ML20041E813

Summary of Natl Governors Association 820222 Meeting Re Progress W/Regional Low Level Waste Compacts.Agenda Encl

ML20041E813
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/25/1982
From:	Robert Macdougall NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Bunting J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
REF-WM-6 NUDOCS 8203150120
Download: ML20041E813 (16)

Text

dLIN7 - d

-*e DISTRIBUTION POR MWh

$ WMPI 5/ft 2

407.2/RDM/82/02/25/0 WMPI r/f f)96/l, NMSS r/f g,.Sf WM r/f RDMacDougall FEB 2 5 1982 JJSurmeier WMPI: 407.2 ;- y o9,52.

REBrowning JBMartin PP F-MEMORANDUM FOR: Joseph 0. Bunting, Jr., Chief

@ \\Q Licensing Process and Integration Branch s

/

}

THRU:

John J. Surmeier, Section Leader

//

Policy Analysis Section Licensing Process and Integration Branch ypt ) O ya 'p ;-

u t: '

)

FROM:

Robert D. MacDougall r-Policy Analysis Section Licensing Process and Integration Branch g

SUBJECT:

REPORT ON NATIONAL GOVERN 0RS ASSOCIATION MEETING ON LOW-LEVEL WASTE COMPACTS I attended the above NGA meeting on February 22, 1982, to obtain additional information on the progress of multi-state efforts to develop regional low-level waste (LLW) management compacts. The meeting was aimed not at Governors but their staff, and was heavily attended by state officials and representatives of industry and federal agencies, including a number of staff from our Office of State Programs. As shown on the attached agenda, representatives of compact erMrts in the Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southwest, touth Central, and Northwest provided progress reports, and Michael Ward, staff counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, briefed those attending on principal Congressional concerns and most likely responses to state compact legislation.

Ward's comments provided most of the new information. Among other things, he noted that:

1. Congress will be looking carefully for provisions in compacts that would modify or duplicate existing NRC authorities. Congress will also be watching for an acceptable degree of conformity among compacts on, for example, liability regimes and the categories of wastes to be covered.

2. Because of the surprising speed of state action, however, Congress will probably not wait for several compacts to be submitted DIST:

TICKET N0:

@FC :

h_AME:

N DATE :82/02/25 8203150120 920225 PDR WASTE WPt-6 PDR

407.2/RDM/82/02/25/0 FEB 2 5 1982 from the states before considering then for Congressional consent.

This hopefully would avert a major logjam later as the deadline for state action approached.

Congress also will probably not defer consideration of a compact enacted by only two states if there are reasonable prospects that more states will be joining in the near future.

3. The 1986 milestone in the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA), which enables compacts to exclude out-of-region wastes, is unlikely to be amended by either House or Senate.

4. Congress will probably continue its tradition of treating the compacts enacted by the states as non-amendable, but may well condition the effectiveness of Congressional consent on the adoption of certain amendments by the prospective compact member states.

Ward specifically cited the 1983 deadline for exclusion of out-of-region wastes in the Northwest compact as an example of a provision that would have to be changed to win Congressional consent.

5. States should be careful about conforming all the definitions of wastes in their draft compacts to the definitions in the LLRWPA.

Specifically, the definition of transuranic wastes could be amended by either Congress or the NRC, which in turn could require member states of compacts explicitly defining these wastes to reopen the compacts to conforming legislation.

6. Congress is concerned about the fate of states -- California and Texas, for example -- that might wind up outside of contiguous regional compacts.

Since the LLRWPA grants authority to exclude out_of-region wastes only to compacts, not individual states, such states could have to accept substantial amounts of wastes from outside their borders.

This problem may be resolved by compacts among such states, Ward noted; LLRWPA does not specify that regions must be composed of contiguous states.

7. Concerning NRC comments that the LLRWPA might have unnecessarily narrowed the scope of regior.ol compacts by using the word " disposal" instead of " management," 'sard said Congress is not inclined to make an issue of this distin. tion.

Its principal concern is that someone assume responsibility for addressing the problems in a regional context, he a_Jed.

DIST:

TICKET N0:

1FC c..__:___...

NAME :

6____:____________:_. _________:.._________:..__________:____________:____________:___________

DATE :82/02/25

i 407.2/RDM/82/02/25/0 FEB 2 5 198E

8. Finally, Ward noted that the focus of all the compacts he's reviewed so far is on the relationship between the states and their respective proposed compact comissions. There has been too little attention to the role of private companies who may want to site and operate the planned regional facilities, he said.

It is unclear whether such companies would have to work through prospective host states, or whether they can deal directly with the compact comission.

It is also unclear whether or not a comission could pre-empt states on such matters.

Most of the regional progress reports covered the same material as the attached briefing papers prepared by WMPI staff on the status of various compact efforts. The remainder of this report will highlight only the significant information not available in the briefing papers.

1. Representatives of the governors interested in the midwestern l

compact will meet in July to review suggested amendments to the I

latest draft compact and vote on a final version to be submitted to the prospective member state legislatures next January.

In its present form, the proposed compact commission would have authorities to determine the type and number of facilities needed for the region, and to designate states to host such facilities, but the sites for such facilities would be selected and regulated according to the laws of the states themselves.

2. Compact legislation has been introduced in six of the seven Southeastern states, and the Georgia legislature has already sent a bill to the Governor, who is expected to sign it shortly.

In addition to the authority to determine the type and number of regional facilities, the proposed comission would have authority to develop criteria and procedures for site selection and help evaluate alternative sites, although the licensing and regulation of facilities would be solely the province of applicable state and federal law. The compact provides that a state would only have to host a facility once, said David Reid, staff for South Carolina Governor Richard Riley,

3. The Mid-Atlantic group, composed of representatives from Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky, have recently developed draft compact legislation. As currently conceived, this compact comission would have powers DIST:

TICKET NO:

EFC :

3.___: ___________:____________: ___________:____________:____________:____________:___________

MAME :

[ ATE:82/02/25

407.7/RDM/82/02/25/0 FEB 2 5 1982 unmatched by other commissions to manage the movement of LLW within the region, and to apply existing state procedures and substantive requirements to select a regional facility site if the state has not volunteered to do so.

4. The Southwest compact legislation failed to make it through the New Mexico legislature, for reasons left unexplained. New Mexico was the first state in the region to consider the proposed compact, but legislation is still alive in Colorado, the only other state in the region targeted for action this year.

5. A proposed South Central compact comes to its first vote, in the Kansas House of Representatives this week.

Companion legislation has been introduced in Missouri.

t' / s24 QW eL Robert D.

acDougall Policy Analsis Sectione Licensing Process and Integration Branch DIST:

TICKET N0:

nr n

d WMPI 1FC

WMpI 0____: ____________. ____ ______:____________:____________:____________.____________.___________

.NAME : RDMacDougall JJSurmeier:

lDATE:82/02/25=____: ___________:_________p_.:.___________:____________:____

82/02/ OJ l

I

$ National Governors' Association menaas A saem.:

Govemor of Vermont 4

4 4g4 Chairman see, hen s. rarter Executive Director Agenda Low Level Nuclear Waste Compacts: A Progress Report Lexington Room Hyatt Regency Hotel 3:30 - 5:30 p.m.

January 22, 1982 j

3:30 p.m.

Introduction Holmes Brown, NGA 3:35 - 4:45 p.m.

Regional Progress Reports Midwest Dr. William Taylor, Michigan Southeast David Reid, South Carolina Northeast Rich Smith, Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic William Eichbaum, Maryland Southwest Dr. George Goldstein, New Mexico South Central Dr. Joseph Harkins, Kansas Northwest David Stevens, Washington 4:45 - 5:00 p.m.

Congressional Response Michael Ward, House Committee on Commerce 5:00 - 5:15 p.m.

Panel Discussion Qu'estions from Audience 5:30 p.m.

Adjournment HALL OF THE STATES. 444 Norm Capetol Street WasNngton D.C. 20001 -(202) 624 5300

a Y

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 15 -

1 I

)

e.

. u,. u tr, ;u n WC-16

- CONTACT:

R. MacDougall NMSS/WMPI

,, ; 13

.. DATE:,,

January 15, 1982

~

Status of State)CodpaEts,for_LLW Di.sposal.

TOPIC:

DISCUSSION:

Status eports'are provided b,each'ofthefollowing.

geographical areas:

WC-16A -Northwest; i

i i

WC-16B Southeast-

.~

WC-16C, Southwest, e.-

t WC-16D South.C. e. nt. ral. s.... -....

WC-16E Midwest WC-16F Southeast (northern tier)

WC-16G Northeast WC-16H Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and other territories or possessions of the U.S.

DIST; TICKET NO:

0FC :

4,J-eg,---e-e-----:-- r-----ere:r---- r---- ;----- -----

------------:------------:------e==--

NAME ;

?

e-e-r;..__

...------- ::- ;re-er r----:------------:------------:------------:-----------

DATE ;82/01/28 i

6

P 424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 16 -

WC-16A Compact:

Northwest Interstate Compact:on Low-Level. Radioactive ::

Waste. Ce -

.s Groot; Party: States Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska Pcr:y Stc:2 :: and~ Hawaii. ' '. Note:, The < compact;became. effective:when',3c.

I enacted:into-law by two: States.

Other party States may join i

the compact by executive order of the Governor; such 5: :as:

membership isrvalid_until the close of:the next:1egislative session of;that-State. :'The, compact.is not fully:effectived until. ratified.by Congres.Lare,s Li-/ us=d 3.s c basis s

~. - :;: 2 t 3. '.. l*. 2 :':

1 ; ur <c:4c-ti Status:

0n April-7,_1981, Idaho;became:the. first State in-the:-ti; nation,to' enact; legislation:forran LLW: compact:::Washingtema l

enacted _-the:same legislation on May 8, 1981, and Oregon l

followed on July 29, 1981.

Utah also joined the compact by executive order in June, 1981.

NRC, which did not comment on the proposed compact before the draft legislation was introduced, found five critical y

issues that needed to be resolved; j

4 1.

The effective date of proposed compact is l

inconsistent with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste l

Policy Act (LLWPA).

{

2.

The definition of low-level waste is inconsistent with LLWPA.

3.

The discriminatory provisions of Article IV against out-of-region wastes after July 1,1983, are inconsistent with LLWPA.

4.

Each State is liable for accidental releases of wastes generated within its borders.

The relationship of this provision to the Price-Andersom Act is unclear.

DIST:

TICKET NO:

OFC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

s F

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 17 -

5.

Compact party states would be responsible for on-site inspection of Federal agencies and NRC licensees for LLW packaging and transportation purposes.

(NRC

^ wc a:ct believes this problem can be resolved through a limited Agreement under Section 2741 of the Atomic

c -ia:

Energy Act, as amended.

Such an Agreement would Ft :3 State::

. ":c enable-compact. party estates to. inspect wastem.

packaging on the premises of NRC licensees, and to

2..

1.

~

'take enforcement action only under' state law).

...The Compact Committee.has. submitted.the.statei2.

M5-(1egislationeto members of its Congressional.

delegation, but no bill has been introduced in either 1

'c :5=the: House.or: Senate.at:this timetti;ed -

^ ";;

.p d

-lita :ri eria anc a sitine ::;c= :

we te.s ; e;

s; i

-i i'

1 n

ect.s'.' [se se:+: a c :-

- :e -.e:: is

~

cu.

- s

; hs ea y an

'.i ita 3. ' '. ' :s.ee:s: e:e1

....a

.,3....

s m.

.._ _. o s:,:er '-to a ::r.:e:

s.i n Mexico.

'r.- a'

.. e r : m.

z;Ad.

-,c'ai s;s:sti e=.

r': ;.ew-r' _- i--.+: 're:e-

. :: -i : 5

............4...,

e.

4

-';e fecaral covern ent neule reist-6 3: - feceral lar.c #:-

...'24:s ::nsicerati:ns.

DIST:

TICKET NO:

0FC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

?

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0

' 4 1

-Ceieraco would iise to.e Ic2 nc P teWC-16B 4 -

0 j

Compact:

Southeast Interstate-Low-Leve1' Radioactive Waste Compact (South Carolina Group)

Potential

.v'r.

. /

i --

Party States:.Alabanas: Florida, Georgia.nMississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

..2.

..:1.-

Status:

A. revised. draft'of:a model low-level waste ~ management compact published jointly by the State Planning Council and the Southern States Ener.gy Board has been used as a basis for legislation.

The August 3, 1981 draft has been reviewed by ELD and OSP.

No major issues are apparent.

Legislation is to be introduced in all potential party states during the 4

1982 legislative session.

l

)

i 1

?

l e

i i

E j

DIST:

TICKET N0:

OFC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

I i

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 i

?

WC-16C

'=ste

--1 Compact:

Southwest.

itr.*

Potential Party States:

Arizona;.New-Mexico;; Nevada;: Colorado;.Utabiand Wyoming.

];

Status:

The compact is in a preliminary stage of development.

5:stus:

Compact. legislation has been-draftedi.'and:is'.to;be,) 'r introduced in. Colorado.and New.Mexicoein January,'1982;;;.

i after any.needed revisions'from' review and. comment. session.

Representatives of the potential party states and California met in April,1981, and tentatively concluded that:

-Site criteria and a siting process will be developed but the site will not actually be selected until the compact is in place.

-Five years will be needed before a site could be ready and licensed to operate.

-Arizona could select 2 or 3 possible sites, could go alone, or enter into a compact with Mexico.

I

-The federal government should provide financial assistance.

-Big generating States have the most incentive to find a

' site.

-The States, NRC and DOE should indemnify the site.

-The federal government should release some federal land for LLW site considerations.

DIST:

TICKET NO:

0FC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

6 424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 20 -

I

-Colorado would like to be the host State for the Compact.

Cnep::::

-California is exploring LLW siting: criteria but is-going

[

alone.

l

~

' 4 = ' t I C-

c2

-Colorado.and Utahiare considering using uranium mill -

taili ngs. compounds. fo rr t LW..di sposal. i e

~ ~.h

. ce

-NRCnucl$arpowerstationlicenseeshaveappliedto i

Status:

California.and~ Arizona for permanent burial on site of LLW.

... ~.

.r-

-.-e i

i I

I i

1 1

[

DIST:

TICKET NO:

i 0FC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

I 424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 i

s l l

WC-16D

.....-._s..-

Compact:

Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact 2-

"E "2

-

' ;i.ti s Potential..:-

5.

- r..;.

Party States:

Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North: Dakota and-Oklahoma...

u-

....... _ _ _..::c::.

.-2.

t Status:

The-States have. drafted: compact legislation: language.for review.and: comment-this: summer,.and.hopeitoshave:it3 ready i

for-introduction to thet.r legislatures:in the 1982 session.

l i

I e

.\\

t t

(

DIST:

TICKET NO:

OFC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28 i

?

ei e

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 4.

1 WC-16E Compact:

Midwest 3 Interstate. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact

--ts

'.*- sgerent Potential l

Party : States:

111dnois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota,

. 2 r :.-

: Missouri;' Nebraska, North Dakota;.0hio;' South: Dakota and.:

Wisconsin.

^.

.3 t

.a.

Status:

Compact-legislation-is:being: drafted for introduction in Illinois and other potential party states during the 1982 Status:

legislative: session..

..... i s a f i.

.=

~

.i:.. :::';

~

a.n.

.i' 1:

-_e

.:.: :.w

. ns:i or.

.1,..;.....;; ;. i:..

a: :..s :.:.......:. c -...:.

.:L

.:a..

i 1: ' "

.m. ':

- v..::i

~ -c chil.

I l

i DIST:

TICKET NO:

2 0FC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

i J

t 6

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 23 -

WC-16F Compact:

Southeast-northern Tier -

.,4..

r Potential u-

sse: ster 3 :

t Party States:

Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia

.ir trec 0..

5 :.: ::

Status:

This. group met.twice ~in 1981 to :discussethe:. viability of forming a. compact, but the prospects.are: uncertain.' These i

states ~may attempt.to. join the-Midwest compact group, although Maryland also appears to be interested in a possibl6 compact of Northeastern. states!'at'+.

l

..i.

.a..

t I

n... :.....

....,c=.,.

..as-n.....

..s...:..

. e,.... L, c'=

.an - 1r, v<

s,.

c. a.:.

e :.

,a,e..

[

DIST:

TICKET NO:

OFC :

NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

a r

i 4I4.10/LW/82/0i/27/8 24 -

t WC-16G - 2 T

Compact:

Northeast Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive

~~

Waste Management

=

- ' ' =

-. --Potential

,a

.. r -.,

Party, States:_ New England States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshirer Rhode-Island and:Vermontp:plus-New'J6rseyr -

o

. Maryland is also seeking to I

New York and Penns9_this g..-

1 1vania.

......= -

u"-

be..come a member.. f-roup,,

-ey-23 3:.e+-

.=,. - :v=;i,;

,-.ccar2 Status:

Thise"sttis'i'rb'hegotiatinguiderfthe' aegis',ofth6"9'E'd Coalition of' Northeastern Gover6 ors,(CONEG), and may decide

,to f6Fm two compacts','one forithe New Engla'nd3 states','and one'forNewJerse9);NewYork',';Pennsylvihisaid"possibly2 Maryland.

All" States' are reviswing their:18wsFahdi F6gulations,'for pr@hibitions that may impede}ths'foFeation

~

of compacts,'but*the' group does n6t' expect t6 have le.gislation ready for introduction,b,efore 1983.

.... r.'

s..

4..,

5

'; 20 ::ny.' <: 'it:2s t.e it-- ':tt

t. ate.

A c t e eev a' Govern-T.%

s.

a.

n 5, u:

z3 1zn:

n r

..,.,~.2.s.,._

Cl.<

• e. :......

s...

., v.

-..1

.3 *)...

...,.g.;,

e---"

"':t-

-72 r:- - -

' 'tse

"'--t'v-1s urry 15, 19.52.

l

. ~ 2. c....

.o. c....

r.,..

_u.

c' t #cti ;;rograons c'i a:

2EC U"

~

L:t.;i--

rn:: ; try i :..

-da, Of i.--,e te :ee e,-=rv af-me,.., 1. 19El no w

. 4,a

. r.,.......,..<........ <,.

,e

.2:rin;.;r::y c: ".c cy r.

crc

:n er er.t ty as a temnern:y, interi, :r permanent storige site for Jicact1.e waste.

scaat cecical wa3:e. gengrated or st?.e r,. 's e p rosu:e

.5.d-

^+ ge;

I:r'

encaries of the state of ing:cn.

Tnis se :icn :cas not aDoly *r

• Edict *.i,-. a. t ' a 5-- ed witt.i-the sta*e c#

Washiagt n prior ;c

. '. 1, 1961.

!EC U Ca 4 3t. i -

.: anj law, order, or **;ulati0n

the con:-ary, s#

- ;aly 1, 1931. cc oerson or entity bIsi:

IIEKit'di N

OFC i i

_____.__________.____________.____________..___________...__________:-___________:______ 222-NAMs t e:g__as______..._____. _____._a_____

2_.:__________ee:._____e_us__:__usessese._:.____

ses_

i DAtIi82/di/28 i

g.

I

/

424.10/LW/82/01/27/0 25 -

trar nnr

9. 4.: - -

s r.

-WC-16H m.

Other:

Commonwealth.of: Puerto.Rico,-the. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern.Mariana. Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Island and_any other territory or possessions of the U.S.

Status:

Puerto.Rico:' Initial contact made with the Governor by the Southern States-Energy Board:tLittle interest was.shown, but Puerto:Rico;may want to dispose of.its wastes at Barnwell provided-South: Carolina and:the Commission concur.

r.;r t ::. :. crca d f c. ;r.s n Virgin. Islands:.No-info.rmation yet available.

Guam::..There:are 6-10 licenseeserelated to military.

operations and: medical! wastes..:The. U.S. Navy, because.of its:submirine-base;;can;accommo.date this very small volume.

of wasteri waste.

Northern.Mariana. Islands and. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands:..There arefno;11cehsees for.these areas.

,;t: :'.:::s ;2.:

.. : a :: :c -

Others: SaDistrict:ofacolumbiame Stn C Mostilikely,citrwill.go'along:with Delaware and Maryland.

No:initiativesataken.as of now:

2 e

s : T i r.C. ?r*hibly in Eti

'.a.

... _ -.,T t r.

s ?.2 :1.i d # *,: '

. Lisi....

• 7 '. 2 0.

l

!.if:::

9 '41f..

:tet.

':h i

.:s 1-:

sture s.:' s h add :#e-s: e.:e o

l

2 c:-

}.

nt :: ::::

. t:,- -

-: m.i: oy :ne s.a.Cer; :=s.

i DIST:

TICKET NO:

r OFC :

i

_____.---__----___.------___---.__---_____..---_____-___.-__________-:_--____-____:____-_----- t NAME :

DATE :82/01/28

.