ML19208A407
| ML19208A407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/27/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208A405 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909130544 | |
| Download: ML19208A407 (5) | |
Text
O
,t s.s e a g UNITED STATES i it.
Y,7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i,"
/. E usHING10N, D. C. 20555 s, b4/,,!
a y
July 27, 1979 The Honorable John Dingell Chairman, Sub:c mittee on Energy and Power Cox.ittee on Interstate and Foreign Comerce United States Hou:e of Representatives
'Ja shington, D.C.
20515
Dear Chairman Dingell:
Tnank you for your letter of April 26, 1979 regarding events sur-ounding Three Mile Island (TMI), low-level waste (LLW) disposal, and actions by the State of South Carolina relating to waste disposal at the Chem tiu: lear disposal f acility at Barnwell.
Your letter posed several cuestions related to the April 19 letter received from the Honorable Richard W. Riley, Governor of South Carolina.
I have enclosed a copy of my response to Governor Riley (Enclosure 1).
It is true the: the Chem i;uclear waste site at Barnwell, South Carolina has been receiving the bulk of low-level radioactive wastes oroduced by the cc-er':ial nuclear industry.
This situati~on has been :- ought about by an unexpected series of events related to ccmrercial burial space a vaii cbility.
I feel that some background information also may be useful in your review of the current situation.
Background material on waste disp sal is supplied in detail ir. the enclosed report, "I'RC Task
- orce Repcrt on the Review of the Federal / State Program for Regulation of Co-ercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds" (Enclosure 2).
In ycu-letter you csked for the Ccm-ission's cpinion as to the legal or s;a u::-) basis f:r the argument that lo'.:-level waste bu-ia-facilities, Or a y waste stora;e or cisposal facili.
are licensed to serve 3,
either a regional or a specific geographical area.
The Atcric Energy Act of 1954 does not contain any regional or other ge:gra:hical restrictions on LLW burial facility licensing, and no LLW burial facility licensed by the t;RC under the Atomic Energy Act is licited for purposes of health and safety to serving a regional or other specific geographic area.
Further, no such limitation exists, to our ens.;1 edge, in South Carolina Law (Atomic Energy and Radiatic,n Control A :, C::e cf Laws cf South Carolina 1976 13-7-10 to 12-7-EC',, in South Carol'na regula:icns, or in the South Carolina Cher iluelear license.
- -d'9;1y, we r.eed not reach a cuestion of in cT:atibili:3 on grounds cf neal:r er safe:. cf South Carolina Law with Fe:eral reg _f ations unde-5e::i:- 27/d'2; :[ :he Ato-ic Energy Act.
' e :: cer: cf regio. ally established dis:: sal sites dic,
- .le.'ar, fin:
I':::"! ir the Policies of the E!cnic Energy COFTi:5ien (AE C).
A DPR D
D.,? I EG g';,f t s kr'o )- s m
7909130 Q
.)3
.g
. A r ry sJ g
e m
.a
Tne ior.orabie John Dingell.
policy of establishing regionally sited LLW burial grounds was adopted by the AEC at a Co. mission reeting held on December 15, 1959, in conjunction with the regulation requiring Federal or State government ownership of such sites, now found at 10 CFP 20.302(b).
Over a period of years the policy was implemented by the establishment of comercial buri al sites in fiew York, V,entucky, South Carolina, Illinois, fievada, and b:ashington.
H: sever, the policy of regional siting of LLW burial grounds was never formlly codified in regulations as a LLW burial siting recuirement, and nev?r went so far as to require LLW burial sites to accept only waste generated in a given region.
Three of these six sites have si nce closed:
fiaxey Flats, Kentucky; West Valley, fiew York; and Sheffield, Illinois.
If problems develop which limit or prohibit operations at any of the three remaining sites, a capacity and transportatics problem would re sul t.
In response to this situation, fiRC wrote the Deo?rt ent of Ene rgy (DOE) in July 1978 asking the-to prepare a contingency ::an fcr DOE to accept cor.ercial waste should the need arise.
(A copy c# ry le ter - o Secretary Sch'.esinger is enclosed (Enclosure 3)).
As you may recal, we wrote you on July 7,197E about the capacity problem and the
- tion we were taking.
i;RC staff has tet with DDE staff over the past 10 ::ntns and D DE is actively preparing such a contingency plan. Although s. me ir.te rest has been ex:ressed by the comercial sector in e'stablisr.in; a:difi onal new LLb discosal sites, such interest is limited due :: the uncertain Federal prcgraratic involvement in siting, owning and operating such sites.
You also asked, in reference to the Governor's state en.t about lowering tne voire limitations at Barnwell, that we discuss :ne basis "or volume limitations in Cher fiuclear's license and unethe-it is coraatible with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.
A 1974 e:or.ri: study of tne funding arrangements f:r State ce rpetual care of the site assu es a given pay ent per cubi: #c:t c# was.te over the ex:ected 20 year (1975-1995) life span for the burial ground.
The scundness of the fund for payment of perpetual care costs depernds upon accumulaticn and comp unding of interest in the fund because t:he principal needs to be preserved intact in " perpetuity".
If the site is filled un f aster than planned, three things occur that impact on this fund:
first, expenditures from the interest accumulated in the fund occur earlier than anticipated; second, the rate of increase in expenditure is also moved forward in time; and third, there is a less of ant'icipated ir. : e accruin; from compounding of interest.
'e volu e li-itation on burial was first addec ::
-'E Ea mwe~ ' license
.iren 1975 unen it becar.e evident :na: :ne Sne##i e'.
, :- i :i s si te
";~.! CicsE [a! Eneffield *he origini' 20 a:"es ha/5 ":.- Zeer #i' lac.
E'
~.'e ' M stif# has ceried the aDolica ion fCr eda'.Ei:P Oile; uCOD s# te cr. ara:~ eristics) aking Earnwell the cr.ly si.e ei:
- :" e OOCKiEE a'.aila:le for disposal of Co Tercial lor.-level Wa:!e by s'2Illn Send p
3}
I6) h p
~,wq sy Og~g w
JU iL L}
A
ne Honorable John Dingell ~
burial. The limitation was first stated as 135,000 cubic eet per month, (the average monthly volume re:eived at the site during 1977),
which was close to the projected rate used in the 1974 e:onomic study.
In November 1978, it was changed to 2.4 x 105 cubic feet per year for disposal (an increase of 780,000 cubic feet per year).
Thus the volume limitation is reasonable related to a legitimate State policy designed to assure funds for long-terin State care of the site as a reasure of ensuring public health and safety.
We do not view this as incompatible with the Federal regulatory program.
To the best of our knowledge, the volume limitations have been enforced by South Carolina.
The waste shipnent that was refused by the Chem t'uclear facility consisted of solidified evaporator bottoms resulting from the processing of stored low-level liquid waste at TMI Unit #1.
This is typical low-level waste f rc a power reactor.
After the waste shipment had left TMI, Metropolitan Edison discovered that there was reason to suspect that a small amount (aporoximately 100 gallons) of Unit 2 low-level licuid waste had been mixed wi:n the Uni: 1 iow-level waste that had been processed.
Knowing tnat the State of Soutn Carolina had prohibited the receipt of any Uni-2 waste aterial, Cher Nuclear recalled the trucks and subsecuently sent them to P.ichland, Washingt:n.
The presence of Unit 2 waste in the snionent did n:t alter the fact that the waste was low-level waste.
The
-low-level waste was packaged and shipped ir, coroliance wit' applicable l::C an C~
re;ul ations.
~
You asked for an opinion as to the legal basis for the Governor's decision to exclude excess waste fr:r the TMI nuclear power plant or from an uns:heduled reactor shutdcen.
We know cf n: provisions'in either Fe:..ral c r Scu:n Circlina lav., or M the Cr.em. Nuclear licente, that would exclude i.is:e frcT a s:ecific plan: or fr a piar.t experiencing a carticular blen, assuming the waste co' plies in packaging, form, and content w':n tha ccndi-icns of the license and applicable regulations (e.g.. the s ':e car a::ep:. tastes.avin: concentratior.s of trar.suranics above 10 r.ar.: curie s Der gram).
The Soverncr's statement was made ir the context c ' volu e limitati:ns, and stated that unusual and unanticipated large cuantities of waste must take a icwer priority for disposal at Barnwell
- nan the wastes that are r:utinely received for discosal.
Such a vieve can be reasonable and legitimate frca the standpoint of public health and safety, and is not necessarily incompatiole with the Federal regulatory p rcgram.
For example, hospitals, laboratories, an'd other routine waste generators do r.ot maintain much storage capacity.
Their wastes must r:ve :: the discosal site on fairly regular and dependable schecules.
.:.al 00 era:ing rearters also have routine viastes, such as evaoorator
- - c.s,
- .a: need :: :e oved to a ca:posci site on a reg _lar casis.
I-is a :icita:e: :na: fu:;re LL., shi: ents frcr TP:-2 os made ::
- ne li ter.s ec
~.a :...as".n: :r f r cis :sai :. shalic.
lan: b; rial
...-....n..
.....=.
. =. :. e. :.. :.:.
.c v. :.. =... e.... -
- a.....,. n. n.
$ ". s 3 *. C C
c ~)aC i e
L. "a eI1b Ibsd Iinh rb~
" ". b IuC iCbs 3Qf\\
^
D o
l 0
U v d.
L) a o
li
_ eJ l 1-.n._a
".e 4:r.ra:ie Job.Singell c-raintenance, and cleanup a:tivities in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings.
Plans are currently being fomulated for the processing of r.e cnta.ina ed water stored in tanks in the auxiliary building, as well as the c-ore highly contaminated water inside the containment and the reactor core itself.
ecisions on the disposal of these wastes will depend cn ar.alysis of their characteristics and on an assessment of the environmental impacts of alternative processing and disposal methods.
These studies are undersay.
Yeu re ;;ested that the Comission reconsider its decision that volume re:;ctica i: an operational and ec:nomic censiceraticn and that we pro ?tly require licensees to indicate how they plan to reduce solid was:e volumes.
We are undertaking a study, as recc= ended by GAO, that will surve) vol;re reduction technology and will perform a value-impact assessment of tne varicus techniques.
Results of this study should be available in --id-1530 and will be used to develop policies regarding the extent to v..ich volum.e reittien snould be recuired for LLW.
.3 tr. respe:: 20 NRC s LLW regulatory program, as n:ted in my letter to 3 vernor.iley, we are noving ahead with our program to assure that reculations, scoportin; re;ulatory guices, and licensing procedures are availab'.e ir a -im=iy nanner tn mest siting needs and to address other di sposa' ac-i or.3 such as d sposal :f viaste generated by the incicent at
.z.:e:1 ; ;a : 1y, v.e p.t a te pro:ose revised regulations an, technicai criter% for shalica land disposal in late 1980.
A cert of cur crocrar also includes proposing regulations for an alternatjve dis osal sth:d (e.g., i-ter ediate depth burial or eined cavity disposal) bv ige 2.
us, we sho;1c :e a:le o condu:t revie<:s cf any prcoosed ne.s f'acilMies <:el' before 19E'.
6ny acceleration bey:nd these plans is not
- ssible.ci-bir th: pr: son: resour:es alle:ated to Waste Mane?e'ent.
- ncl si:n, <te agree..i n t.e reccr.endation by the In;eragency Re vi e',' 3rcu: (IRS), that D E is the logical Federal agency to assume res:onsibility for developing a national plan for LLW canagement.
We i.ar. :: wort with EDE to assure that supporting regulations are available ar.d tha: disposai facilities are properly sited and safely operated.
We con:ir.ue tc su;?cr: the re;ional c:ncept in siting of LLW disposal facilities, anc as also recomended by the IRG, we believe a national plan based on reascnably accurate projections of LLW generation should deter.ine the r.u-ber, type. and ic:ation of future disposal sites.
Ee;i nal sites s;;i.c prc.-ice citacity to test reci:nal needs while Ni:i.; rars: -tat'c-i ca::s.
Federal assu :: ion ;# the respor.sibi'. i ty I b,. e#b.4 e..,
- o.... 4, _.... =.. _,....... _
. _ e _ m..m. n,1 m.e.
.,bv i.
w
.a y.
.e v s a.
Ce e,n.... c.'. J. e. e
.r..
e 4.
.e [ ].
C' Z, s o m.e "t,
'.e.
,..e...
- j'. ge g j g r., *,, -
v>c
.... -.a.
P P
e
.S*
e
.$F
.p
- 8....,.fM p l.
b-4 Sincerely, m
D 'P c s
~1 Dj 1
b ol a, i.c"- m.w %-
i p
- u.
oseo,h ' M r *- i e bb bO A,
ru i
e
]
m<l. P
^
7{
~~ T C. -nain an A
]m.I
!.JL
']
.s
~ne '.or.orable Jahr. Dingell Er. closures:
1.
Ltr to Governor Riley fr.. Chain..an Hendrie 2.
NP.C Task Force Report 3.
Ltr te Secretary Schlesinger fm Chairr.an Hendrie cc:
F.ep. Clarence J. Brown S
. ] JL<I c).
o',fn-
)3 O,I N
r..
0l c '<O b s's w* 1 O f ),
sJ