ML19242B181
| ML19242B181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1977 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-20-7 NUREG-0217, NUREG-0217-S01, NUREG-217, NUREG-217-S1, NUDOCS 7908070628 | |
| Download: ML19242B181 (17) | |
Text
~
",fp"p NRC TASK FORCE REPORT ON REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL / STATE PROGRAM FOR REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE BURIAL GROUNDS Analysis of Public Comments
'T Q) 6 522 Manuscript Ceme:eted: September 1977 Date Published: October 1977 p id 7 ' *'
- q Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20550
Analysis of Public Comnents ON NUREG-0217 In March 1977, NUREG-0217, NRC Task Force Report on Review of the Federal / State Program for Regulation of Commercial Lcw-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds," was published in the Federal Recister for public comment.
In response, the correspondence list"" 'elow was rec eived.
Commenter Abbreviation Docket No.
South Carolina-Department of SC 1
Health and Environmental Control New Mexico-Health and Social
.NMHSS 2
Services Department West Virginia-Department of WV 3
Natural Resources Florida-Department of Health FHRS 3
and Rehabilitative Services Washington-Department of WA 3
Social and Health Services Florida-Department of Environmental FER 3
Regulation Nevada-Executive Chamber NV 3
Louisiana-Department of LA 3
Conservation Aerojet Energy Conversion AECC 4
Co.Tpany Colorado-Department of Health CO 5
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
NRDC 6,7 Tennessee-Department of Public Health TN 8
522 20
J Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc.
CNSI 10 Utility Waste Management Group UWiiG 11 California-Department of Health CA 12 Yankee Atomic Electric Company (AEC 13
~
U. S. Energy Research and Development ERDA 14 Administration Arizona-Office of the Governor AZ 15 New Mexico-Office of the Governor NMOG 16 North Carolina-Office of the Governor NC 17 Kentucky-Environmental Quality Commission KEQC 18 Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.
MECO 19 Western Interstate Nuclear Soard WINB 20 Tennessee '/ alley Authority T'/A 22 Atomic Industrial Forum AIF 9,23 Florida Pcwer & Light Ccmpany FPL 24 Pennsylvania-Bureau of Radiological Health PA 25 Environmentalists, Inc.
EI 26 Advisory Ccmmittee cn Reactor Safeguards ACRS 27 New York-Executive Chamber NY 23 Tiaryland-Executive Department MD 29 Hawaii-Executive Chambers HA 30 Kentucky-Depactment of Human Resources KHR 31 State of Flew York Decartment of Law NYDCL 32 Southwest Research and information Centar SRIC 33 73k gl,1 Summary of Comments Strong support for accelerating develcpment of a regulatory program, including regulations, standards and criteria (Recommendation II) was expressed in the comments.
A clear concensus on the other two of the Task Force recommendations did not appear in the resoonses.
Further, a number of comments stated that the Task Force report conclusions are not adequately supported by the findings and additional information should have been included in the report (NYDOL).
One commenter (YAEC) felt that the report failed to address the immediate problem while focusing on remote and theoretical problems.
Recommendation I was clearly the most controversial ai.J elicit greatest number of comments.
Disagreement with Recommendation I was expressed by about one third of the commenters.
States' vested interests, the need for active involvement of States in low-level waste management, and doubts over the ability of the Federal government to perform better than the States were the basis for most disagreement.
Several respondents felt that the balance of Federal / State control should be addressed only after standards and criteria for shallow-land burial are developed, alternatives are studied (ACRS), and State and Regional viewpoints J r) ',)
205 c-on are given further cansideration (WINS AIF).
Federal / State roles in regulating uraniun mill tailings and accelerator-produced radioisotopes should also be considered in reviewing authority over low-level waste disposal sites (LA WINB).
Finally, several comments pointe.1 out that increasin, Federal control over low-level waste management runs counter to current Congrescional and Administrative policy to reduce and simplify Federal regulatory agencies. (The comments did not note that the HoJs0 Government Operations Comittee in their June 30, 1976 Report, " Low-level Nuclear Waste Disposal" had recommended increasing Federal control over low-level waste management.)
Agreement with the need for a study of alternative disposal methods was indicated by all those respondents who st;.ted an opinion on this conclusion.
However, responses to the remainder of Reccmmendation III questioned Task Force waste projections and the conclusion that adequate burial capacity exists for the next few years.
A summary of the responses to the Task Force conclusions and recomendations is presented in Table B-1, Detailed analyses of these appear in the sections that follow.
The comenter abbreviations in parentheses throughout the analyses refer to responses which besc represent the particular opinion.
9 g-)L s
. Conclusion 1 - Federal / State Roles Since Conclusion I of the Task Force report addresses several issues, the following analysis considers the major issues in a secuential fashion.
1.
Task Force
Conclusion:
The present system for low-level waste management lacks national organization and direction.
Analysic of Commenti:
Only one-third of the respondents commented on this issue.
All toese simply stated agreement wi the conclusion.
2.
Task Force
Conclusion:
The States, in discharging their regulatory duties, have operated under difficult circumstances but have adeouately protected the puolic health and safety.
The Task Force can find no cenpelling health or safety reason for reassertion of Federal control at this time.
Analysis of Comments :
Forty per cent of the cc:rrenters supported this conclusion; sixty per cent offered no ccament.
Disagreement with thi: conclusion was expressed by one commenter (NRCC), who felt that lax State practices have created a significant threat of harm to the public.
The ACRS did not believe that it had receivedj } }
{J g 7
. convincing evidence that the existing situation will not lead to health and safety problems in the future.
The lack of concensus seems to indicate a need for further supporting evidence, but no need to alter the conclusion.
3.
Task Force
Conclusion:
The States co not have the resources to provide the needed overall leadership or organization, nte do they have the obligation to find soluticns to this national probiu..
Analysis of Comments:
Two comments stated that the States do have the resources and capabilities to continue their good work (CNSI) and are in a better position to handle contingencies (CO).
Support of the conclusion by 40 per cent of the respordents was based largely on the opinion that the citizens of the few States in which burial grounds are located should not bear costs for activities which serve national needs (FHRS) or which may involve major contingency actions (WA). ACRS expressed the feeling that the generation of electricity by nuclear power has both State and Federal implications.
WINB suggested that NRC shou i provide States with technical and financial assistance in proportion to the burden the State has assumed from NRC.
Th;s, while the conclusion need not be altered due to the comments, scme caution must be exercised in applying it to individual cases or all activities.
7Sb LJ) 1 4
Task Force
Conclusion:
The States will continue to have a vested interest in the protection of the health and safety of their citizens and in land-use decisions.
This vested interest can be satisfied by their pcrticipation in the site selection process and their monitoring of o,'y-to-day operations.
(The Task Force recommendation that the NRC should require joint Federal / State approval of new disposal sites derives, in part, from this conclusion and is therefore also addressed in this analysis.)
Analysis of Comments:
A majority of the comments indicated the need
- '" ?t'.te involvement in site selection and monitoring.
- Mcwever, the.
gree of satisfaction which would be obtained thrcugh joint Fede. cal / State siting approval was questioned.
Some felt that State responsibilities prohibit abdication of control cver such activities (CNSI). Others expressed concern that States should have the oppor-tunity to refuse siting (NV).
Further, several comments stated that surveillance and monitoring should be a shared Federal / State respon-sibility (TN).
The comments indicate the need to develop a broader base of technical support before ador"ng the recormendation.
5.
Task Force
Conclusion:
The development and implementation of a national waste management plan, which includes adequate capacity without site proliferation, can be more readily achieved if the NRC assumes regu-latory control (with State participation).
(This conclus]n)T)2 ads 16]9
. the Task Force recomendation t'lat the NRC should require NRC licensing, with State participation, of cument and new disposal sites.)
Analysis of Comments: Approximately one third of the commenters dis-agreed with the conclusion and/or recommendation.
The primary basis for the opposition was the lack of evidence to support the conclusion.
Several respondents felt that since no compelling health and safety reasons 'for reassertion of Federal control were found by the Task Force, it is not clear under what authority the ".C would exercise exclusive licensing and regulation over low-level waste mangement (LA).
Some commenters believed that NRC licensing could infringe upon the State's rights and responsibilities to protect its people and environment (NC).
Several held the opinion that the Task Force report provided no factual basis for the position that Federal control will solve existing problems better than State control nor did it demonstrate how Federal intervention might prevent problems which currently exist.
It was stated that implementation of more clearly defined criteria and controls, more rigorous ccmpliance enforcement procedures, etc., are just as applicable to State as to Federal regulation (WINB).
Several commenters also pointed out that Federal control of high-level waste management has not yet provided satis #actory solutions.
Indeed, some ccmments expressed the opinion that the States are in a far better position to perform the licensir.g and regulation for reasons such as the following (CO):
c v2
?90 x
a.
A vested interest in what takes place in our own " backyard" and conditions with which the citizens of the State literally have to live.
b.
More efficient communication between licensing and compliance personnel in the State regulatory agency (they are usually in the same office).
c.
Direct, localized coordination between State radiological health specialists, hydrologists, geologists and engineers who must perform technical reviews of waste burial site applications.
d.
Accessability of the State agencies to the peuple which enables swif ter and more efficient action than a Federal agency could provide should complaints and/or problems arisa.
7 --,
~,!
Statements in support of NRC licensing and regulation noted the need for Federal participation since low-level wastes are often buried in one State, but are produced in other nearby States Of/).
One comenter (UW"G) stated. hat uniformity of regulation and management practices could be achieved more readily at the national level.
The SRIC stated that only through the reascertion of Federal licensing authority will it be possible to make responsible decisions in this area.
While no conclusive reasons to alter the reco=endation were given, the coments indicate the r.eed to develop a broader base of technical support before adopting W reccrendation.
6.
Task Force Conclusio--
The Federal government should assume responsibility for pero ttual care of the sites which can be readily accomplished tF rough Federal landownershic.
This conclusion leads to twr major Task Force recomendations which are analyzed sept rately below.
a.
Reccmendation (1):
The NRC should require Federal ownership of land for all disposal sites.
reccm endaticn was Analysis of Ccments:
Acceptance of 2
indicated by half of the cc= enters.
Reasons for disagreement by one-fourth of the ccmenters included (1) failure of One recort to denonstrate that Federal lar.downership will automatically assure effective care (AIF), (2) concern that creenption of the
') C) ')
,, o 3gt m.
potential for constructive use of this land by the Federal goverr. ment may not be in the States' best interest (WINB), (3) State landcwner-ship would assure the States of adequate control over operation and perpetual care of the site (PA), anc (4) alternative methods for
.elieving the States' financial burden of perpetual care should be investigated (ERDA).
Some additional analysis of these issues will be useful, but no compelling reason to change the ecommendation was raised.
b.
Rece",r endation (2):
The NRC should establish a Federally administered cerpetual care orogram.
Analysis of Cements.
Corrments on the recommendation reflected the need for cla: '#ication of what a Federal perpetual care program would involve.
Support for Federal long-term care and
- inancing of the low-level
=ste program was based on the necessity of assuring uniformity and eliminating financial disparity between States (WV).
However, State involvement in perpetual care to maintain some control over the sites for the benefit of their citizens was considered desirable (KFQC, FER).
NYDOL noted the complexity of decommissioning and long-term care particularly with respect to funding and contractual arrangements.
Finally, the opinion that site acerators and users shculd not be relieved of the liability for perpetual care was expressed (SC, CNSI).
Again, additional analysis of the issues will be useful.
522 293 Conclusion II Comorehensive Regulatory Program Task Force Conclusion II:
There is an urgent need to establish a comprehensive set of standards, criteria, and regulations governing low-level waste management. An integration and acceleration of ongoing efforts to establish such a program is required.
Emphasis should be placed on:
a.
Developing operating, monitoring, decommissioning, post-operational maintenance and funding requirements for both existing and futurc burial sites.
b.
Developing criteria for the acceptability of future proposed shallow-land burial sites or alternative disposal methods.
c.
Developing criteria for determining which wastes can be disposed of by shallow-land burial.
Recommendation II that the NRC, in cooperation with appropriate Federal and State agencies, should accelerate davelopment of the regulatory program for the discosal of lcw-level waste which includes regulation, standards, and criteria a dresses the same issue as the conclusion d
and therefore the two are andyzed together.
Analysis of Comments: Nst of the respondents (about 85 percent) agreed with Ccnclusion II and thus supported Recommendation II.
<e r,.
several States st.s., as WV felt the regulatory program shculd ;cnsist of minimum guidelines, giving the States the cpportu. ity to establish more stringent standards.
The need for careful coordination with other Federal agencies, States, and industry representatives was expressed by many correnters (UhMG, NECO, FPL, WINB).
Finally, the need to develop a waste classification system was emphasized by AIFi WIN 3 and SRIC.
In balance, the ccmments strenghtnened the case for Recomrewation II.
Conclusion III Need To Study Alternatives, Provide Adeouate Cacacity, and Avoid Proliferation Conclusion III addresses two major issues which are analyzed separately belcA.
1.
Task Force
Conclusion:
While there have been other disposal methods used, the only currently pract;ced method is shallow-land burial.
Since the enactment of the Natinnal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) a comprehensive Federal examination of alternative disposal methods has not been nade.
Such an examination is needed.
This co clusion leads to that portion of Recommendation III which states that triu NRC should initiate irrediately the necessary studies to identify and evaluate the relative safety and impacts of alternative icw-level waste disposa methods.
3}9 i
Analysis of ccm ents:
Of the respondents who commented on this recommendation (
60 percent of the total) unanimous support was expressed.
WINB and AIF did remark that ERM might be in a better position to perform such an alternatives study.
The need to include a complete cost-benefit analysis in the evaluation of all alternatives was.oted by T'/A.
Again the case is strengthened by the comments.
2.
Task Force
Conclusion:
National planning must assure adequate disposal capacity beyond 1990 while preventing an undisciolined proliferation of sites.
There is ncw sufficient burial capacity for the disposal of commercial low-level waste to the year 1990.
Until extensive investigation of alternatives to shallow land burial is completed, the additional licensing of new shallow lar.d burial sites should be avoided. That inve,stigation may disclose better methods and practices. The undisciplined proliferation of low-level barial sites must be avoided. The remainder of Reccomer.da-tion III derives from this conclusion.
It states that no new disposal sites should be licensed until a full examination of alternativa disposal methods has been completed or unless an urgent new need is identified.
The NRC should assure effective use of existing commercial burial grounds.
yz2
'c' 9, 6
. Analysis of Comments:
Although agreement with the recocinendation was expressed by nearly half the c enters, such support was based on the conditions that suf#icient burial capacity is truly available (NMHSS) and tne NRC assures the effective use of existing sites (NECO).
SRIC stated that no new disposal sites should be licensed until alternatives are evaluated, criteria and regulatory requirements are established and site releases are realistically modeled.
AIF stated that if an urgent need arises, an adequate basis for licensing exists.
The issue of adequate disposal capacity received nearly equal numbers of supporting and disagreeing ccmments.
A number of respondents (e.g., PA, FPL, T'/A, ERDA, YAEC, UWG, LA) noted that an urgent need for more capacity may exist in the East since Barnwell, the only active Eastern site, could be completely filled sooner than projected.
The Task Force report used projections of disposal needs that are significantly lower than tnose presented in the AIF National Environment Studies Project Report NESP-008ES, which is based on actual operating plant data (PPL, ERDA).
FPL also stated that existing burial sites comprise a usable area of 358 acres versus the 660 acres estimated by the Task Force.
In addition, ERDA and NECO pointed out that actual 3
burial densities are likely much lcwer than the 97CO m / acre assumed in Task Force projections of site cacacity.
- Finally, 522 297
. CNSI and YAEC raised questions on the political implications, logistical problems and increased risk of transportation accidents involved in shipping wastes from the East to Western burial sites.
Considering the possible technical, administrative and legal impediments which may lengthen the time to implement a solution, a number of commenters (ERDA, LA, UWMG) felt that the availability of new capacity in sufficient time could well be in jeopardy.
To avoid a situation developing later that could precipitate hasty and less than optimum decisions, CNSI suggested NRC should encourage development of new sites.
The need for a ban on licensino of new sites was questioned by 15 percent of the respondents.
(Note:
The Task Force did not recommend a ban) WINS felt that Federal control could lead to " undisciplined non-proliferation."
Finally, UWMG pointed out thac new sites might even have environ-mental advantages over existing sites and a suspension of licensing would violate the requirements and policies of NEPA.
On balance case by-case licensing review should continue to assure adequate capacity, but the need for additional capacity should be a dcminant criterion.
~)Ob l
s
9 q~w. 3-.
er, %-
fX% "
-6,, s Table 8-1 2],,,
w Surruarr of Public futirnents gr. e.
O sa!,r we**
gg A 'ee Ulid' ' ee
___ f9s H Ln Unc lear ___
w t_
py2 9
O y!
)
y?
N l
y e
t w
C 4
t A*
4
^l C
o W
6 0,
lask furie Luistuston 1
~
15 4
3 22
- 1. ^ ~ Presint irstes!L k s N.stlunal organtiation 6
4 1
11 0
0 33 3
2 M
2.
S ta tes have adettuatel y f.n. tee.ted the pubi tc 8
5 1
14 1
1 0
9 5
3 17 3.
States du not have the resources er obilyttion 11 2
1 14 1
l 2
0 4.
States vested interest satisfied in site selettiun I
2 3
and wnitor ing 17 3
2 tt 3
4 7
)
l I
2 5.
Plan nais e s t adily athleve-d with hWC regulatory tuntrol 13 3
2 M
1 4
1 12 P
l 2
6.
I eder al responsibilit y tur long-tenn c are 14 4
3 21 4
3 7
1 1
}
4 4
2 7
7.
di tonolished ttrough f ederal landownership 12 3
2 1/
4 3
1 8
1 1
Task f ort e ke; oeanda tion -
It 3
l 20 4
4 1
9 I
I I
2 3
~
~
i 1: ~ ~.lu 'h t s t t e 'appm va l '
2.
Nht licensing 13 3
I 17 7
4 1
12 2
~
l 1
2 3.
Ied~ral l andowrie r ship 12 3
1 16 4
3 2
9 1
1 4
2 1
1 4 h43 9!If W ?inis h!e.1 perpetual tore li __ 4 2
20
- 2 _ _ __ _1_ _ _ l _ __ 9 _ _
_ J _ __
___[.
I 1
1 3
I la sk f or4 e t om. lusion II ht'edtu'e's t abllifi regula tory 1.r ugr ain and Integrate
~
om9uing ef f or ts Its 7
3 tu O
]
]
3 1
4 1,a s h f or s e M oor<m n.ta t ion !!
f_dt yrqtk dhm15[nt, of fig r rpf atyy pj tj' r am 18 7
1 2B 0
_ ____ J_. _ }_
3 1
4 l
l j
Ta. t or t e f um lusion ill 1.~ lOed e xamina t ion' o f a l te rna t t ves 10 6
3 19 0
0 Il 2
1 34
~
2.
Sufficient buttal tapn ity su avolii 4JJitlunal licensing 5
2 3
lu 3
5 1
9 0
13 1
14 lask lutte M uw endation 111
[ tvaluite'altern.ativ~e dlipasal method >
10 6
3 19 0
0 11 2
1 14
~
2.
No lit ending uut ti study t umpleted or urgent need identifled 10 3
2 15 4
l 5
2 1
3 9
I 10 Ol N
N N<W