ML19305E843
| ML19305E843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Staggers H HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305E844 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005200516 | |
| Download: ML19305E843 (4) | |
Text
e Q CIC 8 0052 00 $5 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
g 3
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- 'i.,,,,
April 29, 1980 CHAIRMAN coldnSSION A COR?ISPOEW The Honorable Harley O. Staggers Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) views on H.R. 6212, a bill which would require each State to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within that State, author-ize States to enter into agreements or compacts for the establishment of regional disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste, provide financial assistance to States in which such disposal sites are located, and define low-level radio-active waste.
Recent events at the nation's three operating commercial low-level waste disposal sites clearly demonstrate the need for greater disposal capacity distributed more uniformly throughout the country. As is provided by the bill, the Commis-sion believes States should be encouraged to accept responsibility for the disposal of low-level waste.
Section 2 would provii such encouragement by authorizing States to enter into agreements and compact; as may be necessary to establish a system of regional disposal sites for low-level waste. The National Governor's Association for some time has supported voluntary compacts as a means for. dealing with inter-state issues. Moreover, the Commission believes that every State need not establish a facility for disposing of low-level waste. We understand that this provision would eliminate the need for specific Federal legislation for each compact. We fully endorse that purpose.
Incentives such as the reimbursement of preconstruction costs incurred by a State and the provision of technical assistance also appear appropriate.
However, to avoid conflict with NRC's regulatory responsibilities, such incen-tives should be administered by DOE except for technical assistance to State regulatory authorities.
Section 3(a) o'f the bill should be amended accordingly.
For several reasons the Commission does not support the rigid deadline for terminating licenses contained in Section 1 of the bill.
First, State response to encouragement and incentives may lead to the establishment of adequate disposal l
capacity distributed across the country. Moreover, the Commission believes that P
.- _. ~,
i j
2 there are serious potential consequences associated with any inflexibli deadline I
requiring the termination of certain licenses if disposal capacity is not provided for within five years. Some States may be confronted with special circumstances which would prevent their meeting the proposed rigid cut-off date. Citizens in j
those States could be denied access to nuclear medicine if Section 1 were enacted.
In addition, we have the following specific comments on the bill.
Section 1 This Section raises several other questions in addition to the already discussed problem with rigid deadlines.
Section 1 refers to licenses and permits under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Licenses issued by Agreement States would not be included because the NRC has not delegated its authority to these States.
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act provides for discontinuance of NRC author-ity.
Once that is accomplished, the Commission retains no residual authority over individual licensing actions taken by Agreement States.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, 8 ELR 20163, 20164 (D.C. Cir. Jan 1,1978). Accordingly, as drafted, Section 1 would not affect Agreement States.
Section 1 would also require each State to take "such steps as may be necessary to assure the safe storage and disposal of all low-level radioactive waste generated in that State." The requisite steps are not clearly defined, but may include the establishment of disposal facilities in other States. It could be i
argued that existing disposal sites satisfy this requirement.
i Moreover, the current limits on jurisdiction over low-level military waste is inconsistent with the proposed requirement that States assure the safe disposal of all low-level radioactive waste generated in them.
DOE facilities which generate such waste are located in several States. Neither the NRC nor the Agreement States have jurisdiction over DOE's storage or disposal of such wastes. The Commission believes that it would be inconsistent to link the i
continuation of commercial licenses to DOE's program for disposing of low-level waste. Accordingly, we recommend that Section 1 be amended to exclude low-level military waste generated by DOE.
Finally, Section 1 refers to storage as well as disposal of low-level waste.
States could thus be encouraged to promote the establishment of storage facili-ties as a means of postponing the need for additional disposal capacity. The proliferation of temporary storage facilities could increase the probability of l
failures and accidents. Thus, we recommend that this provision be amended by deleting the reference to storage.
...w
3 Section 2 As noted above, the Commiislan supports the development of State compacts for disposal facilities for low '.evel waste.
However, we would note that NRC would retain licensing jurisdiction over a disposal site located in a Non-Agreement State, even if Agreement States were also parties to a particular compact for that site. As a result, the NRC would regain regulatory responsibility for wastes generated in Agreement States to which the NRC has ceded other responsi-bilities. The Congress should consider whether the NRC should retain jurisdic-tion over such a disposal site.
Section 3 Section 3(b) would require the payment of storage or disposal fees only at those facilities which have received Federal pre-construction assistance.
- Moreover, fees would be established at levels necessary only to amortize the full costs of facility construction and operation over its useful life. The Commission believes that to ensure long-term protection of the public's health anc safety fees must also cover the full costs of decontaminating and decommissioning such a facility, and its subsequent long-term care.
These considerations are independent of the provision of Federal pre-construction assistance. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that Section 3(b) be amended to require the payment of fees at all disposal facilities for low-level radioactive wastes and to allow the fees to include costs of decommissioning, decontamination, and long-term care of such facilities.
Section 4 This Section would define low-level radioactive waste to be byproduct material containing less than 10 nanocuries of transuranic contaminants per gram of material which contains potentially hazardous concentrations or quantities of radionuclides as determined by the NRC. This definition does not include source or special nuclear material. Moreover, it refers to transuranic waste which is not defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Finally, it is not consistent with the regulations for low-level waste disposal now being developed by the NRC. Accordingly, we suggest the following alternative definition of low-level radioactive waste:
The term " low-level radioactive waste" means waste con-taining source, byproduct, or special nuclear material which the Commission determines by regulation requires disposal in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, except that such term does not include byproduct material as defined in Section lle(2) of such Act.
4 1
The Connission appreciates this opportunity to express its views on this bill and will be glad to answer any further questions on these matters.
iincfrel,
A John F. Ahearne i
1 4
i, e
i l
\\
.. - _.