ML19261C839
| ML19261C839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261C837 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR61372, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 80-06-0846, II-004, II-4, NUREG-0539, NUREG-539, NUDOCS 7904190008 | |
| Download: ML19261C839 (90) | |
Text
,
a s
NUREG-0539 MEANS FOR IMPROVING STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE $! TING, LICENSING AND CEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITIES A REPCRT TO THE CCNGRESS BY THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CCm!SSION MARCH 1979 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICh WASHINGTON, CC 20555 79043 9 g ogg
CONTENTS PAGE I.
Introduction.
1 II. An Overview of the Federal Program.
5 III. NRC's Consultation with the States..
9
'u Discussion of Issues for State Participation...
15 A.
National Planning Process 15 8.
Technical Review Capability 17 C.
State Participation in the Federal Processes.......
18 0.
Grant Programs.
20 E.
Transportation........
23 F.
Consultation and Concurrence.
24 v.
Findings and Reccamendations 26 VI. Bibliography.
28 APPENDICES A.1 NRC Program Description A.2 Federal Register Notice and Policy Stat 4P%..( on Licensing Procedures A.3 Oraft Proposed Regulation,10 CFR Part 60, Disposal of High Level Waste in Geologic Repositories 9.1 Federal Register Notice B.2 Some Items for Workshop Discussion (Atlanta Workshop)
C.
Attendees, Atlanta workshop D.
Inventory of Relevant State Law
e 6
I.
Introduction This report discusses means for improving State participation in the Federal nuclear waste management programs for siting, licensing, and developing new waste facilities and is in response to the requirements of section 14 of the 1979 NRC authorization act (P.L.95-601) which reacis:
Sec. 14 (a) Any person, agency, or other entity proposing to develop a storage or disposal facility, including a test disposal facility, for high-level ra d active wastes, non-high-level radioactive wastes including transuranium contaminated wastes, or irradiated nuclear reactor fuel, sna11 nctify the Comission as early as possit,1e afte ' tne comencement of planning for a particular proposed facility.
The Consission shall in turn notify the Governor and the State legislature of the State of proposed situs whenever the Comission has knowledge of such proposal.
(b) The Comission is authorized and directed to prepare a report on means fg imorovino the ecoortunities for State earticication in the orocess for sitino.
licensino, ano cevelcoing nuclear waste storace or ciscosal facilities. 5uen report snall incluce cataileo constoeration or a program to provice grants througn the Comission to any State, and the advisacility of such a progras, for the purpose of conducting an independent State review of any proposal to develop a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility identified in sucsection (a) within such State. On or before March 1,1979, the Comission shall sucmit tne report to the Congress including recomendations for improving the opportunities for State par +.icipation together with any necessary legislative proposals. (empnasts added)
There are several ways in which this section can be construed. Since the section is part of the FY 1979 Authorization Act for NRC, it could be interpreted as a direction for the Comission to look to its een processes and suggest means for improving State participation in those processes a one. Clearly, the Congress asked NpC to look to its own licensing process and suggest methods by -nich State participation could be enhanced.
But the section also speaks of the " siting.. and developing nuclear waste storage or disposal facilities," responsibilities with which other Federal agencies are concerned.
Although we will attempt in this Report to suggest means by wnich opportunities for State participation may be encouraged in the entire Federal waste management program, our emchasis will remain with our own agency's processes.
This report is based on the premise that State involvesent in any national nuclear waste management program is a critical element in making the program wort.
Section 14 isolicitly recognizes the need for State involvement. At the same time, there is nearly universal recognition of the fact that the procles of the disposition of radio-active wastes is a national prcblem cemanding national solutions. In fact, high-level waste management is almost entirely the responsibility of the Federal Gove*nment. Many aspects of sill tailings management, particularly long-term care, now come within the authority of the Federal Government; and there have been numerous recomencations frem within the private and goverrmental sectors that the Federal "overnment take a greater role in low-level waste management.
Cecisions on means for imoroving State participation involve tne balancing of Feceral and State interests anc responsibilities in waste management issues. States have legitizata interests in reccsitory siting, licensing, and cavelocment in the areas of
. 1
'e r puolic health and safety, land use planning, econcate development, socioeconomic impacts, and transportation routing. Moreover previous experience (e.g., NRC State workshops, IRG public review, etc.) suggests that States intend to be involved in repository siting, licensing and development and that States will actively cooperate with the Federal Government if given an opportunity. The States have demonstrated that they are willing and able to deal with complex policy issues; as well as specifics of the licensing, regulatory, siting, and development programs; local issues, and environ-Sental issues.
The ability of a State or group of States to participate in the NRC and COE waste sanagement programs depenas upon the technical capabilities within or available to the States. Administrative, procedural, and broad based environmental concerns are handled by most States in siting other major industrial facilities. Precedures for State involvement in the Federal waste management program should recognize the capability and experience of the States in these areas. Some constraints on State participation in the technical portions of the programs a-posed first, by the fact that the complex Federal program is well underway ud critical technical judgments will be made in the near future; second, by the scaNity of available scientists with the expertise to participate in such analyses; and finally, by the duplication and expense that would result from attempting to develop simultaneous review capability in the several States.
The argument for an extensive State role rests upon the major impacts that siting decisions may have upon them. The hazardous nature of the wastes creates risks to the health and safety of the citizens in the repository area, both in the present and in future generations. The restrictions needed tn ensure the integrity of natural barriers of the repository system means that lands will become unavailable for other potentially productive uses. The development of a repository may create burdensome demands for housing, schools, and other supporting services.
Each of these factors involves governmental fuactions, health and safety, land use, social services, that are traditionally and appropriately the responsibility of the States. The nature of the Federal system demands that these interests be recognized, and it is reasonable in the present context to recognize that State agencies could be more responsive to them than Federal cecisionmakers would be.
But just as the benefits of energy (and weapons) producticn serve the people of the nation as a whole, so too is there a national need for managing the wastes that result.
State actions that inhibit Federal efforts to manage the wastes must be evaluated in terms of their impact upon the achievement of the national ocjectives. In constitutional terms, the Federal Government may exercise authority under its powers to regulate commerce, provide for the common defense, and regulate the use of its own property.
There are other reasons to emphasize the Federal role in decisionmaking. The first involves the complexity of the technical issues that must be examined and resolved, and the likelihood that the Federal Government will be better eouipped to accomplisn this 2-
b task than any individual State, or group of States, would be.
Second, the provision of duplicate Federal and State review and soproval procedures would create the potential for conflicting decisions as well as difficulties of coordination. Tnfed, the activities to be regulated are those of the Federal Government itself and not those of private citizens. Fourth, the number of administrative actions is small. W ile none of these factors necessarily rules out any particular 5 tate role, these factors need to be kept in mind as we work out an appropriate and acceptacle pattern.
The accommodation of the national welfare with the localized impacts upon the host and neignboring States, those in or near which facilities for waste storage or disposal are to be situated needs to take all these considerations into account. Experience gained in connection with other nuclear activities should be applied, but with due regard to the differences as well as the similarities. A State may have sound economic motivations for welcoming the location of nuclear power reactors within its boundaries; the incentive for accepting high-level wastes, on the other hand, is hardly so clear. The licensing of reactors proceeds on the basis of technology that has been demonstrated, and with risks that have been the subject of extensive debate and analysis. The factual and pelicy issues surrounding geologic repositories are in a relatively early stage of evaluation. An important distinction is the extended span of years with which waste management must be concerned, a factor wnicn creates novel ethical and administrative issues as well as requiring imaginative technical insights. Moreover, the licensing of geologic repositories differs from the typical reactor licensing activity in terms of the amcunt of pubite funds to be invested, the role of the Federal government in construc-tion and operation, and the fact that the geologic repository is likely to be located on public lanu.
Howeve-the balance may be drawn, State participation serves a number of purposes:
(1) To improve the Federal waste management programs by bringing to bear the perspective and expertise of the States; (2) To involve those directly affected cy the impacts of waste facilities in the planning and implementation processes for those facilities; (3) To recognize the legitimate interests of the States in repository planning and develocment; and (4) To create a setting wnere States can fulfill their responsibilities in cooperation with the Federal Government for providing effective waste disposal.
In order to meet these objectives, the cottons for State participation must be viewed as integral to the Federal decision making processes. Finally, it is also important to rememoer that the concerns aeout the safe discosal of radioactive wastes affects cath the Federal Government and the States. A discussion of options for participation, therefore, must be couched as a discussion of the approcriate distribution of responsi-bility at each decision point. So the quession is not wnether the States snould be involved, but g. In the words of the statute, how can we devise "means for imoroving 3
the opportunities for State participation in the siting, Ifeensing and ceveloping nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities?"
The task of balancing these relationships is not an easy one. There is uneasiness on the State side because past Federal consitzents have not been honored and timetables have often had to be scrapped. Federal officials often see the States as being parochial and insensitive to national needs. The task is also compounded by the uncertainties that presently exist. State participation could be aided by Federal efforts to reduce these uncertainties, uncertainties as to the numcer of repositories, the likely host States, the costs on the commercial side and the transportation impact.
This report, concentrates on the issues of hign-level waste including spent fuel.-
We will briefly look at the existing Federal responsibilities, report on the opinions and perspectives we have received from the States, and after a brief discussion of some of the issues, set out the report's findings and recorwiendations.
l' Full treatment of the preolems associated with low-level waste as suggested by sectior. 14(a) is the sucject of other studies uncerway my NRC anc will be reportea separately.
4
II. An Overview of the Federal Vaste Manacement Procram for Hich 4 evel Radioactive Wastes:
A Statement of Current Acency Resconsibilities The Federal Government is engaged in an effort oriented to the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The agencies with principal responsibilities are: the Department of Energy (DCE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) supports the efforts of the other agencies by performing geological evaluations, and the Deps-eent of Transportation (DOT) regulates certain transportation related activities.
a A major eschasis of Se Federal progru is to isolate (dispose of) these wastes in repositories locata J in Nep stable geologic formations. This emphasis is contingent on the results of the ongoing evaluation of alternative technologies.
CCE's program includes the development and operation of high-level radioactive waste repositories, or other means for high level waste disposal. Currently, 00E is investi-gating deep geologic formations in a number of geographical areas which might be suitable for disposal of high-level waste. Concurrent CCE efforts are devoted to repository design and preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) on the full secpe of managing defense and commercially generated radioactive wastes from waste treatment and interim storage througn transcortation and final disposal. The OCE GEIS will examine, among other things, the impacts of a numoer of final disposal options.
NRC has licensing responsibility with respect to certain high-level waste repositories to assure the protection of public health and safety, taking into consideration also allimoactsontheenvironment.E NRC staff is developing a regulatory base (performance criteria and licensing procedures) needed to ensure timely and appecpriate licensing decisions.
EPA has the responsibility to establish generally appifcable environmental radiation protection standards for areas outside the coundaries of nuclear facilities. NRC must devise its regulations in a manner that will meet reouirements set by EPA. EPA also has been given new authority under the Clean Air Act Amencments of 1977 over airborne releases from nuclear facilities. As the successor of the Federal Radiation Council, EPA also advises the President with respect to radiation matters directly or indirectly affecting health, and provides guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards.
U This authority is set forth in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
.nien provides that NRC shall have ifcensing and related regulatory authority as to the following DCE facilities: "(3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of nign-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under suca Act.
(4) Retrievable surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authori:ed for the exoress puroese of subsecuent long-term storage of hign-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration, wnich are not used for, or are part of, researcn and development activities." 42 U.S.C. 5842 In Maren 1978, the President established an Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Vaste Management (IRG) to cevelop a strategy for coaling with the waste management problem and to recomend support'ing programs to implement this policy. The IRG is chaired by Secretary Senlesinger (DCE); NRC has been participating as a memcer without vote. A draf t report of the IRG was issued for puclic coment on October 19, 1978 and the final report was issued on Maren 13, 1979. The scope and schecules of the CCE and EPA programs are described in the IRG and Deuten Reports.E We refer the reader to those reports and to the agencies of interest for details on the CCE and EPA programs. The NRC program is briefly cascribed in Appendix A.1.
~
Figure 1 is a representation of the processes wnien NRC and DOE are anticipated to follow in siting, licensing, and developing geologic repositories. The timing and specific scope of the individual elements of both programs will be cetermined by agency planning and national planning processas.
National planning involves all those decisions necessary to cetermine the nature of the overall waste management program such as the selection of disposal options, the nusoer of repositories, and the schedule for program implementation. Close interagency coordination as well as cooperation and participation from State governments, incustry, and the public is required at this stage. In conjunction with national planning, botn DCE and NRC are responsible for taking a se fes of actions and making decisions in order to bring waste management from the conception stage to the stage where operating repositories exist. Those actions can be grouped into specific decision making stages pictured in the figure and described below.
CCE sust cetermine the considerations it considers important to investigating and selecting repository sites; we will call these site selection criteria. It is on the basis of these criteria (geolcgic, hyorogeologic, socioeconomic, and other consicera-tions) that CCE will determine wnich areas (regions) of the country it will investigate for suitaDility as repository sites and eliminate or pursue for further investigation.
DOE must also develop a field program my wnien it will investigate areas for suitability as potential repository sites. CCE has termed this process (wnien begins with entire geologic regions and progressively narrows to specific sites) site characteri:stien.
Another (and partially concurrent) task of CCE is designing a facility in wnica to discose of wastes. Althougn each specific site will require a unique repository design depending on the emplacement medium and specific geology, waste form, and other consicera-tions, generic design work zust be performed to determine the parameters around unica a repository will be designed.
l' TID-28817 (Draft), Reoort to the Peesicent 5v the Intaracerev Review Grouo on Nuclear Waste Manacement, Octooer 1978, ano GCE/EMG0a D, aeoort of Tasm force for ieview of e
Nuclear waste wanacement Feoruary 1978.
TID-29442 Jinal), deoort to the Dresicent by tre !nteeicency 4eview Grous on Nuc!eer Waste Wanacement, Marca af?9.
3
D
?!
Q NHC Ht Gut All0N101Vit Drut N T
,,L,,g -
4 z
COM518UC110N HEARING AUINCRIZATION 84 CENSE tlCANSA REPOSSIGRY g
AulHORilATION RIVltw 111U10 ft1VllW 111U10 Cl osuRE 2"
2 Fi
~m o
PSA APPtICAISON CONSUL All0N
- 3. 7 3R cs 0
$.e
-$g Oct &llt $t tt Cil0N CRBIERIA n -,
e
E U.
en 3 51It 5111C110N PHOC113
$ lit Nr PROPOSAL mN
^
01stGNWORK
.2 y-y CONSIlluCil0N Ct hilllC Ellt a
$PECallC OPERATION CLOSURE 4IS Psepened Eisse Pasteupeuse flesung Upd es E13 3
i Based on site selection criteria and site characterization, DOE must go from generic investigations to the selection of a potential repository site. At the site selection phase, CCE begins making site-specific program decisions. At the site selection stage, a repository cesign specific to the prooosed site is develoced.
The next major stage in the COE process is reoositorv construction. As the figure indicates, 00E would not proceed with construction until authorized by the NRC.
Similarly, repository coeration and closure by 00E also depend on licensing cecisions.
The NRC regulatory process begins with regulatory development. The regulations by wnich NRC will license a 00E repository will contain acministrative provisions (e.g.,
' the Itcensing procedures that NRC and 00E will follow, provisions for State participation, etc.) and technical performance criteria that indicate the way in which the repository must perform. The general regulations will be supplemented by regulatory guides which will provide COE guidance on specific ways in which the regulations might ce met.
Once a repository site is proposed, NRC will evaluate the DOE proposal, perhaps with the use of analytic models, to determine whether the preposed repository design and site will, in fact, perform in an acceptable manner to protect public health and safety and environmental quality. Based on the licensing process, NRC will either grant or deny an authorization for repository construction and, later, a repository license allowing operation. During construction and operation, NRC continues regulatory overview primarily in the form of monitoring and inspection to insure that the licensee (CCE) and the repositorf perform as expected and required. Finally, NRC will determine through a Itcense amendment procedure whether 00E should be permitted to close a repository. Repository closure probably will not involve terminatian of the repository license.
3
III. NRC's Consultation with the States NRC has been soliciting ideas from the Statt.s on this issue in formal and informal discussions for several years. Of particular interest for this Recort are first, a series of workshops held in September 1977 on siting and licensing of high-level waste repositories and second, an NRC workshop held in Atlanta, Georgia on Janu'ry 16-18, 1979, a
to discuss options for State Participation. Appencix B is a paper prepared to stimulate discussion at this workshop.
NRC/$ tate Workshoes Sectember/ October 1977 In the fall of 1977, the NRC Waste Management Program and the Office of State Programs held three regional workshops to solicit ideas from State executives and legislators on the siting and licensing procedures for hign-level waste repositories and to solicit comments on the NRC preliminary site suitability criteria. The workshops were held in Denver, Colorado; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philacelphia, Pennsylvania during the period Septemoer 19-30, 1977. The discussion group reports from these workshops were published in October 1977 in NUREG-0353.
The workshops were attended by 170 State executives and legislators from 46 States. In addition, there were over 80 observers from diverse backgrounds including the general public, government, industry, professional consultants and university faculties.
NRC invited interested State officials to serve as discussion group chairmen and, in a meeting with them in advance of the workshops, developed a set of issues for discussion.
At the workshops, after a brief plenary session, participants were assigned to small discussion groups. The subject of each discussion group was an identical set of issues regarding siting of a repository and the preliminary NRC site suitability criteria, Here is a summary of the major findings and recommendations from State representatives to NRC. (Please note that these do not necessarily represent a consensus but more of an aggregation.)
1.
The State participants emphasized that the States, particularly an impacted State, want an active role with the NRC in the review, Ifcensing and assessment of repository operations.
2.
The participants generally agreed that NRC, in cooperation with impacted States, should have final responsibility for site approval.
3.
The participants emphasized that the States want early involvement with ?cE in site selection and with NRC in the licensing process.
4 It was generally agreed that accropriate State activities would be: performing environmental reviews, radiological monitoring, reviewing regulations, and assessing repository operations.
5.
The State participants saw a need to improve the uncerstanding of the division of responsibility concept on the part of all parties and the need to improve vertical and lateral communications among and between agencies.
6.
The State participants emanasized that the NRC should require that OCE, under the provisions of our regulations, comoly with State laws in siting a reccsitory or demonstrate =ny it should or could not comoly.
3
7.
The participants noted that statutes designed for land use, zoning, transportation and the protection of puolic healtn and safety give the States a role in siting a repository.
8.
It was generally agreed that a repository site should meet a basic set of technical criteria or standards. Further, the participants found that failure to meet one criterion would constitute failure es a site.
9.
The participants agreed unanimously that protection and maintenance of public health and safety were the' most important Considerations in repository siting.
10.
In siting a repository it was recognized that both positive and negative comunity effects could occur. The participants, realizing this, were concerned with costs of developing comunity services in support of repository operations, methods of compensating for froacts, identification of comunity needs, and perpetual care funding.
11.
The participants found that development costs and transportation problems and constraints would be highly significant in determining whether or not there should be multiple regional or few national repositories. One discussion group found that at least two repositories should be develoced, preferably in different geological media.
12.
The issue of regional coalitions of States to deal with siting issues produced a difference of opinions. The Denver groups were negative on the use of coalitions while the New Orleans and Philadelphia groups saw both merit and value in coalitions.
13.
The participants emphasized the need for Federal compensation to be paid to impacted States for the direct and indirect costs of repository siting.
14 The issue of special incentitres paid to a State for accepting a repository produced a difference of opinion among the discussion groups. The Western workshop partici-pants did not agree to special incentives being paid while the Cen* al and Eastern workshop participants emphasized the value and merit of such incentives in site location.
15.
It was generally agreed that the rate payers, not the taxpayers, should ultimately be responsible for costs of the comercial waste sanagement program.
15.
The participants agreed that the preliminary site suitacility criteria were inadecuate and too general.
17.
In most discussions, the participants saw the need for addittenal items to be considered as potential criteria. Inc'uded in this group were transportation of wastes, proximity to population centers, colocaticn of reprocessing plants, cost of repository development, U.S. ownersnip and control of the repository, and other general socioeconomic considerations.
IS.
The discussion groups noted that weighting of the criteria was a good idea with special ecohasis on health and safety features.
Atlanta workshoo. Januarv 1979 NRC met with State representatives to prece State views at an Atlanta wortsnco on January 16-18, 1979. A list of State reeresentatives in attendance at that sessicn is attacned as Appenoix C.
There were -epresentatives from State geological surveys, attorneys general, State radiation and State energy offices, puolic service c:mmissions.
P other departments of State government and State legislators, as. ell as the Southern States Energy Soard, National Governors' Association, the Conference of Radiation Control Program 01 rectors, the Conference of State Legislatures. In all, 47 representa-tives free 30 States attended the.ortsnop. CCE and EPA sent reoresentatives and there was attendance by industry, environmental and intervenor groups. Total att.indance
.as $4 The conclusions from the workshop are grouped into t.o main categories: (1) general ~
coservations wnich must to considered in developing mechanisms for participation, and (2) potential mechanisms for participation.
a General Cbservations 1.
States want early and continuing involvement in the Fecersi programs fcr nuclear wasta sanagement and they calieve finding an adequate solution is contingent on such involvement. The States also expressed the view that specific mechanisms are needed to allow participation in the entire process which leads to site selection.
2.
The States expressed a distinct need to evaluate what is being done at the Federal level and to communicate the evaluation to the Federal agencies. The State partici-pants also stressed a need for easy access to the Federal information base. The evaluation would be of the entire Federal program from program planning assumotions and NRC regulations to CCE procedures for field investigations for sites and NRC regulatory guides. The evaluations would not necessarily have to be repeated by all 50 States, and specific eechanisms would be needed to avoid duplication of resources and effort. The representatives suggested that the areas of State expertise should be identified and used and presumaoly that assistance to individual States or to a sultiple State review organizatien should be ;rovided to develop additional expertise.
3.
Mechanisms for participation must be flexible in orcer to allow Individual States to participate according to their own capabilities and desires. This same concept is found in the proposed regulations made availaole to States in draft form (Appendix A).
The provisions for State participation in that document found general favor by the State conmenters.
4 There is a need to develop rapport and cooperation between State and Federal policy saners. Many State representatives telieved that althougn some raccort nad been estaolished at the technical level, little had caen establisned at the level wnere State support could actually te granted or denied.
5.
There was general consensus that procedures for participation should distinguisn tet-een " host States
- and " interested States." Interested States want the c:cor-tunity to participate in the develocment of national policy, procedares and regulations. nile host States are interested in evaluations of scecific sites in accition to these factors.
6.
There a:ceared to te consensus among State re:resentatives that tne nest State snould have tre rignt to concur or non-concur in a procesed repository site Out trere.as no clear consensus as to how a non-concurrence could te aroitrated or s cjected a rejection c., emot'er authority (e.g., Congress, the Presicer.t, an
" Executive 31anning Council." etc.)
7.
Many State representatives urged the adoption of a clear Congressional declaration that radf oactive waste management is a national prod 1em of the highest priority and one deserving prompt, concerted Federal attention. The urgency is in estaclish-ing an acceptable and credible process, not in getting the waste in the ground as soon as possible.
8.
Transportation emerged as an leportant State concern; the areas of interest were routing, regional planning, consideration of transportation in repository siting, and emergency preparedness.
9.
Cost of waste management and spent fuel storage was also an important item of interest including how cost would be determined and allocated. Generally State representatives believed that the cost of the program should be borne by the beneficiaries, f.e., the DOE and 000 by Federal waste programs and utilities and their rate payers for commercially generated wastes. There was a call for speed in resolving the uncertainties with regard to the cost of waste management.
10.
There was a general plea fcer a greater level of coordinatfor on the part of the Federal agercies in dealing with the problem and in relating this problem to the States. There was a recurring plea for candor and truth-telling in Federal dealing with the States.
Mechanism for Particioation The participants identified the following as possible mechanisms for State participation in the Federal waste management deci2 ion making:
State representatives generally agreed that a council or other organization to represent State views and interests in the Federal planning and policy processes was needed.
During the meeting, no specific responsibilities, authorities, memeership or reporting procedures were agreed upon or discussed in detail. State reoresentatives suggested that the council be comprised of several governors on a rotating basis with any governor of a potential host State teing a permanent or ex-officio memcer. It was also recommended that the council have a separate, full-time staff. They suggested that such a council would not be given concurrence (or non-concurrence) authority over specific repository sites. Its concern would be planning and policy.
State representatives recommenced a non-Feceral technical review of the state-of-the-technology and the tecnnical programs of NRC, CCE and EPA on behalf of the States.
This review group could take the place of individual technical assessments by " interested" States and could provide advice to " host" States, but would not take the place of evaluation, consultation and concurrence on the part of potential " host" States. State representatives thougnt of this review grouo as necessary to cbtain credible information and assesszents and, of course, it would require complete access to NRC, COE, and EPA data and cooperation by those agencies and their contractJrs. They suggested that the review grous might report througn the planning council discussed above and rely on the council staff for acministrative supoort. State representatives suggested various mecnanisms for funoing the review group and the planning council: an across-the-board
.u.
sillage tax on nuclear pcwer generated, payment by CCE based on assessments against repository users once a system is put in place, or by direct Congressional appropriation.
There was no evident sucport for an absolute State veto, certainly not for an aroitrary State veto. Nor, on the other side of the coin, was there support for absolute Federal preemption, i.e., the total exclusion of the States from the decisionmaking process.
State representatives regarded that as an undesirable, quite possibly an ineffective, way to proceed.
The notion of consultation and concurrence crocosed by the W, was gsnerally regarded as a good idea, but one which the States say must be spelled out with gre.ter precision.
As it now stands, the phrase is not clearly understood in organizational terms, or in terms of Fedsral intentions with respect to State authority. As far as consultation is concerned, the States seem to want consultation throughout the process beginning at or during the conceptual or planning stages, proceeding with ever increasing intensity to the site selection and operation stages. They see consultation in terms of access to information and a data base created by the Federal Government and as the ability to assess that data and make recomendations and ask intelligent questions concerning it.
The notion of a State concurrence received general support as a necessary means of arriving at lasting solutions. Concurrence was generally understood to be a process by which the States could raise questions to Federal authorities and have them resolved satisfactorily, first concerning the broad technology and later concerning site specific issues. States further suggested that nonconcurrence by a potential " host" State would have the effect of holding the project in abeyance until the prchlems are resolved.
With regard to policy and process questions. State representatives said the most important decision points are in the siting process. One adjective used to modify concurrence was " phased," i.e., an agreement at the successive stages of the process with a broad consensus necessary before the next step is undertaken. For example, some representatives believed that all site investigations should be suspendad until CCE and the States had mutually agreed upon a set of site specific criteria encompassing socioeconomic concepts as well as technical. A second phase of the siting process would be selecting those parts of the country which met or would likely meet the agreed upon criteria. This phase would also require concurrence before proceeding to site specific issues. There was no consensus as to who would exercise concurrence in " general issues."
With regard to " host" State consultation and concurrence, in actions on soecific proposed repositories, two approacnes were suggested. It would include informal consulta-tion where the State and Federal staffs tried to identify and resolve any differences of opinion comoined with specific formal concurrence points. The coints of recuired concurrence were not specified. Some State representatives suggested that at these
- oints a specific time limit snould De estaolished and if no action had tauen place at the end of the period, concurrence would be assumed. No opposition was voiced to the idea that specific lisitations be placed on the reasons for =nich final concurrence would be withheld. The possibility of arettrating a State's non-concurrence was also discussed. Scme' were in favor of the idea of Congress, the President, or a specially appointed aroitration panel reviewing the reasciis for non-concurrence, trying to settle disputes and finally acting on = nether to uohold or ceny the action. Others were strongly opposed to such a procedure.
Finally, State participants agreed that individual " host" States should receive assistance to evaluate indepencently specific repository proposals. A preestablished forr.ula was suggested as a mechanism to fund such assistance.
There was rather strong feeling on the part of a few representatives that each State be allowed to develop wnat amounts to a separate licensing procedure wnerecy DCE -ould become an applicant to the State and could not proceed without formal authorization.
We did not detect support for this notion from the majority.
IV. Discussion of Issues for State Particioation In this section, the Ccamission discusses the policy considerations that it believcs should be considered in achieving improved participation of the States in the siting, Ifcensing, and development of nuclear waste management facilities. Various options are identified, including both those that can be implemented under existing law and those that would require additional legislation. The recomendations of the Comission are reserved for Section V, Findings and Reccomendations.
A.
National Planning Precess Appropriate State participation depends on the relationship of the State to the waste issue and the stage of the Federal process. One aspect of this relationship involves participation in national planning and policy decisionmaking. Host States, potential host States, States with nuclear generation stations, States on major transportation routes and other States are all interested in being informed of and participating in decisions involving the nature of the overall waste management program such as the selection of disposal options and the numcer of repositories.
Providing an institutional mechanisa for State participation in the national planning process would be beneficial in two respects. First, it could provide a useful channel for informing the States with respect to the progress of Federal activities. One reason that State participation at the present time may be poorly focused is that there is no effective way to determine exactly what the Federal policies and programs consist of. To a large extent, this may reflect the fact that activities at the Federal level are themselves still in the process of being worked out and, further, that the participation of several Federal agencies creates inevitable problems of coordination. But in spite of these considerations, or perhaps even more 50 because of them, some new means of providing needed informat'on to the States in a clear and timely fashion would be useful. Second, providing an institutional mechaniss for State participation in the national planning process can improve the process itself because it enables Feceral decisionmakers to solicit and receive a more or less authoritative expression from policymaking officials of the States with respect to those matters which are of direct concern to them. The matters which we have in mind are not those that pertain to any particular proposed facility, but rather broad policy questions, particularly those relating to the manner in wrich Federal and State activities can best be coordinated.
If some institutional mechanism is cestraale, a consiceration of cotions should incluce the following:
'whether the institution should incluce reoresentatives of both Feceral and State governments, or nether it should be restricted to State officials alone.
Whether an existing organization,. such as the National Governors' Association, should be responsible for designating the State participants.
Whether participation shoiId oe Ifmited to nign policymaking officials of the States and, if so, whethe' it should be further restricted to incumeent Governors.
Whether the participants should include ennanced representation of those States which are most likely to be selected for consideration of particular waste disposal sites and, if so, whether at some point in the process participation by an affected State should be guaranteed.
Whether,the mechanism that is established should have its own staff and, if so, whether it should be organized as a Federal agency for acministrative purposes.
If it does have a staff, what should be its size and functions?
Whether Federal funds should be used to defray the costs of the mechanism a.id whether thwse should be provided by direct Congressional appropriation, or as grants administered by an appropriate (to be determined) Federal agency, or otherwise.
Whether Federal agencies should be directed to assist the mechanism and, if so, in what manner--e.g., by providing access to dats, by providing responses to technical and policy-oriented questions, or otherwise.
Whether the mechanism should have any authority to make any recommendations or decisions that would be legally effective in limiting the discretion of Federal agencies.
The State participants at the Atlanta meeting generally agreed that a council or other organization to represent State views and interests (e.g., an " Executive Planning Council" as proposed by the ikG draft) would be useful to interact on issues of policy and process. During the meeting, no specific responsibilities.
autharities, membership or reporting procedures were agreed upon or discussed in detail. State representatives suggested that the council be comprised of several governors on a rotating basis with any governor of a potential host State being a permanent or ex-officio memoer. They a recommended that the council have a separate, full-time staff.
Such a council would be valuaale in providing formal representation of State views in Federal decisionmaking. Such a council would also help formulate programs to achieve State partic.,,ation in Federal agency programs prior to concurrence in repository construction. It would also aid Federal agency interac*fon nith the 4
i States by providing a central contact point. The finil UG report released on March 13, 1979 recomends creation of such a council.
8.
Technical Review Caoabi11tv The safety and environmental aspects of waste management decisions are a matter of scientific and engineering ceDate. One reason is the unavailanility of data, either because the desired information regiains to be developed, or because the information is impossible to obtain (e.g., because the experimental work would have to extend over centuries in order to provide useful results). Moreover, information and studies that are in existence are not always useful to the States-wither because of difficulty of access (as a result of limited distribution, inadequate indexing, etc.) or cecause of the difficulty of evaluation. Evaluatiot, is a problee because of the inherent technical complexity of the subject; but, in addition, evaluation may be complicated by a need to draw together material from various disciplines and sources to resolve a matter of particular interest and to consider the possibility of bias that may bear upon the reliability of any information that is at hand.
These considerations point to the usefulness of a review capability that would enadie the States to obtain, for purposes which they identify and in the form most suited to their needs, technical evaluations of waste management technology in general and Federal waste management activities in particular. A consideration of options to meet this need should include:
hhether any new organization is needed or whether existing Federal (e.g., CCE or NRC) or State (e.g., the National Governors' Association) agencies provide an appropriate vehicle.
Whether the technical review functions should be suDject to the direction of the same secnanism which may be esta011shed to provide for State participation in the national planning process, as discussed above.
Whether the review capability should be restricted to the evaluation of availaDie data, or whether it should extend to the planning and/or direction of further field or laboratory investigations.
Wrether the capability should be funded by the Federal Government and, if so, to vnat extent and througn what mechanism.
Whether Federal agencies should be directed to assist and, if so, in what sanner.
A non-Feceral technical review of the state-of-the-technology and the technical prog ass of WC, DCE and EPA on benalf of the States was suggested and neartily succorted at tne Atlanta meeting. This review grouo could take the place of i
t individual tecnnical assessments by " interested" States and could provide advice to " host" States. The State representatives thougnt such a review group was necessary to ootain creoible information and assessments. It would, of course, require complete access to NRC, CCE and EPA data and cocperation by those agencies and their contractors. The review group might report its findings tnrougn the planning council discussed above and rely on the council staff for acministrative support.
Since this activity would serve the national interest by bringing to bear an
% dependent capability with a State-oriented perspective, Federal funding would be entirely proper. Moreover, from an administrative point of view, it seems likely tnat it could be carried out more Quickly, and with a minimum of administrative difficulty if a Federal grant mechanism were used. Nevertheless, the States might wish to assume the exclusive responsibility for funding this technical review, so as to maintain their independence.
C.
State Particication in The Federal Pm eesses Major steps to improve State participation should come from the Federal agencies themselves and from the States. Many positive steps have been taken in the recent past, but many new and innovative mechanisms can be devised within current legislative authority. Cecisions can ce made with greater openness; the logic and assumptions of the agency planning processes can be debated more fully in public and State forums. For its part, the Congress can encourage and direct agencies with waste management responsibilities to find and employ new and additional procedures to increase State involvement in the Federal program for hign-level waste management. State participation in the siting, licensing and development of nuclear waste facilities could be enhanced by continued efforts, on the part of Federal and State agencies alike, to work out effective reans for Improved comunication and consultation at the staff level.
There are, of course, important channels of consultation already provided by law, including the rulemaking/ comment provisions of the Administrative Procecure Act and the review procedures established pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
With regard to NRC's regulatory process, the Comission has outlined in a proposed statement of policy (see: Appendix A.2) some views on the means by which it might review an application from CCE for the storage or disposal of hign-level radioactive wastes in a geologic repository. The procedures would include safety and environmental reviews both prior to construction and prior to receipt of radioactive saterial. Affected States would have a right to participate in formal aojudicatory proceedings, in accorcance with the Commission's rules of practice.
In addition, the statement of policy contemplates that even in advance of a Itcense acolication, the Ccemission would begin a consultative process, with emenasts upon arrangements for participation of the State in wnica the repository
.culd be located in the Comission licensing process.
These concepts were addressed in the form of draft regulatioris (an NRC staff worting document) which were made available to the States in advance of tne January 1979 workshop. NRC has received general suoport for the provisions for State participation in the draft. Those provisions are based on a fleaible approach to State participation in which, through individually negotiated agreements, each State participates up to its capanilities and desires.
The Commission believes that procedures such as these, if adopted, would provice appropriate channels for keeping the States informed and providing for their participation to the extent authorized under existing law.
Activities that sight be succorted by the Commission include educational or informa-tion services, exchange of personnel under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and technical services needed by the Commission (suoject to section 170A of the Atcmic Energy Act) in connection with its review of the license application or related environmental report. NRC can estaclish direct liaison between individual interested States and the staff of NRC program offices and NRC contractors. NRC could also schedule more workshcps witn State officials and continue to include thes on our technical advisory review panels such as those on waste classification.
Consistent with the need for States to assess the basis on which Federal gecisions are made, NRC intends to provide an opportunity for States to review the basis of its high level waste regulatory devolecment. Review of the regulations as published in the Federal Re21 ster may not be adequate. Additional efforts will be maoe in several areas:
- 1) working informally with individual interested States to establish a direct liaison with our technical in-house and contractor programs.
2) possibly sponsoring technical wortshop review of the regulatory base, pernaps in conjunction with the National Governors' Association or other State organization.
3) exchange of State persons with NRC contractors such as Lawrence Livemore Laboratory, Sandia Laboratory or on the NRC regulatory development staff.
4) using advisory panels. NRC's Waste Management Division has an ongoing policy to include technical advisory review panels as part of contract efforts.
For example, our efforts on waste classification and alternatives to shallow land burial both emoloy tecnnical advisory sanels to review contractor efforts.
These panels contain State officisls.
With regard to participation by a potential host State in the NRC precess and decisions concerning a specific CCE recository orocosal, the Commission is considering or 945 cegun the following:
6 Consistent with the draft 10 CFR 60 A (see Appendix A.3) NRC is actively involved in negotiations with New Mexico regarcing State participation in the NRC licensing review of w!PP should NRC have requisite regulatory authority.
NRC employees could be assigned to host States under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act during the Ifcensing process. They could, among other things, answer questions from State government officials and citizens on all aspects of the Ifcensing process. One primary functions would be to improve the lines of communication bet een State officials and NRC.
~
State officials or State university professors could be assigned (under IPA) to work on the NRC staff or on NRC contractor staffs. Such persons could observe how NRC policy decisions are made while actively participating in a technical program. Serious consideration would be given to assigning these individuals to major NRC contractors so that they could receive first-hand knowledge on technical matters related to geologic repositories.
For the ifcensing review of any geologic repository, NRC will be required to prepare a draft and final environmental impact statement. The host State may
. ell have superior knowledge in several areas including, among others, local w
socioeconomic impacts, land use planning, and regional terrestial and aquatic biology. State expertise in the fields of geology and hydrology of the region might also be especially helpful. If it is determined that the State has extensive knowledge in these fields, NRC would consider requesting assistance from the State in performing the required safety review and environmental analysis.
D.
Grant precrus The Commission has been directed to include in this report "a detailed considera-tion of a program to provide grants througn the Commission to any State, and the advisaDility of such a program, for the purpose of conducting an independent State review of any proposal to develop a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility within such State."
States have a prcper concern with the safety and economic aspects of major waste management activities concucted within their boundaries. There are at least two major reasons why the Federal Government should consider providing financial assistance to the affected States to perform an indepencent review. The first is a matter of equity: if the national interest requires that a facility be located, or considered for location, within a particular State, the Federal Government should cefray the costs reasonaoly incurred by the State in protecting the interests of its citizens. Unlike the situation involving other types of industrial facilities, wnere States say well have sound economic motives to welcome the facility within their boundaries, the incentive for accecting hign-level wastas is hardly so clear. Secondly, the informed particioation of the
- CD -
States is likely to assist the Federal licensing process by providing valuaale insignts, particularly as to environmental concerns, and by bringing factual and policy issues into sharper focus. Federal grants may be particularly approcriate in view of the uncertainties and technological complexities associated with geologic disposal which may be beyond the existing review capability of most (if not all) States.
The Commission has identified a numoer of factors that need to be taken into account in developing an appropriate program. These include:
a The classes of facilities that sient be the subfect of crants.
Disposal of wastes in geologic repositories involves irreversible commitments, made in the face of unavoidable uncertainties, that may present some degree of risk to peode for hundreds or thousands of years. It is in this context that the active participation of the State is most needed. On the other nand, the technical and policy issues associated with temocrary storage of wastas (in surface facilities similar to those presently in use) are capable of resolution under existing procedures.
The States that micht be elIQible to receive orants.
The most ccmoelling argument for a grant can be made in behalf of the State within which a facility is located. The characteristics of a particular site may be such, however, that a bordering State may have reasonable grounds to be equally concerned with the judgments made in the review process, especially where the concern relates to the failure of features relied upon as barriers to waste migration.
States affected solely by the transportation of radioactive waste to a storage or disposal facility would have a lesser claim to Federal grants. The issues involved, while importatst from the standpoint of pt.nlic health and safety, would not be so novel and difficult as to demand special treatment. Moreover, because of the numoer of States that might be affected by trans,90rtation to a particular facility, the possibility of uncue duplication of effort and excessive expense would need to be consicared.
When a State should beceme eligible to acoly for, and receive, a grant.
Srction 14(a) of P.L.95-601 requires the Department of Energy to nottfy the Commission as early as possible after the commencement of planning for a particular preposed facility. Inis specific administrative action could serve as a useful dividing point between the Department's preliminary evaluations and its more fully coveloped site-specific plans. At the point of notification to the Ccmmission, the Depar*Jent's activities should ce sufficiently advanced that meaningful review can commence; on the other hand, it is early enougn in the process that imoortant concerns can be icentified and adjustments iece (including acanconment, if appropriate) with a sinimum of inconvenience anc exoense. Alternative'y a later point in the process might be selected. If this were done, the expense of paying for State efforts in connection with sites that were later acandoned algnt be mit 'aized; but this saving would have to be evaluated in terms of its impact upon the States' 4Dility to Derfom an indecendent review in a timely and thorough fashion.
Whether orants should te administered by the Ccmmission.
Either the Commission or the Department of Energy signt be assigned the responst-bility for making grants to support independent State reviews. In the case of 00E, there signt be a concern that as the proponent of a particular facility, CCE sight be perceived to have a conflict of interest in administering grants made to others for the specific purpose of reviewing the plans for the facility involved.
Objections concerning the continued independence of Commission decisions could be raised with respect to grants made by NRC. It seems likely, hcwever, that the review activities of the States would be a direct aid, and not an impediment to the activities of both agencies. If one objective of the State review is to aid the State to make an informed judgment whether or not construction should proceed notwithstanding issuance of construction authorization by the Commission, as discussed in section F. below, the Department as the agency directly interested in construction would be the logical source of funds. Nevertheless, there appears to be no compelling reason to specify that the grants should come exclusively from
~
COE or NRC. Either or both could be authorized to make grant.
The activities to be sucoorted by the crant.
Trants could be used to support independent State reviews of paticular facilities and States. A distinction needs to be made between 1) the review of data that has been prepared by the Federal government (including identification of any additional data that should have been so prepared) and the accompanying technical judgments exercised and 2) the performance of additional laboratory and field investigations.
Reasons of econcey and avoidance of duolication of effort sight justify limiting the grant to the review activity.
What constitutes an "incecendent review"-
An "indecendent review" by a State may be taken to mean either an indepencent technical review or an independent administrative review. The development of the technical capability to evaluate a preocsed facility and to participate in NRC licensing proceedings is fully consistent with the policy interests identified above. A separate independent acministrativu proceeding, on the other hand, would be less relevant to the Feceral licensing decision and might therefore be left to proceed, if at all, using State resources.
What is an acoreoriate fundino level.
The amount of funds that a State would be sole to use effectively in conducting a review of the data and technical judgments.nich comprise a repository procosal is not a uniform or single amount. The accropriate fe ding level is dependent upon
- 1) the existing expertise avaliaole in the State, 2) the general state-of-knowledge regaraing geologic repositories and the numeer of issues already resolved througn generic rulemaking or previous if censing reviews, 3) the availaDility of non-Federal expertise e.g., if the States alreacy had in progress a state-of-the-art review of the Federal program much of this knowledge and expertise gained might be tapped; and 4) the stage of repository cevelcoment. Notwithstanding these variaoles, we expe t that most States could put something in the neigneorhood of 5500,000 per year to constructive use (e.g., 5 full-time professionals plus an equivalent amount in contract assistance). The grant acministering agency should have discretion in the size of the grants issued.
E.
Transoortation Transportation of radioactive maste to a future repository is a matter of great public concern and is clearly related to repository siting considerations. Issues pertaining to routing, emergency planning, safety of shipping containers, costs, liability, and the bearing of these factors to repository siting will need to be resolved. State participation in the siting, ifcensing and develeprent of waste management facilities must extend to participation in the resolution of these issues as well. 00T regulations for hazardous material transportation may need modification with regard to the transport of high-level wastes to future repositories. Sfailarly, NRC must determine, with State participation, how transportation related impacts should affect its decisions.
Because the subject of transportation of radioactive material is prominent in the concerns of the States and the general public, NRC has employed special efforts to enhance the opportunities for communications by the public with the NRC staf f.
In 1972 the first transportation impact assessment, 'nASH 1228, was carried through the formal hearing process, with puolic hearings held in Washington, "
'he next major generic transportation impact statement, Final Envi-onmental State =ent -
Transcortation of Radioactive w terials bv Air and Other Mcces, NUREG-0170.as a
issued in 1977. The document in draft form was reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the Comisission's statutory safety advisory grouo, in puolic meetings, in Atlanta and Chicago. On issuance as a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), in excess of 2300 copies were distributed to interested persons, including all fifty States, asking for views on the content or conclusions of the FEIS which might te helpful to the Commission in deciding how to move forward with its proceeding on transportation of radioactive material.
The third major fepact assessment of urcan transportation impac*s Sas yet to be issued as a DEIS, but has uncargone ACRS review in public meetings in New York City ana Wasnington, D.C.
In addition, an Ad Hoc Task Grouc.as formed to advise the NRC contractor on its develeccent of the impact assessment. The group incluced State, local, incustry and environmental activist representatives. The puolic was invited to tne meetings of that groun in Arlington, Virginia: Saltimore, Maryland; Houston, Texas, and two teetings in New York City. The second New Yort meeting of the grCuD.as s6CDleMnted y an %%C orkshC: on artan trans ortation of racioactive saterials in.nica tre :Lolic.as enc:uraged *o :artici ste.
^ther 5:ecial efforts to coercinate.NRC trans:cetation stancarcs eff:rts fec1 wee NRC partici:ation.ith the Oecar*.sent of Transportatien in rulesatirg to c:nsicer the advisasility of higNay rcuting recuirements for racicactive saterial transacria-tion. A puclic seetirg.as held in 'easniagten, 0.0.
rior to any rulesating actions, and regional meetings are plannec Orce a Oroposed rule is issued for puclic c: ament. In the area of nuclear fuel cycle safety, regicmal =eetings have been held on nuclear aste dis:csal star.carcs, inciucing trans:crtation standarcs, in Atlanta, Georgia; Philacelonia, Pennsylvania, and Chica;o, Illinois.ith accitional meetings to Ie told in tre strer t.o %E regions this year.
The Coeuif ssion is aware '.at the State re:resentatives regard trars ortatien as a sijor issue eith particular uncertainties to te resolved in routing anc in efergency planning and resconse ac*1vities. In putting the regulatory ;r: gras in place, the Federal agencies involved sust a:;reciate the need for ;ced c:municatien
.ith the States and the pun 11c and te sensitive to trair :erce:tions ans evicent concerns. Trans;crtation of hign-level.astes snculd *:e viewed as an inte;ral part of the repository siting and racicactive.asta sanagement program.
F.
Consultatien and Coreur*esco Various proposals nave been sace to provice a cefined role for tne States in t?e process for arriving at cecisiens ith res:ect to the siting, licensing, anc ceveloceent of nuclear aste facilities. Generally, these c:nte,olate consultatien eith State officials or setting their c:ncurrence.
Portions of this re: ort no e explored.ays in wnica ::cortunities for c:nsultation can te encouraged and incrowed.
' Sether or not there shoulc te a secnanism involving *c:ncurrence" is a sore cifficult cuesti:n, :re.Mich can only te resolved in te ns of a balance :et een t?e national and State interests t'.at has alreacy :een Icentified.
If tre Congress eae to provice for the States to :articipate in *.3e pr: cess inrougn a concur ence secsanism, tee circ astacces and manner in.nica this carticization sight occur should Oe 5:elled out ith clarity. Sese relevant c:nsiceratiens fecluce t*e practicability of tre procecure, its relevance to the puclic interest, and its a::rcoriateness as a Seans for acc mccating c:mceting Feceral and State interests.
Ameng tre f actars that woula nave to :e resolved are t*ese:
1
- e Oractical c:eseet.eaces :* *ailure to ac9f eve c:ecur-eace. A State ray cecif ne to c:ncur in t*e action of the Oe:ar*.2ent cr t*e :essissicn. A statutory senese sign: *ecuire, 'or examole, that t*e agency c:ncer ed.culs tren :e colised to ressonc in.riting *a tre State's cofection. :ut inat tre
- :s -
activities of siting, ifcensing, and develoceent would not themselves be interrupted. Alternatively, nonconcurrence might operath as a form of veto, which would recuire agencies to suspend or terminate their activities.
2.
The arounds uoon which the ! tate mient decline to concur. The procedi.re afght allow an interested State to withhold concurrence for any reasons at all. Alternatively, it sight require, for example, that a State base its action upon its own determinations, using the record in the Ccmmissicn proceedings, that environmental or safety interests have not been adequately protected.
3.
The form in which a State minnt invoue the mechanism. This could be a declaration by to Governor, or a resolution by the State Legislature, or some other procedural device identified by law. The instrument should formally set forth the action of the State and, perhaps, the grounds for the action as well. A statutory procedure should also identify the party to whom the State's action should be addressed and the time allowed for its filing.
4.
The point (or ooints) at which the concurrence orocedure micht be invoked.
It should be recognized, first, that the actions of the Federal government include the planning and developmental activities of CCE on the one hand and the regulatory and licensing activities of NRC on the other. An argument can be made that the Federal government should be enab1>1 to perform its own
~
Ifeensing reew of a particular proposed repository in an orderly and untrameled mant;er. While this process should prov de for extensive State participation, it should not be interrupted in response to a State's nonconcurrence. That is, nonconcurrence should be considered, if at all, in relation to CCE activities rather than in relation to the licensing review conducted by the Commission. If this view were adopted, the most appropriate time for a nonconcurrence procedure to be employed might be after the issuance of a construction authori:ation by the Commission. Its effect then would be to cause CCE to suspend construction activities notwithstanding the completion of the NRC licensing process. At that point, there would be a fully-developed factual record and a reasoned statement of the Commission's conclusions that could be used in the resolution of remaining differences.
5.
The authority to resolve the difference. A noncencurrence procedure, if provided, should include a means for resolving differences between an affected State and the Federal agencies concerned. The responsibility signt be assigned to the President, or to the Congress, er to designated Congressional comittees.
The form of decision signt either te an override or nonaction. That is, the procedure could provide that Federal action could proceed after a State noncurrence only if the final Federal decisionmaker were to override such nonconcurrence by affirmative sction. Alternatively, the procedure could be defined in a way that would merely suspend Federal action for a specified and limited time; and, in the.. ant of nonacticn by the final decisionmaker within the allotted time, the Federal activities might then proceed.
6.
The extent to wnien a cecision, other than that of the ccmmission, would be subject to review. Since the decision with respect to the State's action would be distinct from the licensing decision of the Comission, and because it might taken into account matters not included in the record of the Commission proceedings, the appropriateness and scope of judicial review of the decision would require analysis, a
~
V.
Findines and secomencations A.
Finding: The planning of national nuclear waste management progran could be improved by providing an institutional mecnanism, pernacs along the lines recommenced in the IRG report, for communication, consultation and resolving problems that arise netween the Feceral Government and the States.
Recomendation: The Commission recommends tne estaolishment of a planning council consisting of Feceral and State representatives, to be supported by a small acainistrative staff and Fecerally financed. Feceral agencies taould be required to assist the council by providing availaole information, in response to request, and to consider the advice of the council in discharging their responsibilities. This
~
recommendation is consistent with the final report of the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear waste Management.
8.
Finding: The establishment of a review capability that would enable the States to make technical evaluations of waste management technology and Feceral aste management activities would ennance State participation in the siting, licensing, and development of nuclear waste facilities.
Recomendation: The Commission recommends that such a review capability be established under the direction of the planning council referred to above, and that Federal funds be proviced either by direct appropriations or by means of grants acainistered by an a;propriate Federal agency. This ree:mendation is consistent with the final report.f the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Managesent.
C.
Finding: Federal agencies sncule ease their efforts in communicating with the States and soliciting State views two way flew of information between the Federal government and the States would be useful in fostering public uncerstanding of Feceral waste management programs.
Recomendation: The C:mmission suggests that measures be taken to involve the States througnout the process for planning, siting, developing and licensing nuclear waste storage or disposal facilities beginning with the site selection process and tre devele: ment of criteria and standards and c:ntinuing througn the NRC's licensing review process. federal agencies should cevelcp improved procecures for comunicating with the Sta:
- eng the cnannels that ceuld be employed are workshcos, MAChanges of personnel,.nd inclusion of State reoresentatives on a: pro
- priate advisory panels (includir.g advisory panels for principal coatractors).
3.
Finding: Informed participaticn of States is likely to assist the Feceral aste sanagement program ey p oviding valuable insignts from a State pers: ctive and my helping to cring factual and policy issues into snarper fccus. It is reascnacle for the Feceral government to oefray scme of the costs of providing such informed particication througn a grant program since siting of repositories is in tne 9atienal intartst.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Congress autnorize NRC to establish a grant program to allow the States to participate more fully in the Federal waste management p rogram. We reccmmend that a potential repository " host" State (or nearty State that may be affected) should be eligible to receive grants from the point at which DOE notifies NRC of the commencement of planning for a specific facility. The grant would allow the States to perforn a technical review of the DOE plans for such a facility. We find no coocelling reason to restrict such grant authority to anyone Federal Agency. Both NRC or CCE, could be authorized to conduct such programs. Approximately 5500,000 per year for each State undertaking such a review appears ta be a reasonable first estimate for a fully developed program; the Federal agency acministering the grant should be able to exercise discretion within the limitations imposed by the Congress as to the amount appropriate in any given year.
E.
Finding: Questions arising out of the transportation of high-level radioactive waste are of significant concern to the State-snd are integrally related to the siting, ifcensing and development of nuclear waste disposal activities.
Recomendation: Federal agencies should consider such transportation-related issues as shipping routes, emergency planning, enroute liability, shipping containers, and the like, in their overall waste management activities and should develop institutional arrangements as appropriate for consulting with the States
- in a timely manner. The mechanisms should include involvement of the planning council described in ites A.
F.
Findino: The Commission believes it appropriate to give statutory recognition to the legitimate concerns of States in wnich waste facilities may be located.
Providing a State veto, however, would mean that a relatively small percentage of the American people would be empowered to halt er seriously incece the Federal waste management program even if the normal regulatory processes were to lead to the conclusion that the wastes can ce safely stored and disposed of.
Recommendation: The Commission believes that legislation for imoroving State participation in the Federal waste management program should provice proper recognition of the legitimate concerns of the States along lines suggestad in this Report. However, if provision for a State veto were made, that provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the circumstances under which the veto could be exercised. This would include requiring the State to exercise all reasonaole means to resolve its difficulties. If a State concurrence or veto nere authorized, it signt come at the time at.nich a Commission decision has seen made to authorize facility construction. There, it would have the effect of suscending the beginning of construction by OCE.
VI.
Bibliocraony Public Law 93-438 (88 Stat. 1233] Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, October 11, 1974 United States Department of Energy, February 1979, Recort of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Vaste Manacement, CRAFT, Directorate of Energy Research. 00E/ER-0004/0.
United States Department of Energy, Octcber 1978, Recort to the President by the Interacency Review Group on Nuclear Waste uanacement, ORAFT, Interagency Review Group, TID-28817 (Draft).
United States Department of Energy, Maren 1979, Reoort to the President by the Interacency Review Grouo on Nuclear Vaste Management, Final Report, Interagency Review Group.
TID-29442.
National Governors' Association, August 1978, The Resource, Vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 4-5.
Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, "CNWI Library Reports List, CNWI-2, Novemcer 15, 1978, Battelle Memorial Institute, U.S. 00E Contract EY-76-C-06-1830.
Evans, Daniel J., Maren 1977, Imorovino Reculatory Effectiveness in Federal / State Sitino Actions: Alternative Financino Methods, for USNRC, NUREG-0204 (available frem the Office of State Programs, USNRC).
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Transcript of the January 16-13, 1979 WorkshoD on National Waste Management (available for copying at USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 "H" Street, N.W., Washington, DC).
NUREG-0043, Alternative Processes for Manacino Existino Ccmercial Hich-Level Radioactive Waste, April 1976.*
NUREG-0116 and NUREG-0216, Environmental Survey of the Reorocessino and waste Manacement Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, Public Coments, March 1977.*
NUREG-0194, Calculations of Radiofonical Consecuences from saeotace of shiocina casxs for Scent Fuel and Hicn-Leval Vaste, May 1977."
NUREG-0217, NRC Task :orce ;ecort on Review of tre raderil/ state 7ecersm for Reculation of Commercial tow-teval Radioactive waste Burial Grounds, Maren 1977.*
NUREG-0240, The NRC tow-level Waste anacement Deocram, Novemcer 1977.*
v NUREG-0279, Oeter ination of Performance criteefa for Hich-tevel solidified Nuclear waste, July 1977.*
NUREG-0353, E tshees for State Review of site Suitact11tv Criteria for Hicn-tevel Radioactive Waste Recesitories: Discussion Grot.o Recorts, Octocer 1977.*
NUREG-0354. Wortsncos for State Review of Site Suitacility criteria for wicn-Level Radioactive Waste Recositories-analysis and Rec:mmendation., FeDruary 1978.*
NUREG-0404, Orsf t Generic Environmental tseact State ~ent on Wandling and Storsqe of Seent thR Fuel, March 1978.*
NUREG-0300, Proeosed Goals for Radieactive vaste uanacement, May 1973."
NUREG-0412, Essays on issues Relevant to the Recalation of Radicactive waste Manacement, May 1978.*
NUREG-0456, A Systes for Classifying Radioactive waste, July 1973.*
NUREG-0513, workino Pacer - Weans for Ivoroviro State particication in t.Se Federal Nuclear waste Manacement Procrams, Dececcer 20, 1979. (Availaole frca the Office of State Programs,USNRC)
' vniteo atates Nuclear Regulatory Omissien -ecorts availaole frem Oistricution Seevices traren, Roca 015 Philli:s Sailcing, wasnirgton. ;C 20555.
L APPENDICES
APDENDIX A.1 NRC PRCGRAM DESCRIPTICN The NRC program creaks down generally into the development of a regulatory base and the licens-ing process. The ability of a State or group of States to participate in this program depends in part on the technical cacacilities within or availante to the States. They should have little difficulty in accressing some critical policy issues, as well as certain technical issues of considerable complexity. On the other hand, the range of safety and environmental concerns associated with waste management places severe constraints upon effective State parti-cipation. A review of the NRC program will help to bring this problem into focus.
Develocment of a Reculatory Base The NRC program is oriented toward the development of regulations and regulatory guides that would be used in the evaluation of specific license applications. NRC is engaged, with the support of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, in the examination of technical information and the construction of analytic models (definitions or descriptions of physical systems) and codes (methods for executing a zocal or portion of a model). The effort includes the collection of data, the analysis of the data with particular emphasis upon identification of deficiencies and uncertainties, determination of areas where specific research projects are required, and the development and verification of mathematical analogies to be used in modeling for the major physical and chem H41 systems. Sensitivity analyses will be performed during the development program so as to inclcate confidence levels for the model results and the guide further model cevelopment.
Vaste form performance in one of the areas of incairy. This nork includes development of data and models suitable for evaluating the complex interactions between the waste form, the waste package, and the emolacement media. The waste form performance will te evaluated for a broad range of environmental conditions, reflecting many anysical, enemical, thermal, and radiological variables.
Repository site characteristics are another focus of attention. Accordingly, the NRC program includes the development of radionuclide transport and pathways models, with particular emphasis upon the dynamics of the hydrogeologic system. The studies seek to identify the perti-rent carriers to waste transport, evaluate their performance individually and in comDination, cefine the relationsnic cetween particular parameters and performance of the carriers, and deter-mine the uncertainties (and stans for reoucing uncertainties) in the predictions of overall site and specific carrier performance.
Further efforts consicer a variety of repository designs and their relationship to the environ-ient of the.astes and the erformance of bscriers cefore and after sealing.
A.1-1
s The models developed in the course of this work.111 also need to tane specific radiological performance objectives into account. As EPA's environmental radiation standarcs for high-level
.aste disposal are issued, they will be reflected as performance objectives for NRC-licensed facilities.
The results of this effort will be used cy NRC in the development of regulations and regulats,
guides and also for the purpose of providing a methodology for evaluating particular license applications. An initial set of proposed technical criteria for geologic repositories is schec-uled for publication by NRC in 1979. In view of the many variables that must be consicered and the ongoing develcomental work described acove, those criteria are expected to be qutlitative in nature and subject to later refinement.
The Licensino process The Commission has issued for Dublic comment a proposed general statement of policy on licensing procedures for geologic repositories for high-level radioactive wastes. The policy statement outli es in general terms a procecure which contemplates (asst. ming favoracle determinations at eact t up):
Early notification to States and other interested parties Informal review of site suitability matters after CCE's site selection Filing of license application, to be accompanied (or preceded) by an enviror. mental report Construction authorization, if the Commission (after opportunity for formal hearings) finds that, considering NEPA requirements. *there is reason 4 Die assurance that the types and amounts of wastes described in the application can be stored in a repository of the design proposed without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of tne public or being inimical to the common defense and security." (Sinking of the main shaft and related structures might be permitted after completion of a full NEPA review if there is reasonacle assurance of site suitability and of compatibility of the limited construction work with use of the site for a repository. )
Licensing, after further opcortunity for hearing, if the Ccmmission finds that the posses-sion of radioactive materials at the repository will not constitute unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the puclic or be inimical to the common cefense ar.J security. If necessary, the earlier environmental impact statement would be updated. CCE aould be required to comply with accropriate monitoring, recorckeeping, and reporting provi? ions and would be subject to NRC inspection.
Review and accroval of repository closure, including sealing of the recository, decommis-sioning of surface facilities, storage of permanent records, and long-term monitoring.
Tne policy statement ould me implemented by regulations, the procecural portions of.nicn nave teen circulatec to the States, in draft form, for comment.
Those orovisions.nich pertain s ecifically to tre participation of the States in tre WC review
- ,rocess may :e identified as follows:
i 60.11.
Preacolication site review. CCE would notify NRC as soon as cracticaole aftee it has selected a cardicate area for site evaluation.
JC oulc holisn notice of receipt of this A.1-C
h information and would send copies to State and local officials, who wculd be advised of their cpportunity to request consultation. 00E would keep NRC informed of its progress and NRC would express its views as COE's work progressed. Comments frcm States would be considered in formu-lating these views. All documents would be olaced in the Puolic Document Rocm. (This stage involves NRC staff only, not the Commission staff.)
4 60.21.
CCE would inform NRC anen it determines that it intends to sucmit a license applica-tion witnin six montns. This information would oe oublished in the Federal Register and would advise States of their opportunity to suomit prooosals for participation in the license review.
I 60.52.
Upon request, NRC staff will review with States the NRC licensing process and opportu-nities for State participation and will cooperate in the develocment of proposals of such partici-pation. States may submit timely proposals, signed by the Governor, describing :-eag other things the ways in.nfen the State wishes to participate and providing funding ev.fmates for work it would perform for the Commission, under contract, in support of the license review. The preocszl would identify other actions which NRC would ce requested to tace - e.g., educational or informa-tion services (such as seminars or pubife meetings), establishmunt of additional public document rooms, employment or exchange of State personnel under the Intergovernr.....'
x sonnel Act, f 60.53. After discussion with the State, the NRC will act upon a proposal and will state in
.riting the reasons for rejection of any parts thereof. Proposal and the NRC response will be placed in the public document room.
I 2.101.
Upon docketing of an application or environmental report, copies will be distributed to State and local officials. Amendments will be distributed in the same sanner. Notice of docketing.ould be puDilshed in the Federal Register and notice of docketing ould be provided to the Governor of the State in which the repository would be located.
i 60.22. A copy of the acplication or environmental report is to be mace availaole for public inspection at an appropriate location near the repository. CCE.ould be required to update these documents as amendments to it are made.
! 50.23.
Among other thing., the application is to contain a detailed description of OCE's site telection process, scecifically noting the scope and death of State and local involvement in selection of tne proposed site. Summaries of any resolutions resulting frem principal meetings, correscondence, or consultations are to be included.
4 2.105.
NRC will pubitsh notice of its intent to take action witn rescect to the 00E license icolication. The notice would state the proposed action (e.g., construction authori:ation, issuance of license, etc.) and would provice for CCE to recuest a hearing or for oersons wncse interest may be af fected (including States) to petition to intervene. The Comismon or a designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.ould initiate formal Fearing proceedings.
(Petitions for intervention.ould ce governed by i 2.714. )
10 CF4 h et 2, ceaeestiv. Formal proceecings.ould te concucted under the Ccmmission's rules of pesctice. In accorcance nitn 3 2.71Hc), a representative of in interestec State.nien is A.1-2
not a party to the proceedings will have a reasonaDie opportunity to participate and to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses. and advise the Comission without being required to take a posi-tien with respect to the issues. Ceterminaticns would be made as specified in the Comission's preposed general statement of policy.
10 CFR part 51. Generallv. States and other persons would have an opportunity to participate in the NEPA review process.
APPENDIX A.2 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE AND POLICY STATEMENT CN LICENSING PROCEDURES 53369
-e (7390 41.M]
NUCEAR ttGULATCRY COMM1551CN uCDesnoo reoc2ouses roa caoto.34 ts.
Positoazas poe soon4rvat aAcapactrvt wasfts booseed Gene as s ed Pessy AGENCT U S. Nue: ear Regulatory Corn-mon.
ACTION: boosed Generna State.
ment of Policy.
SUMMA.RT; The C3 N:ictear Regula.
tory Commission INRCi has under consideration tne foues'.ng proposed polary statement regardarg estacitsn.
ment of procedures for licenset geo.
otte high levet vaste repositories so be constructed and opersted by the U.S. Deenttment of Energy s DC E).
Tis NRC poucy statement is mtended to teform DCE.aterested States and members of the pubiac of tne proce.
dures with unsch DOE sml be re.
tutred to comply to recene a betrae to conuruet arid operate a repos.cory.
The poi.cy as f:rtally adootes..v.ar be coatfied as part of the Cw.trunsaon a regulat;or.s.
DATE. Comments are due en or before Jartuary 16.1t*9 ADDRISSES: Send comments and su.
gesuons to Secretary of the Commas.
sion. U.S. Nuclear ResEarory Com-maas4on. Wasnartton. D C. 20535 at.
ter. tion: Docaetmg and Serr.ce Branch. Cot,ies of c:tr.menta may be exammec ;n the-C1 Nue: ear Regu.a.
tory Comeussion htt:c Docu:.ent Room.1717 11 Street NW Wasnet-ton. D C.
FOR FCRTRT.R :.YFORMATICN CC.VTAC' James C. Ma.ars. Chef. H.43 Leses and ItarJuran.c Waste Branc t Dt.
a sts.cn of Wel Cie:e and Mater.aJ Saf ety. UK N c: car Regulato7 Comm:ssion.
WLu::.neton.
D C.
23355.
7tstaat escistre. vot 43. mlA 223-sticar. wvtatsat 17, tere A.I.1
I e
~._
S3870 Noncts SUPPLDEENTAL INFCRMATION' and 20*4) of the Energy Reorganara, constructna of uus shaft is expected The Commas son la conuderms the uan Act of 1874. These secuens refer to capet some of the unceltaintas m procedures to be used ta the licensms tac the accuracy of dau nortasary for of tugh level waste repositories, and (2) Factuuta used primarGy for tht daugn of the underground repowry.
beume thu lt wouM to useful to so llett the Mews of laterrated persons" recetet and storage of h4sh. level radio. Thus, umle a Ettety ressw prior to act.ve eartes resunting frota act*Vtues amaarts et a ahait totG1 be aGpropr>
pnor to maatng any.ftnal dettaloth Ac.
hCenstd uridtr suca Act (Atatans ate, the acope of revnw and the fino.
cordinaly, the Comn= an is pubiinh. Energy Acta ings recuato naad to the mto ac-Ing for cornment the Proposed Gener*
- 14) Retrierable carface storage Fe, count the puestGity t!.t only 1.m.ted al Statement of Polley 08 h.gh4evel da!.a may be stalla3's.';Ibrther. there cu1Les and other fecuit.as autriertzed md enim waste matton Wenaang for the express purpose of succaquent anould be a istt.al aafety reces of ne 8 te o POLcy
~
cou&d also be use by DOE for tuum act.ve waste generated by the Aefman.
before sut:tanCal cefanutmerits are I:Otuon, when are not used for, or made and alterauons become =practa.
plannant pur' poses preg a l.'nai
("nemismen decisica ce repository U.
are part of. reJarch and detelopment cable to imptemenL Tindily. the Corn.
consang procedurea, acuntae.L m.W:1on beheres that it thould exam.
Under present statute. It la not tiest Ur.cer the Energy Reorramation tce the methoe af cort-'ruct:en and whether NRC vouad have lleensmg au.
Act of 1974 as amenaled, ar.ia the any new mformat.on that may have Lhority e:er DCE's planned Waste Lao, Atottue Energy Act of 12 4. as amend. been sevetored $irtr1 refistrucuon lation Puot Plant (WIPPI pret,osed to et such ret.autor.es would Det be u.
be face formally matter. g receipt be located as Car!abad. N. Mez. How. censed as "produe*:2n* or -'au1Jation*
and **. orate of radacactate ruster a;a at ever.1f the WIFP facaltry is suoject to faedam Ramar. may wouad be M.
N Mmtore.
NRC ucensing. NRC expecta to apply cen:ed unser the:e provutons of the If a repetJry 13 s':tt:t to the NRC there procedures in tne bcensmg Atocus E etty Act dealmg 37th re. 11cenrtng autrier.ty the c*l*re reposa.
- review, Cetet and poc2n: Ion of " byproduct
- tory will be 'ubj*ctr'$ to 11censmg NRC ueensing authority over DCg and rpedal nuclear" matertalt How. review. includ'ns :nese act:vtues vaste management acuvtues is dartved ever the C==*en has authertty which by theauelves might not be from secuans 202(2) and *02t43 of the under the Atoaue Energy Act to faan. wuhm the scoce of NTtC rerponsibh EnerTy Reorgaameaa Act of 1974. ISS procedures for Ucenadig of b) prod.
ty. This comprel'en:tve review stIl be These secuana confine NRC licenntna uct and specal nuclear matenaa that nece::::ary because less of tategrity in authonty ever DOE wasta manage.
are tailored to the unds of acuvtues any part of a tron.satory could ampen!
Enena acutif.1es te eartaart DOE fact 1b belf:3 authonaed and the potentisi tlJe mtefrity cf tPe entare repealtory, tase for receipt and storsee of ntsh has.ards involved. For example. aa.
Ute Commissaan be!1etes it should level.radicocuve wa,ste. If WIPP.I.s to,us.u,h a license for fioseenaica and tho g prepare an enetronmental trupact be u em.nive
- f. -
4 p;monmr. m a sm m.bm.
smemm pumm to -
transurnale wastas from the defense con source and a Ucense for ;
103r211C) of the N?orul Enytronmen.
gregram and 1.0aG coauneretal spent and use of plutoruum for purycees of tal Poucy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") pner fuei rad ammembues then WIPP :
r and fu te authert.1 c
the m - u-n.easie. Whae m. tucht prorwsca.mi nt.cies,el faDrtea.uen_are mamepoem.ng, a onstructi.ce of
- bout sp tr. menu u
- m. Tn smomm co.tamerttal spent fuel rod assembues the forme,r Ucense may be nasued, after could.e. updated prier to recetot and be v md w high =ve r - u-a ang1e r view med mdeed ma ma st-a mdio-uo moenus o me waste."' the transuranic wastes would be generally !! censed without the need repo64 tory Jnould new informE3on F.ot be. and the f edity would not be for f0ltig and review of a spectfle u.
warrank primartly* for
- tat and stormse of conse appucauco--see 10 CFR 70.19n.
- high level raA Jue wastes
- taeo. walle the tacter Ucense stay only be Eam Wmtram fo Sram aff3 tioh 2022) of.
maerTy Reorraruzw !asued after a review process resem.
Onxa Imm Psams uen Act). If WLa'P ts to be used tw hung a marty resceeta the two step 11 In order to provtae orportunity for
'I d D '8?'E hA8h ##I wastas, thee'I'88'ou'ld be Ucecanble censmg review proeided Isa Ene Atomme early input from Slates acd other m.
11 w Energy Act for produettors and ut 1113-terested parues, the Comnessets under sectlee 20,2t43 of the Act pro" con facthues taee 10 CFR 10.22t!) and would upon reevitt of a DCE urense Maditw - -...pm 20= m sop
<<= -h = ~~ ~ t -
et,,i,.uo. O,,voe, fo, an m,0,m.
fouo.fmmrun, me - wm ra m R,mm ti,pohm m me in y s,te
.w g,, Ji.,i:g;=,;,,a-1.,ap=; agogn.i.re umoe fe_ of.eo.
ce,pt m maa. a copy o,e of such,s.
. seve a nom m,
oC,. m,,o,4,e,e,,,,e waste repo.m.. were me apoma.
such a M.
W W muest see at th Mm starth and development earthty exempt from Utenamg.
Deastery. E e Sultactilty of the site be.
Document Room. atul (2) trananut coines crucal for the int 4.ar*e contam-f ty of the contes of such request to the Governor lyrtococTtos Elle Itaett 13 essential to ass of the State and to the Chaef E,xecu-teent of the radioactive Insterials ute of tPe municipality a sfue l LAe N'AEOFY COM*
ausman t-NRC" or "C'==aaman") is Thua sound Doucy s'Igfetta that the rFsposttory 18 Lentatively plarmed to Com=*=non be afforced the opportu. be aucated and to the Covernors of vested with Ucensing authority over naty la parucipate in DCE's atte selee. any conusuous Stages. A.so, the staff C
Igh-M MacuM was e MposHann by secuans 202t2) taon process, thougB considert*!g the would offer CS meet with State and tentattve character of the acuvities m.
Local officals to provide them with m.
volved-only a as mformal advisory formataon about the Commusmen s
'twee themes spans feet wasca la is as capacity. Alash, "Sr such an appi!cauon, reMew and to erplore the pommbilltles stamenos of a a swetece revantert mar construct 10e of a repository shaft of State and local participauen m the hace sonne ressores va4ue. E esatanas raene" wwEld constitute the first major pene.
f'am"'8"aa Ucenamg pr"cTSa.
traG,on of the teologie.contamine,nL If g
p,,gg,,,,,
tmp op-ty nstrue - see d. it
.d u,e tes,, a., _,, c -
sessa nee an the uemas easias. sum evere. could tmpaar the abslity of the geolce1e The proposed recocitory Ucenstng samune Laea nave traelumma.1r ases reemre. conta m*nt to !Solate wastaS over procedures are di1*.ded Jmo four parts' ee as a feria ed iusa leven radanacuse vesse, long pertoda of time. At the same time, review of DCE ante Selecuorn, review of fMG.a4 EsW5rIR YOL at,9stL IIs-Rear. Novlaneet ly, ters A.2.2
t APPENDIX A.3 OPAFT PROPOSr0 REGULATICN DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL WA JE IN GECLOGIC REPOSITORIES 10 CFR PART 60 AND ATTENDANT AMENCMENTS NOTICES 53871 noository development, repository 11-under NEPA. and (2) that there is res-the repository. DOE will need to file censing, and respository closure.
sonacle assurance that trie types and an upcated 11 cense appucauon with
- 1. Jterme of COE stre selecrtos amourts of wastes desertbed in the ap-the ComnussacrL ne ucense authorts-There would be mformal NRC staff psicacon ca.1 be stored La a repository ing actual receipt and storate of radio-ecaments to DOE on site suitaoiltty of tae deo:gn proposed without unres-acuve materials would be tasued Mter matters after Dors site seiecuon sonaole rtsa to tne hesita and safety the Comm wan has conducted a f;nal Such triformal consultation, w ruch of the public or being inimical to the review of hesita and safety and meant ta4s the form of vntten NRC conunos defense and secunty. Con-commaa defense and secunty tasues an staff comments suDolemented by ofte struction would commence w La the the 11gns of IL) any addluonal geolog-or more cpen meetmas between the struung of the main repos4 tory snaft Ic. hydroloste, and other cata ootaaned two agency stalls, would enatie the In the alternauve. where tnsuff!ctent durms construction; (2) ecnformance NRC sta!! to potat out those aspects Informauon La aval!stle snor to shalt of construcuen of repository strue.
of a locauon unicJt ta its judgment sinalrg to perat me Coraminuan to tures. srstems, and components with a eou a
,",a
=ame the complete findir:ss set forth the earlier received sesagn: (3) results q
above, on request by DCE or on the of research programs carried out to r=-
I h be ne t C m.mn cm mow me suety mnew reviews. m p - f simup'-d rm t,n,at,n m,t,e me,ed,,, f,,cmon,.
, n tifying and re's"pondmr to any unan.
I O
O As Indtcated, the interscuan be-strucuen of the shalt cow 4 commence tween NRC staff and CCE at t!us upon hing di after consadmng Ma.
ue: pated masses of radioacm i taa, early stage would te consulute in sananie alurnauna, that tne bents nal uons the npository. Issuance of a nature. That is. NRC staff may pro.
of the prCpos&& esceed the Cotta urider
- 1. cense Ttil require a definluve f6 acing vide conunents and advice, but the NEPA. and (2) that there ts reasonscie under the Atomic Energy Act that the Corn =-n wtal neither maae tonnal assurance thac tal The site is suataole recetot, posaea aork and use of the spe-findings not taae other formal acuorL DOE sould remain at Uberty to come for a Mpository within which hash-Ctal nuclear and byproduct mater a.s level wastes of the Eltnds and quanti-ab the repos4 tory all! not cor.atitute forward later with any license applica, tion that it believed would conform to ties desenhed la the app 11 canon tsn be unreasonaole nsa to the flealth and Com nn anton requirements. and the stored without ur.resacasole risa to safety of the pu3tae of Se sturnact1 to Commranian wou&d be free, as the evt.
the hetAth and safety of the public or the common defense and security. If dence m.Sht warr3nt. Lo formally ap.
betrig uurnacal to the common oefense '*arrarited by new tr. format.on ansCf1 prove or disapprove the applicat.og and security. and ibn the pians for con-the staff jugses could r% erCy alter 1 Jteettie of repository detvlopment struCilon of the ma;n snaft and relat-rhe NEPA cost. benefit balance, the The formal Commnaanon hcensmg ed structures esa be unp4emented in a earner enftrcr. mental linpact state-Mette procTas would Serin with the mant'er comDauble with the use of the meFAC m!! be updated. A.so. il regueJ fillrig of an asp &lcauon for a license Cy site f or a respository. The full f;nd.rtgs ed by a person shose trterest msF De DCE pnor to commencement of con.
set forth previously woe 1 taen, nave affected a heatuig in accorrance wuh strucuen of a repoaatory shalt The to be made before the start of con-suopart O of 10 CTR Par * : aouid be acplicauon would be docaeted for struction of surface and ur.dergreurtd held prior to ucefue nsu' Act.
revtes after a preLnuftary reYtes for structuret Safety issues that cou.d
- 33. L cesse antemsnv er Isa grededt comp!eteneas, nouce of tne applacauem riot be resolved based upon the avaa:a. If special restrictions euen as retareva-would be pu Lianed in the Ftasman ble informa'. ton m: gat be deferred Ety or a Lmst on a*4ourits or types of Rzczarta offenrg an occortunity for unul the repository operaung ;. cense unstea have beer.nicosed m the ;1-laterested persons to iritarTene and re*
reV*ew provided thal 111 an adequate cense.18 amendment will be required quast a heartrt2. and a pus 114 an-pregTs,:rt has been developed to resol e prior to commst!1rg taste to irretrier.
Douncement wou d be tasuetL the issue prior to that t;me. and
- J) acte discosal or prior to the reae:Ct of De aDg3catton would taclude trifor-there ;s regaongole Ensurance that the and11 tonal inste. II 3 antic 1pate1 that be Maular to 13.es and mation on siti B4.1451111y and fr9os&-
- ssue can be reso8Ved in a favortete the "equ. red review proce's'ar 5# d e-fT.ctrigs allt e tory destg3 t> Hurts.rtipor* MS to mganer gg the ;&ter $ ate? De Com-scrteed 40 for init:ai t.eer.sms.
safety. An eflVir Snierttal report pre"
- Naaloft requesta puolie coi.fr:etits on pared by DOE ads Tsu!!( the !!!atters thas DN.94 courie of act.cE taa. fig.hto account addiUonal.r.for-set forth 6ft sectico 0:t2xC) of NIPA The
.% CP 4 enettonmental revi trauon actamed durtrts trte retrievable would a.Adn.s. to the extent possa ew would be subm;tted Mth or prior to ae storr4e phase or dur.ng oCerauen the applacauom based on atsdiole infor153uo& eflVt-a9th uritated ;ftfentorT.
It ta probable that some Inforrestion roemeftLal impacts and alternautes ad-DOE m;1 be required to conduct ud Deeesamry to maat a deftrutive finding Ated dArectly of mdirectly Mth monitor its operauons. to atep ree-of the repository's safety will 005 theS soc.Jg. construct;oA and o;fration of ords. and to sutrtit rouune and special g3g be avaAlaDie. Nevertheleas. the Com-lee repository. Any reports..n actornance vth Comnus-ngy,,g 3g 33 mg,,,h,.eannt held upon aussaan
- could authortte construcuon e1 person would 6.on ref'nauons and orcer's. A.I oper-of the rTootstory uooS comoituon of a be caliducted ;n actor:ance mth suo-stiefts stil te sut,ect to stica cor.urtu-review of mit NEPA. saf et y.
arid part O of 13 CTR Part 1
- ng NMC mssec*2on se'mues a.s may Comtr.on
- defense and accurity JaueL The SCpilcant will be rat.urtd to De f aund to De tacrc3rtate.
and upon hndir.g 11) aftef considenn4 reert to the NRC. during tDe course
- 4. itertett of repodHory CIoskre. After renacCaote saternataves Uta8 the Der!9-of construct 4cri. Arty lite Cf.arscteriaa-
'he Moo 48tCry has D*e'i cesetoped and fits of tne proposaA saceed tDe costa
.on data ootatried Wnica are ' tot Ceds to 'nazir= urn capacity tut pr cr T1thLS the pre *sicted.irmta Jpon to im&& C;ostare of trte underground et-
- F%e Iteartri which the repository desitTt was tased essauctLe and stalt.s arid the secom.
Lae Cesamaan.se s?tated on na noosicauoA ea eners as a a auc. ear A;so. it wouad be requared te report ae-rr.:.ss;onuit of surface f acultats. and De*er fetfter Lee %fe Pf9f894LrB.19 SeSte*
.".Ciencies !!t det:gS Md 70rtstruction NRC enew sad accroval wC1 be -e-ena F s otest
- for co-oi== m'in neuauore
.u o,;.ce - a Ae
=c=t =rer-wreet u on sne =mr t it
..t vame.
sons.aae fee the Soere te render part.a4 as, of the repositorv at any futare ttme.
govemang ses.ang of !ne uZiderTround c.anens ce severta 46screte Jouet sucS as
- 33. Repost&of'D ltcessins. Prior to re-
- epceitory, acco mmsucfung of surf ace NI?a aneush Cet pt of any radioactife mater *ad at lac'.laues. Storage of permaDefit "eC-Peoe2aa tsortfTt. VO4. 41800. 223 -MFDaf. esOvtaastt IF. ters A.2.3
t e
e i
53872 ords, and lems-term momtertne. m admns comoneuca of the reew a taanse in th resus may be war.
FantmL Por the UJL Nac:est Resia atory t% m s. man Dased as Washingtask D.C taas leta day of Nonunner.137L Joss C Hort.a.
setsseseemary of &%e Consmuniost 75 h ?basile F5ad 11-14-74 tes aanJ A.2.4
PART 2 RULES OF PRACTICE 1.
10 CFR 2.101 is amended to add a new sucsection (f) to read as folicws:"
5 2.101 Filing of aeolication.
a e
e a
a (f)(1) Each acolication for a license to receive and cossess miah-level radioactive.aste in a geologic recository cursuant to Part 60 of this chaoter and any envirormental recort recuired in connection therewith oursuant to Part 51 of this chaoter shall be orecessed in accoccance with the orovisions of this caraorsch.
(2) To allow a determination as to whether the aoolication or environmental recort is ccm-plate and acceotaole for decketing, it will be initially treated as a tendered document and a ecoy will be availaole for cuolic inscection in the Commission's Public Document Room. Twenty cecies shall be filed to enaole this cetermination to be made.
(3) If the Director of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safecuards determines that the tendered occument is comotete and acceotable for decketiro, a docket numcer will be assigned and the acoli-cant will be notified of the determination. If it is determined that all or any cart of the tencered document is incemolete and there'cee not acceotable for orecessing, the acolicant will be informed of this determination, and the resuects in which the document is deficient.
(4) With rescect to any tendered document that is acceotable for docketing, the acolicant will be recuested to (il submit to the Of rector of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards suen additional cooies as the reculations in Parts 60 and 51 recuire. (111 serve a c:cv en the chief executive of the municioality in which the ceologic recository ccerations area is to be located ce, if tne geologic reocsitorv coerations area is not to be located within a municioalf tv, en the chief executive of the county, and (iii) mare direct distribution of additional cecies to Federal, State, and local officials in accordance witn the reouireeents of this chaoter and written instructions frem the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safequards. All such cooies shall be comoletelv assemoled documents, identified bv docket numcer. Subsecuentiv distributed amendments, however, may include revised caces to crevious submittals and. in such cases, the *ecioients vill te -esconsible fee insertinc the revised caces.
(5) The tende-ed document will be formally decreted coon **cef ot bv t*e of rect:r of Nuclear w terial Safety ano Safecuarcs of the *eculeec idditional ceofes. Distrieution of the a
additional c:oies small 5e ceemed to to comolete as of the time the c:oies ar* cecosited 'a tne 9
As C0moared to existing text. additions are ancerscorec and deletions are bracketed and lined through.
A.3-1
maf f or with a carrier erecaid for delivery to the desicnated accres'ees. The date of docketing small be the date when the reouf red cocies are received by the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safecuards. Within ten (101 days after docketino the acolicant shall submit to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards a written statement that distribution of the additional ecoies to Federal, State, and local officials nas been comoteted in accordarce with reouirements of this chaeter and written instructions furnishea to the acclicant bv the Ofrector of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguaros.
(6) Amencments to the acolication and envircnmental recort shall be filed and distributed and a written statement shall be furnished to the Director of N" clear Material Safety and Safe-quards in the same manner as for the initial acolication and environmental reoort.
(7) The Ofrector of Nuclear w terial Safety and Safeguards will cause to be eublished in a
the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of docxeting which foentifies the State and location at which the orecosed coologic recositorv coerations area would be located and will give notice of docketing to the governor of that State.
2.
10 CFR 2.103(a) is amended to read as follows:
1 2.103 Action on acolications for byoroduct. source, scecial nuclear material, and coerators licenses.
e a
a a
m (a) If the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, finds that an application for a byproduct, source, special nuclear material, or operator license complies with the requirements of the Act, the Eneroy Reorcanira-tion Act, and this chapter, he will issue a license. If the license is for a facility or for receipt of waste radioactive material from other persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by the waste disposal licensee, or if it is to receive and oossess Mich-level radioactive waste in a ceologic recository oursuant to Part 60 of this chaeter, the Of rector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will inform the State and local officials specified in i 2.104(e) of the issuance of the license.
3.
10 CFR 2.104(e) is amended to read as follows:
i 2.104(e) Notice of hearire.
a a
a The Secretary will give timely notice of the hearing to all parties and to other persons, if any, entitled by law to notice. The Secretary will transmit a notice of hearing en an acoll-cation for a facility license or for a ifcense for receipt of aste radioactive material fecm other persons for tne purpose of commercial discosal by the aste dis;osal ifcensee or for a license to receive and Ocssess 91on-level *acicactive neste in a ceol cic recositorv tursuart to art 50 of this enacter to the governor or other accrecriate official of the State and to the A.3-2
cnf ef executive of the municipality in wnica the facility is to be 1ccated or the activity is to be conducted or, if the facility is not to be located or the activity conducted within a vunicipality, to the cnief executive of the county.
4 10 CFR 2.105(a) is amended by accing a new sucparagracn (3), renumcering existing sucpara-graphs (3) and (4) as (4) and (5), and amending the sweparagrapn renumcered as (4) to read as follows:
$ 2.105 Notice of orcooled action, e
a a
e a
w (3) A license to receive and cossess hiqn-level radioactive waste in a ceologic reoository pursuant to part 60 of this chaoter:
ff!)3{41 An amendment of a license specified in paragraph (a)(1)2 Eeri (2), or (3) of this section and which involves a significant hazards consideration.
((433[51Anyotherifcense..
5.
10 CFR 2.105(e) is amended by replacing the words "will issue the license
- with the words "may take the proposed action
- following the pnrase *.or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate,* and by adding the words "or other action
- following the pnrase ".. published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance of the license."
6.
10 CFR 2.106 is amended by adding a subsection (c) to read as folicws:
1 2.106 Notice of issusnee.
e a
e a
m (c) The Director of Nuclear w terial safety and Safecuares will also cause to be cuolished a
in the FECERAL REGISTER notice of. and will inform the State and local officials 5:ecified in t 2.104(e) of. any action with reseect to in aco1festion for i license to receive and oossess nian-level ridf eactive waste in a qeologic recesitory oursuant to part 60 of this craeter for which a notice of crocosed action has been oreviousiv eublished.
7.
10 CFR 2.761(d) is amended by inserting the words "or provistoral construction authoriza-tion" after the words *
.or construction authori:stion."
8.
10 CFR 2.764(a) and (b) are amended ey inserting the worcs "or a provisional construction authorization" after the. orcs "
.a construction authori:stien."
A.3-3
PART 4 - NCNCESCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED COMMISSION PRCGRAMS - EFFECTUATION CF TITLE VI CF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 9.
Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 4 is amenced to add a paragraph (e):
Appendix A - Federal Financial Assistant to wnien this Part applies a
a a
n n
(e) Particication in license review for HlW ceologic recositories.
Acreements for carticication. without full-cost recovery, in connecticn with license review
'4 of storage and discosal of HLW in Geologic recositories cursuant to part 60 of this chacter.
PART 19 - NOTICES, INSTRUCTICNS AND REPORTS TO 'atRKERS: INSPECTICNS
- 10. 10 CFR 19.2 is amended by adding "60," following "35, 40."
- 11. 10 CFR 19.3(3) is amended by adding "60," following "35, 40."
PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTICN AGAINST RADIATICN
- 12. 10 CFR 20.2 is amended by adding "60," following "35, 40."
- 13. 10 CFR 20.3(a)(9) is amended by adding "60," following "30, 40."
14.
10 CFR 20.301(a) is amended by adding "60," fo11cwing "30, 40."
- 15. 10 CFR 20.407(a) is amended by deleting the word "or" following the phrase "of this chapter;"
in sucparagraph (a)(3), inserting the word "or" following the pnrase "of the fo11cwing ouantities:"
in subparagraph (a)(4), and adding a new subparagraph (a)(5) to read as fo11cws:
1 20.407 Personnel exeosure and monitorina recorts.
=
=
=
=
e (5) Possesses bien-level radicactive waste in a ceologic recesitorv eursuant to Part 60 of this cha3ter.
PART 21 - REPCRTING CF CEFECTS AND NCNCCMPLIANCE 16.
10 CFR 21.2 is amended by inserting "60," af ter "35, 40," and af ter "40, 50,*
17.
10 CFR 21.3(a)(3) and (k) are amended by adding "60,* af ter "40, 50.*
13.
10 CF9 21.21(b) is amenced y adding "60,* everywhere af ter *40, 50,*
A.3-4
PART 30 - RULES CF GENERAL APPLICABILITY 10 LICENSING CF BYPRCCUCT MATERIAL
- 19. 10 CFR 30.11 is amenced by adding a new subsection (c).
5 30.11 Scecific ere+otions.
n n
n (c) The Ceoartment of Enerqv is exemot from the recuirements of tnis cart to the extent that its activities are subfect to the recuirements of Part 60 of this chaoter.
PART 40 - LICENSING CF SCURCE MATERIAL
'f 20.
10 CFR 40.14 is amended by adding a new subsection (c).
i 40.14 Seccific exemotions.
n a
a n
n (c) The Decartment of Enerev is exemot frem the recuirements of this eart to the extent that its activities are sub_fect to the recuirements of Part 60 of this chaeter.
PART 51 - LICENSING AND REGULATORY PCLICY AND PRCCEDURES FOR ENVIRCNFENTAL PROTECTICN 21.
10 CFR 51.5(a) is.amenced by adding a new paragrapn (10) and renumcering present paragracn (10) as new paragraph (11) to. read as follows.
5 51.5 Actions recuirine orecarstion of environmental imcact statements, negative declaraticns, envi ronmental imoact acoraisals: actions excluceo.
n a
a n
(10) Issuance of a Ifeense to receive and eessess mien-level radioactive waste in a geologic recesitorv eursuant to Part 60 of tnis cnacter.
f(1933(11) Any other action anich the Commission cetermines is a major Commission action significantly affecting tne cuality of the human environment.
22.
10 CFR 51.5(b) is amenced by replacing the period at the end of succaragracn (4)(iii) nith a semicolon, aeding a new suecaragracn (4)(iv), inserting "50," fo11cwing *40, 50," in paragraan (6), accing a new paragraon (9) and amencing caragrapn (5) to reac as follows:
(4) !ssuance of an amencment enich would authcri:e a significant enange in the types or significant increase in tne amounts of ef fluents or a significant increase in the :otential for accidental releases of a ifcense for:
n n
n A.3-5
5 (iv) The recelot and oossession of Nich-level radioactive waste oursuant to part 60 of this chaoter.
a a
a e
n (5) Renewal of if censes to conduct activities listed in paragraph (b)(4)(1)-(fi++tJ(iv) of this section; e
a a
a m
(9) Termination of a license for the oossession of hion-level radioactive waste in a geologic recository at the reouest of the licensee.
23.
10 CFR 51.5(d)(3) is amended by adding "60," following "40, 50,".
24.
10 CFR 51.40 is amended to add a new subsection (d) to read as follows:
$ 51.40 Environaw.tal recorts.
e a
a e
a (d) The Decartment of Enerev, is an acolicant for a license to receive and oossess radio-active waste in a oeologic recository oursuant to Part 60 of this chaoter, shall submit at the time of its aoolication or in advance, and at the time of amendments. in the manner orovided in 6 60.22(c) of part 60 of this chaoter, environmental recorts which discuss the matters described in f 51.20.
25.
10 CFR 51.41 is amended to read as follows:
$ 51. 41 Administrative oracedures.
Escept as the context may otherwise require, procedures and measures similar to those cescribed in li 51.22-51.26 will be followed in proceedings for the issuance of materials licenses a.id other actions covered by 6 51.5(a) but not covered by 5 51.20 or 51.21.
The procedures fot-lowed with respect to materials Ifcenses will reflect the fact that, unlike the licensing of pro-duction and utilization facilities, the licensing of matarials does not require separate authori-zations for construction and operation. In the case of an acolication for a license to receive and cossess hicn-level radioactive waste 19 a ceologic recository oursuant to Dart 60 of this chaoter. newever, the environmental imoact statetent recuired by i 51.5(al sna11 be orecared and circulated order to the issuance of a oreliminary construction authorization. if anv is recuired.
or otherwise orier to the issuance of a construction authorization: the envirormental imoact statetent shall be sucolemented orier to issuance of a construction authcrization or ifeense to take ac::unt of inv suostantial ciances in the activities crecosed to oe car *ied out or sicnif*
icant new information eecardinq the envi*ermental imcacts af the orcoosed activities.
A.3*$
PART 70 - SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
- 26. 10 CFR 70.14 is amenced my adding a sucsection (c).
5 70.14 Soecific enemotions.
(c) The Decartment of Enercy is exsect frem the reautrements of the reculations in this part to the extent that its activities are stefect to the reouirements of part 60 of the enacter.
- 27. A new Part 60 is added to read as follows:"
PART 60 - DISPOSAL OF HICH LEVEL RADICACTIVE WASTE IN GEOLCGIC REPOSITORIES GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 60.1 Purpose and scope 60.2 License required 60.3 Cefinitions 60.4 Communications 60.5 Interpretations 60.6 Exemotions 60.7 Specific exemptions PREAPPLICATICN SITE PEVIEW 60.11 Preapp11 cation site review LICENSE APPLICATICNS 60.21 Preacolication notice 60.22 Filing and distribution of acplication 60.23 Elimination of repetition 60.24 Content of Application: General Information 60.25 Content of Application: Technical Information 60.26 Updating of Appiteation and Environmental Report CCNSTRUCTICN AUTHCRIZATICN 60.31 Recuirements for issuance of Construction Autnorization 60.32 Conditions of Construction Authorization 60.33 Amencment of Construction Authori:ation Comoarative text is not used for the rew Part 60.
A.3-7
LICENSE 60.41 Requirements for issuance of License 60.42 Conditions of License 60.43 License Specifications 60.44 Changes, tests, and experiments 60.45 Amencment of License 60.46 Particular activities requiring License Amencment 60.47 Termination of License PARTICIPATICN SY STATE GOVERNMENTS 60.51 Preapplication consultation 60.52 Filing of pecposals for State participation 60.53 Approval of proposals RECCRDS, REPORTS, TESTS, INSPECTICN, AND ENFORCEMENT 60.61 Records and reports 60.62 Tests 60.63 Inspections 60.64 Violations Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 62, 63, 65, 81,161,182,133, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); Sees. 202
-206, 88 Stat. 1I44, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5842, 584o),
a.3-3
10 CF2 PAAT 60
_ lSPOSAL CF w!GH LEVEL RADI0ACTIt : WASTES IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES GENERAL FROVISICNS
$ 60.1 Purcose and scooe This part prescribes rules governing the licensing of the Department of Energy to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repository operations area.
I 60.2 License recuired (a) The Department shall not receive or possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct mate-rial at a geologic repository operations area except as authorized by a Ifcense issued by the Commission pursuant to this part.
(b) The Department shall not cemmence construction of a geologic repository operations area uc'ess it has filed an appifcation with the Commission and has obtained construction autho-rizat
.n as provided in this part. Failure to comply with this requirement may ce grounds for denial of a license.
9 60.3 Definitions As used in this part:
(a) " Candidate area" means a geologic and hydrologic system within wnich a geologic repository may be located.
(b) " Commencement of construction" means clearing of land, sinking of a shaft, surface or sutsurface excavation, or other substantial action that would adversely affect the environment of a site, but does not include enanges desirable for the temporary use of the land for public recreational uses, exploratory borings needed to determine site characteristics, preconstruction monitoring and investigation necessary to establish background informatio related to the suita-oility of a site or to the protection of environmental values, or procure..ent or manufacture of components of the geologic repository.
(c) " Decommission" means final closure of subsurface facilities and any decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities.
(c) "Decartment" means the Department of Energy or its duly authorizea representatives.
(e) "Oisposal" means permanent emolacement within a storage space with no intent to retrieve for resource value.
(f) " Director" means the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety anc Safeguarcs.
A.3-9
i e
(g) " Geologic repository" means a system for the disposal of radioactive wastes in excavated geologic formations. A geologic repository includes (1) the geologic repository opera-tions area and (2) all surface and subsurface areas wnere natural events or activities of man may change the extent to which wastes are effectively isolated frcm the biosphere.
(h) " Geologic repository operations area" means a MLW facility that is part of a geologic repository, including botn surface and subsurface areas, where waste handling activities are conducted.
(1) "High-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means (1) irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or ecuivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for
~
reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted.
(j) "HLW facility" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory autho-rity of the Commissicn pursuant to Section 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244)*-
(k) "Important to safety," with reference to structures, systems, and ccmponents, means those structures, systems, and components that provide reasonable assurance that radioactive waste can be received, handled, and stored without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
(1) "Public Document Room" means the place at 1717 H Street NW, Washington, D.C. at which records of the Commission. vill' ordinarily be made available for public inspection and any other plsee, the location of which has been published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, at =nich public records of the Commission pertaining to a particular geologic repository are made available for public inspection.
(m) " Radioactive waste" means HLW and any other radioactive materials other than HLW that are received for emolacement of in a geologic repository.
(n) " Site evaluation" means the program of excloration and researen, both in the laceratory and in the field, undertaken to establish the ranges of those parameters of a particular site relevant to the procacures under this part.
(o) " Traceability" means the ability, through the use of container identification and preparation and maintenance of acercoriate recoros, to delineate a stec-by step history of any radioactive waste.
"These are " facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of hign-level radioactive eastes resulting from activities licensed under such act (the Atcmic Energy Act]" anc "retriev-aole surface storage facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purcose of suo-secuent long-term storage of hign-level radioactive wastes generated by the acministration (CCE].
wnien are not used for, or are part of, researen and development activities."
A. 3-D
$ 60.4 Communications Except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports concerning the regulations
,in this part and applications filed under them should ce addressed to the Ofrector of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (the Director), u.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, wasnington, D.C. 20555. Communications, reports, and applications may be delivered in person at the Commis-sion's offices at 1717 H Street, N.W., Vashingtsn, D.C. or 7915 Eastern Avenue, Silver Spring, Ma ryland.
f 60.5 Interoretations Except as specifically authorized by the Commission, in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will ce considered binding upon the Ccamission.
~
l 60.6 Eremotions The Commission may upon application by the Cepartment, any interested person, or upon its own initiative grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law, will not encanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
5 60.7 Soecific exemotions (a) The Department may request an exemption permitting the conduct of actitivies prior to the issuance of a construction authorization or provisional construction authorization required by 9 60.2(b). The Commission may grant such an exemption upon considering and balancing the following factors:
(1) Whether conduct of the proposed activities will give rise to a significant adverse impact on the environment and the nature and extent of such impact, (2) Whether redress of any adverse environmental impact from conduct of the proposed activ-ities can reasonably be effected should such redress be necessary, (3) Whether_ conduct of.he proposed activities would preclude subsequent adoption of alternatives, (4) The effects of the delay in conducting such activities on the public, and (5) Costs to the applicant and others that may result from suen delay.
(b) Issuance of an exemption under this section shall not be deemed to constitute a commit-ment to issue any construction authorization or 3rovisional construction authorization. The activities permitted under the exemption shall be carried out in a manner that will minimize environmental impact.
PREAPPLICATION SITE REVIEW g 50.11 P*eaeolicatien site c vfew (a) As soon as practicable after selection of a candidate ares for site evaluation, and in advance of tne sucmission of a license acolication, the Department shall notify the Director in writing that a candicate area has teen selected for site evaluation. The notification snall incluce (i) a description of the candicate area, (ii) the princical design features of the A.3-11
i geologic repository operations area proposed for the candicate area, (iii) the criteria under which the candidate area was selected for site evaluation, (iv) a description of alternative areas consicered curing the selection process, and (v) any issues related to the site selection, the selected candicate area or design of the geologic repository operations area which the Depart-sent wishes the NRC staff to review informally.
(b) The Ofrector will cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of receipt of information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section. The notice shall identify the candicate area selected for site evaluation and shall advise that consultation may be requested by State and local governments in accordance with 5 60.51.
(c) The Director will sake a copy of the above information available at the Public Cocument Room. The Director wi also transmit copies and the published notice of receipt thereof to the Governor of the State and to the chief executive of tne municipality in wnica the geologic repository operations area is tentatively to e located (or if it is not to be located within a municipality, then to the chief executive of the county) and to the Governors of any contiguous States.
(d) The Department shall inform the of rector by sest-annual report of the progress of the site evaluation including schedules as aporopriate.
(e) The Director will respond from time to time in writing to the Department, expressing his current views on the satters identified in paragraph (a) above on questions raised in the original submission and in the semi annual recorts referred to above. Comments received from States in accordance with 5 60.51 of this part shall be considered by the Director in formulating nis views. All correspondence between the Deoartment and the staff will be placed in the public document room.
(f) The activities described in this section constitute informal conference between a pro-spective #pplicant and the staff, as described in 5 2.101(a)(1) of this chapter, and are not part of a proceeding uncer the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenced.
LICENSE APPtICATIONS j 60.21 PreacoliCation notice (a) When the Cesartment determines that based upon the site evaluacion studies and other availacle information, that it Intends to submit a license acclication under this part within six (6) months, it shall inform the Director in writing to that effect.
(b) Ucon being informed that the Decartment intends to submit a if cense acclication, the Director shall cause to te pucifsred in the FEDERAL REGISTER a rotice that tne Decartment intencs to suosit a license acclication under this part within six (6) months. The notice sna11 icentify the crocosed site of the geologic repository operations area and shall acvise that proposals say se sucmitted by any State in accorcance with i 60.52.
A. 3-12
$ 60.22 Filing and distribution of soolication (4) An application for a license to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or bypro-duct material in a geologic repository and any amencment,to such application, shall be filed in triplicate with the Ofrector and shall be signed by the Secretary of Energy or his authorized representative.
(b) Each such application and amencment shall be accompanied by 30 additional copies.
Another 120 copies shall be retained by the Department for distribution in accordance with written instructions from the Ofrector or his designee.
(c) An initial application shall be accompanied, or precede % by 3C copies of the environ-mental report required by Part 51 of this chapter. An additional 120 copies shall be retained
~
for distribution in accordance with written instructions from the Director or his designee.
Amendments to acclications shall be accompanied Dy a supplemental environmental report wnenever such amendment provides for substantial changes in the activities proposed to be carried out or reflects significant new information regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed activ-ities; when required, supplemental environmental reports shall be prepared and distributed in the same manner as original environmental reports.
(d) The Department shall, upon notification of the appointment of a licensing board, update 10 copies of the application eliminating all superseded information and distribute them as follows:
(1) one copy to each licensing board memcer and alternate (2) one copy to the Ifeensing board chairman (3) one copy to the Office of the Secretary (4) two copies to the Director.
Any subsequent amendments to the application er environmental report shall be served in the same manner.
(e) At the time of filing of an application or environmental report, one copy snall be made available in an appropriate location near the site of the proposed geologic repository opers-tions area for inspection by the pubile and updated as amencments to the acolication or environ-mental report are made. This updated copy shall be produced at any puolic hearing on the applica-tion for use by any parties to the proceeding.
(f) The Department shall certify that the updated copies of the appifcation and environ-mental report, as referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e), contain the current contents of such documents submitted in accordance with the requirements of this part.
(g) The contes of an original appifcation or environmental report required by this section need not be filed until the Department has been notified pursuant to i 2.101(f) of this chapter that the tendered doc:.; ment has eeen determined to be comolete and acceptable for decketing.
A.3-13
f 60.23 Elimination of eccetition In its application or environmental report the Department may incorporate by reference infor-mation contained in previous applications, statements, or reports filed with the Commission:
PROVIDED, that such references are clear and specific.
$ 60.24 Content of acolication: ceneral infor nation (a) Each asolication small contain:
(1) A t'escription of the proposed geobgic repository identifying the proposed site of the geologic repository operations area, the general character of the proposed activities, and the basis 'or the exercise of licensing authority by the Ccmmission.
(2) Proposed schedules for construction, start up, and Operation at the proposed geologic rapository operations area.
(3) A description of the kind, amount, and general specificatims of the radioactive mate-rial proposed to be used or stored in the geologic repository.
(4) A certification that the Department will provide at the geologic repository operations area such safeguards as it requires at comparable facilities (of the Cepartment) to promote the common defense a,nd security.
(5) A detailed description of the Department's site selection process, specifically noting the scope and depth of State and local government involvement in selection of the proposed site.
Also included shall be summaries of any resolutions resulting from principal meetings, correspond-ence, or consultations.
(b) Any Restricted Data or National Security Information contained in the acplication shall be separated fr0m the unclassified information.
560.25 Content of acolication: technical information Each application shall contain a safety assessment. At minimum, the safety assessment shall include:
(a) A description and analysis of the site at which the proposed geologic repository opera-tions area is to De located with appropriate attention to those features that might affect facil-ity design. The assessment shall contain an analysis of the geology, hydrology, geochemistry, and meteorology of the site and the major design structures, systems, and components, both sur-face and sucsurface, that bear significantly on the suitability of the geolog c repository for i
disposal of radioactive waste. It will be assumed that the geologic repositaPy will be Ocerated at the maximum capacity and rate of receipt of radioactive aste stated in the a:011 cation.
(b) A cescription and discussion of the design, both surface and sucsurface, of the geologic recository operations area including: (1) the principal cesign criteria and their relationsnio to any gen ral design criteria romulgated by the Commission, (2) the design bases and the rela-tior af the cesign cases to the prircipal design criteria, (3) information relative to materials A.3-14
f I
e of construction (including geologic media, general arrangement, and app.eximate dimensions),
and (4) codes and standards that the Cepartment procosts to apply to the design and construction of the geologic repository operations area.
(c) A description and analysis of the design and performance requirements for structures, systems, and coeconents of the ge.'ogic repository. The analysis and evaluation shall consider
',1) the margins of safety under normal conditions and under conditions that may result from antic-ipated operational occurrences, inc1ccing those of natural origin, (2) the adequacy of struc-tures, systems and components provided for the prevention of accidents and mitigation of the consequences of accidents, including those caused by natural phenomeaa, and (3) the effectiveness of engineered and natural barriers, including barriers that may not be themselves a part of the geologic repository operations area, against the release of radioactive material to the environment.
(d) A description of the quality assurance program to be aoplied to the design, fabrication, inspection, construction, testing, and operation of the structures, systems, and components of the geologic repository operations area important to safety.
(e) An identification and justification for the selection of those variaales, conditions, or other items which are estermined to be probable subjects of Itcense specifications. Speelal atteation shall be given to those items that may significantly influence the final design.
(f) A description of the program for control and scnitoring of radioactive effluents and occupational radiation exposures to maintain such effluents and exposures in accordance with the requirements of Part 20 of this chapter.
(g) A description of the contro!s that the app 11 cant will apply to restrict access and to regulate land use at the geologic repository operations area and adjacent areas.
(h) Plans for coping with radiological emergencies during the operating life of the geologic recositnry oparations area. As a minimum, such plans shall include the appropriate elements contained, in Section IV of Appendix E to Part 50 of this chapter.
(1) A description of the nuclear material control and accounting program. As a minimum the program shall provide for traceability of material from the shipper, i.e., the party that delivers the saterial to a carrier for transoort to the geologic repository operations area, through storage and final disposition.
(j) A description of design consideratic.y *. hat are intended to facilitate decommissioning of the facility.
(k) A description of clans for alternate storage of the radioactive wastes should the geologic recository prove to be unsuitable for disposal of radioactive wastes.
(1) An identification of those structures, systems, and components of the geologic recosf-tory, both surface and suosurface, wnica require research and cevelopment to confirm the ataouacy of design. For systems, structures, snd ccmconents important to safety, the Oeoartment snall A.2-15
provide a detailed description of the programs designed to resolve safety questions, including a schedule indicating when these questions will be resolved.
(m) The folicwing informaticn concerning activities at the geologic repository operations area:
(1) The organizational structure of the Department, offsite and onsite, including a descrip-tion of any delegations of authority and assignments of responsibilities, whether in the form of regulations, administrative directives, contract provisions, or otherwise.
(2) Managerial and administrative controls to be used to ensure safety, including identifi-cation of key individuals wno have responsibility for safety at and operation of the geologic repository operations area.
(3) Personnel qualifications and training requirements.
(4) Plans for startup a:tivities and startup testing.
(5) Plans for conduct of normal activities, including saintenance, surveillance, and periodic testing of structures, systems, and components of the geologic repository operations area.
(6) Plans for decommissioning.
(7) Plans for any uses of the geologic repository operations area for purposes other than disposal of radioactive wastes, with an analysis of the effects, f f any, that such uses may have upon the operation of the structures, systems, and components important to safety.
I 60.26 Uedatino of aoolication and environmental recort (a) The app 1tcation and environmental report shall te as complete as possible in the light of information that is reasonaoly available at the time of submission. At a minimum, site-specific conditions such as background levels of radiation, meteorological parameters, and geologic and seismic data resulting from preapplication investigation and monitoring, shall be included.
(b) The Department shall update its application in a timely manner so as to permit the Commission to review, prior to issuance of a license:
(1) Additional geologic, hydrologic, meteorologic and other data cotained during construction; (2) Conformance of construction of structures, systems, and components with the des 4n; (3) Results of research programs carried out to confirm the adequacy of design; and (4) Other information bearing on the Ccmmissicn's issuance of a license that was not availaole at the time a construction authorization was issued.
(c) The Deartment sna11 update its environmental recort in a timely manner so as to permit the Commission to review, prior to issuance of a license, suostantial changes in the activities pecposed to be carried out or significant new information regarcing the environmental imcacts of the proposed activities.
A.3-16
CCNSTRUCTICN AUTHCRIZATICN l 40.31 Decuirements for the issuance of construction authorization (a) Voon rey;ew and consiceration of an a: plication under this part and the applicant's environmental report, the Commission may issue a construction authorization if it makes the following determinations:
(1) Safety: That (i) the Department has cascribed the proposed geologic repository includ-ing, but not limited to, (a) the geologic, geochemical and hydrologic characteristics of the site, (b) the kinds and quantities of radioactive waste to be received, possessed, stored, and disposed in the geologic repository, (c) the principal architectural and engineering criteria
~-
for the design of the geologic repository operations area, (d) construction procedures which may affect the capability of the geologic repository to serve its intended function, and (e) features or components incorporated in the design for the protection of the health and safety of the public, (11) such further technical or design information as may be required to complete a safety assessment and which can reasonaoly be left for later consideration will be supplied in a timely manner, and (iii) systems, structures, and components important to safety for which research and development is required to confir's the adequacy of design have been identified and the plans of the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the safety questions will be satis-factorily resolved in a timely manner, (iv) on the basis of the foregoing, there is reasonaole assurance that the types and amounts of wastes described in the application can be recalved, stored, possessed, and disposed in the proposed geologic repository, at the proposed location, without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public.
(2) Comon defense and security: There is reasonable assurance that the activities
- pro-posed in the application will not be inimicil to the common defense ar*! security.
(3) Environmental: After weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits and considering availacle alter stives the action called for is issuance of the construction authorization.
(b) The Commission may issue a provisional-construction suthorization, covering specified activittes, if insufficient information is availaofe to permit the Comission to make the findings set forth in paragraph (a). Provisional construction authorization may include sinking of the main repository shaft and erection of physical security barriers, but shall not include the construction of any other structures, systems, and components imoortant to safety, surf ace or subsurface, that are intended for use af.er a Ifcense under this part has been issued. Provi-sional construction will only be authorized if the Commission determines that: (1) there is reasonacle assurance that the site is suitacle for a geologic repository within which radioactive eastes of the kinds and quantities described in the application can te stored and discosed with-out unreasonasle risk to the health and safety of the punIlc, (2) there is reasonaDie.ssurance that the activities proposed in the application will not be inimical to the common cefense and security, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the plans for provisional construction can be implemented in a sanner comcatible with the use of the site for storage and disposal radioactive
=astes, and (4) after weigning the environmental, economic, technical, and other factors and consicering availamle alternatives, the action called for is issuance of provisional construc-tion autMeization.
A.3-17
$ 60.32 Conditions of construction authorizatt.,
(a) A construction authorization or provisional construction authorization shall include such conditions as the Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the comon defense and security, or environmental values.
(b) The Commission may, in its discretion, incorporate provisions requiring the Cesartment to furnish periodic or special reports regarding: (1) progress of construction, (2) any site characterization data obtained during construction.nich is not within the predicted limits upon
=hich the facility design was based. (3) any deficiencies in design and construction whien, if uncorrected, could adversely affect safety at any future time, and (4) results of research and development programs being conducted to resolve safety questions.
(c) The issuance of a construction authorization or provisional construction authorization shall not constitute Commission approval of the safety of any design feature or of any technical specification unless the Department specifically requests such approval and such approval is incorporated in the authorization.
(c) Construction authorization will be subject to the limitation that a license authorizing receipt and possession of source, special nuclear, or byproduct saterial at the geologic reposi-tory operations area shi.fi not be issued by the Commission until (1) the Department has updated its applicatun and enstronmental report as specified in I 60.25 and (2) the Commission has made the findings stated in 3 60.41.
i 60.33 Amendment of construction authorization (a) Application for amendment to a construction authorization or provisional construction authorization will be filed with the Commission fully describing the changes desired and follow-Ing as far as applicable the format prescribed for a license application.
(b) In determining wnether an amendment to a construction authorization or provisional c0n*
struction authorization will be approved, the Commission will be guided by the considerations that govern the issuance of the construction authorization or provisional construction authoriza-tion initially, to the extent applicable.
LICENSE 9 60.41 Recuirements for issuance of license A Ifcense to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct material suefect to the Commission's regulations at a geologic repository operations area may be issued by the Commis-sion upon finding that:
(a) Construction of the geologic repository operations area nas been substantially completed in conformity with the construction authorization and the application as amenced, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission. Construction may ce deemed to ce substantially ccmplete for the purposes of this paragraph, if the construction of (1) surface and interconnecting structures, systems, and comconents sno (2) any uncerground storage scace required for initial ooeration, are sLostantially comolete.
A.3-13
a i
(b) The activities to be conducted at the geologic repository cperations area will be in conformity with the application as amenced, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganitr?.cn Act, and the rules ard regulations of the Commission:
(c) There is reasona01e assurance (1) that the activities authorized by the license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the regulations in this chapter; (d) The issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and se:urity or to the health and safety of the public; and (e) All applica01e requirements of Part 51 have been satisfied.
$ 60.42 Conditions of license (a) A license issued pursuant to this part shall include such conditions, including license specifications, as the Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, and environmental values.
(b) Whether stated therein or not, the follcwing shall be deered conditions in every Ifcense issued:
(1) The license shall be subject to revocation, suspension, modification, or amencment for cause as provided by the Atemic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations.
(2) The Department will at any time while the license is in effect upon written request of the Commission, submit written statements to enable the Commission to cetermine whether or not the license should be modified, suspenced or revoked.
(3) The license shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act now or here-after in effect and to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission. The terms and condi-tions of or the license shall be subject to amencment, revision, or modification, by reason of amendments to or by reason of rules, regulations, and orders issued in accordance with the terms of the Atomic Energy Act.
(c) Each Itcense shall be deemed to contain the provisions set forth in section 183 b-d.
inclusive, of the Atomic Energy Act, whether or not these provisions are expressly set forth in the license.
$ 60.43 License soecifications (a) A license issued under this part shall include license specifications derived frca the analyses and evaluations included in the application, including amencments and changes mace before a license is issued tcgether with such additional specifications as the Commission fincs a:propriate.
(b) License scecificaticns shall include items in the following categories:
(1) Restrictions as ta the pnysical and chemical form anc racioisotepic centent of radio-active waste; A.3-19
(2) Restrictions as to size, shape, and materials and methods of construction of radioactive waste packaging; (3) Restrictions as to the location, size, configuration, construction and physical charac-teristics (e.g., physical, enemical and thermal properties) of the storage medium; (4) Restrictions as to the amount of waste permitted per unit volume of storage space con-sidering the physical characteristics of both the waste and the storage medium; (5) Requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the foregoing restrictions are observed; (6) Controls to be applied to restrict access and to avoid disturbance to the site; (7) Administrative controls, which are the provisions relating to organization and manage-ment, procedures, recordkeeping, review and audit, and reporting necessary to assure that activ-ities at the facility are conducted in a ssfe manner and in conformity with the other license specifications.
(b) At the initiative of the Commission or the Cepartment, any Ifeense may be amended to include specificatices of the scope and content which would be required if a new I.1:nse were being issued.
I 60.44 Chances, tests, and exeeriments (a)(1) Following issuance of a license to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct material subject to the Commission's regulations at a geologic repository operations area, the Department say (i) make changes in the geologic repository operations area as described in the application, (11) make changes in the procedures as described in the application, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the application, wiuout prior Commission approval, provided the change, test, or experisert involves neither a change in the lic,ense specifications incorporated in the Ifcense nor an unreviewed safety question.
(2) A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if (1) the likelihood of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunc-tion of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the application is increased, (11) the possibility of an accident or salfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the application is created, or (iii) the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any license specification is reduced.
(b) The Department'shall maintain records of changes in the geologic repository operations area and of changes in procedures made pursuant to this section, to the extent that such enanges constitute changes in the geologic repository or procedures as described in the application.
Records of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall also be maintained. These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed srfety question. The Cepartment shall furnish to the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in Appendix 0 of Part 20 of this chacter with a copy to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regu1 4 tory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, annually or at such shorter intervals as may be specifi.d in the license, a report containing a brief cescription of such changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of eacn. Any report submitted pur-suant to this paragraph will be mace a part of the puolic record of the ifcensing proceedings.
A.3-20
b i 60.45 Amendment of license (a) Application for amendment to a license may be filed with the Comission fully cascrib-ing the changes desired and following as far as applicaole the format prescribed for license applications.
(b) In determining whether an amencment to a license will be approved the Commission will be guided by the considerations that govern the issuance of the initial Ifcense, to the extent applicable.
9 60.46 Particular activities reoutring license amendment (a) Unless expressly authorized in the license, an amendment to the Ifcense shall be required with respect to any of the following activities:
(1) Any. action which would make emplaced HLW irretrievable or which would suDstantially increase the diff'*ulty of retrieving emplaced HLW.
(2) Dismantling of structures.
(3) Removal or reduction of controls applied to restrict access to or to avoid disturbance of the geologic repository operations area site or adjacen'. areas.
(4) Destruction or disposal of records required to be maintained under the provisions of this part.
(b) An application for such an amendment shall be filed, and will be reviewed, in accord-ance with the provisions of I 60.45.
5 60.47 Terminatien of license (a) The Department may apply for an amencment to terminate the license.
(b) Such application shall be filed, and will be reviewed, in accordance with the provi-sfons of f 60.45 and this section.
(c) A license shall be terminated only when the Commission finds with respect to the geologic repository:
(1) That the final disposition of radioactive wastes has been made in conformance with the Cepartment's plan, as amended and r, roveo as part of the Ifeense.
(2) That the final state of the geologic repository operations area site conforms to the Department's decommissioning plans, as amended and approved as part of the license.
(3) That the tennination of the license is authorized by law, including sections 57, 62, and 81 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended.
PARTICIPATICN SY STATE GCVERNMENTS
$ 60.51 P-encolication consultation (a) Ucon pue11 cation in the FEDERAL REGISTER of a notice tnat the Ceoartment nas selected a site for site evaluation, in accordance with $ 50.11(b) of this part, and upon the request of a State, the Director small make availaole NRC staf f to consult with reoresentatives of State A.3-21
and local governments on matters concerning the information sucmitted by the Oepartment in accordance with j 60.11(a) of this part, and to keep the representatives Informed of the progress of site evaluation and any subsequent meetings or further consultations with the Department, as desired.
(b) Requests for consultation shall be made in writing to the Director.
(c) The Of rector also shall respond to written questions or comments frem the States, as appropriate, on the informaticn sucmitted by the Department in accordance with 5 60.11(a) of this part. Copies of such questions or comments and their responses will be made available in the Public Occument Roce, and will be transmitted to the Department.
I 60.52 Filine of crocosals for St3te carticioation (a) Upon publication in accordance with $ 60.21(b) of this Part in the FEDERAL REGISTER of a notice that the Director has been informed that the Department intends to submit a if cense application under this Part within six (6) months, and upon request of a State, the Of rector shall make available NRC staff to discuss with representatives of the State applicable NRC regu-1ations, licensing precedures, potential schedules, and the type and scope of State activit,as in the license review pertaitted by law. In addition, staff will be made available to cooperate with the State in developing proposals for participation by the State in the license review.
(b) At any time following publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER of such a notice as above, and not later than 90 days following the Occketing of an application, States potentially affected by siting of a geologic repository operations area at the selected site may submit to the Director a preposal for State participation in the review of the anticipated or docketed Department license application.
(c) Proposals for participation in the Itcense review shall be signed by the kvernor of the State submitting the preposal and shall at minimum contain the follcwing infore. ion:
(1) A general description of how the State wishes to participate in the license review, specifically identifying those issues which it wishes to review.
(2) A description of material and infomation which the State plans to submit to the NRC staff for consideration in the license review. A tentative schedule referencing steDs in the license review and calendar dates for planned su0mittals shculd be included.
(3) A description including funding estimates of any work that the State proposes to perform for the Commission, under contract, in suoport of the license review.
(4) A description of State plans to facilitate local government and citizen participation.
(5) A preliminary estimate of the types and extent of imcacts which the State exoects should a geologic repository be located as precosed.
(d) If the State desires educational or information services (seminars, public meetings) or other actions from the NRC such as estaDlishing of additional puDlic cocument rooms or emD10y-sent or exchange of State personnel under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, these may oe includeo with the procosal.
4.3-22
1 i 60.53 accreval of orecessis (a) U en recef;t of a proposal suositted in accorcance with j 50.52(b) for participation in the license review fres a State, the Oirector.111 arrange for a seetirg tet.een the re:resenta-tives of the State and the NRC staff to ciscuss tre preposal ard suggest any ensnges.nf en ne feels are neeced to insure the tereficial :articipation by the State.
(b) Suoject to the avallantlity of funcs, the Director will accreve all or any p rt of a proposal, as say to accified througn the meeting of paragracn (a) atove, if re cetersines that:
(1) The precosed activities are suitacle in light of the tge and sagnituce of impacts
=nten the State say tear; and (2) The proposed activities (1) will encaxe coesunications :et.een NRC and the State, (11) will contribute procuctively to the Itcense review, and (iii) are aut3cri:ed by law.
(c) The decision of the Director small to transmitted in eriting to the Governor of tre originating State. A copy of the decision will be sace available at tae Puolic Oocument Rece.
If all or any part of a proposal is rejected, the decision will state the reason for the rejection.
(d) A copy of all protosals received sn411 be sace availaole at the Pu 11e Occument Roca.
REC 0E05. REPCRTS, TESTS, INSPECTICM AND ENFCRCEwENT e
,f 60.61 tecores and eecorts (a) The Department will maintain suca records and sake suca reports in connection with t?e licensed activity as say be recuired by the conditions of the license or by rules, regulations, and orcers of the Cocaission as authori:ed by the Atesic E.aergy act and tne Energy Recrgani:ation Act.
(b) Recorcs of the receipt, handling, and ciscosition of racicactive.aste at a facility sna11 contain sufficient inforsation to assure traceaoflity fr:m tre sni; er througn all :nases of storage and disposal.
(c) The Cecart=ent snail preently notify tre Cemission of eacn ceficiency found in the site characteristics, and design and construction of the facility.nica, were it to recain uncorrected, could (1) to a suostantial safety na: arc, (2) represent a significant ceviation fres the cesign criteria and cesign bases stated in the a;alication, or (3) *epresent a signif-icant ceviation free the conditions stated in the terms of a construction autneri:a*.fon or the license, including Ifcense s ecifications. The notification srall te in tre form of a written recort, cocies of.hich sna11 te sent to the Director anc to the a:preuf ate % clear Regulatory Comission Inscection and Enforcement Regional Office.
W The re:orting requiresents contairec in j 60.61 nave :een a:orevec :y @0 uncer nt.rcea 4.3-23
i
$ 60.62 Tests The Depar*. ment shall perform, or permit the Comission to perform, such tests as the Commis-sion deems appropriate or are necessary for the administration of the regulations in this part.
These may include tests of (a) radioactive waste, (b) the geologic repository including its struc-tures, systems, and components, (c) radiation detection and monitoring instruments, and (d) other equipment and devices used in connection with the receipt, handling, or storage of radioactive waste.
$ 60.63 Inscections (a) The Cepartment shall allow the Commission to inspect the premises of the geologic repost-tory operations area and adjacent areas to which the Cesartment has rights of access.
(b) The Department shall make available to the Commission for inspection, uoan reasonable notice, records kept by the Cepartment pertaining to activities under this part.
I 60.64 violations (a) An injunction or other court order may be obtained prohibiting any violation of any provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or Title II of the Energy Reorganiza-tion Act of 1974, or any regulation or order issued thereunder. A court order may be obtained for the payment of a civil penalty imposed pursuant to section 224 of the Atomic Energy Act for violation of sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82,101,103,104,107, or 109 of this Act, or section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued thereunder, or for any violation for which a license say be revoked under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act. Any person who willfully violates an/ provision of the Atomic Energy Act or any regulation or order issued thereunder may be guilty af a crime and, upon conviction, may be punished by fine or imprison-nt or both, as provided by law.
me (b) For the purposes of this part, the Department is a person subject to the enforcement provisions referred to in paragraph (a).
A.3-14
(7550-01-M]
APPENDIX B.1 REGULATION CF RADICACTIVE WASTE STORAGE AND OISPOSAL FACILITIES Wortsnoo on State Participation 4
Cn January 16-18, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will sponsor a State workshop on State participation in the regulation of waste storage and disposal facilities. This worksmoo is being held to cotain views of, and to provide copertunity for discussion among State and NRC officials on methods to improve the opportunities for State participation in the process for siting, licensing and developing nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities.
The workshop, which will be open to the puolic, will be held on January 16 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., on January 17 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on January 18 from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon at the Sheraton-Siltmore Hotel in Atlanta, GA.
Persons who wish further information acout this wortshop should contact Shelden A. Schwartz, Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, or call him at 201-492-779a.
Cated at Bethesda, MD, this 1st day of Cecemoer, 1978.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs (FR Coc. 73-34223 Filed 12-7-78; 3:45 am]
S.1-1
b AppEN0!X 9.2 SCME ITEMS FOR WORKSHCP OISCUSSICN Particioation in Broad Program Cecisionmakinq I.
National Plannino Several organizational options have surfaced for involving States in the natiocol planning process. Among these are:
an Executive Planning Council (IRG) a National Waste Management Authority (Willrich, Mathias)
Specially created State advisory committees Regional advisory ecmmittees an expanded IRG with State participation Federal / State task forces a separate technical review o ganization reporting to NGA Discussion Participation in the front-end planning and decisions that are involved in NRC regulatory development and generic COE site enaracterization, site selection and facility design is decendent on development of a comprehensive State evaluation (technical and nontechnical) capabi'.. y.
The development of technical review capacility af gnt be acccmplisned by formir.g a technical organization reporting to the NGA or an executive planning council or ccomission.
Recognizing that any of these options will probably require a Congressional mandate and involve issues beyond encouraging State participation:
A.
Which mignt best accomplish integration of State viewpoints into the planning process?
B.
Should State personnel be represented not only by the principals but also on the staff?
C.
What agei y or organization should fund any new organization or State participation in existing organizations? How snou'd funds ce appropriated (see original warning paper funding options discussions: yearly Federal aoprocriation; grant programs;
.aste management planning trust fund; =aste management tax; application fees pages 34-26).
B.2-1
i D.
With what stages of decisionm4 King (CCE, NRC and other) should these mechanisms be involved? In what manner?
E.
What should be the limits of its aatnority?
F.
How should it interact with fndividual States?
G.
What should be its term or duration?
H.
How should it be organized?
I.
What should its membership be and how would members be selected?
J.
Would it concern itself with only technical questions or also socioeconomic and institutional considerations?
K.
How could we assure that adequate information en DCE (and NRC) progrr
.vailable to the organization in a timely and organized fashion? How could individual States get access to this information?
L.
What is the best mechanism to assure detailed and timely review of the technical waste management issues by the States? Are there other mechanisms that should be explored?
M.
What kinds of regional or multi-State agreements or mechanisms for cooperation would be required?
N.
Do States see a difference in programs for defense and commercial waste?
0.
What roles do the States want in planning for low-level waste disposal?
Consultation and Co.. urrence The draft IRG report rec 3mmenced a precess called " consultation and concurrence" as contrasted to exclusive Federal supremacy on the one hand or a State veto on the other.
The details for such a process were not precisely identified.
A.
Can any combination of organizations or approaches discussed in the workshop provide a framework for consultation and concurrence at the planning stage? At the site selection stage? In arriving at rulemaking and licensing decisions?
8.
Would a formal contract, agreement or memorandum of understanding between CCE and individual States be a mechanism that could give meaning to " consultation"?
C Is consultation alone sufficient? If not, what limits on concurrence or nonconcur-rence would be appropriate?
8.2-2
D.
Could nonconcurrence come at any stage of the process? For any reason? Should there be such a thing as a Regional concurrence? Do the States have a legislative proposal in mind to deal with nonconcurrence?
E.
How would the Federal government deal with individual State nonconcurrence?
Consecutive nonconcurrency by several States? No action by affected States?
II. State Participation in Federal Proqrams Site Selection Criteria 00E has not yet published for review any formal document on the integrated criteria (thermal, geologic, hydrologic, socioeconomic, etc.) which it expects to use in its site selection process. The integrated considerations which may form the system design basis for either the wnole program or individual facilities will probably be of great inportance to the States. In whatever form they are articulated, they will be subjected to close scrutiny by the States and debated in public forums. The States will want to see the supporting data and they will have to be stated in an understandable form. The review could take several forms. (See Working Paper, page 29.)
Discussion Ouestions:
A.
Should DCE be required to publish and receive comment on site selection criteria?
Before further site characterization?
8.
Should review of the criteria be a function of individual States? Multi-State groups?
A' planning council? Other?
C.
Should 00E be required to modify selection criteria based on the opinions of individual States? Groups of States?
D.
Is funding to the States required at an early stage? When? In what form and amount? By whom?
E.
Can States wait until site selection and the licensing process to review the selection criteria?
Site Characterization and Generic Desien Efforts Site characterization involves field programs to investigate geologic regions for suitable repository sites. Site characterization for a variety of emplacement media could potentially involve most of the continental United States. Initially, geologic regions, each covering several States, will be investigated. Later investigations signt be restricted to only a few States. Both site characterization and generic design work will be premised on complex tecnnologies and analytic systems mocals.
Let us consider at least three functional ootions for State participation:
1.
Funding by 00E of individual States to build staff and expertise in some ascects of recository siting and design:
S.2-3
2.
Consultation by CCE with individual States on socioeconomic and broad environ-mental concerns, with primary reliance on a CCE data and information base; 3.
Funding of a specially created and funded State group, indepordent of CCE and NRC, wh'ich could act as consultants to individual States on highly technical matters (as discussed above).
Some scecific Cuestions:
A.
In what areas should the States develoo expertise?
9.
Can any of the options be comoined? Should there be a single tecnnical review entity available to all States?
~
C.
Would thare be delays in 00E or NRC programs as a result of such a program? What range of delays would be acceptacle?
D.
What mechanisms could be used for consultation?
E.
Should there be a specific legislative mandate?
Site Selection At the point where CCE is ready to propose serious consideration of a particular site, the numoer of participating States could be narrowed to one or a few States. Participa-tion at this stage might concentrate on mechanisms designed to assist CCE in reaching conclusions on the site.
There are several obvious ways to encourage State participation in actual site selection:
1.
Provision by CCE for technical and financial assistance to the States to conduct detailed investigations of the imcacts of the proposed recository using independent State staffs; 2.
An assessment by CCE of any potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts resulting from the facility from the State point of vie e, together with a specific plan for sitigation of acverse impacts; 3.
Identification by CCE of all State and local laws and regulations hich eight apply to a given waste facility if the same facility were a private enterprise operating under State law; 4
Cooperative CCE and State planning of transportation routes. This could involve a numcer of States, and signt be timed to take place in the earlier phases of investigation; 5.
State participation in precaring the CCE environmental report or imcact statement.
3.2-4
i Scme Discussien Cuestions:
A.
What are the primary interests of tee State at this stage (land use planning, assessment and titigation of socioeconomic f ecacts, transportation)? Are they adequately addressed by any one or comoination of secnanisms aoove?
9.
Can State discussions of, and participation in, cecisions on rist assessment and public nealta and safety be celayed until the NRC licensing review?
C.
Should the State be able to prevent the CCE free sutaitting an application to tee NRC? If so, based on what criteria and uncer enat constraints?
D.
Are any of the mechanisms desirable before an application is sutaitted? Should any of thes be mandatory?
Recository Construction, Coerstien and C1csure Ultimately, State consultation in tne CCE activities concerning construction, operation and closure of recositories would procaoly be required. At these stages, States sculd be interested in, for example, inspection and senitoring to guarantee safety and environ-mental prctaction. States would also be interested in the activities of CCE as tney relate to their ratemaking responsibilities. Thus, there is no apparent threshold below.nich State activity would cease.
In this area, there are several cotions:
1.
Environmental and socioeconomic monitoring by the States.
2.
Arrangements by wnien States would perform portions of the necessary NRC sonitoring uncer Section 273 of the Atomic Energy Act.
t Provision for direct funding for tecnnical and acministrative costs by eitner CCE or NRC to States to concuct sonttoring and inspection.
Discussien:
A.
Are acditional mechanisms required at this stage?
3.
Should a single secnanisa be enosen and mace sancatory, or is it sufficient to allow NRC and CCE to negotiate sutually acceptacle arrangetents with eacn State involved?
C.
Is a continuing mechanism for coocerative transportation routing recuirec? What
- culd ce tre recuirements of such a teenanism?
3.2-5
I The NRC Role NRC Reculatory Base NRC's program includes the technical activities to develop information upon which rulemaking and licensing decisions can ce cased. (See Vorking Paper, page 8.)
Discussion Ouestions:
A.
How can NRC cost ef fectively provide information to the States regarding the objectives and progress of these technical activities?
8.
What mechanisms, within individual States or among the several States, would be effective in reviewing such information and in providing advice to NRC?
C.
Should NRC provide grants to support this $ tate review activity?
NRC licensinq 1.
NRC is developing regulations which will govern the licensing of waste disposal facilities. Current rulemaking focuses largely upon the Ifcensing of geologic repositories for hign-level radioactive waste. (See Working Paper, page 9.)
Discussion Ouestions:
A.
Has NRC, through workshops and informal communications, provided timely and adequate information to the States regarding the progress of its rulemaking activity to date?
B.
When NRC rules are proposed, by publication in the Federal Register, what procedures (in addition to inviting public comment) would be useful and apprcpriate in assuring that the views of States are adequately develooed and considered?
C.
What funding mechanisms, if any, should be employed to achieve such presentation of State views?
NRC licensinq (Continued) 2.
The procedures which NRC has tentatively outlined for the licensing of high-level waste facilities are contained in a proposed statement of policy and draft regulations. (See Vorking Pacer, page 9.)
Discussion Questions:
A.
Do the procedures appropriately provide for communication by NRC to the States with respect to both prelicensing review and formal licensing proceedings?
3.
Are the provisions for Stata participation, including consultation and tne perform-ance of certain services requested by the States, acercoriate and adequate to enacle the States to play an effective ro, in the NRC licensing process?
9.2-5
C.
Do the draft regulations provide adequate ocportunities for State participation in the formal Itcensing process? How could opportunities for State participation in this process be improved?
D.
Would it be advisaDie for NRC to provide grants to States to defray their costs in connection with the licensing process?
E.
If such grants are advisaolo, to = hat States or organizations should they be made, and in accordance with what criterta?
4 5.2-7
6 APPENDIX C ATTENDANCE LIST Waste Managtment Worksnoo Atlanta, Georgia January 16-18, 1979 State Particioants Clifford R. Blackman, Jr.
Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 P. T. Bankston Mississippi Energy Office 445 North Lamar, Suite 228 Jackson, MS 39201 9111 Buren South Carolina Nuclear Advisory Council Columela, SC 29202 Rick Brun Council of State Covernments 3384 Peachtree Road, N.E., suite 610 Atlanta, GA 30326 James C. Bresee. Director North Carolina Energy Institute Department of Commerce P.O. Box 12235 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Lawrence Bradley, Director Washington State Energy Office 400 E. Union Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 William F. Cline, Environmental Radiation Program Manager Georgia State Environmental Protection 270 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 Ronald C. Callen, Director Scientific Researen and Evaluation Micnigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, MI 18909 Or. James F. Davis, State Geologist California Division of Mines ana Geology 1416 Mintn Street, Room 1341 Sacramento, CA 95814 C-1
Theodore OeBoer. Director Technological Develocment Program New York Energy Office Two Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Robert H. Fakundiny, ;(3te Geologist New York Jtate Geological Survey Educational Suf1 ding Annex Albany, NY 12234 Scott Fellows Southern States Energy Board One Exchange Place, Suite 1230 Atlanta, CA 30338 Jonn H. Gervers Energy Resource and Develcoment Division State of New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department P.O. Box 2770 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Charles M. Hardin, Manager Radiation Control Branch Bureau of Hesith Services Department for Human Resources 275 East Main Frankfort, KY 40601 Gerald R. Hill Southern States Energy Board One Exchange Place, Suite 1230 Atlanta, GA 30338 Edward Helminski National Governors' Association 444 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, CC 20001 William Hamoleton Kansas Geological Survey 1930 Avenue "A" Campus West, University of Kansas Lawrence, KN 66044 Dean Hansell, Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolon Street, Suite 2315 Chicago, IL 606C:
J. B. Jackson, Jr.
Council on the Environment Commonwealth of Virginia 903 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Herb Jacobs Governors' Energy Council of Pennsylvania 905 Payne Shumacter Suilding Third and Pine Streets HarrisDurg, PA 17120 wallace 9. Johnson, Punite Health Physicist Power Plant Siting Section Environmental Surveillance Office Orlanco Radiological Lacoratory 1214 East South Street Orlando, FL 32302 C-2
Conald Kell Florida Cesartment of Environmental Regulation 2600 Biafrstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sean A. Ke11ener Governors' Energy Of fice 80 Cean Street Providence, RI 02903 Cavid Lavine, Chairman Energy and Public utilities Committee State Capitol, Room 410 Hartford, CT 06115 Nicholes D. Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council State of Washington 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Tony Liberatore, Assistant Director for Policy Illinois Institute of Natural Resources 222 South College Street Springfield, IL 627:6 Paul Massicot, Director Power Plant Siting Program Energy and Coastal Zone Acministration Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 Rob Maccougall National Conference of State Legislatures 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 233 Washington, CC 20001 William B. McGorum, Jr., Secretary Power Siting Commission 361 East Broad Street P.O. Box 1735 Columeus, CH 43216 Lillian Morgenstern. Environmental Planner Massacnusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council 73 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108 Harry W. Otto Natural Resources and Environmental control 150 East Water Street P.O. Box 1401 Dover, CE 19901 Phil Paull Vermont Public Service Board 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602
- 9. Jim Porter, Administrator Nuclear Energy Division Louisiana Cecartment of Conservation P.O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, LA 7CSC8 C-3
1 Lamar Priester, Executive Director South Carolina Office of Energy Resources 1205 Pendleton Street Columota, SC 29201 Richard Seenamp North Carolina Utilities Commission P.O. Box 991 Raleign, NC 27602 Fred Seigel Governors' Council on Energy 26 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Jim Setser, Chief Program Coordination Branch
.e Environmental Protection Division 270 Washington Street, 5.W.,
Room 824 Atlanta, CA 30334 Sam Shakely Oklahoma Corporation Commission Jim Thorpe Building Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Edward J. Soit:er, Executive Director Tennessee Energy Authority Capitol Hill Building, Suite 250 Nashville, TN 37219 John Thorpe Energy Facilities Siting Council 3156 Southwest Sherwood Place Portland, OR 97201 Carroll E. Watts The State of Texas Office of State / Federal Relations 205 Sam Houston State Office Building P.O. Box 13005 Austin, TX 78711 Theodore Wolff, Program Manager (representirg the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors)
Radiation Protection Unit New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division P.0; Sox 968 Santa Fe, NM 87503 Rocert H. Wolle, Ceouty Commissioner Tennessee Capartment of Public Health 349 Corcell-Mull Building Nashville, TN 37219 Charles Wright Senator Roy Blake's Office P.O. Box 12063 Austin, TX 78711 Maurice van Nostrand Iowa State Commerce Commission Valley Sant Building Oes Moires IA 50319 C-4
Emilio Varantni California State Energy Commission 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Senator Neal F. Zimms's, Jr.
State House Coluacus, OH a32_4 Observers J. William Sain, Attorney Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Conmerce Avenue, E10 075 Knoxville, TN 37906 4
Ceorge 4. Bennett Union 76 Union 011 Comoany of California Los Angeles, CA 90017 Les Berkowitz Westing %cuse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 J. Stewart Corcett Ches-vaclear Systems P.O. Box iso 6 Bellevue, WA 98009 Steve Everette EC&G Idaho Falls, 10 83401 Jim Feinstein NUS Corporation Four Research Place Rockville, MD 20760 Peter Franchot Union of Concerned Scientists 1025 15th Street. N.V.
Wasnington, CC 20005 Tom Joncson Babcock and Wf',cox 720 Riverenase Parkway West 81rmingnam, AL 352a4 Don Keller Battelle 505 King Avenue Columeus, OH 43201 Ben (incannon New England Regional Commission 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Robert J. (ing Union 76 Union 011 Comcany of California Los Angeles, CA 90017 C-!
Nick Lees Envirosonare 145 Technology Park Norcross, GA 30092 David Leign NL Industries, Incorporated Nuclear Division Albany, NY 12201 Robert 5. Light Eddy County Commissioner P.O. Box 1658 Carlsbad, NM 88220 Conald G. Miller. Jr.
Law Engineering Testing Company 4
2749 Delk Road, S.E.
Marietta, GA 20062 Tim Nelson 666 Moreland Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30306 Neil Norman Bechtel National, Incorporated Fifty Seale Street P.O. Box 3965 San Francisco, CA 94119 Jeff Pam Stone and Weester One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001 Erik 5. Pedersen Battelle - ONWI Columbus, CH 43201 R. T. Pennington General Electric 3565 Piecmont Road Atlanta, GA 30309 Denny Popp Westingnouse Electric Corpo ation Albuquerque. NM 87101 Randall Smith Battelle HARC 400 Nortneast dist Street Seattle, WA 98105 Greg Snipes Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 2S242 Linda U11and Becntel National, Incorporatec Fifty Seale Street P.O. Box 3965 San Francisco, CA 94119 C-6
a Canette Whitt 7ennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, 7N 37401 Mark Wrignt Sentinel News winston-Salem, NC 27102 Samuel Zwickler Burns and Roe Industrial Services 293 Route 17 South P.O. Box 663 Paramus, NJ 07652 C-7
APPENDIX 0 NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT INVENTCRY OF RELEVANT STATE LAW Many States have passed laws, promulgated regulations, or made general policy statements on nuclear satters, transportation and waste. The following is a partial list.
California AB-2322 -- No new nuclear power plant shall be permitted land use in California until the State Energy Commission certifies that the Federal Government has spproved and there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The Legislature shall have 100 legislative days during which time either house may adopt a resolution disapproving the findings. The act specifically exempts Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and San Onofre Units 1 and 2.
(Signed by Governor, 6/3/76)
Colorado waste Repository Resolution,' 5M-3 -- Memortalizes the U.S. Congress, the President, and ERDA to exclude Colorado from consideration as a potential site for a high-level radioactive waste repository. (Adopted 6/3/77)
Connecticut Public Act No.76-321, effective June 1,1976 -- Prohibits the transportation of radioactive waste without a permit.
City of New London: Ordinance Jene 5,1978 - permit required.
Celaware Support for State veto Over Waste Repositorias, HR-124 -- This House Resolution requests the Delaware Congressional Delegation to support 5-2761 whien gives the States veto power over waste repositories. (Adopted April 14, 1978)
Florida Chapter 100-63, Florida Annotated Code (revised 7/20/73) - Transportation notification required.
Port of Miami -- Bans all shipments of radioactive saterials.
Hawaii Racicactive Waste Disposal in the Pacific Ocean, SR-68 -- Expresses concern over the proposed disposal of radioactive wastes in the Pacific Ocean, 600 miles north of Hawaii.
Recuests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to halt any plans for uncersea disposal until their safety is " proven beyond any snadow of douot.' (Acepted 4/5/76) 0-1
Illinois Chicago -- High enriched uranium and plutonium banned from O' Hare Airport.
lowa The Chairman of the Comerce Comiss. n, which is responsible for approving power plant sites, has said that he will not approve construction of any nuclear plants until the full costs of the entire fuel cycle can be accurately determined.
(ansas Kansas Statutes Annotated Code, 48-1001 -- Adopts Federal transportation standards.
(entu,:ry Special Advisory Comittee on Wasta. HR-70 -- Appoints a Special Advisory Comittee on benalf of the General Assembly to assume an oversight role on all matters pertaining to nuclear waste during 1978-1980. It is to report its findings and reccmendations to the Legislature no later than January 1, 1980. This resosution continues a 1976 Advisory Comittee which had completed its duties. (Approved J/30/78)
Louisiana Radioactive Waste Disposal Pronibition, H-14 -- Prohibits the use of salt domes in Louisiana as temporary or permanent disposal sites for radioactive wastes. Requires prior notification of the House and Senate Natural Resources Cemittees and the Departner.t of Natural Resources for suitability testing of salt domes and subsequent notification of the results of the studies so they can " determine the advisability of removing, continuing, or extending the prohibitions and lieitations.* ($1gned by Governor, 7/5/77),
Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites, SCR-83 -- A Senate resolution memorializing tne U.S. Congress to enact Federal legislation "to require the proper Federal agency to
. notify both the Governor and the Legislature of any State of the agency's inte-cion to search for radioactive waste disposal sites within that State." (Accpted 7/11/77)
Waste Transportation Ban, H-420 -- Would prohibit the transportation of radioactive waste, including spent fuel, into the State for disposal or storage. (Signed by Governor, 7/6/78)
Ban on Wasta Repositary, S-38 -- Would amend the existing State law on waste disposal to prchibit the use of any salt dome within Louisiana as a temporary or permanent disDosal site for radioactive waste. (Signed by Covernor, 7/13/79)
Waine
+1388 -- Pronibits :enstruction of nuclear power plants within the State unless the PUC finds that the "'J.S. Government, througn its authorized agency, has identified and acDroved a demonstra21e tecnnology or means for the disposal of nign-level nuclear waste
- and tnat adeo; ate facilities will be in operation at the time they are needed.
D-2
6 Other governmental entities which grant permits, licenses, approvals or authorizations for construction of nuclear power plants may process the applications, suoject to the PUC's granting of certification. (Signed by Governor, 6/22/77)
Ma ryland Spent Fuel Storage, H-4;8 -- would amend the existing State law banning the establishment of "any pe nent storage facility, burial ground.
. for the long-term storing of waste nucu e materiwls within the State.
. except that temcorary storage shall not escaed two years." By adding a sentence to enable the Secretary of Healt*, and Mental Hygiene to vary the 2 year time Ifmitation if he determines it is in the public interest.
(Approved 4/11/78) (The chapter was enacted in 1970.)
Massachusetts58-511 -- Provides for bonding prior to issuance of transportation permit. ($lgned by Governor, 4/29/77)
Wendell, MA -- Bans transportation of nuclear fuels, waste and weapons. (5/10/75)
Michfoin San on Radioactive Waste Olsposal Sites, 5-153, S-688, S-689, S-690 -- All of these laws ban the State's consent to the acquisition by the Federal Government by purchase, condemnation of any land or building for use in storing, depositing, or dumping of radiactive saterial. They amend different codes relating to the State's jurisdiction over certain lands and buildings. (Signed by Governor, 4/13/78, effective immediately)
Radioactive Waste Ban, 5-144 -- States that " radioactive waste may net te deposited or stored in this State." The ban dcas not apply to: facilities at educational institu-tions, spent fuel storage pools at nuclear power plants, sill tailings frcm uranium mining within the State, medical uses of radioactive material, temporary storage of low-level waste for not more than 6 months, the storage of waste wnich was being stored before January 1, 1970. The act takes effect immediately. (Signed 2/14/78)
Minnesota San on Radioactive Wastes, H-1215 -- Prohibits the construction or cperation of a
" radioactive waste management facility" within Minnesota unless authorized by the legislature. Prohibits the transport of wastes into the State for disposal or storage unless authorized by the legislature, except that " radioactive wastes may be transported into the State for temporary storage for up to 12 months pending transportation out of the State." The act is effective immediately. (Signed by Governor, 6/2/77)
Prior notice required before transporting into tne State.
wontana Radioactive.w terials Disposal San, H-254 -- Pronibits the disposal in Montana of large a
cuantities of radioactive saterials procuced in other States. (Signed by Governor, 3/21/77) 3-3
'4ew Jersev Public Law 1977, c.233, amending New Jersey State Radiation Protection Act, Public Law 1958, Chapter 116 -- requires notice 7 days prior to transportation.
Borougn of Carteret, Resolution 78-25 (February 21, 1978) -- San on transncrtation of nuclear waste.
New York Governor Carey has announced that he will oppose any new nuclear plant construction until the waste disposal problem is resolved.
NY Transportation Law S 14-f (and VI, Transportation Regulation S 507, April 1,1977) --
To adopt Federal standards.
City of New York, New York City Health Code Section 175.111 -- Permitting only emergency transportation.
Suffolk County -- Prior notice required; spent fuel shipments banned.
North Carolina NC General Statute 20-143.2 -- Notification required in advance.
Chio Shaker Heights Ordinance No. 78-97 (enacting Chapter 383 of Health Code) (July 24, 1978) -- Permit issued only where showing of " urgent" puolic policy; routes restricted.
Beachwood, Brooklyn, Euclid, Lakewood, Mayfield village, Olmstead Falls, Richmond Heights, Scuth Euclid -- Spent fuel shipments banned.
Gregon Waste Disposal Facility Ban, 5-272 -- Bans the testablished or operation of radioactive material waste disposal facilities within the State. The previous ban would have expired January 1,1978. (Signed by Governor, 7/27/77)
Prior notice of intent to transport must be filed with the Energy Facility Siting Council (filed 2/20/74)
Rhode Island Persit required before transport.
South Dakota Legislative Approval for Waste Repository H-822 -- Sans the " containment, disposal or cecosit of high-level nuclear wastes, radioactive sucstances or radioactively contaminated saterials or the processing of hign-level nuclear.astes" within the State unless prior 0-4
approval is granted by the legislature. Exempts uranium are and mill tailings from the provisions of the act. (Signed by Governor, 4/16/77)
Texas Radioactive Discharges, H-1560 -- Authorizes the Texas Water Quality Board to regulate the discharge of waste or pollutants into any water within tas State; however, no permits shall be issued authorizing the discharge of "any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agency or high-level radioactive waste." (Signed by Governor, 6/15/77) ve rmont Legislative Approval for Waste Repository, H-261 -- Sans the construction or estab1?shment of a high-level radioactive waste repository within Vermont, unless the General Assembly approves it, through either a bill or a joint resolution. (Signed by Governor, 4/26/77)
Prior notice required by Health Department regulation for transportation into or througn the State.
Wisconsin The Public Service Commission issued an order (Occket No. 05-EP-1) dated August 17, 1978, stating, among other things, that "no nuclear generation shall be planned or applied for with the exception of Haven Unit 1 and Tyrone Unit 1 until reasonable progress-satisfactory to the Conmission--has been made in resolving waste disposal, fuel supply, and decommissioning issues. Any utility which desires in the future to incorporate in its advance plan nuclear plants beyond the two mentioned above shall submit to the Commission a petition documenting those changes from the present situation which demonstrate such progress. After acpropriate investigation, the Commission.will rule on the petitien based on its veiw of the then-current situation."
05