ML20029B337
| ML20029B337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1990 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029B332 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 9103070071 | |
| Download: ML20029B337 (16) | |
Text
- - -..
- 4 Staternent of Don U. Decre Chairman Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board before the
,$ubcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate October 2,1990 9103070071 901010 PDR WAGTE 109 PDR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittec:
I am Don U. Deere, Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Resiew Board (the Board). On behalf of the entire Board,I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, for the opportunity to present our current views on the disposal of high lcycl radioactive waste (HLW), which includes spent nuclear fuel.
Bgkgtound on the Bend The Board was established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Arnendments Act of 1987 to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of the Department of Energy's (DOE) commercial radioactive waste managernent program. This broad charge includes the evaluation of actMtles related to the characteritation of the candidate site for llLW disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and to the transportation and packaging of HLW.
The Board currently has seven internal working panels: Struettital Geology &
Geoengineering, chaired by Dr. Carence Allen; Hydrogeology & Geochemistry, chaired by Dr. Donald Langmuir; Enginected Barrier System, chaired by Dr. Ellis Yerink; Transportation & Systems, chaired by Dr. Dennis Price; Environment and Public Health, chaired by Dr. McMn Carter; Risk & Performance Analysis, chaired by Dr. D. Warner North; and Quality Assurance, chaired by Dr. John Cantion. A total of 17 panel meetings and technical exchanges have been held over the last 19 months. The full Board has met 10 times.
At full strength the Board will have 11 members, who are nominated by the Natior;al Academy of Sciences and appointed by the President. To date, nine members have been appo!nted to the Board. The Board, which met for the first time in
r March 1989, two months after the fint appointments, reports to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy at least twice a year, its rint Repxt was published in March 1990, the second report is scheduled for publication in mid. November.
Introduction The disposal of HLW has been an issue of long standing importance. In 1955, the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., the Committee on Earth Sciences of its National Research Council) first examined the problems associated with the disposal of HLW, At the time,it recornmended permanent isolation of the waste in mined geological fortnations. This basic approach for disposal is still being pursued by the United States.
There is cunently a worldwide scientific consensus that a deep geologic repository is the best option for the disposal of HLW, lhe development of a geologic repository is a complex undertaking. First, it involves scientific and technical challenges in many divene areas. These areas include evaluating the geologic characteristics of potential repository sites, assessing the effectiveness of natural geologic and engineered barriers to radionuclide migration, d: signing the repository with its enginected barriers, and coping with the inevitable uncertainties involved in predicting repository performance for at least 10,000 years.
Second, there needs to be assurance that over this time period the HLW will not pose a threat to public health and the environment. Therefore, standards and regulations have to be developed that, if met, would provide such assurance. The HLW management program needs, in turn, to demonstrate in a licensing proceeding that any repository compiles with these standards.
Finally, waste management decisions are made substantially more difficult by nontechnical and political problems. Waste management activities are inevitably conducted in an arena where there is considerable public interest and apprehension j
2
[
1; about anything related to nuclear energy and radiation. Most localities don't want nuclear facilities sited in their " backyards? There also are many groups with diverse but special interests involved in HLW management. These include the public, the util various environmental and public interest groups, Indian Tribes, state and local governments, and all three branches of the federal government.
Findines The Board believes that there are no insurmountable techt ical reasons why an acceptable deep geologic repository cannot be developed. The Board also believes th an appropriate regulatory framework to protect the public and the emironment should be based on sound scientific and technical considerations. Fir.'lly, the Board recognizes that substantial amounts of time and resources will be required to resolve emerging nontechnical as well as technical issues.
The Board's testimony will focus on three topics: (1) technical aspects of maximizing waste isolation, (2) regulatory improvements, and (3) nontechnical siting problems.
- 1. Technical aspects of maximizing waste isolation.
The current concept of geologic disposal involves using multiple barriers to isolate HLW from the accessible emironment for at least 10,000 years. The proposed repository will consist of both natural geologic barriers and man made, engineered barriers that together will contain the HLW. The overall uncertainty about a repository's long term performance can be reduced by using redundant engineered barriers in addition to natural geologie barriers. Engineered barriers should be designed te contain the HLW for as long as reasonably possible. The Board believes the: such a concept for a geologic repository is technically sound.
m The Board believes that current science and technology make possible the 3
- development of improved engineered barriers. Our knowledge o metallurgy, materials r
science, and geochemistry is adequate for the development oflong lived containers and waste packages. Alternate emplacement configurations-along with knowledge of the geologic, hydrologic, and thermal environment-may maximize the waste isolation properties of the waste package.
Because of past ambiguities in the NRC's regulations, long lived waste packages and other types of engineered barriers have not been used to their maximum extent by
- the DOE in current repository designs. However, the Board believes that a full range of j
waste packages and other engineered barriers should be seriously considered. According to a staff position paper issued by the NRC in July 1990, the DOE may use and receive licensing credit for any long lived waste packages designed for greater than 1,000 years.
Improved engineered barriers can, in our judgment, make a substantial 4
contribution to waste isolation and increase our overall confidence in the ability of the repository to meet its goals. The Board has recommended that the DOE investigste
- further the advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of long lived engineered barriers. -
9
- 2. Regulatory improvements.
Our regulatory framework should provide assurance that a repository will,in fact,
- isolate HLW. Finding a repository site that is judged to be suitable is but one step in the regulatory process, lhe repository design-incorporating natural geologie and engineered
- barriers-must also comply with our standards and regulations. The Board believes that-the regulatory framework should be sufficiently conservative to fully protect public health and the environment. But it should not be so restrictive as to foreclose at the outset the use of repository sites that can be shown to be suitable on the basis of sound scientific and technical considerations.
4
'm---
-a w
,-me sw r e-u
+n, e
--~-.m--,,~.w
-er n
,e, v-e y
--y-,,y y c-
,ww-wo+--=-,--wry
-~ gv um-a
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), respectively, have developed standards and regulations that aff site characterization aethities as well as the design, construction, and operation of geologic repositories. However, many in the technical community are currently concerned about our ability to construct and license a repository in accordance with present federal standards and regulations. These guidelines have been critici too stringent and prescriptive; others as too ambiguous or simply inappropriate for geologic repositories.
The Board detailed several concerns about the EPA Standard,40 CFR 191,in its First Report to the U.S. Congress and the US Secretary of Eners. Specifically, the B questioned the conservatism of the Standard, as contained in Section 191.13 an illustrated by the numericallimits contained in Table 1, Appendix B. The Board recommended that those limits be re evaluated in light of current environmental and regulatory requirements. A re< valuation of the Standard should also consider th that the general population receives from routine exposures and natural sources of radiation. The Board also believes that the concept "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) may be inappropriate for a repository. Other changes also could be ma clarify the Standard.
In making these recommendations the Board joined many other groups that have similar, and sometimes broader, concerns about our present regulatory framework.
These groups include the Subcommittee on Waste Management of the NRC's Ad Committee on Reactor Safety, the NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Management, the National Research Council's Board on Radioacthc Waste Management, and various environmental and public interest groups.
The Board believes that the current regulatory framework can be improved. With such improvements, a candidate site, judged to be technically suitable, can alt.o be licensed. In recent letters to William Reilly, the Administrator of EPA, and 5
l l
- x l
Kenneth Carr, the Chairman of the NRC, we have suggested that the EPA and the NRC enter jointly into negotiated rulemaking on 40 CFR 191 and 10 CFR 60, l
j l
- 3. Nontechnical siting problems.
l Any candidate site for repository development must undergo both surface and underground characterization before its suitability can be completely deterrnined. Early l
cvaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mounteln Site has been and continues to be a prime conecrn of the Board. Ilowever, the DOE's efforts to characterize the Yucca Mountain Site are presently constrainerl by the State of Nevada's refusal to issue the necessary state permits. Much of this state opposit'on is in direct response to the i Site was chosen for characterization by
- perceived manner in which the Yucca Mounta n
'f the Congress in 1987 The recent court decision should bring us closer to site characterization.
Site characterization is an essential phase in determining the suitability of the candidate site for repository development. Any delays in site characterization will result in comparable delays in arrMng at a judgment about site suitability.
Concludinn remarks about the DOE's orogram Managing HLW poses technical, regulatory, and institutional challenges. Within 4
this context, the Board seca progress by the DOE in implementing its HLW management program.- In November 1989, the Secretary of Energy issued a comprehensive tepo the Congress refocusing the program. The Board believes that the changes in programmatic schedules reflect a more realistic appraisal of the cornplexities of management actMtica. In April 1990, Dr. John Bartlett was appointed director of th DOE's Office of CMllan Radioactive Waste Management. Or.e tuonth later, Dr. Bartlett announced the development of a new management plan. In June, David H. Leroy was appointed nuclear waste negotiator to facilitatc the siting of facilities for interim st 6
s cnd permanent disposal of HLW.These are all positive steps; however, th: ultimate l
results of these changes can only be judged over time.
The DOE and its representatives have been very responsive to the Board in providing requested information, organizing meetings, and addressing Board concerns.
We are generally pleased with the DOE's good faith efforts to address the recommendations that the Board made in its first Report. This is particularly the case with respect to the need for additional underground exploration, prioritiration of testing to determine site suitability, and the iterative use of performance assessment. As the DOE's program progresses, the NWTRB will continue to fulfill its congressionally mandated responsibilities of monitoring ongoing DOE activities.
Mr. Chairman that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to address any questions that you or any of the other subcommittee members may have.
7 i
h '
s d
Statement of Don U. Decre Chairman Nuclear Waste Technical Review Boa.a before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate October 2,1990
l
,'s.
]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Don U. Decre, Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (the Board). On behalf of the entire Board, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, Committee on Environment and Pubtle Works, United States Senate, for the opportunity to present our current views on the disposal of high level radioactive waste (IEW), which includes spent nuclear fuel.
Backcround on the I card The Board was established in the Nylear Waste Polley Amendments Act of 1987 to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of the Department of Energy's ([X)E) commercial radioactive waste management program. This broad charge includes the evaluation of actMties related to the characterization of the candidate site for IEW disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and to the transportation and packaging of HLW.
The Board currently has seven internal workinE panels: Structural Geology &
Geoengineering, chaired by Dr. Clarence Allen; Hydrogeology & Geochemutry, chaired by Dr. Donald Langmuir; Engineered Barrier System, chaired by Dr. Ellis Verink; Transportation & Systems, chaired by Dr. Dennis Price; Environment 'and Public Health, 4
chaired by Dr. McMn Carter; Risk & Performance Analysis, chaired by Dr. D. Warner North; and Quality Assurance, chaired by Dr. John Cantion. A total of 17 panel meetings and technical exe.ianges have been held over the last 19 months. The l
- full Board has met 10 times.
At full strength the Board will have 11 members, who are nominated.by the National Academy of Sciences and appointed by the President. To date, nine members have been appointed to the Board. The Board, which met for the first time in u.
4 March 1989, two tr onths after the first appointments, repara to the U.S. Congres the Secretary of Energy at least twice a year. Its first Rr/wt was published in Ma IM0; the second report is scheduled for publication in mid. November.
latt21K11tti The disposal of HLW has been an issue of long standing importance. In 19 National Academy of Sciences (i.e., the Committee on Earth Sciences of its Nation Research Council) first examined the problems associated with the disposal of HL the time,it recommended permanent isolation of the waste in mined Ecologleal formations. This basic approach for disposal is still being pursued by the United Stat There is currently a worldwide scientific consensus that a deep geologic repository best option for the disposal of HLW.
The development of a geologic repository is a complex undertaking. First,it involves scientific and technical challenges in many diverse areas. These areas incl evaluating the geologic characteristics of potential repository sites, assersing the effectiveness of natural geologic and engineered barriers to radionuclide rnigration, designing the repository with its engineered barriers, and coping with the ine uncertainties involved in predicting repository performance for at least 10,000 years.
Second, there needs to be assurance that over this time period the HLW will no pose a threat to public health and the erwironment. Therefore, standards an regulations have to be developed that, if met, would prcuide such assur management program needs, in turn, to demonstrate in a licensing proceeding repository complies with these standards.
Finally, waste management decisions are made substantially more difficul nontechnical and political problems, Waste management aethitles are inevitably conducted in an arena where there is censiderable public interest and apprehensio 2
e about anything related to tiuclear energy and radlafon. Most localities don't want i
nuclear facilities sited in their " backyards? nere als,o are many groups with divene but speelal interests invohed in IILW management. These include the pub %:, the f
various environmental and public interest groups, Indian Tribes, state and local governments, and all three branches of the federal government.
Bedlagt The Board believes that there are no insurmountable technical reasons why an acceptable deep geologic repository cannot be developed. The Board also believes L
an appropriate regulatory framework to protect the public and the environment sho be based on sound scientific and technical considerations. Finally, the Board recognizes that substantial amounts of time and resources will be required to resolve emerging nontechnical as well as technical issues.
The Board's testimony will focus on three topics: (1) technical aspects of maximizing waste isolation, (2) regulatory improvements, and (3) nontechnical siting.
problems.
- 1. Technical aspects of maximizing waste isolation.
The current concept of geologic disposal invoh'es using multiple barricts to isolate HLW from the accessible environment for at least 10,000 years. The proposed repository will consist of both natural geologic barriers and man made, engineered
- barriers that together will contain the HLW. De overall uncertainty about a repository's
?
long term performance can be reduced by using redundant engineered barriers in -
addition to natural geologic barriers. Engineered barriers should be designed to contain the HLW for as long as reasonably possible. The Board believes that such a concept for a geologic repository is technically sound.
3 L
i The Board believes that current scler..e and technologgt make possible the
'W development of Improved engineered barriers. Our knowledge of metallurgy, materlah science, and geochemistry is adequate for the development of long lived containers and waste packages. Alternate emplacement configurations-along with knowledge of the geologic, hydrologic, and thermal environment-may maximize the waste isolation properties of the waste package.
Because of past ambiguities in the NRC's regulations,long.llved waste packages and other types of enginected barriers have not been used to their maximum extent by
)
the DOE in current repository designs. liowever, the Board believes that a full range of waste packages and other engineered barriers should be seriously considered. According to a staff position paper issued by the NRC in July 1990, the DOE may use and recch'e licensing credit for any long lived waste packages designed for greater than 1,000 years, I
improved engineered barriers can,in our judgment, make a substantial contribution to waste isolation and increase our overall confidence in the ability of the repository to meet its goals. The Board has recommended that the Dw, investigate further the advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of long lived engineered f
barriers.
- 2. Regulatory improvements.
(
Our regulatory framework should provide assurance that a repository will,in fact, isolate HLW, Finding a repository site that is judged to be suitable is but one step in the regulatory process. Tne repository design-Incorporating natural geologic and enginected barriers-must aho comply with our standards and regulations. The Board believes that the regulatory framework should be suffi:lently conservative to fully protect public health and the environment. But it should not be so restrictive as to foreclose at the outset the use of repository sites that can be shown to be suitabic on the basis of sound scientific and technical considerations.
4
~-.
o The Emirentnental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission (NRC), respectively, have developed standards and reE"Intions that affect I
j site characterization aethities as well as the design, construction, and operation of geologic repositories. However, many in the techr' cal community are currently concerned about our ability to astruct and licen e a repository in accordance with present federal standards and regulations. These ('2idelinc4 have been criticized a too strient and prescriptive; others as too ambiguous or simply inappropriate for geologic repositories.
The Board detailed several ennecrns about the EPA Standard,40 Ct3191,in its First Report to the U.S. Congess and the U.S Secretary of Eness. Speci> ally, the Board questioned the conservatism of the Standard, as contained in Section 191.13 and illustrated by the numericallimits contained in Table 1, Appendix D. The Board recommended that those limits be re. evaluated in lipt of current emironmental and regulatory requirements, A re-evaluation of the Standard should also consider the doses that the general population receives from routine exposures and natural sources of radiation. The Board also believes that the concept "as low as reasonably achievable' (AI. ARA) rnay be inappropriate for a repository. Other changes also could be made to clarify the Standard, in making these recommendations the Board joined many other groups that have similar, and sometimes broader, concerns about our present regulatoiy framework.
These groups include the Subcommittee on Waste Management of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety, the NRC's Advisoty Committee on Nuclear Waste Management, the National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste Management, and various enviror, mental and public interest groups.
The Board believes that the current regulatory framework can be improved. With such improvements, a candidate site, judged to be technically suitable, can also be 4
licensed. In recent letters to William Reilly, the Administrator of EPA, and 5
L
- g Kenneth Carr, the Chairman of the NRC, we have suggested that the EPA and the NRC i
enter jolutly into negotiated rulemaking on 40 CFR 191 and 10 CFR 60.
L
- 3. Nontechnical siting problems.
Any candidate site for repository development must undergo both sorface and I
. underground characterization before its suitability can be completely determined. Early q
evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain Site has been and continues to be a prime concern of the Board. However, the DOE's efforts to characterize the Yurea i
Mountain Site are presently constrained by the State of Nevada's refusal to issue ti.e necessary state perinits. Much of this state opposition is in direct response to the perecived manner in which the Yucca Mountain Site was chosen for characterization by l
the Congress in 1987. The recent court decision should bring us cl.;ser to site characterization.
Site characterization is an essential phase in determining the suitability of the
]
f candidate site for repository development. Any delays in site characterization vdll result in comparable delays in arriving st a judgment about site suitability.
Concludinn remarks about the DOE's procram Managing HLW poses technical, regulatory, and institutional challenges. Within this context, the Board sees progrest. by the DOE in implementing its HLW management program. In November 1989, the Secretary of Energy issued a comprehensive report to the Congress refocusing the program. The Board believes that the changes in programmatic schedules reDect a more realistic appraisal of the complexities of waste management activities. In April 1990, Dr. John Bartlett was appointed director of the
- DOE's Office of Civillen Radioactive Waste Management. One month later, Dr. Bartlett announced the development of a new management plan. In June, David H. Leroy was appointed nuclear waste negotiator to facilitate the siting of facilities for interim storege 6
L
- o and permanent disposal of IILW. These are all positive steps: however, the ultimate
+
l results of these changes can only be judged over time.
The DOE and its representatives have been ver; responsive to the Board in providing requested information, erganizing meetingt, and addressing Board concerns.
We are generally pleased with the DOE's good faith efforts to address the recommendations that the Board made in its First Report. This is particularly the case with respect to the need for additional underground exploration, prioritization of testing to determine site suitability and the iterative use of performance assessment. As the DOE's program progresses, the NWTRB will continue to fulfill its congressionally mandated responsibilities of monitoring ongoing DOE activities.
. i Mr. Chairman that concliades my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to address any questions that you or any of the other subcommittee members may have.
I s
b 7
h J