ML20154N483
| ML20154N483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/09/1977 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810210307 | |
| Download: ML20154N483 (7) | |
Text
l 'k-v., ge,py OWh f
TESTIMONY OF LEE V. GOSSICK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FORESIGHT HEARINGS ON EINIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S NEW ENERGY POLICY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRON WNT AND THE ATMOSPHERE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 9,1977 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee in its examination of the environmental, health and safety aspects of the President's recently announced energy policy.
The scope of the hearings as indicated in the questions and issues set forth in advance for the guidance of witnesses indicates that the Subcommittee intends to explore the full range of problems *nvolved in meeting the Nation's energy needs from each of the available sources.
.This is a refreshing approach and, on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I wish to congratulate the Subcommittee on its broad-gauged endeavor.
What the Nation's energy needs may be in the coming decades, and how they may best be met, are issues that are-important to every individual
'~
in the country. The government needs an effective and unbiased mechanism fo,r prudant and judicious sifting of the facts in order to arrive a't a national assessment of energy requirements and resources.
It is our ' conviction that no single source should be viewed in isolation, which cou'l$ have the effect of obscuring the relative costs and benefits of' other energy forms as well. All energy sources require risk-
~
benefit' assessment, followed by objective comparison with the risks and benefits of the different energy sources that are available, as PDR ORG NE ED
_ PDR.
- _ A m _, _ _ _.. _. -... _ _ _ _ _
- - ~
-,. m y
O_
gv
. the essential underpinning for difficult choices that must be made.
l The regulation of one of the principal sources involved -- nuclear 1
energy -- is th e sole concern of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, created in-1975 for this purpose by the Energy Reorganization Act.
The NRC is an independent body charged with the mission of assuring that activities involving nuclear materials and facilities are conducted 5
in a manner consistent with the public health and safety, national security, environmental quality, and the antitrust laws. A primary function in this respect concerns the design, construction, operation i
and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors used to generate electric l
power.
As mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we do contxder all reasonable alternatives where proposals for the installation of nuclear power plants are concerned.
The factors considered. include economic cost-benefit analyses and, to the extent available, information on the environmental costs and health effects of other energy sources.
In performing these analyses, the NRC has not found any vital factor that would exclude nuclear energy as a viable option for the generatier; c'f electric power.
In so stating, we recognize that issues central to,. nuclear development -- notably concern. g hich-level radioactipe waste disposal -- remain to be finally resolved.
Our judgment remains that a technically acceptable solution to this issue is available.
4 g
nN.
g.;
4y
..g.,.
, m mm,4
., q.
,%%mw. m.%w. n.pn.,q.'. haup.he ses AwaE A
t-a-
'+'-N
N
{
.x E.'.
O O
l 3-l.
l l
l
- While time will not permit coverage of all the subjects of interest listed by the Subcommittee, I would like to discuss briefly some of. the matters of primary concern.
The recent Presidential decisions regarding spent fuel reprocessing i
will have impact on the NRC's waste management program. The NRC's role.regarding high-level radioactive waste, mandated by the Energy I
-Reorganization Act, is the exercise of licensing authority over tha long-term waste disposal facilities which are to be ' developed and i
operated by the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA).
Our program is designed to be able to render a licensing decision on an ERDA high-level waste repository in time for the facility to be ready for operation by 1985, ERDA's current target date.
Instead of planning only for regulation of the high-level waste stream which
'l I
would result from fuel reprocessing, our program must now also provide for regulation of long-term storage -- disposal or extended retrievable storage -- of spent reactor fuel, and provide as! well for regulation i
1 of additional interim storage facilities for spent fuel. Another element added by the President's decisions will be increased activities with regard to the front end of the fuel cycle -- in particular, uranium niilling and the resulting mill tailings.
This, however, reflects no change iTi overall regulatory priority.
Timely implementation of I
a sound., waste management program remains of central importance.
1 The di'sposal of spent fuel as a waste involves several issues, including the possibility of criticality, the form of the " waste"
-(both size and chemical composition), and the long-term heat loading of 04l s
=
',.A.
~; m.
.-6e._,._
.. )
~.&
m --
n
.,r g V
J 4-the repository from the decay of plutonium.
The consideration of disposing of spent fuel in addition to high-level reprocessing waste thus requires study of the effects of spent fuel disposal on suitability of repository sites and design. Also, the disposal must either be unequivocal,.giving up the potentially valuable resources of plutonium i
and uranium, or provide for recovery some time after emplacement in the repository.
We are engaged in a study, which will be available this
' - fall, to illuminate the issues identified and to make a better estimate of the relative impacts of the several scenarios.
Another clear possibility arising from the President's policy on reprocessing is the need for more extended interim storage of spent fuel -- both in quantity and in duration of storage.
Although the NRC had work underway in this area, we have. accelerated our studies and actions.
Storage of spent fuel in pools at reactor sites will likely increase by development of additional capacity in the pools.
Some 37 applications from licensees have already been received by the NRC for
.such development. There are also projected expansions of pool storage capacity at sites away from reactors, and a regulation specifically covering such facilities is being developed, along with an environ-mental. imp'act statement.
The greatest impact from a nuclear fuel cycle option which pre-cludes reprocessing of spent fuel comes at the front end of the cycle.
.The largest volume of waste generated in the fuel cycle is the impounded J
_ _ _.m._.s
~
p U
J 5-solid tailings at the uranium mill.
These tailings are stored in the vicinity of the mills which are presently located in remote regions of the western United States. A fuel cycle which precludes processing of spent fuel would result in an increase in solid wastes, radioactive effluents and radiological dose commitment from the front end of the fuel _ cycle over the plutonium and uranium recycle option.
Of course, the reprocessing of fuel itself gives rise to a number of problems including other effluents and, in particular, assura'nce of protection against the theft or diversion of plutonium.
The NRC is now in the process of preparing a generic environmental impact statement on uranium milling.
It will assess the environmental impact of uranium milling operations, including management of uranium mill tailings, and provide an opportunity for public participation in decisions concerning any proposed changes in NRC regulations or regulatory authority based on this assessment.
A related study of regulatory authority over naturally occurring radioactive materials, including tailings, is also underway.
During the interim period, while the generic environmental impact statement is being prepared and associated regulations developed, NRC has instituted a policy which requires establishment of an acceptable tailings management program prior to issuance of the milling license.
Any li. censing actions that are taken will 'be subject to express conditions',that approved waste generating processes and mill tailings management practices may be subject to re' view in accordance with the conclusions of the final generic environmental statement and any related g_.
h.gys Is%dh.g4 efv ' sbg A n4 4w W 4 es-9m'hai -
4'*"6'%M"'M
'N'#"
- n U
(,)'
\\
a. <
6-l 4
l rule making.
Performance objectives for mill tailings management i
adopted by NRC during the interim period provide for.
(1) Location of the tailings isolation area remote from people such l
1 that population exposures would be reduced to the extent j
reasonably achievable.
(2) Location of the tailings isolation area such that disruptions and l
I dispersion by natural forces are eliminated or reduced to the I
extent reasonably achievable.
(3) Design of tihe isolation area such that seepage of toxic materials into the ground water system would be eliminated or reduced to the extent reasonably achievable.
Earlier in my testimony, I mentioned that the NRC is required by the provisions of NEPA to consider alternative energy sources in its evaluation of nuclear power plant license proposals.
This we do to the best of our ability,.and in this sense we act as a fact finding agency, turning to all available sources of information.
Most often, the principal alternative-to. building a nuclear generating plant is-building a coal-fired plant.
In addition to assessing the environmental costs attributable to coal and nuclear fuels, the differing health effects 'from using coal and nuclear fuels also must be considered in the ass'essment of each alternative.
While available data leave uncerta.in' ties in some areas of each fuel cycle alternative, when compared with nuclear, the magnitude of uncertainty regarding health effects associated with the coal fuel cycle' is much greater.
This results from the relatively sparse and sometimes equivocal data
+
WY M M ' A&qute. b g, ww c h +av y9 AS -
'-,Msus 4 +- h g 6 w miw-e +. N.
- a. e @ sat +gMi h
-=8%--M 4
Gsr en 4*-
4E e
-ven.-
apegedes-my mi-
._ _. _... _ ~..
r __
g l
l
.... r
- 7.-
'I regarding cause-effect relationships for most of the principal
' pollutants in the coal fuel cycle, and the effect of Federal laws i
on. future performance of coal fired plants, mine safety and other factors. The development of new, more ' comprehensive information in this area, which' appears to fall within the scope of the Subcommittee's
~
interest, would help illuminate'the problems of energy sources.
Predictable, dependable governmental policy on how much energy, l
'and what mix'of sources is viable, is highly desirable to influence i
electric utility decisions.
Once a utility makes its choice, much
^
. time and capital will be lost if a change in that decision is required.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize that the NRC, as an
' independent body concerned with regulating one source of energy, regards1 its single-unifying goal as looking to the public interest in all
-aspects of its operation. We do not promote this source, but ascertain, i
as' soundly *and as responsiby as we can, how the complex considerations with which we deal best fit themselves to the-ultimate public interest
~
goal. 0ur primary mission, as the regulator, is to assure that a nuclear -
facility is designed, built and operated as safely as possible.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my pleasure to appear before you today.
-I, and s'enior members of the NRC staff who accompa'y me will be n
pleased tv respond to any questions and to furnish any further information
'for the, record that may be desired.
/
e O
.e u
--....A...A..I.',
.-s.#...~:
e., 6 <. a m. m
- w.. ~-,. a. ~.
-=.c