ML19253A925
| ML19253A925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/27/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253A926 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909120500 | |
| Download: ML19253A925 (5) | |
Text
i C oMm
[pn Afcoq
[ygy[o UNITED STATES QM g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON
..t WASHING TON. D. C. 29555
-A
%,%,g- '/
5 July 27, 1979 The Honorable John Dingell Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power n
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Chairman Dingell:
Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1979 regarding events surrounding Three Mile Island (TMI), low-level waste (LLW) disposal, and actions by the State of South Carolina relating to waste disposal at the Chem Nuclear disposal facility at Barnwell.
Your letter posed several questions 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 that the Chem Nuclear waste site at Barnwell, South Carolina has been receiving the bulk of low-level radioactive wastes produced by the comnercial nuclear industry.
This situation has been brought abou t by an unexpected series of events related t.o commercial burial space availability.
I feel that some background information also may be useful in your review of the current situation.
Background material o'n waste disposal is supplied in detail in the enclosed report, "NRC Task Force Report on the Review of the Federal / State Program for Regulation of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds" (Enclosure 2 ).
In your letter you asked for the Commission's opinion as to the legal or statutory besis for the argument that low-level waste burial facilities, or any waste storage or disposal facilities, are licensed to serve either a regional or a specific geographical area.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 does not contain any regional or other geographical restrictions on LLW burial facility licensing, and no LLW burial facility licensed by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act is limited for purposes of health and safety to serving a regional or other specific geographic area.
Further, no such limitation exists, to our knowledge, in South Carolina Law (Atomic Energy andtRadiation Control Act, Code of Laws of South Carolina 197613-7-10 to 13-7-80), in South Carolina regulations, or in the South Carolina Chem Nuclear license.
Accordingly, we need not reach a question of incompatibility en grouncis of health or safety of South Carolina Law with Federal regulations uncer Section 274d(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.
The concept of regionally established disposal sites did, however, find support in the policies of the Atomic Energy Ccmmission (AEC).
A 337238 5
(4 9 0 9120Sdd
The Honorable John Dingell.
policy of establishing regionally sited LLW burial grounds was adopted by the AEC at a Comission meeting held on December 15, 1959, in conjunction with the regulation requiring Federal or State government ownership of such sites, now found at 10 CFR 20.302(b).
Over a period of years the policy was implemented by the establishment of commercial burial sites in New York, Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Nevida, and Washington.
However, the policy of regional siting of LLW burial grounds was never formally codified in regulations as a LLW burial siting requirement, and never went so far as to require LLW burial sites to accept only waste generated in a given region.
Three of these six sites have since closed:
Maxey Flats, Kentucky; West Valley, New York; and Sheffield, Illinois.
If problems develop which limit or prohibit operations at any of the three remaining sites, a capacity and transportation problem would result.
In response to this situation, NRC w-ote the Department of Energy (DOE) in July 1978 asking them to prepare a contingency plan for DOE to accept commercial waste should the need arise.
(A copy of my letter to Secretary Schlesinger is enclosed (Enclosure 3)).
As you may recall, we wrote you on July 7,1978 about the capacity problem and the action we were taking.
NRC staff has met with DOE staff over the past 1C months and DOE is actively preparing such a contingency plan. Although some interest has been expressed by the commercial sector in establishing adcitional new LLW disposal sites, such interest is limited due to the uncertain Federal programmatic involvement in siting, owning and operating such sites.
You also asked, in reference to the Governor's statement about lowering the volume limitations at Barnwell, that we discuss the basis for volume limitations in Chem Nuclear's license and whether it is compatible with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.
A 1974 economic study of the funding arranaenents for State perpetual care of the site assumes a given payment per cubic foot of waste over the expected 20 year (1975-1995) life span for the burial cround.
Thc soundness of the fund for payment of perpetual care costs depends upon accumulation and compounding of interest in the fund because the principal needs to be preserved intact in " perpetuity".
If the site is filled up faster 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 loss of anticipated income accruing from compounding of interest.
The volume limitation on but I was first added to the Barr.well license in March 1978 when it became evident that the Sheffield, Illincis site night close (at Sheffield the original 20 acres have now been filled, anc the NO.C staff has denied the application for exoansion based upon site characteristics) making Barnwell the only site east c' the Rockies
?vailable for disposal of commercial low-level waste by shallow land 37239
The Honorable John Dingell
- burial. The limitation was first stated as 135,000 cubic feet per month, (the average monthly volume received at the site during 1977),
which was close to the projected rate used in the 1974 economic study.
In November 1978, it was changed to 2.4 x 106 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-term State care of 'the site as a measure of ensuring public health and safety.
We do not view this as incompatible with the Federal regulatory program.
To j;he best of our knowledge, the volume limitations have been enforced by South Carolina.
The waste shipment that was refused by the Chem Nuclear facility consisted o# solidified evaporator bottoms resulting from the processing of stored low-level liquid waste at TMI Unit #1. This is typical low-level waste from a power reactor.
After the waste shipment had lef t TMI, Metropolitan Edison discovered that there was reason to suspect that a small amount (approximately 100 gallons) of Unit 2 low-level liquid waste had been mixed with the Unit I low-level waste that had been processed.
Knowing that the State of South Carolina had prohibited the receipt of any Unit 2 waste material, Chem Nuclear recalled the trucks and subsequently sent them to Richland, Washington. The presence of Unit 2 waste in the shipment did not alter the fact that the waste was low-level waste.
The low-level waste was packaged and shipped in compliance with applicable NRC and DOT regulations.
You asked for an opinion as to the legal basis for the Governor's decision to exclude excess waste from the TMI nuclear power plant or from an unscheduled reactor shutdown.
We know of no provisions in either Federal or South Carolina law, or in the Chem Nuclear license, that would exclude waste from a specific plant or from a plant experiencing a particular problem, assuming the waste complies in packaging, form, and content with the conditions of the license and applicable regulations (e.g., the site cannot accept wastes having concentrations of transuranics above 10 nanocuries per gram).
The Governor's statement was made in the context of volume limitations, and stated that unusual and unanticipated large quantities of waste must take a lower priority for disposal at Barnwell than_the wastes that are routinely received for disposal.
Such a view can be reasonable and legitimate from the standpoint of public health and safety, and is not necessarily incompatible with the Federal regulatory program.
For example, hospitals, laboratories, an'd other routine waste generators do not maintain much storage capacity.
Their wastes must move to the disposal site on fairly regular and dependable schedules.
Normal operating reactors also have routine wastes, such as evaporator bottoms, that need to be moved to a disposal site on a regular basis.
It is anticipated that future LLW shipments from TMI-2 will be made tc Richianc, Washington for disposal by shallow land burial in the licensed cc ercial burial ground there.
The initial shipments would most _likel; consist of dry, compactible LLW material resulting from construction,
The Honorable John Dingell -
maintenance, and cleanup activities in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings.
Plans are currently being formulated for the processing of the contaminated water stored in tanks in the auxiliary building, as well as the more highly contaminated water inside the containment and the reactor core itself.
Decisions on the disposal of these wastes will depend on analysis of their characteristics and on an,, assessment of the environmental impacts of alternative processing and disposal methods.
These studies are underway.
You requested that the Commission reconsider its decision that volume reduction is an operational and economic consideration and nat we promptly require licensees to indicate how they plan to reduce solid waste volumes.
We are undertaking a study, as recommended by GAO, that will survey volume reduction technology and will perform a value-impact assessment of the various techniques.
Results of this steiy should be available in mid-1980 and will be used to develop policies regarding the extent to which volume reduction should be required for LLW.
With respect to NRC's LLW regulatory program, as noted in my letter to Governor Riley, we are moving ahead with our program to assure that regulations, supporting regulatory guides, and licensing procedures are available in a timely manner to meet siting needs and to address other disposal actions such as disposal of waste generated by the incident at TMI.
Specifically, we plan to propose revised regulations and technical criteria for shallow land disposal in late 1980.
A part of our program also includes proposing regulations for an alternative disposal method (e.g., intermediate depth burial or mined cavity disposal) by 1982.
Thus, we should be able to conduct reviews of any proposed new facilities well before 1984.
Any acceleration beyond these plans is not possible within the present resources allocated to Waste Management.
In conclusion, we agree with the recommendation by the Interagency Review Group (IRG), that DOE is the logical Federal agency to assume responsibility for developing a national plan for LLW management.
We plan to work with DOE to assure that supporting regulations are available and that disposal facilities are properly sited and safely operated.
We continue to support the regional concept in siting of LLW disposal facilities, and as also recommended by the IRG, we believe a national plan based on reasonably accurate projections of LLW generation should determine the number, type, and location of future disposal sites.
Regional sites would provide capacity to meet regional needs while minimizing transportation impacts.
Federal assumption of the responsibility for developing a national LLW management plan would also be in keepine with a recognition tnat LLW disposal, like high-level waste cisposal, is a national problem.
I# we can be of further assistance,.please let us know
\\\\
~,
\\ Sincerely,
\\
T*IL{
W
[oseph M Hendrie Cha~irman
?A y.,. ~.., w ec
The Honorable John Dingell -
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr to Governor Riley fm Chaiman Hendrie 2.
NRC Task Force Report 3.
Ltr to Secretary Schlesinger fm Chairman Hendrie cc:
Rep. Clarence J. Brown.
/
()
- - o y <g U N *f fw ' k,%,
,