ML20056G517
| ML20056G517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1993 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9309030220 | |
| Download: ML20056G517 (9) | |
Text
[1 1
i AUG 311993 e
MEMORANDUM FOR: James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research FROM:
Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
UPDATE OF MEDIA BRIEFING BACKGROUND PAPER The enclosed media briefing background paper on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act has been revised, as you requested in your j
memorandum, same subject as above, dated August 12, 1993.
{
If you have any questions on the enclosures, please contact Mike Bell, Chief, Low-Level Waste Management Branch (504-2553).
j l
Ongina! signed by Robert M.Bsenero Robert M. Bernero, Director l
Office of Nuclear Material Safety i
and Safeguards l
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
H. Thompson, EDO TICKET: L-93-HO /67 DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLWM r/f JAustin JSurmeier SSalomon, OSP NMSS r/f.
LLWM t/f LLWB r/f 3 _!
e HiFk? SishW B6ksstihTc6nEUFrincE91bE16?Difi"EsIDistFiShii oniC6pKPre fefshdel
\\i#p 16 'snis11~ Bei~66 "0FC"'lihb~ snteFI"C ~=^ C6VeFi^E~='CdvsFT Enc 16serei ^ N T N6 ^ Copy LLWB[///.
TEditor,2['[k E
N W'Bf k
[-
LtVM 05,0/1 g O j l
OFC NAME RNelson EKraus-N Jltenhed k PLokaks SbdW f
DATE 6 //9/93 H
d//1/93 T h /93 h ' T /t(/93 -
/c/hM/93 l
I,1j[h
(('$
OFC NMSS-NMSS hee [es gar 1 otto RBerne' NAME' r
DATE 8 /28/93
/ /93 II/2//93
/ /93
/ /93
~
S:\\LLWMTYPE\\J0AN\\MEDIABRF.RAN.
OfflCIAL RECORD COPY t
In small Bcx on "DATE" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy; H = Hard Copy i
PDR: YES-X 'NO Category: Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:.YES X
NO j
IG: YES-NO X
. Delete file after distribution:
Yes No X i
i 9309030220 930831 @
, c /-/
j o
PDR {-
^
,f)
[
t PDR WASTE WM-3>
g
o BP20 (9/93)
STATE COMPLIANCE WITH 1993 MILESTONL AND 1996 LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE OF THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985
Background:
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA)
(Pub. L.99-240) establishes a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives for regional compacts and States to promote progress toward being able to manage their low-level radioactive waste (LLW) by 1993. However s4w State progress in developing new LLW disposal facilities has resulted ii, the storage of LLW at some generator sites, even before January 1, 1993. This paper includes background information on the LLRWPAA and the status of LLW disposal facility development. Relate:i regulatory actions are summarized, including a proposed rulemaking that would establish criteria for on-site storage of LLW after January 1, 1996.
LLW Disposal:
Low-level radioactive waste is a general term for a variety of radioactively contaminated wastes generated by nuclear power plants and related industries, hospitals, medical and educational research institutions, private and governmental laboratories, and other commercial activities that use radioactive materials as a part of their normal operations. Approximately 48,000 cubic meters (1.7 million cubic feet) of LLW were disposed of in 1992.
LLW is currently disposed of using shallow land burial at privately operated facilities located in the States of South Carolina and Washington.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) made the States responsible for the disposal of commercially generated and certain Federally generated LLW. The LLRWPA encouraged the States to form compacts to dispose of LLW on a regional basis. The LLRWPA also designated January 1,1986, as the date after which compacts could restrict the use of their disposal facilities by excluding waste generated outside the compact region. However, by 1983, it had become clear that no new disposal facilities would be operational by the 1986 milestone. As a result, in January 1986, the LLRWPAA was enacted. The LLRWPAA extended the January 1, 1986, deadline by seven years, to January 1, 1993.
By that date, new LLW disposal facilities were expected to be operational, and the rights of the LLW generators, to dispose of their LLW at the three sites then operating, would end.
At present, nine compacts have been formed, representing 42 States.
The accompanying figure shows the current arrangements of compacts and unaffiliated States (i.e., those States not in a compact).
Legislation to establish the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact (Texas Compact) was signed by Texas Governor Ann Richards on June 9, 1993. The legislation provides that if either of the other two designated compact member States (Maine and Vermont) ratifies the compact, the agreement will be in full Enclosure l
)
i e
. BP20 (9/93) force for Texas and the ratifying State.
Legislation ratifying the compact was enacted in Maine on June 21, 1993. However Maine law requires that the compact be approved by a majority of Maine voters before the legislation takes effect. A referendum is scheduled for November 2,1993. The Vermont Legislature is currently out of session, and a compact bill is not expected to be introduced until the next regular legislative session in January 1994. The U.S. Congress must then consent to the Texas Compact.
The LLRWPAA required the sited States of Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington to make disposal capacity available to LLW generators until December 31, 1992, subject to certain conditions. Although the Washington facility remains open, serving the Northwest Compact (its compact) and, under contract, the Rocky Mountain Compact, the Nevada facility stopped accepting LLW on December 31, 1992. The facility in South Carolina will remain open until January 1, 1996, subject to various conditions. However, the facility will close permanently to out-of-region waste on July 1, 1994.
Widespread storage is expected after this date.
The importation of out-of-region waste to the South Carolina facility, during the period of January 1,1993, to June 30, 1994, will not be approved for States nor compact regions that are not making adequate progress toward providing for disposal of their own LLW. The States of Michigan, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are not eligible for access to the South Carolina facility, under these conditions.
Michigan generators began storing LLW in November 1990, when they were denied access because Michigan was no longer in compliance with the LLRWPAA. New Hampshire's Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant has also been storing LLW since October 1990, because a contract with the Rocky Mountain compact excluded it.
On April 14, 1993, the Southeast Compact Commission voted to terminate its contract with the Central Interstate LLW Commission, for access to the South Carolina facility, effective July 1, 1993. Nebraska is 'he Host State for the Central Compact.
To help ensure that the States make adequate progress to develop new LLW disposal facilities, the LLRWPAA established six milestones by which the States should make decisions and commit to certain actions.
The majority of the States met the requirements of the three milestone dates that had passed by January 1990. However, only the Central, Central-Midwest, and Southwestern Compacts met the January 1, 1992, milestone requirement, where their respective Host States of Nebraska, Illinois, and California submitted applications for disposal facilities. The State of Texas conformed to this i
milestone on March 2,1992, by submitting a disposal facility license application.
However, no State had a new LLW disposal facility operational on i
January 1, 1993, as envisioned by the LLRWPAA.
The remaining milestone of the LLRWPAA, as it was enacted, is:
January 1,1996 - The States, upon proper notice by the generator or owner, shall take title to and be obligated to take possession of LLW.
The State will also be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner if it fails to take possession as soon after January 1, 1996, as the generator or owner notifies the State that the waste is available for shipment.
)
a
a.
a!
s
)
- BP20 (9/93)
This section of the LLRWPAA, requiring the States to take title to, and possession of, the generated waste by January 1, 1996 (often referred to as the "take-title" provision), was held to be unconstitutional by the U.S.
Supreme Court, on June 19, 1992.
Progress to Develop New LLW Disposal Facilities:
Only two new facilities are now scheduled to be operational by January 1996, those in California and North Carolina, and the latter will replace the existing Barnwell facility.
LLW disposal facilities in the Host States of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are forecast to be operational between the period 1996 and 1998. New York's facility is scheduled for operation in 2001. There are no schedules yet available for the Host States of Connecticut, Illinois, Nebraska, and Ohio. The unaffiliated States of Michigan, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico do not have a disposal site under development. A number of 1
States believe that they may be able to fulfill their responsibilities through l
the contracting and/or compact process. The accompanying table shows the dates by which compact Host States and unaffiliated States accomplished, or expect to accomplish, key steps in developing new disposal facilities.
On October 9,1992, the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility I
Siting' Commission voted unanimously to reject the LLW disposal site proposed i
by the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS).
In support of this decision, the Governor of Illinois directed the IDNS to stop all efforts to locate a facility at the selected site, at Martinsville. The facility had i
been scheduled for operation early in 1995. On December 24, 1992, legislation was enacted that abolished the Siting Comission, repealed the statutory siting criteria, and directed IDNS to recomend a new process for timely and cost-effective establishment of a disposal facility.
Legislation changing the procedure for siting an LLW disposal facility was signed into law on March 3, I
1993, and amended in July 1993.
On December 8,1992, a straw poll of county residents was conducted to measure the level of public acceptance of the Boyd County site in Nebraska. Over 90 l
percent of those voting in the election opposed the construction of the facility After the poll results were announced, Governor Nelson stated that he intended to seek L court ruling on whether the vote allows Nebraska to stop the siting process.
In a letter to the Central-Interstate LLW Compact Comissioners, dated December 23, 1992, Governor Nelson requested the j
Comissioners to withdraw Boyd County from consideration.
If the site were not withdrawn from consideration by January 8, 1993, Governor Nelson stated that he would request the Nebraska Attorney General to take the matter to court to determine if there were legal avenues that would allow the State to prevent siting of th? facility in Boyd County. The Governor filed a lawsuit on January 13, 1993, when-the Central Compact Comission refused to withdraw l
the site. On January 22, 1993, the prospective disposal facility licensee was notified by the appropriate State regulatory agencies that its license-application might be denied.
-A public hearing was held on March 17, 1993, and-I a contested case hearing is scheduled for October 4,1993.
.a
- BP20 (9/93)
In California, progress has been delayed by two related issues. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has control of the site, and the issue facing the State is how to acquire title to the Federally-owned land.
Before construction of the facility can begin, the site must be transferred from Federal ownership to the State. Transfer of the land from BLM to the State of California has been delayed because the State Lands Commission (SLC), an independent State agency, refused, in mid-1991, to proceed with the transfer process.
SLC is concerned about safety issues related to the facility and is concerned that the State taxpayers might have the responsibility for any site remediation.
In a letter to California Governor Pete Wilson, dated August 11, 1993, the Secretary of the Interior recommended that a formal hearing be held, focusing on the issue of migration of radionuclides from the site. The Secretary stated that the hearing is needed to carry out his responsibilities under Federal Sw. The results of the hearing would be used by the Secretary in making a aecision to transfer the land. A final decision is also contingent on the designation of a critical habitat for the desert tortoise, an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
In his letter of August 11, 1993, the Secretary of the Interior stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service will shortly release its draft critical habitat designation, with the final designation scheduled for the end of the year. The Secretary further stated that being in the tortoise's critical habitat would not necessarily prevent the Califer oia project from going forward. However, it would require a more careful look at the project's impacts on the tortoise and suitable mitigation measures. The project may be further impacted by a suit, currently before the California Supreme Court, concerning a California Senate Rules Committee decision requiring a more extensive adjudicatory hearing.
Since no new LLW disposal facilities were operational by January 1,1993, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites have either closed their facility or set conditions on receiving LLW from outside their regional compacts, some licensees who generate LLW have been forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available. Nearly all the Governors' Certifications submitted to meet the 1990 milestone of the LLRWPAA indicated that the State planned on interim storage by waste generators during the 1993 through 1996 period. However, since the South Carolina facility is to be available to many generators until July 1,1994, there will be a mixed pattern of disposal and storage during this time period.
Regulatory Actions:
Because of some States' and compacts' slow progress in meeting the January 1, 1996, milestone of the LLRWPAA, the Commission is becoming concerned about on-site storage of LLW. Although the public health and safety can be adequately protected if LLW is stored, the public health and safety will be enhanced by disposal, rather than long-term, indefinite, storage of LiW.
Disposal of LLW in a limited number of facilities licensed under existing regulations (10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations) will provide better protection of the public health and safety and environment than storage at hundreds of sites around the country. Permanent disposal of LLW has always been the preferred option for managing LLW, as reflected in the i
LLRWPAA.
Because of these concerns and as a result of the Commission's 4
consideration of the staff's analysis in SECY-91-306, " Analysis of Comments i
' BP20 (9/93)
Received on Title-Transfer and Possession Provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed to amend its regulations, to establish license condition requirements for on-site storage of LLW, by licensees, after January 1, 1996.
In this proposed rulemaking, the Commission has restated and emphasized its position that it will not look favorably upon on-site storage of LLW by generators after January 1,1996. Under the proposed amendments, on-site storage of LLW would not be permitted after January 1,1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site), unless the licensee could document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options.
Such options include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly or through the State, for disposal of the waste.
This proposed rulemaking would supplement, but not supersede, the existing regulatory framework applicable to storage of LLW, and the conditions in themselves would not authorize on-site storage. On-site storage of LLW at reactors would continue to be subject to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations (which allow licensees to store, provided there is no outstanding safety issue), as well as all other regulatory requirements currently in ' place.
Licensees should continue to use appropriate regulatory guidance for on-site storage of LLW.
Current Status:
A proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Reoister on February 2, 1993.
The public comment period expired on April 5,1993. The staff is currently summarizing and analyzing the comments received.
Final action on this rulemaking is expected in late 1993.
Highlights of this media briefing background paper can be found in the attachment.
Contact:
i Michael Bell, Chief, low-level Waste Management Branch, Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 504-2553.
1 b
i i
L@W-LEVEL RADI@ ACTIVE WACTE C@MPACT OTATUO AUGUST 1993 UNAFFILIATED STATES v""'"'2
- 10% Natk>nal LLW (to States)
- NY to tusst site - 4% Neuorwal LLW - SLil banned NORTHWEST
- WA is teost State I
MIDWEST
- SLO e OH selected as tu2st State
- MI - att LLW in storage
- studerwied wg im NORTHEAST I
vt
\\
Hi D
\\
- NJ arid CT are party States MN
- NJ arms CT selected as host States
~
- 5% Nat6onal LLW Wy f
-uA eDisposal technosogy to tre D - Ill deteernined by host states IA Q
Ci
- SLD banneri an NJ I
uo SD 8
CENTRAL MIDWEST y'
i CA
- 11. la host State e 1e% Neuonal LtW APPALACHIAN I
e Disposal tectormlogy
- PA is Imst State
^Z co SOUTHWESTERN Nv to be deto,nined
. e% Neuon.i LLw
- EMAGV, SLB bannel
- CA is host state NE lt-
- SLO banned F
ee% Net 60 net 4.LW
}
KY
- SLB KS x
W D
elicense undet i
NC 3r m
rev'**
ROCKY BAOUNTAIN j
- r 7 9
SOUTHEAST
.\\
eNortn t %t V.
^"/
0"
- sC current host stole using stu MS 3
g GA e NC selected as next host State accepts LLW trorn
^l flocky Mountain Cornpoct
- 21% National LLW f
. Tx to hoot.ite CENTRAL r3 D I'fl O
- 9% Nettonal LLW
- NE selected as 94>st state
- DGCC, SLO banned
- 6% Nanonal LLW Q
o License uruler
- EM AGV, Slit barmed g
,"'5**
Source: Off 6ce of State Programs, NFIC U L
up.ane Ltw peepo es s.
Nute. Neetoonul LLW volurne for 1992 = 1.7 rnillion cubo foot disposed blu = steellow land bur 6al LMAGV = Carth nwaurwied above grade vault UGCC - below ground concrete canisters
=.
e a
- BP20 (9/93)
Actual and Estimated Dates for Completing Steps in Facility Development (Estimated Dates Obtained from Compacts / States) i I
Submit Select License Operate Comoact/ Host State Site Application Facility Appalachian / Pennsylvania Early 1997 Early 1997 Mid-1999 Central / Nebraska Dec 1989 Jul 1990 Unscheduled Central Midwest / Illinois Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled Midwest /0hio Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled Northeast / Connecticut &
Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled New Jersey 1994 Mid-1995 Late 1997 Southeast / North Carolina End 1993 Dec 1993 Jan 1996 Southwest / California Mar 1988 Dec 1989 Jul 1994 Unaffiliated States Maine (See note.)
1993 Jan 1994 End 1996 Massachusetts Jun 1994 Nov 1994 Late 1996 New York 1995/1996 1998/1999 2001 Texas Aug 1991 Mar 1992 Jun 1996 Vermont (See note.)
Feb 1994 Oct 1997-Aug 1999 Note: The dates provided for Maine and Vermont reflect the schedule that existed before enactment of Texas Compact legislation.
1 l
i l
I i
e
8 9
o BP20 (9/93)
HIGHLIGHTS STATE COMPLIANCE WITH 1993 MILESTONE AND 1996 LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE OF THE l
LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 (LLRWPAA)
LLRWPAA established milestones, incentives, and penalties for States to develop new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities.
- Milestones were established in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1996.
.. Waste disposal surcharges and take-title and possession provisions were penalties for failure to comply.
- Partial rebate of surcharges to States provided incentive in the form of financial assistance.
l
- U.S. Supreme Court has held the 1996 take-title provision to be unconstitutional.
Majority of States met the first three milestones.
Only four States (California, Illinois, Nebraska, and Texas) met the 1992
=
milestone, and only California and North Carolina are scheduled to meet the 1996 legislative objective of the LLRWPAA.
On-site storage of LLW at some generator sites is occurring because of lack of access to disposal facilities, especially in the States of Michigan (since November 1990), New Hampshire (Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant since l
October 1990), and Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico; and more recently the States of the Central Compact.
Existing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance, in conjunction with current regulations, provides the regulatory and licensing framework for LLW storage.
Although public health and safety can be protected if LLW is stored, public
=
health and safety will be enhanced by disposal.
NRC does not look favorably upon on-site storage of LLW.
Commission has published a proposed rulemaking that would establish criteria for on-site storage of LLW after January 1,1996. Licensees would have to exhaust all other reasonable waste management options before storing LLW on-site. Options include contracting, either directly or indirectly, through the State, for disposal.
Proposed rulemaking would supp'sment, but not supersede, existing regulatory framework. Conditions of proposed rulemaking, in themselves, I
would not authorize on-site storage.
j Attachment J