ML20006A565

Transcript of 900117 Briefing in Rockville,Md Re Governor Certification of Low Level Waste Sites.Pp 1-48.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20006A565
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/17/1990
From:	NRC
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9001290118
Download: ML20006A565 (75)

Text

,,

,4' ',

4 i

UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA u

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION y-1 f

n

-Tf(16l BRIEFING ON GOVERNORS' CERTIFICATION OF LOW LEVEL WASTE SITES Location: ROCKVILLE MARYLAND

.D3k6-JANUARY 17, 1990 2&06Sl 48 PAGES V-NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., DIC.

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 F.hode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4423 9001290118 900117 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDC y

u

3 y

s-DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 17. 1990, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

b NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBIR$

1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, H.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.

20005 (202) 232-6600

Q

.s l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

l BRIEFING ON GOVERNORS' CERTIFICATION OF LOW LEVEL WASTE SITES PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Wednesday, January 17, 1990 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,

Kenneth M.

Carr, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

EENNETH M.

CARR, Chairman of the Commission THOMAS M.

ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.

ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R.

CURTISS, Commissioner FORREST J.

REMICK, Commissioner I

i.._

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

b

~

f N1.

r:- im.

o. g.;

3' lL- : I.

k-

' STAFF SEATED'AT THE' COMMISSION TABLE:

SAMUEI! J.

CHILK, Secretary

. ILLIAM C.

PARLER, General' Counsel W

' JAMES TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations p -.

ROBERT.-BERNERO, Director of Operations, NMSS PAULLOHAUS,NMSS/LLOB, Branch' Chief RICHARD BANGART, NMSS/LLWM p

LARRY CAMPER, NMSS FRED COMDS, -Acting A/D for State, Local and. Indian Relations

,ih

. 1 l

i.

,i._

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Wuchington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 rfre.-

e

~

w

-,ws 9

-e-9 r

y

g=

N ~_t

s k,,-

3 I

1 1-P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I'-N-G-S 2

10:00 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Good morning, ladies and 4

gentlemen.

5 The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy 6

Amendments Act of 1985 established a

framework of 7

milestones and incentives for state development of new 8

low level waste disposal facilities.

The purpose of 9

today's briefing is for the staff to provide n status 10 report to the Commission on state compliance with the 11 January 1, 1990 milestone of the Act.

12 Although NRC is only responsible for 3

13 transmitting the certifications required by the Act to

.:.- d 14 the Congress and publishing them in the rederal 15 Register, the certifications provide the Commission an 16 opportunity to review the progress of the states in 17 developing the next generation of low level. waste 18 facilities.

19 Briefing slides are available at the 20 entrance to the meeting room.

21 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 22 opening comments?

23 If not, please proceed, Mr! Taylor.

24 MR. TAYLOR:

Good morning, sir.

With me at 25 the table to my right arc Fred Combs from the Office L __

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Is1and Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

p-o

~,

i-1 of State Programs; Dick Bangart who's the. Division o - ~ - '

r 2

Director responsible for Low Level Warte; Bob Bernero, 3

the Ops. Director for NMSS; and to my immediate left, 4

Paul Lohaus who is the Branch Chief responsible for 5

this area, and the principal discusser todoy; and to 6

his left Larry-Camper who is the Project Manager for t'.'

7 this certification activity.

8 This is essentially a status overview and at 9.

that point I will turn to Paul Lohaus, who will be the 10 principal briefer.

11 MR. LOHAUS:

Thank you.

12 (Slide)

May I have the second chart of our 13 briefing charts, please?

.. J 14 We'll cover four areas today.

The first 15 will be to present. background information on the Low 16 Level ' Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act and 17 discuss guidance that NRC issued earlier this year on 18 governors' certifications.

19 Second, we'll review and present a summary i

20 of the certifications received and review the steps 21 followed by staff in their handling and. processing.

22 These steps, as approved by the Commission in SECY 23 342, carefully implement NRC's narrowly defined role 24 under the Act to receive the certifications, transmit 25 them to Congress and to publish them in the rederal t-NEA L R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island A venue, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

s d.

t L

g 1

- 'd 1

Register.

2

Finally, with NRC processing-nearly 3

completed, we'll look beyond the certifications 4

themselves to identify programmatic issues which will 5

be of significance to NRC as the states move forward 6

to implement actions set out in the certifications.

7 (Slide)

May I have the third chart, please?

i 8

The Low Level Radioactive Wuste Policy 9

Amendments Act was passed in 1985 and reaffirmed an 10 earlier 1980 Low Level Waste Policy Act provision that 11 the states are responsib'le to provide disposal l

12 _

capacity for low level waste, either individually or 13" through the formation of compacts.

N 14 The Act ensures that states without sites 15 will have disposal capacity available to them through i

16 the end of 1992 at the existing facilities provided 17 they show continued progress in the. development of new 3

i 18 sites.

The Act establishes specific milestones to

'19 track progress and states which do not keep pace are 20 subject to penalties in the form of surcharges, the 21 loss of surcharge rebates and ultimately a denial of i

22 access to the existing facilities.

I i

23 (Slide)

May I have the next chart, please?

l 1

24 The next page of the handout is a map which

)

25 shows the current status of the states and compacts.

I NEAL R.

GROSS j

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 j

y

a 0

H;..

' ~

~

;F

s l

y-p, '

~

~

6 l

I J-1 :

-1.

_It. ~ includes a lot of detail for reference.

I'd like' 1

'2 to. highlight several points.

3 Currently 43' states-are affiliated with nine.

'I r

4 compacts.

Seven states, the District of Columbia nnd i

5 Puerto -Rico have not joined a-compact and remain 6

unaffiliated..

It's a

developing process.

All 7

compacts have selected a host state.

Sites have been 8

selected in California for the southwest compact and-9-

Nebraska for the central interstate compnet.

10 Preferred sites have also been selected in several i

=t 11-other states.

An application for the Californin site 12,

has been prepared and is presently.under review in the

c-s 13'

-California Department of Public Health.

l

.. t i

14-(Slide)

The next chart, please.

-15 In looking at the specific milestones set 16 out in the

Act, two of' the milestones

. occurred.

l 17-earlier, in 1986 and 1988.

All states did meet the I

i L18 1986 milestone.

Two

states, New ilamp s hi r e - and.

j 19 Vermont',

and Puerto Rico did. no t-meet the 1988 i

'2 0 -

milestone.and were subsequently denied access from the

-21 existing-facilities by the three sited states.

22 In addition to the 1990 milestone,.there are

.23

'three additional milestones which will lead to the 24 states having to take title and possession of waste in 25 1996.

The Act and the intent that was set out was t

l

. +, -

NFAL R.

GHOSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenua, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 i

w

+

h, R

.~

{9W

~

1 e

.y ti O "N

11

'that by. 1993 new sites would be in operation.

This-2' action can be delayed by three years, however, but in-3-

1996 the states have no choice.

Under the Act they 4-must either provide for.

disposal or they.'re

~5 responsible for providing-and taking possession and 6

title to waste.

7 (Sl'ide)

Next chart, please.

8 This chart graphically shows the surcharges-9-

which are set out in the Act.

These are paid by 10.

generators in the non-sited states and compacts-to the 11 sited states on each-cubic foot of waste' shipped for 12 ;

-disposal.

As shown, they escalate, d o ub l i tig a f ter

.13 each major milestone.

A por' tion of - t he funds - is.

14

~ maintained by DOE and' refunded.back to the states in 15 the form of surcharge rebates when t hey success fully 16 meet each milestone,

, COMMISSIONER - REMICK:

That rebate, does :i t 18 go back to the state where it's proposed to have a new

-19 site or does it.go back to each of the states in'the i

20 compact and'are there any restrictions on the'use of 21 that rebate?

22 MR.

LOHAUS:

It goes back either to 'the 23 state for e1 ample, in' the case of

Texas, an

'24-unaffiliated state, it would-go directly back to t.h e i

25 s t a t e.-

In the case of a compact, it would go back to

( f-

,j

't..

NEAL R.

GROSS i

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washingt on, D.C.

20005 g

(202) 234-4433 j

e

~

7;

.=

gH j

.J.t 1

{.

a 8

ll

-1<

the compact.

The Act does establish specific j

2 provisions that. the funds be used to ~ develop new

~

p; 3

disposal capacity.

g, 4 3 4

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

So, when you say the

-5 compact, it doesn't go back to the individual states 6

in the: compact, but the compact is an organization?

7 MR. LOHAUS:

That's my understanding,. yes.'

8 COMMISSIONER-REMICK:

Okay.

9 MR. LOHAUS:

To' provide some perspective on

(

10 the leverage of these fees, the $40,00 surcharge which 11 begins in 1990 is essentially equivalent to.the 12,,

~ current-average per cubic foot disposal cost for a P-

~;g 13 reactor.

Thus, for an. average reactor which would

.L 14

' generate about 8,000 to'10,000 cubic feet of waste a 15-

year, the annual surcharge costs could approach i

16

$400,000.00 a year.

t 17 The Act -also provides for the

doubling, d

18 tripling and quadrupling.of these surcharges -for 19 states and compacts.which do not. meet particular

'20 milestones.

Such escalated surcharges would be in 21 effect for a short period of time and would ultimately 22 be followed by denial of access.

23 CHAIRMAN CARR:

But the surcharge is levied 24 on the generator rather than on the state?

-25 MR. LOHAUS:

Yes.

t i,.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

' i-

-4,

. j n-- y c6 9

3

-- h

'J :

1 (Slide)

May I have the next chart, please?

2 I'd now like to-turn and talk a little bit s

3 more about the 1990 milestone.

The key elements of w

4

.this milestone are that by January l'

of 1990, each 5

.non-sited state-and compact shall either' f i'l e = a G

complete license application or provide a

written-7 certification signed by the governor describing the 8

actions the state will take to manage waste untll new

+

'9' disposal capacity becomes available.

The site'd states 10 of South Carolina, Nevada and Washington, and those 11 states which are affiliated in a compact with them, are not subject to the milestone.

[

12,

13 (Slide)

May I have the next chart, please?

14 This chart shows the actual wording fromLthe 15=

Act, with added emphasis to show the substantial 16 content of the certification that's required by-the-17'

-Act.

The. key elements have been underlined in the 7

4 18-

~ quotation.

O 19 (Slide)

Have the next chart, please?

20 NRC's role under the Act is 1imited.

NRC is

'21 directed to serve as a central receiving point for the 22-certifications and to take subsequent actions t o. transmit any certifications received to Congress and 24 to make them publicly available through publication in 25 the Federal Reg ~ister.

1 1

u.-

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

L Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

p

=

bg

3 -

c,4 :

g

-toi, 10 s

(.1 I PL:O -

1R COMMISSIONER REMICK:-

Who has the 2

_ responsibility to make sure the certification is 1

3 adequate?

-r 4

MR.

LOHAUS:

There are two substantive

-7 5

determinations which are made relative to-the content.

6-One-is made by the-ited st ates reintive to their 7

ability to have cor ' nued access to-the f acili t ies'.

8 The - second would be made by the Department of Energy 9

relative to the rebate of-the surcharges that we Just i

E-10 maintain.

c

+

~

11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

So, we just pass those 12,

on, the certifications, then?

J 13 MR. LOHAUS:

Yes, i-_

3

-..J' 14 (Slide)

Okay.

May I have the next chart, i-15 please?

16 In looking at-the steps followed by stuff in 17' the issuance of guidance, I'd like to first highlight 18' that development of a guidance _was not required by ihe

'I 19 Act.

Rather, staff prepared the guidance at - state 2 0..

. request to help facilitate t h' compliance. process and b.

21 to help _ identify-the type of information which should 22 be included in a certification.

We developed early-23 drafts of the guidance, shared them with the states 24

and, following Commission approval, the guidance was 1

25 transmitted to the governors and compacts in ~ early

. I--

t-

' NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

p;.;

i t

!._.9 j

'4

'N' n:

E 1I p

r c f i:

.li

- 89. 'The major elements of this guidance are shown on u

H 2

.the next briefing chart.

3:

(Slide)

With respect to s t a t u t 'o ry b

.4 considerations, even = though NRC.h a s a limit ed. role 5

under. the Act, the guidance was developed to._ help G

ensure that a sufficient amount of information would'

-7 be included in a = state's-certification to provide a 8

-basis for the deterninntions to be made by the sited 9

states and DOE.

It further i den t i fies - that the-10 certifications-are to cover all low level

waste, 11 including mixed waste.

e-.

12,

Four' broad technical areas are also 13 identified which include information on'the numlier and 14 type of generators, the-type and volume of waste;to be 15 generated, and

a. description of the actions that will

'16 be taken -- t o manage waste af ter the end of

'92.

The-17 1 guidance also. sets out administrative procedures t o.

V"

.18 help' states in filing the certifications and to let 19.

them know what to expect relative to. NRC's - handling i

20-and processing after receipt.

21-(Slide)

The next' chart, please?

22 Before revie~ wing the steps that we followed 1

23 in processing the certifications, I'd like to identify-1 J

I 24.

.a unique term, "fucial compliance," that is set out'in 25 our guidance.

It's a legal term that was applied to-

.I

- t m _.

3 NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 l

t t

4.

12 1

encompass NRC's limited role under the Act.

What it 2

means -is that any cer t i fi ca t i on which on its face 3

complies with the Act would be accepted as a

4 certification and will be transmitted to Congress.

5 Staff would not look behind the certifications to the 6

detailed description of actions.

Rnther,- we would 7

check to make sure each submi t t al. was signed by the 8

governor, dated, was identified as a cert i ficat ion, 9

and contained a _ descript ion of the actions that was 10 required by the Act.

11 All certifications received were deemed to 12,

meet facial compliance and were promptly forwarded to 13 the Department of Energy.

Under the Act.-DOE ha; 30 I

, _.J 14 days to make their surcharge rebate determination.

We 15 wanted to promptly provide copies to Do.E to make sure 16.

we did not affect the timing for their compliance 17 determination.

18 For reference in the brie fing package, we've 19 included a copy of the letter we use to transmit the 20 certifications to DOE and a copy of a recent letter 21 provided to DOE which sets out the final procedures 22 that we would use in transmitting the certifications 23 to DOE and to meet their guidance.

24 Concurrently with transmittal to DOE, the 25 Office of Government and Public Affairs promptly i

~ -

'NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

b [

6*

p

+

[:

~

L:l '

13 g

-g

-R

1' acknowledged = receipt - of t he cert ifications -through - a '

2 written response back to the-governors.

3" (Slide)

May I have the next chart, please?

L 4

-COMMISSIONER REMIOK:

Did you say that all

-5 of the certifications met the facial compliance check?.

.6

.MR.

LOHAUS:

Yes.

i 7

The next chart shows the final and remaining:

8-processing steps.

This would involve._ s e n d i n g the 9-certifications ~ to Congress and' public notification 10 through publication in the redern?

Register,

11 Transmittal to Congress will be accomplished through 12,,.

individual' letters to the P r e s i d e r. t of the Senate and 13

-Speaker of the House to be signed by the _ Chairman.

Q

.,1 14 These letters are in final concurrence and will be 15 ready for signature shortly.

We've ' included -dra f t 16 copies of those letters as a part - of. the briefing 17 package.

18 In addition to publication' in the_ rederal a

19 Register, we will also send copies to the sited states 20-and to interested congressional delegations and 21-:

oversight committees.

22 (Slide)

The next chart shows a summary of 23 the certifications that were received.

We've divided 24 the list into three categories.

First, we've 25 identified those states which are affiliated with one

.p-

- L ;_

NRAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 t

p, p,.

3 A,

p.,

N to g

L 14 q-

".-i -

_1 of the sited compacts which are not subject - t o the-L, 2

milestone-and which did not' file a certification.

The 3

second; column identi fies all states subject to the Act-4 and which submitted a timely certification to NRC.

5

_I'd

_also like_ to: highlight that one-compact, the 6

southwest

compact, met the 1990 milestone through if y

7 submittal of both.

a license-application and a

o

[

8 governor's certification.

The license' application for-e-

.9 the California facility does not presently cover mixed 10 waste.

So, the four states within the southwest 11 compact also submitted a governor's certification to 12,

cover mixed waste.

e

-~1 13 Finally, we did not receive certifications

O 14 from the State of Vermont and Puerto Rico.-

In these

'15 cases, letters have been sent to each governor noting 10 that a certification was not received by NRC and asked 17 the governor to confirm whether a certification will 18

_or-will not be submitted, l

19 (Slide)

Could I

have the final chart.

j 20' please?

21 With processing just about completed and 22 looking-to the-future, there are several. issues which 23 will be associated with t'he states' implementation 24 actions.

First is the issue of storage of low level 25 waste.

Generators in a number of states will need to 3

t.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

e-

,v

_' i5 Y

c. ). g,.

f;. *&

^ '

7 1-1

.l;_

15 L.

p-t -;V

.lL store > waste for an interim period until the.end of--

2 excuse me, will be required to store waste for an 3-interim period after the end of-

1992, until-new 4'

disposal capacity is available.

5 In anticipation of this

issue, the.

G Commission directed the staff in early '89 to conduct i

p 7

en evaluation of the need :for additional regulations 8

and guidance in the area of-low level waste storage.

l 9

That evaluation concluded that existing guidance 10 covering storage of low-level waste at-reactors, this-l 11 is 'the five years. storage guidance that we have 12,_

, presently, was. adequate.

%n 13-A

need, however,-

was identified f o i-

.y

-- p -

. 14 additional guidance dealing with storage of waste a t -~

15 materials licenseen.

Such guidance has.been j

16 prepared -- I have a copy with me today - ' b 'y NMSS tl 17 staff in coordination with the regions n'nd will be 18 issued ~in about a month as an-information notice to 19 all. generators.

At that time, we'll also make copies-20 available to the states and compacts.

21 The guidance addresses safety considerations F

22 important to the handling and storage of low ~ level

23' waste.

It anticipates 'that many licensees will not 24-have to amend their license in order to store waste

. 25 safely.

If an amendment is required, the guidance 1

l c_

3 NEAL R.

GROSS i

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 l

pp 1

\\3

i.

16

> l

-N-1

-identifies the type 'of information ithat would b e' 0'

2' required in an amendment request that will-help 3

facilitate their preparation of the request and

-4 ensuring they address adequate areas and will also 5

help facilitate NRC's review.

6 With respect to resource

impacts, we've i

7 conservatively estimated that in looking at the e

t 8

potential increase that we might see in licensing' 9-casework, resource impacts could be as high as three

'10 FTE total for the regions and up to one FTE total for 11 headquarters.

12,.

The final issue identified relates to 13 requests-for NRC assistance and review of J.d in 14.

implementation programs proposed by states 15 governors' certifications..

These requests may.-involve m

16 looking at state implementation plans for interim-r 17

storage, responding to questions from states-on 18 interpretation of regulations in

guidance, a n d._

i 19 interactions with states on specific licensing cases

, 20 dealing with need for ex tended. s torage.

We plan to 21 handle these as a part of our routine level of effort-1 22 program of technical assistance to the states and no 23 new or additional resources are presen'tly projected in 24 this area.

25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

paul, of the

~'

r.

L t

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 L

Q I

b t-

i*'

r e

17 L

• 7

! 1' resources for licensing

cases, how many licensing-

]

2 applications does that assume?

How many faci 1ities 3

are we talking about?

4 MR.

LOHAUS:

We very

-conservatively 5

estimated that that' would be 500 actions in 1991 and 9

6 500 actions in.1992.

7 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

How many sites are we j

8 talking about there?

9 MR. BERNERO:

Excuse me.

10 (Slide) -Can we have-the first backup slide,-

4 11' please, Karen.-

I think it would be useful Just - to-12..

use that slide.

i e " - --

13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Su e.

.i 14 MR.

BERNERO:

This is a

conservative 15 assumption.

These submittals vary and it 's hard ' to 16-read how much we're actually going to get, but the 17 conservative: assumption -

- and you're talking about 18 over 1,000 licensees involved- - and about-1,000

~ 19 licensing actions.

We think that's a pessimistic

.- 20 estimate.

We dealt with it as starting in FY

'91, 21 Recall that the need would be for post

'92, at the end 22-of

'92.

23 (Slide)

To get a context on that, could

'I' 24 have slide number 2,

the. backup, estimated resource 25 impacts?

.t-t-.w NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

p f>'

e 10 1

1 This is the actual estimation as much as or 2

up to three FTE in the region and one at headquarters.

3 Now, we are carrying that margin technical assistance 4

to the

states, 1.4

FTE, as a steady state thing.

5 That's already in the budget.

This estimate of 6

additional licensing action.

we hope is very 7

conservative because the guidance will probably 8

eliminate most of the licensing actions, unless you 9

really need a

possession limit change.

Then the 10 guidance will facilitate and expedite any necessary 11 amendments so that many of them might even fall into i

12 other amendments as just a small add-on.

[

t 13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Are these resource ad 14 estimates strictly associated with storage actions?

15 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

These resource estimates j

16 are as if it were a storage action alone.

Of course 17 there's a regular casework that goes on.

18 (Slide)

If you'd put up that next slide on 19 NMSS resources, for context we're talking about a

i 20 material licensing caseload in the regions that is in 21 tens of FTE.

What we foresee is any impact in FY'91, 22 other than technical assistance to states we would 23 have to absorb in

'91, we would requesE resources as 24 needed in

'92.

But I'm rather hopeful.

I think the j

i 25 guidance is going to minimize this licensing impact.

j 1

I

.i.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Wanhington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

'M

a s

19 g

1 J'

I~

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Okay.

-~

L 2-CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

+

3 MR.

LOHAUS:

In conclusion, through the 4

actions we' have discussed today,. the NRC will have-g F

5 completed its statutory obligations, to receive the-6 governors' certifications, forward them to. C o n g r'e s s.

7 and publish them in the rederal Register, and t o-

?

8 assist. DOE and the sited states in receiving the 9

certifications for their compliance determinations..

r 10 This completes our formal presentation,

^

11 We'd be pleased to answer questions.

p 12,,

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Any questions?

? -:

13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I have a couple.

+J.

r 14-Does the staff plan to use their inspection c

- ~ 15 program, either resident inspectors at' power plants or 16 inspectors of. material licensees, to ' i d e'n t i f y any-

17 early indications - of problems due to long-term or t-18 extended storage of low level wastes and any health 19 and safety problems so one would have an early' alert 20 that problems are developing?

Has any. thought been 21 given to that?

22 MR. LOHAUS:

Yes.

As a matter of fact, part 23 of the guidance that we've developed includes a new 24 inspection procedure that is specific to storage of 25 waste.

The concept would be to ensure that wastes are I

L

.w l

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

cm 7-x

g gv i

N fit

+

[4

-20 pr.

t ' C.-

C

_1 being. safely stored in accordance with -license i,n j-2

' conditions.

3 At

-the same

time, as a

part of the 4.

certification process, the states have been. working 5

with and contacting individual generators, notifying 6

them of the need to store and identifying if there are-7 going to be particular areas or particular problems

-8 that individual generators may need to address 9

relative to storage.

So, as a part of that process-10

too, that should hopefully early on identify any Il potential problems and the states can also work to F

'12,

help ensure-that they're dealt with at an early time.

p -- d 13 MR.

BERNERO:

Excuse me, Commissioner

.O 14 Remick.

15-COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes, Bob.

IG MR. BERNERO:

We also have that now as an 17-element of inspection.

I can recall a number of

- 18 instances. immediately where. in the past we have 19 pursued this issue with licensees, particularly 20 reactor licensees that had some sort of outage that 21 generated a lot of waste as to the housekeeping and 22 the management of the low levn1 waste.

So, it's not 23 really a new subject, but we do have this tailored 24 inspection approach to make sure we can pick it up on 25 other licensees more effectively.

I t

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 1

A,.

a

?Q,h :

.wj; 21

- i

.i U

).

1 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Do we have reasonable 2-assurance in the case of agreement states that.they J

'3-will also continue to monitor licensees to make t

4 sure -- and what I'm t h i n k i n g

o f, as you accumulate i

5 large amounts of this, you're increasing the so'urce 6

term that might now affect neighbors _which did not.in E

7 previous _ years because of tbe volume.

8 MR.

COMBS:

This guidance will also be

[

9 provided to the-agreement states.and, in fact, we are

(

10 currently developing a

program for inspection of

.i 1

}1-

_ agreement-state or, let's say, evaluation of agreement 12,

states programs for waste.

-i 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

And in'the case that a

. -l 14 problem is identified, a

public health and-safety 15 problem.

Has the staff given any specific thought to, 16 what-action might be-taken in those cases _or do you-

--17 feel that existing actions that we take-on other 18 safety issues are adequate?

r 19' MR.

BERNERO:

Well,_ of course, any health i

20 und safety action that's warranted, we=can-take.

Bbt 21 the Act even envisions you know, there is an

- 22.

emergency access rule that is available.

But the 23-burden of proof is very high for that.

In other 24 words, a generator who has problems and is making a 25 good faith effort to deal with the problems and L_

NEAL R.

GROS.S 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

.ashington, D.C.

20006 W

(202) 234-4433

f:: x n

f % y '- '

}

1 e y b1 i :l.

22 pp 3

H '-E-~

1 literally' needs to have.a place to send.the low level 2

waste any be entitled to emergency-access by-an - NRC j

3:

ruling,' but that is a very difficult burden of proof' 4.

and it has to be to Justify health nnd, safety -

^

d Juutilication such.

as,

say, a

hospital-medical-6 practice might-have.

7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes.

1 8

MR.

BERNERO:

But I

think we have' ample 9

regulatory --

-I 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

That's one of the.

t

~

'll examples I was thinking o f.

I'm thinking ofl large 12 urban ' hospitals where now maybe they don't have to Ai 13 store a large amount of waste.

Now, over a period of i

1 e -

14 years, they're going-to have a large volume and maybe 15 that starts. to effect adjoining buildings - and things -

'l 16 that people.had not anticipated prior --

17 MR. BERNERO:

Well,. a good. example of thati

'18:

is there's - at lenst one major, s to t e, New. York, which 19 in their description of their program. recognizes-that s

20

. sort of a problem and sets aside.or plans a central 21 storage facility as

a. preliminary to hav.ing a-central

-22 di s pos al: facility just in order to avoid that kind'of 23 problem.

24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Thank

you, Mr.

25 Chairman.

cl u.

NEAL H.

CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 i

b..I

.=- -- -

H

,L

_4.

3 23 t

a.

d

-1 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner Roberts?

[

2-COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

No.

3-CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner Rogers?

t

'4-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Just do you have-p 5

any feeling about the quality,of the submit t als that 6

have come in thus far and any sense of what's actually 7

happening in the states?

I know this facial-8 compliance is how you're supposed to conduct your 9

-activities, but do you have any sense from looking at 10 the quality of these submissions as to what 's - renlly 11 happening out there?

12,

MR.

L O H A ll S :

In looking at the k-13 certifications and maybe as an example we brought tb

'14

two, One certification is a two page statement that N

15 does go through and address the guidance and states a

.16' very. clear intent through a disposal contract -that 17' would cover disposal through the end of '92 and their.

[

'18 intentLto maintain that. disposal contract beyond

'92-19 to cover wastes.

And also, one that contains a very

'20 detailed description relative to the sources of waste, 2 11 the -contacts that were made-with generators and a 22 specific program that will be carried out.

So, they 23 did vary in terms of the size and the amount of 24

-detail.

25 In terms of the implementing actions,

.I think 1

r L2 NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

5

~

!v

[; )

I *l

.-~r 8

s 24 1

e4 YS[- -

1 that that's. going to be a

continually developing

[

2 process up through the end of 1992.

This-is a start-3' and there's a good level of information that's there.

l i

.4 There are questions relative. to implementation that.

f 5-will'be addressed up through the end of 1992.

6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

To what extent have a;

~

7' you seen anything in these submissions that deals with I-8 issues of mixed waste or BRC?

i i

9 MR.

LOHAUS:

The issue of mixed waste was o

J 10 covered in the certifications relative to their -- the

'{

s 11 states making a

n. t a t emen t in t he. cert ificat ion that 12,,

we're certifying that any or all low level waste-which

-m 13 would include mixed waste is-covered.

The leve'l of dd:

14 detail on the descriptions,

again, varies.

Some 115 states,. for-example Illinois, Nebraska and Texas, very

._ p 16 clearly state an intent t o-

<levelop a

mixed-waste 17 disposal capacity at their facility.

Another state, 18 for example, California, sets out a waste p i r.n to deal-19 and continue to look at the issue of mixed waste.

20 MR. BERNERO:

Excuse me.-

The. BRC, T don't i

21-recall any discussion of-BRC in any of them.

22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

That hasn't surfaced 23 in any.of those.

Even though we've heard about it 24 informally, it's not come --

7 25 MR.

BERNERO:

Not explicit in the a

f NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

y.

_j 23 l

w

=.

r-, )

23 i

}~~\\ :

Y- #

11; certificatlons.

I i

2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

That's very 3

interesting.

.r 4

The topic that you. touched on eerlier on 5

what. happens with respect to on-site

storage, the 4

6 certifications were supposed to provide for some

~i 7

statement of actions to be taken by the state to

[q 8

secure all applicable permits and approvals, including 9

any amendments that might be required in the 10

. generator's NRC licenses.

Have you seen any evidence t

11 of that kind of initiative in these certifications?

t 12,_

MR.

LOHAUS:

Two points.

.First is we did

- q 13 issue clarifying guidance in August of this year which

. i-

.. U --

14-

-dealt with that issue and pointed out that the states 4

15 retained the responsibility, but the responsibility 16 for securing necessary permits really rested with the p

17 generators.

18

Again, depending on the level. of - detail.

,19 within the certification, that was -an area that was 20 addressed relative to the interactions that the states-21.

have had with generators, notifying them that there.

. 22 would.be a need for storage after 1992, encouraging 23 them to examine their programs to see what changes s

24 might be necessary and if a determination was made.

25 that a license amendment would be required, that they i

. i-.-

F NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W, Washington, D C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

p D'

[' fy l

t1 V

26I

{"il;k-' would proceed forward-in taking the necessary-steps to

-2

. secure'that amendment.

3 MR. BERNERO:

Excuse me.

I'd like to recall 4

_once again the example of New York where the state,.

5 exercising its responsibility, identifie,s-the need for

-f e

?

6.

storage capacity and proposes it, intends it to i

7 eliminate as many as possible of such permit 8

amendments. or license amendments.

New

York, of

9 course, is;an-agreement state and would license that 10 facility.

I1 COMMISSIONER-R00ERS:

Wel1, I

was just-'

- 12,._

recalling some of the language in the SRM that went 13 with the SECY that we received some time ngo,88-342, i-. --

~

. l'4 -

that directed the staff to try to include language to-15

-that

effect, that the states were to assist the d

'16 licensees wherever they'could if license changes were 17.

required.

I'm not sure how they can assist, frankly.

18-MR BERNERO:

Organiring capacity..-yes.

19' MR.

LOHAUS:

They had been responsive.

We 20 -

did include that aspect in the gu idance - and..we did-21 issue some clarifying guidance subsequent to.that as 22 well.

The states have been responsive to that in-l d

23 terms of contacting generators, doing surveys and l

l 24 trying to work with the generators up front to 25 identify potential problems and make sure that if a 1

i>_

d NEAL R.

GROSS

]

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 j

j

~

o e

27 m

J l

change is necessary that planning is started early.

2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

There have been issues 3

of liability and foreign control of the sites, in the 4

compact states the host versus the non-host states.

5 What's the state of resolution of those issues?

Do 6

you know?

7 MR.

BERNERO:

That's an area that I don't 8

heve a tremendous amount of familiarity with.

I don't 9

know what the current status is.

It's an issue that 10 the states are addressing and are covering as a part 11 of their moving forward.

But I don't have a lot of 12..

detail or background in that particular area.

~

13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Okay.

Thank you.

I 14 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Commissioner Curiiss?

15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Just a handful of 16 questions here.

17 I want to go back to the number of sites 18 that we've got.

Based upon what you've seen today, 19 how many sites do we expect to be developed both in 20 the compact regions and the go-it-alone states?

21 MR.

LOHAUS:

If we look at the compacts, 22 there are nine compacts.

The northeast compact plans 23 to have two sites.

So that would give us a total of 24 ten sites for the compacts.

We have four unaffiliated 25 states that presently plan to have sites.

If we were F

t..

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Ialand Avenue, N.W.

W a s h i n g t c.,,

D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

?

j 4

0

'8 j3 1"

1 to add the State of Vermont to that list as well, it 2

could be in the neighborhood of 14 or 15 sites as an 3

upper bound maximum.

4 I

think what we're beginning to see, for 5

example, though are that a number of states, for 6

example

Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, the

-7 District of

Columbia, and also

Vermont, are-8 negotiating contracts with the Rocky Mountain compact

[

9 to provide for disposal of waste.

So, we may see l

10 further activities along these lines and some s

11 consolidatlon.

12,

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

In view of those

-H 13 developments, do you have a realistic projection on i

~

14-what you would expect in terms of the. numbers of the 15 sites or is it too early to tell?

L IG MR.

LOHAUS:

I think it's

't on enrly to L

17 really provide a crisp answer.

I *hink we're looking

}

18 at, right now, somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 to t

19 15 sites.,

but that should be reduced through 20-consolidation.

21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Okay.

Of the 13 to

-22 15' t hat we expect now, how many of those sites ere-23 located in agreement states?

24 MR.

LOHAUS:

The aajority of those sites it l

25 would be located in agreement states.

r-~-

.t.-

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 t

(202)'234-4433

1 l'

• s i

o I

l 29

"--")

-uJ 1

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Are there any hont I

2 states that are not currently agreement states that i

{<

3 are interested in becoming agreement states?

4 MR.

LOHAUS:

Yes, pennsylvania is

one, 5

Michigan is a second, and Massachusetts is a third.

t G

Although in the Massachusetts certification, they do 7

conclude that the timing of their negotiations may be 8

such that the application would be submitted to NRC.

[

d 9

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

When will those t.

10 applications be submitted, or do we have a feel yet t

11 for that?

i 12..-

MR. LOHAUS:

I shoul'd be able to answer'the q

13 question.

I don't recall specifically, but,1 think l

• ~ ~

14 it's in the '91,

'92 time frame.

f 15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

I guess what I'm i

16 driving at in will we face n

situntlon where the

\\.

17 Commission's review of the agreement state application s

L e

18 becomes the pacing item for the licensing of the 19 facility or can we process those expeditiously enough 20 that for those ntates that are interested in'having 21=

that authority it can be turned over to them, assuming 22 a timely and complete application in time then to 23 proceed with the licensing of the facility?

24 MR. COMBS:

The review process varies from 25 state to state.

We are in negotiations now with the i

u-.

I NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 l

[

[

s o'

I 30

,=k-1 State of Pennsylvania for their limited agreement to s

2 cover waste only.

We have talked with Michigan on and l

l 3

off over the past four or five years with respect to

[

4 their limited agreement.

And when Michigan announced 5'

three counties for characterization, they indicated at V

G that time that they would be interested in becoming nn 7

agreement state.

Now, the other states wern not ~ns t

8 advanced except for perhaps the State of Maine.

t 9

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

On the stornge 10

question, I really have two questions.

One, do we 11 envision any circumstance today where we would 12,

contemplate or allow storage at NRC licensees beyond m

13 the 1/1/96 deadline or are we locking to that deadline 1

.. a 14'

'as a drop-dend dat.e for storage capacities since the 15 states either have'to take title to the waste or have 1G disposal facilities operating?

17 MR.

LOHAUS:

I think we're look ing.~at that 18 as an end point.

However, there will he need for 4=

10 storage beyond 1996.

One certification in particular, 20 the certification filed by the State of Maine, and 21

with, I

think, their existing legislation, does 22 provide sort of a contingency aspect that they could 23 direct that there be additional storage beyond 199G if 24 their facility is not in operation nt that point in 25 time.

So I think we ' re, looking at that as an end F

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington c D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

e L

3 31

, f:

i J'

1 point, but there may he need for some storage beyond j

.l 2'

that.

w t

3 But I think the Act very clearly says that

(

4 at that point in time the atate's responsible and the y

D S

generators can notify the state and at that point.the

,f-G state is then responsible for ~ taking possession and g

I 7

title.

There may be some interim time in there during 8

which continued storage will be necessary before the i

l 9

capacity or additional actions'the state would take-go;

' 10 '

into effect.

11 COMMISSIONER CGRTISS:

Second question on b

12 storage.

I noticed in the New York certification, and 13 perhaps some others, that storage is being considered =

r

~

14 in the context of greater reliance on brokers.

Does 15 that pose any additional regulatory challenges-for us i

16 or considerations that rather than storage at the_ site 17 of generntion, this waste will be transferred to 18 brokers and stored there?

19 MR.

LOHAUS:

I don't believe so.

I think 20 that brokers, as a normal part of their business, 21 carry out programs of. storage of waste generally 22 within six months to a 12 month period.

Extending

~23 storage beyond that should not 'be a

significant r.

24 additional factor in their programs.

It may very well

-25 require an amendment to their license.

t i

4.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

(c

.n 3.-

~

['

s 32 N '- 'p'

.-L-1 MR.

BERNERO:

Yes.

Recall that with 2

brokers, we or agreement states ordinarily impose a i

3 storage limit, not for health and safety reasons as 4

such, but to ensure that the broker doesn't-become a S.

de facto waste repository.

So, if, as part of the 6

strategy of the st, ate that there is an interim major

}

7 storage responsibility at a broker, it's a factor in i

8' waste disposal and there would be nothing unique that L

j 9

I would see in the health and safety side of it that 10 would make it difficult to license that.

Il COMMIGS10NER CURTISS:

Okay.

Mixed waste.

12 You touched on that a couple' of times and I gather m

13-there are some compact certifications and some state n

14 certifientions that have touched on the mixed waste 15 issue as well.

Could you summarize in a little bit

'lG more detail what the current thinking is in

't e rms o f 17 how we're going to resolve the mixed waste problem, 18 where we're going from here, part,icularly in view of 19 the California certification that seems to have 20 wrestled evorything down except for the mixed waste 21 problem between now and 1993?

22 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

Let me talk to that one..

23 When you read these certifications, you come 24

across, the impression forms that mixed waste is a 25 subject that most people would rather not address and

.r t

I NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

I slui i '

g

+

e 4

33 7

J 1

some are silent on the subject and just make an all 2

embracing certification.

The others talk about it as, 3

"We're going to come to grips with it somehow."

As 4

you

know, we are still trying to get a

joint 5

regulation guidance out.

Some of the states think, or 6

at least their certification seems to suppose that 7

that's a doable thing, that there can be a mixed waste 8

module of some sort at the Illinois low level waste 9

disposal facility.

10 Right now, and this is really the subject of 11 another avenue of discussion we have with the 12,

commission in the overall arena of dealing with rpA, 13 right now we're still trying t 'o cope with the dual 14 regulation of mixed

waste, the dual act

' ' ~ ~

15 responsibility.

It's a very difficult thing.

I wish 16 I could give you a simple, succinct answer that. "liere 17 it is, here's the answer, and it will all be over in 18 12 months.

It won't be.

There is no such simple 19 answer.

There's not a simple answer if we go for 20 single regulation and there's not a simple answer if 21 we continue to try for dual regulation.

22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

It's a curious kind 23 of issue because we've heard from some of the s t a t-e s 24 like Illinois and perhaps Texas and others that they they don't envision the mixed waste 25 can actually I

l- -

NEAL R.

GROSS l

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Wanhington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

W R;.

']

4

.=

i'.

34 r

1 problem being an intractable sne.

We've heard from

- ~ -

2

others, California and the generators in particular I

s:.'

3 out there, that seem to reach conclusion that in 180 4

degrees opposite of that, maybe because they have a j

L 5

dry site out there.

e

-6 But I

guess if I

vnderstand what we're L

7 doing, at least at this point. the objective is to try

.l l'

8 to reach a joint approach with the RPA that would, pn L

9-under the guidance that's been established, lead to 10 the design of a facility that could' meet both the RCRA 11 requirements as weJ1 as the Part 61 requirements.:

12,

MR. BERNERO:

Part G1 requirements, yes, and' L

13 the apparent contradiction of those requirements being I

t.j

-t i

14 reconelled.

15 COMMISSIONER CUHTISS:

Do we know

today,

+

F i

L 16

~

have we identified today,.any inconsistencies in those 17 two sets of requirements?

18 MR. -BERNERO:

Oh,

yes, I

think that's--

t t

19 yes, there are a number of such.

The classic one of 20 drainage 21 CHAIEMAN CARR:

Lined and unlined.

22 MR.

BERNERO:.

Yes, lined and unlined, the 20 drained or undrained, yes.

24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Well, I

mean i

25 irreconcilable.

o u.

NEAL R.

CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Wushington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

3

'o i

6 35 A

1 MRs BERNERO:

Well, not irreconcilable.

2 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

The line of question, j

L i

3 I take it, we're addressed in the Joint guidance.

~

4 MR.

BERNERO:

Yes, in the design l

5 requirements.

I 6

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Are there any 7

requirements yet that we know of that beyond what 8

we've said in the joint guidance oppear to be 9

Irreconcilable?

10-MR. BERNERO:

The only one I could foresee 11 iw this issue of land band storage.

You know, the 12 RCRA requirements that EPA has have' some very q

13

, intricate requirements related to temporary storage O

14 and then permanent disposal.

We have negotiated with 15' EPA and they_are preparing draft _ guidance on that, but-16 as-of just a few days ago, I checked with staff, we 17 hadn't gotten it yet.

18 MR.

BANGART:

You're aware that in recent 19' rulemaking by EPA they did grant a two year extension 20 of-variance, national capacity variance?

So that has 21 allowed sr,me breathing room and I've seer: at least one 22 letter from the State of California where they plan to 23 use that to further interact with EPA to gain 24 additional time, develop plane for ultimate dir.posul.

25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

If we reach the point l

i 1.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Wanhington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 g

n

's.

r :..

L c _

36 f-~

'l I

where, let's say on the land band

question, we 2

conclude that the approach that RCRA contemplates and j

i -

3

.the approach that Part 61 contemplates are i

4 inconsistent, what do we do at that stage?

j 5

MR. BERNERO:

I think there would have to be i

fb G

some sort of legal relief from one of-them, one of the j

f 7

requirements.

And-what I

envision is that the

'8 requirements in Part 61 are

health, safety or t

9 environmental requirements,

directly, direct 10 environmental impnets.

The land band requirements are 11 programmatic environmental requirements that they're 12,

trying to influence a technology or an industry that's 13 generating a waste and ensure that it stops generating r

. v r

i.._).

14 excessive or further quantitien of. such waste.

T 15 think some legal relief, probably of the latter, would 1

16 he involved.

17 COMMISSIONER Ct!RTISS:

Okay.

Jur.t a couple other 18-quick questions.

19 There've been a number of folks who have 20 expressed a concern that the interpretation of the p

21 part 61 requirements. in the

guidance, in the reg-20 guides and so forth that are being developed. or 23 circulated, may actually lead to a set of requirements i

24 that go beyond-what Part G1 on its face requires.

25 In addition, I gather there is some question i

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 E_

• ?

P o-

=

s c,

37 I'

i

!.' CJ 1

as to whether the Part 100 siting requirements that we 2

use for reactors would be employed in the low level l

3 waste context for these facilities.

-Can you address 4

that question of whether, as we head now to the next 5

milestone, where we are on those two questio'ns?

G MR. I.0HAUS:

The guidance that we set out, 7

at the time we prepared it, incorporated ' t he best 8

avnilable information that we had that we could apply 9

to further implement and provide guidnnce relative to

[

10 meeting the requirements in Part Gl.

In some cases, 11 we do refer to requirements in Part 100 or Part 150, 12,

It's set out as guidance.

It's one approach that enn 7

-13 he followed in meeting the regulations in Part Gl.

r

~~~

l 14 Licensees, applicants can propose alternative 15 approaches.

-But what we tried to do is Io provide an 16 approach and to set a guidance that could be followed 17 using the best available guidance-at that time.

18 MR. BERNERO:

Yes, but to pick up on that, 19 you know this map that you have in your handout has a 20 whole rich body of information in it.

One of the 21 things you can see is-the acronym SLB band, shallow 22 land burial band.

And you'll see that's

.very 23 prevalent, a lot of places.

And what that does in 24 change the

context, and that's why I

believe you 25 raised the question, Commissioner Curtiss, about Part-

-p_l-

-ta.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

=

3 38 1

t i-1 100.

2-You're shifting to a structural requirement 3

and you're shifting away from siting requirements and 4

performance requirements thnt were developed and 5

promulgated on the basis ' of shallow land burial and 6

drainage thereof.

This is an evolution thnt we're 7

trying to track carefully, because the growth in 8

interest in civil structures raises the possibility of 9

a wholly new context in which you say, "What is the 10 full spectrum of requirements for civil structures, if 11 they are to fully replace what I would call ' shallow 12,_

land burial conformation?'"

And this could get us 7

'13 beyond reg guide into alternate regulation.

14 There are two ways to satisfy the-o15 regulation, shallow Innd burial-a la pa r t - 61 or a 16 fully different but same performance set

of 17 regulations including structural design and rather 18 exhaustive treatment to get the equivalent.

19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

But from the 20 standpoint of the siting r e qu i r eme n t s,- even with an 21 engineered facility for low level waste disposal,-it 22 is still that facility is still much more like a-23 shallow land burial

" facility than it would be a

24 reactor.

25 MR.

BERNERO:

Oh, yes.

The siting I-p 1

.c -

NEAI, R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

l Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

.i

-O 39 I

FJ 1

requirements are still geared to Part G1, which is 2

different from a reactor.

3 MR. LOHAUS:

The siting requirements would l

4

. apply in all

enses, whether there are engineering 5

barriers that are applied and used as a part of the t:

l 6

disposal facility or whether it's relying more on the

[

7 traditional shallow land burial-technique. ~ The siting 8

requirements are applied in all cases.

9 MR. BANGART:

I'd like to further add, our 10 view at this time is that the concern you expressed is j

11 relatively isolated in nature and recognize that much l

12,

of the guidance that we did promulgate is there at the

-e, 13 request'of the states and compacts and we don't'have a

~

14 large number of such entities expressing concern.- On 15 the seismic issue, we do recognize the difference and I

16 the di fference. in the criteria that would be necessary 17 for shallow.

land disposal versus an engineered 18 atructure.

19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Let me pick up on 20 that point because you've alluded to the fact that the 21 states enn come in, states or compacts can come in and-22 have facilities that are more stringent than what Part 23

.61.

requires, going beyond shallow land burial and 24 actually engineering facilities that exceed the 25 requirements of Part 61.

4.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

9 40 i

1 1 guess the question I have is on wh.st's 2

been called the Illinois one millirem

issue, the 3

question of whether a

state enn establish a more 4

stringent radiation protection requiremetr. ns a part 5

of the range of requirements or the whole 6

comprehensive approach that it tnkes at the state 7

level.

8 Could you tell us generally whern we are on 9

that question and specifically whether we've resolved 10 the Illinois one millirem i s. s u e ?

11 MR.

COMBS:

At this particular point, we 12,

have not resolved the lasue.

We did send to Illinois 13 about a year ago a letter asking for clarification.

14 We recently received a letter from Illinois concerning 15 below regulatory concern materials which in part 16 addressed the one mi11irem issue, indienting ihat it 17 was a bit more than a design standard but actually an 18 operating standard, but we haven't come to any other 19 conclusions.

20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

And your current 21 thinking is that if a state comes in and estchlishes a 22 design standard that is lower than 25 millirem in Part 23

- 61 that that would be a matter of compatibility under 24 the agreement state approach?

25 MR. COMBS:

That's correct.

I 4..

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

u-s 41

-l_

i 1

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

That ihey would be

^

precluded from duing that?

2 3

MR. COMBS:

Under existing guidance, yes.

i 4

COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

Okay.

One final t

i 5-question.

You alluded to the

title,

" Transfer l

6 provisions," in the statute and as early as 1993 atd 7

as late au 199G the possibility that the. waste-may 8

atart finding.its way from the generaturn to the 1

9 states.

It's still a ways off, but I guess I'd wonder r

-10 what the staff's current thinking is in terms of where

'an agency in developing the 11 we're going t o-go an

{

12,,

procedures that might be necessary for the 13 implementation of that requirement?

)

14 MR. LOHAUS:

It's a very enmplex issue and i

i 15-

.we do plan to conduct a study.

We hav.e a contract

{

16

.that will be coming a latge contract that will be 17 coming forward for approval and as part of a task in-18'

.I i-that contract we would like to explore that further

-19 and get a better idea of what the congressional intent l

20 and legislative history of that provision is and with 21 that examine what areas NRC.nught to be prepated to 22 deal with, and if there are specific things that we 23 should start tv use that as a process to frame that 24 and start the process.

25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:

What's the timing-for E~l-

=L J NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode !aland Avenue.

N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 f

(202) 234-4433

w

- 4 i-42

,i Y '- -

1

.the contract?

How long would it be?

2 MR. LOH Al!S :

It will probably be in effect 3

late this year or early next year in terms of the 4

large contract and then that would be one task that 5

will be set out within that contract.

6 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Counselor?

7 MR.

PARLER:

Mr.

Chairman, if there's a

8 question about legislative intent of what a statute 9

requires, I would respectfully hope that they would 10 ask us first and not contract out for it.

Perhaps he 11 didn't intend that, but that's what I understood.

12,,

COMMISSIONER C11RTISS:

Yes.

It does seem to 13 me that although that's some ways down the pike, it's i

14 pretty clear, I think, in the view of many, what the 15 legislation intends.

There may be some problems that 16 we as the agency that's responsible for licensing 17 those who possess the waste may have to come.to grips 18 with.

But if it does require some sort of rulemaking 19 or additional Commission consideration, and if that in 20 turn translates into the one or two years that that il typically takes, if you back off from January 1st of 22

'96, that gets you to January 1st of '94.

And I guess 23 I would encourage you as we now head towards the next 24 mileec.one and with the 1/1/93 potential thnt title 25 could t rans fer at that point, although unlikely, that 1

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 L

.o i-t

.g 43 I

J l

we being to focus on the title transfer question i

2 because it does seem to me that i t ' s.

an integral part 3

of the statute and the effectiveness of getting the 4

states to move along with development of' disposal-f 5

capacity, i

r f

G That's all I have.

7-CHAIRMAN CARR:

Where are the surcharge 6

8 funds held and who holds-them?-

j 9

MR.

LOHAUS:

The surcharge funds are i

10 retained and held by the sited states.

They do return 11 25 percent of-those funds to the Department of Energy i

12,,

and they are retnined in a separate account b y --. D O E.

fi 13 Then, within 30 days of meeting each milestone, DOE-e

.. d 14 taken. action to return that 25 percent rebate back to j

15 the states or compacts.

16

-CilAIRMAN CARR:

So the actual operator of 17 the facility charges the funds, then ships them to the j

18 state, then the state sends them-to DOE?

?

19 MR. LOHAUS:

Yes.

l 1

.20.

. CHAIRMAN CARR:

DOE then' holds them and i

21 sends them back to the compact or the state, huh?

.22 MR. LOHAUS:

Yes.

i 23 CHAIRMAN CARR:

How big is the pot now, do 24 we know?

25 MR. LOHAUS:

I don't have speci fic figures.

i t

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 L

d

.j.

44 t-p

'k-1 1 believe, if I recall, I think Illinois had estimated 2,

that their surcharge for this milestone would run over 3

$1 million.

Their surcharge rebate for this milestone 4

would run over $1 million.

)

5 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

I don't know if 6

you've had them long enough to-analyze the data that

[

7 came in with them, but have you had what is the 8

comparison between the estimates of_ the volume - and I

9 types as compared to whnt we thought they would from

~

10 the Brookhaven look?

Are they pretty much and

[

11 generally in agreement with what we thought it would L

12.

be or --

i:

13 MR.

LOH Alls :

I don't see any major 14 differences or disparity in terms of what we would 15 nnticipate seeing based on current in format ion and 16 what's set out in the certifications.

17

. CHAIRMAN CARR:

Well, no surprises.

18 MR. LOHAUS:

No.

19-MR. BERNERO:

Rxcuse me, Mr. Chairman.

Keep 20 in mind though, some of these submittals are like what 21 Paul showed you, only a two page letter.

So, there's 22 not a whole lot of data there to look at.

23 ~

CHAIRMAN CARR:

I notice the certificalions 24 all are contingent on a

number of assumptions, 25 including stability of the federal regulatory i

s'.

NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 m

---,n r --

-m

i i

4 45 l

J l

framework and timely action on license amendments to 2

allow for extended storage.

Are those valid 3

assumptions?

l 4

MR. LOHAUS:

Yes.

j 5

MR. BERNERO:

Yes, I think so, in light of l

[

6 recent activities with the low level waste standards

(

7 and the words I gave you on the licensing activities,-

i 8

which I think will be reasonable.

9 CHAIRMAN CARR:

So you're not going io,end 10 up on the controlling path.

l 11 MR. LOHAUS:

We going to try not to do that.

i 12,.

CHAIRMAN CARR:

How about running over one n

13 more time for me what anticipations you got for a need 1f to promulgate new regulations or regulatory guidance id pertaining to interim storage?

16 MR. BERNERO:

Well, we did take care of the i

17 reactor storage six

months, eight months

ago, t

18 something like that, reviewed it This guidance which l

1 19 is about to go out and has been integrated with the i

20 regions and so

forth, this is go.ing to be an 21 information notice that spells out to each licensee-22 all of the safety issues and considerations.

I don't 23 think we'll need rulemaking on this.

I think existing 24 rules are adequate.

25 What we're doing is literally walking the w

NEAL R.

CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

o

..g-(

46

,!F E-1 licensees through the issue of waste storage and make

'2 sure that they have n very clear understanding of what 6

~3 the issues or safety considerations are and how their 4

license controls them.

By that mechanism, I

think 5

we'll minimize the need for license amendments.

L 6

But those facilitien that would need'another L-7 change in their

facility, that is say a

larger 8

building or another building or a facility that would-9 have to change its possession

limit, they are i:I' 10 generally controlled to how many curies of activity 11 they have, that would make that a very straightforward 12,

proposition to get such nn amendment.

But I don't I "q 13 think we'll need rulemaking.

I t'hink existing rules

~

14 are sufficient.

15 CHAIRMAN CARR:

Do you foresee an inerense 16 in the number of requests to put reactor low level 17 waste disposal on site with reactor sites?

'18 MR.

BERNERO:

Well, the reactors already 19 have five years authorized and i can speak from my 20 personal observation, many of the plants could easily 21 accommodate much more than that.

Their volume is the 22 largest bf' all the generators and it's difficult to

'23 say if they're going to go substantially beyon'd t h a t,-

24 depending on how this works out because they've got a 25 five year cushion alrendy and most of them don't carry i

6-NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433

j o

.47 l

I.

J s

!.LJ l

that inventory.

They have the authorization, but.they 2

nove the stuff out.

t 3-CHAIRMAN CARR:

They may be reluctnnt to i

V 4

move stuff out if the surcharge goes on them.

-l 5

MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

If they're involved in j

6 one of the states that is in trouble, yes, and.there I

7 are a few that you can see already in that category.

[

i 8

CHAIRMAN CARR:

Okay.

Are there any other j

9 questions?

10 Well, the commission appreciates the storf's I

11 hard work in preparing the briefing in such a short:

12...

timo after the certification.

It appenre that the 13 states, with a few exceptions, are making reasonable j

' - q "L

?

14 progress in providing for the storage," disposal and 15 management of low level waste.

I am particularly IG pleased with the progress that states like-Califorhin-17 have-made in actue.lly developing a license application 18 for new low level waste disposal facilities.

19 I

commend the staff also' for its rapid 20 processing - of the governors' certifications.

Your

't 21 foresight in preparing constructive guidance has i

22 helped to ensure that the certifications generally 23 provide the types of information that-the sited states-24 and the Department of Energy will need to evaluate 25-compliance with the milestones of the Low Level L:

s NEAL R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington,-D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 P

N b b.

A 48

! I fk-1 Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act.

l 2

In addition, your readiness for processing 3

the certifications han enabled the NRC to complete its 4

duties under the Act in a timely manner.

I would 5

encourage you to continue monitoring state progress in I

G developing the new waste disponni facilitles and to 7

proactively resolve emerging issues to ensure

[

8 protection of the public henith and safety.

This

'9 includes fulfill'ing our own obligations for i

10 maintaining-the stable regulatory framework and for 11 timely completion of the licensing actions to support 12,,

the state programs.

13 In addition.

I

' urge you to carefully d

~

14 evaluate implications of the information contained in 15 the certifications on NRC's regulatory program for low 10-level waste management.

17'

Finally, I

encourage you to continue to L

18 enhance our support for the agreement state programs 19 since they will bear most of the burden in regulating 20 the development of the new disposal sites and the 21 storage of waste in the interim.

22 If there are no other comments, we stand 23 adjourned.

24 (Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m.,

the a b.o v e-25 entitled matter was concluded.)

'I NEAl, R.

GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 i

l CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Connaission entitled TITLE OF MEETING:

BRIEFING ON GOVERNORS' CERTIFICATION OF LOW LEVEL WASTE SITES PLACE OF MEETINGt ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETINGt JANUARY 17, 1990 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.

._,d l.L

,i m e Reporter's namet Peter Lynch i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT 9090RTERS AND TRANSChillR$

tala RNODE ISLAND AYEMUE. M.W.

(202) 234 4433 W ASMtW OTO N 0.C.

2000$

(202) 232-6600 1

//l G/ f0 i

i t

i P

r i

GOVERNORS' CERTIFICATION OF LOW LEVEL WASTE SITES JANUARY 17, 1990 PAUL H. LOHAUS CONTACT:

LARRY W. CAMPER PHONE:

49-20573 1

9 5

4

i a

t I

i i

l BRIEFING OVERVIEW

1. BACKGROUND

-- SECY-88-342 (DECEMBER 13, 1988)

-- KEY LLRWPAA CONCEPTS

-- 1990 LLRWPAA MILESTONE

-- NRC GyIDANCE

2. RESPONSE OF THE STATES TO 1990 MILESTONE

3. NRC PROCESSING OF STATE SUBMITTALS

4. POTENTIAL LOW-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM ISSUES AFFECTillG NRC l

2

,g' 9

I i

KEY LLRWPAA CONCEPTS STATES RESPONSIBLE FOR LLW OPERATING SITES OPEN UNTIL END OF 1992.

ESTABLISHES MILESTONES, INCENTIVES AND PENALTIES h

S e

6 3

3

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COASPACT STATUS JANUARY 1990 i

l UNAFFfLMTED STATESE/X '// '/J

• 11% Nemonal LLW (9 Steses)

• WA es host State AK

• 9% NahonalRW BSIDWEST

• NY to host see - 5% Nahonal LLW - SLB bonned l

• RfA to host see - 4% Nahonal LLW - SLB bonned

• SLB

• RN selected as host State

• 7% NohonalLLW

• VT. NH. AdE, M. DC. M each less then i

1% Notonal LLW - SLB bonned in RAE j

• SLB bonned l

l _ WA

(

WM y

feOHTNEAST

}

i

• C N

80

( asse f I, WI p'

• NJ and CT are party States

[

O oft l

g

• NJ and CT selected as host Saeees l

\\

N ggg

/,<,

/'

I

-EA

• 6% Nemonal LLW i

l

'M

'g b fu

• Bunal technology to be I-

,I IA f

I oN CT decernened by host States

[

I 3

NJ

• stb benned l

w E

I y

i "O

AP=uC N

c, f_

Q

• PA is host State R

CENTRAL RAIDWEST

• 13% Notonal LLW y

. it. host St e

• S e banned b

• 8% Nemonal LLW AZ IL

• SLB bonned i

I l

IIE

(

SoUTNWESTERIG 3

"Y WA f

j o CA is host Stone est CO o 8% Notonal RW Ks I

NC 7)

,gg Sc on Aft SoemeEAST l

noCnr NTA.N a

• NC seiec.ed-hoM S.see

(

i ass AL GA

• SC as now host Stese Usmg SLB 4 LA P anno see by 1982

• Nv w ham State I

• 33% Netonal LLW i

. CG ned host State weh

'l l

FL

• New buriel technology 30 be j

operetng see by 1992 by NC - SLB bonned l

i e <1% NotonalLLW CEN

• NE selecsed as host State TEMAS

• 5% NahonelLLW

• TX to host see l

• SLB bonned

• 1% NahonelLLW b

g

[

l

• o,

• , uw o se.

PH

]

• SLB banned

[

%ee: Nabonel LLW wolume for 1938 = 1.4 mishon cubsc feet.

Source: Stese, Locsi e id Indien Te#se Programs l

SLB = ehellourland tsunel Office of Cm.--

.,_ f_^ and Pubhc Afteirs,98.C j

j c

1 e

4

-4!

I LLRWPAA MILESTONES 7/1/86: IDENTIFY STATE APPROACH 1/1/88: SITING PLAN 1/1/90: APPLICATION OR CERTIFICATION 4

1/1/92: APPLICATION 1/1/93: DISPOSE OR TAKE TITLE TO LLW 1/1/96: TAKE LLW TITLE AND POSSESSION 1

5 l

SURCHARGES UNDER LLRWPAA OF 1985.

1 Surcharge i

3

($/ft )

l 30 -

cn

[

20 -

0 1

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 i

Calendar Year I

f s

e.

i KEY ELEMENTS OF 1990 LLRWPAA MILESTONE BY JANUARY 1, 1990, A NON-SITED STATE SHALL EITHER:

-- FILE A COMPLETE APPLICATIONJ OR

-- PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION 7

e-e.

l 3

H 1

l 1

CONTENT OF CERTIFICATIONS

' GOVERNOR "SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTI-FICATION" TO NRC THAT THE STATE "WILL BE CAPABLE OF PROVIDING EQRt AND WILL PROVIDE EQR1 THE STORAGE, DISPOSAL, OR MANAGEMENT OF ANY LLW GENERATED IN THE STATE AND REQUIRING DISPOSAL AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1992",

AND INCLUDE "A DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIONS' THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ASSURE THAT SUCH CAPACITY EXISTS."

[ EMPHASIS ADDED}

(SECTION 5(E)(1)(C)(ll))

8

F O.

i1RC ROLE IN STATE CERTIFICATIONS COMMISSION "SHALL TRANSMIT ANY CERTIFICATION RECEIVED... TO THE CONGRESS AND PUBLISH ANY SUCH CERTIFICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. [ EMPHASIS ADDEDl" (SECTION 5(E)(1)(E))

9

'yA[

. C.

f i

ORIGINS OF NRC GUIDANCE PREPARED AT STATES' REQUEST COORDINATED WITH~ STATES AND DOE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY COMMISSION (SECY 88-342)

SENT TO STATES, PUBLISHED IN f.8, FEBRUARY, 1989 t

i 10

f 3

2

?

r KEY ELEMENTS IN NRC GUIDANCE STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS TECHNICAL CONTENT OF CERTIFICATIONS PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL NRC PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING e

11 l

1

.m

4 i

i Y

x NRC PROCESSING OF STATE SUBMITTALS

" FACIAL COMPLIANCE" CHECK

---SIGNED BY GOVERNOR?

-- DATED?

-- CONTAIN." DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS" UNDER SECTION 5(E)(1)(C)?

- PROMPTLY FORWARDED To DOE RECEIPT OF CERTIFICATIONS ACKNOWLEDGED BY GPA/SLITP O

6 12

g,;.

j

,1, P

a NRC PROCESSING OF STATE SUBMITTALS (CONT'D)

TRANSMIT TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS AND SITED STATES PUBLISH IN FEDERAL REGISTER COPIES TO STATE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS AND-0VERSIGHT COMMITTEES c

i f

~

~ GOVERNOR'S CERTIFICATIONS Not Recuired to Certify (79 States)

Certifications Received (31 States)

Alabama Arizona l

h<

Alaska Arkansas Colorado California Florida Connecticut

.l Georgia Delaware Hawaii District of Columbia Idaho Illinois Mississippi Indiana Montana Iowa Nevada Kansas New Mexico Kentuc ky -

North Carolina Louisiana Oregon Maryland i

South. Carolina Massachusetts Tennessee Maine Utah

. Michigan Virginia Minnesota Washington Missouri Wyoming Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Texas l

West Virginia Wisconsin Certifications Not Received Puerto Rico Vermont 14 3

l l

P i

1 POTENTIAL LLW PROGRAM ISSUES AFFECTING NRC

• GUIDANCE FOR EXTENDED STORAGE

• ADDITIONAL LICENSING CASEWORK

• REQUESTS FOR NRC TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1

9 15

%',7mAf[1l %M&d%,%QF 1,-k" 1

-' We'

- %kUM lW W W'*'

M *'%1' ' ' "'*-

u -

'*m?W

' * *MD3L*M "

%W~UI Lu w wAC rymM-r44M wany a

5 P

e sej

..r b

ATTACHMENTS t

t i

h

?

t, s,

6

^

e k

t>

c hi 3

b r

'P e

I I

s a

k

?

'l

% um nauu%

faam,,,,

/

?.,

UNITso STATss

!-Q j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3, p jg M SMWG70N. c. c. 20sse N'..W../

December 21, 1989 Jill Lytle Acting Associate Director Office of Waste Operations Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Mail Stop EM-30 U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.

20545 l

I am writing regarding NRC's anticipated receipt of Governor's certifications for the 1990 mi'estone of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.

In accordance with published 00E guidance. I will be transmitting and verifying receipt of the certifications to you as they are received. 00f,'s i

guidance. indicates that DOE will accept as documentation of 4 State's compliance with the milestone a statement signed by an NRC official authorized

~

to verify NRC's official receipt of such correspondence. The guidance further provides that the statement should verify that a certification, as described-in the Act, signed by the Governor of the State, was filed with. the NRC by January 1,1990.

The statement should indicate that the Governor's-certification provides for the storage, disposal or management of any low-level radioactive waste for which the State is responsible under Section 3(a) of the Act.

I-have attached, for your information, a copy of the transmittal. letter we plan to send to you to verify receipt of the certifications. To the extent that the certifications are clear and contain a statement that the certification provides for the "... storage, disposal or management of any low-level radioactive waste for which the $ tate is responsible under Section 3(a) of the Act..." or words to that effect, I will include such a statement in sqr letter to you.

In the unlikely event that such a statement is j

not specifically contained in the certification, I will proceed to trananit the certification to you and verify its receipt in accordance with your guidance. For all certifications, the formal determination of compliance with l

the Act for purposes of state eligibility for receipt of surcharge rebates i

rests with 00E.

We have previously informally reviewed drafts of the enclosed letter with William Newberry of your staff.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

) nn

=

Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated 1

,,.i'

[,,,, g T*i UNITED STATES

'f '

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-WASHING TON, D. C. 20SSS k.:....

/ Jill E.- Lytle, Acting Associate Director Office of Waste Operations L

Office of Environmental Restoration and Weste Management Mail Stop 7A049 1

United States Department of Energy i

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C.

20545

Dear Mrs. Lytle:

In accordance with the Department of Energy's January 23, 1989, ' Notice of DOE Policies and Procedures Regarding the January 1,1990 Milestone", the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hereby verifies receipt of the enclosed certification submitted by the State (Commonwealth) of to meet Section' 5(e)(1)(C)(11) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste roI1cy Ameneents Act of 1985 (Act). This certification was signed by Governor

, and certifies that the State (Commonwealth) of will ne capaale of.

providing for and will provide for storage, 6. or management of any low-level radioactive waste generated within the State and requiring disposal

-after December 31, 1992.. This certification was officially provided to NRC lon

. No later than January 23, 1990, copies of all certifications mili De sent to Congress and to the Office of the Federal Register for publication in accordance with.Section 5(e)(1)(E) of the Act. At the same

. time, the sited. states officials named in our guidance in the February 22, 1989, Federal Register Notice will be provided with copies of all certifications. MRG nas processed the certification in aCCordance with the susmary provided to you in my

.,1989, letter.

Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated-e

oL

.j g

i I

The Honorable Thomas S. Foley Speaker of the House United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

20510

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Section 5(e)(1)(E)- of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), that directs the U.S. Nuclear

~ Regulatory Commission to transmit any State certification on low-level waste-to Congress, we are forwarding the enclosed certifications. Concurrently with this transmittal, copies of these certifications are being forwarded to the Federal Reoister for publication, to-the designated officials'in aach sited

- state aina to affected State Congressional delegations. After receipt and processins, we sent copies of the certifications to the Department of Energy (DOE).in view of DOE's statutory obligation-to make rebates of surcharges i

within 30 days of January 1,1990.

Section 5(e) of the LLRWPAA sets forth the milestone requirements for. States and interstate compacts to have continued interim access to existing disposal i

facilities in what the Act calls " sited" States. To meet the 1990 milestone, non-sited States by January 1,1990, must.have either (1) submitted a.

- complete license application to NRC or to the appropriate Agreement State agency (2) submitted to NRC a written certification by-the Governor. that the State will be capable.ot providing for, and will provide for, the storage, disposal, or management'of any low-level radioactive waste generated within the State and requiring disposal after December 31, 1992. This certification is to include a description of the actions that will be taken to assure that such capacity exists.- Section 5(e)(1)(F) of the Act also allows States to meet the 1990 milesune through disposal agreements with sited compacts.

The 1990 milestone is designed to assure that certifying States continue to progress toward the fulfillment of the LLRWPAA policy that each State, either by itself or in cooperation with other States, will be responsible for providing for the disposal of LLW generated within the State. Failure to moet this milestone may result in the loss of funding to the state or compact through a rebate of disposal surcharges paid by waste generators into an escrow fund maintained by the DOE. Failure to meet this milestone may also result in loss of access by waste generators to currently operating disposal sites.

I t-is the responsibility of DOE and the sited States to determine whether each certification complies with LLRWPAA requirements for the respective purposes of l

l

+

( ;,.

.4 LC/FOLEY/1/10 1

2 i

releasing escrowed dispoi,a1 surcharge rebate funds and allowing continued access to existing disposal facilities. Transmittal of the certificatior.s to Congress and the Federal Register fulfills the Commission's obligations under the LLRWPAA.

If you have any questions or require further clarification, do not. hesitate to

)

contact me.

Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr

Enclosures:

Certifications for 30 States i

and the District of Columbia t

i 1

e

i j g -* w

\\

L The Honorable J. Danforth Quayle

- President of the Senate-United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510 i

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with'Section 5(e)(1)(E) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), that directs the U.S. Nuclear-i l

Regulatory Commission to transmit any State certification on low-level waste to Congress, we are forwarding the enclosed certifications.

4 Concurrently with copies of these certifications are being fomarded to the this transmittal,for publication, to the designated officials in each sited Federal Recister 5 tate, and to affected State Congressional delegations. After receipt and rocessing, we sent copies of the certifications to the Department of. Energy p(DOE) in view of DOE's statutory obligation to make rebates of surcharges within 30 days of January 1,1990.

Section 5(e) of the LLRWPAA sets forth the milestone requirements for States and interstate compacts'to have continued interim access to existing disposal facilities in what the Act calls " sited" States. To meet the 1990 milestone.

non-sited States by January 1,1990, must have either (1). submitted a complete license application to NRC or to the appropriate Agreement State agency (2) submitted to NRC a written certification by-the Governor that the State will be capable of providing for, and will provide for, the storage, disposal, or management of any low-level radioactive waste generated within the State and requiring disposal after December 31, 1992. This certification is to include a description-of the-actions-that will be taken to assure that such capacity exists.. Section 5(e)(1)(F) of the Act also allows States to meet the

.1990 milestone through disposal agreements with sited compacts.

The 1990 milestone is designed to assure that certifying States continue to progress toward the fulfil ment of the LLRWPAA policy that each State, either by itself or in cooperation with other States, will be responsible for providing for the disposal of LLW generated within the State.- Failure to meet this milestone any result in the loss of funding to the state or compact through a rebate of disposal surcharges paid by waste generators into an escrow fund maintained by the DOE. Failure to meet this milestone may also result in loss of access by waste generators to currently operating disposal sites.

It is the responsibility of DOE and the: sited States to determine whether each certification complies with LLRWPAA requirements for the respective purposes of 4

.,._-,I,.-,..

,,.%,....._.,.._.._....,,,,,,__,m..,..,,,my,.r.w.._,

.,,,,mm.

..w..

,-,.,,,..,,.m

,m..w,.

_e y.. s I

LC/CARR LTx DUP 2

. releasing escrowed disposal surcharge rebate funds-and allowing continued Congress-and tho'g. disposal facilities.

access to existin Transmittal of the certifications to Federal Register fulfills the Commission's obligations under the LLRWPAA.

If you have any questions or require further clarification, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr

Enclosures:

Certifications for 30 0tates and the District of Columbia e

M'fVfVdWAdT(df%%fVfVd%%f%%%%%tVr(TVcV6>;(g(g(ggy gfl gg i

ir.i TRANSMITTAL. TO:

M Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips i

ADVANCED COTY TO:

The Public Document Room p

//J3/90 DATE:

/

I a

l FROM:

SECY Correspondence & Records Branch I

Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting

(,

document (s).

They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and g

l.

placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or g

l recuired.

{

b cN_/'kM bd l

Meeting

Title:

A

}

w L L.x L) s /Lb:-)

Meeting Date:

///1/90 Open [

_ Closed l

/

/

l l

Item Oescription*:

Copies Advanced DCS l

• 8 to POR Cg l l i

l !

f:

i

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 i;

w/si~ A s 1_

I r

(

g 1 !

l l 2.

1 l 1 :

.1 l:

3.

3m33 :

c 3 :

.3 4.

J 3

3 !.

3 n

3 J l 5.

j

=

5 :

c s !l w-g

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

3 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY

$ ll papers.

gpg L j

ki i

i lh a/AA I

NfY$$

hihW

$$WNNNNWs f