n3 would afkrd de Cinc r ade"ste ..

e:w:r. ental tview u . der

.'e

-- -dannitic"s 8I " dia"- - **~~'* and discretica es take into account tr.e subparaga:Ur(r.., r (ra cf secucnml .a- m'"-a i ertan 8 auen' a"4 s,eme+ in desirab:lity of avetcing dupiscaten. -

d. e 4;;re;nate ai;3abetreal .:c:: ten. a cf sucs ac.- -

Sec:fon cuas . Vari:s :o Su:es. cenmt:en cf de te m a:!ac:ed bdian '

Paperwerx Rao.ucics Act Statement tnbe* to resd as icdcws:

ne Car.mtssien enceurages the Covemor and 'epslan:n of a State to n:.s prepcsed -de centama g gg.: y%

jomt!y dettpate a s:qf e ;cint of ic!cr=atica code: ten recutreme sts est As used ut bis ; art-

ntact to receive netice ard are suciect to de Ps::erwerx Raduct:n * *

• infer: nation fic= the Cc:nt .tssien. nis Ac: cf 15(0 (44 U.S.C. *2: et. seq.). His secton provides kr nerice to suc Affected 6dian trbe* =eans an  ;

nde has be _s su::=:t:ed :o de OfUce of ai!ected incian mbe as cenned a de $

joint!y desipated sc:ntnees. Manage =e:t and Budget kr revtew s::d Nuc!esr Weste T-:Ucy A:t af 580 Sec:lon inM Arp ese.c=:wn. *II"'*I U

• I^ E *'""* i" * * * **

requin=ests. -k Under de ;nsent rule. de sipan:re of the Covemor would serve to Repdatory Esrbdity Act CartiEca:ica I ss to seengne se as } sc.1si dccu=ent de andenty pu susnt to 3. Sec,on 60.,D . ts R edestrated In ace:rda:ce with de Regulate:v { m:5.

which ;reposals were,being sue = tted to the Can=:ssion. Sc==ustens by F'exbdity Act of Mac(5 U.S.C. T.ib)l.

de Cc=cassica entSes dat dis nae I '0*" P ***' I J

':dian tnbes wee top ac::=;amed will :ct. J;romulgated. have a

y

. documentation of ..e engsdity cf the tnbe and the auth:nty cfits s:; anca.u um=c u . pact :n a

4. Sectes un la Re=cved. ]

*d

• 3

• 5,3,ceens n ;$ er gh n u 373 n representatives. His sectica is desig:cd added to read as kHcws

.a rettis ,.5.e ;nse tv el usunnt .6.at

[d, i .:. ia pr pesederw P 3f-*m8d relates to the 85U0,85-re;resentauves are ;r:;erly idest:Hed. 3C",",8in8 Cg -

g! 8 8,,,27' -,q* g-,.' g se,;, 3;., er,,nc%e ,, y ,

With respect to States. a change is Deear==e=t of neg. w=ch dces not rm.nd. 0 ceeced to redect the fact test ;repos4a . lad *t6ia de secpe of:he dennstica of Sekte preceeding te sinx scafts at wdl so Icqer :eed to be siped by 'Ae "sma3 ecc:fes' set ferd ta de any ans waren has been 2:creved by  ;.

Covemer. In de case of b=an tnbes. Rega!atery Mexddi:y Act. te P ?stdect kr site :nancen:2 cen. .,

~~

hf ~[t it ' x (Sobinc:s is a Cmart to e c=,h .t. a . te f eti=::stes the :eed kr de Cc=::tssica High-level waste. Nu:! ear ; owe, carsc e :anen pian kr suen ana.

o b< conca=ed wtd its elipbdity. ;1 acts and resc ers. Nuclear =ar:n sis.

I n17 Cxtets of ute c .ancienra,ee s c Cp-d= W er Aasist!.:#s A MW af - ~

I'U*III' N#9**4 '#d #**###k'*E*3 N "-

y;,,, requ:nmen:a. Was:e : ent=er.t and h ne sits c:anctanza:en :ian snad /

CC:n tisstener Assessn=e would C = 'I#'-*

retain es ;: resent reemn=ent in :: CT?. Issi.anca (a) A ies si;ian fer site En brN7C review Of Oe site Fer ..,a ressc:u set ...t .. in ..e c 1r2c enucan scavi::es c be }

een:nq and selecuan precess wi 2ch ..

,..a.,c c at . e a.,s to. e .r-CC r :tust new :' "~-~"d e e <*

- s

• *" "* * ... ;--*.~ . u ' . , _~ " T# # g . 8 A""t:=.:c heqy Act cf 1534, as a=ence c.arsete..::4. ==:n jenersi;ian snail w enviren= ental assessments. Hs son:.d

CuC*- g

• d'T ."C '"I '*** " ^ # f . E cts as ce C:c=tssica's sut.'.cnty to ' s.

aview te crsti enviren= ental as n=r~ ec. e No est Na nte -st e "i"-- (!! A des :nen cf sucn ana.

. Cn ACID n"'SE'~d3 U.~. "-- U 08

.scu=nq .=:- at;ca :n ;ua..r/

assessments ce A::rric he gy Act :/ asstrsece ;r: par 2 tnat nave : eta fi 1954. As amended. Se heqy .%c!str Regtiat:ry C:==:s sien Recriam anen Act of U a. as t=e=ded.  ;-:pesas ts 3;cet ca 6dswn 4 n;ited 's 'as code . n rac:- .q. : d I'

.e, nen ng ;,for.arten use-: .:

the Natianai Dv r:n= ental ?:f.cy A: acec=ert to O C73 ;st: T. f-pre; ant.g su: . ::sen;:ncn.

6 It M

m

t ee. ,anew .

= .

r aderal Ref. ster / Vol. 30. .No. :: / Thursday lan.:ary 1 . 933 f p.:ec3e: gu;e3  ;;3e

,(:t A desert;tton of such ute

notice est a site

haractenut:cn ;ian =enths to de Cam =:ssica :n the nature rnarac:er:unun acnnties, inche,ir.g de has been rec.med from DCE and inst a followitT-- and ex:. ant ci suca a:nv;nes ano de

q stui rev.ew ci sucn ;ian baa bep1.24 (i) De exten cf planned excavaucna

actice snailidestdy de area to se - tr.f:r=auen dat nas ceen dese!c:ec fiil F!ans for any enaire 1:shng with and on : .e ;r:gress :( wss:e fctm and characten:ed and tne NRC stati weste sciage nsearca and radioacnve or nonradicacnve -'atenal: r emce s to be c:~.sidted fer fi.r her (m) P:.ns for any mvesuvatica informa nen. ceveic;me .t. ne semiannual repc :s senvities that raay 4tTect trie capabdity shau meluce de nsults si sue (b)The Cirec cr sns:1 make a e y f charac:enunen stucies. tne of suca ares to isolate hi;;h.levei the site ct:ar .c:enuten ;!an avadacie

> l radioacuve waste: idenuncanon of new issues. ;ians ict at the Puclic Coc=ent Recc:. De (tv) Flans to control any adv Direcgr shall alao tnnsmit ce;ies :( the additional studies to resolve new issues.

tmpacts fr:m such site c.iarac:ene publuned nchca of neript to de enmmanon cf ;iannec studies no longer 3- enu t:cn r:ecessary,identificauen of cecisica scavines that are icteuttant to salery er Courner and Wsiature cf de 3 Late i.1 ;cmts resched s .c :cificancns to that . ire impor: tnt to waste iacianon: ,w'n ch the ans toc' e chanc:en:e:is scnedales where se; :; nave CCE sha;1 rnd .ccated and to the ;cvernes :ccy of Ivl P!ans to a:;iv uality assunnce to '#7 8 also n;.:rt its pic1ren :s cavescp.n.; es

" 2n tMM In admM:"- destri of a geetcy: np^ utcry dat cedect;on. red:r;d;ng. and re:cntion. D' ,". -cm snal. man YAC sta#

• L3!" '"

c;ennens area a:;rc:nate Sr de ar-a (3) F1sas for tne decentammatica and bem; charac enni nonn; when 'uy decommissten:ng cf such area. sad for

".*"*j['.C3'uf"*"8 FC 2

0. *

~

cestp par 2 mete s :r faatuns -mcn the maigstion of any sipificant adve-se 5 ,"3 r. 8F .

(c) De C. rector snadde;end en.u;:n. de.. ns.uits T

• af sus environmentalimpac:s caused by site ew tne sue caarac: .snen w:d w'.e es:2:isshe,.,.

c.u.aractenunen pian and ;repare a sue C. .,. arac'e :03tlen ac!Lvities. If sucn area m

e. er tc;tca ntated to nie ts determined unsuda'c ie fer appiicanon Charac:en sti:n anal) sis with respec:!c .. -

aracte..snen snau s.rso a ,. vere..I such plan. In . preparanca crsuch sue .

a.

IM a Cor"tr*rcucn autnor ral'on for a a C ..u.

.tr. ..e s:1cri 4"alys:s. .6.e -.irf cuct n .. es t e . s.y .6.e L,itt,. .r.

froicgic re;Jsator*J o;erallCns are;.; . . .

Ns nWW* "'I"*.s'-* ,.nc4C. :( sit f 41 Cntena. den! aced punuant to ..ay mvite anoa consicer the n. ews ::- .

inter-sted pene s on CCE: sue "= ' # # # '" " = ' * #t * "' '-' .' 'e' " , .

tecnon 1 Cat Of the.%clett Waste

• Peitty Act ci SC (cr m tne case c!

• rharac*en:2 Men ;lan and - .ty reviev

• recios:c re:osucry dat :s . : si.h;e:: to anc c:nsider c::mmen's ma::e en s at wb.c ne am'"mu c nneenen wiin ;3,g! e 3,3g n33 3,!g 3y aeumn: ac 4 me .e n:avauens.p t*:e '.*/aste poii:y Ac:. sucr: ciner s:::ng CC E.

sonn;s. an 2 m sua :esu as entana as - ay nave been ved bY "

(dl De Cirector shail:revide to CCE CCE). te he used to cere-mme de smtabiitty of su:n area f: de Icanun e, s,t, chanc e* und cui.se W'I "#"

L '.' Y 'i"*" 2 t'"Y

" # ' ;" * " U "I ' 3 " 'W'8 8'" I

~

cf a gecicgc re;csi!cty: and tege'her wuh such add.tanai cemmer s as may be warrantei Dese : r.ments em mws on any aspec,t 0: sue (5) Any oder mforn: anon wht:n the Commus::n. by t sie er order. reqares. shall fittiude eider a statement dat 'ne " *" C#" " # ~50 E*#* * 3

• C; rec: r has no objection to the DCEs p*nu scan be : ace w).en'sur ds (bl A desc .;nen cf me possible sue chanc:en:anca pregan. if seen a "" ";C""**CI"* ""

waste f:rm cr waste packa;e f:r de statement a a;;rernate. cr see=fic "I'"" C ^ O' 8 "' 03 3 " C" ~;2.'3."

lagn level radicacuve waste to be ablecuc::s wit: respet to CCEa presnm '"' Y'" C # 2 2 " " " * 'I ,. '* ' 8 emplacac m su n gecicy:.rapesaury, a kr characten:anen.cf the trea '*"880 2*I.n; ra. derermano eat d:stn;nen ito the es. tent ;rae:tcsiel cf conceme 1. :n adc?t:n. Se "ir+:tcr may I,'8." 2 " S' 8t#^"d O'"3#0""C3I" the reiatenst.'p between suca weste rn:ke spec !"c recommencanens

"' '" 3 N'*** '" C' " 0 "' " 5 ' W forni or waste pscia se and de host red ;e ::nent to CCEs site en:ra:an:ancn cciects .s to LC:.a sue at such ana, and a cesct:pacn of de '

prc3 rara. . .cr.aracanzanen ;r: aran.

ac:ntt.es be.c3 :.ncuc:ed by CCE with (elIfCCEs Ianntd8.te' Ill n' CIO# 8h*d '~1^'I 00 9 '

t-spe:: to suca ;cssib;e waste f:rm cr charsc enun:;o acuvnies me!ude ensa,-f tne sue came e:;: ann ansps.: and wute ;ach a;s er enett re;anonm;; sad testing with racioacnve :stenal, de a.!::mn:ents 'o CCc.ma:: oy 'um (c) A ccaca;tual deurs for de CLec:ct's comcents shall me!ude a eder Ws see::en 'o me Ceverer and geologi: re;:sttery coeranons ares mat determmsden r-nreing whomer er not ag siarun of me Saf e n wn=h ee stei takes ictc ac::unt like!y sue spec:Oc tne Cer =usica concan dat tae to na enracanad is ccami and to taa req utre-t en'.s. propened ue cf sucs raci:scuse 3 [e nmi:cdy of any a:fe:*e: incian M2.t t Femw of srts catrse:sc.. Sece, matenal!a neesssary to prev ce datt !cr 'Z 8 l'Sen ranscu:una tne sue

• WY'W de pre;aranon of da envir:r:.entai - a sca :une anaiyu "rcer cts r-;oris Mqu:.-d by !aw ud f:t sn aan;rsci me Cirect:r s. ed invue t:e tal De '.',inc:ct shad cause 'o be applicanca ta he submuted under oublisned 'c the feceral R e :,istar a s dtef te*s to rev'en tre cc: ..-tent i a of m:s re dem .

(0 Se Ctncter shsil ;ubiish .n de (ki A3 c:r- r:ondeau between CCZ

' n setE :w m,r -( .. ame.-n o. F-dar*] Ac,utes a nonce of syrlabdi:y and me NEC ancer m:s se:n::.

.cnin w.e q.a a me .x: .:. c.2 m. , et 'ae site cnarac:en:at.ca anatysis in 1 wen 4m an s Tc umet $e .';cFs desc -b c tn me-.nc, en .u vaa rene. e.i a.ur .,

a nquest for ;uciic :c: .mect. A ;angn:c (gJ. snad te ;iinc .n de

w. .s4xn se .u.

renenacie vened. net less *..an M ay s. T':bli: Cacument 3:om.

S* r .NbSO, em sna.1 he silawed f:r c:=- ent. C;;;et :( 01 Se acavines : esc-bec :n

.e .- .. .w . . . ~ . da sue camcanuu= a.uiysenn::f an ruu .a namn.u a:-

en... W . .msen.u .. e.ais y :.c.a t* e c mments rece:ve; mad :e mace m e . e se,-e m ..a 4 :m m-,  : nstuu;e r.kr- ai c;nferena urwen b.s,:.:t.m u e s. .e aw c~,c xw.c e w, ...e R --

, v n. *- .,.; e --a : ". -.

• T '1":_ .n .

e _. . '. . - ei- :t .:n-en . + n u-' sn: a in.'f. u

,nn.., v,...e .na wa u m..ma v. .n = . -.A ' .

, , z .-. ~, -, .' g - ..

4~ ' ,s . ' 'a .'~. . * ~. , * . n, ,

,w .. :. .r 2,3. . ara:ar:.

w =. . m mars:n: nut:en acu sin'n. :.'CI shad and s" e ict :vt :( a ; : eecin 3 unser N;cn . et !<?: 'an :nt. enrv sa tne A::m. E..e ;y Ac: : :Z4. n 1

l'

i  :

I

- - ?* .

. _ e 1._ s -

.w ,,. m _--

ge, 2590 Federal Resister / Vcl. M. No.1:

/ Diursday. Jant arv 17. WS / P ecosed Rules amended. Ac::rtingly ne:ther the _-

tasuance of a site charactenucon (U Review of a:;!iesble NRC -

snalysis nor any other e:mments of deerralanens. Ucensmg ;rcendur s. (f); :;osals submstted eder 'his Direc:or mace under dis secnon scnecules. st:d cepcrtumnes fer state escuen. and res;comes meter:. :nad be constitute a c =mitmer.: to tssue any ;4ntepanon in the Commissicn s authenzation or license er in any wsy regulatory actvities. =ade avadacie at de h:is: C:cument Room. '

affect the authenty of de Cammissien. (3) Cac; erst:en in deveic;rnent of I the Atomic Safary and Ucensmg Appeal prepcsala fcr Stata participation in *

• 8 I** 1 Board. Atcmic Caity and ucens;ng ticanse reytews, If the Coverner and lepslature of a Soerds, other ;rencing cffican. or de , State have jomtly designatec :n the:r Cirect:r. in any such prueeding. I M N8C**CC" d "C"** *** behalf a sing!e ;enen er ent!!y to .

S.Sub (a) Stata and local 2 evern {

follows: part C la revised to read as receise nonce uder and irJermanen frcm the *

'afacud befan mbes may ;ments and Camrnimen tats par. me UC*m nwews as ;rendec m Subpart7tuc4atem Cammaien wdl previds sud notice Scapart C-7:rW. cat!co t r State C cf Part : =f mis chapter, and mfor acen to es Governments and Indian 7ttbes desiented enen or temdy tury mstead :(

l 8tL41 hees)approvec by the President de Ce erne;r for site sac (blerdarun b additfort,

• separa wh Pr<3resen ct lreforma th charse:er'ut:Cru a State Or an affected (a) De Cirect:r shall;tevide to the bdian mbe may submit to the Director I#0 83 M #"I3 0-

Ccvernor and Ie;ts!ature of any State ina ;mpcsal to faelitate its parnepation Any person who acts eder tms which a seclegic re;csitory c;ertriens sucpart as a representa area is er may be located. and to the in the rev'ew eia site charactenzation

!an and/or !! cense a;;iscation. The (cr for me Cavemorepslature er 'ns e for a State governing becy of any a

Tected Indian ;rc osal may be submitted at any time tnbe. ume!y and c:mplete micr nation and shall comain a desen;tica and thencil cr for an atiectec indian tr.be shad mciude m his request :r sther regarcing determmations or ;sar:s made scheduie of hw ce State r atTected *

• sue:nission cc at the equest of me ,

by the Commissica with ree;ect to the Indian mbe wishes to partic:pate in the Ccmmission, a statement of me basis of ute charscter:unort. stung. review, of ~..at semcas or acuvit:es ce his authcrity to act in such deveic; ment. des:gn. 3:ensm3 representative capac:ty.

construchen, opersucn. revataucn. State er a:Tected bdian :nh witnes NCa to car y eut. and how me semcas 0,,,q :2es.', 9, Gdm. :C. ms im de d permanent cicsure or decentaminancet er acuv* ties ptcpesed to be cartted cut y, mary, and dismarttlernenmt ci sur: ace by NCR would c:ntribute to suca -

facdities. of such For the Nudear Retdai ry Cammisereru opersuons area. geolcpc res;ository partetpanen. _4 ae proposal may include sggg educaricnal er :sformation sarvicesg g,,,

(b) For ur cses of *his secticn (se ainan. ;ublic metungst er other g gg ,

geologe r;e;o;otory opersnons are. aon 2e part of NC3. such as a shall actccs be considered ti be ene wh;ch *may be * "' CCC 8 '*** '~" 3 estaclishing adcitional pubile document -

d locatec* in a State .I be !ocation recestaenef or em;tcyment or etchange of in such State has been desenbedState in apersennel unut the I ute charactenunon pian suenuttaa to Ste governmental Pencnnel Act.

the Caci =ismen eder this part. (c) De Cire:ter shsil arrenge for a CEPARTLtT.MT CF TRMUCRTATICH (c) Norwidsta: ting ;ar: 4 spn (e). Se meeting between de reerssentanves ef Coast Guard 4 Cirecter is nni requttec to c;str:Sure de .any State er arTected Ir.cian :nbe artd me gcygpg g docu=ent to any entity t!. wid as;ect NC3 statT to diseats any prepcsai to euch dccument. that eeury o.* its subcutted under;angaca(b)of this pgg.y ,

counaei ts induded ors a service list tacten. wid a vtew cUdennfyttig any prepand ;nssuant to Psit O cf $is mortificartens dat may centnbute to me Cnwtrtdge Cceratiers ;se< uatfers:

a caaeter.

erfeedve parucpanen by such State ce tnbe. S.actne her (Cid Ch.acnea;, 7%

(d) Capies of at!ccm:numcatiens by the Cirector under 2:s secten ihait - (d)5e S1Teiec to 24 sveilahdity of funds. Acucrr:Ceast Ceard. CCT.

piaeed in de hblic Coc.: ment Roo'n. the Ceecter shall approve att or part of 30.;te3: p.:::esed ruie.

CCFan:t c: pres tae- ef sas11 h farmsnac toa preposal as it may be =odifiec -

drtugh tne meeting descnoed above. J far,assA;ty:At ce request cf ee f us2 .as " , it is cetettunec mac (11 De picpened acuvtttes are t.eymett:n Sh:;euddit:g C; meany. me 4 C.:sst Guard as ccestdenn; i : nan;t to (s) Whanever an arts has be~n suitable in Unt of de ty- taa r p:!arten pvemm;:he ::e atica :(

sp; roved by ce ;nsident fet ute ma putade cl.mpaces wm:e and '

en me State or the ;cntoon br d ei en the C!d Chane.ei csencter:nnert. and 2eca n': vest (a ne pec ofgifacted a Incian tr:be =ay b*sa c(2e $4 Grange Fi cme River. :We 33 tehmd State er an affected beian :nbe. ce schance ccmm;ceed aenvirtes (11 wdl ar:cr Idand. .a Cnn;e Te tas 4

Otrec:t shad :naka NRC staif availac!e urnestica:s bemeen NMC to ;revids that de draw te-d not ocer. f' to c:nsult wth re;tesentauves of suc3 Pinte nently, 4 States and 'nbes. sad mil maxe ce a$!.ite

mduenve or a

Tec:ec ard .mely kcience tii)de dnw :s r* quired to c;ci optat hem

• 00 a.m. to !* '.n l

cade(b) nRe<suests wnting to tnefor Cir ceneu!!stion c:ct. thau h c:ntriutten sumor :sc syto .'aw.tne nzew and (iid ar* 2:d ignt hfcnday *hr:i.g:inday stes

'eceni to icays, and to e;en :n man;t $

A '

may (c)nclude-Consuitanca ecer 'his secica (et ne CE ecer vil adese en Stateat ad other !!mes if at least e: Int rcuts scnce ts T:vec. Ois ;re:mi .s 3*rn j or st?ce.ed *cclan tr te wie .er its (11 Xeecing the ;s-:es mtbrmed cf me ;reccial has been act.2: red er demec. made because to re:uests nave been; Cir :ter' <tews cn tat ;rtgr :e of site ar.J if s.I Or any ;ar* Of Orc osJJ is made to ::e l 'he draw s: tc, :#7 Sis caaractertuuce.

damec. the Cincter snad state ce aCUSA sto 4.2 reheve tne ind1t JW erp ressen !ct me d< al. of tie burden olhavtag a ;emn (,,

a avadshte tu oven the =nw.

f*

1 F.

a

i -

• e T.';CLCSi!EE G 4

i .

1 CCMPARATIVE TEXT PART 60 - CISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE %'ASTES Ill GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES

1. The authority citatien fer Part 60 [eens49ses] is revised to read as folicws:

AUTh0RITY:

1246 (42 U.S.C. 5342, 5846); Secs.[iG-ase-;,4] Sec. 10t Pub. L.95-501, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. [EG2ia-aa4] 5551).

2. Sectisn 60.1 is revised to read as falicws:

560. 1 Purecse and Sccce This cart crescribes rules governire the licensing cf the U. S.

Cecartment of Erercy to receive and cossess source, scacial material _,

and byoreduct material at a geclecie recository coerstiens area sited, censtructed, er ccerated in accordarce witn the .'fuclair Waste Policy Act of 1982. This cart d0es not scoi f to any acti 'itv licensed uncer another cart of this chacter.

560. E Cefinitiens "Affected Indian tribe" means [a8-affests4-4s44aa-se44e-as-4e44aee 4a-the %8elear'deste-:e 4ey-Aes-ei-ii;;r] any Indiin trite -

(a) within whose reservat10n beundaries a ronitored retelevarie sicetge facility, test and evales-icn f3.cilitv. cr 3 recc.s i .c r . fe r

• icn-levei ridicactive wiste or scent fuel is ccccosed to be lecitac: (b1 whose #edera*1v cefined Octs?ssarv er usage ricnts q otner lancs outside cf tr.e reserva-icn's bouncariet _ erising_ cut o#

CRAFT 07/C2/E5 1 CCPP'RATI'.'E TIXTi F50 - CUP

4 I

concressionalv ratified treaties may be substantially anc adversely 4

affected by the lccating of such a facility: crevided, that tne Secretary of tne Interior fincs, uoon the cetition cf the

! acerccriate covernmental officials of the tribe. that such effects are both substantial and adverse to the tribe.

i 960.15(c) As provided [4n-i-56,4G-ep-this-ehapter) by Secticn 113 of the

! fluclear 'Aaste Policy Act (42 U.S.C.101011, DOE is also required to conduct

a program of site characterization, including in situ testing at depth, witn f respect to alternate sites.

i 660.18 Review of site characteri:ation activities.1

?

I' (b) The Director shall make a copy of the site characterization plan available at the Public Cccument Recm. The Director shall also transmit ccpies

of the published notice of receipt to the Governor and legislature of the State l i

in which the area to be characterized is located and to the governing bcdy of l

any affected Indian tribe. The Director shall crevide an occortunity, with rescoct to any area to be characterized, for the State in which sucn area is j located and for affected Indian tribes to cresent their views en the site l characterization olan and their sucgestions with rascoct to NRC comments on thereen which may be made by NRC. In addition, the Director shall make NRC  ;

staff available to consult with States and effected Incian tribes as previced i

! in Subpart C of tnis Part.

1 4

(1) The Director may ccmcent at any tilne in writing to COE, expressing current views en any ascect cf site cnaracteri:ation. In particular, such

! IIn anoition te the review cf site characteri:stien activities s:ecified in i I

this section, the Cca

nissien centemplates an ongoing review of other informa-I tien on site investigation and site characteri:stion, in crder to allow early l early identification cf potential licensing issues for timely resoluticn. i i This activity will include, for examcle, a review of the envircreental assess-l Tents prepared by COE at tre time cf site ncminatien. (2-sesse Ngat-ayee-

=e n -eeve*&99 '#G-995-4ateriaee-dwr483-544e 48 vess43 444eq-u d-stre-eaan eaeg-4Ea%449-84s-beep-$whtisMed-47-94e ederal ~.ee1 9 4ew as :c *U9ip ae ginst.;j, 943,] and review cf issues rela *ed to Icna I410 ti :e erderttorv sc .f t planninc anc crocurement acticrs by 00i crice to 1stuance of s1.a j c9aracteri:StlCn cian!.

! DRAFT 07/21/S5 2 CCFC2 W IVE TEXTS M D - CUP ,

! c

comments shall te made whenever the Director, upcn review cf c;=ents invitec on the site characterizaticn analysis er upcn review cf CCE's semiannual rescrts, determines that there are substantial new grounds for making rec m-mendaticns cr stating objections to 00E's site cnaracterization pecgram. The Directer shal~P invite cublic cccment en any ccements which tne Director makes to 00E ucon review of the CCE semi-annual recorts or on any other cements which the Director makes to 00E en site charac erization.

(j) The Directer snall transmit copies of tne site characteri:etion indysis and ali cc:nrents :c COE made by (Ma] the Director uncer this secticn to ne Govern 0r and legislature of the State in which the area to be characterizec is located ar.d to the governing body of any af fec:ed Indian tribe.

560.61(c) l1ctwitnstandir.g ::aragrach (a) of this exticn, the Cire :cr is not recuired to distributa any docu ent to are entit;, if, with rescect c such accument, tnat entity cr its counsei is inclucac :n a service list prepered cursuant to Part 2 of this chacter.

560.22(c)

(2) Review cf apolicable tiRC regulatiens, licensing procecures, schecules, and appertunitios for State and tribe participo: ten in the Ccmission's ra'Julatory activities.

(3) Cooperation in development of prepcsals fer 5:na 3rd tribe participation in license reviews.

Ic0.65 Any cersen wro acts under this Subcar is a recresentnive #:r a 3:ne (cr for the icve'";0r er legislatura *ereof) Cr for an a!#ec 9; .e.cian rtue scali incluce in 4+: t e recues er 0,,e sucmts:icn, cc at :re re es the C:~ission, a s;ne en: of -he basis of his ,o- Her autheris/ :: act r such re;;Pescnta-ive capacity.

cc ..

. . . P .'* M l 8L V......-s / . 4, - 0 J wi 60, 0 * 'J ./ * . .. .

4.10. I* 6

i d

. r -

1

. e e i

I l

.i. I

{

t i

I 1

t i \

4a 4

4 a

i i

4 1 D;CLOSU?.E H 1

(

o I

i 6

l 1

l e

I e 4

1 l

A S

)

i 4

5 i

1 i

1 1

1 t

1

• i r

d 1

I 1

.I r

s 1

1 4

i

'v. * + ~ + .e -etw eq y m ye&--m---.+..-.ye--m-- e-w -ws.--we.rw-me+* .

--W"we-+*gw-e9~*"v'

STAFF RESFCNSE TC CCM!E.'lTS OF THE ACRS

1. Puch of the public comment on the prcpcsed amendments has centered cn :he deleticn cf a draft site characteri:atien analysis, and the fact tnct there contirues to be a recuirement for a finai site characteri:3 f cn analysis has pernacs received less attentian than ctherwise. However, tne pecposed rule 1:self is explicit on this requirement; 60.17 (c states tha;;

"The Direc cr shall review the site cnaracteri:nien plans and prepare a site characteri:ation analysis with respect to such plan.

In the preparation of such site characteri:aticn analysis, *.he Director may invite and ccrsider the views of interested persons en COE's site characteri:stien plan and may review and consicer ccnments nade in connecticn with public hearings neld by 00E."

• 0.17 (c) states that:

"The Cirector shall provide to COE :ne site characteri:nion aralysis together with sucn additional cc ments as may be warran:ac."

The rule calls for :neanalysis site characterizacien Direc:crinto:ne give noticeRegister Federal of the availabilit)y

[60.17 (f) . of the The staf f believes that 60.17 as written is sufficiently clear cn the requirement for a site characterizatien analysis.

. The language in 60.17 (c)(3) is essentially the sane as that In the Nuclear );aste Policy Act, Scc.112(b)( A)(iii). The cc.rrent correct:y notas that tnis language calls for plans (ce the decertanination und decomissicning of a candidate si:e, and fcr tne mi:iguien of 4ny significant cdverse environme' ital impact: causad by site ch3rac*eri: nion activities if the site is ce:ar-inec unsuitaole fer uplicni:n for a cons *ruction authori:a:ior for a recesi: cry. This seems to igrcre ins;ances anere a cancicate :ite ray be fcund suitule for an n:!icati;n for a ccrstruction autncrization, tu wus cc: s':lec;ec #ce an a::licatice.

Mcwever, 60.17 ce3ls wi*n the si;e characteri:a:icn plan, whicn mus: N submitted in acvance of actual 51:? charac:er':nien activities. P. ..culc te during :ne c urse cf :ite cNnc: art:6: 1,n n ::vittas ce n suu m t!

tDat a sit 3 seie ted fcr ch3rac* art:nicn sculc be f ; nd unsuiOble. f*

'he point in -ice when tre site cnarac*.eri:3*iJn clin Fus: *9 .

. :n 1 *. ; d c ,

t'ere is tha :ctantial fcr any sucn si a tc ce 'nr: unsuitnia. "e 9-cu l er.en : in 60 '.7IJ)(3', #cilcW:

• n e * '<. E

. in "?cui:* rg **/ s

cnara::ert:nton plan :c accress :nis cc,:f rgency.

'fr

. a si+M r20*Crnicn is PP u' red i a Se:: ara t i i t i, u e . 'N 7.eF A 00:; n .' t address thi; in ce:3il, and :ne CC.Tili s i ~.1' . f.? * ' 0 ' Q *. O s $

• C -

I I 'i n

. ....c~.,.4....,..

s >.

o -

requirements fcr site restcration which do not involve racioiccical issues is not apparent. The inclusien of an item in the plan does not itself indicate that review by NPC is required, as the NWPA calls for the site characteri:ation plans to go to states anc Indian tribes for comment. Fce these reasons, the staff prefers not to specify any such recuirements in the rule.

The staff considers the meaning "decontaminaticn end decommissioning" as it appears in the NWPA and 60.17(a)(3) to be the same as reclamation.

Elsewhere in Sec. 113 of the NWPA, " reclaim" is used to describe the same activities referred to above as "deccntamination and deccamissioning".

Sec. 113(c)(4) states tha: the Secretary (cf LCE)

"snall take reascnable and necessary steps te reclaim tne site anc to mitigate any significant acver:e environmental inpacts caused by site characterization activities."

The staff believes that the continuation cf the use of the NVPA language is desireable for tne purpose of consistency with the NWPA.

Scme additional guidance is centained in Pecpesed Revisicn 1 to P.egul: tory Guide 4.17 - Standard Format ano Ccntent of Site Characterizatien Plans for Hich-level Waste Geolcgic Re:csitories. The staff can adopt cther language in the Pinal Fevision 1 in referring to activf ties cascribec in 60.17(a)(3) should "decccmtssicning and decontaminatiun" ;rcve to ce mis-leading tent.inoicgy,

3. These cctment: support the staff's pesition that the rule shculd not call for an independent evaluation by NRC of the site screening anc selecticn process usec by COE, and that no dra f t site charac.eri:sticn analysis should be required of NPC.

.