ML20126G749
| ML20126G749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1984 |
| From: | Bunting J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126G220 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-170 NUDOCS 8506180146 | |
| Download: ML20126G749 (6) | |
Text
_ . _ _ _ _
__ l
,c 1
[e cua<,,*o !}! b
g UNITED STATES s E" o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
I
$ ;- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 /
. ,E .
t .._
~ v
%, ' pg 3
. . . . . /c ~ , ,
1 J
MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Materials 1 Safety and Safeguards THRU: Robert E. Browning, Director K8,D, Ti Division of Waste Management FROM: Joseph 0. Bunting, Chief Policy and Program Control Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
DOE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO FINANCING AND MANAGING CIVILIAN RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
- 1 FACILITIES ,
}
/ , .c 3//
l Section 303 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) required the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) to " undertake a study with respect to alternate approaches to managing the construction and operation of all civilian radioactive waste management facilities, including the feasibility of establishing a private corporation for such purposes."
The Secretary was directed by Sec 303 to " consult" with the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as well as the Director of the
' Office of Management and Budget (0MB) and appropriate agency representatives. Sec 303 required the study to be submitted to Congress /
by January 7, 1984. -
In carrying cut these provisions DOE elected to establish an Advisory Panel pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Tha background surrounding the establishment of the Panel is Enclosure 1.
The listing of the panel members and their affiliation is Enclosure 2.
The Federal Register notice calling the first meetinglqr_Januacy 24 and
% , 25, 1984, together with the " Tentative Agenda" is Enclosure 3.
l A transcript of the meeting is to be made available by DOE at some future l date. My detailed notes are at Enclosure 4.
5506180146 850423 Aio PDR FOIA PDR I EYE 85-170 1
.. P 16 S4 f
Significant Issues:
- 1. Cost Increases -DOEannouncedthatthroug[theirFY85 budget they were seeking an increase in the fee from 1 mil /KWH to 1.14+ mil /KWH to cover costs. There was considerable concern by numerous panel members over this cost growth. Going back too often for fee increases is seen as a threat to the program.
- 2. Schedule Slips - DOE announced they would also slip the 1987 date for site recommendations to 1990. DOE's inability to meet schedules also was cause for considerable discussion. This extended to DOE's ability to establish a credible schedule and discipline to meet same.
- 3. Schedule Assumption in Mission Plan - 00E emphasized they l' intended to recapture some of the schedule slips by obtaining a limited work authorization from NRC six months after submittal '.,
Tif the application and begin underground construction of a i. ?
collocated test and evaluation facility without the requirement -
for obtaining a license from NRC.
- 4. One Federal Agency Regulating Another - This subject )
was brought up by Battelle in the context that their examination of the record shows poorer performance by the regulator when regulating another federal agency than when ,
regulating private corporations. On the other hand, record of "
private corporations seems to show less accountability to public and Congress. The Chairman indicated the Panel would examine this issue. -
.- FE316 ','
5.
(
NRC bas been requested to make a presentation at the next meeting tentatively scheduled for Washington, D.C. on February 21-22, 1984. We are to focus on major policy issues of the HLW program and describe the licensing process. They want to hear from an "authorithtive" source. (A6 egenda must be prepared by DOE.and published in the Federal Register fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting.) NRC should expect the Panel to also evaluate NRC presentation in terms of uncertainty and impact on cost and schedules.
%;- )ft n /ls- ,-
/\
/ d6seph 0. Bunting, Chief
[ PflicyandProgramControlBranch s, ,,Oivision of Waste Management
Enclosures:
- 1. Advisory Panel Background
- 2. Listing of Panel Members
- 3. Federal Register Notice -
- 4. Meeting Notes - AMFM Panel Meeting A
- if*R w UNITED STATES f-5 I^g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
~ % . #~ FEB 161984 MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards THRU: Robert E. Browning, Directory Z Q =
Division of Waste Management
- \
FROM: Joseph 0. Bunting, Chief Policy and Program Control Branch Division of Wasta Management
SUBJECT:
DOE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO FINANCING AND MANAGING CIVILIAN RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES Sec' tion 303 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) required the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) to " undertake a study with respect to alternate approaches to managing the construction and operation of all civilian radioactive waste management facilities, including the feasibility of establishing a private corporation for such purposes."
The Secretary was directed by Sec 303 to " consult" with the Chairman of' the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and appropriate agency representatives.
Sec 303 required the study to be submitted to Congress by January 7, 1984.
In carrying out these provisions DOE elected to establish an Advisory Panel pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Connittee Act.
r l
The background surrounding the establishment of the Panel is Enclosure 1.
' The listing of the panel members and their affiliation is Enclosure 2.
The Federal Register notice callir.g the first meeting for January 24 and 25, 1984, together with the " Tentative Agenda" is Enclosure 3.
A transcript of the meeting is to be made available by DOE at some future
, date. My detailed notes are at Enclosure 4.
1 O
i
, , - , .- ,._.. _-,.,,----,,n----..-.,,-,.% ,,.-,.,--..,,,,----.,.,.,....---..,----n, . - , _ - . , , , , , . . , - , , , --
5 FEB 161984 Significant Issues:
- 1. Cost Increases - DOE announced that through their FY85 budget they were seeking an increase in the fee from 1 mil /KWH to
- 1.14+ mil /KWH to cover costs. There was considerable concern by numerous panel members 'over this cost growth. Going back too often for fe'e increases is seen as a threat to the program.
- 2. Schedule Slips - DOE announced they would also slip the 1987 date for site recommendations to 1990. DOE's inability to meet schedules also was cause for considerable discussion. This extended to DOE's ability to establish a credible schedule and discipline to meet same.
- 3. Schedule Assumption in Mission Plan - DOE emphasized they intended to recapture some of the schedule slips by obtaining a limited work authorization from NRC six months after submittal of the application and begin underground construction of a collocated test and evaluation facility without the requirement for obtaining a license from NRC.
- 4. One Federal Agency Regulating Another - This subject was brought up by Battelle in the context that their examination of the record shows poorer performance by the regulator when regulating another federal agency than when regulating private corporations. On the other hand, record of l private corporations seems to show less accountability to public and Congress. The Chairman indicated- the Panel would examine this issue.
4
~.+--.-.7n,, -----w, , - . . - , _ - - _ . . , . _ . . - - ., , , _ . - , - _ - - , , , - - , - - . . - . - - - . _ -
FEB 161984
- 5. NRC has been requested to inake a presentation at the next meeting tentatively scheduled for Washington, D.C. on February 21-22, 1984. We are to focus on ma,jor policy issues of the HLW program and describe the licensing process. They want to hear from an " authoritative" source. (An agenda must be prepared by DOE and published in the Federal Register fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting.) NRC should expect the Panel to also evaluate NRC presentation in terms of uncertainty and impact on cost and schedules.
-- dy-Joseph 0. Bunting, Chief P licy and Program Control Branch ivision of Waste Management
Enclosures:
- 1. Advisory Panel Background *
- 2. Listing of Panel Members
- 3. Federal Register Notice ,
- 4. Meeting Notes - AMFM Panel Meeting o
O l
l l
^
__ L .L . . - - -
'L j
July 8,1983
(
The Honorable Donald Paul Hodel Secretary of Energy
- Wasnington..DC 20585
Dear fir. Secretary:
Thank you for your letter of June 9,1983 informing me of your intent to establish an advisory panel to assist you in the study required by Section 303 of the fluclear Waste Policy Act.
Early in your process of establishing an advisory panel we voiced a concarn that the proposed charter for the panel did not provide for .
, keeping i1RC abreast of the panel's progress. This concern has been resolved
- in subsequent staff discussions and we have been utended the op ortun to have an NRC observer attend the advisory panel meetings. am p eased with this arrangement and believe that it will afford us the apprcpriate means of following the panel's progress and will enhance our ability to consult with you promptly on completion of the advisory panel's report.
1 In regard to the scope of f4RC involvement with this study, we intend to i
limit our area of consultation to the examination of potential impacts on NRC regulatory responsibility which may flow from any recomended
- alternative management proposal.
I look forward to a meaningful exchange in the coming months.
Sincerely,
- Treated as Chairman Correspondence Ref.-CR-83-110 original signed by Eunzio J. Palladino flunzio J. Palladino Chairman Distribution:
Wit s/f JDavis HDenton '
NMSS r/f W0ircks RMinogue DHuff EDO 13227 GKerr, SP MKearney EDO r/f GCunningham j .i JBunting ABentley /7 , r JSurmeier ETana SECY l OCM '// iMm *
- ~'C M I M DMattson JRoe '
RBrowning TRehm T.
6 bs
[
.O./hdr S /s- -w /i ui! /4~.
3 4 .*
DMausshay,dt } Stem % a o v _ 7/7/83 7 7/ j/83 l T/ 7 /J.I j'.'/ } /13 't / 's Revfsbn0[006h9)8$ED0563)-seepreviousORCforconcurrencesnd mes> .WMPI WMPI WMPI WM NMSS EDO WP OCM suaaame > 6'A'd't'f'J'i'i'j'..'.
.gg.g.. . . .T '.'B'R*i'G'6*i'i""" E'u'i'6'i"' Hi'b'E'i'Q"' '5E"G"i'E' 'E'G'"G~~ "GEIE
. - A ' M "'" " TA'4'M'."..".'.W- ~ ~572478T""~ "f7Q71rJ~" """T~78T em> - . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W-...
w oronu stepoasiancu _see OFFICIAL RECORD 3C -
~ ~
-- -.--.--..l--
. . o 2 . . ,
- '. THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
'* WASHINGTON. O C 20585 g .,
4 June 9, 1983 j
{
4 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Section 303 of tne Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L.97-425) requires the Department of Energy (006) to study alternative approacnes to managing tne construction and operation of all civilian radioactive waste management facilitias, including the feasiollity of establisning a private corporation for suen purposes. 00E must suomit a Report to Congress ay January 7, 1984, wnicn will include a tnorough and oojective analysis of tne advantages and disadvantages of each alternative approacn.
i In accordance witn the statuta, the study snall as c'onducted in consultation"nith the Director of the Office of Management and
~
Budget, tne Chairman of tne Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other appropriate Federal Agency representatives. I wish to inform you of an action I nave taken to assist in the development of this study.
I am establisning, witn tne concurrence of the Committee Management Secretariat of tne General Services Administration, an Advisory Panel on Alternative Means of Financing ano Managing (AMFM) Radioactive Waste Facilities.
I am considering nominations of persons with aporopriate
- capabilities and background to serve on tne AMFM Pa'nel, whicn will consist of approximately ten members. Panel memoers will
- ce selected f rom a cross-section o f interested persons and groups. Participants will need expertise in ne areas of j utility regulation; utility operations; puolic administration and management organization; corporate financing; law; Stata/ local governments and Indian nations; puolic interest / consumer groups; nuclear industry operations; and Federal / State legislatures.
I am naving a notice published in tne Federal Recister. After a 15-day waiting period, a Charter will oe filed witn the appropriate standing committees of Congress and the Library of Congress.
t
%[)wynAn-ODyW7cl u .
m-- i nN.
7.
. . _ _- .~
~,]_ [ _
^
- - - ~. - - _ - _ . _- ._.._._.,__.i l _ __,
s
' I shall notify (you .: hen the Panel is selected to provide you with the nar'te1Jof the members and the time and place of their i first ?.eeting.
Sin rely, l
4
\
_1_) ,
' OONALO PAUL HOCEL a
a
?
t l
l
--- - - . ~. - _.. ... ..__-- __
A. __ _
d
{
c L _ .-
_ DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY I
- CHARTER
. ADVISORY PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF FINANCING AND MANAGING RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES
- 1. Panel's Official Desionation: ,
Adviscry Panel on Alternative Means of Financing and Managing (AMFM) Radioactive Waste Facilities.
- 2. Ob4ectives and Socce of Activities:
To study and report to the Department of Energy on alternative means of financing and man. aging civilian .
radioactive waste facilities, pursuant to Section 303 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L.97-425). The panel's report will include a thorough and objective
( analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative approach. The canel shall complete its report and deliver its report to the Department by
~
November 15, 1983.
- 3. Tine period Necessary for the AMFM to Carrv Out Its .
Purcose:
Aporoximately 10 months. ,
- 4. Official to Whom this AMFM Recorts:
The Secretary.cf Energy, through the Project Director, Nuclear Waste Policy Act Project Office. .,
, 5. Acency Resconsible for Previdine Necessary Succort fer~ the AMFM:
The 00E. Within the DOE, primary support shall be furnished by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Project Office.
! 6. Descriotion of Outies for Which the AMFM is Resconsible:
The duties of the Panel are solely advisory and are stated *-
I in paragraoh 2 above.
(_ 7. Estimated Annual Ocerstino Costs in Dollars and Person-Years
$330,000: 0.75 person-years.
- - . =_ . - _ - . .-. - _ . - . .- - _. - -. : - - - __ - -_ . .
. _ _ _ _ _ . _ . = . - - _
.. . . g. .
'( .
(
Estimatid Number and Frecuency of Meetincs:
8.
The AMbi will meet approximately six times, on a monthly
. basis between May and November 1983, or as deemed-appropriate by the Department of Energy.
- 9. aMrw Termination Date:
No later than March 7, 1984.
- 10. AMrH Members:
The A"FH shall consist of sporoximately ten members appointed by the Secretary of Energy. The Secretary shall also designate one member to serve as chairman.
This ' Charter for the AMFM named above is hereby approved on:
Date:
C .
i
. K. Dean Helms Advisory Committee Management Officer .
Date Filed: -
t
- w 3.
L I .. .
' '~
- MEMBERSHIP LIST t- ADVISORY PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF FIN_ 4,NCING AND MANAGING RADICACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES Chaire Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain Senior Partner Ragen, Roberts, c'Scannlain, Robertson and Neill 1600 Orbanco Building 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Members E. Linn Draper, Jr.
Gulf State Utilities 350 Pine Street Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Brigadier General Mahlon E. Gates, USA (Ret.)
Senior Vice President - Operations Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 285LO San Antonio, Texas 79294 Rodman D. Grimm President ,
DGR Investment Corp.
600 Water Street, S.W.
20024
() Washington, D.C.
Barbara Keating-Edh 913 Wycliffe Court Modesto, California 95355 ,-
Terry R. Lash Department of Nuclear Safety , ,
1935 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 Enclosure 2 O
Melvin Samp9en Yakima Tribal Council P.O. Box IEf Toppenish, Washington 98948 Dr. Fred Singer Clark Hall University of Virginia -
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 David W. Stevens Office of the Governor Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Sidney M. Stoller 1250 Broadway New York, New York 10001
({}
Chairman Larry J. Wallace Indiana Public Service Commission 901 State Office Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Honorable Arnie Wight New Hampshire House of Representatives State House Concord, New Hampshire 03301 .
O O
O e
~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ' - - " , - . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _
Fiederal Register / Vol. 49 Ni. 5 / M:ndIy. JInu2ry 9.1984 / Nctices 1107
- 11. Alternatives Evaluated in the Dated: January 4.1983. 34.000.000. It is requested that all interested parties provide written Preliminary Environmental Assessment F. N. Ottie. . .
l.ieutenant Commandei. /A CC ff.S. Navy. notification of theirinterest in receiving A. No action. AltemeteFedem/Registerucison officer. a copy of the PON to the below listed
. B. Renovation of existing facilities. in om ru.m au emi point of contact not later than twenty C. Alternative site locations. au.sse caos asus e (20) days from the date of publication of this notice. Telephone inquiries will not .
IIL Statement of Conformity to Stats and ,
be accepted. -
Local Flood Plain Protection Standards DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Pon rusmean assFonesADoes CoorTACM lt has been determined that the [pou no. Dei.pwo4-84AL254341 - U.S. Department of Energy. Albuquerque proposed action is consistent with the . Operations Office. Contracts and State of Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Availability of Program Opportunity Industrial Relations Division. ATTN:
Management Plan to the mammum .
Notice for Small Community Solar O. W. Wehlander. P.O. Box 5400, extent practicable. Experiments ,
Albaquerque. NM 87115. s
~
Aomscv: Department of Energy (DOE). Inued in Washirypon. D.C on December IV. Reasons Ac6 is Proposed to be 2a. ten Albuquerque Operadons Office.
I#' I" 8'""* IM Acnose Availability of Program A. Military Readiness and Cost Opportunity Notice (PON) for Small Director. Pmewoment and A.anistacar.
Community Solar Expernnects [PON No. MaasentNecamae The major advantage to be realized , tre omme rame s-++e ms ==
from construction of a new hospital will DE-PNO4-84Armm4) saa. ass ocos esen $.e be a niore efficient organization of suesasAny: DOE intends to issue 'an '
functional relationships, and therefore, a unrestricted PON which will solicit more effective use of staff. A new proposals for the development of Offlee of Civillen Radioactive Waste facility will also provide an improved technologies for low-cost. long-life solar ". " g . . Adyteory Panel on capability for efficient expansion in the thennal systems for electrical power Attemative Means of Financing and future. This translates directly into a generation applications using focus- Managing (AMFM) Radioactive Waste savings in dollars and manpower. point collectors and Brayton, Stirling;. Faclitties; Open Meeting Finally, tne cost of a new facility is e ci t o[ { -
Pursuant M b provisions of the -
estimated to be approximately eight Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act(Pub.
million dollars less than.the estimated point. lssuance is plan.ne'd for January L 92-463. 86 Stat. 770), notice is hereby.
ggg4 .
cost of rehabilitation of the existing ' Authority: DOE Organiv=ttnn Act. given of the following meeting:
faculty s Pub. L 95-91. 42 U.S.C. 7101: Federal Name: Advisory pahel on Altarmative g' g#7 ,,
Non-nuclear Energy Research and Means of Finannne and Managmg lAMW)
Development Act of 1974. Pub. L 9:r-577, Iladioactive Waste Facilities.
Proximity of the proposed facility , 42. U.S.C. 5901 et seq.; DOE Financial Date and Time: January 24. isse. em s.m.-
within the existing navalinstallation . Assistance Regulations.10 CPR Part 900, sm p.m.: January 25. tsee, e co a.m.-tm p.m..
Subparts A and C. place: U.S. Department of Enengy. Forrestal will assure proper security is Building. Room 1E-245,1000 ba c -.a.
maintained. This activity is part of the Solar Avenue SW. Washington'D.C. 206as.
Hermal Power System Program for Contece Howard perry. U.S. Departement C. Genein/ . Parabolic Dish systems to demonstrate .of Energy, omce of Civilian Radioactive technology for parabolic dish. heat Weste Manesement,1000 todependence Consideration of economic.- engine electric power generation Avenue SW. Washington. D.C. 30546.
environmental and operational factors Telephone:202/252-63tae led to selection of one of five sites on modules for small utility markets. De ; .
objectives of the program are:(1)To' N #"'
the main base--all of which are within verify a parabolic dish solar thermal .
l the 500 year flood plain. De preferred ' electrical power generating module To study and report to the Department site is approximately 4 feet below the system using existing Brayton. Stirling of Energy on alternative approaches to 500 year flood elevation, but above the or Organic Ranidne Cycle heat engines enanaging the construction and .
100 year flood elevation. His action is technology; and (2) to design, construct - operation of civilian radibactive waste '
therefore subject to the provisions and and operate e ' ental multi-module facilities pursuant to Section 303 of the requirements of Executive Order 11988, solar thermal trical power Nuclear Wasta Policy Act of 1982 (Pub.
the stated objective of which is to generating-plants using verified modules L 97-425). ne penet's report will reduce the risk'of flood loss and to at locations in Osage City, Kansas, and include.a thorough and objective minimize the impact of floods on human on the island of Molokal. Hawaii.Each , analysis of the advantagestad safety, health and welfare. - plant will have a rated electrical power disadvantages of each alternative output of at leset 100 KWe. epproach.
V. Determinatian Pursuant to the DOE Assistance Regulations (10 CFR Part 600). DOE Tentative @
Based on the Preliminary anticipates awardinga Cooperative . January 24.1964: '
Environmental Assessment and for the Agreement for each project location
- Committee Charter reasons cited above, the Department of subject to the availability of funds.%e
- Nuclear Weste Policy Act .
the Navy has determined that location participants are expected to contribute ~
- Program Status -
of the proposed replacement naval financially to the effort which is
- Industry and Sta.te Perspectives hospital in the base coastal flood plain expected to commencein mid.1964 and
- Committee Priorities and Products is the only practicable alternative to the be completed in 1987. DOE's ==*==
- Public Comment (to minute rule). ,
Navy. contribution for each prolect location is January 25.1964:
~
~ .
O
' Enclosure 3
- ' ~
.- . T: . L: L. _ _
^
_; r..._L^L. _ _ LL j _
m
- 1108 . Federal Register'/ Vol. 49. No. 5 / Monday. January 9.1984 [ Notices I' -
- Committee schedule and tabulations. Appendix Alists the. authority, the term " State regulatory- ,
, Assignments covered utilities by State, and Appendix authority" means the TVA.
Staff Suppor) Neede Title I of PURPA sets forth ratemaking B Each lists State themregulatory alphabetically'ho'ity is and regulatory policy standards with
- Budget . sut r
- Public Comment (10 minute rule).
. required. pursuant to sections 102(c) and respect to electric utilities. Section 301(d) of PURPA and section 211(b) oft 102(c) requires the Secretary of Energy PubEc W da.
NECPA. to notify the Secretary of to publish a list, before the beginning of he meeting is open to the public. 8 Energy of each electric utility and gas each calendar year, identifying each Written statements may be filed with utility on the list for which such State electric utility to which Title I applies j .the Panel either before or after the . regulatory authority has ratemakin8 during such calendar year, An electric meeting. Members of the public who authority. In addition, written comments utility is defined as any person. State wish to make oral statements pertalm,ng are' requested on the accuracy of the list agency or Federal agency which sella
, to agenda items should contact Howard of electric utilities and gas utilities.
- electric energy. An electric utility is Perry at the address or telephone e4Ta: Notifications by State regulatory covered by Title I fo~r any i:alendar year nunnber IIsted above. Requesta must be. authorities and written comments must if it had total sales of electric energy for nabep v will be a e February 14.1964. .- 500 million kilowatt-hours during any include the presentation orr the agenda. calendar year haainalaa after December a===am Notifications and written l
De Ch f I comments should be forwarded to: 31.1975, and before the'immediately empowered conduc e nieeting in a . Department of Energy. Coal and preceding calendar year. An electric.
fashion that will fr.ilitate the orderly Electricity Division.1000 Independence utility is covered in 1984 if it exceeded i
conduct of business. the threshold in 1976.1977.1978.1979..
l .
Avenue. S.W. (Room GA-033). Docket Transcripts - No. ERA-R-29-438. Washington. D.C. 1900.1981. or 1982. *
]
i The transcript of the meeting will be 20585. Title E of PURPA addresses Post Pustreset gesponna4Tions coerracT: ratemaking and other regulatory policy i available for public review and copying standards with respect to natural gas
! at the Freedom of Information Public . Steven Mints. Coal and Electricity Reading Room.18-190. Forrestal Division. Economic Regulatory utilities. Section 301(d) of Title E -
Administration. Department of Energy, requires the Secretary of Energy to --
- Building.1000 Independence Avenue .
1000 Independence Avenue. S.W., Room publish a list. before the beginning of .
l SW., Washington. D.C between 8:30 CA-433. Washington. D.C. 20585, 202/ each calendar year; identifying each gas I a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 252-1657.
utility to which Title E applies during Friday, except Federal holidays.
ourmerfany issposinaavicoe . wh endar year. A gas uWs
- tu defined as any person. State agency or M,,, H. nedm at Weslunston. D.C., on January 4.
3 1. Backguound -
Federal agencf, engaged in the local Pursuant to sections 102(c) and 301(d) distribution of natural gas and the sale
' 0""" ' # " 8 * "# of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies oFnatural gas to any ultimate consumer
[' Act of 1975 (PyRPA). Pub. I;.96-617,92 ofastural gas. A gas utility is covered -
" "" " *W ~
Stat. 3117 et asy. (16 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), by Title IIT if it had total sales of natural and section 211(b) of the National- gas foryurposes other than resale in
- Energy Conservation Policy Act excess of to billion cubic feet during any (NECPA). Pub. L 96-619. 92 Stat. 3208 et calendar year begiamns after December .
Economic Reguistory Administration seg (41 U.S.C.8211 et seq.) hereinafter. - 31.1975, and before the immediately 10estones.m7s.43s1 . referred to as the " Acts." the pr'eceding calendar year. A gas utility is Department of Energy (DOE) is required covered in 1984 ifit exceeded the Ehetric and Gas UUNues Covmod in to publish a list of utilities to which threshold in 1975.1977,1978.1979.1980.
1984 WeesI and M h PuhNo Titlestl and E of PURPA and Titles H 1981. or 1982. -
" and VII of NECPA apply in 1964. , Title H. Part 1. of NECPA, addresses g,, yy residential conservation programs, and State regulatory authorities are Energy Conserveson Poucy W , , required by the above cited Acts to Title VR of NECPA. enacted as part of 8"" # 88" notify the Secretary of Energy as to their . the Energy Security Act. Pub. t.96-294, eguietwy Autermes To@ me ratemaking authority over the listed 94 Stat. ett et seg. (42 U.S.C. 8701 et ,
Deputment Mnergy -
. utilities. The inclusion or exclusion of seg.), addresses commercial building assesv: Economic Regulatory , any utility on or from the list does not and multifamily dwelling conservation
- Administration. DOE._ . afect the legal obligations of such utility programs. Section 211(b)'contains a or the responsible authority under the requirement, similar to that of PURPA.
Actices Notice. .
that the Secretary of Energy publish a Acts. .
suasmany: Sections 102(c) and 301(d) of .The term " State re'gulstory authority" list of electric,and gas utilities to which .
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act means any State, including the District Titles !! and VII apply.The NECPA -
of 1973 (PURPA) and section 211(b) of- of Columbia and Puerto Rico or a requirements for coverage of electric the National Energy Conservation Policy political subdivision thereof, and any utilities and gas utilities differ from the Act (NICPA) require the Secretary of agency or instrumentality, either of PURPA requirements in only three Energy to publish a list befoes the - which has authority to fix. modify. respects:
, , beginning of each calendar year. approve, or disapprove rates with (1) The threshold for electric utilities identifying each electric utility and gas respect to the sale of electric energy or is 750 million kilowatt. hours for utility to which Titles I and E of PURPA natural gas by any utility (other than purposes o'ther than resale; andTitlee H and VE of NECPA apply such State agency) and in the case of a (2) e utility is covered for any
, during such calendar year.no 1984 list utility for which the Tennessee Valley calendar yearifit exceeded the -
is published here as two separate Authority (TVA) has ratemaking threshold during the second preceding
- - - - - - - - - - - - . -we----v.#w mar -eme.--e -m- -- ---- -- -- -. -w--- , + - - ---------------------'6
(
MEETING NOTES AMFM PANEL MEETING JANUARY 24-25, 1984 A. The morning of the first day's meeting was devoted primarily to a briefing on the Department of Energy (00E) HLW Program by Mike Lawrence, Acting Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, who made the following points which I thought were of interest to NRC:
- 1. The preliminary draft Mission Plan now out for comment was very important because of (a) the critical assumptions regarding the Limited Work Authorization (LWA) by NRC; and (b) the assumption that 00E could proceed to construct and operate a collocated Test and Evaluation Facility (TEF) absent a license by NRC.
- 2. DOE can't meet the two-three year period allocated for Site Characterization (derived from NWPA statutory dates of 1985 for site recommendations for characterization and 1987 for license application plus one year possible extension for good cause) because:
- a. Act requires 00E and NRC to work together on the site characterization plan (SCP)
- b. Time required to obtain state permits -
c Time required to drill shafts
- d. Time required to collect data.
Therefore, the recommendation of site selection to the President will be 1990 vs. 1987.
- 3. There was a full discussion of the issue regarding the timing of a " Preliminary Determination" as required under Section 114(f) of NWPA (See Attachment 1 to this Enclosure). 00E interprets the Act as permitting the " Preliminary Determination" to be made prior to site characterization and Enclosure 4
(
recognized others must be complete prior to the " determination."oninterpreted the A 4.
would have the final guidelines published 30 da Concurrence.
5.
There is insufficient time to comply with NWPA siting requirements (MRS).
on.two generic sites. for the monitored retrieval storage j
6.
Mission Plan assumes MRS is a backup . DOE to the r storage and MRS other than report to Congress.
B.
The Panel next heard a briefing on the Waste Fund by 00E's Bob Rosselli, Acting Associate Director for Management, who made the following comments I thought of interest to NRC:
1.
The Fund has as current debt of $254M (appropriated funds transferred to Wa' te Fund) and cash of approximately $150M .
- 2. /
00E has authority to borrow to cover expenses or to invest surplus. s
- 3. \
/
4 They have no projections of being in investment v' modef In relation to Panel discussions an OMB representative clarified the budget review proce,ss for the Fund as follows: (% N, >>
a.
00E submits budget request and is subiect to the same inhouse, OMB and Congressional Oversight Reviews .
N
- b. ,n .
00E obtains a Congressional Appropriation which conveys N the limit the authority of thetoappropriation.
expend Fund revenues (or borrow) up\to n_o funds itself. The' appropriation brings Y 5.
The budget consists of two decision units:
gj u a.
F$ '
s R&D for approximately $14.2M in FY84,R&D J - funded by
(
,1 p '
T .f
.A 19 3 .
~
.z -
' f v
J i
l' ' (
.)&s.vg ,
ya
' '" C.*
'l,,.)
a \
i y > f, n a
tf
. . . . , . - _ - . = :. . ..- .. . _ . . . - _ - . _ _ _ . - - - _
... b.
(
_ Waste Fund - approximately $246M FY84 for basic repository program, $40M of this is for Program Management, which includes funds to cover the study to determine if Defense waste should be collocated with civilian waste.
The Panel Member from Gulf States Utilities asked why rate payers should pay for the Defense waste study.
DOE intends to hire an " integrating" contractor.
DOE is pursuing " full cost recovery" and has agreement with other DOE activities to pay for their support, such as administration and the Energy Information Administration.
Considerable interest and discussion about Program fianagement costs.
- 6. Adequacy of fee (1 mil /KWH)
DOE required by Sec 302(a)(4) to annually assess the adequacy of fees and propose to Congress adjustments to insure full cost recovery.
00E developing models to predict " Life Cycle Costs" as tool to assess adequacy.
Will evaluate sensitivity of program cost to:
- a. Waste form and package
- b. Geologic media
- c. Repository design
- d. Other.
DOE recomending (thru budget submission to Congress) an ,
escalation in fee to 1.14 mil /KWH effective October 1984 based on inflation.
- Panel Member noted all utility contracts would have to be amended.
., . I -
_ onsiderabis discussion on why 1 Mil was now suddenly inadequate:
00E cited delays Panel itember questioned response and recommended to Chairman that Panel needed to address.
In my opinion, heavy cynicism was evident.
In the afternoon session, individual panel members stated how each perceived the issues and what further information was required. The views varied but I believe there was a general concern for more F,cus on cost / budgets and general knowledge of the function and prcblem to be managed rather than proceeding to just look at alternatives. There were repeated criticisms by various panel members representing a broad spectrum of interests on:
00E decentralized management / decision-making Continual schedule slips Institutional problems Costs increases Must avoid the attitude'that we "can always go back for more" (inc'rease in fee). This kills programs.
- Why if one year ago 00E said (implied 00E had stated in l
Congressional Testimony) I mil fee was adequate even if cost doubled, what happened to make it inadequate so'quickly.
One Panel Member reported there was severe unhappiness now with way things are done today based on his conversations with 00E and DOE contractor employees--suggested outside law firm to get confidential -
reports from employees.
4
SUMMARY
OF PANEL DISCUSSION ON FUTURE ACTIONS The Chairman summed up by saying they needed the following:
Look at 83-84 budget and 85, when available.
4 t
l e
--.v v -m- , --w , . - -- , - . . ,n,-- , - -,,-----------,--,w--v--,,m-~ nc,- -----n- ----m- -- , -wr-----r-a-m-- ~e----r---,m---~,y--- -w- - -mw w- w
._. _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ ~ . -___ _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Exa the " mechanics" of the repository--including site visits Know more about Congressional intent.
Hear from appropriate agencies:
National Governors' Association / National Council of State Legislators
- Utilities
- TVA Office of Technology Assessment NRC and other regulatory agencies.
Financial alternatives. .
As required by law, opportunity was made available for public coment.
The following represents my assessment of the significant points made by the public comments in the order of importance, not order in which they spoke.
LORING MILLS (Edison Electric Institute): Characterized NWPA as " greatest public works program ever with assured funding" seemed concerned that lawyers, researchers, contractors and states will use the program funds and processes to their own advantage at expense of program schedule slips and cost growth. Also criticized DOE Decentralized Management structure (field offices not reporting to program director).
EDDAVIS(ANEC): Shared concern of decentralization.
DOE has poor record on carrying out program:
- a. This committee is late (report was due January 7).
( b. After one year still no director,
- c. Guidelines late.
- d. Mission Plan slips 1987 date for recommendation of sites to President.
- e. 1998 date in jeopardy.
The NWPA represents carefully and hard-won compromises among diverse views--the continued schedule slips will cause an unraveling of these compromises.
Committee must assess if DOE has the necessary stability and continuity. Urges Panel to include stability and continuity as one of their criteria in evaluating alternatives.
Present DOE structure was not working.
Mission Plan schedule has no credibility.
00E must establish a realistic schedule and improve schedule discipline.
Panel Member Stevens asked if the current DOE organization structure had anything to do with missing the NWPA date for the guidelines.
Panel Member Lash answered with No, it was DOE people--he and many others upon first seeing DOE schedule for guidelines oredicted failure. His view that people responsible had no expertise or basic understanding of the public participation / state consultation processes and failed to identify the necessary processes and allocate sufficient time to carry them out.
A
. -- _ _ _ _ ~ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ - - . . _ - . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ - (
MR. KLOMAS (National Academy of Public Administration): Made Panel aware of two studies the NAPA performed relative to this subject:
- a. 1980-81 study for OM8 on Government Corporations, advantages / disadvantages and when they were appropriate. (I have a copy.)
- b. 1982 Study for DOE addressing the institutional issues for High Level Waste. Panel Member David Stevens (State of Washington) was identified as a member of the NAPA 1982 Study Group.
(I have requested a copy of Study from Klomas. )
One of the recommendations from the '82 study read by Klomas sounded very similar to the language in Sec 303 NWPA (conduct a study of alternative means to finance and ~
manage the HLW program.)
MR. BERRICK (Environmental Concerned over the DOE reorganization Policy Institute): plan to put uranium enrichment with civilian radioactive waste. Felt it impacted on Panel's efforts and they should understand implication. He felt that it contravenes the intent of Congress in setting up a separate office for waste management (NWPA Sec 304).
MR. GORDAN (with Atomics Industrial Forum): Wanted to let Panel know that comments on Mission Plan were due next week.
Panel requested DOE to provide them with full set of comments.
. , . January 25, 193 Secretary Hodel addressed panel and made the following points:
- a. He and Panel Chairman O'Scannlain were long-time personal friends,
- b. Scope and task of Panel was important.
- c. There is a question of whether nuclear energy can continue as a dependable source in the national energy plan.
- d. Government failure to date to address issues of waste is a concern.
- e. It is a certainty that the program will be stopped by politics and/or the courts unless the states and public have meaningful participation,
- f. Charge to the Panel includes alternative means for financing,
- g. The report must be of high quality.
- h. Don't be constrained by perception of current political elements or current way DOE is organized--no constraints on ideas.
- 1. Don't do an analysis of current /past DOE management.
J. Issue is alternatives.
e
(
Hodel's views 44 he stated that in his view the object of the NWPA is to provide A safe process, l .
A public process with public' support -- timely to meet the utilities needs.
His views that MRS is included in Act because some felt that public support could not be obtained for a repository.
Panel Member Stevens asked if there is any reality that Panel recommendations would have any impact since it will not be received until almost two years after Act passed--a mindset not to rock the boat by management changes.
H00EL -- depends on perceived benefits--how big a difference will it nake--they have made significant changes in National Lab Management (0ak Ridge).
DOE (Rosselli) then presented a further breakdown of the program budget (at the request of the Panel). Significant points:
- a. DOE spending $246M for contractors in FY84 (1) Hanford $60+M (2) NTS $60+M -
(3) Salt $120+M.
- b. NTS and Hanford funds include substantial field work,
- c. Little field activity at Salt site.
- d. Funds used by DOE (contractors) to prepare nine
, environmental assessments (currently in the works).
- e. Panel member asked if NRC response to Guidelines could impact on current EA preparation?
- f. Rosselli -- No - have confidence in Guidelines.
I t
- - - - - . , _ , , - ,-_r - - , - - . -
. - - . . - - . _ < - - , - ~ - - , - , - . . - . . - . . , - _ - - - . , - - - - , . -
10 -
b The Chairman egablished three task leaders for three panels for futher study efforts:
Task Task Leader Construction and Operations Mahlon Gates Alternative Financing Rodman Grimm Alternative Organizations Larry Wallace Next meeting was schedule for February 21 & 22, 1984, in Washington, D.C.
- Ouring the public comment period, Mr. Klomas (NAPA) was recognized and presented Panel Members with copies of study performed for OMB and announced that Hcward Parry (00E) had copies of the study performed for D0E. No other members of the 'public requested to be heard.
4 i
i i
. .. .m-- -..- . , . , - - - . . - - . - - , - - - . - - . . ~ , . , - - . . - . . - - - - - - - . ,
. 96 STAT. 2216 PUBLIC LAW 97-425--JAN. 7,1983
.~ _ meet such deadline, the reason why such agency could not reach an agreement with the Secretary, the estimated time for completion of the activity or activities involved, the associated effect on its other deadlines m the project decision schedule, and any recommenda.
{. improvements in its operation or organization
.M Report response. statutory directives or authority, so that it will be able to mitigate Ghng with the delay involved. The Secretary, within 30 days after receiving cesma any such report, shall file with the Congress his response to such report, including the reasons why the Secretary could not amend the project decision schedule to accommodate the federal agenc involved.
(f) ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENT.-Any recommendation made by the Secretary under this section shall be considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.h A final environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary under such Act shall accompany any recommendation to the President to approve a site National Environmental Policy Act offor a repository, W 1969142 U.S.C. 4321 et seqa, compliance with the procedures and requirements of this Act sha!!
be deemed adequate consideration of the need for a repository, the time of the initial availability of a repository, and all alternatives to the isolation of high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in a repository For purposes of comphring with the requirements of a u t:sc u21 et the National Environmental PolicyMof 1969 (42 U.S C.1321 et sev- seqJ and this section, the Secretary shall consider as alternate sites for the first repositor t to be developed under this subtitle 3 candi.jr date sites with respec)t to whicly(1) site characterisation completed under section 113d and (2) the Secretary has)tas beeer maders prehminary determinations that such sites are suitable for develo ment as respositories consistent with the guidelinse promulga under section 112(at The Secretary shall consider as alternative sites for subsequent re recommended by the itories at least three of the remaining sites 1989, pursuant to section 112tb) and approved by the Pr site characterization pursuant to section 112(cf for 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 respositories consistent with the guide-lines promulgated under section 112(at Any environmental impactp statement constru in connection with a repositspy proposed to be by the Secretary under this subtitle shalI#to the extent practicable, be adopted by the Comraissioarin connection with the tasuance by the Commission of a construction authorization and license for such repository. To the extent such statement is adopted by the Commission, such adoption shall be deemed to also sattsfy the responsibilities tal Policy Act ofofthe Commission under the National Environmen.
1969 (42 U S C. 4321 et seql and no further consideration shall be required, except that nothing in this subsec-tion shall affect any independent responsibilities of the Commission to protect the public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954142 U.S C. 2011 et seq.t Nothing in this Act shall be coe.
strued to amend or otherwtee detract from the licensing require, 42 (Jsc 584 t. ments of the Nucler Regulatory Commissiope as established in title !!
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public law 93-438t In i
Attachment I