ML20032D464
| ML20032D464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mcclure J SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111170043 | |
| Download: ML20032D464 (5) | |
Text
]
L' to4
/.,....,'o.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\,...../
$71931 CHAIRMAN ff5LI.2
/[6 C,
c y ~' b \\
@ u_,I NOVO 41981* q f; W.hg7 The Honorable James A. McClure, Chairman b
Comittee on Energy and Natural Resources E
United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 p
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
We are pleased to submit responses to additional questions for the record from the October 6, J98Lhearing on proposed high-level waste legislation..
I hope you will find these responses adequate for your purposes, but if you need additional infonnation or clarification, please let me know.
Sincerely, N
mr Nun P ladino
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions on Proposed high-level waste legislation 8111170043 811027' PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
fh' puestion 1.
Testicony provided by Chairman Palladino on October 6, 1981, to the Coccittee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcoccittee on huelear Regulation regarding Senate Bill 1662 implies the NRC could relax slightly the tice for processing an application for a construction authorization for a high-level waste repository if it had a cocplete application from DOE.
Chairman Palladino's testicony further indicated concern whether DOE had suf ficient tiue to prepare an adequate license application.
To what degree could NRC relax its tice frace for processing the application to allow core tice for DOE to prepare the application?
How cuch additional time should be provided to DOE for this purpose beyond that provided now in S.
16621 Answer:
NRC did not intend to leave any impression that the tice for processing an application for repository construction authorization could be
" relaxed" if we had a complete application from the Departuent of Energy (DOE).
Coccission Chaircan Palladino's testitony on S.
1662 said that the NRC would do everything in its power to avoid delaying the national prograc.
Past NRC staf f esticates have concluded that cons t ruction authorization proceedings would require a tinicum of four years, and the testicony pointed out that the bill's goal would be "very difficult" to achieve in the two years and 9 conths allowed for construction authorization proceedings under this bill.
The testicony went on to say that under such a tight tice frace, it becoces extrecely icportant that we receive a cocplete license application from DOE containing all the information we will need to resolve the issues in dispute. We thus intended to make it clear that if we are ta avoid delaying the national prograc, we could not afford to lose any of the time available to us for processing an application.
We wa n t ed to poin t ou t, however, that DOE cay need core time to do the necessary research and analysis in order to develop adequate inforcation needed to resolve the issues in a licensing proceeding.
l i
We are uncertain as to how much time can be shortened from the DOE plan discussed by Mr. Brewer in his testimony.
We are somewhat skeptical that DOE can shorten the program very much and still do the technicci job required for an adequate license application. We will work with DOE to assist the= in evaluating what can be done, c
l f>
Question 2.
What is the Commission's position on EPA proposing guidelines for site selection of a high-level waste repository? Are such guidelines needed in addition to environmental standardr,?
Answer:
We understand that EPA, pursuant to the reorganization plan No. 3 of 1970,(35 FR 15623) 84 STAT 2086) is working on two HLW products.
They are working to develop generally applicable standards for prctection of the general environment from HLW at geologic repositories.
The Commission supports and urgently needs these standards.
Under authority of the Federal Radiation Council, transferred to EPA by the reorganization plan, EPA is also developing guidelines for all Federal agencies with respect to HLW repositories.
These guidelines appear to be redundant with the NRC's proposed regulation 10 CFR 60 and could be eliminated.
J
\\
t Ouestion 3.
EPA, in its testimony on October 6, proposed modifying the provision in S.
1662 for the preparation of environmental standards by EPA.
Under the EPA proposal, EPA would issue proposed standards and guidelines on January 30, 1982, and final standards and guidelines one year thereaftcr.
Hou would this forculation affect NRC's ability to develop final technical criteria within the time schedule provided in S.
1662?
'n'ould proposed EPA standards be a sufficient basis for NRC to proceed with developing the final technical criteria?
Answer:
Basically, we balieve that the EPA-proposal would not seriously affect our time sch6duTE for preculgating the final technical rule, as lang as EPA cakes no cajor changes in direction.
Our proposed technical rule has been based on EPA internal working draft versions of the standards, which have been essentially the same for the past two to three years.
If substantive changes are cade by EPA in its final standards, they may require us to change our rule by amendments.
Since the NRC technical rule serves as the detailed guidance to DOE for its decisions and activities resulting in an application for a particular site, we believe our technical rule should be issued as soon as practicable.
To provide the complete regulatory fracework however, EPA should also be encouraged to take every ef fort to proculgate its standards in final form as soon as practicable.
l
.