ML19207A991
| ML19207A991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1979 |
| From: | Casey Smith NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207A992 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-8 SECY-78-256, NUDOCS 7908230163 | |
| Download: ML19207A991 (12) | |
Text
'
P nn mw, l
m vc4 J th.n a,
May 12, 1978 SECY-78-256 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
Ine tcmissioners Frem:
Clifford V. Smith, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards b
b Thru:
Executive Directer for Operations
Subject:
LCW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY Purcose:
To inform the Ccmission of the current status and alternatives on the issue of adequate disposal capacity for icw-level wastes.
To obtain Ccmmission approval of the staff's interim plans regarding assurance of adequate capacity.
Catecory:
This paper covers a minor colicy matter.
Issues:
NRC's role and plans to assure adequate capacity for management of low-level wastes.
Background:
Statement of Problem Recent developments at the six commercial radioactive waste burial sites have raised the question of whe:her adequate disposal capacity for the nation's low-level wastes will be available at these facilities.
Two of the six licensed commercial burial grcunds (West Valley, New York, and Maxey Flats, Kentucky) are closed, a third site (Sheffield, Illinois) is filled to its licensed capacity, and the State of South Carolina has placed a limit cn the volume of waste that may be buried at a fourth site (Sarnweli, South Carolina). As a result, a situation ras developed where very little flexibility exists if operaticnal prot lems occur at the remaining sites. shows the volumes of waste buried and the remaining capacities of the six ccmercial low-level waste disposal sites.
The column labelled " Current Status" snows that two sites (Maxey Flats, Kentucky, and West Valley, New York) are currently closed.
Curing the seccnd half of 1976 and 1977, the Maxey Flats site was virtually unused due to the incosition by the Kentucky legislature of a ten cents ;;er pcun 786079 7 9 L 8 '2 3 0 / 6 3
.. norr
[g uva n w m.. a a a t, excise tax on waste received at the site. The tax went into effect on June 19, 1976.
During calendar years 1976 and 1977 501,609 ft3 of waste was buried at the site.
Only 29,833 ft3 of that waste was buried during the period June 30, 1976 - December 31, 1977, after the tax went into effect. The site was closed on December 27, 1977 by order of the Kentucky Department of Human Resources until the ccmpletion of a water management program and the completion of further studies to determine its long-term use for the disposal of radicactive waste.
The New York site was closed in March 1975 by the site operator after the detection of Icw-level radioactivity in liquids seeping from the trench caps of two trenches in the old north burial area. We know of no plans to reopen either of these sites in the near future.
A third site, Sheffield, Illincis,.is _ filled to _i,ts._ __.
licensed capacity.
The NRC has a review underaay that would permit licensing of additional disposal
~
capacity at this site in the event of a favorable licensing decision (renewal of the license and amendment of the license to permit expansion of the site to 188 acres). A decision en licensing of additional disposal capacity at this site does not appear likely in the near future.
We recently learned that Scuth Carolina, by license amendment, has limited the monthly receipt of waste 3
at the Barnwell site to 135,000 ft, the average monthly volume of waste received at that site during 1977.
The State has cited the sharp increases in volumes of waste received at their site (approaching 200,000 ft3 during some months), due to closure of other eastern sites, as the reason for the limitation.
In addition, an application for a new ccmercial burial site in New Mexico was withdrawn by the appli-cant on April 4.
The applicant cited a projected three year time schedule given by the State regulatory agency, increasing ;:cssibility of ~ederal centrol of site selection, and other investment cpportunities of less risk as major factors in arriving at their decision.
Staff kncws of no other current plans to establis!. new ccmercial burial sites.
78GOSO
.,There presently exists adequate disposal capacity at the Barnwell, South Carolina; Beatty, Nevada; and
_lianford, Washing _tqn_s_ij;e_s to_the_ mid 1980's assuming no additional limitations would be placed on the volumes of wastes received at these sites (NUREG-0217.
Pace 41).
A volume limitatien has been_alaced_an..tha Barnwell site.
We know of no plans bv Nevada and Washington to limit the volume of waste received at their sites.
There is, hcwever, no p'eseilt adequate r
regional distribution of that cacacity.
Adecuate re-gicnally distributed capacity will minimize transportation.___,
ccsts and environmental 1mpacts from transportation.
Additionally, the situation that.11as_dev. eloped allows no flexi'bility if operaticnal or. other problems ~~ occur at the remaining sites.
Presently wastes frcm fuel cycle operations acccunt for about 60 per cent of the volume of low-level wastes (LLW).
As of December 31,1977 60 of the 65 licensed ccmmercial nuclear reactors are located in the eastern, southeastern and central regions of the nation. Of the remaining 40 per cent of LLW, about 30 per cent is generated by medical sources.
The remaining 10 per cent are wastes frem universities and industrie., such as pharmaceutical suppliers, research and development labs and radioactive material suppliers. A large portion of medical, educational and industrial users are located in the eastern, southeastern and central regions of the nation.
Excected Wasce Volumes to be Managed During 1977 about 2,533,589 ft3 of waste was received at the ccmmercial sites broken dcwn as follows:
ft3 Barnwell, South Carolina 1,644,174 Sheffield, Illinois 623,000 Beatty, Nevada 167,460 Hanford, Washington 84,023 Maxey Flats, Kentucky 14,932 West Valhy, New York 0
During 1976 and 1977 the volume of waste buried at Sheffield and Barnwell rose due to the closing of West Valley and due to the 10 cents per cound excise tax that was imcased at Maxey Flats.
in1974to623,C00ft{Sheffieldrose from 436,952 ft3 in 1977; Barnwell rose frcm 636,347 ft3 in 1974 to 1,644,174 ft3 in 1977.)
Cnly medest increases (acproximately 35,000 ft3 each) were ncted in the volumes of 78G081
, waste received at Seatty and Hanford. With Maxey Flats closed and with Sheffield now reaching capacity, about 650,000 ft3 of waste which would have been disposed of at these two sites annually will new need to be managed by scme alternative strategy.
These alternatives are discussed below.
Al ternatives:
1[NoNRCAction Under this alternative waste previcusly destined for Maxey Flats, Barnwell and Sheffield would be transported to the Beatty and Hanford burial grounds. As shown in Enclosure 1, the we: tern sites have sufficient capacity to handle the
~
additicnal waste volume.
There may be scme initial practical considerations at the sites relating to gearing up to har.dle larger volumes (e.g. sufficient handling equipment and numbers of trained personnel).
Larger transportation distances could also create a shectage in shielded casks for certain high specific Mtivity fuel cycle wastes since the casks would be tied up ir. transportation.
NRC would take the position thac it's up to industry to assure sufficient disposal capacity and available transportation.
Since there is sufficient capacity at the western sites the industry cculd work cut arrangements for cptimal use of shielded casks, vehicles, interim storage, etc. to manage the wastes generated and maximize use of the three sites.
There wculd also be a small increase in environmental impact due to the greater transportatien distances to the western sites.
2.
Recuest CCE to Precare Contincency Plans Under this option, NRC would review with ME the need for a contingency plan in the event operational or other problems develop at the operr.cing sites.
CCE wculd not be expected to ccmcete with private industry.
But, as a contingency actien, CCE should be crepared to back up the ccmmercial sites and accect ccmmercial wastes at the CCE turial 786082
. grounds.
c0E would also be asked to review its policy of disposing of wastes from scme of its facilities at ccmmercial burial grounds.
~In the event of inadequate connercial disposal capacity, the acceptance of ccmmercial wastes at DOE sites wculd be consistent with
~
previous national policy. The Atemic Energy
- ~ ~ ~
Commission (AEC) in 1960 announced that the exfsting Federal burial grounds at Oak Ridge National Labcratory and the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho would be available as an interim measure for the disposal of ccamer-cial LLW pending the establishment of commercial land burial sites.
Prior to 1960, the AEC had accepted ccmmercial wastes at Oak Ridge although the service was not publicized.
Commercial firms were disposing of wastes only by sea burial. AEC began to phase out sea burial and in 1962 the Beatty, Nevada burial ground was licensed as the first commercial site for disposal of LLW.
In 1963 the AEC withdrew its interim offer to dispose f ccmmercial waste at Oak Ridge and Idaho Falls
- ecause of the availability of ccmmercial disposal sites.
DOE's predecessor (ERDA) has alst indicated they would accept ccmmercial TRU centaminated waste if no commercial capability was available.
Such a policy could be expanded to include other types of commercial LLW.
Potential difficul;ies with this option include uncertainties regarding burial charges and suitability of all COE sites for disposal of ccamercial LLW.
The two major eastern CCE sites are Oak Ridae, Tennessee, and Savannah River, South.arolina.
The Oak Ridge sicc has experienced water manage-ment problems and is being phased out by CCE.
The Savannah River site has not experienced ocerational problems, but it is located near the Barnwell site and the State of Scuth Carolina might express concern abcut the use of that site.
3.
Licensina of 3dditional Cacacit at Sheffield The NRC has an acclicatice under review :nat wculd permit licensinc of additienal disposal 786G83
. capacity at the Sheffield, Illinois, site in the event of a favorable licensing decision (renewal and amendment of the site license to permit expansion of the site to 188 acres).
On December 5,1977, the Ccmmission published a notice in the Federal Register which announced that interested ;ersons could file petitions for leave to intervene in a proceeding on the request for renewal and amendment of the Sheffield license.
Several petitions to intervene were f' led with the Ccmmission and an Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board was designated to rule on these petitions.
On March 1,1978 that Board ruled a hearing would be held and that the State of Illinois, the County of Bureau, Illinois, the Asscciated Citizens for Protection of the Environment, and a number of individuals had been granted intervenor status in the proceeding.
The preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the Sheffield facility is :urrently underway and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be issued fc. ccmment this year. The Environmental Impact Statement will address the expected impacts from materials presently buried, current operaticns, anc planned future operations.
A lawsuit concerning the Sheffield site is currently pending before the United States District Court #cr the Northern District of Illinois.
Pecole of the State of Il'inois v.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission and Nuclear Encineerina Cemcany. Inc., (No. 77-4190).
Among other tnings, the State seeks an injunction prohibiting NECO from accepting any additional ra/.icactive waste at the Sneffield site until the Ccmmission acts on NECO's request for renewal of the Sheffield license.
Because of all the factors discussed above, licensing of adciticnal discosal capacity at this site does not acpear likely in tne near future.
786084
. 4.
Urge Utilization of Closed Existing Sites Under this option, NRC could urge the States of New York and Kentucky to reopen the West Valley and Maxey Flats sites.
These sites are already committed sites and reopening them would assure maximum utilization of existing sites without unnecessary proliferation.
Before these sites are reopened, an assessment would need to be performed of the environment impact and safety of resuming operations.
The NRC could work closely with the States to carry out such reviews.
The assessment and reopening procedures would probably take from one to two years.
5.
Urge On-Site Storage Under this option, the nuclear waste generators, particularly those located in the east, would be requested by NRC to store wastes on the site of production or at other acceptable storage areas until additional capacity in the east becomes available.
This option would increase the operational 'nd control measures required at these sites to assure safe storage of the waste, and would increase the number of locations that could present potential problems in the future if the waste is not properly disposed of in the future.
Certain facilities have limited on-site storage capaci ty.
6.
Longer-Term Cotion NRC could support Federal take over of all the sites, since the Federal Government is best able to assure long term integrity of such sites, as well as being in a unique position to assess national disposal needs, thus avoiding site proliferation by assuring efficient utilization of a lesser number of sites.
This is consistent with the recentendations in DOE's Task Force Report.* This option will require legislation, could not be implemented immediately, and would need to be coordinated with the States in which the sites are located.
- COE/ER-0004/0 "Recort of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management,"
February,1978 Craft.
% G85
-. _ _ OnlyCOEortheindustryto[aycantakethe
'~
Discussien:
initiative to establish a new shallow land burial site for disposal of ccmmercial wastes.
NRC can (and should) urge and request that certain actions be taken to assure that adequate capacity is available. The reasons that NRC should urge such actions on the part of industry or COE (or even the Congress) include the following:
o NRC's centinuing to issue licenses for waste generating activities when there exists no adequate regionally distributed capacity for management of icw-level wastes.
o NRC's respcnsibility to assure adequate capacity
,for. the safe management of_ existin_g icw-level wastes
. wastes frem deccmissioning existing facilit In the short tern, the staff believes a ccabination of industry responses (Alternative 1) and, COE back up (Alternative 2) will yield an acceptable aporcach to managing the nation's LLW.
Using this ccmbination, wastes previously destined for Barnwell, Sheffield, and Maxey Flats cculd be shipped to the western sites.
The nuclear industry would need to work cut optimum arrangements for vehicles, containers, interim storage, and utilization of existing sites.
NRC will review with CC>E the need for a contingency plan to back up the ccmercial sites if problems develop at the operating sites.
CCE would not ccmpete with private industry, but would be prepared to accept ecmercial wastes if required.
In addition, Scuth Carolina staff discussed the State's decision to limit disposal r.t the Barnwell site witn NRC staff during a recent meeting.
State staff reccgni:ed the need to maintain flexibility in their position and the need to be prepared to handle special and emergency cases.
In the long-tern, NRC shculd develcp a position en the questien of the adequacy of LLW discosal capacity based en a naticnal waste management program.
(The issues raised in CCE's recent Task Force Recert en COE cwnership and cceratien of ccmercial sites and NRC regulaticn will need to be analy:ed in this regard.)
9 Reccmendations :
The staff reccmends that the Ccmission:
1.
Approve the following options as ;:roviding an acceptable interim program for management of the nation's LL'd:
A.
Industry arrangements to ship waste to the western sites.
(Alternative 1)
B.
Review with COE, the need for a contingency plan to back up the comercial sites.
(Alternative 2) 2.
Approve a letter such as that in Enclosure 2 for 00E informing them of South Carolina's decision, NRC's position, AEC's previous policy on acceptance of comercial LL'A, and the need for a contingency plan.
Coordination:
The Office of State Programs concurs in this paper.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners
//
Comission Staff Offices w
- f. - '
Exec Dir for Operations Regional Offices Cl i ffpr ' V. Smi th, J., Dire.
Secretariat Office /of Nuclear verial T ety
/
and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
Status of Ccmercial Shallow Land Burial Sites 2.
Letter to the Hon. James T. Schlesinger Note:
Ccmissioner cements should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by CCB Thursday, May 25, 1978.
Comission Staff Office cements, if any, should be submitted to the Ccmissioners NLT May 19, 1978, wicn an infor nation ccpy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additicnal time for analytical refiew and cement, the Comissicners and the Secretariat shculd be apprised of when cements may be expected.
Ydi>0S7
t, 7)
Volume of Waste Approximate Waste *
[
Buried Through 1977 Capacity Remaining Current Status
.s (ft )
(ft }
[f 3
3 OPEN--Limiteg/ month Barnwell, SC 5,164,174 50,993,r16 to 135,000 ft Sheffield, IL 3,023,000 0
Licensed Capacity Filled Beatty, NV 2,137,460 16,986,034 OPEN llanford, WA 596,023 44,142,500 OPEN Maxey Flats, KY 4,964,932 15,785,358 CLOSED FOR STUDY West Valley, NY 2,460,000 1,483,188 CLOSED BY~0PERATOR i
- Calculated based on data supplied by the States l
l e