Text

Speech Entitled Status of Activities on Low Level Radwaste Compacts, Presented 820324 at AIF Fuel Cycle Conference in New York,Ny
	ML20052A301
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/24/1982
From:	Brenneman F; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20052A287	List: ML20052A286; ML20052A289; ML20052A292; ML20052A297; ML20052A301;
References
	NUDOCS 8204280171
	Download: ML20052A301 (8)
	v • d • e

i

~*

i STATUS OF ACTIVITIES ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIV2 WASTE COMPACTS

r Presented by Faith N. Brenneman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I l

King of Prussia, PA 19406 l

r at Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.

Fuel Cycle Conference '82 New York, New York F.4rch 24, 1982 t

t i

1 820428o 7/

w

--e we

-se y- - - - -

,e--3'r+

+we-y-e-r ym-I-ps v

et-c.

-4

- - 9 w

- + - - - -

Mg 4

STATUS OF ACTIVITIES ON LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS Faith N. Brenneman Regional State Liaison Officer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region I INTRODUCTION

Since the 1950's, low-level radioactive waste (LLW) has been produced in the United States as a result of the use of radioactive materials in medical diagnosis and treatment, research, industrial processes and electrical power generation by nuclear plants. Until 1970, LLW was disposed of by shallow land burial or ocean disposal. Because of the favorable economics of land burial and the public sentiment against the use of the oceans for burial, no one has sought a permit under Environmental Protection Agency regulations fcr ocean disposal since 1970.

Before the 1960's, LLW was buried at Atcmic Energy Commission sites.

However, with increasing volumes of commercially generated waste, the private sector was encouraged to develop waste disposal facilities, to be licensed by the AEC or by Agreement States.

In 1963, the Beatty, Nevada facility was opened.

During the ensuing nine years, five additional low-level waste disposal facilities opened, and, although not planned, resulted in a regional distribution of sites. They are Maxey Flats, Kentucky (1963); West Valley, New York (1963); Richland, Washington (1965);

Sheffield, Illinois (1967); and Barnwell, South Carolina (1971).

During the 1970's, for several reasons, including environmental, three of the facilities closed, namely West Valley (1975), Maxey Flats (1977) and Sheffield (1978).

Therefore, by 1979, only three sites were operating, only one of which was east of the Rocky Mountains.

l The historical background presented here was previously developed for the State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group / Edison Electric Institute, while the author was Nuclear Staff Scientist at Northeast Utilities.

2 Given the preponderance of waste generated in the East, with further exacerbation by the accident at Three Mile Island - Unit 2, and increasing numbers of violations of packaging and transportation regulations, the need for a national LLW program for the development of additional sites was recognized by the Governors of Washington, Nevada and South Carolina.

In addition, a combination of events in 1979 and 1980 led to a national consensus that additional facilities were needed and that their development was a state responsibility.

Further, the states should develop the needed LLW facilities on a regional basis.

Such events included temporary closing of the Nevada and Washington facilities, a phased 50%

reduction program in the volume of waste received at the South Carolina facility, the Washington State Initiative 383, and the report of the Interagency Review Group.

The National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management were particularly instrumental in the development of LLW policy and the identification of the process for policy implementaticn. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation ard the Environmental Protection Agency were identified as having roles in the provision of technical and financial resources for state efforts. The activities of these organizations and the Congress culminated in the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act in December 1980.

The Act incorporated the key features of the national consensus and defined low-level waste policy, such that:

each state is responsible "for the availability of capacity either within or outside the state for the disposal of low-level waste generated within its borders"; states "may enter into such compacts as may be necessary to prcvide for the establishment and operation of regional disposal facilities"; after January 1,1986, compacts may restrict the use of the facilities to waste generated within the region.

Regional Activities Although some states had already taken the initiative, the Act provided the incentive for others to begin regional discussions.

It was clear from the beginning that not only the presence of operating facilities, but also historical patterns, political ties, and public perception would influence the manner in which the regional efforts would proceed. The Northwest and Southeast, where there are sites, took an early lead in drafting compact language. The Southwest and Midwest proceeded more cautiously and identified technical and policy issues before drafting language.

In the Northeast, where 40% of the nation's LLW is generated and citizens are concerned about the impact of such wastes on the environment, a work plan was developed to focus on the issues and guide activities.

Several states around the country have chosen not to be aligned initially, and as compacts materialize are determining their best option (Figure 1).

In March 1982, a little over a year since the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, most states are eligible to join at least one compact, and a handful of states have legislative and gubernatorial approval of membership in a compact.

But no compact has been formally introduced into Congress.

3 Northwest The Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, which applies to the use of the low-level waste facility at Richland, Washington, has been approved by the legislatures and signed by the Governors of Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Utah. Montana has become a party to the compact by executive order, but must obtain legislative approval no later than July 1, 1983. The Hawaii Senate and House are considering legislation this spring.

Alaska and Wyoming, the other two eligible states, have not acted on the compact. The compact has been submitted to some Congressional committee staff along with a draft implementing bill, but has not been formally introduced.

The compact has provisions for party state regulation of packaging and trans-portation of LLW; the effective date for exclusion of non-region wastes of July 1,1983; and indemnification, until the July 1,1983 date, by non party states for any liability incurred as a result of accidental release caused by improper packaging by generators within each state.

The Compact Committee is reviewing Washington State regulatory systems for implementation of the compact.

At the same time, in the State of Washington means for strengthening the economic base and controlling the use of the facility are being developed, through increased fees and reduction in the volume of waste received at the site.

Scuthwest The Southwest states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have in final form the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact.

It has been submitted to Colorado and New Mexico House committees.

However, it is not expected to be moved through the New Mexico legislature this year, nor be introduced in any of the other party states in 1982.

The basic assumption of this compact is that there will be a volunteer state to host the regional facility.

Both Colorado and Arizona have expressed such an interest.

Colorado has introduced legislation relative to the siting of a facility in the state.

The compact provides that there will be at least one regional facility other than Beatty within six years after the compact is approved in Nevada and one other state. The Board established in the compact has authority, among others, to approve or disapprove a facility, develop a regional waste management plan and approve charges at the facility.

Party states are to enforce packaging and transportation requirements. After January 1,1986, it will be unlawful to either import out-of-region wastes or export wastes generated in the region to facilities outside the region unless authorized by the Board.

Although California was involved in early discussione in the Southwest, it is i

not now eligible for membership in the compact. A bill has been introduced authorizing the California Department of Health Services to develop a plan for the management, treatment and disposal of LLW and to establish an interim storage facility in the state, a

.~

4 Midwest The Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact hcs as initially eligible states - Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. A number of these states are eligible to join other regional compacts and are keeping their options open.

The draft approved by the state negotiators will go to each state for introduction into the legislative process.

The intent is to subject the compact to debate in committees, reconvene the negotiators in July 1982 to consider the comments and finalize the compact.

In early 1983, the compact would be re-submitted for adoption by the states.

A key provision in the compact gives the Compact Commission the authority to adopt a management plan by which the number and types of facilities would be determined and host state (s) designated. As in the Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts, party states are to enforce packaging and transportation regulations.

After January 1,1986, it will be in violation of the compact to import out-of-region wastes or to export waste from the region.

Central In early 1981, states with membership on the Southern States Energy Board deter-mined to split into three groups for purposes of LLW compacts - the southeast, the central and the mid-atlantic regions.

Since then, other states in the central part of the country have joined in the negotiations.

The states which are eligible to join the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact are Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Three of these states are also eligible to join the Midwest Compact.

In Missouri, the compact has been introduced to the General Assembly.

In Kansas, the compact is expected to clear this legislative session. These two states are the only ones which intend to introduce the compact this year.

The compact has a unique feature not found in the other LLW compacts, relative to the selection of a site. Although the compact allows for volunteers as a host state, it anticipates the need for a selection process and gives the Compact Commission the authority to select operator (s) to develop site (s) in the specified state (s).

Furthermore, the Commission has the authority to require a state or the NRC to process license applications.

Party states have the responsibility for enforcing regulations pertaining to the packaging and transportation of wastes. After January 1,1986, the import of wastes to and export of wastes out of the region is unlawful unless approved by the Commission.

Furthermore, waste cannot be transported off site for waste management practices except to a regional facility unless authorized by the Commission.

Although Texas was involved in early discussions, it appears that the state favors the option of a site for Texas generated waste. A Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority was created with jurisdiction over the operation of a state i

disposal site.

i l

l

5 Southeast Nine southeastern states initiated compact negotiations in late 1980 and developed a compact which, in its final form, named seven states as eligible for membership.

They are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

The Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact has been submitted to legislatures of all eligible states, except that of North Carolina, which is not in session. The Georgia House and Senate both ratified the compact, and the Governor is expected to sign it.

Under the compact each party state is to enforce regulations pertaining to packaging and transportation. The Commission approves of non party application for membership, determines the types and number of facilities needed, and desig-nates a host state if no state volunteers.

Non-host states may be required to compensate a host state for use of its facility.

The Commission can enter into agreements for right of access to facilities outside the region, and can authorize, with approval of a host state, imports into the region.

Mid-Atlantic The Mid-Atlantic states held preliminary discussions in early 1981, have attended other regional meetings, and most recently have resumed discussions to consider their options. A Mid-Atlantic Low-Level Radioactive Waste Interstate Compact is emerging.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and the District of Columbia have participated in the discussions. A draft compact has been developed and submitted to the Virginia legislature.

It is now under review by other states' negotiators.

The draft compact gives the Commission power to prohibit the importation of waste into the region, and the export of waste out of the region.

The Commission shall adopt a regional management plan which may designate host state (s). As a last resort, after states have had a chance to choose a site, the Commission is empowered to make the selection.

Further, the Commission can participate in the funding and operation of a regional facility.

Northeast Under the auspices of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Penn-sylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont have prepared a work plan for the development of one or more compacts. The plan defines tasks leading to one or more draft compacts in December 1982. At a March meeting, a consensus on compact issues will be sought; a methodology will be proposed to estimate future waste volume and facility needs; and approaches for states to consider in developing education programs will be presented.

Generator Groups It will no doubt be several years before new low-level waste disposal sites are in operation. Generators of LLW recognize that the compact process itself takes

6 time, and are concerned that no new sites will be available when present operating facilities restrict their use to compact members. To enhance the process leading to the establishment of new sites, medical, university, industry and utility low-level waste generators have joined together at the national level (under the auspices of the Edison Electric Institute) and within several states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia).

They are assisting state negotiators in the acquisition of technical information on waste types, treatment, and siting; the development of public information and education programs; the assessment of implications of compact activities around the country; and considerations for interim storage contingency planning.

Although the NRC will consider applications for on-site storage by large genera-tors, it encourages its licensees to take an active role in the development of additional sites.

Conclusion For several months, the focus of much speculation has been what Congress will consider when presented with the first low-level waste compact.

This speculation has been enhanced by requests from congressmen for reports on LLW issues.

The first, in November 1981, Representative Barney Frank requested an inquiry by the U.S. General Accounting Office into low-level waste management issues, including state compact init:atives. The second, in January 1982, Senator James McClure asked the Department of Energy for a report on the progress made by states to enter into compacts for LLW disposal.

One can only conjecture as to Congress's intention to base its ratification of any compacts submitted this year on the likelihood of other compacts following shortly thereafter.

Noone knows whether Congress will allow states with operating sites to exclude waste before there are any additional sites established and operating in other regions, and, given the unofficial estimate by some of from four to six years for the establishment of a new site, there is some question as to whether there will be additional sites by January 1, 1986.

e e

Northwest Rocky Mountain Central Midwest Southeast Mid-Atlantic Northetst (GoingAlonel (Unaffili<ted)

Alaska Arizona Arkansas Delaware