ML19270A373
| ML19270A373 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/06/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110280582 | |
| Download: ML19270A373 (11) | |
Text
.
STATS 1BE OF CdAIWW4 NUNZIO J. PMLADIf0 U.S. N'JCLEAR PEGULATORY CLIi11SSION TFOPE die C0mIlitt ON EER6( #0 fMRIPAL RESOURCES NO THE SBC0mIlItt ON NUCLEAR EGULATION OF PE ComIlitt Of1 Tr!E BUIRDffEE NO P8LIC TRKS DCTWER6,1981 CF
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE C0"t1ITTEE, I WELC0"E THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND TESTIFY ON THE VIEWS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE STODAGE AND DISPOSAL AS RELATED TO S. 1662. WITH YOUR PER"ISSION, MD. CHAIR"AN, MY REMARKS TODAY WILL ADDRESS ONLY THE MAJOR FEATURES OF THE BILL THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED 50 FAR AS BEARING ON THE COMf'ISSION'S RESPONSIBILITIES.
AS 500N AS WE HAVE COMPLETED A MORE COMPREHE!!SIVE ANALYSIS, I WILL ALSO SUBMIT COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF S. 1662 AND ON S. 637 FOR THE RECORD.
I SHOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE hUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) HAVE BEEN WORKING OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS ON DEVELOPING PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE THE MANAGE"ENT OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTES.
IN MANY RESPECTS IF NOT ALL, CUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE THE SAME AS THOSE EXPRESSED IN S. I662.
WE ARE PLEASED Tn fit'0 A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED BILL REFLECTING RECOM"ENDATIOMS WE HAVE MADE IN THE PAST.
THESE PROVISIONS INCLUDE:
(1) THE REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIPLE SITE CHARACTERIZATION BY THE DEP PT"EMT OF ENERGY TO INCREASE CCNFIDENCE THAT AT LEAST ONE ACCEPTAELE SITE CAN SE FOUND EARLY ON; (2) A MULTI-STEP HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY LICENSING PROCEDURE; (3) STATE PARTICIPATICN IN THE FEDERAL DECISIOM-MAKING PROCESS FOR LONG-TERM STCRAGE AMD DISPOSAL OF HIr-H-LEVEL WASTES; AND (4) A TIME SCHEDULE TC 0MPLE7E SLL OF THE REOUIRED FEDERAL ACTIONS.
WHILE WE MAY UAVE S0t'E DIF~ERENCES "M
DETAILS
_ 1
IN THESE AREAS, THE OVERALL THRUST OF THE LEGISLATION APPEARS TO BE A GOOD ONE TO SOLVE THE HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM.
IN THE TIME REMAINING, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MAJOR CONCEPTS IN S. 1662.
INTERIM STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL SPENT FUEL (TITLE 111)
S. 1662 RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR SPENT FUEL BOTH ON-SITE AT REACTORd OR AT SEPARATE SITES ANAY FR0ft REACTORS. TO EXPEDITE THE LICENSING ACTIVITIES RELATED TO EXDANDING SPENT FUEL CAPACITY ON-SITE AT A REACTOR, THE BILL PROVIDES FOR A HYBRID LICENSING PROCESS IN WHICH THE C0ttiISSION MAY GRANT AN INTERIM LICENSE PRIOR TO CONDUCTING OR COMPLETING ANY REQUIRED HEARINGS UPON SUCH APPLICATION.
I STRONGLY FEEL THAT THIS PROVISION IS DESIRABLE.
A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS THIS PD0 VISION, BELIEVING THAT IT WILL NOT LOWER THE PROTECTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
TWO COMMISSIONERS DISAGREE, HOWEVER.
FURTHERMORE, THE BILL DIRECTS THE SECRETARY OF DOE TO CnNSTRUCT OR ACQUIRE OR LEASE SUCH ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY AS VAY BE NEEDED TO ALLEVIATE ANY INTERIM STODAGE PROBLEMS ENCCUNTERED BY THE UTILITIES.
THESE DOE FACILITIES WOULD REQUIRE NRC LICENSES UPPER THE BILL AND AS SUCP SECTION 202(3) 0F THE ENERGY REnRGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 WOULD BE MODIFIED BY SECTION 309 TO ENSURE THAT NRC HAS SUCH AUTHORITY.
THE COMMISSION WELCOMES AND SUPPORTS THIS CLARIFICATION OF OUR AUTHORITY UNDER SECTInN 202(3).
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ALSO WOULD LIXE TO INFORM YOUR COMMITTEE THAT, IN ANTICIPATION OF REQUESTS TO LICENSE AWAY-FROM-REACTOR FACILITIES, THE NRC LAST FALL PROMULGATED OUR 10 CFR PART 72 LICENSING REGULA-TION FOR THE STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IN AN INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION.
AS A RESULT, NRC IS READY AND ABLE TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION FOR ANY LICENSING ACTIONS RELATING TO INTERIM SPENT FUEL STORAGE.
STATUTORY TIME SCHEDULE (TITLE IV)
LIKE THE SPONSORS OF S. 1562 THE COMMISSION BELIEVES IT DESIRABLE THAT THE NATIONAL PROGRAM BE TIED TO A REALISTIC TIFE SCHEDULE.
WE BELIEVE CONFIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE AND PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE WILL INCREASE IF CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED MILESTONE SCHEDULES ARE ESTABL!SHED AND MET.
THE COMMISSION WILL DO EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO AVOID DELAY-ING THE NATIONAL PROGRAM, BUT THIS GOAL WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE IN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR CONSTRUCTION AUTHnRIZ3 TION PCOCEEPIMAS UNDER THIS BILL.
SECTICN 405 PROV! DES TWO YEARS AND FINE unNTHS SETWEEN THE TIME WE RECEIVE AN APPLICATInN AND THE JANUARY I, 1988 DEADLINE FOR OUR DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION.
UNDER SUCH A TIGHT TIME FRAME, IT BECOMES EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE RECEIVE A COMPLETE LICENSE APPLICATION FROM DOE CONTAINING ALL THE INFORMATION WE WILL NEED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE.
AN INCOMPLETE SUBMITTAL MAY CAUSE THE LICENSE PROCEEDING TO FXTEND BEYOND THE PROPOSED 1988 DEADLINE.
THE NRC STAFF HAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THE BILL PERMITS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR DOE TO DO THE NECESSARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER TECHNICAL WORK TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
IN ADDITION, TO THE EFFECT INSUFFICIENT TIME MAY HAVE ON THE QUALITY OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION, THERE IS ANOTHEQ POTENTIAL NEGATIVE EFFECT.
FAILURE TO MEET EITHER THE MANDATED LICENSE APPLICATION DATE OR. SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION WOULD BE WIDELY PERCEIVED AS ANOTHER MAJOR SETBACK IN DEALING WITH HIGH-LEVEL WASTE.
S. 1662 WOULD REQUIRE NRC TO PROMULGATE TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR A HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY BV JANUARY 1, 1983.
AS YOU "AY KNOW, WE HAVE ALREADY FINALIZED THE PROCEDURAL PART OF OUR 10 CFR SO REPOSITORY LICENSING RULE FOR THE GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTES.
WE ISSUED THE TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC CnP"ENT IM JULY, 1981, AND EXPECT TO SE AELE TO FINALIZE THEM PEXT YEAR.
WE ARE CONCERNED, HOWEVER, ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF THE GENERALLY aPDLICAPLE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FROM EPA, WHICH EPA HAS BEEN DEVELOPING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
THEY HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ISSUED IM ORAFT FORM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
IN THEIR ABSENCE, WE HAVE BEEN USING INTERNAL EPA WORKING DRAFTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR THE PAST TWO OR THREE YEARS.
IF THE EPA STANDARD IS NOT ISSUED SOON, OR CHANGES SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THEIR CURRENT DRAFTS, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE JANUARY 1, 1983 DEADLINE AS SPECIF,1ED IN THE BILL.
FURTHER COMMENTS ON DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE FROM CIVILIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES (TITLE IV) 5.1662 LAYS OUT KEY PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM FOR PERMANENT, DEEP GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL IN A REPOSITORY CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED BY DOE AND LICENSED BY NRC.
NRC PUBLISHED THE FINAL VERSICN OF THE PROCEDURAL PORTION OF OUR 10 CFR PART 60 LICENSING RULE ON FEBRUARY 25, 1981, AND WE ARE GRATIFIED TO NOTE THAT S.1662 OUTLINES PROCEDURES GENERALLY SIMILAR TO MOST OF THE PROVISIONS IN OUR RULE.
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, A FEW REMAINING AREAS WE BELIEVE MAY WARRANT FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY YOUR COMMITTEE.
SIMILAR TO S. 1562, COMMISSION RULES CONTAIN A REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIPLE SITE CHARACTERIZATION BY DOE TO INCREASE THE LIKELIH000 THAT AT LEAST ONE SITE WILL BE FOUND EARLi nHICH IS ACCEPTABLE FOR hfGH-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSt.L.
THIS REQUIREMENT ALSO ASSURES THAT IF DIFFICULTIES DEVELOP AT THE FIRST SITE CHOSEN, ALTERNATIVES SITES WILL BE MORE READILY AVAILABLE.
WHILE SECTION A03 0F THE SILL REQUIRES THE SECRETARY TO RECOMMEND THPEE SITES TO THE PRESIDENT AS CANDIDATES FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE BILL'S DRAFTING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MUST APPROVE MORE THAN ONE.
THIS COULD BE READ TO ALLOW DOE TO SUBMIT A LICENSE APPLICATION AFTER CHARACTERIZ-ING ONLY ONE SITE.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE BILL BE CLARIFIED TO REQUIRE AT LEAST THREE SITES FOR CHARACTERIZATION.
IF THE PRESIDENT REJECTS ANY OF THE THREE SITES RECOMMENDED BY THE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL SITES UNTIL AT LEAST THREE HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR CHARACTERIZATION.
WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE BILL REQUIRES THE CONSIDERATION OF SITES IN SEVERAL GEOLOGIC MEDIA "TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE GIVEN THE SCHEDULE," THE COMMISSION PREFERS THAT SITES IN AT LEAST TWO MEDIA -- ONE CF WHICH IS NOT SALT -- BE CHARACTERIZED.
WE ARE PLEASED TO 'IND THAT THE BILL PROVIDES SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR NRC REVIEW AND COMMENT CN DOE SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLANS, ASSESSMENTS, AND ACTIVITIES.
TWIS WILL HELP ASSURE BOTH THAT DCE'S ACTIVITIES GENERATE THE INFCRMATION NRC NEEDS TO EVALUATE THE.
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL, AND THAT THEY DO NOT COMPROMISE THE LICENSABILITY OF THE SITE.
WE BELIEVE, H0vEVER, THAT OUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT AN EXPEDITIOUS LICENSE REVIEW FOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED BY INCLUDING SOME PROVISION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE DOE REGARDING THE SELECTION OF TESTS IN SECTION 404(C)
NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE LICENSE APPLICATION.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING THE.0PPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR THE RECORD.
THE COMMISSION WOULD APPRECIATE CLARIFICATION OF THE VEANING AND INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 402(B) PROVIDING THAT THE COMMISSION "...SHALL LIMIT THE RETRIEVABILITY OF THE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL EMPLACED IN THE REPOSITORY UNLESS SUCH ACTION IS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT." WE BELIEVE THE BASIC DESIGN OF A REPOSITORY SHOULD BE SUCH THAT THE WASTE SHOULD BE SO EMPLACED THAT A RANGE OF ACTIONS INCLUDING RETRIEVAL COULD BE TAKEN DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE REPOSITORY IS BEIo!G EVALUATED TO CONFIRM ITS PERFORMANCE.
THIS PERIOD COULD BE SHCRT OR COULD LAST A FEW DECADES.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND NOT DEALING WITH THIS DESIGN CONSIDERATION IN THE LAV.
WE HOPE THAT YOUR INTENT IS CONSISTENT WITH CUR POSITION, AND WE WOULD WELCOME CLARIFICATION.
WE HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL CONCERN REGARDING THE CCNTENT OF THE TECFNICAL CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN THE BILL.
SECTICN a02(B)(3) REQUIRES THAT WE INCLUDE CRITERIA FOR A LICENSE AMENDMENT TO DECOMMISSION THE REPOSITORY.
IN OUR PROPOSED REGULATION, WE HAVE DEALT WITH DECOMMISSIONING ONLY IN A GENERAL WAY, WITH THE INTENT OF AUGMENTING THE CRITERIA IN SEVERAL YEARS WHEN WE HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS PREMATURE TO DEFINE DETAILED DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA AT THIS TIME, AND THAT THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE WITH OUR DETAILED COMMENTS.
-TEST AND EVALUATION FACILITY (SECTION 407)
IN LIGHT OF THE CONTEMPLATED TIME SCHEDULE, THE COMMISSIAN WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD EXEMPT FROM NRC LICENSING SMALL QUANTITIES OF HIGH-LEVEL RADICACTIVE WASTE USED IN THE TEST AND EVALUATION FACILITY BUT WOULD REQUIRE THE SECRETARY TO OBTAIN THE CONCURRENCE OF THE COMMISSION IN THE SITING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT!CN AND OPERATION OF THE FACILITY.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION WOULD WELCOME LANGUAGE TO ASSURE THAT THE TEST AND EVALUATION FACILITY WILL NOT DIVERT RESOURCES FROM THE FULL-SCALE REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
LONG TERM STORAGE (TITLE V)
THE BILL PROVIDES FOR A POSSIBLE LONG TERM STCRAGE COMPONENT TO SE SEQUENCED BETWEEN INTERIM SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND ULTIMATE GEOLOGIC
-B-
DISPOSAL.
THE BILL FURTHER STATES THAT THIS LONG TERM STORAGE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE AN ALTERNATIVE TO ULTIMATE GEOLOGIC nISPnSAL. AS MY PREDECESSOR HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES NOT CEJFCT TO A LONG TERM STORAGE COMPONENT IN THE NATIONAL STRATEGY.
IT MAY EE USEFUL TO ALLOW MORE TIME TO SETTLE THE REPROCESSING ISSUE.
IN ADDITION, THERE MAY BE SOME TECHNICAL ADVANTAGES SINtE THE ULTIMATE TEMPERATURE OF THE WASTE AT THE TIME OF DISPOSAL CAN BE REDUCED BY SURFACE COOLING. WE WOULD SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO LOCATING SUCH STORAGE AT THE SITE OF A FUTURE REPROCESSING PLANT OR AT THE REPOSITORY LOCATION.
THE COMMISSION ALSO AGREES THAT SiCn A LONG TERM STORAGE FACILITY SHOULD NOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL NOR SHOULD IT BE PERMITTED TO DETRACT FROM THE REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
STATE PARTICIPfTION (TITLE VI)
THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS PROVISIONS FOR DOE TO INFORM AND CONSULT WITH STATES THROUGHOUT THE SITE SCREENING AND CHARACTERIZATION STAGES, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL SERVE TO RESOLVE STATE CONCERNS.
IF A SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED STATE'S CONCERNS ARE NOT RESOLVED, WE EELIEVE IT SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT FCRMALLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND CPERATICN OF A HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY. THE COMMISSION AGREES THAT A PROCEDURE SHOULD EE DEFINED WHEREBY THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS REVIEW AND RESOLVE SUCH FORMAL STATE OBJECTIONS.
-g-
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS CONCLUDES MY FORMAL PRESENTATICN, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT FUP.THER COMr'ENTS ON S. 1662 AND AFTER WE HAVE PERFORMED A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS nF S. 637, ON THAT SILL AS WELL. WE APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.