Licensing a repository

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted thier license application for authorization to construct and operate a high-level nuclear respository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada on June 3, 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Yucca Mountain Licensing Proceeding

In order to participate as a party in the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository licensing proceeding, an entity or person must be admitted to the proceeding by following the procedures of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rules, at 10 CFR §2.309, which require a request for hearing, a petition to intervene, a demonstration of standing, and at least one admitted contention (accepted by the NRC hearing board9S). At the close of the filing period, on December 22, 2008, a total of 318 contentions had been filed by see contentions.

The NRC rule prescribes the format of contentions as seen below:

A NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel is expected to rule on admission of parties and contentions by May 2009 after reviewing any objections made by DOE, the license applicant, and the NRC staff, and responses from the affected potential parties. Admitted contentions will be litigated by the parties and ruled on by an ASLB panel during the hearing portion of the licensing proceeding. The ASLB panel will recommend a licensing decision to the NRC Commissioners. Some affected Nevada counties have elected to be non-party participants, as permitted by NRC rules, and they will decide, once contentions are admitted, in which of those litigations they will participate.

thumbnail icon of new website for tracking the hearingsPlease visit our new website which tracks the hearings associated with the department of energy's (DOE) licenseapplication (LA).

 

 

NewsNew issued schedule as of July 21st, 2009

On July 10, 2009, the NRC Staff responded to the Board’s July 2, 2009 order concerning scheduling. The Staff stated that it will not be able to issue its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) in accordance with the schedule in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix D. Rather, at present, the Staff intends to issue the SER serially. The Staff estimates that the SER will be issued as follows:

Volume 1 (Review of General Information)

March 2010

Volume 3 (Review of Repository Safety After Permanent Closure)

September 2010

The Staff asserts that completion dates for three other volumes 2, 4 and 5 cannot be estimated with a reasonable degree of certainty at this time. In the absence of a Staff estimate, unless and until informed to the contrary, the Board will assume solely for case management purposes that these volumes will be issued approximately as follows:

Volume 2 (Review of Repository Safety Before Permanent Closure);

(October 2011)

Volume 4 (Review of Administrative and Programmatic Requirements);

(December 2010)

and Volume 5 (License Specifications and Conditions)

(February 2012)

The fact that the Staff will likely issue the SER serially, over several years, requires a different approach to scheduling discovery and hearings than would be appropriate if the entire SER were available in April 2010, as contemplated by Appendix D. Few non-NEPA contentions can be adjudicated before relevant portions of the SER are issued. To proceed expeditiously and efficiently, therefore, the Board believes that discovery and hearings should proceed serially as well. Accordingly, to assist the Board in preparing a Case Management Order, the Board directs the parties as follows:

First

The NRC Staff shall clarify the subject matter of each of the five volumes of the SER. Specifically, on or before July 31, 2009, the Staff shall file and serve electronically an explanation of which specific sections of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) or other portions of the Application pertain to each of the five SER volumes.

Second

All parties shall consult and seek agreement upon responses to the following questions:

1. Which admitted contentions are associated with each of the five proposed volumes of the SER?

2. Separately, which admitted legal issue contentions, as identified in the Construction Authorization Boards’ May 11, 2009 Memorandum and Order, are associated with each of the five proposed volumes of the SER?

3. As to each admitted legal issue contention, what other admitted Safety, NEPA or Miscellaneous contentions might potentially be resolved on the basis of how that legal issue contention is decided?

4. Which admitted NEPA contentions have no safety component, such that they could efficiently and appropriately be adjudicated without regard to the status of the SER or any similar safety-related contention?

5. Which, if any, admitted NEPA contentions (in addition to NYE-NEPA-001) involve matters that are the subject of pending supplementation of DOE’s environmental impact statement concerning the proposed repository?

6. Which, if any, contentions identified in response to question 4, but not in response to question 5, require discovery before being ripe for adjudication? Describe the general nature of any such discovery.

The parties shall file their joint response to the foregoing six questions on or before August 17, 2009.

 

link to the schedule imageSchedule for the Proceeding on Consideration of Construction Authorization for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository

 

 

 

image link to schedule after SER is issuedSchedule for the Proceeding on Consideration of Construction Authorization for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository
(After SER is Issued)

 

Administrative Orders

  
Back to top Print this page Site Map

Copyright © 2007 Lander County Nuclear Waste Program. All rights reserved.