ML19318B547

Testimony at MD Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation 800603 Hearing Re Spent Fuel Storage.Background Info for Hearing Encl

ML19318B547
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	06/03/1980
From:	Critz H ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To:
Shared Package
ML19318B535	List: ML19318B538 ML19318B541 ML19318B547
References
NUDOCS 8006270027
Download: ML19318B547 (41)

Text

,

ENCLOSURE 7 O STATEMENT OF CRITZ H. GEORGE CHIEF, GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION BRANCH U.S. DEPARMENT OF ENERGY BEFORE THE MARYLAND COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPER. TION JUNE 3, 1980 NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this Commission to discuss nuclear waste management. In the interest of time, I have focused both my written testimony for the record and my direct verbal remarks to key issues, including the questions raised in the commission's letter of April 28,1980, to Dr. Colin Heath. I will try to relate my remarks to the contents of the President's message to Congress on February 12, 1980, which announced the specific thrust of the Administration program on nuclear waste management.

.~

-' In line with the principal int.erests of this Commission, I will emphasize some of the institutional issues which are intagral to the orderly development and effective impic:nentation of a National nuclear waste management plan and supporting programs.

We feel that significant progress in this area has been achieved. The President's policy statement announced the Nation's first comprehensive program for radioactive waste management. Se program is the outgrowth of the broad concensus that evolved from the earlier efforts of the Interagency Review Group on Radioactive Waste Management (IRG). Its objective of ensuring the safe storage and disposal of all forms of nuclear waste will be achieved through a strategy that is safe, technically sound, conservative and open to centinuous public review. Se programs designed to implement the strategy are either already part of our ongoing programs or are reflected in DOE's FY 1981 budget request.

F .

~

y oez'r0 0N

. /

The key elements of the President's policy are:

o he establishment of a State Planning Council will provide for a framework, along with other erasures, fer State involvement in the waste management planning process. De basis of the relationship between States and the Federal government in the siting of high level waste repositories will be the principle of consultation and concurrence. DOE will provide financial and technical assistance to State and local governments to facilitate their full participation.

~

o DOE will locate and characterize a number of candidate sites in a variety of geologic media for mined repositories capable of accepting both vaste from reprocessing and unreprocessed commercial spent fuel. Af ter full environmental review under NEPA, one or more will be selected from a set of four to five sites as a licensed full scale repository.

~~ o Consistent with this policy, the President is recommending that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) project be cancelled as en unlicensed facility for the disposal of transuranic waste from the defense program. De site will be considered along with others for possible use as a licensed repository for both defense wastes and commercial high level wastes.

o Interim storage of defense waste will continue to be closely controlled by the Federal Government while plans for ultimate disposal in a permanent repository are developed. Se safe interis storage o# commercial spent fuel from nuclear power reactors will continue to be the responsibility of the utilities operating these plants tmtil a permanent geologic repository capability exists. However, the Administration erill continue to press for legislation to build or aquire limited spent fuel storage capacity at one or more away-from reactor (AFR) facilities for those utilities unable to expand their storage, capbilities and for limited amounts j

of foreign spent fuel when the objectives of the U.S. nonproliferation policy I

would be furthered.

l I

. Y

_3 o DOE will work closely with States, other government agencies, industry, other organisations and the public to establish regional disposal sites for commercial low level waste.

.o Regulatory reforma in several areas are called for. D e Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Trans-portation are directed to take specific actions that will improve both the efficiency of their regulatory activities and their relationships with other Federal agencies and State and local governments.

he President's interim vaste disposal strategy offers three important advantages:

1) It provides maximum redundancy in conservatism so that no single or small number of set backs would undermine the entire program, or even cause great delay.

2) Sites can be selected by comparing several locations among themselve, thus providing great.3r confidence that the wastes will be disposed of safely.

3) Time will be available to put in place a good scientific program to build procedures for licensing, public review and interaction; and to establish l

decisionmaking processes with State and local governments. l Finally, the statement calls for the preparation of a National Plan for Nuclear Waste Management guided by these policy decisions and other recommendations of the IRC. A draf t of the Plan will be published for Congressional and public review later this year.

i 9l

- , - -  ; -n -

l

. .i Many of the these program and policy elements require further comment. You will recall that it was concern about institutional issues that prompted the Interagency Review j Group (IRG) to propose the creation of a " State Planning Council" to provide State participation in the development of the National Nuclear Waste Management Plan, identify regional interests, and facilitate regional siting decisions. B is Council would preserve for the individual States those rights and prerogatives which are ,

1 unique ':a them while providing invaluable assistance in finding workable solutions to the critical problem of waste management.

In addition. the President has endorsed the IRG recom:nendation that host States be involved in the decisionmaking concerning the establishment of a repository or storage facility within its boundaries through a process of consultation and coccurrence. Under this process, we believe that a State should be able to concur 1

on substantive and definable issues. Periodic reviews, with State participation in l the definition of continuing phases of work, would occur when new data and information could support meaningful discourse or, generally, as often as a particular State may wish. It is preferable that this process start in the earliest phases of the siting studies and continue through decommissioning. Se goal of the Administration is to provide a stable environment for decisionmaking that is sensitive to the concerns of the States. His requires avoidance of both a formal State veto, on the one hand, and Federal fiat, on the other. States will require Federal-funded, but independent, expertise to provide meaningful review and input to the Federal program. Be need for Federal support will vary according to the amount of existing State supported work and the degree of interest in a particular site. Funds for this purpose are included in the DOE FY 1981 budget and vill be allocated in response to proposals on the basis of need.

O

With respect to low-level wastes, development of waste treatment technology will continue in FY 1981, leading to the completion of a demonstration program in FY 1985.

The development of promising alternatives to shallow land burial will also continue in FY 1981. We will collect low-level waste data on a State-by-State basis, assist I

the States in developing plans for their wastes, and conduct joint technology i demonstrations and other activities to complement or support state initiatives in the management of commercially generated low-level wate.

The DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Program supports the Administration's policy objective of ensuring that spent fuel is stored at reactor sites to the greatest extent possible.

As outlined in the President's recent waste management policy statement, the l Administration believes that a limited amount of government away-from-reactor (AFR) storage should be provided for those utilities that, ire unable to find other storage;

~~

however, commercial utilities will continue to bear the primary responsibility for the storage of spent fuel. In addition, the spent fuel program supports U.S.

nonproliferation objectives.

As you know, the Department and the Administration have submitted a legislative proposal which would authorize the Secretary to accept and take title to commercial spent fuel and to acquire facilities for the storage of that spent fuel in AFR storage facilities.

Based upon utility plans as of June 1979, the requirement for AFR capacity will increase to between 240 metric tonnes (with transshipment) and 620 metric tonnes (without transshipment) by 1983. These requirements asstane NRC approval of utility raracking plans beyond those currently approved. If new reracking approvals are not granted, the AFR requirement for 1983 could increase to 1,140 metric tonnes even with transshipment. If all utilities reracked their basins to the theoretical maximum storage density (which may not be possible due to structural limitations or operating constraints), the AFR requirement in 1983 would still range between 170 metric tonnes (with transshipment) and 380 metric tonnes (without transshipment) .

l l

(

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

l i

Although DOE believes that transshipment is safe, the regulatory and institutional climate has resulted in delays for the utilities in obtaining approval from NRC. For example, Duka Power has been seeking approval to transship fuel between two of its

. reactors for almost two years. Although the construction of new pools at all i reactors requiring additional storage capacity could eventually reduce this requirenant, once these new pools are licensed, built and available, DOE analysis indicates that such individual pools would be inefficient and result in higher cost l l

and greater environmental impact than several AFR's which could meet the needs of all reactors. Therefore, the option of interin storage in Government AFR's is a prudent action and should be provided.

DOE has recently completed a study of reracking, at-reactor (AR) and away-from-reactor  !

( AFR) storage which concluded that reracking by utilities is by f ar the least expensive

($16/kg unit storage cost) and most preferred approach in increasing storage capacity.

If new construction is required, AFR's are less expensive ($130/kg anit storage cost) than new AR basins at one to three 1000 MWe unit sites ($320 to $137/kg unit cost) .

1 The proposed FY 1981 budget assumes that either borrowing authority or revenues from spent fuel charges will be available to cover the acquisition and operating expenses of storage facilities. A business office will establish and collect a charge for storage and disposal services, which will permit full recovery of the Government's expenditures.

The principle that will be applied to financing the cost of nuclear waste management and

• disposal is that the cost should be paid by the generator of the waste and borne by the beneficiary of the activity generating the waste. Utilities will pay the cest of storage and disposal of vaste from pcuer plant operations and pass these costs on 4 to their customers. The Government will pay the cost of storage and disposal of wastes from defense and Government R&D activities and finance it from tax revenues. i l

4

, n - - - - - - -

, , - - , - , - - - . . . , ...r.- ----

. .i

• A clear near term need exists for some AFR storage. If Congress provides DOE with the authority, we plan to provide a limited amount of storage capability. This

cautious approach represents sound management of the Nation's electrical generating capacity and is, at the same time, cost effective. We have urged the Congress to provide us with the authority and funding to permit us to support this vital part of the U.S. nuclear waste management effort.

The Terminal Isolation program is based on the IRG recommendation that disposal facilities for radioactive vaste should be in deep geologic formations if suitable sites can be found. A draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) was issued in 1979 which evaluates and compares the environmental impacts of the alternative disposal techniques. The evaluation supports a continued emphasis on deep geologic disposal. As a potential backup, subseabed disposal investigations will be funded at a level sufficient to provide a technical and euvironmental i

feasibility report by the end of 1983.

I Under the terminal isolation program the necessary research and development to

identify sites for repositories and to develop technology necessary for the design, licensing, and operation of a geologic repository will be conducted. The repository will be designed to accept commercial spent fuel, solidified high-level waste including

. defense waste, and transuranic wastes.

The President has decided to delay selection of the initial disposal site until several alternative sites have been fully investigated and compared. Detailed studies of specific, potential repository sites will be continued in several geologic environaments with additional emphasis on rock media other than salt. The program will develop a nsasber of fully-characterized sites from which one or more can be chosen as the basis for application to NRC for construction authorizaion.

l .

i

(

...J Program strategy is to proceed with a three-stage process of regional, area, and site specific investigations, each stage narrows the focus and increases the depth of information about each location to the point where specific sites can be chosen or rej ected.

The site characterization effort will include studies of salt formations including salt domes and bedded salt. The interior Gulf Coast domes (Mississippi, Iouisiana, and Texas) are of interest, as are portions of the Permian (Texas), Paradox (Utah) and Salina (Michigan, Ohio, and New York) bedded salt basins. An expansion of this activity

! into several new states to explore potential sites in non-salt geologies is soon to get underway and this activity will increase in FY 1981.

We are also continuing our evaluation of the potential of deep basalt flows below the Hanford Site in the State of Washington and the suitability of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in southern Nevada which is our center for testing nuclear weapons.

The Administration has decided that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Project near Carlsbad, New Mexico, should be cancelled and that transuranic defense wastes previously intended for disposal at WIPP should be placed instead in the first commercial waste repository. The Carlsbad site should continue to be investigated and set aside as one of the possible alternative sites for the repository.

In-situ geologic media tests will continue in FY 1981 to provide valuable data for repository development and design. In-situ thermal tests using electrical heaters will continue in salt at Avery Island, Louisiana, in granite at Stripa, Sweden, and in basalt at the Near Surface Test Facility (NSTF) at Hanford. Construction will be completed in FY 1981 at NSTF for a demonstration test involving encapsulated spent fuel and high-level waste. Operation of the Climax Spent Fuel Test Facility to s .

c. .

o determine the behavior of granite with spent fuel will continue in FY 1981. Also, preparation for radioactive in-situ tests at a Salt Test Facility will be in progress.

It should emphasize that none of the locations for these tests involving radioactive material are considered as a permanent disposal location.

This completes my review of individual elements of the DOE nuclear waste program.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will be happy to answer questions from the Commission.

t e

a 9

e.

9 8

ENCLOSURE 8 4 gn SEN ATOR JOHN CAR 20LL cYZNT,. CdhdirmaR ,=

g#

A DELEG ATE LUCILLS M AURER. C#=CAdiMGR Delegasu: L '

Senaton:

~

ToMM E oRoADWATER. JR. SERT SOOTH h elDNEY KRAMER THOMAS 3. CUMISN EY v .+ . . q*

CLARENCE M. MITCNELL. lli R. CLAYTON MITCHELL. JR.

JUUAN L. LAPIDES PR ANCIS W. WHITE as otticia: sz otticios: MARYLAND COMMISSION ON J A M E S CLAN d. JR. SENJAMIN L. CARDEN RosAuE e. AsR AMs DONALD B.RosERTSON INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION EDWARD A MASON RAYMOND L SECE Pruident. MARTLAND Assoc ATICM OF COUNTIES 90 STATE CIRCLE. LEGISLATIVE SERVICES BUILDING Preridens. MARTLAND MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 Stash DAvtD s. IANNUCC Prepared by: James Easter JAMES N. EASTER Legislative Analyst 269-2465 May 29, 1980 Background Information regarding Nuclear Waste Hearing scheduled for June 3 and June 17, 1980 The State Planning Council of Radioactive Waste Management President Carter established the State Planning Council on radio-active waste management. The date is on February 12, 1980. The program of the State Planning Council is based on the report of the interagency review group on Nuclear Waste Management published in March, 1979.

The President stressed that all levels of government share the respon-sibility for safe management and disposal of nuclear waste. In order to provide a more effective role for State and local governments the President has created a State Planning Council of elected State, local, and tribal officials and heads of cabinet departments and other federal agencies. The Council will advise the Executive Branch and work with Congress on key radioactive waste management and disposal issues, especially  ;

related institutional de-isions. The basis of the relationship between States and the Federal government in the siting of high level waste repositories will be the principle of consultation and concurrence.

2 .

m

Page Two May 29, 1980 Immediate attention will focus on locating and characterizing a number of potential repository sites in a variety of different geologic environ-ments with diverse rock types. When four to five sites have been evaluated and found suitable for a repository, one or more will be selected for further development as a licensed, full-scale repository. The site for the first full-scale repository should be selected by about 1985 and it should be operational by the mid-1990's.

The safe interim storage of commercial spent fuel from nuclear power reactors will continue to be the responsibility of the utilities operating these plants until a permanent geologic repository capability exists. However, the Carter Administration will continue to press for legislation to build

\

or acquire limited spent fuel storage at one or more away-from-reactor facilities for those utilities unable to expand their storage capabilities and for limited amounts of foreign spent fuel when the objective of the U.S. nonproliferation policy would be furthered.

The Administration will submit legislation to extend Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing authority to cover all DOE facilities for transuranic waste disposal and any new DOE sites for disposal of commercial low level waste. Under existing law, NRC has licensing authority over DOE facilities for disposal of high level radioactive wastes.

=A

Page Three May 29, 1980 Actions taken by DOE to implement this strategy Regional, area and site investigations are being planned on a national basis to identify suitable high level waste repository sites.

Three test facilities are planned: a granite facility in Nevada, a basalt facility in Washington State, and a salt facility at a site yet to be chosen.

Low Level Waste Three commercial burial grounds -- Barnwell, South Carolina, Richland, Washington and Nevada -- are currently available to receive low level wastes originating in non-governmental industrial, medical and commercial activities.

These have been operating internittently because of inadequacies in waste packaging and shipment. Pressures have been mounting to find additional disposal sites to provide needed capacity for an ever-increasing inventory of commercial low level wastes.

The Department of Energy will work with the States to assist in their activities to establish regional disposal sites for low level wastes from the Nation's hospitals, research institutions, industry, and utilities.

Until such time as additional disposal facilities can be sited and licensed, DOE and NRC will assist States in setting up interim storage facilities within the States. The State Planning Council will give low level waste management early, priority attention.

N e

I _ . . _ _ _

,_m Page Four l May 29, 1980 Transportation Safe and reliable transportation of nuclear wastes is an essential component of the total waste management system. While complete assurance that release of radioactive material will not occur during normal operation or in serious accidents is impossible, it has been demonstrated that it is unlikely that a significant release can occur under most credible accident environments.

To improve the existing transportation system and enhance public

' confidence in it, the following actions are being taken:

o DOE is pursuing a program for testing and evaluating the performance of current and future generation vaste packaging systems.

o The Department of Transportation is being directed to increcee its management attention to nuclear waste matters and is completing its rulemaking on the role of Federal and local government bodies in routing of nuclear waste transportation

- along highways.

o DOT and NRC are working closely with the States to strengthen the nation's overall capability to respond to any transportation emergencies involving shipment of radioactive wastes.

> o DOT will develop a data bank on shipment statistics and accident experience to be operational by 1982.

l  :-- _

l .

l

Page Five May 29, 1980 Financing The principle that will be applied to financing the cost of nuclear waste management and disposal is that the cost should be payed by the generator of the waste and borne by the beneficiary of the activity generating the waste. Utilities will pay the cost of storage and disposal of waste from power plant operations and pass these costs on to their customers. The government will pay the cost of storage and disposal of wastes from defense and government research and development activities and finance it from tax revenues.

Federal Regulatory Actions 1

The Federal programs for regulating radioactive waste storage, trans-portation, and disposal are a crucial component of our efforts to ensure the health and safety. The following improvements are needed in the regulation of radioactive waste disposal:

o The current authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the disposal of high level waste and low level waste in commercial facilities should be extended to also include the storage of spent fuel, as well as disposal of transuranic waste and non-defense low level waste in any new government facilities that might be built.

e.

e

Page Six May 29, 1980 o The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for creating general criteria and numerical standards applicable to nuclear waste management activities. The President has directed EPA to accelerate its schedule for the preparation of these criteria and standards and to prepare a position paper that will indicate EPA's approach to setting standards and address the relationship between EPA's standards and actions taken by NRC and DOE.

o EPA and NRC will complete a Memorandum of Understanding dealing with coordinating methodologies and procedures.

o The Department of Transportation is responsible for regulating the transport of radioactive wastes, in part sharing that

/

( responsibility with NRC. The coordination between the two f

agencies is provided by an existing Memorandum of Understanding between them. (DOT is completing its rulemaking on the role of Federal and local government bedic . in routing of nuclear waste transportation along highways.)

o The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now commencing a formal proceeding to determine whether or not it has confidence that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power reactors can and will be disposed of safely. The President has urged the NRC to conduct this proceeding in a timely and thorough manner and

- to provide full opportunity for public, technical and government agency participation.

l I

e

{

l ,

5 U.S. Nuclear Waste Inventory and Forecast.

Current ( Aoril 1979) Annual Addition Year 2000 00E Commercial 00E Commercial 00E Connercial Disposed of (By volume--thousand cubic meters):

3

. Low Level Waste 1,470 515M 53 100 '2500-68002800-7800./

Transuranic Wasta 256 y 0 0 uncertain y Stored (By volume--thousand cubic meters): .

High Level Waste (Including spent fuel) 283 4.3 3 .6 320 40 Transuranic Waste 55 0 6 .3 250-3350E 6 Uranium Mill Tailings:

Inactin sites (25)W 25 0 0 0 25 6 Active sites 0 125 0 15 0 425 Stored (By radioactivity-level--curies) i High Level Waste (Including spent g y 7 3f6 9 E fue1) 10 4x10 5/ ~6x10 10 '10 10 Transuranic Waste Low N/A low N/A Low N/A Uranium tiill Tailings:

Inactive i sites 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 0 I Active sites 0 ~56,000 0 6,800 0 '191,000 y As of 1/1/78.

y Volume not available. Contains ~125 kg TRU material at commercial disposal sites.

3] Range results from possible options on D&D of surplus facilities with waste quantity dependent upon mode of D&D for each facility.

4] Millions of Tons-Stabilization programs for inactive sites required by Uranium Mill Tailings Act of 1978.

Sj Equilibrjum exists. Annual additions equivalent to annual decay rate of '2x10' Cf. .

y Primarily spent fuel. Activity varies with age of material. Assumes -

average age of 10 years for additions and cumulative inventory.

Activity 'a 10 years = 1.05 x 10' C1/MThN.

l .-.

O MARYLAND COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION DEFINITION OF TYPES OF WASTES Nuclear wastes are produced in many different forms by a variety of activities including research investigations, medical, diagnostics and treatment, mining and processing of uranium ore, defense-related nuclear activities and operation of commercial nuclear power plants. These wastes exist as gases, liquids and solids.

The potential hazard of these wastes results from the fact that exposure to and/or uptake of the material can cause b_iological damage.

The major types of nuclear wastes are:

1. High Level Wastes - These wastes are either fuel assemblies that are discarded after having served their useful life in a nuclear reactor (spent fuel) or the portion of the wastes generated in the reprocessing that contain virtually all of the fission products and most of the actinides not separated out during reprocessing. These wastes are being considered for disposal in geologic repositories or by other technical options designed to provide long-term isolation of the wastes from the biosphere.

2. Transuranic Wastes - These wastes are produced primarily from the reprocessing of defense spent reactor fuels, the fabrication of plutonium to produce nuclear weapons and, if it should occur, plutonium fuel fabrication for use in nuclear power reactors. Transuranic wastes contain low levels of radio-activity but varying amounts of long-lived elements above uranium in the Periodic Table of Elements, mainly plutonium. This waste is currently defined as material containing more than 10 nano Curies of transuranic activity per gram of material.

3. Low level Wastes - These wastes contain less than ten nano Curies of trans-uranic contaminants per gram of material, or they may be free of transuranic contaminants. Although these wastes require little or no shielding, they have low, but potentially hazardous, concentration of quantities of radionuclides and do require management. Low level wastes are generated in almost all activities involving radioactive materials and are presently being disposed of by shallow land burial.

4. Uranium Mine and Mill Tailings - These wastes are the residues from uranium I mining and milling operations. They are hazardous because they contain low  ;

concentrations of radioactive materials which, although naturally occurring, I

. contain long-lived radionuclides. The tailings, with a consistency similar l to sand, are generated in large volumes--about 10 to 15 million tons annually l

--and are presently stored in waste piles at the site of mining and milling operations. A program is underway to either immobilize or bury these wastes to prevent them from being dispersed by _ wind or water erosion. ,

5. Decontamination and Decommissioning Wastes - As defense and civilian reactors and other nuclear facilities reach the end of their productive lifetimes, parts of them will have to be handled as either high or low level wastes, and disposed of accordingly. Decontamination and decommissioning activities I will generate significant quantities of wastes in the future.

MARYLAND COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMe:NTAL COOPERATION DEFINITION OF TYPES OF WASTES Page two

6. Gaseous Effluents - These wastes are produced in many defense and commercial nuclear activities, such as reactors, fuel fabrication facilities, uranium enrichment plants and weapons manufacturing facilities. They are released into the biosphere in a controlled manper, after passing through successive stages of filtration, and mixed with the atmosphere where they are diluted

.and dispersed.

, .:-~ -

1 I

l l

6

.TNTRRCOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE MANAG2 MENT AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE MATERIALS IN MARYLAND LEGAL ISSUES Maryland is an Agreement State In 1970, Maryland entered into a " Turn-Over Agreement",

taking advantage of Section 274 of the U. S. Atomic Energy Act.

This was enacted in 1959 to recogi.? 2 the States' interest in nuclear activities, to clarify the respective responsibilities of the States and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) under the Act, and to provide a statutory means by which the AEC could relinquish to the States part of its regulatory authority, i.e.,

authority with respect to source material, by produce material, and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.

The Euclear Regulatory Commission, under the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, licenses all high-level waste disposal facilities in Non-Agreement States. Maryland, as an Agreement State, may license a low-level waste site, consistent with NRC regulations.

The NRC has provided for State participation in licensing of both high-level and low-level waste disposal sites.

ISSUE OF FEDERAL PREEMPTIOM The Attorney General of Maryland issued an opinion with regard to nuclear waste storage and disposal in Maryland in response to an inquiry from Delegate Winegrad, dated February 21, 1980.

L 9

l In the letter, the Attorney General summarized the current rulings on the states' role in nuclear waste management and disposal as follows:

"1. Maryland cannot regulate special nuclear materials in quantities that are sufficient to form a critical i mass.... spent fuel rods fall in this category and t thus are outside Maryland's jurisdiction, whether at Calvertfacility.

disposal Cliffs or in a separate storage or 42 U.S.C. 82021(b) (4).

2. Maryland cannot regulate the construction and opera-tion of any production or utilization facility.

42 U.S.C. S2021(c) (1). (This includes nuclear t

electric generating stations, such as Calvert Cliffs, ,

and would cover a reprocessing or recovery plant). i l

3. Maryland cannot regulate the export or import of nuclear 82021(c) materials or their disuosal at sea. 42 U.S.C.

(2) & (3).

~

4 Maryland can regulate the disposal of nuclear material (other than at sea), if the NRC does not require a disposal license due to the hazards involved. 42 U.S.C.

52021(c) (4). (Present federal regulations require a license for any handling of special nuclear material, regardless of potential for a critical mass. 10 C.F.R. Part 70.) In addition, federal regulations have been proposed for licensing disrosal of "hinh-level radio-activ'e wastes" at geologic repositories. 44' Federal

~

Register 70408 (December 6, 1979) (to be codified in 10 U.F.R. Part 60).

5.

Maryland can regulate temporary storage of radioactive waste if no " critical mass" special' nuclear material is involved and if the storage is not related to the construction tion facility.

and operation of a production or utiliza- 1 Temporary storage has become an unwelcome fact of of life due disposal- to our failure of radioactive waste.to devise safe methods health and safety matter for the states Thisand is aan serious area clearly encomnassed by Maryland's Turn-Over Agreement.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NCR") has proposed regulations to license spent fuel storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation ("ISFSI"), i 43 Federal Register 46309 (O'c tober 6,1978) ~(to be~

codified in 10 C.F.R. Part 72)." Cite as: Opinion No. l 80-021 (February 21, 1980) to be published as'65  !

Opinions of the Attorney General---(1980) . "

l i

l

6 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ni . m i:

• / o /

Antwun c.LuNOVAM dn. May 20, 1980 wce p.u.oc-,

s,.o Mr. James H. Easter Maryland Commission on intergovernmental Cooperation 90 State Circle Legislative Services Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Easter:

This is in response to questions posed with your letter of April 28, 1980 to Mr. Carlton Clark.

1.

Baltimore Gas and Electric ships its low-level solid waste to the Barnwell, South Carolina site operated by the Chem Nuclear C)rporation.

2. Relative to volumes of low-level waste, Baltimore Gas and Electric ; hips approximately 1,000 cubic feet per month to This volume may vary from 200 cubic the Barnwell site.

feet to 2,000 cubic feet per month.

3. Regarding the storage capacity for spent fuel, we are in the process of installing replacement racks to permit higher density fuel storage. Upon completion of this installation, the plant will have the capacity to store fuel int, the early 1990's. Beyond that we have plans under study which, if proven acceptable, could provide storage in the existing spent fuel pool beyond the year 2000.

4. We have c articipated fully with the Maryland Civil Defense and Disaster Preparedness Agency and numerous other state and local agencies in the preparation of the Maryland Disaster Assistance Plan, Annex Q Radiological Emergency Response Plan and Appendix 1 to Annex Q covering the These documents have Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.

been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for their review.

We are currently working with the state and local agencies to develop their implementing procedures

"~ in accordance_ _

with the plan.

Il

Mr. James H. Easter May 20, 1980 ..3

've u s. g. , 6 sua6 i 1. i o .,g.g,.,s I on i t y a <, awe t wf tis you and discuss o e, s . r o * .. I s.on .,*.* I s t- l o f a r Ho !. H. l'*ilialo f f * * , 11 *

• l' r s s- ! *:e n * *a f

~

I:ny.ini Ing and Cone.truction, or I will be with you during the meeti..gs scheduled ter June 3 and June 17, 1980.

Yours verv ruly, i

mAj I

1 I

i J

i e

4 e

M n:

6 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTR ATION P.O. BOX 13387 201 WEST PREsToN STREET CMAmLgs a S uCK. J... Sc.O.

SALTIMoRE M ARYLAND 21203 mon s . soi-is s- 3123

.....u..

May 21, 1980 Mr. James H. Easter Legislative Analyst Maryland Commission on Intergovertamental Cooperation 90 State circle Legislative Services Building Annapolis, Maryland 2%01

Dear Mr. Easter:

The following is in response to your letters of April 28, 1980 addressed to Mr. Robert Corcoran and myself. This is also in follow-up to our phone conversation of May 14, 1980. ,

First let me say that I would be happy to participate in the Commission hearing on the intergovernmental aspects of nuclear waste management and disposal scheduled for June 17, 1980. If you will recall, I will be unable to participate on June 3,1980 due to cbs fact that I will be at a State Planning Council meeting on Radioactive Waste Management being held in Columbia, South Carolina. If you still wish me to participate on June 17, 1980 I will be happy to do so and will have appropriate staff with me to respond to the questions presented to noch Mr. Corcoran aM myself.

Following are general answers to your questions. Certainly we will expand upon these answers when and if we testify before the Commission.

The answers to the questions addressed to myself are as follows:

What are the issues raised by the shippinC of radioactive waste 1.

through the State of Maryland?

? .

l

4 e

M,. t... n, aset at Page 2 As I see them, the issues deal with the quantity and types of radioactive material in transport, the traffic pattern and frequency of these shipments, how shipments adhere to the packaging requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the potential exposure to the employee and public as a result of chase shipments. All of this is being addressed in our " Proposal for a Transportation Program in the State of Maryland", to che Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a funding grant through DOT.

2. What are the concerns of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene with respect to existing Federal regulations?

The Department shares the same concerns with other states regarding the new Der transportation of hazardous materials, Rule 164 The two major issues are the State's role under possible Federal preemption when considering the " inconsistencies" section which is presently vaguely defined, and secondly, the 3' pros and cons of prenotification versus general categories of compliance. The real issue in general categories of compliance is the question of the Dar's ability to frequently inspect and evaluate against the implementation of the general criteria.

The response to the questions asked of Mr. Corcoran are sa follows:

1. What is the current volume of low-level wastes generated in Maryland?

See Table 1 which is highlighted in pink.

2. Who are the producers of these materials?

See Table 1 which is highlighted in yellow.

3. What types of low-level radioactive waste is Maryland equipped to handle?

a. That radioactive waste that is decayed to background level, followed by disposal as ordinary refuse.

b. Disposal into sanitary sewerage system.

Grosa quantity of radioactive material released into sewerage system by any licensee not to exceed one curie per year. --

3-

j . .

l Mr. James H. Easter Page 3 1 l i

Excreta from humans undergoing medical diagnosis '

or therapy exempted from any limitation.

4. Where does Maryland ship its low-level waste?

To one of these three licensed burial sites:

a. Barnwell, South Carolina

b. Richland, Washington

c. Beatty, Nevada

5. What will result if these storage facilities refuse to accept low-level radioactive vaste from producers in Maryland?

Obviously, this is a key question and requires considerable discussion. There are several options, of course, but there is no easy solution. One option would be to eliminate the generation of radioactive waste, thereby discontinuing those industries which produce it. Another option would be to establish temporary or interin waste storage facilities either l in individual states or through regional compacts until permanent disposal sites could be found. The third option would be to establish a per:nanent disposal site under the same conditions as listed above. In considering the second and third optiont.,

one would certainly have to address all disposal options such aan incineration, storage awaiting decay, land disposal, etc.

This, of course, is one of the major issues being addressed by the State Planning Council on Radioactive Wasta Management because obviously these are of national concern as well as local Concern.

As I have indicated, the answers to these questions are general, and I will be looking forward to an open discussion in these areas if I have an option to appear before the Commission. Please advise me if June 17 is an acceptable time and I will proceed accordingly.

Sincerely yours, Jr L Ronald Nelson, Administrator C - ity Baalth Programa 7

RN:ja -

Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert E. Corcoran 1

l linRM)

I/M l.kYti. Mut4nstyg wAgygg gygpggy y m,g k'Iflllr W/kb6 FWM Kh571ANG LW 1976

'5 W $1. 7 e.

8 drum Est. cost pegulated l o

by I Source M@= _

= equivalent per drum Est. Cost 92 32,655 4,443 N/A (Unknown)

• h Crxanercial Power Reactor (Calvert Cliffs) '

USNRC - - - -~

. U.S. Gov't. & Military (none 9,711 1,321 $180 $237,78 Industrial 27 Institutional 39 h 13,808 1,878

$195 366,23

• (Med. Facil. & Univer.)

• M_

7,642 $604,01db I f1978 TOTAL MN N/A TABLE 2 3 INSTITUTIONAL LOW-LEVEL RADWASTES SHIPPED TO COMMERCIAL ,

BURIAL GROUNDS FROM MARYLAUD IN 1978 ,

55-gal.@

a drum Est. costg Waste Form a a ft = equivalent per drum Est. Cost Biolg ical 33 1,165 159 $340 5 54,060 Dry Trash 16 h 5,686 773 180 139,140 i solidified & Absorbed Liquids 2 918 125 210 25,250 scintillation Vials 171 6,039 821 180 147,780 I .

1978 TOTAL

~

391 13,808 1,878 3195 b S366,230

• 1979 421 2,022 (S394,290)

• 1980 451 2,166 ( 422,370) :

EstimatedTotalfor@*1981 482 2,315 ( 451,425) -

Future Years (Institu-l 1982 512 2,459 ( 479,505) -

tional Radwastes Only)

• 1983 542 -- 2,604 '

( 507,780)

• 1984 572 2,748 ( 535,860)

[

• 1985 603 2,894 ( 564,330) l i

J

. TABLE NOTES i

j @ Volumes in a from NUS Corporation report NUS-3440, August 1979.

@ "55-gal. drum equivalent" is the number of 55-gallon drums that would have been used if the volume of waste generated had been shipped exclusively in such drums. This

" unit" was used since a very large majority of radwastes generated are shipped (and buried) in this type of container.

, @ Includes only " low-level" radwaste and does not include reactor fuel elements.

Data compiled by NUS Corp. based on summary of semi-annual reports for 1978 submitted to the USNBC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(a) and USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.21, and on NUS Report No. ONWI-20/NUS-3314, March 1979.

@ This is the volwne reported in NUS-3449, August 1979 by NUS Corporation. No basis is given in that report for this estimate; forother states listed in the report, the estimates of U.S. Government and Military radwestes are based on the USDOE Solid Waste Information Management Systems Report for FY 1978. This value ("none") is definitely wrong since REW's, National Institutes of Bealth in Rockville, Maryland is "

known to be one of the largest producers of low-level radwastes shipped to burial 2 grounds. Other U.S. facilities in Maryland are also known to be shipping radwastes -

to commercial burial grounds, but no record or estimate of the volume is presently -

available.

@ Since no survey data is available on the producers of radioactive wastes from non-nuclear fuel-cycle industrial sources, this value was Lor =J.:4 by difference, and the difference apportioned to the states on ratio of state popuu.lon to total U.S. population. (That is, Md = (T-CPR - U.S. Gov 8 t - INf) x (Md. pop./U.S. pop) , .

where Md. = volume of Maryland Industrial radwastest T

• total volume of radwastes received at commercial burial groundes CPR, U.S. Gov't. and INS = volume of radwastes shipped to commercial burial groundt vf commerciaJ fower Reactors, U.S. Gov't. &

Military Agencies, and Institutional sources rersectivehr Md. pop. and U.S. pop. =

the Maryland and U.S. populations respectively for 1978.~ nis figure is probably higher than the amount of radwestas actually generated by Maryland's Industrial licensees. The main reason fot suspecting this is thst Maryland has no n:ajor .

radioactive satorial manufacturer, processor, or distrixiter who produces large ]

volumes of waste.

@ Based on $180 per drum. See @ below for explanation.

@ Estimate for 1978 by NUS Corporation based on NUREG/CR 0028 and NUREG/CR-1137 '

which are studies conducted by the Radiation Safety Office of the University of Maryland at Baltimore for the U.S. NRC. The volume ge ereted by this group was distributed to Maryland (and other states) based on thr: state-by-state distribution '

of educational institutions medical schools, and hospitais as reported in the USHEW Education Directory, the AMA Journal, and frem iaformation supplied by the USHEW National Center for Health Statistics. This rabaste is further catago;ized -

in Table 2.

8

-k. j i

~ +

l l

t 1

l

! @ See 1978 Total Cost for Institutions in Table 2.

' @ Represents the cost to !!aryland's licensees. (as Table 1 shows, the costs to USNRC licensees are unknown.)

! @ See the introduction for a description The volumeofofeach " Source" radweste in Table generated 1, and by the each

" Institutional" l

" Waste Form" in Table 2.

' group reported in Table 1 is further broken down into its various forms based on the studies done by the Univershty of Maryland at Baltimore (see note @ above).

@ Estimated average cost to licensees based on the cost for pick-up by a licensed

' ccamercial radweste handler, and the costs for containers (drums), liners, absorbants, preservatives, and shielding. This estimate does not include licensees' personnel costs to supervise and/or perform the packaging of the radwaste. Also, this is the cost to the users of the radioactive material and ~

gt, the ccat to radwaste disposal firms (which, of course, must be lower than .

what they charge their customers if they are to remain in business).

@ NUREG/CR-1137 reports on page 58 that, " data suggest that at least part of the

! dry solid wastes include empty scintillation vials," and that, "diquid-scintillationJ

' fluids constitute an estimated 50% of absorbed liquids in addition to that shipped within vials."

@ Weight-average cost, per drum for 1978 estimates. This figure may be used to estimate total cost in future year by multiplying $195 by the number of 55 gallon drums needed j to contain the volume. estimates for future years. However, see the cautions in, notes

@ and @ , below.

.@ Breaking down the projected yearly estimates into categories cannot be reasonably accomplished. Over the period 1975-1977, the total institutional radwastes volume increased 214; however, the volume of liqJid-scintillation radwastes increased 60% during the same two-year period. Although the total of all categories'can be reasonably estimated, the volume in each category cannot be estimated based on the  :

l information presently available. As note @ indicates, scintillation vials and fluids may be reported in other categories depending on how the waste was handled and packaged.

- @ Based on data collected and reported in NUREC/CR-1137 for years 1972-1977 which shows a linear increase by year for the totd volume of Institutional radwastes shipped to c y rcial burial grounds. The equation to extrapolate the estimated total volume (in m ) of Institutional raasastw generated in Maryland for any given year is: Volume Yg) =

db.217 x (year - 1900F-1965.94. .

The costs in parentheses are detcrained by multiplying the 1978 weighted-average

@ cost per drum times the number of drums that would be needed to contain the estimated

• volume that will be ge6erated in future years. This is done for the convenience of the reader but these oosts should not be considered as reasonable estimates. As

~

noted in h and @ the same types of material may be packaged in different manners and the total cost would change because the associated costs per drum for each

' Waste Form

• are different. . Also, current di.eposal problems are resulting in almost continuous price increases: costs per unit tolume have increased at the burial sites; -

changes have been required in the methods of packaging previously used; and adminis- j k trative costs have increased because of new, require documentation that must acccmpan i each shipment to the burial sites. And then, there is inflation, which is not calculates!

in the estimates. 4

_ ,, .g. - - - , , ,

STAT 2 OF M ARTLANO foY%

• / 1 RWA

" O L L l9 H i t4 L f J I (J t 7[,* . *F"/"'**

p'J suc S a r t ' d A N D O o st #I ? '"f A l

g LOmm M ou66, MARYLANo os .ve, .s c .. t.s.

Mammy MuGMgs oave. 9 CIVIL oEFENSE ANo *******'**'"

olS ASTER PREPAREoNESs AGENCY cronog u emocus minESviLLE 212cu o,.gg,o. ,,c.... o es sc

..c...... amEA CODE 30%486 4422 ... .......

.weg ..,g e, s.o e....c,..........u. .,........... ....c, May 22, 1980 Mr. James H. Easter Legislative Analyst Maryland Cossaission on Intergovernmental Coot:eration 90 State Circle, Legislative Services Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Easter:

This is in response to your letter of April 28, 1980, concerning your Connission's hearings on June 3 and 17, 1980. As requested, attached are answers to the questions posed by the Ccamission. I look forward to testifying at the aforementioned hearings.

Sincerely, GE . BROCKS Director GMB:JKO'B amj

Enclosure:

a/s cca Mr. Robert E. Corcoran, Chief Division of Radiation Control Department of Health and Mental Hygiene O

a

RrSPONSE TO CUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO GENERAL $EORGE M. BROOKS

1. "Ifl THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR EMERGENCY AT CALVERT CLIFFS POWER PLANT, WHAT PROCEDURE WOULD BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY?"

IF AN INCIDENT WERE TO OCCUR AT THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, THE FOLLOWING STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RADIO-LOGICAL EMERGENCY PLAN. THE SITE EMERGENCY DIRECTOR AT THE PLANT WILL MOBILIZE THE PLANT'S OWN EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS AND EVALUATE THE SITUATION. NO MATTER WHAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ACTUAL OR THREATENED CONSEQUENCES OF THE INCIDENT MAY BE, BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY WILL PROMPTLY INFORM THE CALVERT COUNTY CENTRAL ALARM (ALWAYS FIRST)J THEN THE DOWN-WIND PLUME ZONE COUNTY SECOND *EITHER-ST. MARY'S OR DORCHESTER COUNTY - WHICHEVER ONE IS NOT NOTIFIED SECOND WILL BE NOTIFIED THIRDJ THEN MARYLAND STATE CIVIL DEFENSE DURING OFFICE HOURSJ s AFTER OFFICE HOURS, CALL AUTOMATICALLY GOES IN THE MARYLAND STATE PO HEADQUARTERS COMMUNICATIONS SECTION WHICH, IN turn, RELAYS TO THE STATE CIVIL DEFENSE DUTY OFFICER. THE MARYLAND CIVIL DEFENSE AND D'SASTER PREPAREDNESS AGENCY WOULD THEN INFORM THE GOVERNOR, THE D!vlSION OF RADIATION CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, AND ALSO CALL THE PLUME ZONE COUNTIES TO INSURE THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION. IHE COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE NOTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN.

THERE ARE FOUR CLASSES OF INCIDENTS AND LEVELS OF RESPONSE:

1. UNUSUAL event - NO RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL REQUIRING OFF-SITE RESPONSE OR MONITORING IS EXPECTED. FIRE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE MIGHT BE REQUESTED. NOTIFICATIONS ARE MADE TO STAND-BY UNTIL CLOSEOUTORESCALATIONTOAMORESEVERkCLASS. EMERGENCY OPERATING CENTERS WILL NOT BE ACTIVATED. l 2

d

~

2. ALERT - EVENTS IN PROCESS OR HAVE OCCURRED INVOLVING ACTUAL OR LIKLLY LIMITED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY. EMERGENCY OPERATING CrNTrn". ape PARTIALLY ACTIVATED WITH THE CIVIL DEFENSE PERSONNEL. ALL MARYLAND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, CONTIGUOUS STATES, AND THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ARE NOTIFIED BY MARYLAND CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AGENCY. IEAMS FROM THE DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTRCL GO OFF-SITE TO MONITOR. STATUS MAINTAINED UNTIL CLOSEOUT OR ESCALATION TO A MORE SEVERE CLASS.

3. SITE-EMERGENCY - EVENTS IN PROCESS OR HAVE OCCURRED WHICH INVOLVE ACTUAL OR LIKELY MAJOR FAILURES IN PLANT FUNCTIONS AND RADIO-ACTIVITY RELEASE. STATE AND COUNTY E0C'S ARE FULLY ACTIVATED WITH AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES. FULL NOTIFICATION IS MADE AND RESPONDING AGENCIES MOBILIZED TO IMPLEMENT ANY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS NECESSARY.

STATUS MAINTAINED UNTIL ESCALATION TO GENERAL EMERGENCY OR CLOSEOUT.

4, GENERAL EMERGENCY - EVENTS ARE IN PROCESS OR HAVE OCCURRED WHICH INVOLVE ACTUAL OR IMMINENT CORE DEGRATION OR MELTING WITH ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL MAJOR RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY. RESPONSE IS THE SAME AS FOR THE SITE EMERGENCY.

IN A SITE OR GENERAL EMERGENCY, THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WILL INFORM THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ABOUT THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AT THE SITE, ESTIMATED RELEASES, PROJECTED EXPOSURES, ESTIMATED ASSISTANCE REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED PROTECTIVE ACTIONS. IHE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED CONCURRENTLY:

THE MARYLAND STATE POLICE WILL ESTABLISH TRAFFIC CONTROL TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO THE AFFECTED AREA. HELICOPTERS OR VEHICLE ESCORT l WILL TRANSPORT MONITORING TEAMS FROM TIiE DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL.

IHE HELICOPTERS WILL ALSO ASSIST IN WARNING, MONITORING AND EVACUATION OF CASUALTIES AS NEEDED. THE STATE POLICE WILL SUPPORT EVACUATION AS REQUIRED. '

y

n lHE AMLRicAfl f(EU (,ROS5 AND COUfirY $0CIAL SERVICES Wil L 000RDINATE THE PROVic.10N OF FOOD AND SHELTER AS NEEDED. IN THE EVENT THERE ARE LARGE NUMBLk$ OF EVACUEES, BEYOND THE CAPABILITY OF THE PLUME ZONE COUNTIES, EVACUEES WILL BE MOVED BY CONVOY TO SHELTER IN ANNE ARUNDEL, ST. MARY'S, TALBOT OR CHARLES COUNTIES.

THE MARYLAND CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AGENCY PROVIDES OVERALL COORDINATION OF THE PREPARt ' ION, MAINTENANCE AND TESTING OF THE RESPONSE PLAN.

IN THE EVENT OF AN INCIDENT, THE MARYLAND CIvlt DEFENSE AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AGENCY IS THE KEY AGENCY TO ASSURE NOTIFICATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND TO COORDINATE STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT OF THE AFFECTED COUNTIES.

THIS STATEMENT BRIEFLY OUTLINES SOME OF THE MAIN ASPECTS OF THE STATE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES OF DETAILED ACTIONS.

2. "WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER EVACUATION IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT CALVERT CLIFFS?"

(A) THE G0vERNOR MAY DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND ORDER AN EVACUATION UNDER THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 41 SECTION 15B 0F THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND.

(B) THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE MAY ORDER AN EVACUATION UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARTICLE 43 SECTION 680 0F THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND.

(C) THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION MAY DECLARE A LOCAL STATE OF EMERGENCY AND DIRECT AN EVACUATION UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARTICLE 16A SECTION 6D OF THE SHNOTATED OF MARYLAND AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1975, APPROVING THE MARYLAND DISASTER ASSISTANCE PLAN.

Y -

iT SHOULD BE STRESSED HERE THAT EVACUATION IS NOT THE ON OF ACTION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR IN THAT EVACUATION ENTAILS HEALIll RISKS TO THE ELDERLY AND THE SICK.

ADDITION, EVACUATION EFFORTS HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR TRAFFIC, BOAT AND THEREFORE, THE RISKS OF EVACUATION MUST BE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS.

IHE DIVISION WEIGHED AGAINST THE ALTERNATE COURSE OF TAKING SHELTER.

OF RADIATION CONTROL, USING GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STAT EnytRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WILL RECOMMEND THE APPROPRIATE ACTION CONSIDERING RADIOLOGICAL READINGS, PROJECTED DOSES, AND WEATHER CONDITIONS.

4 i

ISSUE OF LMERGENCY PREPAREDNLM

1. "WHO HAS DIRECT RESPON5tBILITY f-OR LVACUATION OF THE SURR00!! DING AREA IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT CALVERT CLIFFS POWER PLANT?"

THE DECISION TO EVACUATE MAY BE MADE BY THE GOVERNOR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF AN AFFECTED COUNTY, OR THE THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE.

KEY COUNTY AGENCY TO CONDdCT THE EVACUATION IS THE COUNTY LAW E MENT AGENCY SUPPORTED BY COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.

2. " BASED UPON THE EXPERIENCE THAT HAS RESULTED FROM THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND, WHAT HAVE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DONE TO IMPROVE RADIOLOGICAL PLANS INCLUDING EVACUATION? THE FOCUS OF THIS

)

QUESTION GOES TO THE 10 PLuS 50 MILE ZONES SURROUNDING CALVERT C IHE ACCIDENT AT IHREE MILE ISLAND GENERATED SUBSTANTIAL ALARM IN MARYLAND AND CONCERN FOR THE ADEQUACY OF OUR PLANS AND ABILITIES TO MEET A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY IN MARYLAND. GOVERNOR HUGHES ORDERED A SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PRESIDENT'S FULL REVIEW OF THE STATE PLANS.

COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND PUBLISHED ITS REPORT, AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON THE EXISTING STATE PLANS. THE REVIEW AND REVISION PROCESS WAS GIVEN ADDED IMPETUS BY LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS REQUIRING NRC A,PPROVAL FOR STATE PLANS IN ORDER FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO CONTI l

TO OPERATE.

THE MARYLAND CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AGENCY, HAVING LOST MANY POSITIONS IN RECENT YEARS, DID'NOT~HAVE SUFFICIENT STAFF AND FUNDS TO DEVELOP NEW PLANS QUICKLY.

IHE PRESSURE ON THE )

J

- -g STAI r liitHEA'JED WITH THL lllVOLVEMENT WITH THE RESP 0ft*,L AND RECOVERY lo lDist'ir AL ",TOPM I) AVID. BALTIMORE 6AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

.e u e. . . . . ., f a r ,t W: 19 rpefD IHTFPr4T TO HFt.P AND CONTRACTED WITH STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION TO PROVIDE EXPERTISE IN DEVELOPING NEW PLANS. ,

WORKING WITH BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND STATE AND COUNTY AGENCIES, STONE AND WEBSTER IS CURRENTLY PREPARING THE FINAL DRAFT PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES FOR FORMAL SUBMISSION TO THE NRC AND FEMA FOR APPROVAL. STONE AND WEBSTER WILL ALSO ASSIST IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM AND CONDUCTING THE TESTS AND EXERCISES NECESSARY TO FINAL APPROVAL. THE PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN INFORMALLY REVIEWED BY THE FEMA REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THEIR SUGGE?' IONS ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW. SOME CHANGES MUST BE MADE BECAUSE THE NRC HAS RECENTLY PROMULGATED NEW CRITERIA IN PROPOSED NUREG 0654. j THE REVISIONS TO OUR STATE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PL AN ARE NOT SO MUCH IN BASIC OPERATIONS AS IN SCOPE AND DETAIL. THE THRESHOLD FOR NOTIFICATION OF RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVITY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO ANY RELEASE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL. DETAILED PLANNING FOR POTENTI AL EVACUATION HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO A 10 MILE RADIUS ZONE AROUND THE CALVERT CLIFFS AND PEACH BOTTOM PLANTS. THIS HAS INVOLVED PINFOINTING ROUTES, ASSEMBLY AREAS, SHELTERS AND SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE COUNTIES THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY THE 10 MILE RADIUS PLUME ZONE AND IN THE COUNTIES THAT MIGHT HAVE TO HOST EVACUEES.

IN ADDITION, PLANS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR ALL OF THE COUNTIES THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY THE 50 l MILE RADIUS INGESTION ZONE. IN THIS ZONE, PEOPLE WOULD BE ADVISED TO TAKE CERTAIN MEASURES TO FROTECT AGAINST P61SIBLE CONTAMINATION OF _

FOOD, WATER, MILK AND LIVESTOCK FEED. THE PLUME ZONE COUNTIES AROUND

s THE PLUME CALVERT CLIFFS ARE CALVERT, DORCHESTER AND ST. MARY'S.

ZONE COUNTIES IN MARYLAND AROUND PEACH BOTTOM ARE H EXCEPT FOR ONLY PARTS OF THESE COUNTIES ARE IN THE PLUME ZONES.

GARRETT, ALLEGANY AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ALL OTHER MARYLAND COUNTIES ARE IN PART OR COMPLETELY IN THE INGESTION ZONES OR ONE OR M THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AT CALVERT CLIFFS, PEACH BOTTOM, IHREE MONTGOMERY ISLAND, SALEM, NEW JERSEY AND NORTH ANNA, VIRGINIA.

COUNTY IS NOT IN THESE ZONES BUT HAS THREE SMALL RESEARCH R WHICH COULD PRESENT LOCALIZED HAZARD.

IHE THERE ARE TWO PROBLEM AREAS THAT ARE BEING WORKED ON NOW.

FIRST IS WHICH WAY IS BEST TO NOTIFY 100 PERCENT OF THE PUBLIC I i

THE PLUME ZONE WITHIN FIVE MILES IN 15 MINUTES OF AN INCIDENT AN THE RE11AINING 10 90 PERCENT WITHIN THE FIVE TO 10 MILE DISTANCE.

VARIOUS MEANS ARE BEING )

PERCENT MUST BE NOTIFIED WITHIN 45 MINUTES.

EXPLORED.

THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THE COORDINATION OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC. ONE OF THE BIGGEST FROBLEMS AT THREE MILE ISLAND WAS THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS MAKING PUBLIC S THE PUBLIC SCON DID NOT MENTS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

WE ARE WORKING KNOW WHOM TO BELIEVE AND ENDED BY BELIEVING NO ONE.

s ON PROCEDURES TO HAVE A COOPERATIVE EFFORT IN THIS AREA SO TH PUBLIC, THE NEWS MEDIA, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND PRIVATE AGENCIES WILL KNOW WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO GO, IF NECESSARY. THIS EFFORT WILL

( REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE SERIES OF RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS, NEWS ARTICLES AND DISTRIBUTION OF BROCHURES.

\

P O

~

. _ _ . J__ _'

.._..2...__._.

THE DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL WILL SURVEY THE AREA AND CONTINUE MONITORING. IHE DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL WILL PROVIDE IHE DIVISION OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH.

RADIATION CONTROL WILL SECURE AND COORDINATE PERSONNEL AND AVAILABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH MAY ISSUE ORDERS TO REQUIRE ANY OR PROTECTIVE ACTIONS INCLUDING TAKE SHELTER, EVACUATION, AND CONTROL OF IN THE EVENT OF EVACUATION, THE FOOD, WATER, MILK AND LIVESTOCK FEED.

COUNTY AND STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WILL MONITOR EMERGENCY P TO LIMIT THEIR EXPOSURE AND WILL DETERMINE WHEN IT IS SAFE TO RESU NORMAL ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA.

THE STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE MARYLAND NATIONA t

GUARD WILL PROVIDE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT AS NECESSARY TO SUPPO TRAFFIC CONTROL AND EVACUATION. IHE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICE, NARINE DIVISION, WILL CORDON OFF POSSIBLE ON-WATER AFFECTED AREAS, MAINTAIN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE STATE POLICE, AND PROVIDE EVACUATION BY BOAT AS NECESSARY.

THE CALVERT COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS WILL IMPLEMENT THEIR EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOLLOWING NOTIFICATION BY THE COUNTY ALERT SYSTEM WH INCLUDES ALERT SIRENS EMERGENCY CALL LISTS AND EMERGENCY ANNOUNCE ON RADIO STATIONS WMJS, WANN, WNAV AND WYRE. THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALERTED BY THE SIRENS AND BROADCASTS, SUPPLEMENTED BY LOUD SPEAKER EQUIPPED VEHICLES AND BOATS. IHE PUBLIC SHOULD RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS F' ROM THE RADIO AND TELEVISION. DORCHESTER AND ST. MARY'S COUNTIES WILL FOLLOW SIMILAR PROCEDURES.

IN THE EVENT OF g04 EVACUATION, P.RlVATE VEHICLES WI,LL BE USED.

WHERE PRIVATE VEHICLES ARE UNAVAILABLE, COUNTY SCHOOL BUSES WILL BE USED.

v- --

---,,,,,.,rw-

1

-m ..

g. . .- W STATE OF MARYLAN D

{ h)

Q,: - . .

• EXECUTIVE DEPARTM ENT ANNAPOLIS, MARYL AND 21404 emunv suom, May 26, 1980 OOvtRNON James H. Easter, Esquire Maryland Comission on Intergovernmental Cooperation 90 State Circle Legislative Services Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Easter:

I write to thank you for your timely letter of April 28, 1980 relating to high level and low level radioactive waste management.

As you probably are aware I will be absent from the country at the time of both the meeting of the Comission scheduled for June 3 and the later meeting scheduled for June 17. I shall arrange, however, for representatives of my administration to be present at these meetings. In the meantime, I am glad through this means to convey to you answers to the questions forwarded with your recent letter.

Indeed, it had been my plan following my return from our trip to China to invite members of the Comissior, and other interested legislators to meet with me for a more detailed discussion of my participation in the Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management appointed by President Carter.

I shall address the three questions raised by you in turn.

1. What is Maryland's role as a member of the National Governors' Association low level radioactive waste disposal task force?

• Maryland is actively monitoring the. Work of the NGA low level radioactive waste disposal task force. In the present situation, however, I regard as equally important my role as a member of the State Planning Council recently appointed by President Carter consisting of seven Governors and representatives of the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the National Conference of State Legislators to make recomendations for federal legislation dealing with both low level and high level waste disposal issues. That Council has thus far had two meetings. I would anticipate that the recomendations made by the State Planning Council will operate to define whatever administration legislation is introduced on this subject before Congress.

.=-- -

G

, _, _,, _ . . ~ - - -- ~-

James H. Easter, Esquire May 26, 1980

2. Do you anticipate development of a low level radioactive waste )

repository in Maryland in view of the limited storage capacity of facilities now accepting low level waste from Maryland?

As your question indicates, there are only three low level waste facilities currently operating in the United States. Two of these facilities, those in Washington and Nevada, have recently been clos (d down. The third, at Barnwell, South Carolina, has decreased its intake of wastes and increased charges for their receipt. Further decreases in intake by that facility are anticipated.

The Governors of South Carolina, Nevada and Washington are represented on the Task Force appointed by the President of which I am a member. They have been energetically pressing for support of federal legislation which would under-take to force the several states to manage the low level waste problem by pro-hibiting the interstate transportation of low level waste except to or from states that are members of compacts for disposal of low level waste. It is the objective of this proposed legislation to either force each state to create its own waste disposal facilities or induce each state to participate in interstate compacts for the creation of regional facilities. Because of the neeo for the states other than those presently operating waste disposal facilities to be adequately involved in ^

the process of designing legislation and because of the need for involvement of '

state legislative conunittees, Governor Evans of Idaho, Governor Dalton of Virginia -

and I at the last meeting of the Planning Council successfully sought delay in con-sideration of a resolution which would have endorsed federal legislation along the lines which I have just described.

There is a general consensus of the Planning Council that the solution to the low level waste problem, in view of the several decades of federal failure to efrectively address this issue, must rest with state governments. I would anticipate that some variant of the legislation I have described will ultimately be endorsed by the Planning Council hopefully after a public consensus in favor of such legislation has developed. Although there are areas of the state, particularly the central and western portions of the state, that have geological configurations which would support a los level waste disposal site, the general feeling appears to be that the creation of a low level radioactive waste disposal site in each state would be a gross extravagance fmm both the economic and environmental point of view and that the problem can be adequately addressed by creation of a half dozen or so regional disposal sites throughout the country.

Accordingly, a solution which would look to interstate compacts to resolve this question appears to me to be the preferred one.

l -- .

l .

l J 6

I l

E lames H. Easter, Esquire May 26, 1980 Governor Dalton, Governor Riley and I have arranged to place the matter of creation of an interstate compact on the next agenda of the Southern Governors' Association. There already exists an interstate compact creating an organization known as the Southern States Energy Board which could with t slight modification be utilized as the vehicle for operation and development of l a low level disposal facility to serve a multi-state region.

Maryland may be encumbered in any negotiations looking toward creation of such a compact by the present existence in its law of what purports to be an absolute prohibition against the creation of low level disposal facilities within this state. This makes it very important that there be full cooperation and con-sultation between my administration and your committee and other interested com-mittees of the General Assembly such as the Environmental Matters Committee of the House, the Economic Aff' irs Committee of the Senate and the Joint Energy Committee.

The Attorney General has recently ruled that the existing prohibitions in state law may not be validly applied to by-products of nuclear power plants, although the prohibition may still have some application to disposal of low level medical wastes of which Maryland generates a substantial quantity. Since we do not wish to see a situation develop in which Maryland by force of federal legislation or by reason of unilateral action by South Carolina and other states is unable to dispose of low level wastes generated by its hospitals and other facilities, it is of the utmost importance that an agreed approach to waste disposal be developed with the full assent of the Maryland General Assembly. We shall want to consider with care whether the appropriate vehicle for any modification in Maryland policy in this respect is an amendment to the already existing legislation or rather the presentation to the General Assembly of an interstate compact which upon ratificatfor, would operate to partially supersede the existing legislation. Whichever vehicle is chosen, it seems to me as certain as such things can be that Maryland will not be able to exclude the possibility of siting of low level facilities within the State if ,it is to secure the cooperation of other states in developing a regional approach to this problem.

3. Will Maryland formulate compacts with other states in this region to develop a low level waste repository?

As I have indicated above, Maryland will be actively discussing in the Southern Governors' Association formulation of a compact with the Southern States Energy Board states. We think it likely that the most promising compact partners  !

are those located to our south by reason of the fact that, with the exception of South Carolina, southeastern states are not themselves major generators of nuclear waste and by reason of the fact that the Governors of both Virginia and South Carolina are represented along with me on the State Planning Council. I believe that an inter-state compact approach is more advantageous to Maryland than development by the state of its own disposal site.

I intend to discuss these questions with you in greater detail following

==

9

4 James H. Easter, Esquire May 26, 1980 i

my return from the China trip and in the meantime welcome expressions from you of either the individual or collective views of members of the Comittee.

i cerely, 94 y Gove r j

i i

1 i

w i.

I i

i

.m ..

"w s

O I

' ~~~ ~

- , . . . . , . , ... , - . . . . - . . . - . ~ , - - _ . . . _ . -