ML20045D562
| ML20045D562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1993 |
| From: | Salomon S NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306290140 | |
| Download: ML20045D562 (12) | |
Text
,.
e as:u o,
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.,,..... p#
June 3, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Carlton Kammerer, Directo Office of State Progra THRU:
Sheldon A. Schwar z, Assistant rector State, Local and Indian Relations Office of State Programs f
StephenN.Salomon,TechnicalAnalystf FROM:
State, Local and Indian Relations Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
POLICY HIGHLIGHTS OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE FORUM MEETING, APRIL 28-30, 1993
SUMMARY
I attended the quarterly meeting of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Forum, January 27-29, 1993, Austin, Texas.
The Forum held an issue focus session on LLW regulations:
new developments, interpretations and issues, which examined 10 pIB Part 61--current specifications and future and State regulations
-- prescriptive v. performance-based; including discussion on the effect that any revisions would have on current development plans.
Information sessions were held on: NRC's survey of State / Compact facility development costs, single State exclusionary authority, potential use of closed military bases as LLW disposal sites, surcharge rebates, and health effects of low doses of radiation.
Other issues discussed included:
interregional access agreement:for waste management; uniform
^ manifest; DOE technical assistance; and Congressional activity.
Another special session was held on Superfund, other types of cleanups, other State and compact obligations.
Finally, there were reports on new developments in States and compacts.
The Forum adopted a resolution to meet with the Commission at a future date to be determined at the next Forum meeting in July in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The Forum also voted unanimously to send a resolution to the Commission to convey its concern about the process and methodology used by NRC in its recent survey of State and compact officials for cost information.
Finally, the Forum i
voted that it continues to support the concept of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) accepting commercial mixed waste for treatment and disposal and to maintain the ongoing dialogue with DOE.
y}p 9306290140 930603 g
n' JUN -3 133 Carlton Kammerer 2
s LLW REGULATIONS:
NEW DEVELOPMENTS. IFTERPRETATIONS. ISSUES Holmes Brown, Afton Associates, and Paul Lohaus, Chief, Low-Level Waste Management Branch, NRC, led a roundtable discussion on 10 CEB Part 61 involving a number of issues already identified by the Forum.
Areas identified include disposal technology, financial assurance and land ownership requirements, inadvertent intruder scenario, impact of changes to 10 CEB Part 20, wetlands, institutional control period, waste classification, and exemptions.
Other issues addressed include the New England Coalition on Nuclear, Pollution petition to revise the regulation, the potential impact of any changes to 10 CEB Part 61 on the national process, and Agreement State compatibility.
There were a number of key issues that were raised during the discussion.
First, NRC needs to provide additional guidance on leach *,tes and partition ratios for waste, and on the extent of credit tnat can be afforded to engineered barriers, such as concrete.
Second, although recognized as helpful, it was noted that NRC guidance documents are not enforceable in Agreement States or by NRC.
Third, many host States and compact participants expressed the view that major changes to Part 61 could be harmful and delay their current processes.
- Finally, States recognized the need to strengthen the financial assurance requirements in Part 61, but noted that flexibility should be maintained to allow individual States the ability to establish specific funding amounts and contingency reserves on a case specific basis.
Performance versus prescriptive requirements were discussed as each State outlined its approach.
Most used a mixture of the two approaches to suit itself in building public confidence and public acceptance which differed in each State.
In summary, although not vociferously expressed, most host i
States, being Agreement States, seemed satisfied with their current approaches, and seemed to think that any major change to the rules would be harmful to their current processes which were brought about through rulemaking and consensus within their own States.
NRC'S SURVEY OF STATE / COMPACT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS Richard Vollmer, Director, Office of Policy Planning (OPP), NRC, I
described NRC's survey of the States and compacts for costs to develop LLW disposal capacity pursuant to the Low-Level l
Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
Mr. Vollmer i
Carlton Kammerer 3
JUN -3 1993 4
noted that commissioner Curtiss was the originator of the request; and that the work was supported by the rest of the Commission.
Ile said that the report will be issued on April H30 and may become public if he does not hear from the Commission within 10 days and that copies will be sent.
(Note:
The report,
" Compilation of Costs for Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities,"
Office of Folicy Planning, OPP-93-02, April 30, 1993, became public on May 10, 1993.)
He indicated that 75 percent of the 18 States contacted responded to the questionnaire and 2 of the 4 compacts contacted. Three of the 4 foreign countries responded.
There was sufficient information to categorize and compile the data.
He indicated that the 20 page report was basically data pursuant to the response of the request.
There were many questions on the cost survey relating to the useability and validity of the data.
The next day, the Forum voted unanimously to send letters to Chairman Selin and the Commissioners transmitting a resolution stating that the Forum was very concerned about the process and methodology used by NRC in its recent survey of State and compact officials for cost information.
(Note:
The letters were faxed on April 30, 1993; and responded to by Mr. Vollmer on May 7, 1993.)
STATUS OF SURCHARGE REBATES Ronald Sandwina, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), continued his discussion from the last Forum meeting regarding the surcharge rebates under the Act which is $22 million.
(See:
" Policy Highlights of LLW Forum Meeting, January 27-29, 1993," March 9, 1993.)
He said that the final decision on which party gets the rebates, the States 6r generato s, rests in the Office of General Counsel of DOE.
Rogers Stigers, Edison Electric Institute /UWaste, believes that the generators should receive the rebates.
The most outstanding argument supporting his position is that the utilities have poured over $750 million into the siting process and to date there is no new facility in operation.
Representatives of most States and compacts took exception to that position and indicated that delays would be likely if the rebates were not returned to the States.
POTENTIAL USE OF CLOSED MILITARY BASES AS LLW DISPOSAL SITES Larry McNamara, U.S.
Army Federal liaison, reviewed the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) rationale for considering the use of closed military bases as LLW disposal sites.
Because of the downsizing of the nunber of military bases, there are a number of closed bases that ha;.re some things in common with LLW disposal,
w JN -3 lg3 Carlton Kammerer 4
-such as, some bases were used for the storage of nuclear weapons; there are facilities and local expertise that could be used; and local economies which are down could be. stimulated.
In addition, the cleanup of the closed bases for release could cost more compared to storing and for disposing.
There appears to be a number of options.
The Federal government can try to site a facility for its own LLW.
The Federal government or State o,could share a facility with the Federal government and State perating the facility.
The Federal government could turn over the land to the State to develop a facility.
At this time there is not a set of volunteer sites nor has the Army determined which sites could meet the siting criteria.
However, the Army has talked to DOD managers and NRC staff.
(Note:
See NRC's Office of State Programs memorandum dated March 30, 1993, " Briefing:
Potential Use of Armed Forces' Bases for LLW Disposal Facilities," February 12, 1993.)
One of the outstanding questions that DOD has to resolve is the assumption of liability.
Paul Lohaus, NRC, discussed technical and regulatory considerations.
There appears to be three issues citing three areas:
regulatory jurisdiction, siting requirements and engineering design.
For regulatory jurisdiction, if the Army 1
were to operate the facility, NRC would have licensing jurisdiction, even if sited in an Agreement State.
Either NRC or the Agreement State kould have jurisdiction if there was State or commercial operation.
For siting requirements, the facility would have to meet all siting requirements; either those of the Agreement State or NRC, depending on who had regulatory jurisdiction.
Finally, for engineering design, if an existing bunker or facility was proposed for use, the applicant could have difficulty confirming design details and meeting construction quality assurance requirements since such facilities may have been designed and built 10-15 years ago.
Building new facilities would likely offer a more straightforward approach.
Generally, Forum participants believe that the concept is still in the early stages of development.
Much would have to be worked out including DOD and Congressional action.
Larry McNamara and Holmes Brown agreed that there may be reluctance at the Federal l
level te have Federal ownership on Federal land.
Such reluctance might be based on the logic of Section 151 (b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that allows the U.S. Secretary of Energy to take ownership ofta LLW site from another party provided there l
is no cost to the Federal government; and adequate financial and technical assurance must be provided by NRC for site closure,
]
decommissioning, and decontamination.
4
Carlton Kammerer 5
WN -3 133 With regard to potential impact, the California participant noted that there may be pressure to start site screening over again because closed military bases were not originally included in i
site screening.
New York provided another perspective by noting
)
that the public may consider the use of closed bases a more appropriate use of land because agricultural land would not have to be condemned.
Other potential impediments envisioned include another level of political consideration with Congress getting involved.
Other participants believed that consideration of closed bases may be used by some as just be another reason to delay.
Some participants expressed interest in further discussion.
Individual States and compact having interest in possible use of closed bases will contact and consult directly with Larry McNamara.
INTERREGIONAL ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT The Interregional Access Agreement for Waste Management has the objective of assuring that any LLW resulting from waste management, such as treatment, is properly assigned for disposal to the generating State.
It is a minimal agreement that all 9 compacts could sign since they are the only entities with the authority to exclude out of compact LLW.
Unaffiliated States could sign as a policy statement that would not be legally binding.
The signatories to the Interregional Access Agreement for Waste Management include the Appalachian, Central, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Southwestern Compacts and the unaffiliated States of Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York.
The Central-Midwest Compact Commission adopted a resolution instead of signing because processed waste is not a compact responsibility.
The District of Columbia has the agreement before legal review.
Vermont and Texas are reviewing the agreement.
The Southeast Compact will consider signing the agreement at its next meeting in August although neither the Commission nor Tennessee have taken positions.
Shipments are currently being denied by Tennessee because of the lack of prior or current agreements.
Other non-signatories are New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island.
Other issues discussed include cross-contamination and residual waste and the thresh'old of LLW to consider.
UNIFORM MANIFEST Jim Kennedy, Low-Level Waste Management Branch, NRC, reviewed the status of the proposed uniform manifest / database rulemaking.
Mr.
Kennedy announced that NRC will be conducting a public Meeting on June 15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland, to further discuss concerns f
Carlton Kammerer 6
Ed ~ 3 7$3 raised in the comment letters on the proposed rulemaking.
l Everyone will be heard--States, compacts, generators, brokers, and processors.
The LLW Forum had requested a meeting to discuss public comments.
The Manifest Tracking Working Group will be represented by William Dornsife, Pennsylvania, for the States and l
Gregg Larson, Midwest Compact, for the compacts.
The goal is to I
j issue the final rule in the fall of 1993.
STATE AND COMPACT PROGRESS PROVIDING DISPOSAL Southwestern ConDact.
There are 4 lawsuits pertaining to the LLW disposal facility at Needles.
(Note:
Updates are made when j
known.)
In California Radioactive Materials Manacement Forum v.
j Health and Welfare Acency, on May 7, 1993, a California appeals court ruled that neither State nor Federal law require formal adjudicatory hearings to be held in connection with US Ecology's application for a license.
In July 1992, US Ecology and two other groups brought the Department of Health Services (DHS) to the California Supreme Court prohibiting adjudicatory hearings.
j The DHS had agreed th a condition by the California Senate Rules j
committee to hold adjudicatory hearings as a condition for approving the DHS director.
The case may be appealed.
- However, on May 7, 1993, Governor Pete Wilson ordered the DHS to consider the pending application.
The Governor gave DHS until June 6 to make a decision.
As part of its technical assistance program, in early June, Paul Lohaus, Low-Level Waste Management Branch, and Jack Hornoer, State Agreements Officer, Region V, will be briefing Dr. Coye on LLW regulations and Agreement State auditing by NRC.
Three lawsuits involving the transfer of ownership of the Ward Valley site from the Federal government to the State of California were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act regarding the desert tortoise.
The parties to one of the suits, Committee to Bridae the Gao v.
Luian, agreed to suspend all court actions pending review by U.S.
Interior Secretary Bhbbitt.
On June 25, 1993, the U.S. Dist7/ict Court is scheduled to hold a hearing on Desert Tortoise v.
Luian, and status and issues raised by Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Babbitt and Committee to Bridae the Gav v.
Luian.
There are two legislative hearings scheduled.
One on how to limit liability and the other dealing with a concept to license Class A only by next summer.
Central Compact.
The Nebraska regulatory authorities notified US Ecology on January 22, 1993, of its proposal to intend to deny its license because the site does not meet the minimum siting requirements with regard to wetlands.
There are 42 acres of f
1 Carlton Kammerer 7
JW - 3 1993 I
wetlands on a 3200 acre site.
The definition of wetlands used was that of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
On March 17, 1993, there was a public hearing on this matter.
The record is now being reviewed.
On March 12, 1993, US Ecology filed an objection to the above hearing on the grounds that its February 19 request for a contested case hearing " supersedes and supplants" the March 12 public hearing.
A contested case hearing is scheduled for June 8, 1993, before the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality ~.
A hearing officer was appointed and is considering requests.
On April 14, the Southeast Compact Commission voted unanimously to terminate its access contract to Barnwell with the Central Compact Commission effective July 1, 1993.
This action can be done if the commission " determines that an overt action has been taken by a compact region, designated host state within the compact region, or unaffiliated state, which the Commission determines substantially impedes the state or region's progress..."
The Central Compact Commission will make a final appeal to keep access to Barnwell for its generators after it meets with Governor Nelson on May 3.
Southeast compact.
The North Carolina LLW Authority reported that Chem-Nuclear is making steady progress on characterization and is expected to complete its work on both sites by the middle of 1993.
Site selection is anticipated by the end of 1993 to meet the South Carolina imposed milestone.
In anticipation of the preferred site selection, the Authority is amending its 1988 rules.
In January, the Authority established the size of the facility at 11 million cubic feet after an analysis of probable projected waste streams.
(Noth:
The statutory limits are 20 years, or until 32 million cubic feet of LLW is disposed.)
During the 20 years that the facility is expected to operate, the projected volume is 7.4 million cubic feet leaving a conservative margin to accommodate uncertainties, such as premature nuclear power plant decommissioning, addition of new nuclear plants, etc.
All licensing activities are proceeding on the basis of 11 million cubic feet.
On April 8, 1993, an update of a resolution of February 1993 to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire LLW process was adopted.
The resolution, sponsored by George Miller, one of the North Carolina Compact Commissioners, was before the Joint Legislative Utility Review Commission.
This update includes a review of the status of site development in compacts and unaffiliated States nationwide, relevant court decision, t
6
Carlton Kammerer 8
JJN -3 1993 projections of future disposal needs, and potential for temporary storage.
There may not be any action taken on a number of bills in the legislature pending conclusion of this comprehensive update.
t In addition to the decision to terminate its contract with the Central Compact Commission, on April 14, 1993, the Southeast Compact commission expressed concern over the pace of development in the Midwest Compact, the Northeast. Compact and the State of New York.
Letters were sent out on April 27, 1993, requesting additional information before the next scheduled progress report' due September 15, 1993.
South Carolina reported that Barnwell's license in under timely renewal because it expired in 1992.
The license is being considered for renewal.
The decommissioning trust fund is considered to be underfunded and $5.5.million will be requested from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. that will be used for enhanced capping.
Eighteen acres are now capped with an additional 10 acres in the fall.
The generators may be asked to raise this sum.
The Authority reported that characterization at the Sierra Blanca site looks good and should be completed by fall.
The technical review should be completed by spring of 1994.
The likelihood of a lawsuit over the designation of Sierra Blanca is believed to be low.
A local group called ACES is opposing the site basing its arguments on legislative procedure being arbitrary and capricious.
In March, 1993, identir-bills were introduced in both houses of the Texas State legis]
.re to establish the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dis-
,al Compact.
Texas, Maine and Vermont are named as initial part, States.
Although Connecticut offered $110 i
million, that State was not considered at this time.
On i
April 30, the Texas Senate passed the bill.
(Note:
The House i
passed the bill on May 22 and it was sent to Governor Richards for signing.)
Accalachian compact.
Pennsylvania reported that Chem-Nuclear I
satisfactorily implemented in February 1993 the second_ stage map for further disqualification of about 70 percent of the State.
The State conducted V public meetings and press conferences.
This action will finalize what has been disqualified and if anything was missed.
The third stage, the application of local disqualifying criteria, should take place the end of 1993 with site selection the summer of 1994.
i
r NN - 3 199)
Carlton Kammerer
[
9 In April 1993, the Compact sponsored two storage workshops for 175 generatorn.
Two additional workshops are scheduled", with one for mixed waste.
Such workshops are part of a public outreach effort for the generators.
On January 29, 1993, the NY Department of Environmental Conservation published its final regulations for the design, construction and closure for a LLW disposal facility.
In April, the NY Siting Commission determined that the previously designated 5 sites would no longer be considered preferred.
Until a new siting process is approved, there will be no preferred sites and no site will be excluded.
The siting process will be approved by an independent review panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
The NY Energy Research and Development Authority's draft storage study undertaken by the contractor, Dames and Moore, evaluated the capacity of over 200 generators to store LLW.
There is also an evaluation of the economics to store Class A LLW.
The study deals with the advisability to design, construct and operate a central storage facility for non-utility LLW for at least 10 years.
The preliminary draft report is being reviewed.
If there is no problem, the report will be released sometime in May.
In January 1993, the nuclear power plants were assessed $1.2 million per plant.
The total monies accumulated to date are
$14.1 million.
Central Midwest compact.
In January 1993, the governor signed the new siting legislation that was passed in late December 1992.
(For background, see " Policy Highlights of LLW Forum Meeting, January 27-29, 1993, dated March 9, 1993.)
The Task Group met to determine the new siting criteria.
The technical issues;that were raised during the Martinsville siting Commission deliberations will be examined by EG&G Idaho for lessons learned and implications for future siting.
Some of them include the leaching rates for waste form used by the French, but are proprietary data, and therefore were not submitted as testimony; long term concrete degradation; and the Vance report for Iodine-129, Technicium-99 and Carbon-14 with its implication for source term calibration.
Northeast ConDact.
The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service is pursing disposal options on two levels.
The first consists of identifying 3 sites again.
The second is searching for a volunteer site.
An out-of-State option is not ruled out and the State will be issuing a request for proposal (RFP) using as a basis the $100 million offer to Texas.
l
l Carlton Kammerer 10 JJN -3 193 i
There is a downsizing of the volume of LLW expected because of two major decomissionings, i.e.,
US Naval Products closed and i
Combustion Engineering-Boveri is moving to Missouri.
The decrease in volume is estimated at 24,800 cubic feet per year, j
On April 1, 1993, the New Jersey LLW Management Board approved the assessment of its generators for FY 1994.
The Board completed its review of proposal for site characterization services and awarded the $15.2 million contract to Ebasco Services.
The contract covers site evaluation, characterization' and licensing support until NRC makes a determination on the license application.
The Northeast Compact Commission scheduled a workshop on May 13 regarding the Connecticut volunteer plan.
They are seeking comments from other States and professional input, such as from David LeRoy, the Federal negotiator on high-level radioactive waste issues.
Midwest Compact.
Ohio's Blue Ribbon Commission held a series of 12 public hearings with 200 witnesses.
There are extensive written documents about the siting process.
The hearings show a need for public education and awareness.
The LLW Advisory Committee is preparing reports to the Blue Ribbon Commission and General Assembly on licensure, design technology, and other technical factors.
The State is continuing negotiations on compact amendments regarding shared liability and other issues.
The Midwest Compact Commission continued funding the Ohio Blue Ribbon Commission with a $97,400 budget, plus $30,000.
HAing.
The application of screening criteria reduced the number of candidate sites to 6.
The Maine LLW Authority wanted 3 to characterize because of financial constraints.
Additional rules are required to reduce the number from 6 to 3.
The Vermont Authority siting process is moving forward.
The Vernon screening process was completed.
The Statewide screening process will be completed this summer.
The Massachusetts LLW Board conducted 8 statewide hearings and information sessions.
The public asked for a delay of 6-8 months to review the material.
The Board voted for a 2 and 1/2 month delay and more public hearings and started discussing policy issues.
The Board signed a contract with Dames and Moore to survey the 100 generators with storage problems.
o 1
Carlton Kammerer 11 d}N ~ 3 Jg3 Michican.
Michigan is still trying to resurrect its now defunct LLW policy advisory committee of the Board of the Governor's Research Institute which will make recommendations.
The State released its LLW storage survey and determined that there is 50,000 cubic feet in storage at 52 sites.
There is adequate space available through the end of 1995 except for 4 sites.
District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia is pursuing more efficient ways of storing LLW, e.g.,
as having LLW stored in Maryland.
The volume requiring storage is decreasing.
All generators with the exception of one are able to store for as.
long as 10 years.
Rocky Mountain Compact.
US Ecology brought a lawsuit against the State of Nevada because the Beatty site was closed the end of 1992 by the governor of Nevada' executive order.
US Ecology claims that the executive order violates the Beatty lease and is an unlawful taking of US Ecology's property rights and interests in violation of the Nevada Constitution.
The lawsuit is now in its early stages.
Northwest Compact.
US Ecology petitioned for judicial review of the Utilities and Transportation Commission decision that a monopoly determination and for the appropriate rate structure for the operator.
I
l' Carlton Kammerer 12 Distribution DIR RF CHaney, IMNS CKammerer CSeelig, NMSS,PMPA PDR MKnapp, NMSS. PHPA Meeting File CDefino, NMSS,PMPA SSchwartz JCunningham, NRR,PRPB SSalomon MThompson, DEDO SA rf NStablein, DEDO RSLOs (5)
KSchneider, DEDO RSAOS (5)
WParler, OGC VMiller JCordes, OGC CMaupin MMalsch, OGC DSollenberger RFonner, OGC SDroggitis SFonner, OGC RBernero, NMSS CCameron, OGC RBangart, LLWM DMichaels, OGC WBrach, LLWM KWinsberg, OGC PLohaus, LLWMB TCombs,CA JKennedy, LLWMB RHauber, IP LPerson, LLWMB RVollmer, OPP RUleck, LLWMB JLambert, OPP RHogg, LLWMB 3Gagner, PA RTurtil, LLWMB DMartin, OCM/IS RNelson, LLWMB SCoplan, OCM/KR JThoma, LLWMB KDragonette, OCM/JC JLentz, LLWB RBoyle, OCM/FR DSmith, LLWB KWhitfield, OCM/GD CMcKenney, LLWMB JLubenau, OCM/GD Madams, LLWMB JAustin,LLDR External.
MWeber, LLDR HLarson, ACNW WLahs, LLDR LMilkman, DOJ NOrlando, LLDR JKehne, DOJ MHarvey, LLDR HBrown, LLW Forum CGlenn, LLDR DSemick, GAO BMorris, RES, DRA AMayad, OTA MSilberberg, RES, WMB TBuckner, SE Compact JPhillips, RES, WMB Commission JRandall, RES, WMB EO'Donnell, RES, WMB MHaisfield, RES, WMB PReed, RES, WMB SBahadur, RES, REB CPrichard, RES, RDB RCunningham, NMSS,IMNS JGreeves, IMNS JHickey, IMNS FCombs, IMNS PGoldberg, IMNS
%8005G