ML20052F887
| ML20052F887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/11/1982 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205140090 | |
| Download: ML20052F887 (19) | |
Text
-
t 1
S0LVING THE LOW LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE PROBLEM 4
e Cell /EO 4
Presented by 3
G. Wayne Kerr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 4
at the 57th Annual Meeting Conference of State Sanitary Engineers Des Moines, Iowa May 11, 1982 8205140090 e20511 PDR STPRG ESCGEN PDR
59L'!ING THE LOW LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE PROBLEM" G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission INTRODUCTION The term "New Federalism" is one that is heard frequently in Washington these days.
I am sure it is also heard frequently in the State Capitols since it portends dramatic changes in the way many programs affecting you will be carried out. Although the ouoted term has the word "New" in it, the concept of Federalism as related to my topic today, Solvir.g the Low Level Radioactive Waste Problem, is not new.
However, as I will note shortly, the concept was given r.ew dimensions by certain events which occurred during the period 1979 to the present.
Inasmuch as the subject of radioactive waste has not been on your agenda for a few years and some of you may not be familiar with details of the problems, I would like to provide a brief characterization.
The term " Low Level" is somewhat of a misnomer but due to its long standing use will no doubt continue.
For many years low level waste was considered to be any radioactive waste which was not high level waste.
High level waste is defined in Appendix F of Part 50 of NRC's regulations as those wastes resulting from the first cycle solvent extrgetion systems of a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel.
It is true that low level wastes include a large amount of wastes that are contaminated with small amounts of radioactivity but they can also include wastes containing large amounts of radioactivity and with both long and short half life material. Wastes typically consist of solidified liquids, paper, cloth, wood and metal items, metals with induced activity and these wastes are generated by industrial firms, academic institutions, medical institutions, fuel fabricators, and reactor licensees.
Figure 1 shows the approximate percentage of wastes generated by various users and sent to the commercial burial grounds.
Figure 2 shows the cumulative total volume and activity of wastes disposed of at the burial grounds through 1981.
Typically, wastes are received at the burial sites in barrels, boxes, and casks and placed in carefully designed trenches and covared with earth.
"A more complete discussion of the history of the Federal / State roles was discussed in an earlier paper.1 bThere is currently no such processina being performed in the commercial sector in the United States.
. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS When the first commercial sites for disposal of low level radioactive waste were developed and licensed in 1962, the review of applications covered geological and hydrological characteristics of the site as well as the usual infonnation related to applicant qualifications, operating procedures and the applicant's radiation safety program. App opriate technical speciali:,ts in the State and Federal agencies, including U.S.
Geological Survey staff, reviewed the applications.
The scope of information reviewed at that time would be considered modest by today's standards as described in NRC's proposed rule " Licensing Requipements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" published on July 24, 1981.
Until 1975 there were six low level sites in operation that were distributed quite well on a geographical basis.
In early 1974 some concern was expressed by the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) over proliferation of new sites without fully addressing environmental concerns and the economic impact that each new site would have on existing sites.3 For example, in 1974 the AEC recommended to Oregon officials that a license for a new site not be issued until an environmental impact analysis including cost benefit was performed.
During 1975 New Mexico received an application for a new low level burial site from Chem-Nuclear.
NRC commented on a low level waste licensing guide in a letter to New Mexico dated November 19, 1976.4 The letter included the following statement:
...the fact that we have commented on the draft guide does not imply NRC concurrence in the licensing of additional comercial burial grounds.
To the contrary, because of the lack of adequate standards and criteria for commercial shallow land burial, the need to investigate alternate methods of disposing of low level waste, the lack of adequate criteria for the perpetual funding of post-operation site maintenance, and the lack of need for increased capacity for comercial burial, we do not consider licensing of new buriai grounds to be prudent prior to the development of a comprehensive national low-level waste management program." This statement was based on the opinion of the NRC Task Force staff involved in reviewing the NRC and Agreement State programs relating to regulation of low level radioactive waste.
The Task Force was preparing a report in response to the General Accounting Office, the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy and the House Committee on Government Operations.
Whcn the NRC published the Task Force Report (NUREG-0217) on March 10, 1977 in the Federal Register, Vol. 42, pp.13366-13370, it stated that there was aufficient burial capacity for disposal of comercial disposal of low level wastes until 1990.
Public coments on the report questioned NRC's projections of capacity. The Commission issued its statement on implementation of NRC Regulatory Program for Low Level Waste Management on December 7,1977 in the Federal Register, Vol. 42, pp. 61904-5.
The Comission took uader consideration the Task Force recomendation for more Federal control over low level waste disposal but did not adopt it as NRC policy.
It noted no compelling reason for reassertion of Federal control since the States were adequately protecting the public health and safety. It
. further stated that there were uncertainties in the disposal capacity projections and would accept applications for new sites in the ordinary course of business.
Thus, you can see that Federalism in this area is not new.
The States always could, and did in all but one case, own the sites; Agreement States regulated the sites; and NRC affirmed in 1977 that there was no compelling need to reassert regulatory authority over the sites.
In 1975 the West Valley, New York, site was closed pending further study of minor seepage of activity from disposal trenches. The Maxey Flats, Kentucky, site began to experience some er/fironmental problems in 1974 and was closed in 1977.
The Sheffield, Illinois site closed in 1979 because of the exhaustion of licensed trench space.
In early 1976 the Beatty, Nevada, site experienced unauthorized removal of materials from the site.
The license was temporarily suspended and later reinstated after security measures were strengthened.
In March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred.
In early April that year considerable publicity was generated over the possibility that some TMI Unit 2 wastes might be disposed of at the Barnwell, South Carolina facility.
Thus, by mid-1979 only three sites were accepting wastes.
About 75% of the wastes were going to South Carolina. A number of other incidents occurred in 1979 involving leaky shipments, a truck fire, faulty vehicles, etc.
In October 1979 Governor Riley of South Carolina announced a volume reduction plan for wastes to be received at Barnwell.
SHIFTING TIDES One can see from the above brief history the situation changed significantly from 1975-1979 as follows:
1.
From six well dispersed sites to three sites that were no longer geographically well dispersed.
2.
From a situation of relatively problem-free operations to frequent problems with attendant publicity.
l 3.
From a position of concern over proliferation of sites to concern over adequate capacity and appropriate regional distribution.
4.
Heightened concern over the adequacy of the safety aspects of transportation of wastes.
As a result of the accumulating problems, apparent lack of policy and direction for the low level waste program, and the concern of Governors Riley (South Carolina), Ray (Washington) and List (Nevada) of hostina the only shallow land burial sites, the three Governors met with NRC and other Federal officials in November 1979 to express their concerns and their opinion that Federal agencies were not doing enough to improve both the regulatory program for transportation and disposal of low level wastes as well as assuring that additional capacity would be available.
l
. There was sentiment expressed in some circles that the Federal Government should solve the problem. We received several calls, including some from State officials, asking "What are you (NRC) doing to solve the problem?" but quickly adding "We don't want the waste in our State." and that included waste generated within their own State.
Considerable concern was expressed that services such as nuclear medicine might be curtailed if they could not dispose of their wastes.
One popular proposal was that the U.S. Department of Energy should allow disposal of wastes at the DOE sites.
DOE opposed this and pointed out that even if permitted the most likely sites were located in South Carolina, Washington and 4
Nevada -- the same three States who objected to being the host States for all U.S. low level wastes.
Further, the Federal agencies pointed out that all the States and their citizens reap the benefits of the use of radioactive materials; be it electric power, nuclear medicine, academic institutions, industry, etc.
Thus, the States should be the problem solvers. A key statement was made by NRC's Chairman Hendrie when testifying before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the House Committee on Science and Technology on November 7, 1979.
He stated that "I think we should stick with the thrust of State sites.
There was a while a year or two ago, perhaps before, when I think I would have told you that I thought the Federal Government should step in and take over the low level waste disposal responsibilities across the country.
I have changed my mind on it.
It seems to me the States could do a perfectly good job." Congressman Wydler asked "Why were you for handling this problem at the Federal level and now you are convinced the States can do it?" Chairman Hendrie replied, "Let me sketch the reasons as follows:
As I observed, the difficulties that we have in what clearly is, and ought to be, a Federal program and responsibility for high-level waste.
As I view the difficulties that the Federal Government has in doing even preliminary exploration of the possible geologic medium in various portions of the country, I see an attitude which is a Federal problem, like 'They are not going to bring it into my State; it has to be solved, but it will be solved in somebody else's place and not here.'
I am afraid if the Federal Government accepts a responsibility to deal with the low-level wastes and starts looking for additional sites, we are going to get exactly the same kind of response from the States."
"Because low-level wastes are, in fact, generated in every State in the Union and because there are very clear benefits to the citizenry-at-large from activities that then yield those wastes, I think that puttino it on an individual State responsibility basis puts the problem right back where it ought to be.
After all, if we look at what you do with assorted chemical and industrial wastes and manufacturing processes of all kinds, there isn't a big Federal program to accept responsibility for arsenic compound wastes.
They are out there, and the States have to deal with them."
" Radioactive wastes are no different.
I think particularly for the low-level wastes it should be a State responsibility.
I think furthermore, for reasons along the lines I have been talking about here, that we can get decent regional disposal capacity to place them in a lot faster if they are a State responsibility."
. RESULTING ACTIONS As a result of this, many organizations took action to address the situation.
President Carter established the State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management on February 13, 1980 by issuance of Executive Order 12192.
The Council was to provide advice and recomendations on nuclear waste management including ways of resolving institutional issues related to radioactive waste management.
State officials gradually recognized their responsibility for solving these problems and this view culminated in the final recommendation of the State Planning Council.
Further it was recognized that the States are capable of solving these issues.5 The following excerpt from the State Planning Council's Report to the President is particularly significant:
"The Council recommended that national policy be redefined to make states responsible for ensuring the safe disposal of commercial low-level radioactive waste and for seeing that the required new sites are developed.
In making this recommendation, the Council recognized that every state generated low-level waste.
It concluded that state officials should be able to regulate the disposal of these wastes and that they are capable of resolving the political and institutional obstacles to opening new sites."
The State Planning Council also recommended that Congress enact legislation to ensure that Agreement States meet nationally uniform minimum standards for protection of public health and safety in the disposal of law level waste.
Further, legislation introduced by Congressman Udall in 1981 would have required minimum national standards but a bill has been reported out which does not include such a requirement nor do any other reported bills contain such a requirement.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, Public Law 96-573, (LLRWPA), was approved on December 22, 1980.
It states a very clear Federal policy as follows:
"Sec. 4(a)(1).
It is the policy of the Federal Government that (A) each State is responsible for providing for the availability of capacity either within or outside the State for the disposal of low level radioactive waste generated within its borders except for waste generated as a result of defense activities of the Secretary or Federal research and development activities; and (B) low-level radioactive waste can be most safely and efficiently managed on a regional basis."
Thus, it placed responsibility on the States for solutions and it sanctions a regional solution by way of compacts after January 1,1986.
l The NRC revi. sed its policy statement " Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof By States Through Agreement" on January 23, 1981.
Specifically, Criterion 27 was amended to allow a State to seek an agreement with NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended solely for a low level waste disposal facility. Although a fair amount of interest has been expressed for such a limited agreement there has been no great rush of States applying for limited agreements. We have discussed the matter with some State officials including members of their legislatures.
I will return to this subject of limited agreements in a few minutes.
The NRC's proposed rule " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 10 CFR Part 61 was published in the Federal Register, Vcl. 46, pp. 38081-38105 on July 24, 1981. Although applications for new sites would have been received and reviewed by NRC and the Agreement States prior to that time using available regulatory guidance, this proposed rule was anxiously awaited by the States and was an extremely important step.
The essential elements of Part 61 cover performance objectives, minimum technical requirements, land ownership provisions, institutional control requirements and financial assurance provisions.
Public connents on the proposed rule primarily reflected concern about waste classification and waste characteristics.
In regard to waste classification the concerns were the transuranic nuclide (TRU) limit, need for a de minimis class of waste and the need to consider a total hazard approacFto factor in nonradiological properties. With regard to waste characteristics the concerns related to limits for chelating agents, package deformation limits, the 150 year stability requirement, general packaging requirements dnd the gaseous waste requirements.
We expect to publish the rule in final form by fall 1982.
The Department of Energy was charged with assisting the States in carrying out the policies stated in the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980.
In addition to preparing a report defining needed disposal capacity, the status of the sites, evaluation of transcortation requirements, and the DOE sites, DOE has been providino technical assista'ce n
and planning grants to several States and interstate grcups to facilitate the development of compacts and sites.
The National Conference of State Legislatures held a series of four regional workshops in the first half of 1981 for State legislators and other interested parties.
They also published several issue briefs on various aspects of low level waste management including transportation, economics, public participation and interstate compacts and a Legislators Guide to low Level Radioactive Waste Management.
Finally, a number of individual States and groups of States have been initiating action to solve the problem.
l
. CURRENT STATUS The Beatty, Hanford and Barnwell sites are continuing to operate.
However, the level of use at Beatty has dropped considerably, partly as a result of State policies and Nevada's third party inspection program.
Volume received at Beatty went from 7400 cubic meters in 1979 to 3400 cubic meters in 1981. Volume of waste received has increased considerably at the Hanford site from 12,200 cubic meters in 1979 to about 40,200 cubic meters in 1981.
Barnwell is under a volume reduction plan which was implemented in late 1979 resulting in a change from 62,300 cubic meters in 1979 to about 42,500 cubic meters in 1981. This dramatically illustrates the effectiveness of the South Carolina volume reduction plan.
It has reduced the share of total U.S. coninercial waste received from 76% to less than 50% in two years.
All three States have resident inspectors at the sites and have implemented various types of escalated enforcement action including suspension of user permits and civil penalties in some cases.
The development of interstate compacts began first in the northwest region comprised of eight potential party states.
Idaho and Washington enacted the compact into law on April 7,1981 and May 8,1981 respectively.
Oregon, Utah and Montana subsequently joined.
They have submitted the compact and a draft implementing bill to some of their Congressional representatives but no bill has been introduced in either house of Congress as yet.
The NRC has expressed its concern over certain provisions of the compact; namely, the effective date of July 1,1983 is inconsistent with the LLRWPA, the definition of waste is inconsistent with the LLRWPA, there are discriminatory provisions against out-of-region wastes and the matter of onsite inspections of NRC licensees has to be addressed.
There are currently several regional groups which are developing compacts as shown in Fig. 3.
The Southeast, Rocky Mountain and South Central groups currently have compact legislation ready for submission to their legislatures.
The Midwest and Northeast groups a e not as far along and the mid-Atlantic group was formed earlier this Spring.
It should be noted that several States are negotiating with more than one compact group.
Further, there are so'me States which are unaffiliated at this time or are going it alone.
Included in the latter category are Texas, by choice, and California -- apparently as a result of choice by others.
One would have expected that development of compact groups miaht have reflected factors such as transportation costs and distances and economic viability of a site based on volume of waste generated within their region.
It appears, however, that, in some cases, these factors may not have been given much consideration since the volume of wastes generated in some regions is relatively small, at least at present.
If one compares the vo}ume of wastes per compact vs. estimated cost of operation on a $/ft basis based on figures in the State Planning
. Council report, one sees these costs may vary by a factor of 5 or more (see Fig. 4). Other considerations such as political factors and perceived public acceptability, or lack thereof, were probably overriding.
It has been expressed before that the political and institutional questions relating to the safe disposal of these wastes may be more difficult to solve than the technical issues.
One can reasonably ask what action may be expected from the Congress on these compacts.
Some have expressed the view that Congress will not amend the compacts per se but will consider them and add appropriate conditions via the Congressional consent legislation.
It is difficult to visualize any Congressional approval of compact exclusionary datos prior to January 1,1986 as established by the Low Level Waste Policy Act. The northwest compact contains an e,xclusionary date of July 1, 1983.
One may expect Congress to examine the composition of each compact in regard to definition of wastes; economic, technical and political viability of each region; the relationship of the exclusionary date of January 1,1986 to development of new sites; and the subject of total management of wastes.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS I would now like to present some views on various issues which may have influenced some of the actions which have taken place and some which still need to be addressed.
These are personal observations and views but have no doubt had a significant bearing on developing policies.
Who Accepts Responsibility?
Some States (small generators) have tended to lay low thinking the problem will go away by 1986 or the Feds will bail them out.
Some large waste generating States have acknowledged they have a greater responsibility for solving the problem.
The Governor of a host State needs to extract a pound of flesh from other States within a compact region.
We have already paid our dues by having a site, why should we commit to having another?
We are a candidate State for a high level waste site so we shouldn't have to commit to a low level site.
The Northwest Compact Desire to be first prompted, in part at least, the early development of this compact.
_g_
The July 1981 date in the Washington initiative for cutoff of wastes from outside the State and uncertainty of the outcome of the attendant law suit put pressure on Washington to exert substantive efforts to solve the problem.
The quick action on this compact resulted in some provisions which NRC noted as problems -- effective date, definition of low level waste and jurisdictional matters including State inspection of NRC licensees.
Regulation vs Development Texas has enacted legislation creating a Waste Management Commission to develop and operate a site but regulation of the site would be conducted by the Health Department.
Illinois legislation creating the Department of Nuclear Safety charges it with development of a site as well as regulation (possible conflict of duties).
Some States would like to develop a total waste management program starting with generating processes for all types of licensed operations, packaging, transportation and disposal.
We believe the Low Level Waste Policy Act does not alter previously existing authorities reoarding waste management and is limited to the compact aspects of actual disposal.
We understand from talking to some compact reoresentatives their interest here is in the econnmic aspects rather than health and safety.
Other Impacts on Site Development NRC and the Agreement States have been encouraging good waste management practices, including segregation, volume reduction, storage for decay, etc. which should result in reduced use of available disposal space.
As a result of proposals for interim and long-term onsite storage, NRC has sent a letter to power reactor licensees that encourages good waste management practices and also encourages working with States on development of sites.
It states that NRC will not take deliberate action that would hinder the establishment of additional disposal capacity by the States yet would accommodate operational flexibility by licensees.
Outstanding Problems There are a few " orphan" States.
These States are those that do not appear to be participating actively in compact negotiations or those that have been excluded by fellow negotiators.
States may encounter as much opposition at the County and local level when a new regional site is proposed as the Federal Government would encounter when a site in a given State was selected.
NRC licensees may have to play by the State rules if they want to use the regional compact site.
In commenting on the Northwest, Rocky Mountain, South Central, Midwest, and Southeast compacts, NRC offered a Section 2741 agreement which we expect will accommodate the need for onsite inspection of certain NRC licensed activities by allowing States to perform inspections of packages, packaging procedures and transport vehicles.
FULL AND LIMITED AGREEMENTS Since 1959 the Commission has had a program for relinquishing certain of its regulatory authority over most radioactive materials to those States which desire it and which are prepared to assume the regulatory redponsibility for these materials.
The regulation of low-level waste disposal is included in the authority transferred to the twenty-six States that have entered into these agreements with the Commission and, in fact, all three of the presently operating radioactive waste burial facilities are located in and licensed by Agreement States.
In January 1981 the Commission's criteria for these State-agreements were amended to designate low-level wastes in permanent disposal facilities as a separate category of transferrable authority and we refer to this as a limited agreement. A State may, if it desires, seek regulatory authority for such waste facilities without seeking authority for the other radioactive materials which are customarily included in these agreements.
For an agreement of any scope, a State must have a program (including staff with training and experience in radiation, statutes, regulations and procedures) which is adequate to protect the public health and safety and which is compatible with the Commission's regulatory program.
We have recently distributed to all of the States for comment, draft guidance on the requirements for a limited agreement for regulation of low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Included is information on the statutes, regulations and criteria generally applicable to NRC-State agreements, annotations on the applicability of the criteria to agreements limited to waste disposal and additional guidance to supplement the general criteria for these limited agreements.
Although this guidance may be modified or refined based on comments received, it may be used in the interim by States in their consideration and preparation for assumino regulatory responsibility in conjunction with the establishment of a State waste burial facility or hosting a regional burial facility.
For a waste disposal facility, a State will have both proprietary responsibilities and, if it is an Agreement State, regulatory responsibili-ties.
The proprietary responsibilities include selecting and owning the l
l t
. site and operating or arranging for a contractor to operate the site.
Some of the State's proprietary efforts may be done for the State by a commercial organization which would acquire a site and transfer its ownership to the State and then operate the site under contract with the State.
Regulatory control of such an operation would be by either the NRC or an Agreement State radiation control agency.
The regulatory responsibilities of the State have to do with the licensing and inspection of the facility for the protection of the public health and safety and of the environment.
Proprietary responsibilities should reside in an agency which is separate from the agency with regulatory responsibility to avoid a potential conflict of interest.
This paper, especially the discussion of staffing which follows, is addressed only to those aspects related to regulation of a State or regional waste disposal facility.
The technical portions contained in the Commission's proposed regulation 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, as well as our general radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 will be included in judging the adequacy and compatibility of a State's regulations as part of its proposal for a limited agreement.
Although our statute does not require a State to follow all of our procedural requirements, such as the preparation of environmental impact statements and the opportunity for public hearings on proposed licenses, we recomend and urge that the States adopt similar procedures.
Adequate manpower to properly regulate a waste disposal facility is significant.
In addition to persons qualified by training and experience to evaluate the radiation protection aspects of handling and use of radioactive materials, the regulation of waste disposal requires capability in the fields of geology, hydrology and ecology to evaluate the natural characteristics of a proposed site and the effectiveness of the facility design and operational features to assure the isolation and containment of buried radioactive wastes.
Since a State is not likely to have more than one burial site and site evaluation will not be a continuing effort, the radiation control agency may choose to use consultants from other State agencies or State universities for some of the specialities needed for site evaluation.
When using consultants, it is important to assure their availability when and to the extent needed and to consider possible problems if the same persons consult with both the State agency having proprietary responsibility for selection and operation of a disposal site and the regulatory agency. We estimate that three or more person-years total effort would be required to perform the pre-licensing review.
Further, there is significant effort to be applied after a facility is licensed.
Washington, South Carolina and Nevada have resident inspectors at their burial sites and some conduct fairly extensive independent monitoring programs.
Based on discussions with officials in these
. States this regulatory staff effort during the operational phase may be in the order of one tc five person-years per site per year.
For a State with a conventional agreement for the usual uses of radioactive material, a rule-of-thumb estimate is that 1-1.5 person-years per 100 licenses is required to administer the authority assumed from the NRC. These estimated staffing requirements are discussed not to scare you, but to present them in realistic terms.
The NRC staff and its contractors can provide assistance to the Agreement States in evaluating proposed waste disposal sites and programs.
This assistance can include furnishing computer modeling programs for use by the State, computer analysis of data submitted by the State and assistance in the preparation of environmental impact analyses.
There are a number of advantages for a State developing a waste burial facility to consider becoming an Agreement State, either for the limited purposes of regulating the waste burial activity or for a broader agreement to include the other uses and users of radioactive material.
States can factor local considerations and interests into a program that might not be accommodated as well by Federal regula. tion.
Also the licensed operator and customers of a burial facility, as well as members of the pubic, may prefer to deal with the folks at the home level.
Under a " full" agreement the State would have regulatory control over many of the waste generators in the State.
Under a limited agreement, the generators (and shippers) of waste within the State would not be licensees of the State; however, strong (and successful) efforts are made among the NRC and the Agreement States to have all of the related regulatory programs operate in a compatible manner.
SUMMARY
One can see that the evolution of the low level waste disposal problem was gradual or perhaps exponential, with the peak of the problem occurring in late 1979.
Solutions have been initiated since that time with extensive efforts by a number of individuals, States, Federal agencies, interstate organizations and by licensees. An acceptance of responsibility by the States and the policy directions established by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act were key factors in initiating solutions.
This is not to say that all problems are solved.
There is still a lot of jockeying for membership in various compacts, local acceptance of new sites will have to be obtained, and the establishment of a new site is not yet on the horizon.
When an announcement is made
'on selection of a new site we may well see the next peak in this problem.
NRC is prepared to work closely with State legislative and executive officials in this program including meetings to discuss in more detail the limited or full agreement concept, technical assistance which can be
. provided and other aspects of our regulatory program.
We are also prepared to present testimony before State Legislative Committees or Staff if this is desired.
We consider such efforts to be highly desirable in the solution to the low level waste problem through cooperative efforts with the States.
Various activities in this country bring benefits to all of us but there are usually some associated burdens.
In the nuclear industry, wasta disposal is one of the burdens.
Just as there are trade-offs among "sutes in various areas, it seems clear that some continued horse trading between and amongst." States and localities will be necessary in order to fully solve the low level radioactive waste problem.
REFERENCES 1.
"A Historical Review of Federal / State Roles in Regulating Commercial Low Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds," Proceedings of Health Physics Society Twelfth Midyear Topical Symposium, February 11-15, 1979, EPA 520/3-79-002, pp. 219-230.
2.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," 46FR142, pp. 38081-38105, July 24, 1981.
3.
Letter dated January 16, 1974 from S. H. Smiley, AEC to All Agreement States.
4.
Letter dated November 19, 1976 from G. Wayne Kerr, NRC to Dr.
Theodore Wolff, New flexico Radiation Protection Section.
5.
" Recommendations on National Radioactive Waste Management Policies,"
Report to the President by State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management, August 1,1981, p. 20.
r WASTE GENERATION BY SOURCE
- l WASTE SOURCES VOLUME GENERATED INSTITUTIONAL GENERATORS 19%
(Colleges, universities, medical schools, medical research facilities, private physicians and hospitals)
NCN-INSTITUTIONAL GENERATORS 81%
(Commercial nuclear power plants, fuel fabrication plants, manufacturing of radioisotopes for medical, academic and ir.dustrial use, and industrial uses)
- 1981 draft EIS on 10 CFR Part 61.
4 i
Figure 1 i
6 3 6
6 10 ft BPM (10 Ci)*
SNM(kg)**
SM(10 1b.)
Beatty, Nevada 3.3
.37 199.6(22.7) 1.1 1
Barnwell, South Carolina 12.8 3.01 1428.2(-)
7.0 llanford, Washington 3.6 1.02 86.8(33.9) 3.1 l
Maxey Flats, Kentucky 4.8 2.40 431.8,(63.8)
.5 Sheffield, Illinois 3.1
.07 56.4(13.4)
.6 West Valley, New York 2.4
.70 56.0(4.0) 1.0 TOTAL 30.0 7.57 2258.8(137.8) 13.3 BPM (byproduct material), SNM (special nuclear material), SM (source material)
- Pu in ( )
Figure 2.
Cumulative Volume and Activity of Wastes Through 1981
h E'
x2 z
Y D
Q b
B.
% db E
g N
N x
i i
JB i
1 1
i f
j 3
u I
A M
x H
E a
C
=
2 e.
n "=
8b
{
r 5
G J
5 E
3 P
E g
O i
c
.e-
/
0 C
L o.
e,
4 2
1 j
1 i
N l
1 j
1 i
0 I
1
)
i 4
i 1
t 9
a I
s e
d t
n a
u R
i f
n f
o
)
o i
8 r
t y
l t
a
/
r s
3 e
o t
n c
f e
g 0 G e
0 l
f 0,
a i
7 I
u l
0 n
0 n
r 1
A a
(
e y
E i
s T
V 0
A 2
R s
l 6
l i
A t
t N
s s
O d
r I
C a
T l
i R
a lo E
s d
N o
E p
5 5
G l
s 8
i L
9 D
A 1
UN i
g N
4
~
A sn e
4 r
o I
u i
t g
~
i p
F mu i
i ssa c
3 g
~
i s
~
a B
e j
(
2 l
g i
g g
l 1
g ce3- @o gmE 7
.N 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
'8 7
6 s
4 j
3 2
1