ML20203L544

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:21, 7 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Rept Re Status of Commission Readiness to Process HTGR CP Application,Per House Rept 99-93,Part I of H.R. 1711.Rept Withheld
ML20203L544
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/07/1986
From: Stello V
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Palladino
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20203L508 List:
References
FOIA-86-126, FOIA-86-127, FOIA-86-131, FOIA-86-166, FOIA-86-201, FOIA-86-209, FOIA-86-263, FOIA-86-80, FOIA-86-82 NUDOCS 8608270406
Download: ML20203L544 (1)
v • d • e


Text

ry 1

d pm% .

8  %

5 ' UNITED STATES I

g, '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 February 7, 1986 HEMORANDUM FOR: Chainnan Palladino FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REPORT - STATUS OF COMMISSION  :;

READINESS TO PROCESS AN HTGR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION The report was requested in House Report 99-93, Part I of H.R.1711.

Attached is a brief report which sumarizes the status of the Comission's readiness to process an HTGR Construction Permit Appifcation. ,

l / /(.

Victor Stello, l .

Acting Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated i

cc: Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal i

Comissioner Zech SECY OGC OPE i

i Distribution ED0 R/F VStello JRoe TRehm ,

860e270406 860826 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-80 PDR

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)2324550 February 10, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Director m-u;dM Ur troURMa !'i Office of Administration s:" op purea Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 k ~k b~ b )

To Whom It May Concern:

(24e W 2-// -9/:,

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). 5 USC section 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summa, ries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello'c predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed snd/or removed af ter this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information. can be considered as primarily benefitting the general publ.ic," 5 USC section 552 (a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project 11467 NU g

February 10, 1986 Page Two promotes whi.stleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is -

also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatilon as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (Il, 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section_977 (1974).

We look forward t'o your response to this request within ten days.

Sioncerely,

~

kh- 4 Billie Pirner Garde BPG:41901 i

i t

I l

(

l

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Awenue N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)232-8550 February 3, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Director . . -[ '[ * ' ' ?', ' ' ' '

Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 [g{A p , ~ p k To Whom It May Concern: G2a 6 2. -/3 -f c,,

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). 5 USC section 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

- If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552 (a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project b }

February 3, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatiion as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or-portions of documents withheld. The lindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

Signcerely, ib Billie Pirner Garde

~

DPG:41901

~

n s J- .

t GOW hENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT 15550 ecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washingrt i, D f . 2 0 0 3 6 (202)232-8550 February 24, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT FREEDOM OF INFORMATON Director ACT REQ!!Egr Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~b Washington, D.C. 20555 g ,,g g To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC section 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justico (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice' recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the

. daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect -

that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum iicluding all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552 (a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project Q hhU ]f

1 8

February 24, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The _ Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatilon as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilitics in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) , cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

7 ,

sincerely, Billie Pirner Garde a

BPG:41901

./

e i

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington. D.C. 20036 (202)2324550 March 3, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT FREIDOM OF INFORMAI!ON Director ACT REQUEST Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fora -%-/2_Q Washington, D.C. 20555 .N O"h-kh To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC section 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed tio include all the daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by '

his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552(a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project

}(&W (f L

]

t March 3, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatilon as part of-an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilitics in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming'each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

Sincerely,

\(b t-Billie Pirner Garde BPG:41901

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 February 17, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT g

Director ACT REQUEST office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission [CD O-/d/

Washington, D.C. 20555 h 8 - 7 Mdr To Whom It May Concern:

? Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC section 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages,. voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of .

NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they .

currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

~

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552(a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government Through public outreach, the Project i

l f

s , ....3,.

February 17, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or _

unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatilon as part of an .

ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

Sincerely, nu-- h Billie Pirner Garde ,

BPG:41901

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROJECT -

1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 March 10, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION g Director ., ' , *,'.[

office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 h[ -b'! b b To Whom It May Concern:

(2a y J- /3- / 6 Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC sec, tion 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, lette , amoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, iapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily ectivity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMhRC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently chi.W in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

If any records as defined in,10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552 (a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project "h(pf)

1 1

March 10, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatiion as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of yopr grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) , cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

Sincerely,

3[ .J' gg\...,b.c ,-

Billie Pirner Garde BPG:41901

{ .

GOVFRNMFNT ACCOIINTA.0H_lTY pp,OJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue. N.W., Suite 202 WashingrOn. D.C 20036 (202)232 8550 March 17, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Director Office of Administration 6 M.soM @ traUHth I h Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,1'?T '7Q UEST Washington, D.C. 20555 g y ,_p p C /

To Whom It May concern:

b 'd dd [ O Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FO1A"), S USC section 552, the Government-Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copics of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they }

currently' exist in the NRC official," working,"

other files, or at any other location, including private investigative h residences.

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC l manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which '

nave been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552 (a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government.

Through public outreach, the Project 9

March 17, 1986 Page Two promotes whistloblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

days.

Wo look forward to your response to this request within ten Sincerely, N IW Q_ 4 Billie Pirner Garde

't s'

BPG:41901

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 WashingrOn. D.C. 20036 (202)232 8550 March 24, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 46.tOOM OF INFOHMATf0N Director ACT REQUEST office of Administration Fo C A-Pb-309 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ] gf 3 g._p(,3 Washington, D.C. 20555 To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC section 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily activity logs of Hr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect f that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of l conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative <nr other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding l the information can be. considered as primarily benefitting the l general public," 5 USC section 552(a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project

]lY

March 24, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above informatilon as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provids a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is

, relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

Sincerely,

\W -

Billie Pirner Garde BPG:41901 l

I l

(

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)2324550 March 31, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT FREGDOW OF WFORMATt0N Director ACT REQUEST Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission p f A g f , ? la 3 Washington, D.C. 20555 k /d 4-//-8b To Whom It May Concern:

. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("F0IA"), 5 USC dection 552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, policy discussion papers, recommenda-tions, SECY papers, telephone messages, voice recordings, and any other information compilation or issuances and any and all other records or reports generated or prepared by Victor Stello beginning with his appointment as Acting Executive Director.

This request should be broadly construed to include all the daily activity logs of Mr. Stello, and any documents generated by his office staff and over which he excercises control. We expect that this request will produce records of all meetings Mr. Stello has with any industry representatives, such as representatives of NUMARC, or the Atomic Industrial Forum including all records of conversations with Mr. Stello's predecessor.

This request includes all agency records, whether they currently exist in the NRC official," working," investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.

If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC manual, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

GAP and TLPJ request that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 USC section 552 (a) (4) (a) . GAP is non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project Q

91

.h

March 31, 1986 Page Two promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice's Citizen Legal Clinic is also a non-profit, public interest group which assists individuals throughout the country to right intentional or unintentional wrongs caused by the actions of others. TLPJ is assisting citizen intervenors in several cases now before the NRC.

We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC staff's performance of their responsibilities in protecting public health-and safety.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and derscribing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The iindex should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming ~each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d.

section 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. section 977 (1974).

We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.

Sincerely,

\W Q

[ Billie Pirner Garde i

I BPG:41901 D

I l

.s

I

%  % N-  % K.

  • Distribution:

EDO 1353 IP r/f IPEI r/f l

. VStello l FEB 061986 JRoe l JShea Mr. James B. Devine MPeterson Deputy Assistant Secretary CEberhard Huclear Energ;' and Energy LWirfs Technology Affairs . TRehm Bureau of Oceans and International JDavis Environmental and Scientific Affairs GCunningham U.S. Department of State JSniezek Washington, DC '20520 PDR

Dear Mr. Devine:

Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986 recognizing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's role in United States support for the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards activities and expressing your hope for continued and increasing NRC participation in these support activities. We appreciate the importance of U.S. support for the IAEA and its safeguards system and NRC will continue to. do all that we can to assist in U.S.

Government activities directed toward such support.

I must state, however, that we are facing severe budget constraints over the next year. Already, we have had to teminate planned contract support on an IAEA safeguards-related task identified in the Action Plan Working Group.

Nevertheless, we will continue to support all necessary travel related to implementation of the U.S./IAEA Agreement, as we recognize the essential and unique role of NRC in this activity. Additionally, we will support, to the extent possible, foreign travel in connection with NRC's participation in the Technical Support Coordinating Committee (TSCC), the bilateral discussions which the U.S. holds with other countries, and other occasional activities where NRC technical expertise is relevant.

We appreciate your endorsement of NRC's continued involvement in activities in support of IAEA safeguards. Your expression of support will certainly facilitate our efforts to provide effective and reliable participation in U.S.

Government efforts in this area.

Sincerely, Original signed by Victor Stollo Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations

& d? @lW \e'

="4 . . . . . .E E,I , , , , , , , , ,A D,; ,I,P,E ,I, , , , , , ,, ,, ,E,L D , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , ,N M,S,S , , , , , , , , , , , , ,D I,R,: I P , , , , , , , , , , , ,E,00 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

==> .

,C,Eb,erh,a,r,d,,, ,,,MR,P,eters,on ,, ,,,J,Becker ,,,,,, ,,RBu rnet,t,,,,,, ,,,J RSh,ea ,,,,,,,, ,,,V ,

e m ) 1/30/86 2/2/86 1/31/86 2/3/86 4/P L

, ,, ~ ~,

.. . r:

' ^

..a us,..

,, [ o g UNITFD STATES

[ p, NUCL. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 l WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

....+

/ FEB 2 71986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ZECH TO DIRCKS MEMORANDUM 0F DECEMBER 20, 1985 -

POST-ACCREDITATION PROGRAM This memorandum responds to Comissioner Zech's questions regarding the staff's review of INP0's accreditation program. The staff will provide additional details in our first year report on INP0's accreditation program, which is due to the Comission at the end of March.

Question 1 asks if the staff has discovered any information as the result of inspections of accredited training programs that it could not have discovered by monitoring in accordance with the Policy Statement, what that information is, and if it has been provided to INPC. The Policy Statement provides for post-accreditation audits by stating: "It remains the continuing responsibility of the NRC to independently evaluate applicants' and licensees' implementation of improvement programs..." (emphasis added).

At a June li,1985. Comission meeting, the industry expressed concern that regional training inspections diverted utility resources from preparing for accreditation. Region based programatic training inspections were replaced with performance-based inspections in June 1985.

If post-accreditation audits were not performed, the staff would have to rely on observing INPO Team Visits or region conducted performance-based inspections to judge the effectiveness of accreditation. For the following reasons, we do not believe these methods would fulfill our responsibility.

The Team Visit is conducted prior to accreditation, whereas the post-accreditation audits are conducted approximately 6 months after accreditation, which permits the staff to observe the results and implementation of the accreditation process. At the Team Visit stage, programs are not always fully implemented. The INP0 team makes recomendations and the utility comits to improvements, both prior to Accreditation Board review and sometimes for longer term implementation.

Also, by agreement with INP0, we are limited to one or two observers at I approximately 20% of the INP0 Team Visits. Normally, INP0 has about 12 reviewers on a team which makes it difficult for the staff to observe all M }. 3.f /

aspects of the Team Visit and simultaneously conduct an independent review.

These observations focus on the INP0 process rather than implementation by the utility.

Performance-based inspections conducted since June 1985 focus on the ability of the nuclear power plant staff to perform their jobs after training rather than on the training development process. The Policy Statement indicates 4 that "the NRC endorses the INP0-managed Training Accreditation Program in that it encompasses the elements of effective performance-based training..."

and goes on to list the five essential elements of an acceptable training program. The post-accreditation audits are our only means to ensure that the five elements have been addressed in accredited training programs.

The enclosed letter dated January 28, 1986, from Mr. Denton to Mr. Pate of INP0, provided to INPO the reports on three post-accreditation audits, and a report on an INP0 follow-up visit to Susquehanna. INP0 and NRC staffs are reviewing our preliminary findings and considering potential improvements in the staff's review process and the accreditation program. We are also

, considering mechanisms for the NRC staff to independently develop the information necessary for the Commission to base its decision on the effectiveness of the accreditation program, Commissiorer Zech's second question relates to whether there are any q

< differences between NRC post-accreditation criteria and INPO's criteria. A

' comparison of the elements of the NRC training review procedures with INP0's accreditation criteria is enclosed with the January 28 letter, Denton to a

Pate. This comparison reaffirms the staff's conclusion that there are no differences between the staff's and INP0's concept of effective performance-

] '

based training. The staff and INPO are discussing our post-accreditation audit findings to ensure consistent understanding between INP0 and NRC o regarding implementation of this concept.

I!

Commissioner Zech's Question 3 relates to performance-based inspections and j the criteria used to determine if training has improved. SECY-85-288

t provides background information relative to the differences in scope and purpose between post-accreditation audits conducted by NRR personnel and performance-based inspections conducted by regional inspectors. Basically, the post-accreditation audits focus on review of the training program development process and implementation, whereas the performance-based inspections relate to evaluation of on-the-job performance. The relevant inspection modules, IP 41701 - Licensed Operator Training and IP 41400 -

Nonlicensed Staff Training, are enclosed. The results of the inspection are a primary input to the recently established training functional area of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). The criteria used to assess performance in training are the same as those used for all SALP functioral areas.

1

.- , - ---- - -- - - - , , , ,,_-,-ne ,a , .--w,--- ,-- - - - - - - - - - -,,-,e e ,-ww-.---e,--- ,wr-,-- - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - - - ~ - - w--'

1 Our first year report' on accreditation will provide a more detailed description of the findings from the post-accreditation audits and regional training inspections as well as other indicators of personnel performance such as operator licensing examination results and SALP reports. Where possible, comparisons between accredited and not yet accredited training programs will be provided.

V1 N Stello, Jr Acting Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated cc: SECY -

OGC OPE

  • - 56-26J APR 101986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Asselstine FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

SPEECH BY CHAIRMAN OF THE NARUC NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SUBCOMMITTEE In view of the scheduled meeting on April 15, 1986, between the Commission and the Nuclear Waste Disposal Subcomittee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Comissioners (NARUC), you may be interested in the attached copy of a speech given by the Chairman of that NARUC Subcomittee at the Waste Management '86 conference early in March. In her remarks to the NRC Comissioner Anderson might be expected to emphasize strict adherence to realistic repository schedules by NRC and DOE and recognition by all parties that it is the utility ratepayers that will ultimately pay the bills. From conversations with Commissioner Anderson's staff, SP advises that the Subcomittee is also interested in the NRC conducting a review of its licensing and hearing procedures to assure that lessons learned from its reactor hearing experiences are applied to the HLW hearings. The NARUC representatives may also be interested in the Comission's thoughts on utilization of the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for the NRC's own regulatory activities.

Original signed by Victor Stello Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Speech cc: Chairman Palladino Distribution Comissioner Roberts E00 R/F Comissioner Bernthal VStello Comissioner Zech JRoe OPE TRehm OGC GWKerr SECY JDavis

/

0FC :A0/EDO :EDO  :  :  :  :  :

NAME :TARehm;pv :VSte lo  :  :  :  :  :

(

DATE :4/ /86 :4/ /8 /86 :  :  :  :  : y Jt/

OFFICIAL RECORD COP) /

5&Q(b&

5(L

i o ,. I

, .'. . lh -

. . .. . .. ..... . 4;.44.. . .M . .

  • . 7 ... . i .d N*. O .'m'A * *

. t Mr - 7

.q  :.; . ..~. .. . : ** 2. z . .. . . . ._ ..

. .g . .-*.

  • a . . .. ~ ~ .

~

'a 4.pl g , ,

E O j HIGH4EVEL IdASTE PROGRAM MANAGEENT:

  • s&
    • A ItATEPAYER$' AND REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE.
. v i A, i Edwyna G. Anderson. Comissioner Michigan Public Service Commission

. Chairperson. Nuclear idaste Disposal Subcomittee

.(j ,. s  ; . Jiational Association of Regulatory Utility Comissioners i .

Lansing. Michigan 48g0g

.. f .

i f I'

S '

1 ABSTSACT .

The nation's electkic u 1 of high-level nuclear waste.gility Because regulators have joined all financial support the effortfrom comes to enhance ratepayers, the the federal National project to dispose Association of Regulatory Utility Comissioners (MARUC) through the mechanism of a subconnittee, seets to investigate and 8

monitor the federal program to provide to the Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy (D0E) the NARUC's unique espertise.- Its' views to enhance program management and improve cost control are its central contribu.

. ?f tion. leille conveying no lack of confidence in the federal management, the NARUC is imparting its relevant

espertence (erived from review of nuclear power plant construction and cost control.

o .

.r .

Recommendations are made for more cost-effective program direction and views on its management are given.

, Financial control, public input and cost responsibilities for disposal of defense and commercial westes are separately identified. Needs for the DOE's heightened insight into and development of the monitored retrieva.

i

    • ble storage proposal to the Congress are described. Finally, with a warning that there esists a limit to ratepayer funding of this effort, the request is made for Congressional cost 4ontrol hearings and for expanded dialogue between the Department of Energf and financially responsible parties.

i The development and construction of a high-level public service commissioners across the country

} nuclear waste disposal facility is as important an have taken note of the Nuclear Idaste policy Act of ,

s issue as any in our time - both from a physical and a 1982. This unique, prescriptive law represents to J

fiscal point of view. Creation by the Congress of us the embodiment of national policy on ene of the

. the Nuclear idaste Fund under section 302 of the most elusive socio-technicallroblems of modern 4

i Nuclear idaste policy Act of Ig82 results in the times, the disposal of hight. ev'el nucTear,suste.

, assessment for this project of one mill for each

. tilowatt. hour of electricity generated by nuc19 er The driving force behind the NARUC's involve.

fuel. funds are to be used to dispose of all spent

  • ment in this federally-ma.ndated process, aside from fuel from commercial reactors. Despite frequent the safe and orderly removal of spent reactor fuel references to utilities which are called on to cel.

from temporary storage at in state nuclear reactor lect the money. It is ratepayers who are the source sites.15 the concern for sound fiscal management of of all these revenues. Recognizing this, the the program. Recognizing the technical complexity,*

. National Association of Regulatory utility Counts. the public apprehension, the need for absolute

.. stoners (NAAUC) established, by unanimous resciution assurance of safety. and the necessity in the public at its 1984 annual meeting. its intention to investi. eye for administrative credibility it is no wonder gate and monitor on an ongoing basis the national this program represents a vast financial commitment, i . nuclear wasta disposal program. To implement the now estinased to total $25 to 35 billion. My

, resolution, a standing Subcommiittee on Nuclear leaste colleagues and 1 in commissions across the nation l

, Dispcsal was established and represents the views and are required by law to judge the fiscal bases for position of the NARUC as contained in this statement, thc reimbursement by ratepayers of every penny of

The Subconnittee seeks to provide critical informe. nuclear waste program payments made by ut111 ties to t'

tion to commissioners in all states and to impart to date.

. the Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy (D0E)

the NARUC's unique expertise in utility regulation so lie face the prospect of further such reimburse.

, as to enhance the conduct and cost. effectiveness of ment requests until the program ends some time in the federal program. the next century. Thus, our central objective must be to assure ratepayers within our regulatory juris.

l The NARUC is a quest. governmental, nonprofit dictions that their funds are being ut111 sed wisely; organ 12ation founded in 1889. itithin our membe ship that the management of this project is no less than l .; are the governmental agencies of the fifty states and excellent; and that, while efforts to minimize total the District of Columbia, puerto Rico and Virgin costs are not undertaken in some ' penny. wise pound.

.a Islands engaged in the regulation of utilities and foolish" way, all necessary controls, decisions and motor carriers. Among other duties, the NARUC is the tasks are prudently and cost. effectively designed j national representative of state connissions respon. and carried to completion, sible for the economic regulation of utilities now operating nuclear-powered electric generating sta. Our attention to this program conveys no lack

, . . . tions. As such, these comissions have been charged of confidence in its management by the DOE. Re:cg-

} under law with the task of ensuring that the power' nizing the cost, scope and importance .Sf the present

'g provided by such generating stations is reliable and ef fort, we of the NARUC must note, however, that the j -

reasonably' priced .. in short, that the public present DOE management and program represent only

[ interest is protected. the latest in a long series of such efforts over a

-- - , e s+g.-- y-w..v-3 ---- -, -,- mn,,.,,, - - , - y

'e a

  • 9 . ,.

e .,

~'

= ,

".: g.7 s .

  • W

. ..: t .

l

.. . . 9. . : .. .

~ -

  1. 30. year period, each deveted to selving the high. th are sadder, but perhaps wiser, veterans of a 1evel nuclear waste problem. The fact is readily process in uhtch gaps in interests and responsibil. l d apparent that program after program for disposal ities among utilities, state and federal regulators - '
of nuclear waste has been planned, authorized, and others appeared, remained unressived and which l

'..' forces deployed, and then vanished, all without the in the end will reduce efficiency and results, and d

disposal of a single spent fuel assembly. The NARUC will be left to public service commissions to over. '

. believes it must expend every reasonable effort come.

to contribute to the assurance that this latest, by g ,

far most costly, progru is the final one, final There are three central conclusions to be drawn

. because it has been successful. from this brief description of a lengthy, complex, arduous, expensive and controversial experience. The i Nuclear Electric power plant Construction first is that, despite all the acknowledged changes, 7 faterruottons, diversions and reconsiderations, there

In attempting.to place in focus the concerns and are well-managed plants whose overall costs are, on

'j reconnandations of the NARUC on the high level weste an industry. wide basis within reasonable limits. That

.t* disposal program and to suggest solutions to problems proves that the job can be done. Second, excellent i

identifie<S by us, it is essential first to understand . management of a project is mandatory if the project

. some of the painful learning emperiences that public * -is to be successful. And third, constructor and service commissioners have accumulated from a regulators . both state and federal - mcst coordinate closely.related activity - nuclear power plant so as not to drag the system down.

construction review. That this empertence carries 4 messages for the waste afsposal program rests, to be I believe these expensively.obtained conclusions sure, with the obvious nuclear focus of both arenas, are directly and fully applicable to the national
but much more with the fact that this matten is once nuclear weste disposal process. The effectiveness e again moving toward construction of a very expensive of nuclear waste program manaoement wili assuredly
  • i first-of.a. kind technically complex nuclear weste nave enormous impact on the cost of the final repos.

4 '

. facility both proposed and Itcensed at the federal. ' itory and on the success of the overali disposa level. The safety licensing agency, the U.S. Nuclear program. It ts, therefore, the MARUG's intention to

'} Regulatory Commission (NAC), has repeatedly stated do.whatever it can to contribute to the understanding that cost occupies s'10wer priority en its agenda. ~ ~of the importance of excellent program management and

, *} lt will be able to make changes in definition of an to take whatever measures it can to help assure that 1 acceptable final factitty throughout and perhaps even such asnagement is applied to this task. Clearly, we beyond the construction program. The constructw.. cannot awatt the close of the program only to be est the DOE, while cost-conscious, has a task of taking .with untenable financial consequences.

i nuclear waste by 1998; thus, cost may be a secondary l .I* concern. Finally, total costs are to be laid at.the . Further, the NARUC seeks to reach out to over.

feet of, or more aptly In the pockets of ratepayers. . come any jurisdictional, management or regulatory

.f Public service commissions are faced with the unen.

viable task of determining whether all future costs-

. gaps among major partners in the waste program, with.

.out interfering with any other entity's purview or have been discovered and whether, to date, program prerogative. That means that we will not wait until i, costs were prudently incurred. 1990 or 2010 for whatever price tag may eventually i*

result from the deliberations, disagreements, deals This review should not be understood as an' and conclusions of other parties. Our mandated t

. assessment of the nuclear cotton. The NARUC is responsibility to our ratepayers requires our full i  : painfully aware that the national esperience with involvement in the assessment of the nuclear waste

nuclear power ranges from excellent to abysmal. The project to assure that cost. effective decisions are

, popular press has made most citizens aware of the made throughout the program.

I troubled, expensive and checkered past of nuclear

, electric generation. idhereas nuclear construction NARUC's Current Assessment of the Federal Program costs have soared to levels never imagined by anyone years ago, the even more astounding fact is that As a result of its evaluations, the NARUC Sub.

    • despite massive infusions of capital, many nuclear committee has developed an understanding of the 3 plants will never be finished. Not so noticeable to entensive federal program. Together with a carefully
  • ) the public but obvious to public service commission. maintained position on our role in the disposal pro.

, ers is that not all nuclear plant projects have been cess, we have formed a series of opinions on the

t roubled. Why have apparently similar companies had federal program, its successes and needs for improve.

{ such different degrees of success? Are there rea. ments.

a sonable answers or explanations to the widely-very.

ing results of performing essentially the same job? *There is apparently considerably more effort be.

! There are many reasons offered and perhaps all have ing devoted to overall disposal program organization

  • 1 some relevance, fhe NRC has some answers to our and direction than ever before. The DOE has exposed

.i questions. So, too, do several public service com. more of its deliberations leading to its decision.

,j missions or staffs, including my own in Michigan. making to pubite review and scrutiny. Much to its

So do Forbes Magazine and Secretary of Energy Donald credit the DOE has recognized the need to comunicate
  • j Hodel. They all point to, among the many factors, openly, frequently and successfully with the public.

the level of competence, ability and aggressiveness The DOE elevated this function to the highest manage.

I of project management as a key factor in the success ment levels in its organization by creating an Office l or failure of a project. Evidence from failures of Policy and Outreach. Examples of program improve.

i points to management ..some, not all .. that under. ments include demonstrated recognition by the DOE

) .' estimated the stre and scope of the task before them that the goal of the disposal program is the develop.

, l' and, as the challenges grew and complexity in. ment of an integrated system for fuel handling and l creased, repeatedly continued to underestimate the disposal, not merely the construction of a repository

[ challenge and mismanage the projects. Also evident is the development of a

,f_ , __

, _ y ---

m - .-, .- ..

l

.q. ; *

~

~.@p;. ,

.-4

r.
. - -

cost-consciousness uhich should spell the beginning to obtaining substantive cost data as input to dect-of a cost-control mentality, as a series of important stonmaking. A correction or refinement may become ~

doctsions and products have been produced. This is available.in the DOE's proposal to the Congress, but

-)

vital, as never before were espenses at such a level. the agency has already glecided to recommend MR$

g -construction.

j Other results seem to us, however, to suggest ,

that the DOE's good intentions simply have not borne Observations on program Management

.I substantial fruit in that not much widespread public 3 .

acceptance has been achieved, it appears that far A successful outcome, i.e., the efficient and greater and more negative response was received than cost-effective disposal of high-levoi nuclear waste.

  • j anticipated by the D0E. Two well-known examples are is not necessarily guaranteed by the DOE's program.

responsbs to the site selection guidelines and to the As with nuclear power plant construction and g operating programs, redirection, repetition, rework, draft Environmental Assessments. The MARUC believes 4 '

.that the DOE and the Congress should be very con- repairs or redesign in the waste disposal program due j to changes in approach and late regulatory decisions 3 corned, as are we, with the disparity between the DOE effort at coununication and the lack of public or political expediency can produce very negative d effects. Cost increases result not only from j response in the form of understanding and acceptance.'

We have attempted carefully to find our way through - repeating the same job, but also because all parts of

tne program are then delayed. That time is money is
  • the mine fields and other traps to, as emphasized, I reach our own conclusions and report our constructive nowhere more dramatically shown than in nuclear pwer criticism aimed at supporting the program where it is plant construction. Loss of public confidence also

'. flows from such delays and this result could have the

,; making appropriate progress, and to describe improve-ments where it should be changed. most devastating impact on the nuclear waste program.

q ,

The history of nuclear plant construction indicates

,4 program Cost and Cost Control that logical products of public frustrations are

[ rounds of criticism, voluntary or involuntary regul'a-There are serious questions as to program costs. tory response, added safety requirements and more 8 Acknowledged by the DOE and others is the fact that delays assuredly resulting in more costs. Careful, the present 1 mill fee may be inadequate to supply thoughtful planning, full and fair public hearings

! * }* sufficient income. 'If true, present and past and excellent weste program management could enable us to avoid a repetition of historical nuclear power .

{ ratepayers are not and never will be assessed sufft-ciently to pay actually incurred disposal costs. plant failures and omissions.

This raises *a dilemma, since.the program may not be 6

based on cost-effective decisionmaking and an More specifically, let us now turn.to aspects of l increased fee would not be justified. Additionally, concern of nuclear weste program management.

g the NARUC is also aware that schedule delays and

, One troublesome area of program management that a unanticipated activities may raise program costs even

' higher than the present $25-35 billion figure, with touches deeply on lessons learned from nuclear power 1 sobering consequences for ratepayers and the nuclear plant construction is the meeting of established

    • industry.

program deadlines. There have been nwnerous missed deadlines by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

] Management (0CRWM). These delays have been sentioned The ftARUC is concerned with the DOE's use of a and discussed by many reviewers. For esegle the "mid-case

  • estimate produced by the U.S. Energy Information Agency of the amount of nuclear electric U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), in its Igt4
    • generation that constitutes the basis for its esti- annual audit, chastises the DOE for not formally mates of ultimate volumes of waste disposal. This alerting the Congress in a timely way to important
  • *sid-case
  • estimate presumes a very substantial missed deadlines. In a description of management increase in nuclear plant construction over present plans given in the Mission Plan, the DOE does not lay

.; out this problem; deadlines and compliance dates are nuclear generation including those units now under

    • not compared.

construction. If a "no-new orders

  • future occurs with regard to nuclear power plant construction, the he are told that there are a variety of reasons DOE's estimates show program expenses will be reduced by $3 billion, but income would be reduced by $g deadlines, some imposed by the Congress and some billion. Spent fuel inventory would be reduced below p;anned by the D0E, have not been met. We

.j acknowledge unanticipated levels of public response,

  • 100,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). If extended 4

burnup were included, it has been estimated inventory the uniqueness and complexity of certain tasks, and 4

{ might be reduced to 80-85,000 MTU. This raises perhaps the urrealistic expectations embodied in the substantial questions about the need for two repost. Act. However, it appears that this faflure is i

tories along with related cost and planning implica- expected to continue. The DOE now believes it will tfons thereta, miss by four years the site character 12ation and first repository recommendation to the Congress; but Estimated costs for a variety of program options it must be .*ecognized that even this prediction is 4 six years in prospect, hence subject to considerable 4 are outilned in considerable detail in the DOE's re-evaluation. Furthermore, the predicted date Mission plan. As has consistently been the case, the cost analysis being used ts not for the current recently slipped nine months in 14 calendar months.

2 program. but rather for a previous one. Further, The 00E, perhaps tenuously, still holds to the 4 *t present cost data does not reflect the DOE decision 1998 date for spent fuel acceptance. The DOE tells to incorporate a Monitored Retrievable Storage System us success will require: NRC speed in approving

'l (MRS) in the overall system. Although the cost of an licensing, minimal delay from what is a growing court

  • 1 MRS has been estimated, as the DOE states, the range of that estimate does not appear to coincide with agenda, and development among the public of extensive

. earlier estimates made by the U.S. Congressional credibility in the program. However, these threats "1 to program time cannot be ignored. Viewed in

.j Budget Office. This problem apparently stems from the fact that the DOE makes program decisions prior historical context, they are very much the same story e

L M "

e.s o r 2

.T m n ..w--wr -vw - c.mTW . 5 H :W?

- -.-_- ..g -,r,,--- ,; ,

y. *
  • ' ~ ..m: ; ,

2* '

u,r ..- --..uwjp.eg;.M.7%b,

~GE 7 J.C * ' .,, g ;~y.:w'--.

G.

.qm;4,;g.y

..j, : ."

g.  ;-

f . .;.Q%...

. . . .:;.::. LY.Q.:.d

. .,.,- 3. . .

.g:. -m. .

.- .r_

g . . . . . .

.{

, ,- as happened repeatedly over the last 30 years to commitment to the amount of defense weste to be federal efforts to dispose of high-level weste. The buried and on ensuing cost impacts. We also await a

! MARUC believes that, considering no discussion is draft formula for defense cost burden and a scheocle .

y s given in the Mission plan of past espertence or .

acknowledgement of the DOE's missed deadlines, the for payments including interest to be paid.

3 statement *. . . the current organization and manage- Imder current planning the DOE estimates about j ment system reflect the appilcation of lessons 20,000 canisters of defense high-level waste would

{; learned from the history of the radioactive waste require disposal. However, governors of the three

.- programs," is simply not borne out by the DOE's states involved have, in response to public pressure. * *

program results. called for removal from their states of all high.

i leve] nuclear wastes. If their efforts are success-p As for the DOE management performance, the MARUC ful later, the nianber of canisters could be far

, sees signs that all may not be well. The present higher, and this could have a substantial non-linear

.s - leadership is perhaps the most extensive and overall impact on the size of the repositories and the 1 competent management of any U.S. high-level waste funding splis between the defense and comercial are-

,) program ever assembled and we recognize that its per- nas. A major increase in waste inventory at a much i sonnel have been at work a rather short time. later date could cause program disruptions if not

. However, signs of difficulty are evident. The defin- . sufffctently anticipated. Clearly, such contingen.

Stive written source, the revised chapter en manage- cies should be considered now, long before construc-ment in the Mission plan, is not insightful la tien has begun.

l

, explaining operattans and control and, in itself, I does not contribute very much confidence to progree The Defense programs Office of the DOE has nego.

.I perceptions. For example, the DOE states the primary tiated with the Department's Office of Civilian

, ,j monitoring' tool to be ut1112ed is the project Radioactive Weste Management, in camera, to determine j Mar.agement System, which was released only recently. an equitable allocation formula payment for defense j Deployment and resulting improvements apparantly are waste disposal. The MARUC is concerned with the

. still in prospect. apparent confilet of interest in one division within

the DOE negotiating with another. We are awaiting an j Another example of considerable importance to agreement, the terms of which will be published in J
us
the GAO has made a series of findings and recom- the Federal Register for comment; however, the agent 4 1 mandations which we believe are very important. to receive and resolve all recommendations and criti-

]* Among them is the need for more eatensive and con- que is the DOE itself. The resolution process sistent audit,of program contractors and subcontrac- ~

appears to the Knot to tie very amenable to out-l tors, recognizing that about 85% of all nuclear waste side suggestion, gives no encouragement to thoughtful 1 empenditures is Ity these parties and that the GAO and concerned parties and no release to skeptics.

8 finds that systematic and uniform auditing has not J occurred. Yet. DOE has seen fit largely to resist ,A formula for cost sharing has been recomended that the MARUC believes represents an equitable GAO recommendations.

l arrangement. Total life-cycle cost of separate repo-

The MARUC is concerned for these reasons, that sitories for defense and commercial wastes would be j the DOE program management, certainly not without a compared with the cost of the as-planned coseined

., salutary sense of mission and an aggressive intent to disposal facility. The cost savings so determined

  • succeed at this very formidable task, is attempting would be shared between the two programs on the same j to resist a great deal of outside criticism. Grant- basis that would be employed in supporting the cost ed, some advice is distractive and even intentionally of separate facilities. This plan, advanced by the
  • ] counterproductive, but some of it appears to us to be Edison Electric Institute, not only has the value of helpful and usable. determining cost responsibility, but also results in

' identifying the defense and consercial areas as part-a The MARUC was pleased to note that OCR W has nors in waste generation and as responsible agents contracted with a certified public accounting firm for providing disposal expenses. It is thus that f or an independent annual financial audit to both partners should remain overseers and assessors

" reassure the utilities, the public utility con- of the entire disposal program to share the cost bur-

. missioners, and the electricity consumers who ulti- den, management oversight and future program cost mately ray most of the fees, that generally accepted increaser, if any.

. accounting principles are observed and that the

'.; financial statements and presentations of the OCRWM For the defense. commercial disposal program, we 4 fairly and accurately present the financial con- believe:

ditions and oretations of the Nuclear Waste Fund."

The NARUC understands that the DOE has included this - the defense disposal cost sharing discus-

.. review, in part, to place the program on a " business- sfons should have been immediately opened

+" Itke basis. Such moves to strengthen the program to input from all interested and also bring credibility to it. financially-responsible parties.

  • Defense vaste - there should be assurance that cogent advice and criticism on the defense payment

. Turning now to defense waste. The Presider.tial proposal are accepted and influence the

. decision to include defense waste in the two mandated final decision,

.] t nuclear waste repositories is behind us. Now the j issue to be addressed in planning to. assure safety - the cost allocation formula should be based

., and fiscal integrity is the inclusion of defense on cost savings resulting from commingling j waste in the integrated disposal system in the of defense and civilian wastes, 9 reposit ory. We are awaiting the results of a DOE decision on its views of the differences between - the Congress should ensure that the defense defense waste and civilian waste, and the effects on and comercial programs are to share on a a *

"T ---

_=,7"T, .FT& vw---yTY - ,

,g -

eN 7- F 'Qd 8 h 5 P--- g c 6p F7N MIr 7.G MMe5 I N s hI k h

'W f. .s '

r; T 1 **

  • l a . .p . .

Z Q .

.;v q '.

h y

similar basis, all future overall program cost increases, dissipation of 00E or contractor strength in pursuing repository development. There should be.no deliberate or inadvertent -

.e - to achieve equity with payments for civil- abandonment of the task of final disposal

  • '..*l 1rn westes begun in 1983, payments for in the repository.

' defense waste should adequately reflect the g

delays in their receipt. In summary, the NARUC's review of and conclu.

sions on the DOE program are att11 under development g '

Monitored Retrievable Storage .and ars espected to so continue in the foreseeable future. Our present observations are made in the 1 Looking now at the issue of Monitored Retrieva- hopes of focusing attention on any necessary correc-  !

,4

- ble Storage, the Congress has reserved to itself the tive response. We note that the federal disposal

.] 4 decision of whether to construct at this time an interim central spent fuel storage unit, referred to effort is more than 30-years old, the present program is more.than two-years old, and the DOE currently is

, in the Act as a Monitored Retrievable Storage expending funds at the rate of about one half billion ,

Facility (MS). The NARUC neither supports nor dollars per year. We conclude that it ts too early '

}

., opposes the decision to build an MRS. We are, how. - to decide tr the federal nuclear waste disposal pro-l ever, very concerned that the Congress obtain the - 3 ram will be successful, i.e., that it will reach g necessary information on which to come to and main. the goal of safe, timely and cost-effective disposal tain a reasonable consensus en the largest program of all the nation's spent reactor fuel and defense

  • 3s decision since the Act was passed. wastes.

j Our conclusions are as follows: We also conclude that the high-level nuclear

. waste disposal program is in some difficulty - a j (1) The MRS has been a controversial issue for conclusion we are not pleased to arrive at - but

.4 many years and the impending decision no unless matters are attended to, we know from

- - doubt will be a hard-fought one. Inade. experience the result could be added costs and delays quate exploration of the advantages and which threaten the program or at least its credibil-disadvantages of the option could only con- ity.

J fuse the issue, delay the Congress's deci.

sion, and heighten public apprehension and The DOE schedule for its overall program has anatety. been released. The question raised by many observers e . Is whether it is realistic. There is a crucial need j (2) A decision to build the MtS will negate for a plan which has wide acceptance by the DOE,

  • cther integrated system decisions, require observers and critics as a vehicle that can deliver a I new conclusions, and have cost, fuel accep. conservative, predictable and successful program on a I

.l

  • tance schedule and safety ramifications that will reach throughout the weste dis-reasonably certain schedule -- one that utilities can confidently employ.

posal orogram. The DOE support and enthu-

  • f, stasm for the MR$ option must not diminish We believe the DOE should make immediate changes 4 its independence, thoroughness, dispassion. to ensure that cost becomes a major input to program i ateness or comprehensiveness. and system decisions. We are on record with concern over the total program cost and have warned the (3) In all integrated systen analyses, it must Congress that considering equity and ability to pay, be recognized that ratepayer financial there simply is a limit to ratepayer funding for this responsibility encompasses not only the project. We have called for Congressional hearings

- federal portion of the disposal process, on cost control because of our serious interest in l .i but the at reactor storage portion as well. control of this enormous, expensive, decades.long Therefore, in determining overall disposal mandated project.

costs, analyses sust include evaluation of

. both portions. Above all we believe the DOE sust improve its i ability to assess present difficulties, be encouraged (4) A decision to build an Mt5 will add signi- to establish a cooperative solution. oriented dialogue

! ficantly to the burden on the DOE manage. among itself, its responsible critics and interested

'4 ment and staff and should be planned for involved institutions and make the necessary revi-well in advance. There should be no sions in timely,' cost. effective fashion.

(

. .t l .-

i

,. ^

(o ,

4.k

-- --,-- pow w w g . u u w s-w m ana

_'% ...__L--.._...-.._y_.,m . _ . , _ , , , . _ - __,__-_,.._--._..,v. - - . . , - . . - - .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203L544&oldid=3330726"