ML20245F180
| ML20245F180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/18/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Jeanne Johnston SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245F185 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905020288 | |
| Download: ML20245F180 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _
b
. S W*
8 ' ) .c n UNITED STATES
{ .7 s E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION os WASHINMON, D.C. 20555
.s
}c cHA R N April 18, 1989 The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
This is in response to your March 17, 1989 request for the Nuclear Regulatory Coninission's (NRC's) views on proposed Amendment #6 to S. 83, the " Uranium Enrichment Act of 1989." The amendment would establish a wholly-owned Government Corporation to manage the uranium enrichment enterprise. Under this proposed legislation, the NRC would be called upon to license the existing gaseous diffusion enrichment plants as well as any new enrichment facilities.
The NRC takes no position on whether the Corporation's facilities should be licensed or otherwise subject to NRC regulation. It should be noted that the NRC does not now have adequate institutional knowledge to draw conclusions on whether the existing diffusion plants could be licensed. If Congress deter-mines that the facilities should be licensed, the nature and the scope of the NRC licensing review needs to be clearly spelled out in the legislation and additional resources provided to the NRC for the licensing process.
Amendment #6 to S.83 does a reasonable job of setting forth the NRC licensing process to be employed. However, the legislation would be substantially improved if the changes described below are made to the proposal.
The NRC believes that as long as the facility is licensed as a materials licensee (as provided for in section 114(d) of the bill), existing NRC regulations in 10 CFR Parts 40 and 70 would serve as an adequate regulatory framework for licensing enrichment facilities. Accordingly, the staff contemplates that only minor revisions to our regulations would be required.
Therefore, the statute (proposed sections 160lb. and c. of the Atomic Energy Act) should not mandate promulgation of new regulations, but instead authorize the NRC to promulgate regulations and other regulatory guidance as the Commission deems warranted.
The NRC staff also believes that it will take a minimum of two years to review the Corporation's license application and hold public proceedings. Even this projection may be too optimistic. The proposed legislation does not set a timetable for a licensing decision but appears to contemplate that such a decision will be rendered within five years. See proposed section 1608a. of the Atomic Energy Act. If the goal of having the agency make a licensing decision within five years is to be achieved, the legislation should direct the NRC to issue necessary regulatory guidance within two years rather than,the four years now set forth in proposed section 160lb. of the Atomic Energy Act. .
The Corporation should submit its application no later than one year after issuance of this guidance The NRC would then have two years to make its licensing decisions.
8905020288 890418
$RES DE E PNU lh YI _
, $ T 2
i Proposed section 160lb. provides for certain exemptions from environmental review requirements. It is unclear whether this exemption applies to the promulgation of regulatory guidance or to the licensing process. We presume the latter. Therefore, we recommend that this language should be changed to state that in licensing the existing facilities, NRC shall not consider need for the facilities, alternatives (including alternative sites and designs), or the costs compared to the benefits of these facilities. Further, the NRC staff believes it more appropriate for the legislation to identify the Corporation as the responsible agency to prepare any necessary environmental impact statement.
For the licensing process, NRC should be authorized to adopt, to the extent practicable, the Corporation environmental impact statement. This is the approach that Congress included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
Under the NWPA, the Department of Energy will prepare an environmental impact statement to support its high-level waste repository application, and the NRC will adopt it to the extent practicable.
Provisions in Chapter 27 " Decontamination and Decommissioning " are unclear with regard to whether the Corporation would be subject to all aspects of NRC's decommissioning rule. The NRC believes that the Corporation, as a licensee, should be subject to the decommissioning rule both for decommissioning planning requirements and for financial assurance requirements.
Under existing statutes, the Corporation would not be subject to payment of user fees to NRC for licensing and inspection activities. The NRC believes !
that the Corporation should be subject to payment of fees and therefore recomends that Section 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act should be amended to authorize the NRC to charge the Corporation fees.
Section 1606 of the amendment bill provides that the Corporation, for purposes of the Price-Anderson Act, shall be treated in the same manner as Department of Energy contractors. The NRC would suggest that after an enrichment facility receives an NRC license, it should be treated as an NRC licensee for Price-Anderson Act purposes.
Finally, the legislation does not address the issue of who will issue regulations and orders relating to the safe operation of the enrichment facilities during the period before an NRC license is issued. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. After the facility is licensed, j the NRC will have full regulatory and enforcement authority. l l
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this legislative proposal.
Sincerely, (A/. .
Lando W. Zech r. .
cc: The Honorable James A. McClure l
L