ML20058E374
| ML20058E374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1990 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9011070147 | |
| Download: ML20058E374 (81) | |
Text
--.... _.
MWWWdhdhn%%%WWW6d%%WWWh&WA%6AdffWggggg9 TP.AHSMITTAL TO:
Y Document Control Desk. 016 Phillips ADVANCE 0 COPY TO:
The Public Document Room l
///4/90 OATE:
/
/
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch 3
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meetin document (s)..They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession L st and 4
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other oistribution is requested or 5
1 required.
{
Meeting Titie: Attk/ Ao au<..< 2 M.70 d O %
Jh-a. U c A w /r & X /A) t L
l Meeting Date:
/ o/49/ 9 A Open M Closed i
w Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS l
'8 to POR M
g W.
L
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 1
~
h)/sAww/a) l ii
/
v 2.
f
[
3.
4.
c c
5.
g i
E
=
f*
\\
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
a C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY i
papers.
9011070147 901029 PDR 10CFR i
9o PT9.7 PNV i\\
l L
I' A/AA.
b bhb
_kk b b b
s,>,
UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION I
Title l BRIEFING ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROVISION REQUIRING TITLE TRANSFER OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE L
- LOCatiOB:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
' D&ke OCTOBER 29, 1990 Pages:
64 rices NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 E
__.m.____.-_-ma_-_m_m
DISCLAIMER i
I This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on October 29, 1990, in the Commission's of fice - at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with j
the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the commission may authorize.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoRTft$ AND TRANSCRt9tR$
1323 rho 0! ISLAND AVfHUI, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C.
20005 (202) 232 6600 l
1.
h_..
y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROVISION REQUIRING TITLE TRANSFER OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Monday, October 29, 1990 The Commission met in - open session, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
Kenneth M.
- Carr, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R.
CURTISS, Commissioner FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
p e
3 g-,- j i 3
.w-,
STAFF' SEATED AT THE COMMISSION' TABLE:
4
^
. SAMUEL'J. CHILK, Secretary WILLIAM C, PARLER, General Counsel
}.
JAMES TAYLOR', Executive Director for Operations ROBERT.BERNERO, Dirsator of Operations, NMSS 1
RICHARD BANGART, Director, Division of LLW Management and Decomm., NMSS.
' JOHN _ HICKEY, Chief, Operations Branch, NHSS s
KATHLEEN SCHNEIDER,' Health' Physicist, GPA-V F
t
. )
F-j
')
k n
g'.
1
- 1'.
-5 U
.l
...c.
L 1
l.
1 1
a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
J
- (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
4 -
o 3
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
10:03 a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Good morning, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5 This morning the staff will brief the 6
Commission in issues associated with the title 7
transfer _ provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 8
Policy Act.
This Act provides a series of milestones, 9
incentives and penalties to ensure that states make 10 timely progress in developing new disposal facilities 11 for low-level radioactive waste.
The title transfer 12 provisions of 1993 and 1996 are key to successful 13 implementation of the national policy established in 14-the Act.
15 We look forward to hearing from staff on 16 their recommendations to fulfill the Commission's 17 hee".th and safety responsibilities in conjunction with 18 the title transfer provisions.
19 Copies of the staff's briefing slides are 20 available at the entrance to the room.
I also would 21 like to welcome any state representatives that may be 22 observing this morning's meeting.
23 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 24 opening comments?
25 If not, Mr. Taylor, please proceed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
'4 4
1 MR. TAYLOR:
Good morning.
With me at the 2
table, starting at my far left, John Hickey and Bob 3
Bernero from NMSS.
To my right, Dick Bangart and to 4
his immediate right Kathleen Schneider from the Office 5
of State Programs.
6 This briefing does cover a number of 7
important policy considerations in this area for which 8
we had a specific recommendation in the paper provided 9
to the Commission.
I'll ask the formal briefing to 10 begin with Dick Bangart.
11
.MR. BANGART:
Thank you, Jim.
12 (Slide)
I'd like to begin with the second 13 slide, please, in your package.
This slide does 14
-contain, in summary form, a brief outline of the 15 presentation this morning.
The main focus of the 16 presentation, however, will be on the last three 17 bullets.
Those bullets identify the specific items 18 that were requested by the commission in their staff 19 requirements memorandum.
20 Additionally, I'll be folding into the 21 presentation this morning a description of recent 22 events that have' been taken by the three currently 23 sited states'to address an apparent lack of meaningful 24 progress by states or compacts in development of new 25 disposal capacities.
I'll also be identifying some NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
o 3.
1 other actions that states and compacts have taken to 2
demonstrate that there is progress.taking place.
3 (Slide)
Let's move ' to slide 3 now, 4
please.
5 The staff requirements memorandum, dated 6
February 14th, 1990, did request three actions on the 7
part of the staff.
The first of those requests was to 8
evaluate the issues that are raised by the title 9
transfer and possession provisions of the Amendments 10 Act.
The second request was to identify and evaluate 11 the advantages and disadvantages of conceptual 12 approaches that we might take to fulfill our 13 responsibilities that result from or are attended to 14 implementation of the milestone beginning in January 15 1993.
The third request was for us to develop a 16 specific schedule for implementing any regulations or 17 regulatory guidance that might be necessary to ensure
,1 18 that we have a complete and stable regulatory 19 framework in. place at the time that the milestone goes s
20 into effect.
21 Before we get into a discussion of the 22 specific requests, I'd like to go ovecr some background 23 material that we used in carrying out those actions 24 that were requested.
As you are aware, generators in 25 non-sited states, non-sited compacts may be denied NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
c..
6 i
1
-access to existing facilities beginning in January of 2
1993.
The Amendments Act also identifies both January 3
1993 and January 1996 as milestones or deadlines for 4
the operation of a new disposal facility.
If no 5
disposal capacity exists at either of those dates, a 6
generator in a state may request state authorities to 7
take title to and possession low-level radioactive 8
waste and if the state fails to do so, assume 9
liability for that failure to do so.
10 The January 1993 deadline, as opposed to 11 the 1996 deadline, however, does allow a state to 12 elect not to take legal responsibility for such 13 material.
In 1996, the state has no option but to 14 take legal responsibility.
15
'You may recall f rom the January briefing 16 of this year where we addressed the January 1990 17 milestone in the Act, that in responding to that 18 milestone nearly all states provided a governor's 19 certification stating that they would safely manage or 20 dispose of waste after January 1993, and in doing so 21 they indicated that they would rely on storage in some 22 form.
The alternative storage forms that they 23 proposed were to either rely on storage at individual 24 generators or to rely on storage at centralized 25 facilities within their states or to rely on a NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHCDE ISLAND AVENVE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
i i
v y
1 combination of those forms of storage.
2 It's appropriate at this point to identify 3
some actions that have been taken by the states that 4
relate to compliance with the Amendments Act.
We've 5
recently received a letter from Vermont indicating 6
that they have established a low-level waste authority 7
within that state.
They are initiating actions to 8
develop a new disposal facility.
They believe as a 9
result of legislation that's recently been passed that 20 they_are in compliance with the January 1990 milestone 11 of the Act.
g 12 Massachusetts has recently submitted a 13 letter describing the current status of their 14 activities to assure that they will be capable of 15 safely managing of wastes in January of 1993.
I think.
l 16 we're aware also that the three sited states have sent 17 letters to Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, 18 Connecticut and New Jersey expressing concern about 19 the lack of progress on the development. towards new 20 disposal facilities and that they have threatened 21 denial of access to those states in the'near-term.
22 So, the-picture that's developing we l
l' L
23 believe is clear.
Not all stetes will have new l-D4 disposal capacity on-line by either 1993 or 1996.
The 25 states plan to rely on storage both after 1993 and NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
g r
l l
l
.4 g
?
e L
1 1996 and to a major degree the states appear to be i
2 relying on storage at individual generator's 3
facilities.
4 (Slide)
Let's move now to slide 5,
5 please.
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me clarify 7
something before you go on there.
On the question of 8
reliance on storage past 1996, what you've seen in the 9
certifications that were submitted prior to January l
10 3st of
'90, together with the recent ones that you 11 alluded to from Vermont and Massachusetts, would it be.
12 fair to say that in all cases where those states or 13 compacts are relying on storage past January 1st of I
14
'96, that they are doing so in conjunction with a 15 well-defined ~ disposal program that would eventually 16 lead to a site either by '96 or shortly thereafter?
17 MR.
BANGART:
I've got some information 18 that will be incorporated in one of the later slides 19 that speaks to the status of states' and compacts' 20 activities toward development of new facilities.
21' COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
22 MR.
BANGART:
Generally, the answer _ to 23 that-question is yes.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Could I ask a 25 question also for clarification?
Is it possible for L
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
l-1 one entity to accept title to the material and another 2
to have license to store / possess or must they go 3
together"/
4 MR. BANGART:
I believe the answer to that f-5 question is yes also.
6 MR. PARLER:
I would agree with that from 7
the legal standpoint, to have one person look at the i
l.
8 title of the ownership under, say, general license 9
approach and somebody else that would be satisfactory 10 to the' regulatory agency to have a licensee to 11 possess.
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Thank you.
13 MR.
BANGART:
Let's move on to slide 5 14 then, please, 15 So, with that background information, the 16 staff.did set about the task of identifying issues 17 raised by the title transfer and possession provisions 18 in the Act.
- Now, in setting about this task, we 19 established a fundamental premise that we adhere to 20 throughout the process and continue to adhere to 21 today.
That's that the objectives and intent of the 22 Amendments Act will indeed be achieved.
That is, that 23 states will be responsible for safely managing or 24 disposing of low-level waste and indeed that new 25 facilities will be established, albeit on a slightly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
10 i
I 1
different time scale than that spelled out in the 2
Amendments Act.
3 We identified three issues for evaluation.
4 The first is whether the existing regulatory framework 5
is adequate to enable states to take title and 6
possession and store waste.
The second is whether NRC 7
should approve of storage beyond 1996 and if we were B
to do so, will such approval removal incentive on the 9
parts of states and compacts to develop new 10 facilities.-
The third issue that we identified is 11 whether the Agency should limit the time period for 12 such storage if indeed we implement such approvals in 13 any form.
14 (Slide)
The first issue is identified on 15 slide 6.
The Office of General Counsel did conduct 16 the review of the adequacy of the existing framework.
17 It was concluded that Parts 30, 40 and 70 do contain 18 general license provisions that authorize any person 19 to be an owner-or to have title to radioactive 20
. materials.
So, any legal questions that would relate 21 to the title transfer provision in the Act would come 22 about as a result of requirements in state laws that 23 deal with the transfer of private property ownership.
24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Explain that point.
25 I noted that observation in both the OGC analysis and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
,.e:
11'
.c 1
'in the SECY paper, that this question would depend 2
upon what the state laws permit or provide.
Does 3
that, in effect, mean that if, as you've indicated, 4
our current regulations in 30, 40 and 70 permit a 5
state to come in and apply for title transfer, that if 6
the state law prohibited the state from taking title, 7
that that would effectively moot the purpose of that
'8 provision?
9 MR.
PARLER:
I think that's probably a 10 legal question that somebody from OGC should respond 11 to.
My answer to the question that you posed is that 12 I would'have difficulty if there were a state law 13 that, in effect, stood in the way or conflicted with 14 the objectives of this statute, at least as far as the 15 passage of title is concerned.
On the other hand, as 16 far as the passage or the actual possession and the 17 terms and conditions under which the possession will 18 be taken, et cetera, that might be another question.
'19 The details of this, perhaps Mr. Malsch could speak to 20 after he identifies himself.
21 MR. MALSCH:
I'm Martin Malsch with OGC.
22 I agree with what was just said.
The only 23 qualification that's conceivable to me is there could 24 be state recordation or procedural requirements which 25 you'd expect to be adhered to in any event with a l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
'~
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
'o 12 1
transfer of title.
But the federal law says the 2
states shall take title, which is obligatory.
So, I 3
would say state laws which attempted to prevent that 4
from occurring would be in conflict with federal law 5
and of no effect.
6 MR.
PARLER:
- Now, as far as the 7
traditional recordation laws for the passage of title, 8
I would not view those as necessarily -- at least on 9
their faca, as in conflict.
So, there has to be--
10 the essence of what I'm saying is that there has to be 11 an approach under which the state and. local laws could 12 not nullify the objectives of this Low-Level Waste Act 13 Amendments of 1985.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Thanks, Bill'.
15 14R. BANGART:
Just for clarification as 16 well, the prc. visions in the regulations that address 17 general license are effective without a specific 18 application from an applicant of any sort.
19
-I t was also clear as a result of the l
20 review that, I think as we. all suspect, that before 21 possession.could take place on the part of the state 22 that is licensed from the Nuclear Regulatory L
23 Commission or an agreement state would be required in 24 that Parts 30, 40 and 70 do serve as an adequate basis 25 for licensing possession and storage by a state.
That NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
13 1
regulation framework is supported by guidance 2
documents that have been issued by the Agency over the 3
last several years.
They're Generic Letters 81-38, 4
85-14, which were addressed to power reactors, and 5
Information Notices 89-13 and 90-09, which were 6
addressed to materials and fuel facility licensees.
7 All of these guidance documents express 8
the longstanding position of the Agency now, that we 1
I 9
do-not view storage as a substitute for disposal.
i 10 These guidance documents go on to explain the 11 circumstances under which a specific license approval l
12 from the NRC would be required.
We also identified
)
13 those alternate circumstances where such specific l
'14 approval would not be required.
I'd also point out f
15 that in Generic Letter 81-38 and Information Notice
(
)
16 90-09, that there's.very clear guidance and i
17 recommendation in there that speaks-to storage I
18 limitation that limits storage for a period of five 19 years.
20 So, the NRC does have an adequate l
21 regulatory framework in place for licensing title 22 transfer and interim storage at least for up to a 23 period of five years on the part of the states.
We l
24 also believe that agreement states have a similarly 25 adequate regulatory framework.
They have regulations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600
34 1
equivalent to - Parts 30, 40 and 70.
They have been l
2 provided the guidance that I referenced and they have 3
been encouraged to adopt similar guidance within their 4
state program.
5 (Slide)
The second and third issues are 6
shown on slide 7.
They are related.
The second 7
issue is the question of whether we should approve of 8
storage after 1996 and the third is whether we should 9
limit such period of storage.
10 In conducting this evaluation, we reviewed 11 the existing record of the commission, of the Agency 12 on the matter of storage.
We found that there is a 13 Commission position already that indicates that we 14 would not look favorably on long-term storage after 15 1996.
We are not on record, however, identifying I
16.
anything in our regulatory framework that precludes 17 storage after 1996.
18 The record also 'goes on to state that 19 storage as a substitute for disposal would not be 20 consistent with the Amendments Act.
We've also stated 21 that we recognize the necessity of interim storage on 22
.new disposal capacities being developed.
We've made 23 that latter statement without any reference to the i
24 year 1996, for example.
L 25 So, with that existing record of the NEAL R. GROSS Cous1T REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
15 1
' Agency in place, because of the fact that there's no 2
prohibition in law against' storage beyond 1996, 3
importantly because there is a sarety -- a regulatory 4
safety framework that we believe is in place and can 5
assure safety for.a ?ive year storage period, we are 6
prepared at this time to approve licensee storage 7
requests for a single five year period.
8 We've also looked at the status of 9
development activities on the part of states and 10 compacts.
We believe importantly that a single five 11 year storage approval should be adequate in terms of 12 the amount of time that's necessary for the 13 establishment of new disposal facilities.
The latest 14 schedu3ed projected date for operation of new disposal 15 facilities, with perhaps one exception, is the year 16 1997.
The exception -is New York.
Their schedule is 17 currently under revision and that revised schedule is 18 expected to be finalized later this year.
19 Slide 8 addresses the second specific 20 request from the Commission in the staff requirements 21 memo.
That was to examine the advantages and 22 disadvantages of conceptual approaches that the NRC 23 might take to fulfill our responsibilities.
We 24 clearly see a responsibility to convey to the states 25 the regulatory framework as it relates to title L
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
y.
16 1
transfer possession and possible storage.
We 2
evaluated three options as well as the no action 3
alternative, the first of which would be to amend our 4
regulations to codify NRC's position on storage and 5
identify the requirements that we would apply in i
6 licensing such storage.
The second option would be to 7
issue letters to governors which would summarize the 8
NRC's position and provide a reference, applicable 9
guidance and regulations.
The third approach that we 10 identified would be to issue a formal policy statement 11 which is a middle ground alternative to the first two.
12 (Slide)
Slide 9 identifies the first 13 approach that we evaluated.
I've already indicated 14 that we believe there is an adequate regulatory 15 framework in place for storage at least.up to a period 16 of.five years.
So, we do not favor this particular 17 approach.
We've further reviewed the guidance.
Don't 18 believe that additional guidance is necessary at this 19 point.
So, we-have provided to no schedule for rule 20 or guidance promulgation as was requested by the staff 21 in the staff requirements memorandum.
22 (Slide)
Move on to slide 10.
23 This is the approach of issuing letters to 24 the governors of respective states.
This is the 25 approach that the staff favors.
This letter would l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
17 1
contain guidance addressing many of the issues that 2
we're discussing this morning and we have enclosed 3
with SECY-93-018 a proposed draft letter.
We favor 4
this approach because, first of all, the regulatory 5
framework is adequate and importantly because we have i
6 had success in using this approach in the recent past.
7 Prior to the January 1990 milestone to 8
provide a certification or a complete application, we 9
did provide two such letters to governors of states in 10 response to the requirements in the Act as stepported 11 by the guidance that we provided.
Nearly all. states 12 did provide the necessary information and provided 13 that information in a timely manner.
With.this 14 approach we would propose that the signature sign out i
15 such letters.
We believe your signature would i
16 emphasize the importance of the storage issue as it 17 relates to the development of new disposal capacity 18 within the states and compacts.
19 Also favoring this approach is the fact i
20 that a modest resource requirement would be placed on 21 the staff to implement it.
In fact, we believe this 22 particular approach is optimal in that respect when 23 you balance the effectiveness of the approach against 24 the requirements or staff resources that would be 25 called for to implement it.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
1-18
- 1 (Slidef The third approach is shown-on 2
slide 11.
I think it's fair to say this would be our 3
second most favored approach.
However, we did not l4 favor it because we do believe that ' the use of the 5
letters to governors will be-sufficient to conve: the 6
Agency's position.
This would be a much more resource 7
intensive option and 3t could be a lengthy period of 8
time before a final Commission policy statement is 9
issued given the controversial aspects that are 10 associated with many elements of the nation's program 11 t'o develop new low-level waste disposal facility 12 capacity.
13 Importantly also, we believe that the 14 national program is just too fluid at - this point in 15 ti'me to justify the establishment of a formal 16 Commission policy statement.
We're aware of-the fact p
- 17 that lawsuits. have been filed by New York, Michigan 18 and a citizens group in Nevada challenging the 19 constitutionality of certain parts of the Act.
I 20 mentioned the actions by the three currently sited
.21 states 'to possibly-deny access to Michigan, Maine, 22 Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.
23 We're aware of the, action that's been taken by Vermont
'24 to bring themselves into compliance with the Act.
25 We've recently been contacted by the State of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
.- -* y 2
19 1
Connecticut where they've indicated they are 2
initiating an aggressive. program to site a. facility in-3 that state.
In fact, we're meeting with the q
4 representative from Connecticut on Thursday of this 5
week.
California and Nebraska are reviewing specific 6
license applications.
We're aware that during this s
7 year that the Northwest compact and the Rocky Mountain 8
compact are working towards finalizing an agreement 9
.under which states in -- or' generators, I'm sorry, in i
10 states in the Rocky Mountain compact would~be able--to j
11 have access to the -Hanf ord facility beginning in 12
. January of 1993.
- r 13 CHAIRMAN CARR
That citizens group that 14 joined the lawsuit was from Nebraska, wasn't it, j
15 rather-than Nevada?
16 MR.
BANGART:
I'm sorry.
If I said L
' 17 '
Nevada, that was-an error.
It's Nebraska.
18 The fourth alternative that we did l "
19
-evaluate was no action at all on the part o'f the l
20 Agency other than to continue to monitor progress.
l' 21 Monitoring of progress or continued monitoring of 22 progress, of course, is really associated with all of 23 the approaches that we evaluated.
We don't favor this 24 approach, however, because we think there is a clear 25 need to send an unequivocal message to states as to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, 0.0.20005 (202) 232 4600
o w
4.:
20 1
.the-Agency's position on these matters.
2 (Slide)
We'll conclude with slide 13.
3 Witn the information that we've presented n
e 4:
this morning s erving '. as the rationale, we are 5
requesting your approval to issue letters to governors 6
and to continue to use existing guidance to review h
7
. storage requests from applicants or licensees and to l
p, 8'
limit such storage to a period of five years.
We 9
obviously are also.' continuing to recommend that we t
10-monitor state and compact progress in developing new 11 disposal facilities.
There are a
number of 12' communication pathways that we use to obtain i
13
-information about progress.
These include ' regular
..F E
~ 14 interface with organizations or ' people like the Low-15 Level Radioactive Waste Forum, the Host State 16 Technical Coordinating Committee, ' the Department of
- )
17 Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency on mixed 18 waste matters, the Agreement State authorities and our 19 Agreement. State of ficers. in the regions, and our 20-regional state liaison afficers as well.
'L 21 With that, the f ormal ' presentation is 22 concluded and I'd be happy to respond to questions or 23 comments.
.24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Remick?
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Going back to my h
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
f[
l l
o =,
..'3
'21 l
1 earlier question where a state might have title and 2
'some ~ other entity 'have the license to possess or
'3 store,-I assume this would not give us any problem on 4
inspection, but does it give us any unique problems 5
from the standpoint of enforcement?
i 6
MR.
BANGART:
I-believe the licensee is i
7 the entity that we.look to in enforcement matters as 8
Well.
9.
, COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So the licensee 10 would be responsible from an enforcement standpoint lit even though the title was with the state?
'12 MR..BANGART:
I believe --
13 MR. PARLER:
That would be my -- we have 14 had situations that raise that sort of issue in the i
15 past, I've been-told, such as for the financing of the
.16 fuel for a nuclear power plant.
The title might be in 17 one entity and the licensee.that is authorized to own, 18 possess and use is in another enti ty and it's the 19 latter entity that we look to to carry out. our 20 requirements to assure that the public health and 21 safety and the common defense and security are 22
-protected.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
- Well, a
I 24 follow-on question then.
Can the staff conceive of I.
25 any condition where a generator, waste generator would NEAL R. GROSS COUA! REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 VIASHINOTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
a.
23 l
i-1
_.n o t request the state to take title and possession 2
after 1996?
Is there any conceivable situation, I
- is-3 can't think of o n e.,
in which a generator would not 4
- want'to ask the state then to assume-responsibility?.
l 5
MR.
BANGART:
I think there -are some j
1 6
scenarios where that may actually indeed be the case.
7 If a state is making progress, -significant progress
{
8 toward the. development of a new facility, but it's not 9
on-line as of. January 1996 but is scheduled to be on-
-l i
10-line in late 1996 or early 1997, for example, _ then _
-j 11 there may be _ motivation - for a generator ' because of l
12-that knowledge to go ahead and to continue to store i
13 waste at his ~ f acility.
It's also conceivable that i
il 14 depending on the costs associated with storage at a i
15 centralized facility, for example, a state may decide 16' that for the. short-term or interim term it's to his i
17 economic advantage to continue to store at his own 18 facility.
19 Another scenario would be that --
20-COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'm sorry, I didn't l
s 21 understand.
What would be the economic advantage-I 22-after '96?
I 23 MR. BANGART:
Costs.
There likely would 24 be costs and some states have gone on the record 25 saying those costs would be significant if they were I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 (202) 2324600
g3 1
to accept waste for storage at a centralized facility.
2 Those costs may be such that it would cause the 3
' licensee to consider whether or not he wanted to 4
actually transfer waste to a state or not or continue 5
to store on-site at his facility.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So, if the generator 7
was prepared to ship after 1996 and requested the 8'
. state to do it, the costs for that would be passed 9
onto the generator?
10 MR. BANGART:
States have indicated that 11 there would be costs associated with storage, just as 12 there would be costs associated with ultimate
'13 disposal.
14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I see.
15 MR. BANGART:
Okay?
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
All right.
So, 17 there are possible reasons why they plan --
18 MR.
BERNERO:
If I could add, the basic 19 situation here, we don't have any state or entity in a 20
. position where we would say they clearly don't have a 21 program.
They're not going to get there from here.
22 There are programs that are in better shape than other=
23 programs and they are not necessarily on the time 24 table of the Act.
As a result, generators in the 25 various states or entities are going to collaborate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISuND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
7.,:.
34 1
with those programs to some reasonable degree and not 2
necessarily - precipitate an action that'would put the 3
state.in - a very difficult position and the state
-4 ultimately, even exercising its responsibility, is 5
going to. pass through costs.
It's a very powerful 6
lever.
In any of the dialogue that's going on, the 7
states that are developing low-level facilities, 8
disposal facilities, very, very high costs, f
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
10 MR..BERNERO:
So, the-generators have an 11 incentive to collaborate and get there from here with 12 their states or groups of states.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Well, the thing that.
14' wasn't clear to me, if they have to accept title and-
.(
15 possession, if they're requested after 1996, who's 16 then. responsible for the cost?
This was not clear to 17 me that that could'be passed through.to the generator.
i 18 I assumed if you are forced to accept title and 19 possession that you have the responaibility.
20 MR.
BERNERO:
Yes.
This is the unique' 21
' difference in the past when banks have owned reactor 22 cores.
There's never been a question that someone 23 would turn around and say, " Bank, here's the core.
I 24 don't want it anymore," as a means of waste disposal.
25 The unique thing here is that it ultimately will go to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
25 1
the possession of.the' state and title as well.
It's 2
unique in that regard.
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I certainly lean 4
toward the staff's recommendations, but. independently-5' we have received a request for staff input.
I would 6
favor that and I understand the Chairman is going to j
7-address that later.
8 But that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, you said that all 10 the states seem to have some program in progress which i
11
' kind of. disagrees with the sited states in Michigan.
12 MR. BERNERO:
At'this. stage, to judge at 13 this stage whether they're far enough along.
The 14 sited states have great power and they're using it to 15 lever those states.
It is working in some cases.
16 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But you wouldn't say that 17 we as an NRC are happy with Michigan's program, would 18 you?
19 MR.
BERNERO:
No.
Oh, no.
I wasn't 20 intending to say that.
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Maybe I'm missing 22 something.
what I was 23 MR. BERNERO:
But it would 24 intending to say at this stage, recognizing that it's 25 late 1990, for us to say that there isn't a state that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600 l
- -o 36
' 1' can remotely even approach 1996 as a conclusion, and 2
as Dick said,. right now you lay out the state 3
schedules, what they've said in th'e compliance, 4
they ' re not.quite on the mark, but they've got 5
something.
They've got something proposed.
It's 6
flawed, it's something that leads the sited states to 7f take the actions they ' re taking.
That's part of the 8
process, just as these monetary penalties are part of 9
the process.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rogers?
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Where do you see 12 Texas and California coming in?
What time frame do 13 you think that those sites might be --
14
-MR.
BANGART:
Texas is now in court over 15 the siting of their particular facility.
I believe 16 they're projecting-now as long as a two year series of s
b-17' court-battles.
I believe they're projected 18 operational date is now 1995 or thereabouts.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That would be -
20 they would meet the '96 date then?
21 MR. BERNERO:
Oh, yes.
I think probably 22 Texas and California, which are not without
'23 difficulty, as you know, the recent comments on the 24 California action, I think they can meet 1996.
They 25 are among the better programs.
They started early.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
l l -.-
37 1
The-northwestern states are in the far -- by far the 2
best condition because they already have a si-te.
But 3
some of the other states,; it 's pretty tough to say 4
4 now, but they really have to stretch to do something 5
by 1996.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I guess I
7 misunderstood.
I thought you said no state would. meet 8
the '96 date 9-MR. BERNERO:
Oh, no, no.
Oh, no, I think 10 some will meet it.
11-MR.
BANGART:
California is still a-
. 12 projecting 1991.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The five year 14 storage authorization period, is there any technical
'15 basis'for that five years or is that just a nice round 16 number?
'17 MR. BANGART:
It was developed in response 18 to events that were occurring in the early '80s.
It 19 was first addressed to storage at power reactors and 20 it was developed from a safety standpoint primarily 21
> with the policy implications also being factored into-22 it.
But with the existing guidance that was given to 23 the power reactor, it was felt to be sufficient for a 24 period like five years.
There's nothing magic.
It's 25 not unsafe at five years and one day.
But a time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
)
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
28
'l frame on that order is what was intended.
2 MR. BERNERO:
If I could add, we have had 3-a longstanding practice in material lic.ensing of using 4
a five. year period in a reevaluation and, if 5
appropriate, a renewal.
We're consist with that.
~
-6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But it's not really 7
based on a technical --
8 MR. BERNERO:
No, no, no.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
.10 MR. BERNERO:
In. fact,-as is the practice, 11 material possession is typically a high surveillance 12 practice:and with appropriate conditions has been and 13 can be renewed again and again.
~ 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
That's fine.
15 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner.Curtiss?
I 16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
- Well, I have a 17 number of questions.
Let me see if I can put a 18 sharper point on some of the policy questions because 19 I understand what the staff is proposing.
For. ' the 20 first time here, what you're proposing is that we, as l
21 an Agency, authorize or encourage or allow the 22 generators of waste to store that waste for an 23 additional period of two years past 1996 which as the 24 deadline in the statute for disposal capacity.
There 25 are a number of questions I want to get at in terms of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
m 29 4
1-what'the rationale for that is.
if I understand the schedules 2
Let me i
'l 3
here, and'I'm looking at - -
4 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But that wouldli 't be 5
blanket, would it?
That's just if requested.
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
That's right.
7 That's right.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Yes.
9-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Without the blanket 10 approval, I guess, of a disposal facility in the state 11,
- and given what the staff has said on transf er of
- 12
' possession, that that wo11.d be very difficult to dc, -
t
' 13 the states would.end up, I think -- it would lead to a 14
'de facto policy that the generators in the states 15 would store for an additional two year period of time.
16 In looking at the latest schedules here, 17
~ and ~I'm looking at the August '90 schedules of the 7
18 f orum, it looks to me like we've got four states or 19 compacts that won't make. the January 1st,
'96:
20 deadline.
You've got the Pennsylvania site,- the 21 Appalach3.an compact.
You've got Michigan, you have 22 Maine and yw may have New York, depending on what 23 they tell you in their updated schedule. Everybody 24 else, according to this schedule, looks like they'll 25 meet the January 1st, 1996 deadline for having a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2'32 6600
ff 1
disposal facility in operation.
2
- Now, question.
Two of -those states, 3
Michigan and-New York,- have mounted aggressive 4
challenges of the constitutionality of the statute and 5
have ' taken ections that may suggest that this delay 6
may extend for those two states much longer than 1
7 January-1st of '86 or January 1st of 1998.
Maine may 8
be ; a separate situation since they're talking about 9
on-site storage and disposal.
That leads you with the o
f 10 Appalachian -- the Pennsylvania compact site.
l 11 I guess I'm not persuaded yet why it is-12 that we need to authorize storage beyond January 1st 13 of
'96.
In.. par ticular, if that leads to the result 14 that the whole program, including the ones that are 15 currently scheduled to meet the 1/1/96 deadline, shift 16 two years and it now becomes 1/1/98, 18 years instead I
17 of 16 after the states first sought this 18 responsibility.
Can you assuage my concern here that 19 1/1/98 now is a date that makes sense in terms of 20 authorizing -- I guess the rationale is five years 21 from 1993, which is when they're supposed to. have 22 their sites in operation.
Five plus
'93 is
'98.
23 What's the thinking that's gone into that?
l l
24 MR.
BANGART:
I can spell out some l
25 factors.
As we've discussed, clearly there is no NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE '3 LAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2(t)05 (202) 2324600 i
l, _.- - * *.
31 1
health and safety tie to 1996.
So, that was an 2
important factor in the staff's thinking.
Also, as I 3
think you're likely to be aware, for us to establish 4
such a position would likely to be controversial in-5 nature since there doesn't appear to be a strong tie 6
to ~ health and safety.
We're concerned that 7
. establishing such a strong position would perhaps 8
divert resources in the states and have those 9
resources focused on that particular question of the 10 use of the 1996 deadline in that manner and would also 4
11 require resources on the part of our Agency to deal 12 with that controversial issue.
13 I might also go on to say that we.have in
'14 the guidance that.we have promulgated, made it very 15 clear that when we do have an action to take in terms 16 of approving or disapproving of a storage request, the 17 information that the applicant should give to us 18 should contain a description of what the plans are for I
19 Ij ultimate disposal.
If there is not a plan for l
20 ultimate disposal, then the staff would have to 21 consider whether or not that storage could be licensed 22 under Parts 30, 40 or 70, or whether we would have to 23 consider such requests for storage as really disposal 24 and it may have to be licensed then under Part 61 as 25 something like an above-ground vault.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
4 32 1
So, I think we have some mechanisms in 2
place to be able to deal with a less than genuine 3
request for-disposal, for example.
4 Bob, do you have anything else to add?
5 MR. BERNERO:
No.
The only thing I would 6
add a the concept that rarely comes out when you're 7
talking about this is if you refuse to license 8
storage, then you have to drop the other shoe and say, 9
"What _ is authorized'," because the waste exists.
One 10 woulde then have ' to take up the question of further 11' generation of waste or getting into the arguments that 12 go with emergency access authorization, which is
'13 another thing.
We have criteria for that under the 14 Act and we. don't expect them to prevail in this kind 15 of a= dialogue.
That's a difficult thing.
16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
You're 17 compounding my concern though.
'I guess the argument 18 that you're making will suggest that you can go beyond-19
'98, that you may not see progress 'made in
'98, it 20 could be nearer 2000 or 2005.
I understand the 21 argument here-is that it's five years from 1993.
But 22 frankly, I disagree with the conclusion that there 23 isn't any health and safety concern associated with 24 low-level waste disposal, particularly for the small 25 generators.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE tSLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 23+4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 232-6600
I 4
33-1 But let me give you a good example.
The
.l 2
Nine Mile situation, where we had the AIT, points to a 3
very evident kind of problem that on-site storage of 4
_ low-level-waste can lead to.
I-frankly am-not 5
persuaded that it's preferable to allow a situation to i
6 go much further than 1996, particular when, as I say, i
7 two of the four states not evident at this point, that 8
we would expect progress by the year 1998, that there 9
would be'a disposal site in operation for Michigan or 10 New. York in'1998.
13 MR.
BANGART:
The recommendation in the 12 paper also has as an integral part of it that we would 13 continue to actively follow progress.
Perhaps what I
.14 left unsaid was thct if events were to develop in this 15 country that we were to identify a clear need for 16 strong policy statement, development of amended 17.
regulations or additional guidance, that we would be 18 able to anticipate that need and come forward to. the 19 Commission with such recommendations at that point in 20 time.
21 So, we haven't foreclosed that or we 22 didn't attempt to foreclose that possibility in the 23 paper, but we think at this point in time that it's 24 not needed.
25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
Well, I do l
l l
NEAL H. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
34 i
1 think that you're' heading.in the right direction and 2
you recognized that in the ' paper end in your 3
presentation today that there is a sensitive balance 4-
.between authorizing storage for now an extended period 5
of time, 18 years for this program, under the proposal 6
to' allow storage:up until-1998 and --
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I don't understand your 18 8
and 16 year stuff.
.9 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
1980 is when the 10 Act first passed.
The states said they wanted the 11
. compact authority.
12 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But it 's being legally 13 disposed of right now in the three sited states.
~14 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN CARR:
So, we're not really 4
16 talking about storing it for 18 years.
17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Right.
It's not an 18 18 year storage period.
My point here is that from i
'19 the time that we first set out on the program to 20 develop national compacts and to alleviate the three 21' sited' states from the responsibility to dispose of the 22
- material, the states that don't have or aren't a 23 member of the sited compacts now and in 1980 sought 24 the responsibility to develop these new sites up to 25 the current time, have 16 years and 18 under this new NEAL R. G.AOSS COURT REPORTERS APID TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENVE, N.W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2324tiOO
35 1
policy.
I think we reach a point at some stage where 2
we have to say, "Isn't that sufficient time?"
3 It's sort of like the debate that we went 4
through on the budget just recently, where you extend 5
the deadline for making a decision a week or two weeks 6
and the work that's required to be done fill: the 7
available time that's available to carry out that --
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Let's suppose we say, 9
"Okay, we'll not authorize any storage after January 10 1st of
'96,"
and then the state's not ready and 11 there's no place to put it.
What do we do then?
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
I would--
13 I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they can't store 1
14 it.
This area of possession, I guess, is'90 percent 15 of the law and where the waste is is where the waste 16 tends to be.
We've seen that on spent nuclear fuel, 17 on low-level' waste now as well.
18 I guess what.I'd like to see is something 19 more aggressive in terms of the approach that we take 20 to specific applications for extended storage so that i
21 we would say, for instance, that the applications for 22 disposal sites ought to be in, that there ought to be 23 linkage between a decision on extended on-site storage 24 and progress on the disposal front.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I thought that's what he NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
36 i
1 said.
I 2
MR. BANGART:
I didn't mention a specific 3
tie, but that'- is the kind of information that we'd be l
I 4
looking at in terms of what the ultimate plans for i
5 disposal are.
We don't have specifies yet to'say l
l 6
would be. sufficient to indicate to us that good, valid j
l 7
progress is being made.
We haven't outlined that, t
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me suggest two 9
.)
l 9
of them because there's two in particular that I think j
f 1
10 probably would. focus the attention.
If you said that i
11 a state in which a licensee is that -is ' seeking five
}
12 year stcrage would have to have an application 'in for l
13 a disposal facility by January 1st of '94 and have the 14 review complete on that disposal facility two years f
15 after January 1st of 1996.
- One, would that be d
16 feasible?
- And, t w o',
would it strike the balance i
y 17 between ensuring that continued progress is made on 18 the disposal front and not at the same time throwing
[
19 the door open to extended on-site storage.
l 20 MR. BANGART:
There is concern that's been
.)
21 discussed within the staff and with the states as well 22 about our adopting an approach such as you outlined, 23 and that's that'it could be vieweG as rewriting the 24 Amendments Act.
And, there is I think a view that's 25 shared by many of the states that our role under the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
37 i
1 tmendment Act is to assure that disposal occurs safely 2
or at least: management occurs safely and that to go 3
beyond that is somewhat treading into dangerous 4
waters, and that is a counter or downside to such an 5
approach.
3 6
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Well, what you're 7
proposing is to go two years beyond the date that the 8
Act' today contemplates that there would be a disposal l
9 facility or that the states would take title and 10 possession
.o f the waste.
That's what you're 11 proposing, two years additional.
12 Go ahead.
I'm sorry, Dick.
13
-MR.
BANGART:
And do it safely.
And, as 14 we read the A c t,. we think that's well within the 15 provisions that are contained there.
16 MR. BERNERO:
I think an important point.
17 has'to be made.
We are not suggesting that the NRC by-18 any licensing of extended storage, a five year storage 19 term, is directing that the state in its program --
20
.OMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I understand that.
21 MR.
BERNERO:
go beyond the terms of 22 the Act.
That's the state doing that.
And, when we 23 look, take a hard look-at --
24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
We're facilitating 25 it.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
L n'
.; i 38 1-MR..BERNERO:
We're enabliv.g safe. storage 2
of. waste that is made necercary by delinquency in 3
-implementing the Act on the part'of the state.
4 If you go with a very strong approach 5
toward the' state, as I said in my early remarks about 6
dropping the other shoe,_ it takes on the character of 7_
a state by state low-level waste confidence finding to 8'
say'I-do_'or do not have confidence you're going to get i
9 there from here.
And, you have to ask yourself what 10
-are the federal decisions that go with that.
11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I understand.
Let i
12
.me'give you two hypothetical cases and ask you how you 13 would treat them under the policy that you've laid,out 14 in'the SECY paper.
15 Case A, a state comes in, a licensee comes 16 in in a state with a ~ request for extended five year 17
' storage from 1993-to 1998.
That state has mounted an 18-aggressive challenge to the constitutionality of the 19
- statute, has announced - that it can't find a site 20 within its state that is acceptable under 10 CFR Part 21 61, and every apparent indication today or at the time 22 that-the application is submitted, is that that state 23 won't meet the 1998 deadline.
Scenario number one.
24 Hypothetical number two, a licensee comes 25 in, different state, asks for five year -extended NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 232 4600
4 p
e.
39 1
-storage from 1993'to 1998 and the state'has met every 2
milestone under the Act, has submitted an application, 3
the application is under review and will have a 4
disposa1' facility in operation in June of 1998.
5 Now, those two scenarios, would you treat i
6 them any differently under what you've laid ~out here?
-7 If you would, my question is on what basis, and it's 8
that.that I'm trying to elicit because I do think 9
there is a basis, in.my own personal view, to treat 10 those two states differently.
i 11 MR.
BANGART:
The former case, from our.
12 Agency's responsibility standpoint, again, we would 13
.have -- with our proposal, we would look at the safety i
14 aspects associated with that particular situation and 15 whether it's the state that ends up with possession 16 and storage for-perhaps a longer term period of. time 17 than we even have outlined here or whether it's the 18 generator, it would be the safety question primarily 19 that we would be interested in.
I think it would be 20 left to perhaps litigation to iron out the i
21 constitutionality issues or any legal questions 22 related to this-matter that would develop between the 23 cenerator~and the state.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, doesn't this boil 25 dcwn to a question of what are our responsibilities as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON 0.C 20005 (202) 232 4600
40 1
the NRC under the Act?
2 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I agree.
3 CHAIRMAN
'ARR:
Do we-have a
4~
responsibility to enforce the Act?
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
If the upshot of 6
the failure to develop disposal capacity by 1996 is 7
that from here on our we're embarking on a policy that 8
. permits storage at NRC licensees, I do think we have a 9
health and safety interest.
Nine Mile is one example.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but 11 I remember the Nine Mile incident.
There was not a 12 health and safety problem there.
13 MR. BERNERO:
This is the basement full 14 of --
15 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Yes.
It was determined 16 that wasn't a health and safety problem, it was just a 17-poor practice.
18 MR. BERNERO:
We were delinquent perhaps 19 in not discovering it in a timely way.
Clearly, that 20 kind of an environmental mess is a local health and 21 saf ety pr oblem.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let's flesh it out.
23 If we've said for high-level waste that you can store 24 high-level waste on-site for 100 years, I take it 25 there's no question that you can do it for low-level NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
41 1
waste for at least that long.
If that's the focus of 2
the question that we ask in 1993 or '96 or
'98, is it
- l 3
. safe to store this was te- - on-si te for an extended 4
period of time, I take it if that's the standard that 5
we apply to an application, then we're saying that we 6
are opening the door for extended on-site storage at 7
individual licensee sites and that troubles me.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, we didn't decide 9
that we were undermining the high-level waste storage 10 requirement by the Congress when we decided that if it 11 was-available by the year 2025 we had confidence that 12 it could be stored on-site safely.
I don't understand 13 the difference between.that finding and the one we're 14 making today, if we make.it.
15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
I think the 16 difference between the two is that we have an 17 opportunity here ahead of time to address the 18 situation in a way that might bring some focused 19 progress to --
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess we have an 21 opportunity, but I'n.
not sure there'll be any real 22 impact of it.
I mean I don't think that we can sit 23 here and make the states move faster.
Maybe you do.
24 MR.
BANGART:
We,
- perhaps, are more l
l-25 encouraged than I'm hearing you state about recent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
-(202) 232-6600
/
/
4 42 1
signs about progress.
Even in New York and Michigan, 2
there have been some actions this year that seem to 3
indicate that they are accepting responsibility on the 4
one hand despite their challenges on the other hand.
5 So, that fundamentally serves as the 6
premise on which our proposal was based and that's 7
let's wait and see how things unfold before we take 8
some more major kind of action.
l 9
CHAIRMAN CARR:
I mean I could see that we 10 could say, "Okay, we'll just go for three years," and 11 that takes is up to 1996.
Then at 1996 they'll come-
'12 in for an extension, if they haven't met their.
13
' deadline.
Maybe I don't understand the kind of 14 leverage you think we have.
15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Well, yes.
I do 16-think that this program in particular is an example of 17 a case where progress is slow in coming until you 18_
reach a crisis stage.
That's what led to the 1980 19 s tatute -in the first place where the three sited 20 states said, "We're not going to accept the waste 1
21 beyond a date certain."
It seems to me that here's an 22 ideal alaa --
23 CHAIRMAN CARR-at was the first 24 mistake.
25 COMMISSIONER C Right.
Here's an NEAL R. GROSd COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
+.
43 1
1 ideal area where we've got an opportunity to make a 2
decision that I think if we head in the path that the 3
staff is proposing and if I understand the standard, 4
which is our analysis as limited to health and safety 5
question, I see no outward limit on the period of time 6
where you'd say, "No, beyond that it's unacceptable."
7 I realize that the --
i 8
CHAIRMAN CARR:
And I think it was a 9
policy decision that we said, "As.a matter of policy,
-10 we don't think we ought to go beyond five years."
But 11 it wasn't a health and safety decision, it was a i
12 policy decision.
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Right.
14 MR. BANGART:
The letters to the states, 15 to the northeastern ctates in large part, from the 16 three-currently sited states, is bringing pressure.
17 I t-may not be a crisis yet, but it's bringing 18 pressure.
As 1993 approaches, we think that the 19 provisions in the law are bringing pressure as well 20 and that's why we're seeing some signs this year of 21 acceptance of that responsibility.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
That's all I have, 23 Ken.
Go ahead.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess my real concern in 25 this, after I got the letter from the Forum, is what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
- '.4
' < \\0. &:
- 44 l'
action'did the NRC take in getting the states' inputs 2
into this.., policy or into this piece of paper?
Can you 13 amplify-that a.little bit?
4 MR. BANGART:
We did not go to the states q
5 with a formal written request for input.
However, w'e 6
feel that we have reflected the views.of the states in.
i j
7 this paper as a result of the regular communication 8
. pathways that 'I mentioned before.
Primarily that's
.i
(
l 9-through interaction with the Low-Level. Waste. Forum and.
{
- 10 through ' the Technical Coordinating Committee
- .and
- [
11 1
- through the workshops that we hold periodically with.
- I 12 the Agreement States that. have' a responsibility for-l
.13 licensing e a number of the -- f acilities.
I' ho' ped the 114 states would share that view.
'15' CHAIRMAN: CARR:
Well, another problem,_it' l
116 seems to me, is if, as I und'erstand hasEhappened,:is' 17 the processors, such'.' as, SEG and so f orth, ~ are now ll #
18 refusing to take waste from Michigan because-they:may 19
~ end:up having it and no place to send it --
20
'MS.-
SCHNEIDER:
I' ; can address that, T
21 Chairman. ' Presently, there.was a period of time last Tennessee' Regulatory '
i 22 year where the regulated 23 Ag'e'ncy did put a condition on the SEG and Quadrex 24 license to. prohibit them receiving' waste from states 25 that were out of compliance.
But we had discussions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2324600 l.
l
..:.. - +
'45
.j il
.with the regulatory - agency. and they amended the 2
- license now that they ~ will accept and process that
.3 waste.
However, they asked for certification from the
- 4-governor or lthe compact of ficial= and the regulatory' 5
agency in' that state tha't the waste: will go back to 6
trie state - that 's.out of L compliance.
.j 7
CHAIRMAN CARR:
They'll send it back if I
8 there's. no. place 'else that will accept it?
i I
9 M S '. 'SCHNEIDER:
If.there's uo place else,-
i 10 it-will go back to - the generator, but they will-
+ <,
- 11'.
process :8t.
i 12' CHAIRMAN CARR:
'I t goes - back to the l
13-generator?
l
'14 MS.. SCHNEIDER:
At this time.
The waste 15 can come. into these. processors to~ be. volume reduced' i
16
- and'then.goes back to the generator.
17
' CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess'if we.do take the l
1C approach you're-recommending here., when do we make the i
.m 19 review of - whether it becomes a public health and
.20 safety problem?
It might become-that during that five
~
21 year period.or might-it not?
22 MR. BANGART:
Well, we think we do have 23 guidance in place that, from a radiological safety 24 standpoint, will assure safety storage for a period of l
i 25 up to five years.
NEAL R. GROSS
(
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
n-3
. o 46 1
CHAIRMAN CARR:
And we're going to do that L
2 by inspection to assure ourselves that that, in fact, 3
is what's happening?
i 4
MR. BANGART:
In part for those facilities 5
that don't need specific NRC approval, yes.
For other 6
licensees that need that approval, that would be done 7
not only by inspection, but as a part of the licensing B
review.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
If some states which are 10 talking about centralized storage facilities, if they 11 elect to-do that, how are we going to decide what 12 financial' assurance they've got to put in place?
13 MR. BANGART:
Then they would be subject 14 to the financial assurance requirements that are 15 contained in our regulations when-the ' decommissioning
.16 rule.was promulgated.
There are dollar amounts 17 spelled out in those regulations and they would be 18 captured by that possibly if the quantities and types 19 of radionuclides exceeded the thresholds that are t
20 contained therein.
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
So, we do have to face
.22 that issue still?
23 MR. BANGART:
Yes.
224 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess it's kind of 25 inceresting me that the st-te is going to license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
r 1
itself in the Agreement State area.
Is there a 2
conflict of interest there where the state agency 3
responsible for licensing the storage is also the 4
licensee?
I 5
MS.
SCHNEIDER:
I'll address that one.
6 It's conceivable.
We were taking a look at some of 7
the plans, maybe a situation like we have with 8
Illinois where one agency is responsible for both the i
9 xegulatory and the promotional aspects.
But if you 10 take a look at New York right now and their plar, they 11 call for New York -- NYSERTA, the energy group, would 12 be the agency who's responsible and the regulatory 13 agency would regulate them, f
14 It appears that in mest of the states that 15 it would be one agency regulating another, which we i
16 don't have a problem with.-
i 17 CHAIRMAN tARR:
Is Illinois going to j
18 separate their functions, do you know?
l 19 MS.
SCHNEIDER:
At this
- time, no.
20 Illinois is still -- both functions are in one agency.
21 although they have a new group they put together for 22 the oversight, so that they'll make a decision on the 23 license application oversee the siting process.
There i
24 is possibly one other state that it appears that it 25 might be the same agency has both regulatory and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
48 1
prorrotional.
It's not a state where they have a site, 2
but Maryland is one of the states that may be affected 3
because they're in the Appalachian compact, but there 4
may be a storage issue.
Right now we're not sure.
5 That's an area we'll still have to pursue and keep 6
track of and monitor.
We've always recommended though 7
that there be a separation and we continue to do so 8
and work with the states in that area.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
What role is NEPA going to 10 play in these storage sites, either the big ones or 11 the small ones?
Are we going to have to do an
. 12 environmental assessment?
Are you going to do a 13 generic one or how are we going to approach that?
14 MR. BANGART:
We'll have to look at each 15 individual license application and decide whether or 16 not an assessment is called for.
Ye don't have any K-17 plans at this point in time to do any generic 18 environmental impact statements on this matter.
It that question, we believe, would only be 19 would i
20 raised if we got into a point where there were a 21 legitimate need in the country for a longer term 22 storage that clearly cauld have health and safety 23 impacts or major policy implications associated with 24 it.
CHAIRMAN CARR:
I visited a utility the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCP%no 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVFNUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600
-. - -. c 49 p[ '
r I
1 other. day that. has. a major building for low-level s
0 war.te storage in anticipation of having to do this.
I 3
asked them if they were also planning to store non-
)
4 utility waste and they said they weren't planning to y
but they had been approached.
How are we going to 6
handle that piece of the problem?
Is that a problem 7
for us if the.non-utility waste is stored on-site at a 8
utility?
f r
'9 MR. BERNERO:
It's not a safety problem, i) 10 it's an institutional issue of some importance.
There b
11 has besen dialogue for some time toward that as' a 12 solution because-'many. reactors have abundant capacity
?
a I'
13 to store waste and, in some cases, they are virtual'ly 14 the sold generator in the state.
They generate the o,
15 lion's share of the low-level waste.
It can be p
r 16 handled safely.
Typically the user waste other than L'
17 reactor is so much smaller in volume that it can' be
[
18
.readily taken into account.
Some reactors have used-19 the terminated building number 2 as the storage 20 building,- things like that, and they've ended up with 21 very robust' structures.
22 But technically, a
reasonably sound i
23 building and the high surveillance are what you need 24 for safe storage in the near-term.
Long-term storage',
25 as Dick said earlier during the presentation, where it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
,t
i
. a 50 j.
1 gets to be a substantial length of time and approaches 2
de' facto near-surface disposal, just indefinite term, 3
then you're talking about more robust, concrete 4
structures.
5 CHAIRMAN CARR More if it's an Agreement 6
State and they're worried about it off-site.
If it 7
comes on-site, is it our problem instead of theirs?
i 8
MR.
BERNERO:
- Well, we would license f
9 what's on-site.
It's basically -- the reactor's waste 10 storage with an increment of wasto from other users, 11 if such a deal is struck as an interim solution.
12 MR. TAYLOR:
Did you read that guidance?
13 MR.
BANGART:
We've addressed that 14 particular scenario in Generic Letter 85-14.
In that
.15 generic letter we've defined the exclusion area as the 16 boundary between Agreement State licensing and NRC e
17 licensing on-site.
18 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
19 MR. BANGART:
This does go on to say'that 20 a Part 30 license would be needed for such a 21 commercial storage facility at a reactor site and 22 identifies the fact that environmental impacts of such 23
.an - activity would also have to be evaluated by the I
24 applicant in his request for such storage.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess to follow-up on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2324600 i
L i
1 Commissioner Remick's question about what the states 2
would do in -- I mean what the generators would do in 3
'93, the way I read it, if the generators ask and the 4
state does not take it, then the rebates go to the 5
generator instead of the state.
Is that right?
6 MR. BANGART:
That's correct.
Twenty-five 7
percent of the rebates that have been collected since 8
1990 would begin to go back to the generators on a 9
monthly basis.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
It seems to me like that'd 11 be a benefit to the generator.
Why wouldn't he ask 12 for that?'
And that also affects the amount of money 13 the state's got then to build their facility.
So --
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The idea is if the 15 state hasn't met its obligation to have a site by '93, 16 then the funds that the generators have been providing 37 the states up until that point, which are significant, 18 ought to begin flowing back to the generators'--
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's my opinion.
so that they 20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
21 can --
y 22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
It seems to me they would i
23 automatically apply, the generators would.
Maybe I'm 24 missing something.
25 MR. BANGART:
I think you've hit on a good NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2324600
52 1
point there.
2 MR. BERNERO:
Except that ultimately the 3
state as the agent responsible for disposal is in a i
4 position to back feed whatever costs are needed and 5
boy, they make that point repeatedly.
"If it's going 6
to cost us $300.00 a cubic foot to bury the waste, 7
that's what you're going to pay.
If it's $100.00 a i
8 cubic foot, that's what you're going to pay."
.9 I think there's an orchestration that goes 10 on, very complex relationship, that the generator l
11 can't freely flow the money in and pull the money back 12 and take steps to pull it back without the risk of the 13 state forced into action is just going to levy the 14 charges right back on the generator.
I don't think 15 you get to keep the money and spend it, is what I'm 16 saying.
17 CHAIRMAN CARR:
No, but he can't spend it 18 either.
19 MR.
BERNERO:
No, no.
Yes.
The only 20 solution for the state is to be pushed, kicking and 21 screaming, into compliance with the Act.
Better late 22 than never, but that's the only solution.
It's in the 23 best interest of all the parties that it get there in 24 a timely way, economic best interest.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But take title provisions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305 (202) 232 4600
53 1
of the Act, how do you think they're going to apply to 2
the mixed waste storage?
For example, will states l
3 have sufficient time to apply for an receive a Part B 4
permit in the Hazardous Waste Program under RCRA?
5 MR. BANGART:
The states or generators--
6 I'm sorry, generators, are finding themselves 7
currently in a difficult position relative to storage, 8
vis-a-vis the land disposal restrictions specifically.
9 EPA has recently come out with some guidance related 10 to alternatives to storage of mixed waste.
They have 11 yet to come out with their final position on i
12 compliance aspects of the land disposal restrictions,.
13 They're scheduled to come out shortly.
s 14 That ' particular question may be clarified 15 somewhat when the EPA guidance on this question is r
16 promulgated.
But right now, there is no option for 17 generators but'to store such mixed waste when there is 18 no treatment capability available to them.
19 MR.
BERNERO:
Treatment or disposal.
20 They're in violation in storing it.
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
You're in violation if you 22 just have it.
23 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
24 MR. BANGART:
Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Any other questions?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2324600
54 1
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
Let me just 2
summarize the concern that I have here.
This has been 3
a helpful presentation.
4 It does seem to me that the health and 5
safety interest that we have in this Agency we ought 6
to focus on is the question that increasingly troubles 7
me and I
think others, particularly with the 8
utilities.
We've got a period of time now when 9
utilities are under increasing pressure to reduce O&M i
10
- expenses, to become competitive, to keep the rates j
i 11 down.
12 I fear that, as they have with high-level 13
- waste, with spent fuel pool programs and pin 14 consolidation and rod consolidation and dry cask j
I 15 storage and trans-shipment and the other options that 16 they are now having to pursue because of the progress l
]
17 on the high-level waste program, that we will see i
18 exactly the same situation with low-level waste where 19 we are asking or allowing or facilitating utilities i
20 that in my. judgment ought to be focusing their l
j.
21 attention on safe operation of the reactor and to the l
I i
22 maximum extent possible allocating the resources'to do i
.23
- that, being asked to become waste management 1
24
' companies.
1 1
25 Now, I'll concede for the sake of argument NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
...c 55 L-1 that in the narrow health and safety context that 2
there's probably not a concern with low-level waste 3
disposal on-site.
There are instances, just-as a 4
footnote, where I think we've pointed to exactly that 5
same kind of thing.
We've identified the fire hazards 6
associated with waste oil, the decision to deregulate 7
scintillation vials in 1981,-pointed to that very same 8
fire hazard.
The people who testified in Congress 9
pointed to the small generators and the very limited 10 space that they have available to store this waste and 11 the potential that you'll either store it on the roof 12 or you'll find other creative ways to get rid of.it 13 given the storage problem, and it does seem to me that 14 you can make a pretty compelling argument that there s
15 are health and safety concerns in isolated instances 16 that arise from pursuit of a policy that encoretages or 17 facilitates extended storage beyond what we think is 18 prudent or what the program here at the federal level' 19 contemplated.
It's, as I say, a health and safety 20 concern. that I think you can put your finger on in 21 isolated cases.
~22 I
do think you're asking the wrong 23 question when ' you say, "Is there a health and safety 24 concern with on-site storage," whether it's with 25 respect to spent nuclear fuel or low-level waste NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000$
(202) 232-6600
56 1
disposal.
That is the question that we asked in the 2
waste confidence proceeding.
That's the question we 3
talked about here.
But it seems to me the question 4
is, from a health and safety standpoint, is it 5
preferable to pursue a policy of this nature which 6
provides for on-site storage, or is it preferable to 7
have and emphasize the progress to continue that needs 8
to be made, and-I grant that it's being made right 9
now, on the development of disposal sites?
10 It's because I come down saying that it's 11 clearly preferable to have the disposal facilities
~12 that I look at this program and think we ought to 13 explore ways where, to the extent that we - can, not 14 just purely as a legal question, but as a policy 15 question, we can approach this issue of extended on-16 site storage with an eye towards how we can-continue 17 to encourage progress in the development of these
'18 sites.
19 The program that you've outlined here and 20 the narrow focus on the health and saf ety-question 21 doesn't assuage the concern that I have that it looks 22 to me as if a decision to authorize-storage through 23 1998 will lead to extended storage beyond that because 24 the narrow standard that you're applying is can you do 25 it safely.
I don't dispute that with proper NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
57 1
regulatory oversight that that can be done safely.
2 But it does seem to me that we have opportunities 3
- here, and particularly given the states that are 4
having problems and the reason they're having 5
- problems, that a 16 or an 18 year program for the 6
development of new disposal capacity, 16 years behind 7
us.when we reach 1996, ought to be a basis for saying, 8
"What is it that we can do in addition to the direct 9
responsibilities that we have to license those sites 10 in non-agreement states, to provide guidance on 11 alternatives, to carry out our BRC responsibilities 12 and the other direct responsibilities that we have in 13 the Act."
14 From 1993 on there isn't the pressure that 15 you've alluded to, Dick, that the sited states have 16 brought to bear most effectively to date to ensure _the 17 progress gets made.
In 1993, they shut ~down,.and in 18 my view that leverage, coming from the sited states, 19 is completely. gone.
For that-reason, it seems to me-20 the '93 to '96 period and what happens beyond '96 in
'21 terms of pushing the program forward is going to be a 22 key question.
I'd be more aggressive, I think, in 23 looking at connections that can be made between on-24 site storage and progress on the waste program.
25 You've got a perfect example of that by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
I comparison in the high-level waste area where there-2 are linkages between the MRS storage program and the 3
high-level waste disposal facility.
It is that 4
concept to drive progress on what I think Congress 5
intended and we would like to see with disposal 6
capacity that I think we ought to be more searching in 7
our effort to identify those things that we can do to B
ensure that that progress comes about, rather than 9
simply to say, "It's safe.
You can do it safely and-10 we'll permit it now for five years and I think
'11 ultir.ia t ely an additional five years and five years 12 beytend that. "
13 What's really wrapping the problem around 14 the axle at this point, I think, is not technical 15 questions.
There's no reason you can't license one of 16 these facilities in 18 years for political 17 considerations and the time that's available to carry 18 that program out, I think, will be filled by political 19 considerations that take maximum advantage of programs 20 like. the opportunity to store on-site.
We know the 21 reactors that' have been approached, that have been 22 asked to serve as on-site storage for extended periods 23 of time.
In fact, some of them have been approached 24 and are being asked to serve as the disposal facility.
25 So, it's with a great deal of concern, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
59 1
guess, that I look at what you proposed here without 2
any emphasis on the need to encourage progress beyond 3
the very narrow "can we do it safely" focus in that 4
1996 to 1998 time frame.
5 MR. TAYLOR:
I think the staff shares your 6
view that we'd much prefer and would want to see the 7
progress to disposal, whatever it is making the 8
connection between the reality of what may occur here 9
and how we would -- what method do we use to draw the 10 line in any requests for further storage.
What should 11 be -- you know, making that connection and that's what 12 really you're suggesting, is part of our struggle.
13 Would you like to add to that, Bob?
14 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
I mean I'd like to see I
16 think we all share your view that the best thing is to 17 get the disposal sites in operation.
18 MR. BERNERO:
Really, if you look at the 19 narrow question, can it be done safely, that has an 20 obvious answer.
But if you look at the broader 21 question that you posed, there are really two policy 22 options.
They are policy options, not mandatory 23 safety options.
One is to say, "We won't countenance 24 any extended storage after a certain date," and pick a 25 date, and we will take I'll call them waste confidence NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
G 60 1
type decisions deriving from that, that we'll start to 2
come to grips with the generation of the waste.
3 The other is to take as a matter of policy 4
the assumption that any storage after a certain date 5
is indeed indefinite storage and we will impose as a 6
. matter of policy indefinite storage criteria, vault-7 like structures, less dependence on surveillance, et 8
cetera, et cetera.
With the storage of spent fuel on 9
a reactor site, which is the solution for this growth 10 that we have ancountered, we have required. a great 11 degree of robustness, passivity - that the thing can 12 stand, it's too big to steal, it's too big to knock 13 over and we could, as a matter of policy,
- say, 14
" Storage after a certain date is too indefinite to be 15 treated with as a short-term thing.
We will consider 16 it, but we will license it-only with very severe 17 requirements, the requirements to go with 20 years 18 or'something like that.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
Or more.
20 MR. BERNERO:
Or more.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I haven't even-22 focused on the research question and your comment 23 suggests that.
I suspect if you went back and looked 24 at what we've done, even aside from the health and 25 safety question, as a matter of applying our resources NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 23M433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
s.
f
.. O i
61 1
I to spent fuel pool expansions and high density racko l
2 and trans-shipment and dry cask storage and pin 3
consolidation and all the other various activities 4
that have been undertaken in support of leaking spent 5
fuel pools where we've had to examine that question, 6
seismic impacts on spent fuel pools, it seems to me 7
that health 'and safety aside we could make a pretty 8
strong argument that we've expended a considerable 9
amount of our Agency's resources that could have been 10 dedicated to other things maybe more productively than 11 the health and safety area than.we ended up doing in 12 the spent fuel arena.
13 MR. BERNERO:
In retrospect, certainly I 14 would go back and say we could have drawn a line in 15 spent fuel densification or compaction to say, "No 16 more than X,"
or, "No more than one. time, " and from 17-there on it's dry storage.
18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Yes.
Those broader 19 considerations, Bob, the question of resources, health 20
-and safety in the broader sense, lead me to conclude 21 that we ought to take, as I say, a more careful look 22 here at tying the decisions that are made on extended 23 on-site storage now for two years past the
'96 24 deadline to some mechanism or program, some focus on 25 the question of what kind of progress is being made NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
62 1
here.
2 CHAIRMAN CARR:
It would get so difficult, u
3 they didn't really want to ask.
4 MR.
BERNERO:
What is-our other shoe?
5 What is the other shoe we're going to drop?
1 6
MR. TAYLOR:
We talked about this.
j 7
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
It's exactly the 8
same kind of consideration that I personally think has 9
led us to ask DOE to take greater than Class C,
for 10 example.
Haven't been able to identify health and 11 safety concern in the narrow sense, but it's led to 12 the proposal. that we pursue a particular course of 13 action there very much akin to the kinds of 14 considerations that I think if you look at this 15 question more broadly ought to go into the evaluation 16 here and including things like resources, health and 17 safety in the broad sense and what I think is an.NRC 18 role in bringing about progress on disposal.
That's 19 in our interest, it's in the states interest, it's 20 Congress' objectives.
21 That's all I have.
22 CHAIRMAN CARR: -Any other comments?
L 23 Well, I'd like to thank the staff for this L.
24 very fine briefing.
As is evident from the briefing, l
25 the staff has thoughtfully considered the advantages NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
l 63 1
and disadvantages of various approaches that the 2
Commission could use in discharging its 3
responsibilities with respect to the title transfer 4
provisions.
The issues associated with these 5
approaches primarily on the subject of interim storage 6
of low-level waste.
7 Given the slow progress to date by some 8
states in developing new low-level waste disposal 9
facilities, it appears that such storage will be 10 necessary until new disposal facilities come on-line 11 and begin disposing the waste safely.
12 On October 23rd, I received a letter from 13 the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum which requested 14 the NRC to seek comment from state and compact 15 representatives through the Forum prior to any 16 Commission decision on the staff's recommended 17 approach discussed in today's meeting.
18 The commission will consider the staff's 19 recommendation over the next several weeks.
If states 20 and other interested parties have strong views on this 21 subject, they should communicate them expeditiously so 22 the views can be considered by the Commission in its 23 deliberations.
I suggest Mr.
Chilk correspond 24 immediately with the Forum to solicit the views of the 25 states and compacts on the title transfer provisions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
64 I'
1 of the Act.
2 In. addition and in view of the important 3
responsibilities of the states in implementing the 4
- Act, I urge the staff to cooperate fully with the 5
states and compacts and to solicit their views in the 6
future on such significant policy issues involved with 7
the implementation of the Low-Level Radioactivu Waste 8
Policy Act prior to providing the recommendations to 9
the commission.
10 Do my fellow Commissioners have any other 11 comments?
12 If not, we stand adjourned.
13 (Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m.,
the above-14 entitled matter was concluded.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIIFING ON ISSUES RAISED BY Tile PROVISION REQUIRINC TITLE TRANSFER OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE j
PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND i
DATE OF MEETING:
OCTOBER 29. 1990 were transcribed'by me. I further certify that said transcription la accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
nu '
v
\\,
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch
)
i l
l NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTER $ AND TRAN$CRitfR$
1323 RH00f 1$ LAND AYINUf, N,W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. 0.C.
2000$
(202) 232-6600
LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT TITLE TRANSFER AND POSSESSION PROVISIONS OCTOBER 29, 1990 RrenAno L.
BANGART
Contact:
Richard L. Bangart Phone:-
49-23340
~
l
h o
O e-BRIEFING OVERVIEW o
ConMrssroN REQUEST o
BACKGROUND o
EVALUATION OF ISSUES o
EVALUATION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES o
FUTURE STAFF ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2
._..2.._..
...__,___m,
A y.-
i i -
l l
l i
i COPMISSION REQUEST l
i l
l 1
l 0
EVALUATE ISSUES i
j O
EVALUATE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES o
l l
O DEVELOP SCHEDULE FOR NRC ACTIONS 1
a I
t k
4 i
i t
3 s
j i
i
i, i
BACKGROUND t
i i
O 1993 AND 1996 DEADLINES OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT
~
(LLRWPAA)
O GOVERNORS CERTIFIED RELIANCE ON STORAGE O
STORAGE PERIOD MAY EXTEND BEYOND 1996 b
4 i
ISSUES O
AMENDMENTS ACT INTENT ACHIEVABLE O
STAFF EVALUATION REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ADEQUACY f
1 ISSU'ANCE OF STORAGE LICENSES AFTER 1996 l
LENGTH OF IIME FOR STORAGE APPROVAL f
l l
l l
t l
i i
1 5
i
l i
i l
EXISTING REGULATORY-FRAMEWORK i
O OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL REVIEW O
EXISTING REGULATIONS AUTHORIZE OWNERSHIP 1
O POSSESSION REQUIRES LICENSE
,l O
EXISTING REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE ADEQUATE FOR INTERIM STORAGE i
i i
f I
i i
f 6
f
~ [:
[_;_;-
ISSUANCE OF STORAGE LICENSES AFTER 1996 AND LENGTH OF TIME FOR STORAGE i
o 1993 STORAGE APPROVALS AUTHORIZED FOR SINGLE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD 0
NO PROHIBITION AGAINST-STORAGE BEYOND 1996 O
LONG-TERM OR INDEFINITE PERIOD STORAGE APPROVALS INCONSISTENT WITH LLRWPAA NATIONAL POLICY 7
-.m.v-
i I
t CONCEPTUAL APPROACH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES i
o AMEND REGULATIONS o
LETTER To GOVERNORS AND OVERSEE f
NATIONAL PROGRESS o
ISSUE POLICY STATEMENT 1
a b
o No ACTION 4
4 i
a i
i 1
i AMEND REGULATIONS 1
i O
EXISTING REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE ADEQUATE FOR INTERIM STORAGE i
O RULEMAKING UNNECESSARY i
l s
i I
i 4
5 i
i 1
4 l
i 9
i l
l
LETTER TO GOVERNORS O
GUIDANCE WOULD ADDRESS REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL-ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH TITLE AND POSSESSION O
PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY LETTERS TO GOVERNORS PRIOR TO LLRWPAA 1900 MILESTONE O
CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE UNDERSCORES IMPORTANCE OF ISSUE O
FAVORED BY STAFF 10
4 4
h e
E W
Ew-L
>=
W a::t-W g
l-2 M
E M
F F
m 4
0 E
E O
E W
W H
W
-3 J
J Z
A C
C-M-
Q.
W E
W
>d
. La.1 u
D g
E M
M A
2 M;
W O
M=
E m
M M
W O
M L
m O
O O
=
~
.l m
ii-.i-----
O S
E L
C O
R R
NE N
G O
R EA O
ZR IT T
IO I
ST C
N AS A
O H
2 O
M PN 1
N MO.
R E
O N
F OO TI S
O
=
' w.
t RECOMMENDATIONS O
COMMISSION APPROVE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TO GOVERNORS O
COMMISSION APPROVE PLANS TO AUTHORIZE STORAGE USING EXISTING GUIDANCE O
STAFF CONTINUF TO MONITOR PROGRESS AND IDENTIFY-ISSUES i
13 l
l l
~
-