ML20138Q446

Responds to W/Addl Questions for Record of 851008 Hearing on Low Level Waste.Inserts for Hearing Record Also Encl

ML20138Q446
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/29/1985
From:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Domenici P SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES
References
NUDOCS 8511180115
Download: ML20138Q446 (100)

Text

- .. - - -. - - - - ~ . _ . - . . _ - - __

O Krog L f / o *

= ',4 UNITED STATES f

j f

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 g ,o October 29, 1985  ;

. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

'l +

l 4

l The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Committee on Energy and Natural Resources l United States Senate

! Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

i_

We are pleased to respond to your letter of October 16, 1985, with additional questions for the record of the October 8 hearing on low-level waste. We are also enclosing inserts for 4 the record of the hearing.

Sincerely,

'i

/ /

A '

A .<%

James K. Asselstine

. Acting Chairman

Enclosures:

, 1. October 16, 1985 responses j 2. Transcript Insert, page 75 i

3. Transcript Insert, page 78 1

1 t

i cc: Senator Wendell H. Ford  !

Senator James A. McClure  !

Senator J. Bennett Johnston l Senator Alan K. Simpson  !

Senator Gary Hart l

I L

l i f

I I L

i  !

G511180115 851029 [

4 PDR COMMS NRCC t i CORRESPONDENCE PDR  ;

i l

) ,

l I

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI 00ESTION 1. S. 1578 REQUIRES THE DOE TO SUBMIT A REPORT IDENTIFYING RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES FOR WHICH NO RESPONSIBILITY NOW EXISTS FOR DISPOSAL -- 1.E.,

S0-CALLED "0RPHAN WASTES." DOES THE NRC HAVE ANY CURRENT PLAN TO REDEFINE CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF WASTES? WOULD SUCH REDEFINITION HELP DOE PREPARE ITS REPORT?

ANSWER.

THE CCMMISSION IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING RULEMAKING ACTIONS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING POTENTIAL CLASSIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL WASTES AS HIGH-LEVEL WASTES. THIS EFFORT AND ANY SUBSEQUENT RULEMAKING WOULD BE BASED ON AUTHORITY PROVIDED TO THE NRC UNDER THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982. WASTES FOR WHICH DISPOSAL RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT CLEARLY SPECIFIED, S0-CALLED "0RPHAN WASTES," HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY NRC STAFF IN DEVELOPING A PROPOSED RULEMAKING. IT IS NOT CERTAIN AT THIS TIME WHICH OF THESE WASTES, IF ANY, MIGHT BE REDEFINED AS HIGH-LEVEL WASTE.

WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE COMPLETING A HIGH-LEVEL WASTE DEFINITION RULEMAKING WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE DOE STUDY IDENTIFIED IN S. 1578. FURTHER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE SUCH A STUDY IS NEEDED

k QUESTION 1. (CONTINUED) 2

. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF t THESE ORPHAN WASTES. THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS ASSIGNMENT OF DISPOSAL RESPONStBILITY FOR ORPHAN WASTES TO DOE, i i

i i

THE COMMISSION DOES SUPPORT A DOE STUDY PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS 1

ON MANAGEMENT OF "0RPHAN WASTE" BY DOE, IF THE QUESTION OF i

DISPOSAL RESPONSIBILITY IS SETTLED NOW, THIS SHOULD ASSIST DOE'S i

CONSIDERATION OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS, WE BELIEVE THE TECHNICAL ,

4- i 5

INFORMATION NRC MAY DEVELOP IN ITS RULEMAKING PROCESS MAY PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION FOR DOE TO CONSIDER IN EVALUATING APPROPRIATE j METHODS FOR DISPOSAL OF THOSE ADDITIONAL WASTES FOR WHICH DOE l WOULD BE ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITY. NRC STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO i

SHARE TECHNICAL INFORMATION WITH DOE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE.

i i

i i

i i

i i

i -

i

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI QUESTION 2. WHEN IS THE REPORT DUE OUT WITH THE RESULTS OF BROOKHAVEN'S EVALUATION OF CHEMICALLY-HAZARDOUS RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES? WILL THIS REPORT BE TIMELY IN ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF THE FACILITY OPERATORS WITH RESPECT TO RCRA REGULATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES?

ANSWER.

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY IS UNDERTAKING SEVEPAL STUDIES ON BEHALF OF THE NRC REGARDING CHEMICALLY HAZARDOUS COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES (MIXED-WASTES). THE TWO MAJOR ONES ARE A STUDY IDENTIFYING COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL WASTES WHICH MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS UNDER U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) REGULATIONS, AND A TECHNICAL STUDY ON EVALUATING OPTIONS FOR SAFELY MANAGING MIXED-WASTES. WE ANTICIPATE THE "!DENTIFICATION STUDY" WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN ABOUT A MONTH. THE FINAL REPORT ON " MANAGEMENT OPTIONS" SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN EARLY 1986. NRC HAS ALSO ASKED BROOKHAVEN TO FURTHER EVALUATE SEVERAL CANDIDATE MIXED-WASTES IN ORDER TO BETTER CHARACTEPIZE THEIR CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND EXPECTED PERFORMANCE IN THE DISPOSAL ENVIRONMENT.

QUESTION 2. (CONT!WUED) 2 THESE REPORTS WOULD BE TIMELY FOR EPA AND NRC USE IN DEVELOPING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK REQUIRED UNDER H.R. 1083 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE.

i 1

i l QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI i

1 1

l QUESTION 3. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ASSURE THAT NRC REVIEWS i LICENSE APPLICATIONS IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER?

ANSWER.

l 4

EXPEDITIOUS NRC REVIEW OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY

LICENSE APPLICATIONS CAN BEST BE ASSURED BY EARLY CONSIDERATION OF 4 TECHNICAL ISSUES AFFECTING LICENSING, AND SUBMITTAL OF AN  ;

ACCEPTABLE, COMPLETE, AND HIGH-QUALITY LICENSE APPLICATION FOR j REVIEW, EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES BY SITE DEVELOPERS WILL ALLOW NRC TO IDENTIFY THE TECHNICAL ANALYSES i

REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A LICENSE APPLICATION, AND TO DEVELOP t Q

POSITIONS ON PERTINENT QUESTIONS IN A TIMELY MANNER.

i  !

I l A HIGH QUALITY LICENSE APPLICATION WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT

{ LICENSING PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT DELAYED BY A LACK OF INFORMATION OR 1

i INCOMPLETE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. THE APPLICANT CARRIES THE BURDEN l

_ F I 0F DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PROPOSED FACILITY WOULD MEET THE i PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED  :

}

f

IN 10 CFR PART 61.

i i l

i t .

! i i

QUESTION 3. (CONTINUED) 2  !

THE NRC RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND PRE-LICENSING ASSISTANCE TO SITE DEVELOPERS, AND AS SUCH IS UNDERTAKING THIS TASK. THE UTILITY OF THIS GUIDANCE WILL BE CONSIDERABLY ENHANCED BY EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC LICENSING CONCERNS BY FACILITY DEVELOPERS. t r

t l

I

(

I l

l _

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V, DOMENICI

[

QUESTION 4. HOW WOULD RESOLUTIO!i 0F THE MIXED WASTE ISSUE

BETWEEN NRC AND EPA APPLY TO " AGREEMENT STATES"?

I ANSWER, 4

THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE-ADOPTED VERSION OF H.R. 1083 -- THE ONLY BILL THAT NOW ADDRESSES THIS QUESTION -- IS SILENT ON THE INTENT OF CONGRESS REGARDING DELEGATION OF RCRA AUTHORITY FOR i

MIXED-WASTE REGULATION FROM NRC TO AGREEMENT STATES, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CLARIFY THAT AGREEMENT STATE AGENCIES WOULD ALSO BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE PCRA PERMITS FOR MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL AT AGREEMENT STATE-LICENSED DISPOSAL FACILITIES PURSUANT TO THE ,

EPA-NRC AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 15 0F THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE BILL. IT SHOULD ALSO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS AUTHORITY WOULD BE CARRIED OUT UNDER NRC OVERSIGHT PURSUANT TO ITS AGREEMENT WITH EPA.

l AUTHORITY FOR EPA DELEGATION OF RCRA AUTHORITY TO AGREEMENT STATES THROUGH NRC MAY REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15. WE WOULD l  ;

RECOMMENDAMENDINGTHEENDOFSECTION15(C)0FH.R.1083AS{

FOLLOWS:

i y \

L

. _ . . . = , , . . _ - -. . _ _ . _ . - . . , _ . . - . . . , , . . . . . _ _ . - . _ , . . , _

QUESTION 4. (CONTINUED) 2 "FURTHERMORE, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MAY REDELEGATE, AS APPROPRIATE, THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PERMITS TO THE AGREEMENT STATES."

1 QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI QUESTION 5: WHAT APPROACH DO YOU PLAN ON TAKING IN l

ESTABLISHING DE MINIMUS STANDARDS --

(A) CASE-BY-CASE? (I.E., ELEMENT-SPECIFIC)

(B) GENERIC? (I.E., RADIATION LEVEL-SPECIFIC)

ANSWER.

DE MINIMIS STANDARDS ARE NOT EASILY STATED, EITHER IN TERMS OF DOSES OR HOW THE STANDARDS ARE TO BE APPLIED. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, i

WAYS TO CONSIDER EXEMPTING CERTAIN RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM

REGULATORY CONTROL. THE WAY TO EXEMPT A WASTE, APPLYING GOOD RADIATION PROTECTION PRACTICES, IS TO ASSURE THAT

1. THE DOSE TO THE HIGHEST EXPOSED INDIVIDUAL, USING CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS, IS WITHIH ESTABLISHED LIMITS FOR ,

PUBLIC EXPOSURE.

2. THE AVERAGE DOSE TO INDIVIDUALS IN GROUPS EXPECTED TO RECEIVE THE GREATEST EXPOSURE IS A SMALL FRACTION OF LIMITS FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE.

4 0UESTION 5. (CONTINUED) 2 i

3. THE ASSESSMENT INDICATES A FAVORABLE COST-BENEFIT BALANCE WHEN COMPARED TO DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL FACTORS SUCH AS RADIATION DOSE AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATION AND OPERATION OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISPOSAL ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN PERFORMING THIS ANALYSIS.

THIS WAS THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS SUCCESSFULLY FOLLOWED IN i, DEVELOPING 10 CFR 20.306 FOR DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRITIUM AND CARBON-14 BIOMEDICAL WASTES. IN ORDER TO ANALYZE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND COLLECTIVE DOSE, THE ANALYSIS MUST BE SPECIFIC TO A TYPE OF WASTE RATHER THAN GENERALIZED.

1 1

4 I

I l

l l

, , - - . . . - . ,-. , - , - _ - . . , . , , _ - - , . _ , , - , , , . _ . _ . . , _ . , , - . , . _ _ _ , , . . , , , _ . _ , _ , _ _ , _ , , , , _ _ _ ,__, ,,)

[

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMINICI j QUESTION 6. DOES NRC HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES (MANPOWER AND FUNDING) TO DEVELOP LICENSING GUIDELINES FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES AND TO EXPEDITIOUSLY PROCESS ALL SITE LICENSE APPLICATIONS?

ANSWER.

THE NRC HAS BUDGETED SUFFICIENT STAFF AND FUNDING RESOURCES TO DEVELOP LICENSING GUIDELINES FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES, PROVIDED THAT SUCH GUIDELINES MAY BE ISSUED THROUGH LESS FORMAL MEANS THAN RULEMAKING. EFFORTS ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY TO PROVIDE GENERIC GUIDANCE ON A RANGE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL METHODS. WE PLAN TO SUPPLEMENT THIS GENERIC GUIDANCE WITH t PRE-LICENSING ASSISTANCE TARGETED TO SPECIFIC DISPOSAL SITE DEVELOPERS. A RULEMAKING REQUIREMENT, AS NOW SPECIFIED IN i

S, 1578, HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED AND WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.

WE WOULD FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ONE YEAR RULEMAKING SCHEDULE CONTAINED IN S.1578 IS HALF THE TIME NRC HAS SET AS ITS G0AL FOR RULEMAKING. RULEMAKING COULD DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT (LLRWPA), IF STATES AND COMPACTS DECIDE THAT THEY CANNOT PROCEED WITH SITING UNTIL l

,. . . - . . - , , . . _, . _ . , ,,_._, __ , , , , . _ . _ , , . . , , , m.. _ . _ _ , , , _ . , , , , . _ , _ _ . , .

QUESTION 6. (CONTINUED) 2 THE NRC RULE IS COMPLETED. THE COMB!NED GENERIC GUIDELINES, PRE-LICENSING ASSISTANCE APPROACH DESCRIBED ABOVE IS BASED ON SIMULTANEOUS PROGRESS BY BOTH NRC AND THE ENTITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT.

WE EXPECT THAT THE MAJORITY OF LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR NEW LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES WILL BE SUBMITTED TO AGREEMENT STATES FOR ACTION. CONSEQUENTLY, WE HAVE PLANNED FOR ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF DIRECT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS TO NRC, AND ARE j INCREASING OUR COMMITMENT FOR ASSISTING AGREEMENT STATES IN CARRYING OUT THEIR REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES. THE CRITICAL TIME PERIOD FOR LICENSE REVIEW IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN 1990. WE PLAN 4

TO MONITOR SITING PROGRESS CLOSELY DURING THE COMING YEARS IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY THE RESOURCES NEEDED FOR NRC TO MEET ITS 4

RESPONSIBILITIES.

WE WOULD LIKE'TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE WE PLACE ON TIMELY NRC REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND PRE-LICENSING ASSISTANCE TO STATES AND COMPACTS, AND HAVE PLANNED AND BUDGETED ADEQUATE RESOURCES FOR A PROGRAM TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION CONTAINS PROVISIONS FOR ACTIVITIES THAT NRC HAD NOT ANTICIPATED AND HAVE NOT BUDGETED FOR. SHOULD.THE BILL BE PASSED, ADDITIONAL

-NRC RESOURCES WOULD BE REQUIRED.

WE BELIEVE SOME OF THE NRC ACTIONS REQUIRED IN S. 1578 WOULD NOT EFFECTIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF

QUESTION 6. (CONTINUED) 3 THE LLRWPA. OUR COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED H.R. 1083, AS ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMllTEE, SUGGESTED APPROACHES TO RESOLVING OUR SPECIFIC CONCERNS,

l 1

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI QUESTION 7. HOW LONG WOULD IT NORMALLY TAKE A STATE TO PUT AN INTERIM STORAGE FACILITY INTO OPERATION--THAT IS, IF A STATE WAS REASONABLY SURE THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE A PERMANENT DISPOSAL FACILITY IN OPERATION BY 1993, HOW MUCH LEAD TIME WOULD THEY NEED TO OBTAIN

THE LICENSE AND HARDWARE FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE?

ANSWER.

DEPENDING UPON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROPOSED' OPERATION; (E.G.,

WASTE SEGREGATION AND REPACKAGING, INCINERATION FOR VOLUME REDUCTIOM, ETC.), WE ESTIMATE THAT NRC LICENSING OF AN INTERIM WASTE STORAGE FACILITY WOULD TAKE FROM NINE TO EIGHTEEN MONTHS, l

IF LITIGATION WERE INVOLVED, THE LICENSING TIME WOULD BE LONGER.

STILL MORE TIME WOULD BE REQUIRED IF IT WERE DETERMINED THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OR AMENDMENT OF THE REACTOR I

i OPERATING LICENSE WERE REQUIRED.

2 THE STATE OR APPLICANT WOULD NEED LEAD TIME TO DESIGN THE STORAGE FACILITY, TO PREPARE THE LICENSE APPLICATION, AND LATER TO CONSTRUCT THE FACILITY. WE ESTIMATE THESE WOULD TAKE ABOUT 18 MONTHS. THEREFORE, THE MINIMUM TIME TO PUT A FACILITY INTO OPERATION FROM THE DATE A DECISION WAS MADE WOULD BE ABOUT 27 MONTHS.

l l

l l

CUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY QUESTION 8. WASTE CATEGORIES PLEASE ENUMERATE AND DESCRIBE IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY THE KINDS OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE IN EXISTENCE AND IDENTIFY THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OR AUTHORITIES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH KIND.

I HOW MUCH OF EACH KIND OF WASTE IS PRODUCED EACH YEAR - AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL VOLUME OF WASTE AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL ACTIVITY OF WASTE?

HOW LONG-LIVED IS EACH KIND OF WASTE TYPICALLY?

WHERE AND HOW ARE EACH OF THESE KINDS OF WASTE DISPOSED OF?

EXAMPLES OF THE KINDS OF WASTE WE ARE INTERESTED IN INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CLASSES A, B, AND C LOW-LEVEL WASTE, SCINTILLATION VIALS, ACCELERATOR-DERIVED WASTE, URANIUM DUST FROM THE FERNALD, OHIO, URANIUM FEED PLANT, WASTE FROM NAVAL SHIPYARDS, AND WASTE FROM THE WEAPONS PROGRAM.

I l

l -

- 0UESTION 8. (CONTINUED) 2 ANSWER.

l WASTE CATEGORIES LLW EXISTS IN A WIDE VARIETY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FORMS, AS 1

WELL AS A BROAD RANGE OF RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND i HALF-LIVES. TYPICAL MATERIALS COMPRISING LOW-LEVEL WASTES ARE f LISTED BELOW.

j i

1 ION-EXCHANGE RESINS ABSORBED LIQUIDS SOLIDIFIED LIQUIDS SCINTILLATION WASTE i FILTER MEDIA ANIMAL CARCASSES MECHANICAL FILTERS LABORATORY TRASH COMPACTED TRASH CONTAMINATED SOIL NONCOMPACTABLE TRASH DEMOLITION RUBBLE FAILED EQUIPMENT ACTIVATED METALS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING LOW-LEVEL WASTE IS GENERATED BY BOTH GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) AND CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS GENERATE LLW AS A RESULT OF ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY. DISPOSAL OF THIS MATERIAL IS CARRIED OUT BY DOE ON DOE RESERVATIONS, AND IS' MANAGED BY DOE UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED. NRC 5

, m .e -- , - . , --vm, --sm, w-w,e-o--e-me----,,r-,,-----,w-<+- ge-~er,-ve,--m,. ,- e

l l

QUESTION 8. (CONTINUED) 3 i HAS NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE LLW AND SUGGESTS THAT DOE BE CONTACTED FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.

DISPOSAL OF NON-DOE LLW IS REGULATED BY EITHER NRC UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 , AS AMENDED, OR BY AGREEMENT STATES. ABOUT HALF OF THE 2,600,000 FT3/YR OF LLW CURRENTLY BEING SHIPPED FOR DISPOSAL COMES FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES. THE REMAINDER COMES FROM INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS HOSPITALS, MEDICAL SCHOOLS, i UNIVERSITIES, RADI0 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS, RESEARCH LABORATORIES, AND OTHER LICENSEES USING RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL UNDER LICENSE.

1 IN ADDITION, SMALL QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES IS ALSO DISPOSED OF IN COMMERCIAL SITES SUBJECT TO NRC AND AGREEMENT STATE REGULATION (E.G., WASTES FROM GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS, SOME WASTE FROM THE NAVAL NUCLEAR PROGRAM). THE NAVAL NUCLEAR WASTE IS I

SIMILAR (ALTHOUGH GENERALLY LOWER IN ACTIVITY) TO LLW FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL LLW BEING DISPOSED

! 0F IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE IN THE FUTURE WHEN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE DECOMMISSIONED. HOWEVER, GENERATION OF THIS DECOMMISSIONING t WASTE IS NOT EXPECTED UNTIL AFTER THE YEAR 2000.

WASTE CONTAINING RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS NOT DEFINED BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT (E.G., NATURALLY OCCURRING MATERIAL SUCH AS RADIUM-226, AND ACCELERATOR PRODUCED MATERIAL SUCH AS NA-22) ALSO EXISTS.

WHILE THIS WASTE IS NOT SUBJECT TO NRC REGULATION, STATES HAVE

OUESTION 8. (CONTINUED) 4 IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SUCH WASTES.

NRC'S 10 CFR PART 61 REGULATION SETS FORTH A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR LOW-LEVEL WASTE REGULATED BY NRC AND AGREEMENT STATES. THREE 4

WASTE CLASSES ARE CURRENTLY DEFINED: A, B, AND C. EACH WASTE CLASS IS PERMITTED PROGRESSIVELY HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS OF SPECIFIC RADIONUCLIDES. THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS DERIVED FROM WASTE DISPOSAL DATA FOR 1984, AND PROVIDES THE APPROXIMATE VOLUME AND ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE IN EACH WASTE CLASS.

a WASTE VOLUME ACTIVITY WASTE CLASS (FT3 ) (%) (CURIES) (%)

CLASS A 2,600,000 97 23,000 5 CLASS B 54,000 2 76,000 17 CLASS C 22,000 1 340,000 78

AB0VE CLASS C )>l  ?  ?

LOW-LEVEL WASTES EXCEEDING THE CLASS C LIMITS ARE ESTIMATED TO COMPROMISE LESS THAN 1% BY VOLUME OF TOTAL LLW GENERATION.

COMMERCIAL WASTE DISPOSAL IS CURRENTLY BEING CARRIED OUT AT SHALLOW LAND BURIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR BARNWELL, SOUTH CAROLINA; RICHLAND, WASHINGTON; AND BEATTY, NEVADA. DURING

QUESTION 8. (CONTINUED) 5 1984, THE BARNWELL FACILITY RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 47% OF THE WASTE, WHILE THE RICHLAND FACILITY RECEIVED ABOUT 52%. THE BEATTY FACILITY RECEIVED THE REMAINING 1% OF THE LLW SHIPPED FOR DISPOSAL.

e I

f l

l

I QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY I

OUESTION 9. JOINT EPA-NRC JURISDICTION OVER HAZARDOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE DESCRIBE THE APPLICABILITY OF EPA AND NRC REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO HAZARDOUS RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE. WHAT IS PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO

! ADDRESS THIS OVERLAP? WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO i

l RESOLVE ANY DIFFICULTIES? WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE

! THERE? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC AS TO ANY CHANGES IN

, STATUTORY LANGUAGE YOU RECOMMEND.

1 ANSWER.

THERE IS CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY OVER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE l

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) REGULATIONS TO LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES REGULATED BY NRC AND AGREEMENT STATES. THESE SITES ARE REGULATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT. EXISTING NRC LICENSES WERE ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PARTS 20, 30, 40, AND 70. NEW LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES WOULD BE LICENSED i UNDER 10 CFR PART 61. SITES IN NRC AGREEMENT STATES ARE REGULATED UNDER STATE PULES COMPATIBLE WITH NRC REGULATIONS.

L I

T

- , - - - - g - , -

, , . m-.. ,- - . . , -- -- --,4-- .--m._,-,--n.ga-p

QUESTION 9, (CONTINUED) 2 UNCERTAINTY EXISTS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF FACILITY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS THAT EPA, OR A STATE AGENCY WITH DELEGATED RCRA AUTHORITY FROM EPA, WOULD APPLY TO PERSONS LICENSED BY NRC OR AN AGREEMENT STATE AGENCY FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL.

EPA HAS INDICATED THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF RCRA PRECLUDES EPA FROM DELEGATING ITS RCRA PERMITTING RESPONSIBILITIES TO NRC. AN INTEPAGENCY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WOULD NOT RESOLVE 1

UNCERTAINTIES REGARDING THE NEED TO OBTAIN RCRA PERMITS FROM EPA FOR MIXED WASTE.

CLARIFYING LEGISLATION WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO ELIMINATE THE UNCERTAINTIES CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF EPA AND NRC REGULATORY AUTHORITY. THE COMMISSION IS NOT AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROPOSALS BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS THIS OVERLAP. WE SUPPORT THE PROVISIONS ADDRESSING THESE UNCERTAINTIES IN SECTION 15 0F H.R. 1083 AS ADOPTED BY THE UGUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, WITH I

CERTAIN ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS. THE FIRST OF THESE, CONCERNING THE DELEGATION OF RCRA AUTHORITY TO NRC AGREEMENT STATES, IS ADDRESSED IN 00R RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4. THE REMAINING TWO CONCERNS ARE DISCUSSED BELOW.

FIRST, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR MIXED WASTES FROM EPA TO NRC WOULD SUPERSEDE ANY PRIOR DELEGATIONS

. OF AUTHORITY BY EPA TO STATES TO ISSUE PERMITS THAT MAY APPLY TO l NRC-LICENSED DISPOSAL FACILITIES. WITHOUT SUCH CLARIFICATION,  ;

e

, ,.,a ~ , -

nn---- - . - - - ,n e--a- - -~ w, m-,- - - ~-.e. - - < - . - ,

QUESTION 9. (CONTINUED) 3 SECTION 15 MAY BE CONSTRUED TO PROVIDE THAT NRC IS TO BE DELEGATED 4 AUTHORITY IN ADDITION TO SUCH STATES, AND NRC OR AGREEMENT STATE-LICENSED FACILITIES WITHIN THESE STATES COULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO' DUAL REGULATION.

SECOND, NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR MIXED WASTE WHICH THE NRC, UNDER SECTION 12 0F THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE-ADOPTED BILL, IDENTIFIES AS BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN BASED ON RADIOLOGICAL i j HAZARD. CLARIFICATION SHOULD BE MADE THAT WASTES WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN FROM A RADIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT WOULD STILL BE REGULATED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE RCRA REGULATIONS.

1 WE BELIEVE THAT BOTH OF THESE CLARIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE THROUGH APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE REPORT LANGUAGE.

4 i

F 4

1

4 QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY QUESTION 10. RESPONSIBILITY OF "AB0ve CLASS C" WASTE WHAT IS "ABOVE CLASS C" RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE?

P WHAT VOLUME OF WASTE IS INVOLVED? WHAT ACTIVITY?

i WHO CURRENTLY HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ABOVE CLASS C RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS NOT SPENT FUEL OR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE? HOW DOES S. 1578 TREAT THIS TYPE OF WASTE?

li WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL OFTIONS FOR DEALING WITH THIS WASTE? WHY SHOULDN'T THIS WASTE BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR DISPOSAL?

i i

ANSWER.

RESPONSIBILITY OF "AB0vE CLASS C" WASTE "ABOVE CLASS C" WASTE IS LOW-LEVEL WASTE REGULATED BY NRC OR AN AGREEMENT STATE AND HAVING RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS WHICH EXCEED THE CLASS C CONCENTRATION LIMITS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 61.55 0F 10 CFR PART 61. LIKE OTHER LOW-LEVEL WASTES, IT EXISTS 9

0 1

r-, . , , ,- . , , - , , . . - . . . , . - - - . , . , _ , , _ -. , - . g_. ._ . . . ,.w.,. , , ,n ., -w _

QUESTION 10. (CONTINUED) 2 l IN A VARIETY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FORMS. THE TABLE BELOW CONTAINS RECENT STAFF ESTIMATES OF CURRENT AND PROJECTED ABOVE j CLASS C VOLUMES. DETAILED INFORMATION ON'THE TOTAL ACTIVITY OF i ABOVE CLASS C WASTES HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPILED.

VOLUMES OF ABOVE CLASS C WASTES

, PRESENT ANTICIPATED ACTIVATED METALS VOLUMES FUTURE VOLUMES REACTOR OPERATIONS 200 FT /YR 200 FT /YR 4

i SPENT FUEL HARDWARE (INCLUDING FUEL END FITTING) NEGLIGIBLE 4,000 FT /YR*

I DECOMMISSIONED REACTOR NEGLIGIBLE 4,000 FT 3j CORE COMPONENTS REACTOR THESE FIGURES REPRESENT THE MAXIMUM VOLUMES WHICH WOULD BE

GENERATED IF ALL SPENT FUEL WERE DISASSEMBLED AT REACTOR PLANTS. SUCH HARDWARE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED " SPENT FUEL" UNDER i

TERMS OF NWPA AND DOE'S WASTE FUND CONTRACTS, AND THUS WOULD NOT NEED FURTHER CLASSIFICATION.

i

)

QUESTION 10. (CONTINUED) 3 i

TRANSURANICS i

FUEL BURNUP LAB OPERATION 200 FT3/YR 200 FT5/YR i

FUEL BURNUP LAB DECOMMISSIONING NEGLIGIBLE 15,000 FT i

! PLUTONIUM FUEL FAB PLANT DECOMMISSIONING 5,000-10,000'FT NONE i

SEALED SOURCE MANUFAC-TURING OPERATIONS 200 FT5/YR 200 FT /YR i

i SEALED SOURCE MANUFAC- ,

TURING DECOMMISSIONING 2,000 FT 3 10,000 FT i

j MATERIALS LICENSEE

! DECOMMISSIONING SMALL SMALL i

PHARMACEUTICALS 10-50 FT /YR 10-50 FT /YR l

LARGE SEALED SOURCES SMALL SMALL lI i

THE STATES CURRENTLY HAVE RESPONSIBILITY F0P. DISPOSING OF WASTE AS

! - DEFINED IN THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1980, t l l INCLUDING WASTE EXCEEDING THE CLASS C LIMITS ESTABLISHED UNDER l

! l

. ~ _ _ . . _. . _ _ -__ .-

i QUESTION 10. (CONTINUED) 4 NRC'S 10 CFR PART 61 REGULATION. HOWEVER, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME STATES ARE NOW RELUCTANT TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISPOSAL OF THIS WASTE. SECTION 3(A)(1) 0F S. 1578 CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT STATES WOULD ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOW-LEVEL WASTES THAT CONSIST OF OR CONTAIN LOW-LEVEL WASTE CLASSES A, B, AND C.

WASTE EXCEEDING CLASS C LIMITS EXISTS IN A WIDE RANGE OF

' +

CONCENTRATIONS -- FROM CONCENTRATIONS THAT BARELY EXCEED CLASS C LIMITS TO CONCENTRATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF CERTAIN HIGH-LEVEL i WASTES. NRC BELIEVES THAT THERE MAY BE ALTERNATIVE LAND DISPOSAL METHODS FOR A PORTION OF THIS WASTE. SOME REMAINING PORTION MAY j HAVE TO BE MANAGED AS HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND DISPOSED OF IN A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY. WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PREMATURE AT THIS l

TIME TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF DISPOSAL FOR ALL TYPES OF ABOVE i

CLASS C WASTE.

i i

i

! THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT THE BEST SOLUTION WOULD BE TO CLEARLY

! ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY TO DOE FOR DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE EXCEEDING CLASS C CONCENTRATIONS AND TO PROVIDE DOE FLEXIBILITY TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR THIS WASTE.

l l

l l , ,- , , , . - - . . ,, - , - . - - . , -

,, , , , . , , , , - - . , - , , , , , , , , - , - - - - _ - - , , ,.,----,--c,-- . .-, - ..- . ---,

QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY OUESTION 11. DISPOSAL CAPACITY (A) WHAT IS THE PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE CAPACITY AT THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES, BY SITE? WHAT IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS AVAILABLE CAPACITY IN RELATION TO THE VOLUMES BEING PRODUCED NOW?

HOW LONG COULD EXISTING LOW-LEVEL WASTE SITES ACCOMMODATE LOW-LEVEL WASTE GENERATED IN THE UNITED STATES?

ANSWER.

4 (A) THE NRC DOES NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS ON AVAILABLE L0li-LEVEL

WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY IN RELATION TO COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION RATES. HOWEVER, 2.6 MILLION CUBIC FEET OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE WAS SHIPPED FOR DISPOSAL TO COMMERCIAL SITES IN 1984. INFORMATION ON THE ESTIMATED USABLE BURIAL AREA, UTILIZED BURIAL AREA, AND LAND USE BURIAL FACTORS ARE INCLUDED IN TABLE 4.15 ATTACHED, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REPORT, SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE INVENTORIES, PROJECTIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS (DOE /RW-0066),

! SEPTEMBER 1984. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IS BASED ON LICENSED DISPOSAL CAPACITY, RATHER THAN PHYSICALLY

QUESTION 11. (CONTINUED) 2 AVAILABLE LAND WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE LICENSED FOR BURIAL PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE.

.,. _. .. ._. . .. - e. . . w. : _

, cs 184 feele e.tk Status et Lur eispeset sif,e Estlestee ,

letlasted eurial tetet voehle celevie+ee lead eres villiese lite staes perlet erees voege teste,e ,ne ,,,n ggg3 ,

then t 3 /nes (gent ,

$tte (ne: ..

M(/tetense Laan. 34. e 24.7 29.490 13.4 1(L 3kt 31.6 20,000 2ksc e&S e e e h?S ochi 27.S 5. 8 6.500 17 HassF seph e e,787 29.7'

$9 7tB 72.7 11,150 $2. 7 Tetet seat e135 128.3 ceamercial oest veiley, att 8. 98 7.38 20.249 h ef

(*lesee stor. II . 1975) mesey tie's. Et 107 < S t* 13,9e0 10.1 9 (Closee 'Jeo. 27. 19773 laett iele. IL kg A 30 22.650 3.98 (Closed Aar. a. 1978) se rnoe f t . 1*d 17.1" et. 7" 19.559" 22.In -

neet+y, ivy 32 1 g,3 1 3,13p. 9 11.7 I aienione e4 40 3% e* 8,718n 20.8

. fate' 389 162.0 72.1 2reae Total s915 s297. 8 200.5 acelculeted f rom sete given in ref. 31 (ter D0() ens cet. 35 (f or caissierstell.

es.oot f or Berneeli (ref. 341. seste: 1 eere

• 0.e09 ne. a 8 elcate*es by elvleing vetwee seced la 1943 ty the everop tone weege tector to eiweis eroe sees in 19ek Thig valse ses seded to the correctee 1992 vaise reco tes le r et. 32. los else Teeles e.) ene e.t.

'in aceltlen, petoe to 1970, stow' 2 he was weed for tog ,este union ses consleeres ,

'a to Lue et the time e6 perial. l 8tnis certetes to t*e restesetive oeste eenegenene este in Aree 3 et ene N?3. Th e ,

e esseelisty es lone teet seuld De used for shelles.lene turlet le not cleerir definee uesease of t%e eleselfles notece et tne ette one **e cleaneenee et s ene, a land usepe ,

sector is ne* spellcotte et mit.

• tnere eseeers to be ne greelen l'i sosignating etsittenel lere for ehet eos.leae hereen es it is neeese. Wtisteed tone volwo la for 200-Aree enir, if tw c resed 100. eae 330 eres eartel grevaes ese eensteeres. -tko ne must be eseos to emie tetet.

timelusing test roareceselag eros te+el site le 1390 ne eceereing to ref. 3e.

thesse on este teen ret. 12. f actwees toen otete. ene islC-liseases awrlei groenes.

"cate tron ref. it. 4res utilltet value, provleet ey site asenspr, Jenn t. meme tr a t. 153, incivdes ~1982 g5 et en61te generates .Lw since cleevre tret. tel.

I tuli oben slette.

JLiert en velaas et weste seensted eegen in wventer 1974. v'tn present scnews, eve.seele Isee can.le test until 1997, n=ever, awarent cespoet legistet ten reewires ete-swre in tsea.

Scelsweetoe ta v este given In ret. 3h teaalning weente eroe (2he nel previces ty

v. R. Aster, swe ee4 et meisleglest =eeltn. lette- to A. H. Elbtev. June II. 196k

'Celeviates f rom este In rets. Se end 37.

"Usees on sete given 19 ref. 3h

• tils is en everego w i.e. In the seet tw seers, eoseer truncnos have been used, tae .tvee. t e . rent sene soap tester is some. net hisner it,25e 3/ ne la 'tes).

hurce: W/R'J-0006 a

reviously DOE /.4E-0017/3 i

Jk

QUESTION 11. (CONTINUED) 3 QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY J

QUESTION 11. (B) ARE THERE ANY TECHNICAL, SAFETY, OR ECONOMIC REASONS WHY GENERATORS SHOULD ADOPT VOLUME REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES? WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT ARE THE TRADE OFFS? ARE THERE TECHNICAL, SAFETY, OR ECONOMIC DRAWBACKS TO VOLUME REDUCTIONS? WHAT ARE THEY?

ANSWER.

l (B) IN ITS OCTOBER 12, 1981 POLICY STATEMENT, COPY ATTACHED, THE COMMISSION ENCOURAGED LICENSEES TO ADOPT PRACTICES TO REDUCE THE

]

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE gel;ERATED AND SHIPPED TO COMMERCIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES. THIS INCLUDES VOLUME MINIMIZATION AS WELL AS THE USE OF VOLUME REDUCTION EQUIPMENT.

'Y IN GENERAL, THERE ARE NO TECHNICAL REASONS FOR NOT USING VOLUME REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES. PROVEN EQUIPMENT EXISTS FOR SORTING, SHREDDING, COMPACTING, EVAPORATING AND DRYING, INCINERATING AND OTHERWISE TREATING WASTES CONTAINING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.

THERE ARE BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES FROM SAFETY AND 1

ECONOMIC STANDPOINTS USING VOLUME REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES. FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, ADDITIONAL HANDLING OF WASTE MAY MEAN SOME FURTHER RADIATION EXPOSURE TO GENERATOR EMPLOYEES PERFORMING VOLUME REDUCTION OPERATIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, SMALLER

QUESTION 11. (CONTINUED) 4 l

J  ;

QUANTITIES OF VOLUME-REDUCED WASTES CAN IN SOME INSTANCES MEAN LESS EXPOSURE TO GENERATOR AND DISPOSAL WORKERS, AND FEWER SHIPMENTS WHICH CAN HAVE A MARGINALLY LOWER RISK TO THE PUBLIC 3

FROM TRANSPORTATION OF THE WASTES.

ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ARE PROBABLY THE MOST

SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF USING VOLUME REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES. THE 1

PRINCIPAL REASON FOR GENERATORS TO PRACTICE VOLUME REDUCTION IS TO i SAVE ON THE COSTS'0F DISPOSAL AND THE ATTENDANT TRANSPORTATION COSTS. THE PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC DRAWBACK IS THE COST OF ACQUIRING AND OPERATING VOLUME REDUCTION EQUIPMENT.

I IT IS THE BALANCING OF THESE VARIABLES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES AND i

QUANTITIES OF WASTE, THE AVAILABILITY OF STORAGE CAPACITY, THE SCOPE OF GENERATOR OPERATIONS, THE MOTIVATION OF GENERATORS, AND OTHER FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHETHER VOLUME REDUCTION IS PRACTICED BY INDIVIDUAL WASTE GENERATORS OR WASTE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

t I

?

4 l

._. _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ _ - . . _ . . _ , _ , _ _ . . _ ._.,_,..__m. , , __.,_ . _ _ , , _ , _

Federal Registar / Vol. 48. No. 200 / FHday. October it.1881 / Noticoe 31101 De Commisstee ackaswiedges the plant equipment and malatanance so es polley statereent on Law Lavel Weste acuve role taken by name seclear to mialaise amaditions which resait la Volun a Recuetion lacreased wate generasan.

ladustry pospe to enamorage volume asent v: Nuclear Regulatory ndussa pesences among 4dr W MSerm m rednas woes Coma lesion. membership.De lamessed ewarecem voimm by Mainstreave esame, Actie e Poucy statement calsw. level of the indseiry is reSeded la esepped-up heensees may bene 8t forther by  ;

waste vehime reduccon. eSerts to rednas the volenes of waam applytag advensed veheme reducties I

generated and by apphantions to eqalpment to their processes.

l avesu havt na U.S. Nuc!str Regulatory implemmat waste passadas eyetema by A samber of voiese reduceloa Coma lesion (NRC)has estabbahed a a growing number ofliosaseee.no techn& ques am k varytag sagse of P8881 f*sard'88 th* volume nducten of Commisalon believes that a penitive _ ~ nees tasinde. but are not low-li vel radioeceve wsete. The ey statement of policy win add yeete dd'to:(1)lastaarssors limited (2) stated beat addreseen:(tl De a for impetus and encouragement to the evaporatoriieystalhaeret (3) Suldised volua e toduccon poucy, and (2) the ladustry eforts already enderwey. bed drygret (4) th&a.Ela oveparaterni (5) coed or waste gesertiors to =w=*= Dedomanseloalaenesuragla8 utrde mponers ud (4) moety of waste prodoced.De  !!ceaseos to adopt proundsree that will compacters, Weste compactors are la th'u$

po c1 also states that NRC will take reduce the volene of waste bela8 genere! noe at many ourjeer facihties.

expet itious action on requests for transferred to disposal feelities. NRC ExW evapcretore en beng taataHed beeru as of volume redue: ca systems. beheves it is la the best latemet of in some power ta. while omtal (A co iy of this necca te bing sent to al!  !!aenaees and the puble that licensees unlities are fato tactaeration as beena see and state authorities to advise extensively explore means by which a volume reduction prooses.

them pf thle pobey) weste volume may be reduced.De NRC Duanest er disposal of heensed mapet rrys oaft October ts.1981. views volene reduction activities as a matertalby ladnerstica mquires pon s ,prewen respoemafrom coerracTt two.etop eyeteen.no first. vahane CommisWon approval udar M CFR

=W=6amtica. le capetis ofinusediate 30.305. Other nocR8cagoas required to Robe t E. Brown:ng. Deputy Director.

Divia on of Waste Management. U.S.

Impleasatenoa, staes it requitwo only a tastall volume redaction equ!psent at at Regu!atory Comcssion, strict system of ent=latatrouve controla reactor plaats een be ecoomplished Nue!<

without piter f* laataa approval Weel L,g+on. D.C. 2155 phone 301/427- on the part of!!aensee ranagement to 4200.

accomphah.De enets for an under W CFR 80.88, anlese the proposed administreave controls program should modi 8cationlavolves a change ta the suosi maswrer twoonmanow: be small, and thete costs largely should technical spee8 cations laserpore tad in poDc' ' Statenest be oEset by redecnoas la sluppy and b Ucean or u unmvM safety d!sposal costs. The second step, u question. Non-reactor licensees who n Commas:c:hae established the nuded. wouad be tastallation of wtah to apply values reducdon foUomeg policy.

advanced equipment to achieve even ' equipaneet to thstr westse shculd 2 Commissteshereby adoptsa greater reduccon in volume than is contact the appropetate NRC !!consing pohc' ' ca!hng on a'l generatcre oflow.

possible through the use of staN for guidance regerihng licenstrig lesel m$oactva waste to reduce the volu:is of weste fer dispesal:11censees administranve controls. nquirements.

There are a number of means by ne NRC staffla avet!able to censult an e icocaged to establish pr: grams which licensees may reduce volume with licennese regarding volume cocu ensurete with good volume through application of strict reduction precoces. NRC sta5 will redm ten pescuces, n i Nuclear Rer2]atory Comm!ssion administrouve controle.Some of thm cooperate with licensees la essessing are:(1) Plaanlag oflaborotory and the state.of.the. art of methods for*

(NRC ) conalders it destra'cle that achievercent of volume reduction, and heen ees reduce de volume of tew level process acuvtues prior to the actual radic iceve waste generated and operations:(2) provision of management wiu take expeditiona action on requests ships rd to cocunsectal weste disposal control over the generation of waste to for licensing volume reduction systems.

such seuan would. assure that all opereu>as and plant D*'*d wasm *en.D.C this 12th day of sites e 1.1,xtend the o;eremonal lifetime of equipment usage are conducted so as to October test.

trunurule leakage, sytlls and volume of the e tistmg coremeretal!cw.'evel For the Nuclear Regulatofy Commission.

disp < sal sitee; weste genereted:(3) improved

2. n!!eviste coccern for adequate segregation of radioecuve and non. 8****3 I Chik.

radicactive materials activitin; and (4) Secretary of th Comemion.

store e capacity ;f there a o delays in estat ahing add. coa!res!onal sitesi prevision of training programs to assure tra oss ri-mm rwo.is.ei ois ami that perscanelan thoroughly emme caos rseems

3. ' , educe the cu:sber of weste.

ship: ienta. knowledgeable with laboratory and 6_ _ __ _ _ __ . - - _ _ . _ . . _ . - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - , , _ . , , , _ . _ . _ _ . _ , , ._.__m__, _ . - - , _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

l QUESTIONS FROM THE MINIORITY QUESTION 12. (A) WHAT.IS THE ACTUAL COST (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION) ON A PER CUBIC FOOT BASIS OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL UNDER CURRENT NRC

. REGULATIONS.

i ANSWER.

THE NRC STAFF HAS O2TAINED CURRENT RATE SCHEDULES FROM CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC. AND U.S.~ ECOLOGY FOR THE BARNWELL, SOUTH CAROLINA AND HANFORD, WASHINGTON SITES, RESPECTIVELY. (SEE ENCLOSURES A AND B.) TRANSPORTATION COSTS DEPEND ON THE DISTANCE

! 0F THE SHIPMENT AND WHETHER THE WASTE IS' SHIELDED OR UNSHIELDED.

TYPICAL COSTS ARE SUMMARIZED IN TABLES 17-20 IN ENCLOSURE C FROM "AN ANALYSIS OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS." NATIONAL LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE

! MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, DOE /LLW-6TD, APRIL 1983.

i w .

i

_ QUESTION 12. (CONTINUED) 2

QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY CUESTION 12. (B) WHAT NON-COST CHARGES ARE CURRENTLY APPLIED l

TO LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL BY EACH OF THE 4

STATES WITH EXISTING SITES?

ANSWER,

SURVEILLANCE AND LICENSE FEES FROM WASHINGTON, SOUTH CAROLINA AND

. NEVADA ARE PRESENTED IN ENCLOSURE D TO THE MATERIAL WHICH FOLLOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

t i

I l

i i

4 i

i

_. . -- ,,-. .--,. ,- , , , , - , - . . ~ _ , - , . , - - - , . - . - , . . _ , - - . - - -, - , - . , . , . . , , , . . - . .

I

- QUESTION 12, (CONTINUED) 3 l

1 QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY QUESTION 12. (C) WHAT IS THE RELATION OF THESE COSTS TO THE SURCHARGES PROPOSED UNDER S. 1578?

ANSWER, SECTION 5(I) 0F S. 1578 LISTS THE FOLLOWING SURCHARGES:

)

TIME PERIOD SURCHARGE ($/ CUBIC FOOT) i 1986-1987 10 1988-1989 20 1990-1992 40 3

THE STATUTORY SURCHARGES CANNOT BE RELATED TO THE COST OF DISPOSAL OF LLW BECAUSE THE LATTER CHARGES VARY CONSIDERABLY ~ DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WASTES. SEE ENCLOSURES A-D, J

J f

6 k

\

J i

l

• s

- -.- -. -- ~. -, -nr. , , , . -.

. . - , . ~ , _ _ . , , , , . . . , , , . , ,. . . . , , . , , , , , -- , .w.

J: ee. a m-& ---M 4 _ a.,s - a r

j. QUESTION 12. (CONTINUED) 4 i i QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY QUESTION 12. (D) HOW MUCH DOES EACH SITED STATE TAKE IN FROM LOW-LEVEL WASTE CHARGES?

4

ANSWER.

FOR 1985, THE SITED STATES EXPECT THE REVENUES AS SHOWN IN ENCLOSURE D:

STATE TOTAL REVENUES FROM LLW .

4 CHARGES (APPROXIMATE)

WASHINGTON $11 MILLION SOUTH CAROLINA $9.6 MILLION NEVADA $96 THOUSAND t

f 9

I J

1 I

QUESTION 12. (CONTfNUED) 5 4 QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY 2

CUESTION 12. (E) WHAT DO THESE STATES DO WITH THE REVENUE THEY GENERATE FROM LOW-LEVEL WASTE CHARGES?

i 4

ANSWER.

THE REVENUES AND HOW THEY ARE USED IN THE STATES ARE SHOWN IN ENCLOSURE D.

I 1

i i

i l

4 4

I i-3 i

4 l

. _ . . ~ . - - . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ , . ,,_,_.,___,,,,,,_..m.__.,,,,_.._ _ , . . . . . . _ . . , _ . . . __ . , . _ . _ , ,,

~

EM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS,INC.

1 gl$. >2so Stoneviage Cnve e Columbia, Sowen Carolina Nsio bcdJa re /

1* .

BARWELL LOW-LEVEL RA010ACT!YE WA$TE O!3POSAL FACILITY RATE SCHE 0lA.E All radweste material snall be packaged in accordance witn Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Comission regulations in Title 49 and Title 10 of tne Code of Federal Regulations, CNS!'s Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Criteria,Carolina Soutn Radfoactive and amendments Material Licenses, CN3!'s Barnwell Site Disposal tnereto, 1.

BASE DISPOSAL CHARetS (Not including Surcnerges and Barnwell County Business

~ License Tex)

A. Ctandard Waste $ 3

3. Biological Waste 24.94/ft.3 C. Spectal Nuclear Materf al (SNM) $ 24,94/ft.

$ 15.94/ft.3 plus $1.75 per Gram SNM Note:

Minimumis.3500.00.

Cnarges charge per snipment, excluding Surenerges and specific Otner

2. SURCHARGE $

A. Weignt Surcnarges (Crane Loads Only)

Me1gnt of Contatner surenaree Per Contaf ner 0- 1,000 Les.

1,001 - 5,000 Las. No Surcharge

$ 275 5,001 - 10,000 Les. $ 550 10,001 - 20,000 Les. $ 825 20,001 - 30,000 lbs. $ 1,100 30,001 - 40,000 Las. $ 1,550 40,001 - 50,000 Les. $ 2,200 Greater tnan 50,000 By Special Request

8. Curie Surenerge -

Curie Content Per Snfoment lurcharge Par Snfpment 0- 1 No Surcnarge 1.1 - 5 $ 1,800 5.1 - 15 $ 2,250 15.1 - 25 $ 3,000 25.1 - 50 $ 4 500 50.1 - 75 8 5,,500 75.1 - 100 $ 7,450 100.1 - 150 $ 6 900 150.1 - 250 $ 12,,000 250.1 - 500 $ 15;000 500.1 - 1,000 $ 18,000 1,000.1 5,000 $

Greater than 8,000 24.000 By Spectal Request Effecti:4 April 15,1985 (sos) 20664no e Teler 21a047 2'e 92 g-664 ETA '3*S blS, .o o x sanat S8, 12 130

' M, e .

Barnwell Rate Schedule 4ren 13,1985 Page Two C. Special Handling Surcharge may apply on unusually large or bulky containers. Tnese type containers are acceptable upon approval of prior request.

B. PTHER CHARGES A. Cask Handling Fee $ 800 per cask, minimum l B. Taxes and Speciti Funds

1. Perpetuity Escrow Fund $ t.40 per ft.3

2. Souta Carolina Low-Level Radioactive ifeste Ofsposal Tax (5.4.ce4 towel $ 4.00 per ft.3 Susaagt M j

3. Soutneast Regional Compact Fee $ 0.29 per ft.3 4 Barnwell County ' Business License Tax A 2.45 Barnwell County Business License Tax ana11 be added to the i 79tel of all disposal fees. 1 1

NOTE: Items 3.8.1, I and 3 are included in Item 1. Base Disposal l Cnarges,

n. MISCELLANE0US A. Transport venicles unich are provided with additional shielding features may be subject to a minimum nandling fee of $150.00 per use.

Sucn a fee covers additional nandling and lanor required for special equipment set-up and tegottry shield renoval.

B. Decontamination services (if required): $75.00 per man-hour plus supplies at current CNSI rate.

C. Customers may be charged for all special services as described in taa Barnwell Site Disposal Criterla.

D. Tems of payment are NET 30 DAYS upon presentation of invoices. A service charge per monta of 11/21 snell be levied on accounts not paid witnin thirty (30) days.

I ffective April 15, 1985 6'd 924M PA 'O 'S 's!8Wn~103 334 62:2t $8.12 DO

' A

~

A Isrnwell Rate Senedule Marcn 13,1985

> age Tnree E. Company purenase orders or a written letter of authorization in form and suDstance acceptable to CNS! snall be received before receipt of radioactive waste material at the Barnwell Disposal Site and shall refer to CNS!'s Radioactive Material Licenses, the 84rnwell Site Disposal Criteria, and subsequent enanges thereto, F. All shipments shall recaf ve a CN51 allocation number and conform to the Prior Notification Plan. Adcitional infomation may be ootained at (803) 259 3577 or (403) 259-3578.

l. Miscellaneous (Cont.)

G. Tnis Rate Senedule is subject to enange and does not constitute an offer of contract wnich is capable of being accepted by any party.

H. A cnarge of $5,000 is applicable to all shipments wnich require special site set-up for waste disposal.

I. Class 8/C waste received witn chelating agents which requires separation in the tmnen, may se subject to a surenerge if Stable Class A waste is not availaple for use in achieving the required separation from otner wastes.

Iffective April 15, 1985 P*d 9249-664 FOS 'O'S WISWTC) D}<3 62 :21 E T2 100 ,,

\.

i 1 Os aconocT WH2NGTGl NUCLEAR C9fTER scMEDULE OF CHARGES l BADI0 ACTIVE MASTE

[

,- i i

! l l

g ErTECTIVE: A =t 1- N5 14 OIsPolsAL cmRcEs I l  :

A. s0 LID MATER 2.AL I

SteelDrussal,WoodSoses:

1 i R /H# AT CONTA2WER SURFACE PRICE PER CU, FT.

t

0. 00 ,

• 0.20 0.20h - 1.00 522.14 )

1.01 l- 2.00 23.19 1 2.01I - 5.00 26.36  !

S.01 ! = 10.00 27.56 1 10.01, -

20.00 32.07 l l 20.01' - 40.00 40.33

40.01I . 60.00 50.08 60.01 -

80.00 71.32 80.01 - 100.00 35.11 )

93.65 Dksposal L pers Removed fr a Shields (Creater than 12.0 cu. ft. each) h/NR AT CCSTAINER SURFACE SURCHARGE PER LINER PPICE PER CU. FT.

i  ! 0.00f - 0.20 No Charge *

$22.14 0.201 - 1.00 $ 229.74

1.01 - 2.00 22.14 564.30 22 14 2.01 - S.00 791.82

I 5.01 - 10.00 22.14 1,14S.35 10.011 - 20.00 1,462.08 22.14

, 20.01 - 40.00 22.14 1,815.62 40.01, - 60.00 22.14

' 2,153.54 60.01 - 80.00 22.14 2,484.76 22.14 80.01 - 100.00 2,822.68 22.14 i

s. Ligure wastes

1. In vial's, less than 50 al. sach $28.30/cu.ft.

2, Liquidd containing orga.nics, absorbed 28.30/cu.ft.

3, Aqueous liquids, absorbed

, 22.14/cu.ft.

C. SkOIAGICAL ESTE, ANIJ4AL r wnerES i 23.79/cu.f t .

(Continued) t I e v

2NCLUDED IN THM 1 ARE THE TOLIAWNG mSWIWCEtt STATE FEES:

A. PERPt'rVAL CARE AND mINUMtCE 81.75 PER CU. FT.

a. s;TE CtoSURE PUNo 0.2s PER CU. PT.

C. RenzoncTIVE msn sURysn.Lancs SUnCmRcE 0.s5 psR CU. rv.

2. SURCmRGE FOR tEAVY tlhJ CCTS:

I

, Imss than 10,0(0 pounds so CharTe 10,000 pounds t o Capacity of Site Bquipment

$172.70 plus 94 per 1b. above l 10,000 lbs.

I

3. SUROIARGE FOR CURIES (Per Load):

Eass 100 les No Charge l 100 ,300 curies $1,257.30 plus 17t/Ci above 100

! 301 - License Limits By Roguest i

d. SUpjn FOR SPECIAL WUCLEAR MATERIAL (SNM) 82.27 per gras Of Special Buclesi Material by Isotope weight 5 MDEMIM CEARGE ER SHIPMDfT $347.00 6.! CA5K 11ANDLMG NEE: $638.00 miniman each l I

7. ESTE,CCarTAINING CHEIATING AGENTS IN PACKAGES AMOUNT GREATEA 7EAN 14 CF PACKAGE VOLUME: By Sequest I

S. St *"E FOR N, Cal-MKrfEME MhM-RIM EXPOSURE (DUE "O DESIGN OR PNY33 CAL DEFBCT OF CC3f7A3NER OR SHIELD) 823.71 per man millires*

l I 9..* gAMINATION, SERVICES (2f required) 886.15 per man hour plus eupplies at cost plus 21s 1

10. CONTAl DEER VOIAMES:

!  ; }

i

~

$$ Gallon Drums - 7.50 eu.ft.

30Gh11onDrubs-d.01cu.ft. ,

, 5 cellon Drd s - 0.67 cu.ft.

! i 114 All wpste material shall be properly classified, described, packaged, marked, i labeled, and certified in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, and l I4 cal laws, rules and requistions and shall be in compliance with all license requiiements and amanhts thereto applicable at the Richland, Washington j

4

dispo' sal f acil(ty.

12.. This Schedule olf Charges does not constitute an of for of contract which is ca;pable of ping accepted by any party and is subject to change solely upon s tice by,US Scology.

8 i

EffeckiveAugust1,1985 WashifgtonNuc1,earCenter i  :

e t 0

t

l  %. ,

l f Em hsa>ea

c.

5 DIRECTIONS IN LOW-LEVEL l

f' RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ,

i l An Analysis of Low-Level

( 1/aste Disposal Facility and Transportation Costs i

! i National Low-Level

! ,E ' Radioactive Waste Management Program rb t April 1983 r

i I.

I-w :m.-

{ } TABLE 17 TRUCK SHIPPINb RATES--UNSHIELDED SHIPMENTS Rates Per Mile Distance Easta Westa

.(one-way miles) _( 5 ) (5) 100 4.53 4.76 200 3.01 3.30 300 2.49 2.80 400 2.15 2.48 500 1.87 2.21 750 1,66 2.01 1000 1.50 1.86 1500 1.50 1,79 2000 1.50 1.73 2499+ 1.50 1.67

a. East and west denote shipments east and west of tne Mississippi River.

$ l TABLE 18. TRUCK SHIPPING RATES--SHIELDEO SHIPMENTS Distance in Nationwide Disposal Site Round-Trip Rates (miles) Mileage ,,

($ per mile) Number of Day)s (cask rental 100 200 3.25 2 ~~-

200 400 2.36 2 300 600 1.87 3 400 800 1.59 3 500 1000 1.46 3 7 50 1500 1.37 5 1000 2000 1.37 5 1500 3000 1.37 7 2000 4000 1.37 9 2499+ 4998+ 1.37 11+

g i l 33

TABLE 19. CALCULATED TRUCK SHIPMENT CHARGES PER CUBIC FOOT OF Uh5NIELDED wa5TE Nonreactor Waste _. Heactor waste Distance East West East West (one-way miles) (5) (5) (5) X 100 0.45 0.48 0.91 0.95 200 0.60 0.66 1.20 1.32 300 0.75 0.84 1.49 1.68 400 0.86 0.99 1.72 1.98 500 0.93 1.11 1.87 2.21 4 750 1.25 1.51 2.49 3.02 1000 1.50 1.86 3.00 3.72 1500 2.25 4.69 4.50 5.37 2000 3.00 3.46 6.00 6.92 2499+ 3.75+ 4.17+ 7.50+ 8.35+

0 TABLE 20. CALCULATED TRUCK SHIPMENT CHARbES FCR SHIEL0E0 WASTE Distance to Cask Nationwidei Disposal Site Hound-Trip Rental Fee Rates (miles) Mileage (5) ($ per cubic foot) 100 200 500 7.67 200 400 500 9.63 300 600 750 12.48 400 800 750 13.48 500 1000 750 14.73 750 1500 1250 22.03 1000 2000 12b0 26.o0 1500 3000 1750 - 39.07 2000 4000 2250 51.53 2499+ 4998+ 2750+ 63.98+

a. Applies to reactor and nonreactor waste shipments.

O 34

Department of Social and Health Services. mshinton ,

Compartsro cf Low-t.cv21 Wste Fees in States uith Disposal Sites Septeater 5, 1985 South Carolina Nevada t':te of f W shington crveillance fees l

Authorized by 583799 9 654 ft* License fee $175.000 based on 1.359.000 ft* = $883.350 (includes enviromental monitoring, site survell-j Iance, regulatory / licensing) 1 The 654 breaks down to:

I

, Oisposal Surveillance 244 j Eaviromnental leonitoring 10.14 Perpetual care and maintenance Washington State Patrol 4.34 9 $2.80 ft3 = $3.360.000 Radiological Public Health 23.64 (based on 1.200.000 ft*)

ISOE Lease Cost 3.04 l - Site Operator License fee = $41.318 l

i  ! cense Fees Closure / stabilization fund (this interest-hearing account has l

$2.3 million in the fund. The Long term care and h intenance perpetual Care and hintenance e $1.75 ft* = $2.378,250 fund was collected fran disposal 9 25t/fts = $10.000 l revenues a nunber of years ago i

j during a one-year period. This Closure Fund fund is revleued on a periodic l basis and adjusted as necessary by Generator Permit Fee l 4 254 ft3 = $339.750 # $2.219/yr for 17-20 pensits the state of South Carolina. This l amount is not included in the total = $44.380

na0E tease fees = $6.000

' fee).

j 1500 site use permits

! 9 $150 = $225.000 Site use Permits i

130 Permits Pemit fee. Includes.:.. .._ _______ _.9 $50 or $500 depending on maste and  ;

) _

and amount = $50,000 ~ ' ~ ~

~

i j IS0E to wrate Northwest Camact j $169.800/yr Campact Fee # 42t ft* = $504.000

)

h..

-- - - - -- - Educational F4mance- .-. .. . .. . _ ._ , __ . , 4 n

Legislative Activities in Low- 0 $4.00 ft* = $4.800.000

} i Level Waste $25,000/yr -! '

Tax 2.4% of total disposal t'o D5MS Pemit Administrative-Costs - -fee paid- to- BarnmeH-County. - - - - - - -

p j $30.000/yr (1.200.000 ft* # $24.94) = $718.272) 8 1

- Susiness sad Occupational Tax to -

! General Fund 9 301 = $7.500.000 ./

-~~ -

QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY OUESTION 13. (A) HOW MANY STATES HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY CAN MEET THE MILESTONES IN S. 1578? WHAT STATES CANNOT? WHY NOT?

ANSWER.

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MIDWEST, CENTRAL AND CENTRAL-MIDWEST COMPACTS INDICATED IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON OCTOBER 8, 1985, THAT THEY COULD MEET THE MILESTONES IN S. 1578. IN ADDITION, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATES OF TEXAS AND MAINE LIKEWISE INDICATED THAT THE MILESTONES COULD BE MET. OTHER COMPACTS AND STATES DID NOT TECTIFY AT THAT HEARING AND NRC STAFF HAS NO DIRECT INFORMATION FROM THEM CONCERNING MEETING THE MILESTONES. HOWEVER, NRC STAFF OBSERVES THE FOLLOWING.

FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO COMPACTS, THE NORTHEAST COMPACT WAS ENACTED BY FOUR STATES AND HAS BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ALSO, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS PETITIONED TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THAT COMPACT. THE MILESTONE CONCERNED WITH SELECTION OF A HOST STATE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT IS DETERMINED BY THE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHICH HAS YET TO BE COMPLETED. MARYLAND AND DELAWARE ARE STILL ELIGIBLE TO JOIN THE APPALACHIAN COMPACT AND MAY IN THE FUTURE JOIN IT WHILE RELINQUISHING MEMBERSHIP IN THE NORTHEAST COMPACT. THE APPALACHIAN COMPACT HAS PASSED ONE HOUSE

! QUESTION 13. (CONTIMUED) 2 i i

! 0F THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE AND IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE i

OTHER. UNDER THAT COMPACT, PENNSYLVANIA WOULD HOST A DISPOSAL 4

j FACILITY. WEST VIRGINIA HAS ENACTED THIS COMPACT. THE DAKOTA

{ COMPACT WAS ENACTED BY NORTH DAKOTA. HOWEVER, SOUTH DAKOTA l MEMBERSHIP IS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HEl.D j NOVEMBER 12, 1985. IF SOUTH DAKOTA FAILS TO JOIN, NORTH DAKOTA i WILL SEEK MEMBERSHIP IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN COMPACT. THE WESTERN COMPACT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE LEGISLATURE OF CALIFORNIA WHICH, UNDER THAT COMPACT, WOULD HOST A DISPOSAL FACILITY. HOWEVER, THE

, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE RECESSED UNTIL JANUARY 1986 WITHOUT PASSING

A COMPACT BILL. ARIZONA HAS ENACTED THE WESTERN COMPACT. MEETING I

THE MILESTONES IN S. 1578 DEPENDS UPON HOW QUICKLY THESE COMPACTS t

ARE ENACTED AND SITES ARE DEVELOPED.

j i WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER STATES (NEW YORK, MASSACHUSETTS, l

j VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND RHODE ISLAND) COMPACT MEMBERSHIP IS NOT RESOLVED OR IS NOT BEING PURSUED. WE UNDERSTAND THAT NEW YORK t

l IS NOW WORKING ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT OF 1

l A DISPOSAL FACILITY. THE SITUATION IN MASSACHUSETTS APPEARS l UNCERTAIN. ANY SITING IN MASSACHUSETTS, AS WELL AS THE ENACTMENT OF A COMPACT, IS SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY  ;

, 1

SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION REGARDING PUERTO RICO, THE VIRGIN ISLAND, I' .

AND THE TRUST TERRITORIES. A TABLE AND MAP INDICATING THE COMPACT  !

! STATUS AS OF OCTOBER 1985 ARE ENCLOSED. '

l i

4 I

i

- . . . _ . - . - - - - _ . - . - _ _ . _ - _ - - . - _ - - . - . - . ~ . - - - - - . . - . - _ - - -

^;T;;^,T ATZ m- .;-; -^.^ i ^J.;;;'.;T ;^?; W ^ ,7; ZG^.-- ^ '^,

LEGISLATIVE STATUS AS OF OCTOBER 11, 1985 ,

Northwest Central Midwest Southeast Northeast Appalachian (S.356 (S. 655 (S. 899 (S. 44 (ll.R. 3372)

H.R. 862) H.R. 1046) II.R. 2635) H.R. 1267)

Alaska - e Arkansas - e Indiana - e Alabama - e Connecticut - e Pennsylvania -i (1)

Hawaii - e Kansas - e Iowa - e Florida - e Delaware - e West Virginia - e Idaho - e L.ouisiana - e Michigan - e Georgia - e Maryland - e Montana - e Nebraska - e Minnesota - e Mississippi - e New Jersey - e Oregon - e Oklahoma - e Missouri - e North Carolina - e Washington, DC - p Utah - e Ohio - e South Carolina - e Washington - e Wisconsin - e Tennessee - e Virginia - e Western Rocky Mountain Central - Midwest Oakota Unaffiliated States (S. 442 (S. 802 H.R. 2702) H.R. 2062)

Arizona - e Colorado - e Illinois - e North Dakota - e Maine California Nevada - e Kentucky - x South Dakota - e (3) Massachusetts

• New Mexico - e New Hampshire North Dakota - e (4) New York (2)

Wyosiing - e Rhode Island Texas (2)

Puerto Rico g Venmont Notes: Virgin Islands c - Enacted i - Introduced (1) Other eligible States are p - Has petitioned to join M) and DE.

x - Signed by Executive Order (2) Texas and New York are each actively planning sites of their own.

(3) Also requires voter approval in November 1985.

(4) Voted in as eligible,by the Board.

Legislature enacted Rocky Mountain should Dakota Compact fail.

P rena red by Office of State Procrams, NRC

. . - . __ -__. ____-~_-_-_- _ ., _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _.- . - _ . . _ . _ . . . .

LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT STATUS OCTOBER 1985 NORTHWEST MIDWEST OTHER

• Introduced in 99th

• introduced in 99th

• M A. NY. ME may go AK ongress I . Congress (SM.H.R.m alone a staet new region H. R .SE21

• No host State selected

• MA siting would require voter approva4 DAKOTA

• Others undecided

• Enacted by SD NORTHEAST and ND j VT NH

• Enacted by NJ,

• SD compact and \ CT, DE, MD

% WA siting sequires MN

• Introduced in 99th HI O ei MT woter opproval wg p Congress (H.R.33721 O I NY i

[ ID ND IA -

-- g i IN OH PA CT 1% SD l NJ N 2 J. MO --

. - DE I l UT W up 2 E APPALACHIAN CENTRAL MIDWEST

• PA would host site CA wy

• N. host State *WV MD and DE are l

• Introduced eligible 99th Congeess

• Enocted by WV AZ [ f NE It IS.802;H.R.20$21 WESTERN NV N

CO i

• CA would host site '

l MS i

• Enacted by AZ.

not yet by CA

~

_' VA

, g NC ROCKY MOUNTAIN f SC

• lntroduced in 99th F LA AL. GA SOUTHEAST Congress (S.442;H.R 2702) [i"b q

• CO nest host State TX 1

• tnerhed in SDth Congress IS.44,H.R.1257)

FL

• No host State selected TEXAS CENTRAL to replace SC in 1952

• Proceeding alone e introduced in 99th o iawo s. Congross (S.Gi6:H.R.1045)

• No host State setected

I QUESTION 13. (CONTINUED) 3

! QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY i

i l QUESTION 13: (B) WHAT WILL HAPPEN'IN THESE STATES IF ,

! MILESTONES ARE NOT MET? BE AS SPECIFIC AS i POSSIBLE.

i l- ANSWER, 1

j i THE TERMS OF ACCESS TO EXISTING SITES WITH EXISTING FACILITIES i

I MIGHT RESULT IN WASTE GENERATORS IN UNSITED REGIONS HAVING TO STORE WASTE, ENGAGE IN VOLUME REDUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/0R CEASE WASTE GENERATION. GENERATOR RESTRICTIONS COULD PLACE A REGULATORY f BURDEN ON THE NRC AND AGREEMENT STATES IN RESPONDING TO INDIVIDUAL j i LICENSEE NEEDS FOR LICENSE AMENDMENTS, f i

)

I 1 i f

i I

f f

i I

f I

! l 1  !

l i

QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY QUESTION 14. ENFORCEMENT OF MILESTONES UNDER S. 1578, WHEN A MILESTONE IS MISSED THE GENERATORS IN THAT STATE LOSE ACCESS TO THE EXISTING DISPOSAL SITES. YET, THE FAILURE TO MEET THE MILESTONE IS REALLY THE FAULT OF THE POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS IN THE STATE WHO, PRESUMABLY HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH FEDERAL LAW.

I (A) WHY SHOULDN'T THE PENALTY FOR MISSING A

, MILESTONE BE BORNE BY THE ONES WHO FAILED TO MEET IT, RATHER THAN BY THE GENERATORS WHO ARE

NOT IN CONTROL OF THE SITING PROCESS?

ANSWER.

i (A) RECOGNIZING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FROM-A. LOSS OF DISPOSAL SITE ACCESS BY WASTE GENERATORS, THE NRC HAS RECOMMENDED THAT ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES BE CONSIDERED. THE COMMIS$10N SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT' EMBODIED IN H.R. 1083 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. UNDER THAT BILL, A STATE MISSING THE 1990 MILESTONE WOULD CERTIFY THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGEMENT OF LOW-LEVEL

QUESTION 14. (CONTINUED) 2 -

WASTES GENERATED WITHIN ITS BORDERS AFTER 1992. NRC HAS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT THE STATE'S CERTIFICATION BE BACKED BY BINDING I CONTRACTS OR OTHER LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE MECHANISMS BETWEEN THE i

CERTIFYING STATE AND WASTE GENERATORS OR OWNERS, AND THAT SUCH l

j STATES PREPARE PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE INTENT OF THE

! CERTIFICATIONS. THE NRC BELIEVES THESE MEASURES WOULD j APPROPRIATELY PLACE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISSED MILESTONES WITH THE l

STATES.

i l

?

l j

i l ,

I I

0 I

i i

t i

QUESTION 14, (CONTINUED) 3 l

QUESTION 14: (B) PLEASE COMMENT ON THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH SITUATIONS WHERE MILESTONES ARE MISSED:

VEST TITLE TO WASTE GENERATED AFTER MISSING THE MILESTONE IN THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE THAT MISSED THE MILESTONE, REQUIRE THE STATE MISSING THE MILESTONE TO PAY SURCHARGES FOR CONTINUED ACCESS FOR ITS GENERATORS.

ALLOW THE GENERATORS TO SUE THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE THAT MISSES A MILESTONE FOR DAMAGES FROM LOST ACCESS.

WHAT OTHER OPTIONS WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE COMMITTEE CONSIDER TO ENFORCE THE MILESTONES?

ANSWER, (B) AS NOTED ABOVE, THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS A REQUIREMENT THAT STATES MISSING THE 1990 MILESTONE CERTIFY THAT THEY WILL MANAGE WASTES GENERATED IN THEIR STATE AFTER 1992. WE HAVE RECOMMENDED SEVERAL PROVISIONS TO BETTER ENSURE THAT STATE RESPONS!BILITIES UNDER THE CERTIFICATION WILL BE CARRIED OUT, AND WE WOULD SUPPORT FURTHER MEASURES TO HELP ACHIEVE THIS RESULT.

! QUESTION 14. (CONTINUED) 4 CONSISTENT WITH OUR POSITION THAT STATES MANAGE THEIR WASTE AFTER 1992 REGARDLESS OF PROGRESS TO ESTABLISH NEW DISPOSAL CAPACITY, WE WOULD SUPPORT LANGUAGE TO VEST TITLE TO THE WASTE IN SUCH STATES i

NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF 1992. WE FURTHER BELIEVE STATES SHOULD BE PREPARED TO TAKE CUSTODY OF THE WASTE BY THAT DATE, AND SHOULD i DEVELOP REALISTIC IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO BE IN THE POSITION TO DO I

S0. WHILE STATE CUSTODY OF THE WASTE PRIOR TO 1993 IS NOT

! CONSIDERED NECESSARY, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO TRANSFER TITLE AT j AN EARLIER DATE.

)

WE BELIEVE THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES, THE STATES, PAY THE COSTS (SURCHARGES) ASSOCIATED WITH MISSING MILESTONES. IN ITS COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED H.R. 1083 AS REr0RTED BY THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, THE COMMISSION

! RECOMMENDED THAT STATE CERTIFICATIONS BE BACKED BY LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE INSTRUMENTS. WE BELIEVE ANY SUCH REMEDIES SHOULD BE I

l TIED TO THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS RATHER THAN DIRECTLY TO THE MILESTONES. WE ALSO BELIEVE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IDENTIFYING THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE RECOVERED SHOULD BE i

CONSIDERED.

i 4

I i

i i

I .

i 6

l y,w--v-- --~e,w-,- m-r -.- +- , , - - - - . - - - - , - - - - - - - * - - - - - - .r-+-

.,.w-.,v-,.r-e ,-,rr-w -- rr--i w e r r,w vyw- - - -av---r-3--,---y.w --w,--+, w-e v-m v m -- e9

l l

QUESTIONS FOR MINORITY QUESTION 15. GO IT ALONE STATES SHOULD THE LEGISLATION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE PROVISION FOR STATES THAT WANT TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL, BUT FOR NO ONE ELSE'S? WHY OR WHY NOT? WHAT SHOULD THE PROVISION SAY?

ANSWER.

THE COMMISSION HAS NOT TAKEN A POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. WHATEVER CHANGES CONGRESS MAKES WE HOPE THAT THE BASIC POLICY ENCOURAGING REGIONAL SOLUTIONS WOULD NOT BE UNDERMINED. REGIONAL SITES ARE PREFERABLE FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDPOINT TO A PROLIFERATION OF SMALLER, AND POSSIBLY ECONOMICALLY MARGINAL FACILITIES.

QUESTIONS FROM THE MINORITY OVESTION 16: LOW LEVEL WASTE DEFINITION PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH A SUITABLE LEGAL DEFINITION OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LOW-LEVEL WASTE POLICY ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE COMMITTEE.

ANSWER.

THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DEFINITION OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE FOR PURPOSES OF THE S. 1578 AMENDMENTS TO THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT.

SEC.2(13)

LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE.--THE TERM ' LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE' MEANS RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL, WHETHER OR NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED, THAT (A) IS NOT HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE, SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, TRANSURANIC WASTE, OR BYPRODUCT MATERIAL [AS DEFINED IN SECTION llE(2) 0F THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 [42 A.S.C.

2014(E)(2)) AS IN EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 1985); AND

QUESTION 16. (CONTINUED) 2 (B) THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, CONSISTENT WITH 1 l

EXISTING LAW, CLASSIFIES AS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE.

THE ADDED LANGUAGE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A STATUTORY BASIS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF DISPOSAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NATURALLY-0CCURRING AND ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (NARM) WASTES.

CURRENTLY, THESE WASTES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT.

I l

s

, INSERT FOR THE RECORD SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON LOW-LEVEL j RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

OCTOBER 8, 1985  !

Insert for page 75, line 5 4

At the hearing before the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and 1

. Environment and Public Works held on October 8,1985 concerning legislation on ,

low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal, a question was raised regarding the prices charged by the commercial LLW operators. Mr. Dircks indicated that he l would provide this information for the record. Rate schedules of US Ecology

for the commercial LLW disposal facilities located near Beatty, N.vada and i Hanford, Washington; and the rate schedule of Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. for the disposal site near Barnwell, South Carolina are enclosed for inclusion in the hearing record.

I Attachments:

As stated f

4,

)

1 i

i I

i ENCLOSURE 1 i

4

., , _ , , . . . . _ , _ , _ _ . . _ , - . . , _ - . - _ , _ _ . _ - _ . - . , . _ - - , _ _ . . . , . . - - . _ _ . . , , - - - , , - . . . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ , . . ~ . _ .

US Ecology, Inc.

9200 Shelb fvill) Road, Suit a 300.-

P O. Box 7206 Lou sville, Kentucky 40207 502 426-7160 US ECOLOGY NEVADA NUCLEAR CDITER SCHEDULE OF CHARGES RADIOACTIVE WASTE E:TECTIVE: January 16, 1984

1. DISPOSAL CHARGES A. SOLID MATERIAL Steel Drums, Wood Boxes:

PRICE PEP CU. FT.

R/HR AT CONTAINER SURFACE 0.00 - 0.20 $ 17.85 1.00 19.37 0.201 -

21.79 1.01 - 2.00 5.00 26.58 2.01 -

5.01 - 10.00 31.42 20.00 40.71 10.01 -

40.00 50.51 20.01 -

60.00 77.37 40.01 -

80.00 92.91 60.01 -

100.00 102.48 80.01 -

Over 100.00 By Request Disposal Liners Removed from Shields (Greater than 12.0 cu.ft, each)

SURCHARGE PER LINER PRICE PER CU. FT.

R/HR AT CONTAINER SURFACE 0.00 - 0.20 No Charge $ 17.85 0.201 - 1.00 $ 243.00 17.85 1.01 - 2.00 598.00 17.85 5.00 842.00 17.85 2.01 -

5.01 - 10.00 1,217.00 17.85 20.00 1,553.00 17.85 10.01 -

20.01 - 40.00 1,930.00 17.85 40.01 - 60.00 2,288.00 17.85 60.01 - 80.00 2,641.00 17.85 80.01 - 100.00 2,999.00 17.85 By Request By Request Over 100.00 B. Liquid Scintillation Vials $23.55/cu.ft.

C. Biological Wasta, Animal Carcasses $19.40/cu.ft.

l l

OCT 22 '85 14:44 ' US ECOLOGY _

PAGE.01 US Ecolo0f. IRC.

9800 Shestyvkw Road. Suite 526 P O. Dos 7244 Low 4 vine. Ken ucky 402CT 502 4.% 7160 US BCOLOGY MASHING W NUCLEAR CENTER SCHEDULE OE' CHANGES RADIOACTIVE WASTE EFFECTIVE: 1 - unt 1. 1998i

1. DISPOSAL CHARCES A. SOLID MATERIAL Steel Drums, wood Soxes:

R/HR AT CONTAINER SURFACE PRICE PER CU. FT.

0.00 - 0.20 $22.14 0.201 - 1.00 23.79 1.01 -

2.00 26.36 2.01 -

5.00 27.56 5.01 - 10.00 32.07 10.01 - 20.00 40,og 20.01 -

40.00 go,og

, 40.01 -

60.00 71.32 60.01 - 80.00 85.11 80.01 - 100.00 93.66 Disposal Liners Removed free Shields (Greater than 12.0 cu. ft, each) ,

R/MR AT CONTAINER SURFACE EURCHARGE PER LINER PRICE PER CU. FT.

0.00 -

0.20 No Charge 822.14 0.201 - 1.00 $ 229.74 22.14 1.01 - 2.00 564.30 22.14 2.01 - 5.00 791.82 22.14 5.01 - 10.00 1,145.35 22.14 10.01 -

20.00 1,462.08 22.14 20.01 - 40.00 1,815.62 22.14 40.01 -

60.00 P,153.54 22.14 60.01 - 80.00 2,484.76 22.14 80.01 - 100.00 2,822.68 22.14 B. LIQUID WASTES

1. In vials, less than 50 al. each 528.30/cu.ft.

2. Liquida cor.taining organics, absorbed 30.30/cu.ft.

3. Aqueous liquids, absorbed 22.14/cu.ft.

C. BIOT 4GICAL MASTE, AND4M. CA3CASSES 23.79/cu.ft.

(Cont.inued)

~ - - - - - - . . - . - - ---, --,--,-,w-,--v - , , , - - - - - ~ , - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OCT 22 '85 14:45 US ECOLOGY PAGE.03 e WAQ/TfMe f VA.!  %/k/&

INCLUDED IN ITEM 1 ARE THE FOLLotfINC MESHINC1m STATE FEES:

A. PERPRIUAL CARE AND MAINTENANCE $1.75 PER CO. FT.

B. SITE CIDStHtE FUND 0.25 PER CU. FT.

C. RADIOACTIVE MASTE SURVEILLANCE SURCHARGE 0.65 PER CU. FT.

2. SURCHARGE FOR HEAVY OBJECTS:

. Less than 10,000 pounds No Charge 10,000 pounds to Capacity of Site Equipment $172.70 plus 94 per Ib. above 10,000 lbs.

3. SUBCHARGE FOR CURIES (Per Load):

Jhan 100 curies No Charge curics $1,257.30 plus 174/Ci above 100 CJ 301'- License Limits By Request

4. SURCHARGE FOR SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL (SNM) $2.27 per gram of Special Nuclear Material by Isotope weight

5. MINIMUM CHARGE PER SHIPMENT $387.00 ,

6. CASK HANDLIMG FEE: $638.00 minimum each {'2

7. WASTE CONTAINING CHELATING AGENTS IN PACKAGES A! CUNT GREATER THAN 1% OF PACKAGE' VOLUME: By Request ,

8. SURCHARGE FOR NON-ROUTINE MAN-RDt EXPOSURE (DUE TO DESIGN OR PIPISICAL DEFECT OF CONTAINER OR SHIELD) $23.71 per man millirem

9. DICONTAMINATION SERVICES (If required) $86.15 per man hour plus ,-

supplies at cost plus 21%

10. CONTAINER VOLUMES:

55 Gallon Drums - 7.50 cu.ft.

30 Callon Dr.rns - 4.01 cu.f t. 1 5 Gallon Drums - 0.67 cu.ft. l

11. All waste material shall be properly classified, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and certified in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, rules and regulations and shall be in compliance with all license

. requirements and amendments thereto applicable at the Richland. Washington disposal facility. l

12. This schedule of Charges does not constitute an offer of contract which is capable of being accepted by any party and is subject to change solely upon notice by US Ecology.

Effective August 1, 1985 Washington Nuclear Center

• N* - - e. m _ _.

=

. I o

BARNWELL LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACIL ITY EATE SCHEDULE of All ra dwas te material shall be packaged in accordance with Department Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations in Title 49 and Title 10 of the Ccde of Federal Regulations, CNSI's Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Site Disposal South Carolina Radioactive Material Licenses, CNS!'s Barnwell Criteria, and amendments thereto.

1. BASE DISPOSAL CHARGES: (Not including Surcharges and Barnwell County Business License Tax)

Standard Waste

$ 25.ll2/f t.3 A. $ 26;112/f t.3 B. Biological Waste C. Special Nuclear Material (SNM) $251112/ft.3 plus $1.75 per Gram SNM Note: Minimum charge per shipment, excluding Surcharges and specific Other Charges is $500.00

?. SURCHARGES: -

A. Weight Surcharges (Crane Loads Only)

Weignt of Container Surcharge Per Container 1,000 lbs. No Surcharge 0-1 ,001 - 5,000 lbs. $ 275.00 5,001 - 10,000 lbs. $ 550.00 10,001 - 20,000 lbs. $ 825.00 20,001 - 30,000 lbs.

' $1,100.00 30,001 40,000 lbs. $1,650.00 40,001 - 50,000 lbs. $2,200.00 By Special Request greater than 50,000 lbs.

3. Curie Surcharges:

Curie Content Per Shipment Sdrchargo Per Shipment Ho Surcharge 0 - 1

$ 1,500.00 1.1 - 5 5.1 15 1 2 250.00 25 $ 3,000.00 15.1 -

$ 4,500.00 25.1 - 50 75 $ 5,500.00 50.1 -

$ 7,450.00 75.1 - 100 150 $ 8,900.00 100.1 -

$12,000.00 150.1 - 750 500 $15,000.00 250.1 -

$18,000.00 500.1 1.000 1,000.1 - 5 000 $24 000.00

- Greater than 5,,000 By SpecIal Request Effective July 15, 1985

) Os 173MH5W8 BU373nH-W3H3 AwD I:801 G3Z

Barnwell Rate Schedule Page Two C. Special Handling Surcharge may apply nn unusually large or bulky containers. These type containers are acceptable upon approval of prior request.

3. OTHER CHARGES A. Cask Handlihg Fee $600.00 per cask, minimum R. _ Taxes and Special Funds

1. perpetuity Escrow Fund 1 2.80 per ft.3

2. South Carolina low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Tax $ 4.00 per ft.3

3. Southeast Regional Compact Fee 46.2d per ft.3

4. Barnwell County Business License Tax: -

A 2.4% Barnwell County Business License Tax shall be added to the Total of all disposal fees.

NOTE: Iter.:s 3.8. 1, 2, and 3 are included in Item 1, Base Disposal Charges, 4 HISCELLANEOUS:

A. Transport vehicles which are provided with additional shielding features may be subject to a minimwn handling fee of $150.00 per use. Such a fee covers additional handling and labor required for special equipment set up and temporary shield removal.

B. Decontamination services (if required): 575.00 per man-hour plus supplies at current CNSI rate.

C. Customers may be charged for all special services as described in the Barnwell Site Disposal Criteria.

D. Tems of payment are NET 30 DAYS upon presentation of invoices.

A service charge per month of 1-1/2% shall be levied on accounts not paid within thirty (30) days.

Effective July 15, 1985 (25159) 35 113nHMWG dW373AH-W3H3 kWO ZC8CI OZCra 01

l INSERT LINE 25 PAGE 78 r

~

l 10/18/85 Insert for the Record NRC has reviewed the testimony provided by the Department of Energy (D0E) and the Environmental Protection Agency and would like to submit the following coments for the record.

Coments on Testimony of James W. Vaughan, Jr., Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

The Comission agrees with Mr. Vaughan's statement that S.1517 as modified by Amendment 583, S.1578, and H.R.1083 as reported by the House Comitte's e i Interior and Insular Affairs provide a useful framework for proceeding eith Congressional consent to compacts and development of new low-level waste disposal capacity. The Comission also agrees with DOE that the proposed amendments to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act can be further clarified and strengthened, and has provided detailed recomendations in this regard.

With respect to States responsibilities during the transition period, the Comission agrees with DOE that the legislation could be strengthened to ensure continued progress by States toward development of new disposal capacity by 1993. The Comission further concurs in DOE's concern about storage of waste on a prolonged interim basis should the States fail to establish new disposal capacity. From a public health and safety standpoint, the Comission continues to favor prompt disposal to the extent practicable. In detailed comments on H.R.1083, the NRC has recomended that State certifications to manage wastes after 1992 if the 1990 siting milestone is not met need to be backed by enforceable instruments and implementation plans. This would help ensure that States would meet comitments to the waste generators within its borders, as stated in the certification. NRC has also recommended that identification of potential siting areas by 1988 will be'necessary in order to meet the 1990 milestone.

The Commission also supports DOE's recomendation that Section 4(b)(2) of both S.1517 as modified, and S.1578 be revised so that the word " produced" is changed to " owned" by the Federal government. We submitted an identical recommendation in our detailed comments on H.R.1083.

Mr. Vaughan offered several other suggestions for Congressional consideration for which we would have no objections. In particular, the Comission would not object to:

o Strengthening the language of Section 5(a)(2) to assure the availability of disposal capacity during the transition period for non-utility low-level waste generators.

O Authorizing the President or his designee to grant emergency access to an operating disposal facility for Department of Defense waste for national security reasons.

ENCLOSURE 1 1 DOE / EPA LLRWPAA

l 10/18/85 o Limiting DOE's role to providing technical, rather than financial assistance to States and Compacts.

o Directing preparation of annual reports by DOE on nationwide low-level waste disposal facility siting and licensing activities during the tran-sition period.

The Commission would like to indicate its concern over Mr. Vaughan's statements regarding the " orphan waste" report provided for in S.1517 as modified, S.1578, and H.R.1083. DOE indicated the likelihood that implementation of the recomendations embodied in this DOE report would require additional Congressional action to assign responsibility for disposal of orphan waste.

The Comission centinues to believe that Congress should resolve the question of disposal responsibility for " orphan wastes" in the pending legislation and that such responsibility would most appropriately be assigned to DOE. We do believe a report providing detailed recomendations on the implementation of such responsibilities is needed. We also believe that the Secretary of the Department should have considerable flexibility in devising plans to meet these new responsibilities. Clearly, there are a range of technical and management approaches to evaluate, some of which may not be deemed feasible following detailed scrutiny. However, a fair amount of technical information already exists on the sources, types, and quantities of " orphan waste" and the technologies available to manage and dispose of such wastes safely. We do not believe the outcome of the study now described in the proposed legislation would present any significant new technical information suggesting that assign-ment of responsibility to the Federal government would be ill-considered. The key unanswered question is the matter of institutional responsibility for ultimate disposal. Rather than leaving this important issue to uncertair, future action, we believe the Congress should act now.

Coments on Testimony of Sheldon Meyers, Acting Director, Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Comission supports EPA's effort to promulgate federal standards for dis-posal of low-level radioactive waste, and will continue to provide input to EPA during the standards development process. We also agree that wastes which would be below regulatory concern from a radiological standpoint, alternative disposal methods, and naturally-occurring and accelerator produced radioactive material (NARM) wastes can usefully be addressed in this process.

However, we believe any further delays in promulgating the standard could well impede timely development of a stable, national system for low-level waste disposal. For this reason, we would urge the EPA to undertake all reasonable efforts to complete the final standard by early 1987, the target date alluded to in Mr. Meyers' testimony. We would also like to emphasize our continuing commitment to work cooperatively with the EPA to help realize this goal.

ENCLOSURE 1 2 DOE / EPA LLRWPAA

10/18/85 DRAFT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED NRC AMENDMENTS TO THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 I. HOME FOR ALL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES Since H.R. 1083 was originally introduced by Congressman Udall on February 7, 1985, the Commission has expressed its concern on the importance of having a state or federal disposal "home" for all radioactive wastes. Five basic issues need to be addressed: (1) specific statutory language assigning federal responsibilities for disposal of commercial low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) not the responsibility of the states; (2) statutory authority over disposal of radioactive wastes not subject to the Atomic Energy Act; (3) whether or not NRC should license the disposal of those commercial radioactive wastes that become the responsibility of the D0E; (4) 00E collection of fees for disposal of commercially generated waste and the date by which the DOE shall provide disposal of commercial LLW that is not the responsibility of the states; and (5) states and compacts should not be precluded from accepting above class C waste in the event they elect to do so and the necessary regulatory approvals can be obtained. These five issues are discussed below.

1. STATUTORY LANGUAGE CONCERNING FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Specific Commission language to address these concerns was sent to the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in the letter from Chairman Palladino to Chairman Udall of June 4,1985. As originally introduced, H.R. 1083 would assign the federal government responsibility for wastes exceeding Class C limits. It provided that the federal government shall be responsible for " ensuring the safe disposal of ... (D) all other radioactive waste material that is not a responsibility of the States under subsection (a)... [other than mill tailings.]"

The Commission supported this language in Mr. Udall's original version of H.R. 1083. The Commission noted an apparent inconsistency, however, between this language and the paragraph that followed it in the bill (see page 4 of analysis accompanying the Chairman's June 4,1985 letter to Mr. Udall (Enclosure 1)):

" Subparagraph 3(b)(2)(A) provides that the Secretary of Energy shall ensure the safe disposal of any radioactive waste described in the immediately preceding Section 3(b)(1) for which --

ENCLOSURE 2 1 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA

10/18/85 1

'(i) disposal is not provided under other Federal law in effect on the date of the enactment of the Low-level Radioactive Policy Amendments Act of 1985; and (ii) the Secretary determines that no viable non-federal disposal capability exists.' LEmphasis addedj "This last provision may be inconsistent with the preceding paragraph

[ making the federal government responsible for disposal of wastes not a state responsibility.] It would permit the Secretary to take responsibility, not for.all wastes that are not a state responsibility, but only those for which he determines that no " viable" non-federal disposal capability exists. ... The Secretary could find that a non-federal disposal capability is technically " viable" even without any state commitment to accept the waste for disposal."

Accordingly, the Commission recommended that the Committee delete the provision requiring 00E to make the "no viable non-federal capability" finding before accepting disposal responsibility for wastes not provided for under existing federal law. (See page 2 of Enclosure 2 of June 4,1985 letter). The Commission continues to support the language in the original version of H.R.

1083 with this recommended revision.

The Commission also indicated in the June 4,1985 letter to Chairman Udall that the bill " clearly identify the federal agency responsible for disposal"; and, accordingly we have substituted " Secretary" (of the Department of Energy) for

" Federal Government" to specify which federal agency would be responsible for disposal of commercial above-Class-C waste.

2. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES NOT SUBJECT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT In the letter to Chairman Udall, the Commission indicated that neither Section 3(a) on State disposal responsibilities nor 3(b) on federal responsibilities addressed the disposal of wastes currently outside the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Act. These wastes include naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) that may be and have been disposed of at state-licensed facilities. Without clear statutory direction identifying the responsibility for disposing of these wastes, neither NRC, the States, nor waste generators will be able to assure that all NARM wastes will eventually be accepted for disposal. The Commission included as an enclosure to Chairman Udall proposed conforming language for NARM disposal authority for H.R. 1083. (See Enclosure 2. of June 4,1985 letter.)

l ENCLOSURE 2 2 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA i

10/18/85

3. NRC-LICENSING AUTHORITY OVER 00E DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES If Congress were to assign responsibility to the Federal government for disposal of all radioactive wastes greater than Class "C," it would probably raise the question of whether NRC should license the disposal of these wastes.

Several years ago, Section 12 of P. L.95-601 directed the Commission to conduct a study of extending the Commission's licensing or regulatory authority to include categories of existing and future Federal radioactive waste storage and disposal activities not presently subject to NRC authority. In its response to Congress on September 7,1979, the Commission unanimously recommended that it be given authority to regulate all new DOE facilities for disposal of non-defense low-level radioactive waste (See Enclosure 2).

Consistent with this recommendation, the Commission continues to believe that commercial LLW waste which is the responsibility of the DOE should be licensed.

The proposed statutory language for Sec. 3(b) is presented below:

"(4) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall have licensing and related regulatory authority pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and in effect on January 1,1985, over the Department of Energy for the disposal of radioactive wastes in Subparagraph 3(b)(1)(D) of this Act."

4. WASTE FUND FOR AB0VE " CLASS C" WASTE The Commission in the June 4,1985 letter to Chairman Udall recommended that milestones and financial assurances be provided to assure that responsible state and federal entities would begin accepting wastes by a specified deadline. The Commission believes that the 1992 deadline established in H.R.

1083 for new disposal capacity for states should also apply to the D0E.

Accordingly, a provision should be included for funding of DOE activities for disposal of connercial radioactive waste, as well as the acceptance date by which DOE would assume title.

The proposed new statutory language for Sec. 3(b) is presented below:

"(3) Waste Fund for Subparagraph 3(b)(1)(D) Radioactive Wastes.

(A) In the performance of h;s functions under Subparagraphs 3(b)(1)(D) and 3(b)(2), the Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with any person who generates or i ANALYSIS LLRWPAA ENCLOSURE 2 3 f

l __,

10/18/85

, l holds title to radioactive waste in Subparagraph 3(b)(1)(D).

Such contracts shall provide for payment to the Secretary of fees sufficient to offset expenditures for the safe disposal of such wastes.

i (B) Not later than two years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish procedures for collection and payment of the fees required to ensure adequate funds for the disposal of these radioactive wastes.

(C) In return for payment of fees established by this subparagraph, the Secretary, beginning not later than January 31, 1992, will take title to and accept these radioactive wastes."

5. FLEXIBILITY FOR STATES OR COMPACTS TO DISPOSE OF "AB0VE CLASS C" WASTE The Commission believes the states and compacts should not be precluded from i

accepting above class C waste in the event they elect to do so and the necessary regulatory approvals can be obtained. This provision would not reduce the need, in the Commnsion's view, to assign responsibility for disposal to the federal government. While the state and compacts may in the future elect to accept the wastes at a particular facility in order to enhance disposal economics, at present states and compacts are unwilling to accept disposal responsibility for such wastes.

The proposed statutory language for Sec. 3(a) is presented below:

(4) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a State or compact from accepting for disposal radioactive wastes described in

. Subparagraph 3(b)(1)(D)."

II. DELEGATION OF RCRA PERMIT AUTHORITY FOR MIXED WASTES Section 15(c) directs the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection l Agency (EPA) to enter into an agreement with the NRC to delegate authority to i NRC to issue permits for management of mixed wastes. To avoid continuing

regulatory uncertainties, three clarifications of Congressional intent are 1 needed concerning the role of the States in regulating mixed-wastes.

l First, the bill does not clearly specify that the delegation of authority for mixed wastes from EPA to NRC would supersede any prior delegations of authority by EPA to States to issue permits as they would apply to NRC-licensed disposal facilities. Without such clarification, Section 15 i

ENCLOSURE 2 4 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA

10/18/85 may be construed to provide that NRC is to be delegated authority in addition to such States, and NRC-licensed facilities within these states would be subject to dual NRC-state agency regulation under RCRA.

Second, the bill is silent on the intent of Congress regarding redelegation of RCRA authority for mixed-waste regulation from NRC to Agreement State agencies through the EPA-NRC agreement under Section 15. It would be appropriate to clarify that Agreement State agencies authorized Eto regulate low-level waste disposal facilities under Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act would also be authorized to issue RCRA permits for mixed waste disposal at Agreement i State-licensed disposal facilities pursuant to the EPA-NRC agreement under Section 15. It should also be understood that this authority would be carried out under NRC oversight pursuant to its agreement with EPA.

Lastly, no provision is made for mixed waste which the NRC, under Section 12 of the bill, identifies as below regulatory concern based solely on its low radiological hazard. Clarification should be made on this point to avoid the creation of an " orphan" hazardous waste category.

NRC Recommendations: We believe that the first and third of the above clarifications can be made through appropriate Committee Report language. The second, involving EPA delegation of RCRA authority to Agreement State agencies through NRC, may require an amendment to Section 15 of the House Interior Committee bill. Such language amending the end of Section 15(c) of H. R. 1083 is as follows:

"Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may redelegate, as appropriate, the authority to issue permits to the Agreement States."

III. REGULATORY CONCERNS WITH COMPACTS NOT ADDRESSED BY H.R. 1083 Presented below are three regulatory concerns with compacts which have not been addressed in H.R. 1083:

1. PRESERVATION OF AGREEMENT STATE ROLE Section 4(b)(4) of H.R.1083 provides language preserving federal regulatory authority. The bill is silent on preservation of authority of NRC Agreement States under Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act.

NRC Recommendation: We believe that a new subsection should be added to Section 4 which would ensure the preservation of Agreement State regulatory authority. Such language is as follows:

ENCLOSURE 2 5 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA

i 10/18/85 "Section 4(d) Agreement State authority.--Nothing in this Act shall diminish the regulatory authority of the Agreement States."

Note that the subsection (d) Congressional Review will have to be relabeled (e). Also, the definition of Agreement State as stated in Section 2(2)(A) should be sharpened. The reference to "section 274" should read "section 274b."

2. FEDERAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES i

Sectinn 4(b)(2) clarifies that disposal facilities operated exclusively for Federal Government low-level wastes are not subject to compact actions. In discussing the waste affected by this section, waste " produced" by the Federal Government is referenced. In certain special instances, federal facilities have accepted unique waste streams for disposal from NRC or Agreement State licensees. We believe this section may unintentionally restrict such disposal practices, which may be required to protect public health and safety.

! NRC Recommendation: The NRC recommends that the word " produced" be replaced by the word " owned" to provide necessary flexibility to protect public health and safety.

3. MANAGEMENT VERSUS DISPOSAL j Regional programs provided for in various compacts go beyond " disposal" into most aspects of low-level radioactive waste management (e.g., storage, treatment and transportation). Included are import and export restrictions that go beyond " disposal" to encompass, for example, storage and treatment.

The Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Public Law 96-573) does not confer additional authority to the States with respect to generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or any other activity in the waste management system that does not constitute " disposal". Section 4 of H. R.1083, which discusse's the purpose for the formation of regional compacts, has language similar to Public Law 96-573, and therefore does not alter the intent of Congress, which is to form compacts for " disposal" only. Both Public Law 96-573 and H. R.1083 acknowledge that ti,e responsibilities of the States for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste can be most safely and efficiently managed on a regional basis. However, both are silent on the extent to which the States have interpreted their mandate to provide for " disposal."

NRC has discussed the issue of " management" versus " disposal" in previous i Congressional testimony and in comments to the States on their compacts. The ENCLOSURE 2 6 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA 1

-v -

,,--.-m -r- ,- m - -. - -rv-,,, - - --- - - ,-- c-. ,,---,v. - - . - ,r---

4 10/18/85 States believe that they must have provisions in their compacts to limit the number of facilities of all kinds, determine their size, and assure their economic viability. Consequently, the States believe that they must manage for economic, institutional, and equity purposes the entire waste system to be fully responsive to Public Law 96-573, rather than only provide disposal

capacity.

While the NRC recognizes a need on the part of the States to be able to exercise some control over the waste from generation to disposal in order to ensure the success of the States' disposal undertaking, the exercise of wide ranging management authority by the States poses the potential for serious conflict with NRC policies regarding short and long term storage and handling of waste by generators, among others. These management provisions could also place undue burden on interstate commerce.

NRC Recommendation: The NRC believes that the Congress should address this issue in a manner that recognizes the needs of the States to ensure the success of the States' performance of their legal obligation to provide disposal capacity, but, at the same time, reaffirms that Federal health and safety policies, however expressed, relating to the generation, transportation, handling, treatment, storage and disposal of waste take precedence over the economic, institutional, or equitable state management concerns. Additional language could be inserted into section 4(b) of H.R. 1083 for this purpose.

Such language is as follcws:

"Section 4(b)(3) Effect of compacts on federal law.--Nothing contained in this Act or any compact may be construed to confer any new authority on any compact commission or State--

"(A) to regulate for health and safety, the generation, handling, treatment, storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste in a manner inconsistent with the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of Transportation, and the Agreement States;...

"Section 4(b)(4) Federal authority.--Nothing contained in this Act or any compact may be construed to limit-the-applieability-ef-any-Federal-law er-te diminish or otherwise impair the jurisdiction of any Federal agency, including the regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory

, Commission and the Department of Transportation.

l l

ENCLOSURE 2 7 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA i

10/18/85 Enclosures / References

1. Ltr to Chairman Udall fm Chairman Palladino, dtd June 4, 1985

2. Ltr to Speaker of the House fm Chainnan Hendrie, dtd September 7, 1979 l

ENCLOSURE 2 8 ANALYSIS LLRWPAA

1. ip -

UNITED STATES gbh

. ! i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsHawaTow. o. c. acess

{ ,I

\,*..*/ June 4, 1985 cwAmuAN The Honorable Morris K. Udall Chairman, Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you have requested, the Comission has evaluated H.R.1083, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. I am pleased to provide the Comittee with our written coments on the bill at this time.

We be-lieve the bill represents a strong beginning to resolving current uncertainties regarding full implementation of the Policy Act, but that certain refinements are needed to satisfy the four major features you identified in your floor statement introducing the bill. We hope our ^

comments are useful, and pledge our continuing support for your efforts.

Sincerely,

t. y- y /. )

t{ b /Y~~^

Nunzio . Palladino r

Enclosures:

1. NRC General Coments on H.R. 1083 l 2. NRC Coments on Specific Sections of H.R. 1083

3. Proposed Conforming Language i

for Incorporating Non-Atomic I

Energy Act Radioactive Waste Disposal into H.R. 1083 Distribution:

r JSurmeier Originated: NMSS:Surmeier jB""

Dav GWKerr RFonner GCunningham EDO 411 Dircks Roe Rehm Stello 1

-Zi674fI 'I1

. 8 f? \% ~

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g I WASHINGTON. D. C. 20065 CHAMMAN June 4, 1985 l

The Honorable Strom Thurmond Chaiman, Comittee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

In testimony before your comittee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compacts, Mr. G. Wayne Kerr of our staff indicated that the Comission was evaluating H.R.1083. This bill, introduced by Congressman Morris K. Udall, would amend the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. I am pleased to provide the Comittee with our written coments on the bill. We believe the bill represents a ' strong beginning to resolving current uncertainties regarding full implementation of the Policy Act, but that certain refinements are needed.

We hope these coments are useful, and pledge our continuing support for your comittee's efforts addressing these uncertainties. .

Sincerely,

~.a ,

                                                                          )    .
                                                                      /    ht Gul-Nunzio J. Palladino

Enclosures:

1. NRC General Coments on H.R. 1083

2. NRC Coments on Specific Sections of H.R. 1083

3. Proposed Conforming Language for Incorporating Non-Atomic Energy Act Radioactive Waste Disposal into H.R. 1083 a - 2 a a t il WYffI& I

                                                         ~

1 THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S

                                         .                    GENERAL COM ENTS ON H.R. 1083 THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (Policy Act) assigns states the responsibility to provide for disposal of comercial and certain Federal low-level waste (LLW), and envisioned that states would be able to dispose of LLW generated within their borders individually or through regional compacts by 1986. Compacts consented to by Congress may restrict use of regional disposal sites after January 1,1986, to disposal of LLW generated within the compact region. Due to lack of progress to date, no new LLW disposal facilities will 1    -          be available by 1986. There is a distinct possibility that access to the l              operating disposal sites may be curtailed or subject to stringent volume restrictions if Congress does not consent to compacts containing those i               operating disposal sites. Such restrictions would compel licensees to pursue alternative waste management practices. Curtailment of the services that generate" wastes may be unavoidable if individual licensees are unable to provide for adequate alternatives to disposal.

Congressman Morris Udall introduced the Low-Level Radicactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (H.R.1083) in February 1985 to address concerns relating to implementation of the Policy Act. In his floor statement of February 7, 1985, on H.R. 1083, Congressman Udall identified four important features of the legislative package:

                            "1. All interstate compacts submitted for Congressional ratification would be subject to the same Congressional agreements and legislative ratification language. Specific amendment or qualification of l                                 individual compacts are not contemplated in this approach, and would l                                 be discouraged."

l "2. No substantive changes would be made to the content of the compact ! statutes ratified by the states and submitted for Congressional l approval. The consent of Congress to the compacts would be based on , our stated understanding, pursuant to our analysis of the compacts. l that nothing in them confers new authority on the states or infringes l on Federal authority."

                            "3. The LLRWPA [ Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980] made i                                 states responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and

' this legislative package defines specifically that material for which states are responsible. Other definitions of low-level waste for ENCLOSURE 1 l

2 state or federal purposes may co-exist with this definition. Other radioactive wastes, with the exception of uranium mill tailings (responsibility for which is determined by the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act), would be the responsibility of the Federal government."

           "4     Before Congressional ratification of compacts became effective, one year from enactment of this package, states with operating disposal capacity would have to offer to enter into agreements, under their own existing compact authority, to accept out-of-region wastes for disposal, only in limited quantities and only until January 1, 1993.

No requirement to accept out-of-region waste would be imposed by Congress upon a ratified compact group." The four features identified by Congressman Udall are addressed below. Coments on specific sections of H.R.1083 are contained in Enclosure 2.

1. All' Interstate Compacts To Be Subject To Same Congressional Agreements and Legislative Consent Language The Comission strongly supports this principle, and believes H.R.1083 (and .

its companion bill for consent to individual compacts) would help implement it. To prevent inconsistency between the two bills, however, it may be useful to add a conforming change. Section 4 of the compact consent bill provides that any authority under a compact to restrict access to regional disposal facilities would not become effective until all affected compact regions have complied with the requirements of Section 5 of the Policy Act (as added by H.R. 1083). Section 5 of that bill requires compact regions with operating disposal facilities to offer to enter into agreements to allocate available disposal capacity through January 1, 1993. In conjunction with the compact consent language, H.R.1083 effectively provides strong incentives to states with operating facilities to offer agreements, and provides incentives for states without access to such facilities to accept it. However, it may be more helpful to establish a specific requirement for continued access, subject to volume limitations, to currently operating facilities until 1993. If the present host states would agree to this approach, this could assure that continued access would not depend on the outcome of negotiations among the states after Congress has j l consented to the compacts with operating facilities. l l ENCLOSURE 1 l l

( 3 Establishing January 1,1993, as the applicable effective date for all compacts to begin restricting the use of currently operating disposal facilities may be more likely to provide for an orderly and uniform implementation of access restrictions. Such a revision would establish that Congressional action, not a series of subsequent interstate agreements, determines when the restrictions are to become effective.

2. Nothing in Compacts to Confer New State Authority or Infringe on Federal Authority (Udall Feature.2) i H.R. 1083 contains provisions clarifying that the bill does not confer new authority on compact commissions or states in specified areas, and further clarifies that the bill may not be construed to diminish or otherwise impair federal agency jurisdiction. Broadly construed, the language contained in j Sections 4(b)(3) and (4) addresses concerns expressed by the Comission in the l past on these matters.

l

3. A Home for All Radioactive Wastes. (Udall Feature 3)

The Comission believes it is important for any legislation in this area to - assure that all wastes have a state or federal "home" for disposal; that is,

that governmental responsibilities for all categories of radioactive waste are

clearly assigned. For any given waste stream, there should be no question as to whether disposal is the responsibility of the states (individually or s through regional compacts) or the federal government. There should also be no l' question that both the federal government and states are to accept these wastes by a specified date.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) clearly specifies responsibilities ! among the several agencies within the Federal establishment for high-level l wastes. The Commission believes this same clarity of expression would be - desirable in H.R. 1083 for state and federal responsibilities. State Responsibilities. The delineation of state responsibilities in the bill does not cover all wastes currently disposable under 10 CFR Part 61. It appears to exclude certain materials that would be Class A wa l materialsinconcentrationsexceedingthelimitsforClassC.{tes,andall Section 3(a) of  ; j 1 i I under Section 61.7(b)(2) of Part 61 Class A includes "relatively l innocuous" wastes that do not need to meet stability requirements. Under ' Section 61.7(b)(5), waste in concentrations above Class C limits "is generally unacceptable for near-surface disposal" [i.e., at 30-meter depths or less], although exceptions are provided for on a case-specific basis if it is demonstrated that Part 61 performance objectives would be met. ENCLOSURE 1

4 the Udall bill keys state responsibilities to Tables 1 and 2 of Section 61.55  ! of our rules. Section 61.55(a)(4) provides that if the waste does not contain any of the nuclides listed in either Table 1 or 2, it is Class A. To apply the waste classification system properly, it is not possible to rely solely upon the tables. As the bill is presently worded, it could be construed to relieve states of responsibility for the relatively low activity Class A wastes that do not contain nuclides listed in the tables. Section 3(a)(1) of H.R.1083 limits state disposal responsibilities to wastes in concentrations that do not exceed the limits in the tables for Class C under Part 61. It is not clear, however, that the federal government is to be responsible for disposal of greater-than-Class C wastes. In addition, NRC regulated transuranic waste, which is excluded from the definition of " low-level radioactive waste" under the Policy Act, also would be excluded from state responsibility under H.R. 1083. There is currently no disposal ."home" for such waste, although H.R.1083 would assign disponi responsibility to the federal government. Federal Responsibilities. Section 3(b) of H.R. 1083 appears to contain inconsistent provisions concerning the extent of federal disposal . responsibilities for wastes in concentrations exceeding Class C. Read in isolation from qualifying language in Section 3(b)(2), Section 3(b)(1) of H.R. 1083 would assign the federal government responsibility for wastes exceeding Class C limits. It provides that the federal government shall be responsible for " ensuring the safe disposal of "... (D) all other radioactive waste material that is not a responsibility of the States under subsection (a)

... ," [other than mill tailings]. Section 3(b)(2), however, indicates that the federal government would be responsible for only a subset of comercial LLW exceeding Class C limits.

Subparagraph 3(b)(2)(A) provides that the Secretary of Energy shall ensure the safe disposal of any radioactive waste described in the imediately preceding Section 3(b)(1) for which --

                       "(1) disposal is not provided under other Federal law in effect on the date of the enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments l                       Act of 1985; and l                                               .

(ii) the Secretary determines that no viable non-Federal disposal capability exists." l, emphasis addedj This last provision may be inconsistent with the preceding paragraph. It would permit the Secretary to take responsibility, not for all wastes that are not a state responsibility, but only those for which he determines that no " viable" ENCLOSURE 1 l . _. . _ _ , --_. _. . _ .

l 1 5

 .non-federal disposal capability exists. Criteria are not provided in the bill for a finding of "no viable capability." The Secretary could find that a non-federal disposal capability is technically " viable" even without any state commitment to accept the wastes for disposal.

The Comission recomends that the bill clearly identify the federal agency responsible for disposal and the date by which waste is to be accepted. If DOE is assigned responsibility, Congress should carefully address the relationship between the requirements for implementatiore 6f the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and the requirements for implemariting any new waste management responsibilities assigned to DOE under the bill. This would include consideration of National Environmental Polk */ Arc (NEPA) requirements. The Comission is concerned that the high-level waste program not be unintentionally impacted. Naturally-occurring or Accelerator-produced Radioactive Material (NARM) Wastes. -Neither Section 3(a) on state responsibilities nor 3(b) on federal responsibilities specifies responsibility for the disposal of wastes that are not subject to the Atomic Energy Act. This includes naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) that may be and have been disposed of at state-licensed facilities. Without clear statutory direction - identifying the responsibility for disposing of these wastes, neither NRC, the Agreement States, nor waste generators will be able to assure that all NARM wastes will eventually be accepted for disposal. Enclosure 3 presents proposed conforming language for NARM disposal authority in H.R.1083. NRC Role Over Federal Government's Disposal Activities. If the federal government is to be assigned additional disposal responsibility, the question of regulatory responsibility for federal disposal of wastes from NRC-regulated activities should be resolved by this legislation. The bill does not resolve the question.

4. Provision of Limited Access to Existing Disposal Sites Until 1993. (Udall Feature 4)

Section 5 of H.R. 1083 sets forth a framework under which compacts with i operating disposal facilities would offer to enter into agreements to provide limited access to their facilities for compact regions and states without disposal capacity. Access would be provided through January 1, 1993. The Comission recomends a mechanism providing for states and regions to accept these wastes beginning in 1993. Means for Allocating Limited Disposal Capacity. In his floor statement introducing the bill, Congressman Udall indicated that the appropriate means of distributing the burden of reducing the waste stream would be a major issue to be resol ed in the legislative process. The bill does not specify means for allocating the limited disposal capacity that would be available. ENCLOSURE 1

l i 6 Section 5(a) provides that disposal facility access agreements would allocate l capacity to compact regions and states, rather than to waste generators. While ' the bill is silent on allocation mechanics, the language in Section 5(a) may be interpreted to authorize compact regions and states to control waste generation. Establishment of disposal site access agreements by the states and compacts may, on a case-specific basis, be inconsistent with Section 4(b)(4)of the bill, which provides that nothing in the bill or any compact may be construed to " limit the applicability of any Federal law or otherwise impair the jurisdiction of any Federal agency, including the regulatory responsibilities of the [NRC]." For example, waste generators may be directed to store wastes or cease waste generation without adequate provision for protection of public health and safety. Also, if agreements under Section 5(a) of the bill resulted in generator restrictions, a considerable regulatory bu: den could be placed on the NRC in responding to individual licensee r.robl ems. The Cannission recommends that Congress specifically address whether or not it intends as national policy that states have authority to impose restrictions on waste generators that would involve national-level public health and welfare and economic considerations, and may disrupt essential services. Requirements for Good Faith Negotiations by States. Under Section 5(a), compacts with operating facilities are required only to offer to enter into access agreements. The bill does not require a compact region with disposal capacity to enter into an agreement -- or even to continue negotiating -- with non-sited compact regions or states after the nine-month period during which the offer is to remain available. It is uncertain that compact regions with disposal capacity would have sufficient incentive to conclude agreements. Interregional discussions regarding post-1986 disposal site access have been underway among the states for over a year without resolution to date. If mutually acceptable agreements cannot be reached, licensees in certain states and compact regions without disposal sites could, under Section 5(a), lose access to disposal facilities as early as late 1986. (This assumes passage of the bill in 1985.) Milestones and Financial Assurances. To assure that existing disposal sites (and storage practices) would not be relied upon indefinitely for lack of progress in states and regions without sites, and to ensure that responsible state and federal entities will begin accepting wastes by a specified deadline, legislatively mandated milestones appear warranted. There should also be a clear means of providing the requisite degree of financial assurance that funds will be available to carry out these responsibilities. The NWPA provided for a contractual relationship under which DOE is to accept high-level waste by an agreed-upon date, and the generators or owners of the wastes are to pay a fee to cover waste management costs. A similar approach may be worth considering for other radioactive wastes. ENCLOSURE 1

7 Whatever date is agreed upon as a final deadline for acceptance of out-of-region waste at operating sites, the Connission believes identification of intermediate milestones could help assure that the final date is met. These milestones might include identification of the states that will host new facilities, identification of candidate disposal sites, and filing of disposal facility license applications in sufficient advance of the deadline. To assure that deadline pressures do not prevent a full and fair consideration of licensing issues at a chosen site, it may also be useful to consider requirements for alternatives in the form of state or compact storage facilities or back-up candidate disposal sites if the initially-selected site is found unsuitable. There is a basis in radiological health and safety for a firm deadline for the execution of both state and federal disposal responsibilities. For many generators of LLW, the only feasible alternative to disposal short of curtailing waste generation is storage. Long-term storage would likely result in additional occupational radiation exposures, particularly if waste repackaging is needed to meet transportation or disposal requirements. Although some long-term storage is probably unavoidable under current circumstances, this practice shculd not continue indefinitely. A firm deadline -

      -           for the acceptance of the wastes for disposal by both the states and the federal government is essential to provide assurance that long-term storage does not become de facto disposal for lack of an alternative.                            -

5.. Regulatory Uncertainties Not Addressed by the Bill The bill does not address the uncertainties posed to NRC-regulated activities by federal environmental laws and regulations, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and regulations. In addition to the NEPA-related issues l discussed above, regulatory uncertainties exist with respect to hazardous non-radiological waste constituents, naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) wastes, and radiation release standards. These uncertainties may contribute to delays in establishing new waste disposal ! facilities. NRC is monitoring EPA efforts to develop radiation release standards applicable to LLW disposal. The Commission is also evaluating management of NRC-regulated non-radiological waste constituents, and is keeping EPA staff informed of our progress. However, it cannot be assured that NRC/ EPA staff efforts will satisfactorily resolve the uncertainties. This legislation could provide an opportunity to clarify these issues. i i l ENCLOSURE 1 l l

                                                                                             =e THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPISSION'S COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF H.R. 1083 Sec. 2(1)         The definition of Agreement State should be identical to the definition in 10 CFR Part 150.3(b) to ensure consistency. Section 2(1) should be replaced as follows:
                                            "(1) Agreement State means any state with which the Commission or the Atomic Energy Commission has entered into an effective agreement under subsection 274 b of the Act."

Sec. 2(2) The definition of " atomic energy defense activity" varies from the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act with the following changes and implications. (A) Waste from naval propulsion operations is omitted, and would thus be eligible for disposal in licensed facilities.

 ,                                    (B) Waste from inertial confinement fusion activities is now I

limited to that associated with weapons. (E) " defense waste" becomes," defense nuclear waste." It is not clear what the implication is for non-nuclear defense waste. It may mean that states with Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) permitting authority may be able to regulate defense non-nuclear waste intermixed with nuclear waste. The inclusion of the phrase " materials byproducts management" may be a reference to DOE's recent proposal to interpret the term "by-product material" to include nonradioactive material in a primary byproduct waste stream from processing or producing special nuclear materials. The legislative record should clarify the intent of this paragraph as it may impact the applicability of the RCRA to NRC-regulated activities. Sec.2(4) " commercial nuclear power reactor" should also reference

reactors licensed under $104b of the Atomic Energy Act.

l Sec.2(8) The definition of " disposal" is incomplete and vague. It should be clarified to denote that with disposal there is no intent to remove the wastes following emplacement. l l ENCLOSURE 2

                   .. -   .             _   . _ . _ _ .         _ _ _ - - - -     -     _- =        -  . . - - ..

Sec.2(12) The definition of low-level radioactive waste in the Policy Act has caused confusion and contributed to the state's reluctance to accept radioactive wastes classified  ; as "Above Class C" under 10 CFR Part 61.1 Furthermore, in paragraph 12 use of the word "b with "as defined in Section 11(yproduct" e)(2) of the should beEnergy Atomic followed Act of 1954," to limit the scope to only uranium and thorium tailings and waste. Sec.2(16) The definition of transuranic waste is incomplete. It j should read " . . . greater that the limits established by rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for disposal of transuranic waste at a disposal facility. . . " Sec.3(a)(1) Reference to Tables 1 and 2 alone is inadequate. It should also reference other provisions of 10 CFR 61.55 to assure that states remain responsible for all licensed Class A and B wastes. Sec.3(b)(2)(A) This section is a general authorization for DOE to dispose of all radioactive waste not the responsibility of i the States, end not already a Federal responsibility under some other law. This provision would overcome the legal , objections that have been expressed by DOE to accepting i certain existing wastes, particularly NRC-regulated j transuranic waste. Paragraph (ii) requires a finding of i fact that no " viable" non-federal disposal capability 1 exists to accept such wastes. Deletion of Paragraph (A)(ii) is necessary if the Commission is to be assured that all wastes will have a home. Sec. 4 Subsection 4(b)(3)(A)through(C)and(E)shouldnotbe I As discussed in Enclosure 1, the Connission believes it would be useful to provide conforming language for NARM waste disposal in H.R.1083. i Enclosure 2 l l

                                                              ~

3- l included in subsection (b) which is aimed at Federal activities, these paragraphs (A, B, C and E) affect not l only Federal, but private activities. To clarify their general applicability. Subsections 4(b)(3) and 4(b)(4) l should be combined and redesignated as 4(e). Subsection 4(b)(3)(E) should be clarified by inserting the phrase, "of the Federal Government," after the word indemnification. l Subsection 4(c) must be read together with Section 5 and , Congressman Udall' t proposed compact consent language since the latter would ertablish "the applicable effective date established in [such] law." Sec.4(b)(4) Add Agreement Statet authority under Section 274 b of the Atomic inergy Act of 1954, as amended, to 1

                                                                . . . the Nuclear Regulatory Cossnission and the Department of Transportation."

Sec. 5 This provision presents a difficult negotiating , situation. By its terms the offering and negotiating 4 parties are compact Comissions and States. But the payers of the surcharges will be waste generators, including the ' Federal Government (see Section 4(b)(1)(B)). Nor does the legislation indicate who the beneficiary of the surcharge will be--a compact Comission, state, or disposal site , operator. The net effect may very well be to penalize waste generators, and not the political institutions that need to be pressed to act.

                    ~

Sec.6 This provision, " Assurance of Financial Responsibility," is in part redundant with Section 151 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, though it adds several new requirements: (1) that there be financial assurance or bonding for " safe and environmentally sound" operation of the disposal facility; and (2) that there be financial assurance for " corrective action prior to the expected time l of license termination due to economic or health and safety j reasons." Both of these requirements parallel, to an extent, NRC staff initiatives regarding financial assurance i for clean up of offsite releases. However, the vague language for both could imply that NRC and Agreement States are to become involved in reviewing the financing and cash 4 ENCLOSURE 2 ,

                      ,   ,        ,n-- - ..          -an,..    . - - c-, - . , , - . , , , , _ , , . , .,,_nn,,,,,-,,,,-,,..,.             .,,,-,_,-_,,.,-.--_._.,-,.,.,.w.,,,,

I I i l l \ l 4 l . l flow requirements of an operating disposal facility to ensure that adequate operational financial assurance is provided. NRC staff has not fully evaluated potential impacts or the desirability of legislatively mandated financial assurance requirements for unanticipated

                      " corrective action." However, such requirements would carry significant policy and resource implications.

l a 4 i t ENCLOSURE 2 i i f --- -

t l 4 RATING TE PROPOSED CONFORMING LANGUAGE FOR I NON-ATOMIC ENERGY ACT R Definitions adioactive ovisions of the~ Sec.2(12)

               "The material,  term    ' low-level whether    or not subjectradioactive 1 that-  "

to the pr waste' mea Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended State Responsibilities for Disposal lides which are not_ ial as cefinedthat_ in_ Sec.3(a)(1)

                "(C) source,contains        concentrations of nded, byproduct or special nuclear mater           radionuc Title 11 of the Atomic EnergysteAct                    of 1954, as amehas classified as the Commission by               rule determinesno greater th 61.55."

TClass C' under 10 CFR Part Federal Responsibilities for Disposal il whether or not_ Eneroy Act of d Sec.3(b)(1) "(D) subjectall other to the radioactive provisions of the Atomic waste mater a TF54, as amended 1 subsection (a), . . ." ENCLOSURE 3

T [ o,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j I wAsww2 Tom. o. c. aoses

    \ ,,       .                                                September 7, 1979 ca nasAn The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Section 12 of P. L. 95-601 authorized and directed the Comission to conduct a study of extending the Comission's licensing or regulatory authority to include categories of existing and future Federal radio-active uste storage and disposal activities not presently subjected to such authority. The enclosed report, entitled " Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste Activities " contains the results of that study. It has previously'been provided in draft form to the House and Senate subcomittees having oversight responsibilities for the PRC. The report contains two recommendations for extending the Commission's regulatory authority: Recomendation 1: NRC licensing authority should be extended to cover all new 00E facilities for disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste and non-defense low-level waste. Recomendation 2:' A pilot program, focused on a few specific 00E waste management activities, should be established to test the feasibility of extending NRC regulatory authority on a consultative basis to DOE waste management activities not now covered by NRC's licensing authority or its extension as recomended in Recommendation 1. l The Comission endorses both Recomendations. The Comissioners ! are unanimous in their support of Reconnendation 1, which is equivalent to the recomendation (Option 2) of the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear. Waste Management. Regarding Recomendation 2, the Comission ich

2 believes that there can be a viable pilot program without the inclusion of defense related waste management activities and that they should not be included. Comunissioners Gilinsky and Bradford do not support Reccamendation 2 as prcposed. In their view, the issue is whether the DOE's high-level waste tanks and waste solidification facilities should be regulated by the NRC. They regard as pointless a pilot program which fails to include these facilities. The reasons for these differing  : views are given in the enclosed document. " Differing Commissioner Views ' Concerning the Pilot Program." My fellow Commissioners and I would be happy to answer any questions j related to the enclosed report or our views with respect to its . recommendations.  ; incerely , , b Josep M. Hendrie Chairman

Enclosures:

As stated l l I I P i i l i i

10/18/85 PROPOSED NRC AMENDMENTS

TO THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 i

[ NOTE: ALL LINE-IN LINE-0VT CHANGES REFER TO THE H.R. 1083 VERSION AS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS ON JULY 30,1985] l I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY OVER NARM WASTE l Sec. 2(13) LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE.--The term ' low-level radioactive waste' means radioactive material, whether or not subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that- " II. STATE RESPONSIBILITIES "Sec. 3.-(a) STATE RESPONSIBILITIES.--Each State shall be responsible for 4 ENCLOSURE 3 1 LANGUAGE LLRWPAA i-t l

            - .-_ _ _... ~ ..... .._               _ _,     - . _ . . . _ . - . _ , - . - - - , _ - - - - _ . . . _ , . .               . _ , . . . - . . . . . - _ - . . . . _ . . . . -

10/18/85 providing, either by itself or in cooperation with other States, for the disposal of---

            "(1) low-level radioactive waste generated within the State (other than by 3

the Federal Government) that consists of or contains l class A, B, or C, radioactive waste as defined by section 61.55 of l title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on December 27, 1982 or contains concentrations of radionuclides which are not source, byproduct or special nuclear material as defined in Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and in effect on January 1, 1985, that the Commission by rule determines has radioactivity levels no greater than low-level radioactive waste classified as ' Class C' under 10 CFR Part 61.55. . "(4) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a State or ccmpact from accepting for disposal radioactive wastes described in ! Subparagraph 3(b)(1)(D)." III. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES ENCLOSURE 3 2 LANGUAGE LLRWPAA

                                                                                                             )

s - ----,----.w se.-, - , , ,w w--- -y , - , - -w- ,a,-,w - g - - ., g--,- ,

i 10/18/85 [ NOTE: SEC. 3(b) 0F HR 1883 AS REPORTED FROM THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS SHOULD BE DELETED AND LANGUAGE FOR SEC. 3(b) 0F HR 1083 AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN UDALL ON FEBRUARY 7, 1985 SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FOLLOWING LINE-IN LINE-0VT CHANGES.] (b) FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES--(1) The Federal-GevernmeRt Secretary shall be responsible for ensuring the safe disposal of-- 4 (A) high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, in i accordance with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.); (B) low-level radioactive waste generated as a result of any atemie energy-defense-aetivity-er-Federal-reSeareh-develepmeRt activity of the Secretary; (C) low-level radioactive waste generated as a result of any research, development, testing, or production of any atomic i , weapon; and (D) all other radioactive waste material whether or not subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that is not a 4 responsibility of the States under subsection (a), other than byproduct l 4 material defined in section lle. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

U.S.C. 2104(e) (2)), as such section is in effect on January 1, 1985.

                      "(2) (A) The Secretary of Energy shall take such actions as may ENCLOSURE 3                             3                 LANGUAGE LLRWPAA n.m ,                              - - - - - , , -       , , .  - - - - e,- -,m v.n.-     , m-r,-  -- ,

10/18/85 be necessary to ensure the safe disposal of any radioactive waste described in paragraph (1) for which//

                                   "(4) disposal is not provided under other Federal law in effect on the date of the enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.t-and "fii}-the-Seeretary-determines-that-ne-viable-nen-Federal dispesal-eapability-exists,
                                   "(B) Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period following the date of the enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive report setting forth the plan of the Secretary for carrying out the provisions of subparagraph (A). Such report shall include--
                  "(i) an identification of the radioactive waste for which the Federal Gevernment Secretary has responsibility under subparagraph (A);
                  " f ii)-a n-i den ti fie a t i e n -e f-wh e t h e r-d i s pe s a l- fe r- s W e h - ra d i ea e t i v e waste-is-preVided-Wnder-ether-Federal-law-in-effeet-en-the-date-ef-the enaetment-ef-the-hew-bevel-Radieaetive-Waste-peliey-Amendments-Aet-ef-1985,
                  "(444)-an-identifieatien-ef-whether-viable-sen-Federal-dispesal e a p a b ili ty-ex i s t s - fe r-s w e h - ra d iea e ti v e-wa s t e t "fiv) (ii) an identification of the radioactive waste for which the Secretary is required to ensure the safe disposal of such radioactive waste;
                  "(v) (iii) a description of the actions required to ensure the safe ENCLOSURE 3                                                4                                LANGUAGE LLRWPAA                l l

1

10/18/85 4 4 disposal of such radioactive waste; l 1 "(vi) (iv) the proposed schedule of the Secretary for taking such actions;

            "(vii) (v) a description of the projected costs of taking such i  actions;
            "(viii) (vi) the proposals of the Secretary for obtaining the funds necessary to take such actions; and "fix) (vii) any reconinendations of the Secretary for legislation to i assist the Secretary in carrying out the provisions of subparagraph (A).

i I I i

1. PRESERVATION OF AGREEMENT STATE ROLE A new subparagraph should be added to Sec. 4 of the bill as follows: ,

             "(d) Agreement State authority.--Nothing in this Act shall diminish the regulatory authority of the Agreement States."

1 "(d)(e) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.- ... i ENCLOSURE 3 5 LANGUAGE LLRWPAA l I i

i I 10/18/85 4 In addition the definition of Agreement State as stated in Section 2(2)(A) should be sharpened. The reference to "section 274" should read "section j 274b." 4 - V. FEDERAL DISPOSAL. FACILITIES i Section 4(b)(2) clarifies that disposal facilities operated exclusively for

!       Federal Government low-level wastes are not subject to compact actions.                      In discussing the waste affected by this section, waste " produced" by the Federal Government is referenced.      In certain special instances, federal facilities have accepted unique waste streams for disposal from NRC or Agreement State i        licensees. We believe this section may unintentionally restrict such disposal practices, which may be required to protect public health and safety.

The NRC recommends that the word " produced" be replaced by the word " owned" to provide necessary flexibility to protect public health and safety, i i i VI. MANAGEMENT VERSUS DISPOSAL I Sec. 4(b)(3) Effect of compacts on federal law.--Nothing contained in this Act ENCLOSURE 3 6 LANGUAGE LLRWPAA l

10/18/85 i or any compact may be construed to confer any new authority on any compact commission or State-- (A) to regulate for health and safety, the generation, handling, 4 treatment, storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste in a manner inconsistent with the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of Transportation, and the Agreement States;...

Sec. 4(b)(4) Federal authority.--nothing in this Act or any compact may be construed to limit-the-applieability-ef-any-Federal-law-er-te diminish or 4

otherwise impair the jurisdiction of any Federal agency, including the regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the

Department of Transportation.

VII. DELEGATION OF RCRA PERMIT AUTHORITY FOR MIXED WASTES 1 Sec. 15 MIXED WASTES.

           '(c) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than 180 days after complying with subsection (a), the Administrator shall enter into an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under which the Administrator shall ENCLOSURE 3                           7                   LANGUAGE LLRWPAA

                                                                            ~-

10/18/85 delegate the authority to ensure compliance with the_ interim status requirements of section 3005(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6925(e), and to issue permits under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6925) to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission for the disposal of waste identified under subsection (a). Such agreement shall provide for the exercise of such authority in accordance with part 61 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, and compatible with the regulations of hazardous waste under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921-6339a). Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may redelegate, as appropriate, the authority to issue permits to an Agreement State. (NOTE: The legislative history should also indicate that EPA or states authorized by EPA to carry out the requirements of subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the interim status requirements of section 3005(e) of such Act until such time that the Administrator of EPA delegates such authority to the NRC under Sec. 15(c) of the bill.) ENCLOSURE 3 8 LANGUAGE LLRWPAA l

          .      - . . - . . ~ -
 = = = _,, ==-
 = = = . =                     = = = = ,

EEW oma a avM wASHmGTON EE55=,-_ Buited $tates $tnatt enana u m s,uvosucion COMMITTEE ON g %" g " hC"y* 7 ,5" ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES WA$HING,0N DC 20510 October 16, 1985 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On October 8, your staff presented testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Environment and Public Works Committee concerning Senate bills S. 1517 and S. 1578; bills to amend the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for appearing before my Subcommittee and for your very informative comments on this important issue. As a follow-up to this hearing, I have enclosed additional questions from myself and my colleagues for your response. Due to the importance of this issue and the need for timely congressional action, I would appreciate the responses to these questions no later than October 29, 1985. Thank you again for your continued interest and cooperation. Si ere y, Pet 3 V. D ,omenici Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Enclosure

Follow-up Questions for Questions for Nuclear Regulatory Commiesion Hearing on Low-Level Waste i From Senator Pete V. Domenici

1. S. 1578 requires the DOE to submit a report identifying radioactive wastes for which no responsibility now exists for disposal -- i.e.,

so-called " orphan wastes." Does the NRC have any current plan to re-define certain categories of wastes? Would such re-definition help DOE prepare its report?

2. When is the report due out with the results of Brookhaven's i evaluation of chemically-hazardous radioactive wastes? Will this report be timely in addressing the concerns of the facility operators with respect to RCRA regulations of hazardous wastes?

3 What can be done to assure that NRC reviews license applications in an expeditious manner?

4. How would resolution of the mixed waste issue between NRC and EPA apply to " agreement states"?

5. What approach do you plan on taking in establishing de minimus standards --

a) case-by-case? (i.e., element-specific)

       . b) generic? (i.e., radiation level-specific)
    ~6. Does NRC have enough resources (manp'ower and funding) to develop licensing guidelines for alternative disposal technologies and to expeditiously process all site license applications?

7. How long would it normally take a State to put an interim storage facility into operation--that is, if a state was reasonably sure that it would not have a permanent disposal facility in operation by 1993, how much lead time would they need to obtain the license and hardware for temporary storage?

4 l i i

on Energy Research and Development, Senator Ford Questions from the Minority for William J. Dircks, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Low-Level Waste Policy Joint Hearing of October 8, 1985

1. Waste Categories Please ennumerate and describe in a comprehensive way the kinds of low-level radioactive waste in existence and identify the regulatory authority or authorities that are responsible for each kind. How much of each kind of waste is produced each year

        - as a percentage of the total volume of waste and as a percentage of the total activity of waste?      How long-lived is each kind of waste typically?     Where and how are each of these kinds of waste disposed of?

Examples of the kinds of waste we are interested in include but are not limited to classes A, B, and C low-level waste, scintillation vials, accelerator-derived waste, uranium dust from the Fernald, Ohio, u ra n iura feed plant, waste from naval shipyards, and waste f r o:r. the weapons program.

2. Joint EPA-NRC Jurisdiction over Hazardous Radioactive Waste Describe the applicability of EPA and NRC regulatory authority to hazardous radioactive waste. What is proposed by the Administration to address this overlap? What would you propose to resolve any difficulties? What other options are l

l l l [ l

I 4 there? Please be specific as to any changes in statutory i ] language you recommend. i i i 1 4 3. Responsibility of "Above Class C" Waste I What is "above Class C" radioactive waste? i ! What volume of waste is involved? What activity? ] 4 I Who currently has responsibility for above Class C l radioactive waste that is not spent fuel or high-level

radioactive waste? How does S. 1578 treat this type of waste?  ;

I 1 s '

                                                                                                                                                                                   .                        i j                                                   What are the principal options for dealing with this waste?

Why shouldn't this waste be the responsibility of the Department l1 of Energy for disposal? ? j 4. Disposal Capacity i i i What is the physically available capacity at the existing i j commercial low-level waste disposal sites, by site? What is the magnitude of this available capacity in relation to the volumes being produced now? i How long could existing low-level waste sites accommodate low-level waste generated in the United States? i 5 i - 4

     . . - _ . - - _ , , , . . - . , _ . . _ , . , - . _ _ _ . . _ , - - . . . _ - ~ - _ - . - _ _ ~ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . . . . - - - - , - - - - , .

                        ~

Are there any technical, safety, or economic reasons why generators should adopt volume reduction technologies? What are they? What are the trade offs? Are there technical, safety, or economic drawbacks..to volume reduction? What are they?

5. Costs What is the actual cost (including transportation) on a per cubic foot basis of low-level waste disposal under current NRC regulations. What non-cost charges are currently applied to low-level waste disposal by each of the States with existing sites?

What is the relation of these costs to the surcharges propose,d under S. 1578? How much does each si ted State take in from low-i level waste charges? What do these States do with the revenue they generate from low-level waste charges?

6. Milestones How many States have indicated that they can meet the milestones in S. 1578? What States cannot? Why not?

What will happen in these States if milestones are not met? Be as specific as 'ossible. p

                                  ;                7. Enforcement of Milestones                                   .

Under S. 1578, when a milestone is missed the generators in that state lose access to the existing disposal sites. Yet the failure to meet the milestone is really the fault of the politicians and bureaucrats in the state who, presumably have not complied with federal law. Why shouldn't the penalty for missing a milestone be borne by the ones who failed to meet it, rather than by the generators who are not in control of the siting process? 1 Please comment on the following options for dealing with situations where milestones are missed: 1

                 - Ves t title to waste generated after missing the milestone in the Governor of the state that missed the milestone.
                 - Require the state missing the milestone to pay surcharges for continued access for its generators.
                 - Allow generators to sue the Governor of the state that misses a milestone for damages from lost access.

I \

                                           , r; m - _ , - . , - - - . -   , - , - ~ . , - , , - . -
                                                                                                        ,-, , - - - -   .,-c - - . - - ,- . -

    -.                                           . . -.. . _-                                 . . - - _ . . . - - . - _ - .                                              . - . - .              .-          . ..= .- ..       .           -         _- .- . - .

I 1 4 i j i What other options would you recommend the Committee consider to enforce the milestones? i.

8. Go-It-Alone States  ;

i Should the legislation reported by the Committee include provision for States that want to provide for their own low-level i i waste disposal, but for no one else's? Why or why not? What I i should the provision say? 4

9. Low Level Waste Definition ,

i c 1 Please provide the Committee with a suitable legal definition i I i of low-level waste for the purposes of the amendments to the Low-j l Level Waste Policy Act under consideration in the Committee. i 1 I I l > t I I i J i ' ij N i i l e i _ . , , , , _ , , . . . - . . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . , . - . , _ _ . . , , , . , . . _ . . . . . . - , - - . . . , . . . , . , , - , --..._m...__ . . . . . - . ~ . _ . . _ _ , , _ _ , , . , _ .}}