ML20154N117
| ML20154N117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/18/1980 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810210153 | |
| Download: ML20154N117 (67) | |
Text
.
. ~ - - - - -
I D
O O
AUG 18 1980 FIMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Deputy Director
^
Office of Mcc1 car Material Safetv 4
and Safe 9uards FROM:-
John B. Martin, Director Division of Waste Management SUDJECT:
Ei!ERGY LEGISLATION BEFORE SUCCC:.."ITTLE ON ENERGY A?.D POWER At your request we have reviewed for technical accuracy the three
~
bills (H.R6390,H.R.6865,and
.R. 741 ) that the Dingell Subcommittee m.V plans to use at their markup sess on Monday, August 18, 1980.
We have marked up the enclosed bills where clarification appears necessary.
. Origin 2iSI783b.
I 3:hn3. M i'8' 3 John B. Martin, Director Division of Uaste Management i
Enclosure:
As stated O
O DISTRIaVTION:
NMSS-801046 WMPI s/f /
WMPI r/f i WM r/f NMSS r/f RMacDougall JSunneier J0 Bunting REBrowning 9810210153 000818 JBMartin PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDf1NCE PDR l
ABentley NGill-WMP
/
RMac0 1
8/18/80 8/l
/80
[
WMPIQ
.../...L
/Wn MPI
..,np........ n.. i..
w.
.U.?.
.C 5 0.1
~.
. suen N 8/.(.f.0 a/18/80.,
L
-om.). af]a/80...
f MC FOUM 3 5 0 (9 76.) NMCM 0740 D LIT GOVf HNMt Ni PNINIING pr p seg,1979 peu-h9
- ffQ
-- ~ ~,::~gm, s wwe = emC ***M m** *.
b O
\\
2 l
and high level radioactive waste in order to protect the 2
public health and safety and the common defense and 3
security; 4
(5) the primary objective of repositories for such 5
waste is to isolate them from the biosphere; l
6 (6) state and public participation in the planning 7
and -development of permanent repositories for the 8
disposal of radioactive waste is essential in order to 9
promote confidence among th& public with regard to the i
10 j
safety of disposal of radioactive waste; 11 (7) the implementation of a radioactive waste 12 repository program in accordance with this Act would 13 provide reasonable assurance that methods of safe 14 disposal of transuranic waste and high level radioactive 15 waste can be available when such meth'ods are needed; 16 (8) confidence in the ability of the Federal 17 Government to manage a program providing for the 0 O
18 1.
and permenent disposa1 of radioactive wastes must be 19 substantially increased if nuclear power is to 20 contribute to meeting the energy needs of the United 21 States in the future; and 22 (9) radioactive waste has become a major issue of 23 public concern, and stringent precautions must be taken l
24 to ensure that radioactive waste does not adversely 25 affect the public health and safety of this or future z
u
- r
1.
~
~
O 4
O 1
derived from such liquid' waste, and such other materici 2
as the Commission designates as high level waste for 3
purposes of protecting the public health and safety.
~4
'(5) The term transuranic waste means material 5
contaminated with elements which have an atomic number 1
6 greater than 92 including neptunium,,p tonium
/
g ifpy M,$ d /.h.Q =>;4 6,,0 C W
'7 americium, and curium aud wnich are in concelitrations 8
greater than 10 nanocuries per gram or in such other 9
9
. concentrations as the Commission may prescribe to L:
J 1
10 protect the'public health and safety.
~
O 11 (6) The term low level radioactive waste means 12 radioactive waste not classified as high level
,13 radioactive waste, transuranic waste, or byproduct 14 material as defined in section lle. (2) of the Atomic 15 Energy Act of 1954.
16 (7) The term ' ' spent fuel' 8 means fuel--
17 (A) that has been withdrawn from a nuclear 8
"i"8 i"'"di ">
""d O
19 (B) the constitutent eleme'nts of which have not 20 been separated by reprocessing.
21 (8) The term site characterization means 22 activities undertaken to determine the geologic 23 characteristics of a site and to otherwise determine if 24 asitemeetstherequirementsapplichletositesfor 25 repositories.
Such term includes borings, surface
-.--e--
.-4---
A v-
O O
1 (iv) criteria to be used to determine if the j
2 site is acceptable as a site for a repository; and 3
(v) any other information required by the 4
commission.
i 5
(2) During the conduct of site characterization 6
activities at a site the Secretary shall report to the 7
commission and to the state Review Board of the State in 8
which the site is located on the nature and extent of such 9
act'ivities and the information developed from such f
10 activities.
(I 11-(c) TESTS.--The Secretary shall conduct at sites at 12 which site characterization activities are being conducted 13 such tests as may be necessary to provide g neces ary dat,a 14 for an application for a ' construction pasmit (f'or a 15 repository at the site and for compliance with the National 16 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The Secretary shall 17 report to the Commission on the tests conducted at a site 18 O
pursuant to this subsection and on the information developed 19 from such tests.
i 20 (d) RESTRICTIONS.--In conducting site characterizatio 21' activities or tests pursuant to subsection (c)--
22 (1) the Secretary may not use radioactive materials 23 at a site unless the Commission and.the' Secretary concur 24-that such use is necessary to provide data for the
-25 submission of', an application for a construction permit i
..,.....- --.~ 2-
I 1
forarekitoryatthesite; p
2 (2) if radioactive materials are placed in a site, i
3 the Secretary shall place the smallest quantity 4
necessary:to determine the suitability of the site for a 5
repository but in no event more than the curie 6
equivalent o'f 10 metric tons of spent fuel; and 7
~(3) any radioactive material used or placed on a 1
8 site shall be fully retrievable.
9 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS i
i 10 SEC. 6.
(a} IN GENERAL.--If after completion of site L
11' characterization activities at a site--
0 12.
(1) the Secre.cary determines t3at the sine meets the 13 E requirements applicable to repositories, the recretary i
14 shall proceed in accordance with this secti,ogy to sp ure 15 approval of the site and a construction. pea [ nit y fe tw~
~
or i
16 construction of a repository at the site, or.
17 (2) the Secretary determines that the site does 18 meet such requirements, the Secretary shall notify the LLO..
19 State Review Board of the State in which the site is 20 located of such determination.
g i
21 (b) HEARINGS AND PRESIDENTI AL APPROVAL.--(l) If af t completion 'of site characterization activities at a site the 22-23 Secretary determines that the site meets the requirements 24 applicable to repositories, the Secretary shall--
25 (A) hold public hearings at the vicinity of the V
i w
.w r un m.. s r_,7.-
cu g
(])
1 sito to i'nform the residents of the area of the j
2 determination of the Secretary and to receive their 3
comments; and 4
(B) upon completion of the hearings under 5
subparagaph (A), submit to the President a 6
recommendation that the Presidan,t approve the site for 7
the' development of a repository.
8 (2).The President shall review each site recommended by 9 ' the Secretary under paragraph (1)(A), and, within 60 days 10 after the submission of a recommendation for a site, the 11 President shall either approve or disapprove the site and 7V 12 transmit.his decision to the Secretary and the State Review 13 Board of the State in which the site is located.
14 (3) The President may-delay for not more than 6 montns i
15 his decision to approve or disapprove a site upon 16 determining that the information provided with the 17 recommendation is not sufficient to permit a decision within 18 the 60 days referred to in paragraph (2).
(3 19 (c) SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION.--(l) If the President U
20 approves a site for a repository under subsection (b),
the 21 S cr t ghall apply to the Commission for a construc 22 pgreit for construction of a repository at the site and 23 shall provide the State Review Board of,the State in which g
24 the site is located a copy of the application.
25 (2) Not later than January 1, 1986, the Secretary shall i
t c
. ~. ~ _ _
-g
o 12 O
l f'
,to the Commission an application for a construction 1
subm
,' bl 2
pem1C r the construction of a repository.
3' (d) Commission ACTION.--(l) The Commission hall 4 - consider an application -for a construction r the 5
construction of a repository in accordance with the laws 6
applicable to such applications, except that the. Commission i
7 shall issue a final decision approving or disapproving such 8
an application not later than--
9 (A) January 1, 1990, or O
10 (B) the ' expiration of four years after the date of
- 11 the submission of the application, 12 whichever occurs later.
L 13 (2) If the Commissi n approv_s an application for a c:.udde 14 constructiong or the construction of a repository, it 15-shall--
16 (A) notify the Congress of the approval od such j
'17
. application and include.in the notice 'a detailed i
[(])
18 statement of the reasons for approval of the 19 application, and 20 (B) notify the State Review Board,of the State in 21 which the repository would be located of the approval 22 and include in the notice a detailed statement of the 1
- 23 reasons.for approval of the applicat. ion.
24' (3) If a State Review Board of a State petitions the 25 Congress for the disapproval of the construction of a l
r i
i L
i l
1 L-
_ =
- JC329k' o
o l
1 repository for which a constructiongt has been granted 2
by the Commission, the Commission shall provide the Congress 3
with such information respecting the construction and 4
proposed operation of the repository as the Congress may 5
require.
[
6 CONGRESSIONAL DI3 APPROVAL 7
SEC. 7. (a) IN GENERAL.--(l) If a State Review Board of 8
a State petitions the Congress, as authorized by section 9
8(b), for the disapproval of the construction of a O 10 repository t a site within the State, the repository may 11 not be constructed at the site if, during the first period 12 of 90 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress
'13 after the date of the transmittal by'the commission to the 14 Congress of itsjg1~
approval of the application for a 15 construction pp att'for the repository, the Congress passes
~
1.6 a concurrent resolution stating in substance that the i
17 Congress disapproves the construction.
A petition shall be J
.\\
18 considered to have been submitted to the Congress on the
}
19 date of its transmittal to the Speaker of the House of 20 Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate.
[
21.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)--
f 22 (A) continuity of session is broken only by an f
i 23 adjournment of the Congress sine die; and
-24 (B) the days on which either House is not in session
'l 25 because of an, adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
i 0
O.
14 i
i 1
certain are excluded in the computation of the 90-(
2 calendar-day period.
3 (3) For purposes of this section, the term concurrent j
4 resolution means a concurrent resolution of ither Ho y
~.
5 of Congress the matter after the resolving clause of which
()y'{/
.7 ) does not approve the 6
is as follows: That t s
l 7
construction of the repository for which a construction j[fi/'8-permitwasgrantedbytheNuclearRegulatoryCommissionon_
v f
9 19,__,. ' '.
-l t
l g 10 (4) This section is enacted by the Congress--
11 (A) as an exercise of the rulemakin'g power of the 12 Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively,
.13 and as such, it is deemed a part of the rules of each 14 House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to 15 the procedure to be followed in that House in the case 16 of concurrent resolutions defined in paragraph (3) and 17 it supersedes other rules only to the eictent that it is O
la inconsistent with such rules and 19 (B) with full recognition of the constitutional 20-right of either House to change the rules (so far as 21 they relate to the procedure of that House) at any time, 22 in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case 23 of any other rule of the House.
24 (b) REFERRAL AND DISCHARGE.--(1) A concurrent resolution
~
25 once introduced with respect to the construction of a 4
1
- 0
l[
I dicepprov in accordanco'with coct'~;n 7, construction wi e
2 of rapositories in tho State.
3 (3) The members of a State Review Board shall represen 4
the general public in the State and, if any action has been 5
taken under this Act with respect to a site.in the State for f
6 a repository, the Indian tribes and local governments which 7
would be affected by the repository.
8 (b) PETITION O
NGRESS.--If an application for a P
9 con'struction perdit or the construction of a repository in 10 a State is approved by the Commission, the State Review 11 Board of the State may submit to the Congress a petition for em 12 disapproval, in accordance with section 7, of construction U
13 of a repository under the permit.
A petition respecting 14 construction of a repository may be submitted not later than 15 the 30th day after the date the Commission transmits to the 16 Board its decision granting a construction permit for such 17 construction.
The petition shall contain a detailed 18 statement of the reasons of the Board for seeking 19 disapproval of the construction.
(~)
20 (c) FINANCI AL ASS I STANCE. --(1) Subj ect to paragraph (2),
~s 21 and to the availability of funds to carry out this 22 paragraph, the Secretary shall make grants to the State
' Review Boards of each State in which a site for a repository 23 24 has been approved under section 4(d).
Grants under this 25 paragraph shall be made under such terms and conditions as k
~ ~ ~
~~
mm
_.m
/*
e 21 o
0
~-
j\\
n j
actions taken by t e C,opaission in granting or denying r U I 1
lication submitted under section o
^ J 2
construction for any operating permit for a repository, and any actions 6
to judicial
]
3 4. described in section 10 shall not be subject review except as authorized by subsection (b)'.
5
)
(b) JUDICI AL REVIEW OF ACTIONS.--(l) C1 aims regarding 6
any action described in. subsection (a) may be brought not.
7 later than the 180th day following the date of such action.
8
- (2) A claim regarding any such action shall be barred
- l.
9 unless a complaint is filed before the expiration of the Q 10 in the United States
- l time limit prescribed'by paragraph (1) o 11 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
12 No other court of the United 13 acting as a special court.
States, or any State, territory, or possession of the United
~
14 States, or of the District of Columbia, shall have 15 l
16 jurisdiction of any such claim.
EXPEDITED AUTHORIZATIONS 17 SEC. 10. (a) 1ssu4NCE or AursoaizArious.--(1) Suh3ec O
18 paragraph (2), to the extent that the taking of any action 19 related to the characterization of a site or the 20 construction or initial operation of a repository under this 21 i
lease, or
.22.Act requires a certificate, right-of-way, pe m t, 23 'other authorization from a Federal officer or agency, such officer or agency shall issue or grant any such 24 authorization at the earliest practicable date, to the 25 ed s
Q,
L 5
H o
u O
23 l
1 is r
y potential or-permanent repository which the authorization-
)
1 j j 2
affects.
! ]
SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA y
a t
3 f}
SEC. 11. (a) EPA STANDARD *J.--Not later than November 1,
'4.
l 5
1981, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
' i$a
)s Agency', pursuant to authority under other provisions of la i
6 shall, by rule, promulgate generally applicable standards f
7 i
. g_r._offsite releases of radioactivity from repositor
' I fo L'
- (b) CRITERI A.--Not later than November 1,1981, the l
9 Commission, pursuant to authority under other provisions of 10 law, shall, by rule, promulgate criteria which it will apply c
v
/
11 in reviewing under the Atomic Energy.Act of 1954 'and the.
l 12 et of 1974, applications for
,i 13 Energy Reorganization
.4 c@-
for the construction.of repositories.
l :
14-construction i
AUTHORIZAT1ON OF APPROPRIATlONS; CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15
- 12. (a) AUTHOR!ZATION.--T here are authorized to be 16 SEC.
f this Act appropriated to the Secretary to carry out 17 for the fiscal ye~ar ending September 30, 1981.
18
$5,000,000 (b) CONTRACTS.--The authority of th'e Secretary to enter li 19 into contracts under this Act shall be effective for any 1
20 fiscal year only to such extent or in such amounts as are 21 provided in advance by appropriation Acts.
(
22 t
TER.MiNATION OF'ACT, l
23-i
- 13. (a) SECTIONS 9 AND 10.--Sections 9 and 10 sha 24-SEC.
cease to have effect at such time as the Secretary commences M8 25
-i.i
'A i
h",qu Y WP""4 g
l b\\
hetAcT@ j?0w ')tc /
j,n. ft g,,,, c, j
u l-N..) C (.,
redbytheUnitedStatOunderthegrosect
'l of the costs in l
2 for decontamination and decommissioning.
_f 3
SEC. 7. For purposes of this Act:
f (1) The term Secretary means the Secretary of 4
l 5
Energy.
I (2) The term '8 Commission means the Nuclear l
6 l
l 7
Regulatory Commissi'on.
(3) The term State means the State of New York.
8 (4) The term high level radioactive waste neans 9
~
the high' level radioactive waste which was produced by 10 the reprocessing-at the Center of spent nuclear fuel.
11 Such term includes both liquid wastes which are produced 12 directly in reprocessing, dry solid material derived l
13 from such liquid waste, and such other material as the L
14 Commission designates as high level radioactive waste 15 for purposes of protecting the public health and safety.
16 (5) The term transuranic waste means material 1
17
' 18 contaminated with elements which have an atomic number l Q 19 greater than 92 i c1pdin punium, pluton $i*,
of g.j qam q
hi are in concentr ions
-20 americium,andcurig,and greater than 10 nanocuries per gram, or in such other 21 concentrations as the Commission may prescribe to l
22 l
23 protect the public health and safety.
24 (6) The term project means the project 25 prescribed by section 2(a).
i 4
e
- m. d I
j-
--, n,4. q~~~~g r,
l.
DINGEL202
} ;.' [ [ [ ^
~~~
~
-[ STAFF DRAFT OF PROPOSED SUBCOMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR H.R.
7418]
August 14, 1980 j
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
I 1
SHORT TITLE 2
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the Nuclear. Waste,
-3 Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1980.
O
~
4 FINDINGS AND PURPOSES l
5 SEC. 2.
(a) The Congress finds that--
6 (1) the efforts made in the last thirty years to 7
devise a permanent solution to the problems of nuclear 8
waste disposal have not been adequate; 9
(2)'only the Federal Government has the capability 10 to provide for the permanent disposal of high level 11 radioactive waste which has been produced from military O
12 and commercia1 activities.
13 (3) the accumulation of such waste from military and 14 commercial activities and from activities related to'
{-
15 medical research, diagnosis, and treatment, as well as 16 such waste from other activities, including research and 17 development activities, is a national problem; 18 (4) although recent scientific studies and a 19
' majority of scientists assert that high level 20 radioactive waste generated through the use of nuclear I
i-1
..,n e.
--,-,.,ne e
,, --w-
V..
O o
2 1
technologies can be disposed of. safely with no 1.
j 2
significant impact upon the public health and 3
environment, no method for actually disposing of such 4
waste has ever been demonstrated; l
5
.(5) research, development, and demonstration is a 6
desired prerequisite to confirming the existence of a 7
safe and reliable process for the ultimate disposal of 8
high level radioactive waste; 9
(6) the development of a safe and timely solution to
()
10 the problem of.high level' radioactive waste disposal is 11 essential if nuclear power is to make a significant
'12 contribution to meeting the future energy requirements 13 of the United States; and 14 (7) the demonstration of a safe and reliable process 15 for the disposal of high level radioactive waste will 16 aid the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in establishing l
17 regulations governing the design, construction, and
(]I 18 operation of repositories.
19 (b) The purposes of this Act are--
20 (1) to establish a directed and orderly research, 21 development, and demonstration program in the Department 22 of Energy for the disposal of high level radioactive 23 waste; 24 (2) to confirm the existence of technological 25 solutions for safely disposing of high level radioactive y
n-
+
w
+
DINGEL202
()
.l
()
3 1
waste; and 2
(3) to develop the experience, data, and information 3
necessary for the Secretary of Energy to build and 4
operate full-scale high level radioactive waste 5
repositories.
6 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM 7.
SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary of Energy shall, not later 8
than sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 9
establish a research, development, and demonstration program
()
~
10 for the disposal of high level radioactive waste, which 11 program shall include integrated technology demonstrations 12-and which shall be implemented in accordance with'this 13 section.
14 (b) Under the program, the-Secretary shall identify four 15 potential sites for high level radioactive waste
)
~
16 repositories in the continental United States. Each such j
17 site shall be located (1) in different geologic media, such 4
I) 18 as basalt, salt, salt domes, or granite, and (2) to the 19 extent practicable, in different regions of the United 20 States.
At each site the Secretary shall undertake such 21-activities as are necessary to provide data and information 22 related to site characterization in order to determine the 23 suitability of the site for further development into a
- 24. demonstration repository under the program. Two potential 25 sites shall be identified not later than the fourth quarter x-w--
~
-, - - - - - ~,
. - ~,,
r.
~.
O o
l 4
l.
1 of fiscal year 1981, and two additional potential sites L
2 shall be identified by the end of fiscal year 1983.
3 (c)(1) The Secretary shalt design, construct, and 4-operate at each of the sites identified under subsection (c) 5 a demonstration repository for high level radioactive waste.
6 The first demonstration repository sha11 be in operation by 7.-
the end of fiscal year 1986, the second demonstration 8
repository shall be in operation by the end of fiscal year 4
j.
9 1987, and the third and fourth demonstration repositories j
,0 10 sha11 be in operation as prescribed by registation enacted l
11 after the date of the enactment of this Act. Demonstration L-12 repositories--
!~
13 (A) shall be no larger than is appropriate to 14 conduct the necessary research and development 15 activities to demonstrate the safe disposa1 of high l
16-level radioactive waste, taking into consideration the i
17 necessary handling, engineering, space, configurations, O
18 and heat dissipation of such waste; 19 (B) shal1 be designed with a capacity for receiving H
20 a maximum of 40 metric tons of waste; and
]
l 21 (C) may be mined at depths, and shall be l
-22.
constructured with methods, similar'to those which wou1d l-23 be used in the construction of fult-scate repositories.
24 (2) No waste may be p1 aced in a demonstration repository b
25 under the-program un1ess--
-,-,..x
O O
5 1
(A) the waste is high level radioactive waste which 2
is owned by the Federal Government and is the result of 3
unlicensed activities; 4
(B) the waste may be retrieved; and 5
(C) a place certain has been identified for 6
receiving the waste after the termination of the program 7-and the State in which such place is located has agreed, 8
in such form and manner as the Secretary shall 9
prescribe, to the use of the place to receive the waste.
(
~
10 (3) The Secretary shall conduct at proposed sites for 11 demonstration repositories such tests as may be necessary to j
12 provide the necessary data for compliance with the National 13 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The Secretary shall 14 report to the Commission on the tests conducted at a site 15 pursuant to this paragraph and on the information developed 16 from such tests.
17 (4) None of the activities under the program preceding A\\/
18 the excavation for shafts for demonstration repositories 19 shall be considered to be a major Federal action pursuant to 20 section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act 21 of 1969.
22 (5) The operation of any demonstration repository may l
23 not extend beyond the year 2000.
24 (d) Under the program, the Secretary may place in 25 demonstration repositories canisters of solidified high W
4
l
(
O v
6 L
1 level radioactive waste which canisters are contained in 2
engineered barriers, including overpack canisters. Such 3
barriers shall comply with applicable requirements of the /
/
4 Commission..
i 5
(e) Within one year from the date of the enactment of l
6 this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with 1
l 7
the Commission to establish arrangements for review and L
8 consultation by the Commission with respect to the program.
9 The. agreement shall provide for the following:
('/
\\
l k-10 (1) The Secretary shall submit to the Commission, 11 for its review and comment, a plan which will (A) 12 describe how site characterization activities carried
,13 out under the program will not disturb the integrity of 14 the geological structure of the site where the l
15 activities are carried out, and (B) describe the form i
16 and manner in which high level radioactive waste will be 17 placed in the demonstration repositories under the
()
18 program. In preparing its comments on the plan, the 19 Commission shall specify with precision its objections 20 to any provision of the plan. The Secretary shall 21 publish in the Federal Register the plan submitted to 22 the Commission and the comments submitted by the 23 Commission to the Secretary. If the Secretary does not l
24 revise the plan to meet objections specified in the 25 comments of the Commission, the Secretary shall publish i
..DINGEL202 O
O 7
1
\\
l in the Federal Register a detailed statement for not so i
2 revising the plan.
3 (2) The Secretary shall submit to the Commission 4
safety analysis reports and such other information as
\\
5 the Commission may require to identify any danger to the 6
public health and safety which may be presented by the 1
7 program.
8 (3) The Secretary shall not undertake any excavation.
9 of a site for a demonstration repository before O
10 receiving the approval of the Commission for such 11 excavation.
12 (4) During the program, the Secretary shall afford 13 the Commission access to the demonstration repositories 14 to enable the Commission to monitor the repositories for 15 the purpose of assuring the public health and safety.
l 16 (f)(1) The Secretary shall, on a continuing basis, l
17 consult and coordinate with the officials of each State in
- l3
/
18 which the Secretary proposes to construct a demonstration l
19 repository respecting his plans for, and his construction i
20 of, any such repository. The Secretary shall notify the 21 Governor of the State of his intention to locate a 22 demonstration repository within the State and, if there is no 'aw of such State providing for the designation of an 23 l
24 official.to coordinate activities for the State with respect 25 to repositories of radioactive waste, the Governor shall I
I
~. -.. -. -.. - - - -... - - -. - - - -
O O
^
~'
8 1
designate a State official to coordinate activities for the 2
State with respect to any repository to be constructed under 3
the' program in such State.
4 (2)(A) Before identifying under section 3(b) a site for L
5 a repository for high level radioactive waste, the Secretary i
6' shall hold public hearings in the' vicinity of the site for 7
the purpose of informing the residents of the area.in which L
L8 the site is located of the activities proposed to be 9
undertaken at the site and to receive their comments.
- (])
10 (B) Before submitting a plan to the Commission under 11 section 3(e)(1), the Secretary shall hold public hearings in l-12-the vicinity of the site with respect to which the plan was 13 prepared for the purpose of informing the residents 'of the 14 area in which the site is located of the contents of the 15 plan and to receive their comments.
16-
-(C) Before placing any radioactive waste in a 117 demonstration repository, the Secretary shall hold public
([)
18 hearings in the vicinity of the repository for the purpose 19 of informing the residents of the area in which the repository'is located of the placement of the waste in the
-20 L.
21' repository and to receive their comments.
1 22 (g) All demonstration facilities authorized by this 23 section shall be' constructed and operated as research, l24 development, and demonstration facilities pursuant to j
25 section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Such L
L
L'.~'.
O O
9 L
1 facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance g
2 with all applicable law.
L 3.
(h) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 4
secretary to carry out this section--
5 (1) $1C2,000,000 for the fiscal year ending g
l 6
September 30, 1981, and 7.
(2) for subsequent fiscal years, such sums as may be.
- 8 authorized by legislation enacted after the date of the 9
enactment of this Act.
-n JU.
-10
.(i) The authority of the Secretary to enter into l
L 11 contracts under this:section shall be effective for any i
L 12 fiscal year only to such extent or in such amounts as are
.13..provided in advance by appropriation Acts.
14 (j) The Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, p
15 shall make an annual report to the Congress on the program.
16 Each report shall include--
17 (1) a description of the activities undertaken'and
(])
18 the costs incurred in the program in the period reported j
19 on, 20 (2) the activities proposed to be undertaken and the 21 costs proposed to be incurred in the program in the 22 succeeding period,
'23_
(3) a description of any problems encountered in the 24 implementation of the program, 25 (4) a description of the hearings held pursuant to i
~..
DINGEL202 O-O L
10 1
subsection (f)(2),
2
-(5) such separate views and. recommendations as the 3
Commission may' include in the report, and 4
(6)-such other information as the Secretary 5
-determines appropriate.
.6~
low LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE STUDY l
7 SEC.-4. (a) The' Secretary shall--
L 8
(1) conduct a study of the advantages and 9
. disadvantages of (A) using a glass furnace, or other
()
~
10 appropriate device, to' consume and reduce the volume of 11.
low level radioactive waste while at the same time 12
-appropriately containing such waste; (B) locating any l
'13 such device at nuclear powerplants to serve as 14 processing facilities of low level radioactive waste l
15 generated in the regions in which the plants are located l
l 16 before the shipment of the waste for final disposal; (C) 17 using existing underground caverns produced by nuclear
'( k 18 explosive detonations for disposing of low-level 19 radioactive waste; and (D) allowing short-lived, 2<0
' low-level radioactive waste to be held in storage until 21!
safe for disposal as nonradioactive wastes; and i
22 (2)-submit a report by June 1, 1981, containing the l23-findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting
-24 from the study required by paragraph (1) to the Speaker 25-
'of the House of Representatives and the President pro l
I L
- -- a
- -.......... - ~. -. -
DINGEL202 o
o 11 l
1 tempore of the Senate.
)
i 2
(b) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 3
subsection (a) $2,000,000.
4 (c) The authority of the Secretary to enter into 5
contracts under this section shall be effective for any j
6 fiscal year only to such extent or in such amounts as are 7
provided in advance by appropriation Acts.
8 DEFINITIONS 9
SEC. 5. For purposes of this Act:
A U
10 (1) The term Secretary means the Secretary of 11
- Energy, i
12 (2) The term Commission means the Nuclear 2
,13 Regulatory Commission.
14 (3) The term high level radioactive waste means i
i l
15 irradiated reactor fuel and the highly radioactive 16 wastes resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear 17 fuel. Such term includes both liquid wastes which are
]
()
18' produced directly in reprocessing, dry solid material 19 derived from such liquid waste, and such other material 20 as the Commission designates as high level waste for l
21' purposes of protecting the public health and safety.
4 22-(4) The term program means the program 23 authorized by section 3.
24 (5) The term site characterization means
)
25 exploration and study, both in the laboratory and in the' i
DIN Ei.202 c)
{)
12 1
field, undertaken to establish the geologic conditions 2
of a particular site. Site characterization includes 3
borings, surface excavations, excavations of exploratory 4
shafts, and in situ testing needed to determinc the 5
suitability of a site for a geologic repository, but 6
does not include preliminary borings and geophysical 7
testing needed to decide whether site characterization 8
sho-ld be undertaken.
9 (6) The term low level radioactive waste means
'(])
10 radioactive waste not classified as high level 11 radioactive waste, transuranic waste, or byproduct 12 material as. defined in section lle. (2) of the Atomic 13 Energy Act of 1954.
h 4
0 t
~
99rg CONoREss ? HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RErr. 96-i 1156 Part 1 2d session 3 NUCLEAR WASTE RESEARCll, DEVELOP 31ENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1980 J cur 2,1980.--Ordered to be printed h
Mr. Frgra, from the Conuuittee on Science and Technology, submitted the following
..... ~..
REPORT e
together with
~
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accornpany II.It. 7418]
[ Including cost estiinate of the Congressional Iludget OUlce]
The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (II.R. 7418) to provide for an accelerated pmgram for re-seamh, development, and demonstration of nucicar waste management leading to early demonstrations of high-level waste dislosal and of transitwnal storage of spent fuels and leading to analyses of advanced methods for disposal of low-level wastes to be carried out by the De-partment of Energy, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
- 1. On page 6, aiter line 15 insert t he following paragraph :
"(6) There is authorized to be appmpriated to the Secretary to carry out this Section: (1) For the fiscal year ending Sep-O tember 30,1981, the sum of $96,400,000 reduced by such sums as may be authorized for the same purposes in any Depart-ment of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization Act, and (2) For sulaquent fiscal years such sums as may be au-thorized by legislatmn hereafter enacted."
On page 7, insert afterline 15,the following:
"(4) There is authorized to be approprinted to the Secretary to carry out this Section : (1) For the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30,1981, the sum of $2,000,000, reduced by such sums e
as may be authorized for the same purposes in any Depart-63-976 0 J
O O
2 ment of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization Act, and (2)d by legislation hereaitir enacted."For subsequent fiscal years such sums thorize On Imgo 7 strike lines 23 through 2:i, inclusive, and on Imge 8, strilm lines I thn> ugh 5, inclusive,
- 2. On page 3, line 19, strike "." and insert in lieu thereof ", but in no event shall be used for commercial activities without further leg-islative action."
On page 6, strike lines four and five.
On page 7, after line 22, insert the following new section:
"coNsTRUL*PloN or LANGUAoE Src. 6. Nothing in this Act shall bc construed to authorize remedial action activities or the coratruction or operation of conunericalwaste management facilities."
- 3. Page 2, strike out "and" in line 7; strike out the leriod in line
- 13. and insert in lion thereof ";", and insert after line 13 the following new paragraphs:
"(4) until reprocessing or ade<1unte away-from-nmetor storage is available to receive slwnt fuel, off-site transitional storage is needed to maintain on-site full core reserves, and suitable methods for such transitional storage should be h
developed and demonstrated; (5) the oldest spent fuel assemblies at those reactors in need of transitional storage have generally twen in storage a decado or more; (6) compared to fuel discharged for one year, the oldest assemblies are considerably less radioactive,are about seven times lower in heat emissihn, and pose considerably less risk of leakage of radioactive gases; (7 for such spent fuel, dry stontge in air in galleries at exist)mg Federal sites designed for radioactive materials should le demonstrated as comparatively inexpensive, safe storage alternatives to other storage metliods under development."
Page 3. strike out the period in line 3 and insert in lieu thereof
";", and insert after line a the following new paragraphs:
"(5) to undertake a research, development and demon-stratmn pmgram in the Department for transitional dry storage of spent fuel in galleries; (6) to confirm the existence of technological methods and and adaptable facilities for such storage of fuel:
(7) to use technology-demonstration facilities for such storage for the purim of developing the eximrience, data, and information necessary for the Department to adapt facilities and to operate larger-size facilities for transitional dry storage in galleries."
l' age 7, after line 15, insert the following new section (and re-designate the succeeding sections accordingly) :
O O
3 "rnusrnox.u. srorum: or senx r ren, Sec. 5. The Secretary shall, not later than sixty days after the enactment of this Act, establish a irsearch, development, and demonstration program for transitional dry storage of simnt fuel in galleries, to inchide integmted technolocy demonstrations, and to be implemented as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall identify available space or spaces in an existing facility or facilities of the Depait-ment that were built, and are maintained, for purposes primarily other than transitional storage of commercial spent fuhls. Such space may be rooms, bays, chambers, or reprocessing-plant canyons that can be adapted to contam galleries for safe, dry storage of spent fuel under properly shielded conditions. Such galleries shall be able to initially accommmlate a total of about 500 tonnes of spent fuel. Each facility shall have initial ca-pacity to hold at laest 100 tonnes'of spent fuel and shall
+
have'sufIlcient space to permit later expansion to at least 500 tonnes capacity. For purposes of providing a variety
~~
~
~ ~ ~ -
of development and demonstration experiences, the Sec-retary shall identify at least two such facilities,if such spaces in such facilities are reasonably adaptable.
O (2) The Secretary shall mmlify, rebuild, or correct
~
such space to build galleries to permit demonstration of the level of air tightness, air emding, air filtering, visual and instrumentation monitoring, and maintenance nec-essary to technologically demonstrate transitional stor-age of spent fuel.
(3) The Secretary shall acquim and install racks or other appropriate apparatus for containing a total of about 500 tonnes of spent fuel in galleries in such space.
(4) In such spaces, the Secretary shall place an appropriate number of spent fuel elements,to test. dry storage in galleries. The Secretary shall give prefer-ence to using spent fuel from reactors that have lost, or are facing impending loss, of full core reserve in their on-site storage.
(5) The Secretary shall modify, if necessarv, and adapt existing equipment at each such facility, or a suitable close-hv facility, to demonstrate receiving, unloading, decontaminatinir, and transferring spent fuel O
for transitional storage in the galleries described in paragraphs (2) and (3).
(0) One year after the enactment of this Act and each year tfiereafter the Secretary shall report to the Congress on progress in research, development, and demonstration in dry transitional storage of spent fuel 4
in galleries and on tiie expected costs for the completion of such demonstrations.
)
(7) As soon as is practicable, and on a continuing basis the Seeivtary shall consult and coordinate with l
6
O O
the ap >ropriate State officials regarding the Depart-ment's >lans for, and construction of, the demonstration of transitional storage facilities.
(8 Consistent with existing law, all demonstration facih) ties authorized in this section shall le constructed and operated as nonlicensed research, development, and demonstration facilities.
(D) There is authorized to le appropriated to the Secre.tary to carry out this Section: (1) For the fiscal year ending Septemler 30,1981, the smn of $1,000,000, reduced by such sums as may le authorized for the smne purposes in any Department of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization Act, and (2) For subsequent fiscal years such sums as may le authorized by legislation hereafter enacted."
- 4. Page 4, line 7, add the following sentenco:
"None of the activities in this subparagraph including the excavation for shafts shall be considen d to be a major Federal action pursuant to subsection 102(2)(C) of the Na-thnal Environmental Policy Act of 1960."
The followingis the text of the amended bill:
(ILR. 7418, as amended. Imt h Congrexa,2d nension)
IN TnE nOUSE or REPEE8ENTATivES, M AY 21, 1980 Mr. McCormack (for himself, Mr. Goldwater 31r. Fuqua, and Mr. Wydler) Mr.
Itoe, Mr. Fornythe, Mr. Winn, Mr. nadham, Mr. Iturgener, Mr. Cleveland. Mr.
Dougherty, Mr. Emery, Mr. Evann of Georgia. Mr. Ileftet, Mr. Af arks, Sir. Martin, Mr. Mitchell of New Yor-k, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Musto, Mr. Royer, Mr. Sebellux, Mr. Spence. Mr. Stangeland. Mr. Walker. Mr. Whitehurst, Mr.
Won Pat, M r. Preyer, M r. Chappell, Mr. Pickle, and Mr. McClory.
A BILL to establish a research, developrnent, and demonstration program for the disposal of radioactive wastes Be it enacted by the Senate and flouse of Representa-tives o the United Siam nl Anwrica in congren aneml> led, That t tis Act may be < ited as the " Nuclear Waste Research, Development,amiDerymstration Act of 1980".
FINDINGS AND PUnPoSE Sec. 2. (a) The Congress hereby finds that-(1) nuclear energy is a relatively safe and environ mentally clean means of generating electricity, and nu-g clear medicine is a vital inrt of resolving almost every conceivable medicialprob em;
- 2) the wastes generated through the use of nuclear tec mology can, according to recent scientific studies and a large majority of scientists, be disluwd of safely with no significant impact upon the public health und welfare; (3) research, development, and demonstration is an essential prerecluisite to confirming the existence of safe and reliable processes for the germanent disposal of high-
7 O
O 5
o level radioactive wastes, and to establishing advanced techniques for disposing of low-level radioactive wastes; (4) until reprocessing or adequate awav-from-reactor storage is available to receive spent fuel,'otl"-site transi-tional storage is needed to maintain on-site full core reserves, and suitable methods for such transitional storage should be developed and demonst rated ;
(5) the oldest spent fuel assemblies at those reactors in need of transitional storage have generally been in storage a decade or more :
(0) compared to fuel discharged for one year, the
~
oldest assemblica are considerably less radioactive, are almut seven times lower in heat emission, and pose con-siderably less risk of leakage of rmlioactive gases: and (7) for such spent fuel, dry storage in air in galleries at existing Federal sites designed for radioactive i.
materials should be demonstrated as comparatively in-expensive, safe storage alternatives to other storage methods under development.
~
(b) The purimes of this Act are--
(1) to establish a directed and orderly research, de-velopment, and demonstration prognun in the Depart-O ment of Energy for the disposal of high-and low-level radioactive wastes:
(2) to confirm the existence of technological solutions for safelv disposing of high-level radioactive wastes; f
(3) to' develop the experience, data, and information necessary for the Department to build and operate full-scale hig'h-level nulioactive waste repositories:
(4) to develop advanced techniques for reducing the volume and disposing of low-level radioactive wastes; (5) to undertake a research, development and demon-stration program in the Department for transitional dry storage of spent fuelin galleries; (0) to confirm the existence of technological methods and adaptable facilities for such storage of fuel; and (7) to use technology-demonstration facilities for such storage for the purpose of developing the experience, data, and information necessary for the Department to adapt facilities and to operate: large-size facilities for t ransitional dry storage in calleries.
O
~
m e "- mvt<. -^ -
Soc. 3. The Secretary of Energy (hereinafter referred to as the ** Secretary") shall, not later than sixty davs after the date of the en'actment of this Act, establish i research, devel-opment, and demonst ration program for flu, disposal of high-
' i level radioactive waste (in this section called " waste"), to include integrated technology demonstrations, and to be im-plemented as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall identify four regionally dis-t ributed repository sites in the cont'inental United 9tates, J.
L
O O
6 at least one of which shall be located in each of the east-ern, central, and western regions of the United States.
At each site the Secretary shall excavate to provide shafta 'or site characterization, suitable for further de-velopment into demonstration repositories. Such sites
- r. hall be suitable for future full-scale repositories, but in no event shall be used for conunercial activities without further legislative action. For purposes of minimizing delays in the program, emphasis shall be given to feder-ally owned sites, including but not limited to sites where waste has been stored or deposited. Sites considered shall inchide but not. he limited to the following geologic media : 11asalt, tuff, granite, and salt. Site selection shall be based upon the principle that the wastes involved shall be isolated from the biosphere by engineered bar-riers, developed pursuant to paragraph (3), with sub-sequent isolation by geologic containment. The locations of the first two sites shall be identified not later than the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 1981 and the third and fourth sites by the end of fiscal year 1983.
(2) The Secretary shall design, construct, and operate four technology-demonstration repository facilities (herein referred to as " demonstration repositories") for research and development purposes at the sites selected on the basis of the site characterization under paragraph (1). The demonst ration repositories shall bo in operation by the end of fiscal year 1986 for the first and fiscal year 1687 for the secom'1, with operation of the third ~and fourth anticipated by the end of fiscal year 1990. Such demonstration repositories shall be mined at depths and constructed with methods suitable for development into fullmale repositories, and they shall be no larger than is appropriate to conduct the necessary research and de-velopment activities to demonstrate the safe disposal of wastes,taking into consideration the necessary handling, engmeering, space configurations, and heat dissipation of such wastes. Each repository shall be designed with a capacity for receiving a minimum of forty full-size can-isters of vitrified waste praluced pursuant to paragraph (3). These forty canisters shall be designed such that the maximum surface temperature of the overpack canister is in the range ninety to one hundred degrees centigrade when emplaced in demonstration repositories. All such g
waste stored in any demonstration repository authorized by this Act shall be fully retrievable. The operation of the demonstration repos'itories shall terminate by the year 2000. The demonstration repositories shall contain wastes own -d or acquired by the Federal Government and primarily resultmg from unlicensed activities. None of the activities in this subparagraph including the exca-vation for shafts shall be considered to be a major Fed-eral action pursuant to subsection 102(2)(C) of the Na-tional Enviromnental Policy Act of 1969.
O O
7 (3) The Secretary shall design, construct, and oper-nie technology-derno'ustration facilities to solidify wastes in canisters by any suitable technique, including but not liinited to viirification. Canisters of solidified wastes shall be contained in engineered barriers which shall include but not be limited to overpack canisters. Such barriers shall be designed to prevent the movement of s
radionuclides out of the container for the time needed for the health hazard of such wastes to become comparable g*
to the health hazard of the uranium ore mined to gener-ate such wastes. Canisters of solidified waste shall be pro-totvpical of that suitable for permanent. placement in a fufl-scale repository and shall be n adv for placement in y
any demonstration' repository at the designated tirne of completion of such repository.
(4) As soon as is practicable, and on a continuing basis, the Secretary shall consult and coordinate with the d
appropriate ' State oflicials regarding the 1)epartment's plans for, and const ruction of, t he technology demonstra.
tion repositories which are planned to be sited in each
~'
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
State.
(.5) Consistent with existing law, all dernonstration facilities authorized in this section shall be constructed i
O and operated as nonlicensed research, development, and demonstration facilities.
m) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec-rotary to carry out this Section: (1) For the fiscal year ending Septendier 30, 1981, the sum of 8%400.000 re-duced by such sums as may le authorized for the same purposek in any Department of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization Act, and (2) For subse<pient fiscal years such sums as inny be authorized by legislation here-after enacted.
Low-LrvEL WASTES SEc. 4. The Secret a ry shall-(1) conduct research, developme on advanced techniques for dispos,nt, and demonstration mg of lomlevel i~adio-active wastes; (2) conduct a study which shall include an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of (A) using a glass furnace, or other appropriate device, to consume and
+
reduco the volume of low-level wastes while at the same O
time averevrieteir centaining snch wastet <n) h>catine any such volume reduction and solidification facilities at nuclear power plants to serve as regional processing fa-cilities prior to shipment for final disposal of all low.
level wastes eenerated in the regions involved : (C) using existing underground caverns produced by nuclear ex-plosive detonations for disposing of low-level wastes; and (D) allowing short-lived, low-level wastes to be held in storage until safe for disposal as nonradioactive wastes:
1
\\
\\
~
O O
findi)ngs, conclusions, and reconunendations(3 submit a report by February resulting imm the study required by palagraph (2), to the Com-mittee on Science and Technology of the liouse of Rep-resentatives and the C<nnmittee on Energy and Natural Resourcesof the Senate.
(4) there is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec-retary to carry out this Section: (1) For the fiscal year 30, 1081, the smn of $2,000,000, re-ending Septemlwr duced by such sums ns may be authorized for the same purposes in any Department of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization Act, and (2) For subsequent fiscal years such sums as may be authorized by legislation here-af ter enacted.
TItANSITIONAL SR)RAGF, oF srENT FUEL Sec. 5. The Secretary shall, not later than sixty days after the enactment of this Act, establish a research, development, and demonstration program for transitional dry storage of spent fuel in galleries, to include integrated technology dem-onstrations, and to be nuplemente d as follows :
(1) Tho Secretary shall identify available space or g
spaces in an existing facility or facilities of the Depart-ment that were built, and are maintained, for purposes primarily other than transitional storage of conunercial spent fuels Such space may be rooms, bays, chambers, or reprocessing-plant canyons that can be adapted to con-tam galleries for safe, dry storage of spent fuel under pmperly shielded conditions. Such galleries shall be able to initially accommodate a total of about 500 tonnes of spent fuel. Each facility shall have initial capacity to hohl at least 100 tonnes of spent fuel and shall have suG-cient space to permit later expansion to at least 500 tonnes capacity. For purpus of providing a variety of develop-ment and demonstration experiences, the Secretary shall identify at least two such facilities,if such spaces in such facilities are reasonably adaptable.
(2) The Secretary shall modify, rebuild, or correct
~
such space to build galleries to per'ait demonstration of the level of air tightness, air coolin r, air filtering, visual and instrumentation monitoring, and maintenance neces-sary to technologically demonstrate transitional storage of spent fuel.
(3) The Secretary shall acquire and install racks or other appropriate apparatus for containing a total of about 500 tonnes of sient fuel in galleries in such space.
(4) In such spaces.the Secretary shall place an appro-priate numler of spent fuel elements to test dry storagem galleries. The Secr spent fuel from reactors that have lost, or are facing im-pending loss, of full core reserve in their on-site storage.
~
O D
~
~
9 4
(5) The Secretary shall modify,if necessary, and adapt l,
existing equipment at each such facili/, or a suitable close-by facility, to demonstrate recei ng, unloading, decontaminating, and transferring spent fuel for iransi-tional storage in the galleries descrilmd in panigraphs (2) and (3).
(6) Ono year after the enactment of this Act and each year themafter the Secretary shall report to the Congmss on p,rogress in n search, development, and demonstra-tion in dry transitional storap3 of sient fuel in galleries and on the expected emts for the completion of such demonst rations.
(7) As soon as is practicable,and on a continuingbasis, tho Secretary shall consult and coonlinate with the ap-propriate S' tate onicials reganling the Depart ment's plans for,and construction of,the demonstration of tran-sitional stontp3 facilities.
(8) Consistent with existing law, all demonstration facihties authorized in this section shall im constructed and operated as nonlicensed reseamh, development, and demonstration facilities.
(D) There is aut horized to le approprinted to the Secre-tary to carry out t his Section : (1) For ihe fiscal year end-ing Septemler 30,1981, the sum of $1,000,000, reduced by such sums as may le authorized for the same purposes in any Department of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual au-thorization Act, and (2) For sulwquent fiscal years such smus as may be authorized by legislation hereafter enacted.
USE OF FUNDS e
Sec. 6. The Secretary shall utilize all funds appropriated pursuant to this Act for purposes consistent with the expedi-tious completion of each authorized activity, and shall not 5
provide funds, either directly or indirectly, to any person (as defined by paragraph 11(s) of the Atomic Energy Act of
/
19M, as amended) advocating a Imsition on such activity.
CoNSTRUc' mon or LANGUAGE Sec. 7. Nothing in this Act. shall be const.nsl to authorize remedial action activities or the construction or operation of commercial waste management facilities.
I. PUnvoss or rnE lhu.
The puriose of the !!ill is to establish a research, development and l
demonstration program for the dispmal of radioactive wastes by the Department of Energy, to provide for comprehensive planning and programmmg, and to authorize to lx' appropriated to the Depart-ment of Energy the sum of $109,400,000 in fiscal year 1981, reduced by such sums as may be authorized for the same purpmes in any Depari-ment of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization act and for o
{
6 3 - 4 7 f.
A3 -,
O O
10 subsequent fiscal years such sums as may be authorized by legislation hereinafter enacted.
The bill will accomplish these purposes by-(a) requiring that four technology-dernonstration repositories for containing high level wastes be constructed with emphasis upon the engmeered barriers of solidification and the surround-ing canisters, with specified times for detennining the h> cation of the repositories and completion times, and technology-demon-stration facilities for solidification (including vitrification) of wastes for uso in tbese reixisitories.
(b) requiring continued development of advanced methods for disposal of low level wastes, including a study of the poten-tial for vitrifying, at each nuclear reactor location, the wastes generated in the geographical n gion, and the potential for dis-posal of such vitrified low-level wastes in caverns formed by previous nuclear exph>sions; (c) requiring a demonstration of transitional storage of the oldest fuels that have been discharged from power reactors, with such storage to be in galleries in unused parts of existing build-ings, for the purpose of demonstrating the practicality of dry storage for such fuels; and (d) specifying objectivity and expediency in accomplishing these purposes by requiring that persons advocating a position 3 on such activities shall not be provided funds, either directly cr T indirectly.
II. Cmturrrem Aenoss This bill,II.It. 7418, the Nuclear Wasto Ite.,carch, Development and Demonstration Act of 1980, has evolved from a series of legislative initiatives of the Conunittee on Science and Technology and its Members.
The Department of Energy Civilian Program 1980 Authorization Act, II.R. 3000, passed by the IIouse of Representatives, requires a study of a technoloay-demonstration repository for completion by 1085. This originated from an amendment which wouhl have requin41 actual operation of C repository by this date. Similarly, that same bill requires transu:
d storage of spent fuel by the Department of DOE) for l.S. ivactors, to insure that each has the ability to Energy (ll-core resers e in its spent fuel storage capacity.
retain fu The Department of Energy Civilian Programs 1981 Authorization Act, II.lt. c627, as rel>orted by the Conunittee on Science and Tech-nology on 31ay 16,1980, provhb broader scale research, development, &
and demonstration for high-level waste disposal and low-level waste W treatment and burial than contained in the 1980 Authorization Act, H.lt. 3000 which was rejorted on 3f ay 1:i,1979. This broader range prognun emphasizes technology demonstration for nuclear waste man-agement. The Connuittee has aho reported II.It. 7440, the Department of Energy Civilian I!esearch and Development Program 1981 Anthor-ization Act, which incorporates the research and development compo-nents previously contained in 1I.l{. 6027.
II.R. 7418, contains much of the high-level waste and low-level waste programs contained in the authorization bi!!s for 1981, H.R.
O O
11 6027 and H.R. 7449. In addition, a section on transitional siwnt fuel stontge is contained in 11.11.7418.
The Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production held several days of hearings in the development of II.II. 7418, with the last day of testimony on May 29th bemg specifically on this bill. Hearings of a backgnmnd nature were held on May 15,16,17,1970 for high-level wastes, at which Icading government, environme'ntal and indus-trial experts testified, and on November 7,1079, for low-level wastes, at which state governors, other government officials, and nuclear-medi-eine experts testified.
In the preparation of the bill, H.R. 6227, the Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. George W. Cunningham, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear knergy, and Mr. Sheldon Meyers, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Waste Management of the Department of Energy on February 5 and 12,1980. In addition, on March 6,1980 the Subcom-mittee received expert testimony from a panel of non-governmental witnesses consisting of Dr. Larry L. Hench of the Department of Material Sciences and Engineering, the University of Florida; Dr.
Earnest R. Gloyna, the immediate past chairman of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management of the National Academy of Sciences and the Dean of the College of Engineering, the University of Texas; and Dr. Lynn E. Weaver of the Coonlinating Committee on Energy O Institute of Technology.
a nirecter er ine seneei er x cie s xi eeri x, ine oe rxi-(
On May 29,1980, the Subcommittee received testimony specifically on H.R.1418 from Mr. John Davis, Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeeuards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Mr. Sheldon Meyers of DOE, Mr. David Berick of the Environmental Policy Center, and Mr. J. Edward Howard, Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group and the Nuclear Vice President of Boston Edison Company.
HI. BACKoHoUND AND Nr.r.n The nation needs wseanh, development and demonstration facil-ities to encourage all energy sources, particularly those that re-duce our detendence on foreign oil. It has been widely accepted that nuclear energy is an important and necessary part of our total energy supply and that its development can fmther displace the use of oil to generate electricity. Although public attention has focused on a num-ber of issues related to nuclear energy, such as environmental impacts, nuclear safety, isposal has become a central issue. This is partly evi-and-to some degree-safeguants, the resolution of
)
f nuclear waste d denced by the fact that at least 8 states have imposed restrictions (whether constitutional or not) on the building of new nuclear power plants until the safe disposal of highdevel waste has lwn demon-strated. Full. size commercini repositories will probably not be con-d stnieted until enough wastes have been generated through wprocess-ing to justify their expense, and until sufficient data and information exist to verify wl.at is already theoretically known about the technol-ogy for safely disposing of fliese wastes. This latter pmrequisite is the concern addressed in bill H.R. 7418.
l
~
O O
12 Over the past 20 years, operating civilian nuclear power plants have generated considerable volumes of spent fuel which contains rela-tively small quantities of radioactive waste having varying lifetimes and toxicit.ies. Spent fuel is accumulating primarily in on-site storage pools at [wer reactor sites. Liquid and powder lonus of high-level wastes from the limited reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel are stored near the carth's surface awaiting solidification before permanent dis-posal. Reactor spent-fuel stontge facilities are rapidly Iring filled to capacity and civilian liquid high level vastes am stored in facilities which were not intended for long-term use. It is important that new methods to alleviate the crowding of spent fuel pools and to solidify and dispose of high-level wastes in deep underground repositories he developed and demonst rated.
Another need is to consider advanced methods of collecting, treat-ing, and disposing of low-level wastes. Tow-level wastes result from civilian nuclear power activities and from the increasingly important medical and research uses of radioactive materials, as well as from industrial applications. The qmintities of low-level wastes from these other sources are comparable to those from nuclear energy. Lawrence
~
R. MurofL M.D., President of the American College of Nuclear Physi-cians testified before the Sulvommittee on Energy Research and Pro-duction on November 7,1979 that " Nuclear medicine imaging and function studies are performed on approximately one of every two or
&W three hospitalized patients,as well as on large numbers of out-patients.
It is estimatal that last year about ten million nuclear medicine imag-ing and function studies were conducted, and about sixty million nu-clear medicine assay procedures were perfonned. Therefore, almost every conceivable medical problem relies heavily on nuclear medicine studies."
Only recentiv has the Federal government given high priority to establishing a ilefinitive policy for long-term disposal of these high-and low-level wastes or temporary storage of spent fuel.
Spent-fuel storage programs have been focused on extending the capacity of existing water-pool systems. In contrast, new and different alternatives have received little attention. Similarly, disproportionate attention has been given to the disposal of spent fuel, with little atten-tion to the disposal of the shorter-lived reprocessed high-level wastes.
The issue with regard to nuclear waste manager.ient is, therefore, whether we should continue with long-range programs of questionable benefit or whether we should begin now to demonstrate, in the near future, alternatives that will show the practicality of methods for dis-posal of reprocessed wastes and for the storage of spent fnel.
To meet the needs of an aggressive and meaningful program, II.R. g 7418, establishes an accelerated reseanh, development and demon-stration program in the Department of Enerev for the disposal of high-and low-level radioactive wastes. The hill is needed to assure that positive and expeditious steps are taken to resolve this urgent national problem.
In short, the bill enables the Department of Energy to clearly dem-onstrate that the technology exists for the safe and simple disposal of high-level radioactive wastes and for simple dry storace of the ohlest spent fuels. It will also provide needed information to improve the
O Q
13 safety and lessen any environmental impact of disposing of low-level radioactive wastes.
Sfany national studies and the hearings of the Subconunittee on Energy Research and Production have established the practicability of such research, development and demonstration for accomplishing these purposes. The conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences Report," Energy in Transition, 1985-2010," published on fanuary 14, 1980, is typical of the recent studies:
"No insurmountable technical obstacles are fomseen to pre-clude safe disposal of nuclear wastes in geological formatwns.
All necessary pn>ctss steps for inunobilizing high-and low-level wastes have been develope 41, and there are no technical barrers to their implementation."
This confidence was aflirnust during the May 16,1979 hearing by an expert panel on nuclear waste management, consisting of Dr. Frank Parker, professor of Envirotunental Engineering at Vanderbilt Uni-versity, Dr. Raul A. Deju, Director of the Hasalt Waste Isolation Pro-gram at IIanford, Washington ; and Dr. Larry Hench, professor from the Materials Science Department of the University of Florida. The panel was unanimous in expressing its view of the need to move ahead with the dis msal of high-level wastes.
It is wide y agreed among the experts that solidification techniques are available and are more than adequate in the repository system to k
safelv isolate the wastes from the biosphere. During the Afay 17,1979 hearing, an advocate of solidification methods other than ghtssifica-
~
tion, Dr. Rustum Roy, Director, Materials Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, agreed that glassification was "over-E kill." br. Roy was the chairman of the Panel on Waste Solidification of the Comm'ittee on Radioactive Wasto Atanagement of the National
/
Academy of Sciences. He stated, during the May 17,1979 hearing, f
that "We have unanimous concensus by every expert on the panel that it [ solidification] can be done,that it is a relatively simple technology.
T.
that many solid forms can be utilized for the safe disposal of wastes."
With respect to low-level waste disposal, the witnesses at the Novem-ber 7,1979 hearing stated that. improved disposal techniques for low-level material are available. For example, Dixy Lee Ray, Governor of Washington and a scientist and past chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, stated that "there is much that can be done to reduce the vohune of low-level wastes, because,in a sense, we have bent over back-ward to include every hing." During the same hearing, Dr. Rosalyn Yalow, a Nobel Prize Laureate and benior Medical Investigator at the O Veterans' Administration Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y., also pointed out that low-level radioactive residue naturally decays to reach smaller amounts of activity that can then be safely disposed of by non-radio-logical means. ILh. 7418 specifically requires a study of these low-level radioactive waste issues.
6 The Department of Energy Civilian Programs 1981 Authorization Act, H.R. 6627, contains substantially the same provisions as Sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 7418. During the February 12,1980, hearing on H.R.
J4 0027. Dr. George W. Cunningham, the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy in DOE, told the Subconunittee that practical high-level e
e
______-_m.
O O
14 waste disposal options exist and that he tw litwes glassification for dis-posal of nuclear waste material is an " accept able approach."
At the 3f arch 6,1980 hearing on II.II. 6627, Dr. Lynn E. Weaver concurred that no technolngical difficulties prechide the safe disposal of high. level waste. Dr. Weaver spoke on behalf of the Coordinating Conunittee on Energ,y 9nd the Association for Cooperation in Engi-neering, which coonhnates 22 ruajor engineering societies having over 700,000 engineers as men;bers. Dr. Weaver stated :
" Nuclear waste and radioactive ellluents can be safelv and reliably managed with existing technologies or a straight-forward extension thereof. Solidification of high level radio-active waste has been demonstrated in this country and in
~
France. There are a number of waste forms, such as glass or ceramic, which can he u+d to preparc the waste for dis-posal. 3 fetal or ceramic contamers provide mechanical con-venience and safety during transportation and serve to fur-ther immobilize the solidified wastes."
At the same hearing, Dr. Larry L. IIench, chairman of a national assessment panel on the materials needed for nuclear waste reposi-tories, stressed that the technology exists to dispose of nuclear wastes.
Furthermore, Dr. IIench emphasized that a program focused on re-search, developtsent and demonstration for the most realistic alter-l natives is essential. The current list of parameters that are under con-h sideration is unmanageable and, as Dr. IIench pointed out, results in
"* *
- a combination of more than 60S00 ditien nt materials-l interface-geology alternatives. The figure is even more stag-gering when you consider that test conditions are extended from 25 C to as high us 350 C in some lungrams. A thorough investigation of all these alternatives is not possible in our lifetimes. The lists must be shodened. Alte natives that show marginal pmmise must be eliminated so that critical combina-tions comprising a renlistic syston can be tested. It is urgent that relevant test conditions he specified by the geologic pro-grams so that materials systems can be evaluated."
The hearing on 3Iny 20,1980 was specificallv on 11.11. 7418. One witness, sir..T. Edward Howard, chairman of the Steering Commit-ten of the Utility Nuclear Waste Afanagement Group and Vice Presi-dent of Boston Edison Company, directly endorsed II.R. 7418, noting that it
"* *
- will serve us eful purposes by its focusing and expe-diting of DOE attention to the early decisions necessary m the waste management programs,by its development of us'eful confirmatory technical information and by its positive effect on continuell public acceptance of nuclear' power through its confirmation of the dedication of governmental institutions to the prompt and effective resolution of nuclear waste man-agement problems."
Witnesses from the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regula-
)( tory Commission were concerned about the extent to which the bill explicitly requires coordination with the NRC. When asked whether
15 reimrt on this pr,o~ ram (as included in Itc, port 96-967, Part III, on a
II.It. 6627) provafes for the desired coonhnation,3f r..Inck Af artin, 1)irector of the NitC Office of Waste mnagement, agmed that these arrangements "wouhl obviate any potential" of improper use of the relmsitory site as a result of these procedures.
Concer'ning the lack of progress in waste management programs, Mr. IIowant noted during the 3 fay 20,1980 hearing that:
"* *
- there appears to be a growing consensus among both critics ami proponents of nuclear energy alike that it is the institutional issues, rather than the techmcal ones, which pose the greatest risk of delaying implementation of waste man-agement strategies, liesolution of these institutional barriers will re<piire Congressional action."
Sir. Ilowant also confirmed the need for contingency alternatives, such as transitional storage of spent fuel umler dry conditions by ada pting existing buihlings, by stating:
"* *
- it is essential that the nation have a contingency
^
plan. Est utilities have undertaken steps to extend the time period for operation. We are counting on the establishment.
+
of away-from-reactor storage facilities by the government, assuming we continue with the present polic on reprocessmg.
It is cential that t hese activities go forwan.'
OVERVIEW The Congnss has never before legislated a broad nuclear waste management policy for research, development and demonstration with specific goals ami objectives. Instead, these aspects of the nuclear waste management policy have been established by each Administra-tration, with the main role of the Congress being the authorization and apjnopriation of funds for activities to implement these policies.
In view of the lack of progress in resolving many of the issues of public concern, the Congress must take the initiative. No matter what the national decision might be with regan1 to the future of nuclear power, nuclear waste disposal is a problem nupiiring research, devel-opment and demonstration for the already existing waste from nuclear power, nuclear medicine and from research and industrial needs. The Concress must act to remove the technical uncertainties in the actual implementation of the waste disposal techniques and establish public confidence in safe disposal of radioactive wastes. The legislation dis-cussed in this report on II.I!. 7418 attempts to implement the neces-O objectives.sary research. development, and demonstration to accomplish these IV. Srnon-ny-Swnox ANALYSIS oP' IIILL Section 2. Findings aral Purpose Subsection (a) expresses the findinn of the Congress that (1) nuclear energy provides electricity with safety and environmental effects iliat are favorable compared to other methods of generation i
and that nuclear medicine is increasingly important in the current
,4
O O
1, medical treatment of patients; (2) the large majority of scientists and engineers concur that existing technology can be used to safely dis-pose of these wastes; (3) fe methods con now he used for technologyresearch, development and dem needed to confirm that sa demonstrations of disposal of high kW, radioactive wastes, and thereby provide experience for later full-scale disposals; (4) develop-ment and demonstration of suitable methods for transitional storage of spent fuel is needed to establish and prove alternato methods for maintaining full-core reserve at on-site storage at nuclear reactors until reluocessing or ade<luate away-from-reactor ( AFit) storage is available to alleviate the shortage of on-site storage capacity; (5) reactors in need of alternate storage in order to maintam full-core reserve generally have the oldest spent fuel assemblies that hat e been in storage for a decade or more; (6) emissions of radioactivity, heat, and radioactive gasses are considerably less in older spent fuel than discharged spent fuel; (7) methods of using rows of racks in recentlyitute galleries for the storage of spent fuel in air in that const shielded spaces within existing Federal facilities need to be developed and demonstrated. They are needed for testing the practicalities and potential for such transitional storage of spent fuel as safe and convenient alternatives to other storage methods currently under development.
Subsection (b) establishes the purposes of this Act as: f1) to orient the research, development and demonstration prognun for disposal of $
high-and low-level radioactive wastes in a.n onlerly program that is directed toward the stated goals of this Act ; (2) to demonstrate waste solidification and storage in repositories to establish the practicality and performance of existing methods for safely disposing of high-level radioactive wastes; (3) to develop the exlu rience, data, and information necessary for the Department to con-truct and operate full-scale high-level waste repositories; (4) to develop advanced meth-ods for volume reduction and for burial or other dislx> sal of low-level radioactive wastes; (5) to intensify the efforts in the Department for research, development, and demonstration of methods appropriate for lare-scale transitional storage of the ohlest spent fuel in dry stor-age galleries; (6) to confirm the existence of appropriate methods for such dry transitional storage in galleries and to demonst rate the exist-ence of' facilities that are appropriately adaptable for such purposes; (7) to conduct a technology demonstration with such use of facilities in order to develop the experience, dnta. and infonnation necessary for the Department to operate larger-size facilities for such transitional dry storage in galleries.
Section 3. High-Level %tes Paragraph (3) directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a re-search, development, and demonstration program for the disposal of high-level nulinactive wastes (in this section called " wastes") that focuses upon integrated technology demonstrations.
Paragraph (1) directs the Secretary to identify four repository sites in the contmental United States that ure distributed such that at least one will be hicated in each of the eastern, ceintral, and western regions of the United States. The Secretary is further directed to excavate
O O
shafts to provide down hole site characterizations, which are to pro-vide the infonnation needed to determine the suitability for further development of the shafts into technology-demonstration repositories.
The Secittary is instructed to identify sites and conduct site character-izations i.n a manner that best preserves the option for any possible future expansion into full-scale repositories. Such expansion is ex-Ia>re.wly contingent upon a congressional authorization in other legis-tion and upon the data and experience from the tests conducted pur-suant to this Act. It is intended that the authorization in the Act for demonstration repository sites not be construed as authorization for remedial action ac.tivities or for conunercial use of these sites without ot her exist ing or later enacted legislative authorization. In the program for identifying repository sites, the Secretary is instructed to empha-size federally-owned sites, including, but not limited to sites where g
wastes have been stored or deposited. In identifying the stes, the Sec-retary is instructed to consider basalt, tuff, granite and salt as possible geologic media. Sites are to le selected using criteria based on the pnnenple that the primary means of preventmg the release of waste to the biosphere are engmeered barriers. The function of the geologic medium is to: limit access to the waste by the public; protect the engi-
- - - - --- L neered barriers; limit the spread of waste in the event of engineered barrier failure: and act as the final barrier when the effective life of the engineen d barriers has passed. Primary reliance on geology which O can assure that uncontained waste will be completely isolated from the biosphere is not required, and program delays to identify and utilize such geology are not permitted. The first two sites where site charac-terization shafts will be evacuated shall be identified not later than the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 1981 and of the third and fourth sites by the end of fiscal year 1983. Site identification involves a deter-mination by the DOE of the location of site-characterization shafts.
The exclusion of the activities in paragraph (1) from consideration as major Federal actions is intended to state a rational interpretation of the requirements of the National Environmental Poliev Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA), so as to avoid potential delaying tactics in implemetation of the program. It is intended that all actions required to comply s,vith NEl,*A for finally deci, ling to construct and operate a demonstration repository at the site will be carried out. concurrently with the information gathering activities specified in paragraph (1) of the Act.
Paragraph (2) concerns the construction and the scheduled comple-
' tion time of the four technology-demonstration repository facilities.
The dates of the completion of the technology-demonstration reposi-tories shall be the ends of the fiscal years 1986 and 1987 for the first two O and about 1990 for the second two. To assure the relevance of the demonstration, the repositories shall be prototypic of full-scale re-positories except that the storage capacity,in terms of the nundier of canisters, will be less than about one percent of full-scale repositories.
Each rvpository shall, as minimum, receive and store 40 canisters of glassified waste that are prototypic of what might be used in com-mercial repositories. lleyond this requirement, the repositories shall be no larger than necessary to provide data on waste handling, engineer-ing, space requirements, and heat dissipation that will be directly applicable to the construction of full-size repositories.63-976 0 3
O O
\\
The 40 esnisters of vitrified waste shall be designed and placed in the repository in such a way that the maximum surface tempera-turu of the outer canister is actually within the range of 90 to 100* C at. some time during the demonstration. The purpom of this require-ment,in part,is to assure that maximum practical engineering param-eters are usedin the design. All wastes stored in these technology-dem-onstration repositories shall be fully retrievable during operation of the demonstration phase, which is to te rminate by t he year 2000. Wastes to be used in this program are to be either owned or acquired by the Federal Government. To expedite the completion of the program, the wastes utilized shall come from already existing waste that. was pri-marily derived imm unlicensed activit'ies, i.e., pmvious reprocessmg of non-commercial spent fuel.
The construction of the demonstration repositories shall utilize such methods and be of such design and depth that, to the extent cur-rent knowledge would indicate, the repositories will be suitable for expansion into full-size repositories.
Paragraph (3) instructs the Secretary about the purpose of waste solidification and the engineered barriers. The engineered barriers in-clude the waste form itself, the canister containmg the waste, over-pack canister $imit the s read of waste.The engineered barriers are theand any engineer which would primary means of isola ing waste from the biosphere. The waste fann itself should be such that, even if exposed to iree-flowing groundwater h or air, only a very small fraction of the radioactive waste wouhlle re-leased to the air or water. The canister containing the waste and the overpack canister are to limit the access of air and wuter to the waste form. They are to be designed using state-of-the-art knowledge and methods to perform this function for the time needed for radioactive decay to reduce the potential health hazard of the waste to no more than appmximately the health hazard of the quantity of unmium ore in the ground that was mined to generate the waste. In determining health hazard, reasonable assumptions of the form, chemistry and ingestion or exposure method should be used. Umralistically conserva-tive assumptions shall not be used. In addition, the canisters should be designed such that their anticipated failure modes will result. in the minimum potential for telease of waste.
The facilities for waste solidification shouhl utilize methods and equipment that is prototypic of what is anticipated for use in full-scale solidification facilities. In addition, the solidified waste and the canister shall be of the same pencral size and design that is antici-pated for use in full-scale repositories.The fabrication factilities shall be constructed and the mini quantity of canisters containing waste shall be proluced to assurethat the demonstrati imum quantity of canisters containing waste on the schedule specified in this Act.
Paragraph (4) instructs the Secretary to be fully involved with appropriate state oflicials regarding the plans for 'the technology-demonstration repositories that are contemplated for, or are, to le sited in the particular state. This is to le initiated as soon as is prac-ticable and is to continue during the demonstration program. The
19 purpose is to provide full consultation and coordination with the appropriate state officials about the plans and construction of the tech-nology-demonstration repositories arul to assure that the needs of the state are considered to the extent possible, consistent with the purpose and schedules in this Act.
Paragraph (5) requires that the demonstration waste solidification y facilities and the demonstration repositories are to be constructed and operated as non-licensed facilities. This paragraph reaflirms existing e
law that the Nuclear llegulatory Conunission shall not have licensing and related regulatory authority pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of IDM, as amended, over Department of Energy research, develop-1 ment and demonstration facilities, with the exception of certain dem-onstration reactors. The Committee, however, encourages the Depart-ment to consult with the Nuclear Itegulatory Conunission at all levels of design, construction and operation to assure that any conunents that the Commsson has are appropriately considered in the waste management program.
Paragraph (6) authorizes the appropriation of $96A00,000 for FY 1981 to carry out this Section, reduced by such sums as may be authorized for the same purposes in any DOE FY 1981 annual author-
~
ization Act. For suldequent fiscal years, additional sums may be au-thorized by later legislation.
O Section 4, Eme-Level Wastes Paragraph (1) provides for a research, development and demon-stration program on advanced techniques for disposing of low-level radioactive wastes.
Paragraph (2) requires the Secretary to conduct a study to include specified advanced techniques for possible disposal methods for low-level radioactive wastes. '1hese include volume reduction of low-level wastes by using a glass-furnace or other appropriate device and con-sideration of the possibility of h>cating such volume reduction and solidification facihties at nuclear power plants to serve as regional processing facilities for low-level waste generated from all activities within a region, including medical, industrial, research and develop-
~
ment, and nuclear power, before these wastes are shipped for final disposal. The Secretary must also consider the possibility of placing low-level radioactive waste in existing underground caverns that have resulted from nuclear explosive detonations, and the practicality of holding the short-lived, low-level wastes in storage until they have g.
decayed to a sufficiently safe level to allow disposal as non-radioactive
- wastes, f
O cemmit'ee ee scie cea Tecnoeieux er the ne e er Rort to the Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary to submit a re evee e t -
tives and to the Conunittee on Energy and Natural liesources of the Senate on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study described in paragrap (2) by February 1,1981.
Paragraph (4) aut iorizes the appropriation of $2,000,000, inclu-I sive of authorization for the same pt,irposes in any Department of Energy fiscal year 1981 annual authorization act, for the year ending September 30, 1981 and authorizes such sums as may be authorized by legislation hereinafter enacted for subsequent fisedl years.
1 r.-.
O O
Section 5, Transitional Storage of Spent Fuel Itequires the Secretary to establish a program within 60 days for research, development, and demonstration for transitional dry stor-age of spent fuel to include integrated technology demonstrations of such storage.
Paragraph (1) instructs the Secretary to identify existing DOE
' facilities that can be used for dry storage of spent fuels. These facil;-
ties shall have been built and utdized for purposes other than transi-tional storage of commercial spent fuels. The Secretary is instructed to identify, if possible, at least two such facilities for the purpose of providmg variety of development and demonstration experiences, providing that each such existmg facility shall be sufficiently large to accommodate at least 100 tonnes of spent fuel (about 150 assemblies) and shall have existing space to be expandable to permit later capacity of at least 500 tonnes. The total of such initial acconunodation shall be about 500 tonnes of spent fuel. All of such space shall be in rooms, bays, chambers, reprocessing-plant canyons,or sunilar facilities that can be adapted to contain racks or holders for dry storage of spent fuel under conditions of p(roper shielding and handling.2) re<ptires the Secretary to modify, rebuild, or adapt Paragraph these spaces to test their applicability for dry transitional storage for the oldest of spent fuels curreatly stored at power reactor sites.
i, air These tests shall include air tightness of the rooms as requi.
crxding, air filtering, visual and instrumentation monitoring includ-ing radioactivity, and the necessary maintenance to technologically demonstrate transitionalstorage of spent fuel.
Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary to install apparatus that will enable the initial holding of about 500 tonnes of spent fuel for dry storage on a transitional basis in racks or holders m the spaces de-scribed in paragraphs (1) and (2).
Paragraph (4) requires the Secretary to emplace an appropriate number of spent fuel elements required to test dry storage of the old-est of the spent fuels in such galleries. In selecting these spent fuels, the Secretary is instructed to give preference to the oldest of spent fuels, particularly spent fuels from reactors that have lost, or are facing impending loss, of full-core reserve in their on-site storage.
Paragraph (5) requires the Secretary to do research development and demonstrations of the associated fa'cilities and procedures needed for demonstrating the receiving, unloading, decontaminatine and transferring of spent fuels that are received at the sites for transitional storage in the galleries described in paragraphs (2) and (3).
Paragraph (6) establishes the reporting requirement for the Secre-tary to inform the Congress about the progrus in the research, devel-opment, and demoustration of dry transitional storage of the oldest spent fuels in galleries and on the expected costs for the completion of such demonstrations.
Paragraph (7) requires the Secretarv to consult and coordinate with appropriate state oflicials in the stn'tes in which the Department plans to construct, or is constructing, demonstration of transitional spent fuel storage facilities for the demonstration purposes in this section.
Paragraph (8) establishes that the technology-demonstration in-cilities for transitional storage of spent fuel shall be constructed and operated as unlicensed facilities.
21 Paragraph (9) authorizes $1 million for research, development and demonstration of transitional dry storage of spent fuel in galleries,
~
inclusive of authorizations for the same purposes in any 1)epartment of Energy fiscal year 1981 Authorization Act and for subsequent fiscal years such sums as may be authorized.
Section (1, The of Funds Instructs the Secretary to utilize funds for expeditiously fulfilling the requirements of the Act, and, in so doine. not to pmvido funds to any person for the purpme of advancing opinions of such persons.
Section 7, Construction of Language Establishes that no activities under this act are for remedial action purpmes or for establishing conunercial waste management facilities.
V. CoatMTrrEE VIEWS
{
In the Committee's view, the I)epartment of Energy has been em.
,c phasizing research in the research, development and demonstration pmgram for civilian waste management, and it is past time for this empnasis to be placed on technology demon 3trations, utilizing for practical purposes the large expenditures and many years of research and study. This view is articularly pertinent for high-level waste O
r"lidification and disposa so and for transitional dry storage of spent e'
^cceeai"x'7.*ne ce"""it'ee n airec<ea'a t'eenee' cr de--
onstration facilities l>e constrmted for these purposes.
However, the Conunittee emphasizes that these technology demon-stration facilities are for purposes of confirming principles, studies, and experience in construction, limited-scale operation, and perform.
nnees, but that these are in no way to be constined or used for com-mercial or armedial-action activities. Indeed, nothing in this Act is to be construed to authorize commercial or remedial-action activ-Ities or facilities for these purposes.
The Committee expects the Secretary to pmmptly review the pres-ent activities of the I)epartment relating to the disposal of nuclear wastes, and fully integrate these activities with the near-term demon.
stration activities authorized by this Act into an overall prowram. Such integration shall include plans on how the information to Ee obtained in the demonstration activities will be utilized in the I)epartment's overall program and shall inchule schedules which explicitly set forth the relationship of the demonstration activities in such program. The Committee intends that the 1)epartment fully cooperate with other concerned Government agencies including tlie Nuclear Itegulatory /
Commission (NItC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
~
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
nE!.ATIoN or TEcIINoinoY-nEMoNsTRATioN FACII.ITIEs To LICENSINo To date there have been limited waste management demonstrations, none of which Imve been really prototypic of what will be required for full-scale processing, storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The technology demonstration facilities required by this Act are necessary to show that radioactis e waste can be safelv disposed of and to >rovide the experience and data needed to proceed to beensed full-sca e pme-(
essing, storage and disposal of commercial radioactive waste.
G O
Paragraphs 3(5) and 5 E) of the Act require that the technology-demonstration waste-solid (ification facilities, the technology-demon-stration repositories, and the technology-demonstration spent fuel transitional dry storage facilities are to be constructed and operated as non-licensed facilities. The Conunittee intends that these paragraphs reaflirm existing law (subject to certain exceptions noted below) that the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission does not have licensing and re-lated regulatory authority pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 10M, as amended, over Department of Energy research, development and demonstration facilities. The Committee's intent is not to change existing law by this provision, but to restate what the existing law is and to emphasize that the intent of Congress to not authorize a com-mercial repository hv this Act.
The Conunittee believes it is necessary to restate the law in this area because of the misconceptions shared by many concerning the need for the Federal Government licensing itself. The Conunit tee observes that, unlike activities in the commercial sector, the Departmcut's research, development and demons: ration activities am managed as a Federal activity and are conducted in part for the purpose of defining the tech-nology as well as the parnmeters from which the licensing policies for the commercial sector are formulated. The Conunittee feels that it would be inconsistent and illogical to attempt to license facilities in-tended to assist in the formulation of techmcal positions or policies.
The Committee observes that Section 202 of the Energy Iteorgani-g zation Act (EllA) contains four exceptions to the no-licensing rule of the Atomic Energy Act, none of which apply to the facilities author-ized in this Act.
The first and second exceptions in Section 202 of the ER A apply to demonstration reactors when operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system. These exceptions are obviously not relevant to this bill, since no power reactors are authorized.
The tnird exception applies to " Facilities used primarily for the re-ceipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activi-ties licensed under such [ Atomic Energy] Act." This exception does not apply to the demonstration repositories because these facilities shall be used, pursuant to section 3 of the hill, exclusively (not just primar-ily) for research, deve:opment and demonstration, that is, for a pur-pose other than " receipt and storage" of wastes. The Committee recog-nizes that although " receipt" and temporary " storage" are necessary to etTectuate the RD&D purpose,it intends that " receipt" and temporary
" storage" be merely a means to the RD&D purimse of the facility, and
. not a purpose in itself. Additionally, paragraph 3(2) of the liill re-quires that the Secretary primarily use in the demonstration reposi-tories, wastes resulting from activities not licensed under the Atomic Energy Act. This additional requirement creates a second independent condition which removes these authorized facilities from the bound-nries of this third exception.
The Committee firmly believes that spent fuel is not " waste", as it contains valuable unbm ned uranium and plutonium. ITowever. it is assumed for purposes of discussion. that spent fuel is determined to be
" waste" within the meaning of the third exception in Section 202 of the ER A, as it contains the fisshn products which will be separated out in
\\
O O
I a later repawessing step. Even with this interpretation, the third ex-ception in Section 202 of the EU A is not applicable to the existing fa-cilities to be utilized pursuant to Section 5 of the bill, for HD&D on transitional dry storage of spent fuel, because the primary, purpose of the facilities is, similarly, not " receipt and storage '. Additionally, the focus of the HD&D activities in paragraph 5(1) of the billis on devel-oping data and experience for utilizing existing buihlings myned by the DOE, which were built ami used for some other purpose than
" receipt and storage" of spent fuel. If, by virtue of the RD&D per-formed, the buihlings are by some other' legislation converted to build-ings used primarily for the purpose of receipt and storage of spent fuel, then this exception in Section 202 of the ERA may then app,1y.
The fourth exception in Section 202 of the EHA specifically pertains m
s to non-conunercial, or GoverInnent, wastes which are not p" art of Id seawh and development activities. Since this bill deals only with re-
' N..J' search and development, this exception is not revelant to tlus bill.
nE81oM oF Tl:E DEMONSTRATION FACILITIES
' +.
The Committee intends that the program will develop the necessary data, infonnation and experience to proceed with a full-scale repost-tory which may be authorized by Connress in subsequent legislation, and to utilize technolowical solutions cEtimed to exist by the vast ma-O it is appropriate for the design of the demonstration repositories to bejority of scientists stm the same as anticipated for full-scale repositories, except in the capacity for storage. This is intended to assure that the demonstrations are truly representative of full-scale conditions. The Conmiittee wants to avoid any questions on the applicability of the data gained from this program to the " solution" to waste disposal. The Committee does not intend this design criteria to be a backdoor authorization of commercial repos-itories, but merely intends to allow the possibility of a secondary ben-efit to flow from the dollars invested in the demonstration projects. It would be impnident to ignore the possibility of expansion of one or more of the demonstration re some other legislative authon,lmitones into full-scale repositories by zatmn, opecially when the criteria can be factored into the design of the demonstration repositories at little or no additional cost.
CoNMULTATIoN AND COORDINATION The Committee encourages the Department to have preliminary and continuing consultations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at O all stans of the design, construction and operation to assure that the Commission has full opportunity to provide comments and sugges-tions. The Committee expects th'e Department to appropriately con-sider these, and where practicable within the constra, ts of schedules, m
budgets, and effects on the total operation, to incorporate these in the facility construction, as has been customarv in the construction of fa-cilitied by the Department, such as for the Fast Flux Test Facility re-actor at'Hanford, Washington. The Committee encourages the De-partment to prepare and submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-b
O o
sion any appropriate reports, particularly for the technology-demon-stration repositories. The Committee also encourages the Departmentto fu tion Agency, and other aficeted Federal and state agencies. Ilowever, the Committee intends that in all considerations for the design, con-struction and operation, the Secretary, af ter due and iull consideration of all suggestions and factors raised by the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission The Committee intends that all final decisions be made by the Secre-tary consistent with the required schedule for each facility.
In paragraphs 3(5) and 5(7), the bill requires that the Depart-ment consult and coordinate with appropriate state officials about any actions planned or conducted withm their regions. The Commit-tee inten appropriate local and Indian tribe ofhcials. The Conunittee is de-liberately using the term " coordinate," rather than the term " concur-and by Presi-rence" used by the Interagency Review Group (IRG)Conmuttee be-dent Carter in his February 12,1980, statement. The lieves that " concurrence" connotes a veto, either explicitly or im-plicitly, contrary to the preemptive nature of the Atomic Energy Act of 19M, as amended. If the Administration's stated position that the word " concurrence" is not intended to infer state veto power is cor-rect, then, it is a harmless and perfecting change to use the word
" coordinate" rather than " concurrence". In additmn, neither the De-partment of Energy.nor the Nuclear Hegtdatory Commission could testify as to any substantive diiIerence between there two words dur-ing the May 29,1980, hearing held on this bill.The Conunittee believes that coordination s change of views between the Department and other such officials, in-cluding a thorough response from the Secretary to the chief govern-ing otheer of the state, local government or Indian Tribe, on all out-standing concerns before any significant action on demonstration re-positories or site characterization is taken. The Committee intends thatthis involving groups of states, particularly if a potentmily affected state is a member, and any app,ropriate body established by the President, such as the State Plannmg Council on Radioactive Waste Manage-ment. The consultation required by the Committee must include early notification bV the Department to such officials about proposed site explorations, including details of any plans.
IIIG11-IIVEi. WABTE The Committee requires that the high-level radioactive material to g be used in the technology demonstration solidification f acilities and the technology-demonstration repositories be high-level waste obtained from reprocessing. This is a firm reonirement in the Hill, even though the Committee recognizes that the Administration has been placing pri-mary emphasis u,pon the disposal of spent fuel as waste,in support of the Administratmn's stated policy of indefinitely deferring the re-processing of spent fuel. Eventually. reprocessing will be necessary be-cause even the present Administration has admitted that " economic considerations f avor breeder deployment beyond 2020." This statement
O O
was made by Dr. John M. Deutch, then Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, Department of Energy in a hearing before the Committee on Science and Technology on April 4,1979. The Commit-i tee, based upon its investigative hearmgs, the results of the Committee on ' uclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES) report of the N
National Academy of Sciences and the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation including reproces(sing and the need to develop proliferation resistantINFCE) study, supports a stnmg br fuel cycle methods. 'lhe Committee strongly believes that regardless of the accuracy of the present Administration's forty year economic predictions, the Nation ought to be prepared to commercially utilize
-)
the technology when it does become economic. Additionally the Com-mittee notes that the INFCE report concludes "Reprocessin,g in itself is important because it is an essential preliminary to many of the pos-sible fuel cycles".
The energy content of the spent fuel discharged annually from the existing licensed nuclear power plants is the equivalent of about 250 million barrels of oil. If breeder reactors are used, the energy equiva-lent could be raised to about 12 billion barrels of oil annually. If all of the existing 7,500 tons of spent fuelis reprocessed and the unburned
"~
uranium and plutonium utilized in a breeder reactor, the nation would
.f.
have the energy equivalent of one-sixth of all the proven oil reserves of
~
\\
the Middle East. In view of this enormous energy, potential, the Com-Of mittee is unwilling to adopt a policy that our nation ought to discard spent fuel, especially when most of the concerned foreign govern-ments have decided to develop both reprocessing and breeder reactors.
Safe disposal of spent fuel also poses more diflicult technical require-ments than waste from reprocessed fuel. The uranium and plutonium in spent fuel is longer-lived than reprocessed wastes. Therefore, Sec-tion 123 of the DOE Fiscal Year 1981 Civilian Nuclear Authorization bill, H.R. 6227, reported hv the Committee requires that no research
^
and development funds will be spent for disposal of spent fuels or to prepare for such disposal unless the spent fuel elements can be re-tneved at a cost that is small compared to both the cost of the facility and the emplacement, and can be done with negligible radiological risk.
This position does not preclude the Department from continuing with s
existing programs for demonstrating readily retrievable emplacements of spent inel.
'I he Committee requires that high-level wastes from reprocessing be used in the technology demonstrations in this Section. These wastes have, at most,0.59o' of the plutonium and uranium content contained in spent fuel, and decay sooner to safe levels of activity.
The Committee recognizes that the Nuclear Ruulatory Commission O is conductine a Rulemaking Proceeding on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Wastes. By onler of its Presiding Officer on February 1, 1980, the NRC sustained the position that this Proceeding should con-sider, as the reference case, the disposal and storage of spent nuch ar fuel taken directly from commercial power reactors. The Committee emphnsizes that the technology-demonstration repositories authorized by U.R. 7418, and the techniques and radioactive materials required to be used in them, are not intended to bear upon this rulemaking and do not preclude the NRC from completine this rulemakine before com-pletion of these repositories. The Committee accepts the DOE position
. +
26 that " Assessing confidence in the ubility to store and dispose of spent fuel does not prejudge in any way using other approaches, such as the fuel and solidification of resultant nuclear reprocessing of spentwastes." as stated in the DOE's Statement of Position for the proposed r& making. The Committee intends that nothing in the Hill be con-strued as a directive to the NRC in this Proceeding.
RErosrIURY SITES The Committee instructed that sites for the technology-demonstra-tion repositories should be geographically distributed through major regions of the country and be m various geologic media. This will pro-vide widely spread demonstrations in the candidate geologic media.
Sites should preferably be on federal land, including land where wastes have been st ored or deposited. The repositories are to be located and constructed in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Sur-vey, and any other appropriate agencies, both Federal and state, to make use of,to the extent that the Secretarv deems appropriate, present and expected precautions about site use. To the extent warranted by the information obtained from these demonstration repositories, the sites may be considered for possible later develo ment of full-scale repositories. Wastes and canisters are similarly to se of a design suit-g able for full-scale repositories. These requirements are intended to provide valid demonstration of waste disposal technology.
The major regions of the Nation are h>oselv defined in order to pro-vide the Department with latitude to distrifmte the four sites across the Nation. The Department may consider boundaries somewhere in the zone between 85 and 90 latitude for an eastern-central boundary and somewhere in the zone of 105 and 110 latitude for a central-western boundary.
The bill clarifies that none of the activities under Section 3, up to the decision to build a demonstration repository, shall be considered to be a major Federal action.This states a rational interpretation of the requiroments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1960, as amemled, (NEPA), so as to avoid potential delaying tactics in imple-mentation of the program. This actim. also corresponds to the deter-mination in the NRC proposed rule in its " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories: Proposed Licensing Procedures" and with other site-characterization practices and is a logical operational procedure. Full-size shafts are expected to be re-quired for equipment access for underground site characterization.
The Committee directs and authorizes the Department to le in compli-anco with the National Environmental Poliev Act and to conform to schedules by starting preparations of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) at the time when each site is identifled and to pre-pare the DEIS covering the proposed design and operation of the re-positories while excavation for shafts and site characterization are underway. The schedule for environmental impact statements shonM minimize any time delay between site characterization and the possible start of construction of the demonstration repositories.
O O
The Committee requires the Department to place considerable im-portance upon the experience from the existing and extensive geologic mvestigations, as exemplified by tests in salt at the Los Medanos site in southeastern New Mexico and m basalt at the llanford site. The large number of full-depth test drillings at both locations were intended to prove that the geology is adequate for disposal of spent fuel and other Iong-lived radioactive materials. The Conunittee believes that they also provide important information on the adequacy of drilling one or two full-depth test holes for the purpose of providing sufficient gelogic information for waste disposal with engineered barriers. It would be desirable for the Department to use this information to identify sites with as few of one full-depth drilling although additional drillings can continue while shafts are being exca,vated for site characterization.
The bill does not require drilling at alternative sites prior to identifica-tion of sites for technology-demonstration repositories.
The Committee requires that the locations of the first two tech-nology-demonst ration repository sites shall be identifie<l not later than the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year 1981 and requires that the Department announce the locations of these first two technology-demonstration repositories concurrently. The Committee expects that the Department has sufIlcient information to make these determina-tions at this specified time. As has been noted, extensive drillings have been made at son e sites. The Department shall use the information O trem theee ari>>i us te eert i whether eetiteie#t i rerm tie te e'-
tainable fmm the first drilling at a potential site for the pur >oses of this program.The Department must take into account, the possi ility of reduced geological requirements for the technology-demonstration repositories which are to be used only for re and which emphasize en ineered barriers. processed high-level wastes I'he Committee recognizes that the Department wil have completed full-depth test holes at sev-eral other locations by the time that the first sites are to be identified.
The Committee believes that its required emphasis on Federally.
owned sites allows adequate opportunities for geologic locations that nre consistent with the requirements of the reprocessed waste form and of engineered barriers specified by the Committee. Some of these sites already have underground contamination of significant quanti-ties of radioactive materials, and man are locations where high-level wastes or spent fuel have customaril been stored or deposited. The Committee expects the Department to give full consideration to these locations, since utilization of such locations are consistent with respon-sible use of lands in the Nation and can reasonably be expected to reduce delays in starting the technology-demonstration repository O program.
It is the purpose of the Committee to demonstrate the adequacy of reasonable geologic media in this tion repositories. For this reason, program of 4 technology-demonstra-the Committee expects the Depart-ment to give full consideration to the major geological media gen-erally considered for disposal of high level wastes, namely basalt, tutY, granite, and salt. The Committee does not require that each of such media be considered prior to an identification of a repository in one particular medium.
4
G O
=
nzrostroarrs Section 3, Subsection 2 of the 11111 directs the construction of four the adequacy of which has been confirmed, pon existing technolony, technology-demonstration repositories based u as previously noted,1y consensus of experts. An objective of these pro'ects is to demonstrate technological solutiens for safety disposing of 'iigh-level wastes. The Committee directed that the 4 technology-demonstration repositories be in operation by specified dates, namely the first in 1986 and the second m FY 1987 and the remaining two about 1990.
Each of the four technology-demonstration repositories is to contain a minimum of 40 monoliths (cyclindrical " logs ' of solidified wastes) of vitrified wastes encased in overpack canisters. The Committee in-tends that the maximmn number of canisters is strictly limited to that number that may be necessary for research, developmient, and demon-stration of waste handling, engineering, spacing configurations, and heat dissipation. Additionally, the Committee recognized that the DOE draft conceptual design study for a full-scale dome-salt repository en-visions a capacity of over 20,000 canisters. The Committee expressly limited the capacity of the demonstration repositories to about 0.2Fe of this. Any expansion of the facilities into commercial repositories would conseg,uently require subsequent legislation.
Section 3, dubsection 2 of the Ilill requires that the overpack canister when implaced in the repository shall have a designed maximum sur-face temperature in the range of 90 to 100 degrees centigrade, when consideration is given to the thermal conductivity of the geologic media of each particular repository. The purpose is to e sure that the tech-i nology-demonstration repositories are operating in temperature re-gions that result in generally acceptable corrosiveness to the over-packed canisters and the generally acceptah'e degradation of the solidi-fled wastes, but still provide 16ading of radmactive materials and range of temperaturvs that provide meaningful demonstration.
ENoINEERED BARRIERS For the reprocesed high-level wastes in the technology-demonstra-tion repositories, the 11111 requires that reliance initially be placed upon engineered barriers to contain the wastes. Engineered barriers are principally the solidified reprocessed high-level wastes and the sur-rounding camster or canisters, which might be const ructed of advanced metal alloys. Engineered barriers significantly reduce the degree of de-pendence upon geological barriers, since the geology is primarily a secondary barrier. The geologic media will minimize the hkelihood of disrupting the engineered barriers and willlimit the dispersal of radio-activity in the unlikelv event that any is released from the engineerec barriers. The geology'is important ala sequential barrier for the time when the potential liazard of the wastes has markedly decreased.
To impicment the program, the Department must first evaluate two necessary criteria for design of the engineered barr ers. One of theso criteria 'is the time during which properly functioning engineered barriers will fully contain the wastes. Tha sacond criterion is the pos-sibility of failures, and the resulting waste leakage, from individual canisters during this time.
C)
O N
To evaluate this first criterion, the Department is authorized and directed to detennine the time when the health hazard from the wastes is comparable to the health hazard from the quantity of uranium ore from which the wastes result, Wastes result from use of uranium for fuel in reactors for electricity generation. In this comparison, wastes are considered to be derived from the first recycle to mixed-oxide fuels, IIealth hazards are the carcinogenic effect of the radioactive content g
~
of the wastes and of uranium ore, as deterrained by federal ragulations applying to whole-body effects upon ingestion by a typical age dis-tribution of the human population. The DOE can utilize the many existing comparisons between these health hazards or its own com-parisons in determining the design time for engineering-barrier reliar.co.
To evaluate the second criterion, the Department shouhl consider the statistical possibilities of failures in the number of solidified waste monoliths and the surrounding overpack causiters, due to manufactur-ing faults, handling difficulties and initial effects with the repository.
Engineered barriers should be designed so that the health hazard of 4
wastes released for the most likely failure modes is comp trable to, or
~
less than the naturallvecurnng health hazards of uranium ore.
Through the use of these two criteria in constructing a repository, the risk to the public is expected to be less than the risk from the original om body while it is in the ground. This results imm two s
fnetors. The fimt factor is the smaller possibility that any such butsed wastes will reach humans than the possibliity that uranium in the ground will reach humans; repositories are expected to be
/
s wh deeper than mined bodies of uranium ores, and repository sites n di be chosen to minimize migration of wastes through the geologic medium. The other factor is that the health hazard from hypothetical ingestion of all the released wastes is companible to, or less than, from hypothetical ingestion of all the corresponding ore.
The geologic media must serve as a second line of defense. The logic is a sequence of primary barriers, rather than any unduly 3
restrictive primary reliance upon geology.
The Committee places emphasis upon providing vitrified monoliths of high-level wastes for use in the technology-demonstration repnsi-tories by means of a Nu-lear Waste Solidification Demonstration Facility: Design, site seh etion, and preparations for any require-ments of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall be started immediately upon passa of the Bi11. Construction shall be scheduled for operation to pi uce glass monoliths by FY 1985 in order to pmvide the demonstration wastes for the technology-demonstratmn repositories.
OP The Department should carefully consider the existing fonns of
' ' 'c federaly-owned high-level wastes and any presently-existing adapt-able facilities in deciding upon this Waste Solidification Demon-stration Facility, in order to assure meeting the completion date of 1985 for the first vitrified monoliths and for econom Among the considerations shouhl be the following:y m construction.
existing calcined wastes and any existing buildings at the Idaho Nuclear Engmeering Laboratory; existing salt-cake wastes and the existing spray calciner l
n
O O
30 and vitrifier at the IIanford site; and existing wastes and any exist-ing buildings at the Sasannah River Project. Ilowever, new con-struction should be used instead of any adaption of existing facilities that would cost morv, be less safe, or less hkely to meet the requireil completion date for such reasons as facility location, present facility size, present safety conditions, and extent of required reconstruction.
If acquired by lease or loan, the wastes at West Valley, New York, may be used for all purposes in this !!ill. Since these wastes are pri-marily from fuel generated by the Department, their use would be consistent with the other requiretuents of the Bill.
IhW-12 VEL WABTES The bill directs in paragraph 4(1) that the Secretary conduct re-search and develogunent on advanced techniques for disposing of low-level radioactive wastes. It is anticipated that this will encompass new techniques for vohune reduction.
The Committee believes that the existing approach to disposing of commerciallow-level wastes could be improved in terms of safety and land utilization with little or no additional expense.
Subparagraph 4(2)(A) considers reducing the volume of the wastes and at the same time glassifying (vitrifying) the residue. The Conunittee recognizes that much of the low-level waste is so low in radioactivity that it is adequately safe to simply bury. Ilowever, the Conunittee is concerned that some low-level waste has enough radio-activity to adopt a poliev of disposing of these wastes in such manner as to avoid the potential of migration of radioactive elements beyond the disposal site or posing some minimal risk resulting f rom t raflie acci-dents during t ransportation to the dislosal site. In addition, the Com-mittee believes it is ill-advised to utilize large tracts of land for bury-ing low-level wastes when at small additional expense the vohunes can be greatly reduced and the residue removed from the biosphere for any permd of possible concern.
Subparagraph 4(2)(11) requires the Secretary to analyze whether or not the facilities for vohune reduction and glassificatmn could be located regionally at nuclear leerplants. Since approximately 40 percent of the colmnercial wastes originate at these plants, the nu-clear facilities could act as a processing point where hospitals, re-search labs, and industries couhl send their low-level wastes for volume reduction and glassification. The glassified wastes could then be shipped to a licensed disposal facility in the region.
Subparagraph (4)(2)(C) reyaires that the Secretary analyze whether or not the large underground caverns created by unilergrodnd g nuclear explosions should be considered for possible disposal sites for low-level wastes. These caverns at, for example. Nevnda, Amchitka (Alaska), Colorado, New Mexico and Mississippi are already radio-logically contaminated from the exphsions and consequently appear to be reasonable disposal locations.
Subparacraph 4(2)(D) requires that the Secretary analyze whether or not much of the wastes currently classified as low-level wastes, such as some of the hospital liquid wastes. conhl be held for a few weeks, or until such time as the radioactivity had decayed to background
O O
31 leveh at the place of use, and then disposed of as non-radioactive wastes. This wouhl seem to avoid unnecessary expenses and effort.
The Hill requires the Secretary in paragraph 4(3) to submit a report on the analysis in paragraph 4(2) hv Febriniry 1,1981, to the Committee on Science and Technology of the IIouse of Representa-tives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the U.S. Senate.
TRANSITIONAL STORAGE or SPENT FUEL Section 5 encourages and strengthens the existing research and de-I velopment efforts of the Department leading to demonstrations of al-ternative methods of storage that may be applicable for fuel-storage capacity shortages as early as 1981 or 1982. The DOE RD&D program now includes studying the methods for modifying existing facilities for dry spent fuel storage by the middle of edlendar year 1981. The Committee believes that dernonstrations of the use of such facilities should be conducted to gain experience to alternatives to enable re-sponses to these emergencies. The Committee understands that the oldest fuel from U.S. reactors that would otherwise h>se full-core-re-serve in their on-site storage capacity would have the thermal and radioactive decay characteristics needed for these demonstrations.
Section 5 requires the Department to conduct research, develop-O rnent and demonstration on dry transitional storage methods to dem-onstrate contingency storage. The demonstrations would be con-ducted in galleries, or rooms with rows of racks for stor-age, in existing Federal facilities that are properly shielded and located to accept radioactive spent fuel. The Committee intends that the>c demonstrations supplement the present activities of the Departement that demonstnite storare of spent fuel in caissons near the surface of the ground and in silos on the ground. Problems with the existing DOE effods are that the caissons and silos are par-ticularly adaptable to one-by-one handling of spent fuel elements and that the spent fuel for these applications are placed into welded canis-ters which will be an impediment in,any subsequent storage in an away-from-reactor (AFR) facility or in any renrocessing. The Com-mittee intends that the demonstrations provide information about stonige techniques that are adaptable to large-scale handling and that will not impede any subsequent handling.
The Committee does not intend to influence any private sector plan-ning for AFR storage of spent fuel.
The Committee is aware of the several recent studies that have been made about when, and how much, storage will be needed to receive O study partially depending upon the conditions assnmed in the studyspent fuel imm on site sto and t te date of the study. However, this bill is not involved in ques-tions about the extent, nor the time, when AFR storage is required; instead, the Committee intends onl for a particular class of spent fuel,y to demonstrate possible options namely the oldest spent fuel.
IDENTIFICATION oF FACILITIES Paragraph (1) of Section 5 directs the Secretary to identify suit-able existing facilities of the Department that have been built and
l O
O f
32 operated for some purpose other than dry storage of spent fuels. The Committee does not intend to authorize the construction of new fa-cilities, but only to fully examine the adoptability of existing facilities for storage of oldest spent fuels. The Comnnttee felieves that at least two such facilities can be identified, but allows the Secretary the discretion to determine if more than one facility is amenable to the swiuired inodifications at reasonable cost aint with a pmmise of ren-sonablo performance.
Paragraph (1) specifies that the ultimate capacity of each such facility when, and if, fully installed with racks ar.J other auxiliary equipment for transitional storage will le at least 500 tonnes capacity.
The Committee believes it would be imprudent not to choose facilities for the RD & D that do not have reserve capacitv available for expand-ing the galleries to meet potential emergencies. In order that the initial installation at any one of these facilities be of size that is significant for demonstration, the Conunittee specified that the initial capacity that is prepared for each such facility be at least 100 tonnes.
In these considerations of tonnage, the Committee is u3ing the meas-ure of metric tons (tonnes),or 1,000 kilograms,of heavy metal in spent ifuel assemblies. The Conunittee intends the concept of p,mper space in existin facilities to mean space that already exists withm the confines of buil ings already constructed.
O ADA1' RATION oF FACI!Er1ES AND INSTAILATION or RACKS Paragraph (2) of Section 5 instructs the Secretary to adapt such space to accommodate galleries or rows of racks for storage, of sient fuel. The Committee expects tbat the beeretary will take pmger ac-count of the airflow, shielding, remote handling, and wmote monitor-ing of the space, since it is expected that the space will not readily be accessible for human entry after fuel elements are put in place for demonstration of rtorage.
Paragraph (3) of Section 5 requires that racks for the spent fuel be of appropriate design or designsle installed in the identified space.
The total installed capacity shall be about 500 tonnes, inclusive of all the space at all the -facilities tha the Department is preparing for such demonstrations.
DEMoNsTRAT1oNS WITII 8 RENT PtTF4 Paragraph (4) of Section 5 places particular emphasis on actual demonstrations of appropriate spent fuel in these facilities The Secre-tarv shall determine the quantity of stwnt fuel that heet demonstrates thiproperties and capabilities df transitional storage of spent fuel in dry conditions. The Committee expects that less than half the racks need to be filled for purposes of demonstration in the first year or two after enactment of this Act.
The Department is encouraged to consider various racking designs for loading spent fuel into these galleries, in order to provide a varied research, development and demonstration program. In particular, the Department should consider spent. fuel disassembly and cannine, in order to demonstrate high-loading capacity for old-fuel storage. IIow-
1 1
O O
t 33 ever, the main purpose of the program is to provide the opportunity for demonstratmg different methods for receiving spent fuel on a largeocale basis, and for handling spent fuel, such that it can readily be paved to inconvenience [msible AFHs or reproce3 sing facilities with a minimum of disassembly or special shipping casks.
The Cormnitten understands that the most appro in any of these demonstrations are the ohlent fuels, priate fuels for use which are logically expected to be fuels at on-site storage at reactors which have lost, or are facing impending loss, of full-core reserve. Full-core reserve is defined as adequate available storage in pools at the reactor site sufficient to receive the full discharge of all. fuel in the reactor. The Committee envisions that the original title holders for spent fuels used in these demonstrations would retain title to the spent fuel and pay transporta-tion costs.
j RECElv!No FACILrrIEs I
/
w The Committee expects that the Secretary will use proper plannmg
/
in preparations for demonstrations so that the receiving equ,ipment wiu be available, or be made available, ar.d le operable at the time storage
/
--4 fardlities are ready. In particular, the Committee expects the Secretary l
to choose locations that have the facilities, or can adapt facilities, for receiving shipping casks or spent fuel, remotely unloading the fuel,
/
and conductmg the requisite decontamination and transferring of
/
spent fuelinto the galleries.
RErorrrrwo j
The Committee understands that the cost and opportunities for this demonstration program are highly dependent upon the assessment of
/
the availability and the adaptability of the s unloading and handling facilities. hforeover, pace and the associated the Committee under-stands that the racks, or holding devices, must be adapted to this par-ticular research, development and demonstration undertaking and will
/
vary according to the different types of demonstrations being under-taken. For these reasons, Paragraph (6) of Section 5 requires that the Secretary report the expected cost and the progress each year, so that the Congress will be fully and currently informed.
,/
vez or rence Section 6 of the hill nquins the Secretary to utilize the funds avail-able for the authorized activities in a manner that assures prompt com-j pletion of these activities. The Committee intends that the Sec-j retary take all actions consistent with the law but with a strict construction of his obligations, avoiding unnecessary procedures that may delay the completion of the authorized activities. The Committee beheves that it is important to resolve at the earliest time, any doubts (technical or otherwise) concerning the existence of the technology to safely dispose of high level radioactive wastes, or to store spent fuel in an emergency.
Section 6 of the bill also restricts the use of funds by preventing the a
Secretary from funding anyone for the purpose of advancing or op-posing the authorized activities. The Committee intends that prohibi.
i as
+
y s
O O
34 tion would include funding persons either directly or tbrough a second-arv party.for the purpose of advocating,cither before the Department, other Government agency, or otherwise, a particular view on the De-partment's program or approach to the program. The Committee does not intend to restrict the Department's ability to hire technical con-sultants who have the appropriate expertise and qualifications to pro-vido the scientific, engmeering, mathematical, and other technical nanalyses needed to conduct the authorized activities. The Committee intends and believes that the Department's funds should not be pro-vided to public or private individuals merely for advancing their opinions or challenging the Department's decisions.
VI. Coxxtrrer Recoxursorrions In compliance with clause 2(1)(2)(B) of Rule XI of the Rules of the IIouse of Representatives, the bill was ordered reported with amendments by the Committee on Science and Technology on June 4,1980, by a 30-2 vote, a quorum being present.
VII. Cost Axn Etmorr DATA The hill will authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1981 in the amount of $102.100,000 net in new obligational autho'rity.
Pursuant to Rule XIII, Clause 7, and in accordance with the re-quirements of Section 252(b) of the Legislative Reorganizntion Act of 1970, the Committee estimates the costs to he incurred by the Fed-eral Government during the current and five subsequent ' years as a result of enactment of thislegislation as follows:
Fiscal Year 1980 _......._..________________________... _. _______.._
1981 ___. ______......._____.____________.____ $77,000,000 20,000,000 1982.._______....______________________________
5,400,000 1083 ____________.._______........ _..._______
1984 ______.. __________..___ ____________.....____.____
1985.._..______________________________________
- The total estimated cost of the four demonstration repositories in curtrnt dollars is $1,400,000.000 over the period 1981 to 1990, pur-suant to DOE preli ninary estimates.
VIII. Errrcr or Lrotsurtox ox IwruTrow In accordance with Rule XI, Clause 2(1)(4) of the Rules of the IIouse of Representatives, this legislation is assessed to have minimal inflationary effect on prices and costs in the operation of the national economy.
IX. Conuirrer OvrastortT FrxmNoS AND ErcoMMENDATIoNS No oversight findings and recommendations pursuant to Clause 2 (1)(3)(A), Rulo XI, under the authority of Rule X. Clause 2(b)(1) of the Rules of the IIouse of Representatives are inchided,in addition to those comments and views contained elsewhere in this report.
O O
35 Conurrrre ox Govraxurxr OrERATIoNS No findings or recommendations on oversight activity pursuant to Clause 2(b)(2), Rule X and Clause 2(I (2)(D) of Rulo XI of the y
6 Rules of the 11ouse of Reprewntatives tave been submitted by the
~
e Committee on Government Operations for inclusion in this report.
X. Cosr EstruArts Axo CourAnisox--CoxonessroxAn Benarr Act InroanArion The Congressional Du iget Ofiice tee the letter printed bmw pursuan(CEO) has provided the Commit-t to Section 403 of the Congres-sional Budget Act of IL74 (CllA). No information pursuant to Sec-tion 308(a CBO becau)se II.R. 7418of the CBA has been provided to the Committee by the l'rovides for new authorization rather than new budget authority.
CoNCRessioNAL BUDarr Orricz Coc-EsrixArm
~
- 1. Bill number: ILR. 7418.
- 2. Bill title: Nuclear Waste Research, Development, and Demon-I stration Act of 1980.
- 3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the IIouse Committee on Science and Technology,ill establishes a research, development, and June 4 1980.
- 4. Bill p,urpose: The b demonstration pro develop the expen, gram in the Department of Energy DOE) to ence and information necessary for il e Depart-ment to build and operate repositories for high-and low-level radio-active wastes, facilities for reducing the volume and disposing of low-level wastes, and facilities for transitional dry air storage of spent reactor fuel in galleries. The bill authorizes the cppropriation of $102.4 million for fiscal year 1981 reduced by any sums authorized inent of Energy. poses in the annua,l authorization for the Depart-i for the same pur
- 5. Cost estimate:
Authorir.atloa level:
Fiscal year :
Millions 1981.--
_ 102. 4 1982 --
1983 --
1984 -
1985 E
O stimated outlays:
77.0 Fiscal years:
1981 --
1082 1983....
20.0 S.
~,
- 5. 4
~
1984... -
1985 -
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 270.
- 6. Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, it is as-sumed that the full amounts authorized will be appropriated prior to the beginning of fiscal year 1981. Because there is no certainty as 4
s..
f Y
Q u
O O
36 to what authorizations will be included in the annual DOE authoriza-tion bill, nor when such a bill will be enacted, no reduction in the authorization for this bill is assumed. Outlays were based on hi< tone spending patterns for similar Department of Energy programs and on preliminary Department plans.
Assuming a cost Iwr project of about $200 million at 1980 price levels, it is estin.ated that a total of about $300 million will be re-quired to construet the first high. level waste repository project by the end of 1986. The construction of all four demonstration projects mandated by the bill would cost about $1.4 billion twtween 1981 and 1990.
- 7. Estimate comparison: none.
- 8. Previous CllO estimate: On 3 fay 15,1980, CIlO transmitted a cost estimate for II.II. 6627, the 1981 authorization for DOE civilian programs, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Science and Technology. Af ay 3,1980. II.lt. 6627 authorizes funds for several of the same programs as 1I.11. 7418.
XI. Der.urrunwr or Exenor Views Following are the views of H.R. 7418 by the Department of Energy as execrpted from testimony on the bill by Sir. Sheldon 31 eyers, $
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Waste 31anagement to the Subconunittee on 31ay 29,1980:
- *
- While agreeing with Congress that we must move forward in developing a long-term solution to high-level waste disposal which is both technically adequate and ac-ceptable to the paolic, the Administration takes exception to the approach specified in li.R. 7418 * * *.
The timing of the selection of a site for the first repository is strongly miluenced by this question of institutional and pubhe acceptance. Though potential sites could possibly have been available earlier in dome salt in the Gulf States and basalt at Hanford, the President decided that initial site selection should be made from a greater number of sites be-cause he felt that public and institutional acceptance would be enhanced by a broader, more technically conservative and
~
geologically diverse etTort. This is an important and strongly held view of the Administration. Accordingly,ifferent geo-we plan to have at least four or five sites in at least three d logic media characterized by 1985. This schedule assumes that sufilcient characterization can be achieved without the g
necessity of sinking exploration shafts at every potential site * * *.
A major difficulty with H.R. 7418 concerns the proposal that demonstration facilities be located at potential reposi-tory locations. It is our view that proceeding with unlicensed facilities at potential repository h> cations conhl compromise these sites for later consideration for a full scale repository.
This is particularly true since NRC is expected to require early involvement in all activities for sites which are intended to be subject to future licensing. Absence of this involvement f
i--
O O
l could lessen the likelibel of NItC approval of unlicensed i
demonstration repositories for full-scale development.
Focusing the prugram on demonstration also would reduce the requirn! emphasis on the bruad scientific basis needed for
/
subsequent licensing of fullwale facilities. It is emential that we develop an understanding that important technical issues am being properly addivssed and that selection of sites for geologic repositones is lused on their suitability and not some arbitrary requirement to ineet the needs of a near-tenn tech-e nology ilemonstration.
In our view, the net etTect of II.lt. 7418 would be to delay, not accelerate, the date of the first iull-scale repository.
The Administration's program is focured on providing adequate test facilities to obtain the near terin data required for developing the details of repository design. The stepwise approach of the Administration to site characterization, A El% ivview, site selection and repository licensing involves a phase where a shaft would be sunk and additmnal geo-logical and engineering data wouhl be taken at depth. This phase should ineet inost of the objectives sought by II.II. 7418
' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
through the use of demonstration facilities.
In addition, we believe that the currentiv authorized DOE test facilities in Nevada Test Tite granite a'nd IIanfont basalt O
should be able to achieve a nmnber of the objectives sought by II.II. 7418. The Salt Test facility was proposed in our I!Y 1981 budget to pmvide additional infonnatmn about the intentetion of radioactive materials and deep salt fonnations.
We regret very much that this Conunittee denied authoriza-tion for such a facilit authorization bill for'y in its markup of II.lt. 0627, the DOE FY 1981, and would urge your recon-sideration of this action. In each of these tests, the radioactive material will le completelv retrieved, the test will be of speci-ficd time limit, and the faellities will be operated as unlicensed It&D facilities.
With respect to engineered barriers, we concur with 1I.11.
7418 that they should receive major consideration in the over-s all repository design. IIowever, we lelieve that development of barriers as a subelement of the total system is preferable to placing preerninent importance on entrineered barriers in 4
the demonstration repository approach. We are particularly concerned that the technical basis for engineered barriers is not sufficiently developed today to rnake the kind of projec-tions on performance which 11.11.7418 would require to be O
inade in the near tenn. Engineered barriers are an essential ingralient in a technically conservative approach to an actual
~
repository, but we do not feel that the ew, tence of such bar-riers should be used as a basis for a less careful selection of an acceptable geologic rnedia. Also, we do not feel that the public law should specify the temperatures or conditions to which the waste package shouhl be subjected. This should le part of the design optimization related to a particular repository site.
O O
38 Finally, with respect to the timing of the demonstration repositories proposed in II.R. 7418, the 1986 date for the first demonstratwn conceivably could be met with either the Im Medanos site in salt or the IIanford rewrvation in basalt.
The vitrified logs would have to be pnxhiced in the solidifi-cation demonstration facility at IIanford in order to meet that schedule because it does not appear possible to construct a new facility to pnxiuce these innterials m the time requin'd.
We anticipate a need for several safety related modifientions at the llanford facility before pnnhietion could be under-taken there. Consideration could be given to the proposed demonstration facility at West Valley Assuming Congres-sional authorization by FY 1982, this facility could be on line around late 1980. The use of wastes at Idaho also would require construction of a new facility.The range of the total I
f facility construction costs could vary from $20 to $40 million at IIanford to approximately $200 million at West Valley.
In sununary, the Administration is opposed to the major redirection of the Pre 6!ent's pn> gram that II.R. 7418 would entail. There may be some benefits which could be achieved through earlier demonstrations but the Administration would prefer to work with Congress using the Administration's planned test facility program and the test phase of the full-scale repository sito selection program to achieve many of these benefits * * *.
The Administration's LLW program appears to be in concert with the general intent of this Bill. The objective is to develop technology for treatment and disposal of low-level wastes and to make this technology availal 3 to the private sector. 'Ihe program also includes comprehensive na-tional planning to sul, port the development of an adequate i
number of regional disposal sites for commercial low level wastes, under State management. Demonstrations of volume reduction technology, such as waste wgregation compaction, and incineration, will be performed with an emphasis on low-level wastes generated by hospitals, universities and commer-cial power plants.
One of the several technologies considered for demonstra-tion this year was the glass furnace concept suggested in II.R.
7418. Ilecause the specific objective of this first demonstration requires use of a conunercially available radioactive waste incinerator which does not nxtuire complex equipment to col-lect airborne emissions, the glass furnace concept was not selected. IIowever, as our program in waste treatment tech-nology continues, we will give this technology additional con-sideration.
can be performed., such as the one described in II.R. 7418,ing the A study Ilowever, in the brief time since receiv request to testify at this hearing, the Department has not yet been able to detennine the cost of such a study, or the impacts of diverting resources from other ongoing efforts. Then) would likely be major legal and policy objections to the
O O
39 broader use of NRC licensed reactor facilities as regional LLW processing facilities. Also, EPA and NRC rnay have concerrm regarding the suggestion of storing short-lived LLW for disposal as non-radioactive waste. Because the un-derground weapon testing program at the Nevada Test Site is still active, the potential use of this sito for LLW dic.-
posal inay not be feasible because of possible interference with the ongoing national security prograin * * *.
II.R. 7418 does not address the broad assigrunent of irspon-sibilities within the ILW ruanagensent area, but rather re.
stricts itself to the support of continued RD&D on advanced LLW disposal technitlues and to the conduct of a specific study.
XIL CirANorA IN ExisTxNo LAW In cornpliance with Clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the Ilouse of Representatives, these are no changes in existing law inade by the bill, as reported.
O e
8 P
9 0
a
O O
l XIII. Dissrsriso Vmws DISSENTING VIEW OF CONGRESSMEN IIOWARD WOLPE, DONALD PEASE, AND RICIIAltD OTTINGER ON II.R. 7418, TIIE NUCLEAR. WASTE RESEARCII, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1980 The issue of nuclear waste management is one which should not divide the proponents and opponents of nuclear energy along ideo-logical lines.
As members of this Conunittee who do not share the enthusiasm of the majority with respect to nuclear energy, we, nonetheless, rec,og-nize that there are substantial quantities of nuclear waste materials which have already accumulated both from commercial and military programs. We must move as expeditiously as possible to find means of safely disposing of these radioactive waste materials.
We take strong exception to the assertion by some of the proponents of this legislation that those who have raised questions about this particular bill, and about similar language in this year's Committee authorization, do so because of their reservations concerning nuclear encrpy.M e submit that the wellintended thrust of this measure to expo-dite the process of finding solutions to the nuclear waste problem will, in fact, have the unintended consequence of delaying the process even further. This measure will destroy the credibihty of those who are attempting to resolve the many technical and social questions raised
~
by the disposal of nuclear wastes.
Both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy testified in opposition to this bill in hearings held before the Energy Research and Development Subcommittee on May 29,1984 Some of the.<pecific major areas of disagreement are:
The designation of four regional" demonstration" facilities for high level waste capable of being upgraded to full-scale reposi-tories. II.R. 7418 does not provide for what criteria will be used in determining how these " demonstration" facilities should be expanded. Further, the promotion of such " demonstration" facili-ties to full-scale repositories will serve only to attempt to" prove" a solution to the radioactive waste problem.
A vague and ineffective state participation role in the planning and selection of these demonstration sites. The " consult and co-ordinate" role as envisioned in H.R. 7418 would severely weaken the credibility of the State Planning Council which is' currently meeting to define the state's role. As outlined in II.R. 7H8, the state participation section is less than the " concurrence" concept as endorsed by the NRC, DOE, and IRG (Interagency Review Group).
(40)
- - - ~
O O
y The omission of the Nuclear Itegulatory Commission in its legitimate licensing role in these " demonstration" facilities. If such " demonstration" facilities preclude the NRC from its proper role in licensing, then the full scale repository will not have had the benefit of NRC review of the DOE site characterization plans, repository design and construction as well as a lack of inspections during the course of construction. In addition, there is an NRC proposed rule currently pending with regard to the licensing of high level waste repositones.
NEPA consideration of alternative repository sites will be avoided by the expansion of a " demonstration" facility to a full-scale rep"ository.
That vitrification" is selected as the process to be used for the pennanent storage of high level waste. As outlined m various technical and govenunent rvports, the use of vitrification is not based on adequate scientific experience. The prematurv selection of vitrification also precludes consideration of other options as a pennaaient storage fonn.
Etablishes unreasonablo dates for construction and operation of them " demonstration" facilities. The dates selected do not provide for the necessary site characterization and independent technical review necessary. The selection of arbitrary dates would again appear to be conducive to " proving" to a sxeptical public O
that indeed a solution has been found for radioactive waste management.
If we pursue the direction suggested by this legislation and establish arbitrary deadlines for the establishment of the first waste disposal sites, anil if we discourage full state participation in the decision-making process, we will only heighten the level of public i
cuspicion and concern that the federal government cares less about the public safety than it does about the interests of the nuclear industry. This legislation will indicate the federal govenunent intends to forte state after state to accept nuclear wastes even before the sa fet estabhsh~v of proposed disposal technologies and sites have been clearly ed.
We firmly believe that (Jiis measure is inviting polarization which will serve io prevent the development of an etl'ective problem *dving approach to the nuclear waste issue. We urge both the proponents and the opponents of nuclear onergy to join together to establish common ground on which to base a sound nuclear waste management policy that will have credibility and will thereby command public confidence. Unfortunately, this O cisely in the opposite direction.particular legislation moves us pre-Ifowann Worre.
DoNAra PtMSE.
RICHARD b. Ornwatn.
O
O O
120555029836 1 M6 i
US hHC NHSS OlV LF HASTE MANAGEMEf4T OlVISICN DIRtLILM 905 SS WAShihGith OL 20555i k
N b
O 9
0 M
O
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _