NRC releases revised plan for Yucca licensing

Suzanne Struglinski

Wednesday, July 23, 2003 | 9:30 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday issued its final plan for the review of the Energy Department's anticipated license application for the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository.

The commission released a draft of the plan in March for informational purposes, not public comment. It had released an earlier draft of the plan in March 2002, with a five-month public comment period, including three public meetings in Nevada. That public comment period ended last August.

The final plan does not set the licensing criteria for the site, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where 70,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel would be stored. Instead, the plan aims to "ensure the quality and uniformity" of the commission staff reviews of the license application documents.

Other federal laws set the licensing requirements, but Nevada has filed suit over the statutes with oral arguments set to begin in later this year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jeff Ciocco, NRC's senior project manager tasked with developing the final plan, said the approved changes reflect suggestions made through public comment and by the the commission. The commissioners approved the final version on June 26.

Ciocco said a detailed notice outlining the changes and public comment responses will appear in the Federal Register "shortly." In the meantime, a copy of the 472-page document is posted at www.nrc.gov, the NRC website.

The plan still contains sections outlining how the commission intends to review different aspects of the license application. These include the plans for: the site before closing the repository; safety after it is closed; a research and development program to resolve safety questions; and a program to confirm repository performance and administrative and program requirements.

Ciocco said the document now includes graphics and flow charts to improve the staff's understanding and use of the plan and application process.

The final version also contains clarifications on the scope of information needed to authorize the repository's construction, such as guidelines for review of the physical protection plan and material control accounting, Ciocco said.

DOE spokesman Joe Davis called a the plan a "road map" for the license review. He said the department provided some comments on the draft plan, some of which the commission did not accept. "All in all, we think it's good that this is out," Davis said. "It shows that the program is moving forward. It's important to keep it on track." Once the department submits the application, now scheduled for December 2004, the commission has three years to evaluate it and can ask Congress for up to an additional year if needed, NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said. If it is approved, construction can begin on the site.

Steve Frishman, technical policy coordinator for the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, said he sees a change for the better in the commission's tightening of the performance confirmation criteria -- a change the state sought.

Information used by the department to complete the license would have to meet that criteria to be considered valid.

Frishman said in the past there was a possibility the Energy Department could have used the criteria step as a "catch-all" for certain scientific analysis that Nevada feels should have been done during earlier study of the site.

The commission has "closed a potential loophole," Frishman said.

The department and President Bush approved the site's characterization last year, allowing Congress to move on the project. Congress approve the site a year ago, allowing DOE to go forward with its license application.

But on the other hand, Frishman said, the final plan puts a "much more definitive emphasis" on using a process that will pay attention only to safety requirements the commission believes are most important, as opposed to looking at all safety issues.

"It's not appropriate to apply that type of regulatory philosophy to something that has never been done before," Frishman said. "The whole thing should be looked at with equal rigor. We just don't know enough to make those judgments."