issues so that the guidelines can be finalized to avoid any further delays. On July 3, 1984, NRC formally granted its final concurrence after DOE agreed to make several clarifying revisions to the guidelines requested by Commission members in a June 22, 1984, meeting. NRC found that DOE had satisfactorily resolved NRC's seven concurrence conditions. Any DOE revisions to, or interpretations of, the guidelines are expected to be submitted to NRC for its review and concurrence. How DOE's guidelines will be applied Generally, the guidelines are divided into four parts: (a) general provisions, (b) implementation guidelines, (c) guidelines dealing with the repository's construction and operation before it is closed (preclosure), and (d) guidelines governing the long-term behavior of the repository after it is closed (postclosure). In response to many comments that DOE needed a weighting system to use the guidelines, DOE decided to rank the order of importance of various guidelines. Specifically, DOE determined that the postclosure guidelines governing the repository's behavior after the radioactive materials have been emplaced in it and the repository closed would be of primary significance in its site evaluations. DOE believes that these guidelines are most important to ensure the long-term protection of the public's health and safety and the quality of the environment. The preclosure guidelines dealing with the construction of the repository and its operation before it is closed are to be secondary considerations. Each of the potentially acceptable sites will first be evaluated against the disqualifying conditions specified in the guidelines. To continue to the nomination stage, DOE must determine that a site is not disqualified based on any of these conditions. To illustrate the highly technical nature of the guidelines and the judgments that will be required in applying them, each of these disqualifying conditions is listed in appendix III. Throughout the site selection stages applicable to the first or second repository, DOE will evaluate each candidate site against all the guidelines. NWPA (sec. 112) requires that the Secretary try to recommend sites in different geologic media. Accordingly, in its application of the guidelines for site nomination and recommendation, DOE believes it must consider diversity of geohydrologic settings. 9Committee report on the 1985 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill (H.R. 5653), H.R. Rep. 755, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 145 (1984). DOE considers its identification of nine potentially acceptable sites to be final Despite criticism from some of the affected states, DOE does not plan to reconsider its initial identification of the nine sites using the final siting guidelines. According to DOE's May 1983 response to comments on the proposed siting guidelines, the Congress did not intend for the initial site selections to be reconsidered using the final guidelines because the act (sec. 116(a)) required DOE to identify states containing "potentially acceptable sites" within 90 days of the act's passage, but allowed 180 days for issuing the siting guidelines. Consequently, DOE believes the site identification required by the act would have been impossible if the Congress had intended that DOE use the final siting guidelines to select sites for the first repository. DOE officials told us that a reconsideration of all possible sites would (1) require 2 or 3 years to complete and (2) probably result in selecting the same sites. DOE plans to carry out the remaining siting activities for the first repository and all screening activities for the second repository in accordance with the final siting guidelines. FUTURE STATUTORY DEADLINES FOR THE SITING OF THE FIRST REPOSITORY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE MET NWPA set only two future deadline dates for key decisions in the siting of the first repository. DOE does not expect either deadline date to be met, as discussed below. Statutory deadline for recommending three candidate sites NWPA specifies that not later than January 1, 1985, the Secretary of Energy shall recommend to the President, for further study through site characterization, 10 three candidate sites for the first repository (sec. 112). If the Secretary were to comply with this date, by the end of 1984, DOE would have to 10Site characterization refers to activities undertaken in either the laboratory or the field to study the geologic condition of a potential repository site. Such testings include borings, surface excavations, exploratory underground shafts, and in-situ testing to evaluate the suitability of a site for location of a repository. complete an environmental assessment 11 to accompany each site to be nominated, --nominate at least five sites that are suitable for site characterization, and --recommend three sites for site characterization to the DOE could not complete these activities until it received NRC's concurrence in the siting guidelines. Notwithstanding the delays in issuing the siting guidelines, in commenting on a draft of this report, DOE said that it was striving to meet the January 1, 1985, deadline. Since 1983, DOE had been preparing environmental assessments for each of the nine potentially acceptable sites in anticipation of final issuance of the guidelines in the summer of 1984. In early October 1984, OCRWM officials informed us that DOE was no longer striving to meet the January 1, 1985, statutory deadline because of unanticipated complexities involved in preparing the environmental assessments for all nine sites. As an example of the complexities, DOE noted that each environmental assessment was about 1,500 pages and that OCRWM was trying to ensure that each was consistent in its treatment of specific topics in order to allow proper comparisons to be made. At that time, we were told that December 20, 1984, had been fixed for release of the nine draft environmental assessments for official comments and that a 90-day comment period was set. Accordingly, OCRWM officials do not expect that DOE will be in a position to meet the statutory milestone for recommendation of three candidate sites until at least mid-1985. Statutory deadline for recommending the first repository site to the Congress NWPA (sec. 114(a)(2)(A)) requires the President to submit a final recommendation for the first repository site to the Congress by March 31, 1987. If the President determines that an extension is necessary, the act provides for a 1-year extension if the President notifies the Congress by March 31, 1986, of the reasons for the delay. In 1983, DOE began to acknowledge that the March 1987 statutory deadline would not be met. DOE's latest schedule anticipates that the President will recommend the first repository site 11 The environmental assessments required by NWPA (sec. 112 (b) 112(b) (1) (E)) must, among other things, describe how a site was selected, comparatively evaluate the site with other locations, and assess the potential impacts of on-site testing and locating a repository at that site. by June 1990, although OCRWM officials have more recently advised us that this target date may be pushed back. OCRWM officials attributed the reasons for the expected delay to (1) delays in initiating site characterization and (2) more recent estimates indicating that on-site testing will take longer than earlier anticipated once the characterization phase begins. site, The site characterization phase generally entails, for each --issuing site characterization plans which describe the --obtaining applicable state and/or local permits for --constructing exploratory shafts, mining test areas --conducting tests at the surface and subsurface of the site to determine its suitability as a repository. At the time of NWPA's enactment, DOE was planning on recommending to the President three sites for characterization in the summer of 1983. While the act allowed DOE until January 1, 1985, to make this recommendation, DOE believed it would need to make the recommendation earlier if the March 1987 date was to be met. At that time, DOE was estimating that it would take about 3 years to conduct a thorough site characterization program. (More current DOE plans indicate that the site characterization phase could take about 49 months). In addition, potential host states for the repository and other parties expressed concern that DOE was moving too fast at that early stage in the program and was not allowing sufficient time for state consultation and public comment. Subsequently, DOE dropped its emphasis on meeting the March 1987 date and began to provide more time for state consultation and public comment on such matters as the siting guidelines. ACTIONS THAT COULD FURTHER DOE faces challenges both prior to and during the site characterization period that could further delay the project's schedule. These potential delays could occur from --difficulties in obtaining state permits, --litigation, and --challenges to the quality of DOE's site characterization work. Once the President has recommended a final site to the Congress, the act provides for a state's formal disapproval of the recommendation. This process could trigger a delay in licensing approval, site construction work, and completion of an actual repository. Impact of state permitting actions on DOE's siting activities State actions could affect completion of site testing by delaying or denying permits for various siting activities. DOE is committed to complying with applicable state and local regulations and is entering into agreements with states to facilitate obtaining necessary permits. However, state or local opposition to the program could delay issuance of these permits. Some states have already taken actions which some DOE officials believe could adversely affect DOE's siting activities. For example, in an effort to ensure that DOE follows their siting regulations and procedures, Texas and Mississippi have passed laws stipulating the manner in which DOE can conduct its siting studies: --Texas passed a law requiring a state permit before drilling any exploratory shaft. --Mississippi passed a law requiring that DOE apply for a permit from the state before completing siting work. The law provides that DOE must brief the state on planned field work and that the state review DOE siting plans. In addition, the law provides that DOE cannot locate a repository in an area in which 500 or more people live within a 5-mile radius. Specialists from both DOE and Mississippi believe this law would eliminate virtually the entire state from consideration. Litigation of various siting activities possible NWPA established procedures for obtaining judicial review of certain DOE or presidential actions under the act. To expedite any judicial review process, the act (sec. 119) requires that lawsuits be filed within 6 months of the date of the decision or action being contested and gave exclusive jurisdiction over such suits to the U.S. courts of appeals. Possible legal challenges to various early aspects of DOE's siting process, which could further delay the program, are already a concern to DOE and others. For example: --Officials from DOE, one of its contractors, and affected |