ML20154N524

Testimony Before Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Re Nuclear Waste Mgt on 780322

ML20154N524
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/22/1978
From:	Casey Smith NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220014
Download: ML20154N524 (19)

Text

. , . . . . ., . . .. ~

.L <

j g

i v.

s) l' l

l TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS i

)

l' Presented by i

i Clifford V. Smith, Jr. , Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards March 22, 1978 i

I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you the activities of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) in nuclear waste I management. I would like to summarize four facets of our program for waste management: (1) our regulatory authority over storage and disposal i of nuclear waste and its limitations; (2) the regulatory program which we are developing; (3) our interactions with other agencies which also have responsibilities in this area; and (4) the roles fo'r states in nuclear waste management. Since I understand that mill tailings will be the subject of a future hearing, I will not discuss this subject today.

NRC AUTHORITY TO REGULATE RADIOACTIVE WASTES AND LIMITATIONS ON THAT l AUTHORITY l

NRC authority to regulate radioactive waste is derived from three acts:

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act d

5 1

9810220014 780322 NOMA j 0 PDR ORG p

. 4 I O O l I

of 1974, as amended and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The Act of 1954 gave the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) authority to license and regulate possession, use and disposal by persons

• of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. The AEC and its prime contractors were exempt from licensing control.

Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred the regulatory authority given in the Atomic Energy Act to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ERDA (now part of DOE) and its prime contractors remained exempt from NRC regulatory authority except as provided in Section 202 of the 1974 Act.

Section 202 of the 1974 Act gives NRC specific authority to license certain DOE waste management activities:

202(3) provides for licensing of " Facilities used primarily for the receipt or storage of high-level radioactive wastes ** resulting from licensed activities." Thus the NRC must license a DOE storage or disposal facility which is intended primarily 'to receive high-level radioactive waste from industrial producers of that waste (i.e.,

reactors, reprocessing plants, etc.).

x Persons are any individuals, firms, or agencies (with exception of NRC and DOE).

High-level liquid waste has a specific meaning within current NRC regula-tions. It is defined in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix F, as follows: "High-level liquid radioactive wastes' means those aquaeous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent.....in a facility for reprocess-ing radiated reactor fuels."

2

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

~

o o i

I -

202(4) provides for licensing of " Retrievable Surface Storage Facil-ities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities." Thus with the exception of research and development activities NRC must license DOE operations for the long-term storage (or disposal) of high-level wastes generated by DOE.

ERDA (DOE's predecessor) has considered storage of longer than 20 i years to be long-term and the NRC has accepted this as a reasonable figure.

Under Section 274 of the 1954 Act NRC may relinquish to the states certain regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The discontinuance l of NRC authority is accomplished by entering into formal agreements w'th l

the states. There are currently 25 such Agreement States. Under the i

agreement and pursuant to 10 CFR, Part 150, these A'greement States license commercial burial sites for low-level waste including low-level transuranic waste."

l l

x Transuranic nuclides are nuclides with atomic numbers above that of uranium (i.e.,92). These nuclides are produced in the fuel elements during opera-tion of a nuclear reactor. Most are long-lived and highly radiotoxic. For

, example, plutonium 239, which has a half-life of 24,000 years is a trancuranic i

nuclide.

i 3

I l

. 4 . -

U U

NRC regulatory authority over radioactive waste is defined by statutes

!- which specify who and what is to be regulated. It is not based primarily i

on the degree of hazard posed by the waste, the lifetime of the waste, or the waste form. By way of example, I would like to offer two lists--one of waste storage and disposal activities which are clearly within NRC's licensing authority and a second list of those which are not. I l l Waste Management Activities Licensed by NRC l 1. Disposal and/or storage of high-level waste from licensed I (commercial) activities, i ,

I

2. Long-term storage and/or disposal of high-level waste from DOE i activities except for facilities used for research and develop-ment activities.

l l- 3. Commercial storage and disposal of transuranium and low-level l wastes, except in Agreement States.

I l

4. Commercial storage of spent fuel. j

5. DOE facility for storage of commercial spent fuel, as waste.

l Activities Not Licensed by NRC l'

1. Disposal or storage of high-level waste from DOE activities in a DOE operated R&D facility.

2. Short-term storage of DOE produced high-level waste (e.g.,

existing tank storage of DOE HLW).

i l

4 4

l

H '

O O

3. Storage and/or disposal in a DOE operated facility of:

transuranic contaminated waste i .

foreign generated high-level waste and/or spent fuel if not resulting from licensed activities

. low-level waste

, . interim storage of spent fuel (not as a waste)

4. DOE decommissioned facilities except for those covered by Sec-l tion 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act.

) )

l S. .Storsp er disposal of uranium mill tailings after the expiration of :.i.e milling license.

- 6. Disposal of' low-level waste in Agreement States.

7. Decommissioned facilities in Agreement States, upon termination j of any NRC license.

J.  ;

i 8.- Disposal of-naturally occurring and accelerator produced isotopes. 1 l

l.  !

STATUS OF THE NRC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM i i

~

L i l l _The role of NRC in nuclear waste management is both responsive and assertive. i

'It is responsive in the sense that by law we do not directly propose options but rather once an option is identified---once a specific waste facility application is submitted to the Commission---we evaluate that proposal to. determine whether it is acceptable (whether it will protect the public health and safety). For this reason our program is designed to l

L ,

4 4

5 o  :

i

. . I O O 1

provide (a) standards on which to judge applications and (b) tools to i

assess the proposals submitted against the standards imposed. i On the other hand, it is assertive in that the NRC will develop regula-tions which limit the options available to DOE, the States and/or industry and will reach its own conclusions regarding the options which should be pursued for waste management. For example the DOE Generic Environmental ;

Impact Statement (GEIS) on commercial waste management and the NRC's evaluation of that statement will allow NRC to reach conclusions on appro-priate options for HLW disposal. As conclusions of this nature are made and acted upon, NRC assumes an active role in identifying for DOE and the public, acceptable waste management alternatives.

i Formal guidance via regulations, guides, and policy statements and informal guidance such as staff positions and letters will not necessarily be limited to technical alternatives (such as geologic criteria that a site must meet) but may also concern institutional arrangements such as financial requirements and federal / state /public/ industry responsibilities. For example, in the case of low-level waste and mill tailings disposal we are studying the financial arrangements which can ensure long-term care. Our  !

program schedules have for the most part required us to concentrate on the technical requirements.

6

' ~

Q Q The NRC waste management program is divided into two general areas:

high-level waste (HLW) management and low-level waste (LLW) management. I will speak about each of the programs separately.

High-Level Waste Program The NRC has the responsibility to regulate and license DOE high-level waste repositories to insure the protection of public health and safety taking into consideration also impacts on the environmeint. Disposal of transuranic contaminated wastes by DOE falls under our purvue only if disposed of in a facility used also for HLW disposal.

NRC high-level waste management efforts can be classified into standards development, preparation for licensing actions, and special projects.

The key conce' pts in our regulatory development program are to provide effective, timely and balanced standards. In brief this means that the

~

regulations must provide definitive guidance; precede or meet major deci-sion points; and allow flexibility in decision options. In order to meet these objectives, we must remain aware of the direction and schedules of the DOE programs so that we will have regulations in place and possess the assessment tools necessary to evaluate the specific proposals that DOE submits.

7'

O O With regard to the permanent disposal of either solidified high-level waste or spent fuel, the principal option being examined by DOE is emplace-ment of waste in deep geological repositories using normal mining techniques.

While some uncertainty still remains regarding repository engineering such as thermal limitations, potential corrosive interactions and retrievability, a review of the available technology leads one to conclude that it is technologically possible that a repository can be successfully located in bedded salt or other geologic media in the next decade. Our regulations development effort is currently directed at providing guidance specific to deep geologic repositories. Yet these regulations will also allow for additional future options.

Two other disposal options appear to warrant further investigation in the future. These are: (1) seabed disposal and (2) waste disposal in deep holes (greater than 10 thousands meters in depth). Also onsite disposal options involving excavated caverns for liquid waste, insertion into bedded shale and in situ solidification are being c'onsidered for some existing defense waste now in tank storage.

New NRC regulations will require conformance with a set of minimum accept-able performance standards for 'aaste management activities, while providing for flexibility in technological approach. The regulations will be directed towards isolating radioactive wastes from man and his environment for time periods sufficient to protect public health and safety and to preserve environmental values, while minimizing long-term social commitments such 8

~ ~

O O as land-use withdrawal, resource commitment, surveillance requirements, number of committed sites, etc.

Regulations in the area of high-level wastes will address:

1. Waste classification - what wastes must be placed into a HLW 3

repository;

2. Waste form performance criteria - what physical and chemical form the wastes must be in;

3. Site suitability criteria - what constitutes an acceptable site for a repository;

4. Repository design criteria - what constraints must be placed on development and operation of a repository;

5. Repository decommissioning criteria - what constraints must be placed on closing a repository; and

6. Radiological objectives - what level of radiologic containment the repository system must operate within.

I will submit for the record a discussion of the HLW regulations being o

developed.

In general, the schedule we are following was developed to enable NRC to make a timely licensing decision on a DOE repository. We have been informed by DOE in a letter dated November 25, 1977 of their intention to expand the scope of the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located in Carlsbad, New Mexico, to include the capability u* disposing of high-level -

9

p.___._______..__._.__.___.._____-..__._._.__..._

' a 0; O military waste. They indicated they would come to NRC with a license application for the' WIPP facility during the first quarter of FY 1979. We expect this to be our first HLW licensing action--an action that had not l

been taken into account in our original planning for FY 78 and 79.

l In response to the Presidential policy on reprocessing, DOE has embarked L

on a program to develop an away-from-reactor (AFR) storage capability.-

NRC and DOE are proceeding under the assumption that NRC will license the

! facility, and in fact, we are developing specific licensing procedures.

l l Present fuel storage techniques and studies underway will support the

. development of needed regulations. There is ambiguity regarding NRC jurisdiction to license a DOE facility to store spent fuel as a resource for future'use. We would expect that legislation enabling DOE to construct l such a facility will explicitly require licensing by NRC. We also recognize

,that additional storage of commercial spent fuel either onsite or at L centralized independent storage facilities may be contemplated. We just published a draft environmental impact statement on spent fuel storage j .this month (NUREG-0404). It discusses alternative storage methods and the L

impact of spent-fuel storage through the year 2000.

. Low-Level Waste Program In March 1977 an NRC task force established to study the various programs used by NRC and State governments to regulate disposal of commercial low-level radioactive waste published their findings and recommendations.

The report, entitled "NRC Task Force Report on Review of the Federal State p

i.

10 i

l

1 O O l Program for Regulation of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds" (NUREG-0217) was published' for coments. The recommendations of the task force were as follows:

I. The NRC should initiate action in cooperation with appropriate Federal and State agencies to increase Federal control over the disposal of low-level waste by:

a. Requiring

1. Joint Federal / State approval of new disposal sites;

2. NRC licensing, with State participation, of current and new disposal cites; and

3. Federal ownership of land for all disposal sites.

I b. Establishing a Federally administered perpetual care program.

II. The NRC, in cooperation with appropriate Federal and State Agencies, should accelerate development of the regulatory program for the disposal of low-level waste which includes regulation, standards, and criteria.

III. The NRC shculd initiate immediately the necessary studies to identify and evaluate the relative safety and impacts of alternative low-level waste disposal methods. No new disposal sites should be licensed

-until a full examination of alternative disposal methods has been 11

completed or unless an urgent new need is identified. The NRC should assure effective use of existing commercial burial grounds.

After consideration of the Task Force report, public comments, and addi-tional staff analyses, the NRC pub'.fshed a policy statement on implementa-tion of the Task Force recommendation in the Federal Register.

The policy statement concluded that there is an urgent need to establish a regulatory program to develop a comprehensive set of standards and criteria for low-level waste disposal and to examine alternatives to shallow land burial. The NRC low-level waste management program includes development of a comprehensive regulatory framework and an examination of alternative disposal methods.

With regard to the licensing of new sites, the Commission agreed with the Task Force that new burial grounds should be fully justified on the basis of need. A reevaluation of Task Force conclusions ' reaffirmed the uncertainties in waste volume generation and disposal capacity projections.

Pending the completion of ongoing studies, applications for new burial sites will be evaluated for need on a case-by-case basis. The NRC would expect.the Agreement States to treat applicationc in the same' manner (i.e., based on need).

The Commission is studying the Task Force recommendation for increased Federal control but has not formally adopted it as NRC policy, pending the 1

12

. ~

O O L resolution of a number of uncertainties. The uncertainties primarily concern the available institutional and financial arrangements for low-level' waste disposal. No compelling need to make a final decision at this time s

has been identified since the States are adequately protecting the public health and safety.

1

] Acting.~on the Task Force's recommendations and public' comments received,

1. the.NRC,has developed and published a program description entitled " Nuclear

-Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program,"

(NUREG-0240). I have submitted a copy of this report for the record.

] With the information developed from the various studies we plan to develop

standards, criteria and regulations for shallow land burial and alternative

disposal methods. These regulations, which will be used to assess new i

[ sites and reassess existing sites, will include criteria for waste accept-4 4

ance and performance, site selection, design, operation, monitoring, '

decommissioning, post-operational maintenance and f'unding. In addition we will perform a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of low-level waste management.

INTERFACES WITH OTHER FsDERAL AGENCIES A number. of Federal agencies have substantive regulatory, research or operational responsibilities in the area of nuclear waste management.

13

' ~

O O

-Most of.these responsibilities interface with NRC regulatory responsi- I bility. The principal agencies with which we interact are DOE, EPA, USGS, and DOT. Cooperation and communication among agencies to minimize duplica-tion of work requires vigilance and a considerable amount of staff effort.

I would like to describe briefly some of the interagency efforts to coordinate our respective waste management programs.

1. 02 Task Force: An interagency task force was convened by the Office l

of Management and Budget (OMB) in late 1976 to review the several agency waste management programs, to structuce programs into an integrated Federal program and to identify jurisdictional matters which might result in some aspects being overlooked or in some duplica-tion of efforts. Representatives from the NRC, ERDA, EPA, CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), NSF (National Science Foundation), and USGS participated. No standing arrangement grew from that Task Force.

1 l

I i

2. Low-Level Waste Working Group: An informal interagency working group was established in February 1976, to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies and the states in responding to the GA0 recommendations on low-level waste' burial grounds. Representatives on the working group are from NRC, DOE, USGS, and EPA. The group meets about every three months to review agency programs and exchange informaton of mutual interest. In certain areas, the agencies participate in joint projects such as the USGS migration study and the field studies at existing 14

' ~

i O O sites. Representatives from the States will be included in this group.in the near future.

3.- NRC/ DOE Interface DOE has been supplying the NRC staff with schedules and program plans for its repositories, and we~ budget our time and resources accordingly.

We keep the DOE staff informed of our progress and thinking in developing l regulations.

At DOE s request the NRC staff prepared a description.of the NRC Waste Management Program and responses to a number of pertinent issues of a regulatory nature for inclusion in the DOE generic environ- 1 mental impact statement (GEIS) on waste management. If used, all NRC material will be carefully identified as such in the GEIS, and it will be clearly stated that NRC does not necessarily endorse any conclusions or opinions appearing in the non-NRC sections of the statement.

The NRC staff also reviews programs and environmental statements prepared by or for DOE or its contractors for non-licensed waste l facilities or actitities. One such program presently undergoing review involves the interim management of Savannah River Plant wastes during the development of long-term disposal methods.

15

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

O O

DOE has supported research activities to provide answers to specific questions proposed by the NRC and several reports have resulted from NRC requests.

e Finally DOE informed NRC by letter dated November 25, 1977, of their intention to expand the capability of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 1 (WIPP) proposed for Carlsbad, New Mexico to include the potential for disposing of military HLW. They further indicated their intention of submitting license application to the NRC for the facility in the first quarter of FY 1979. In this proceeding, DOE is being treated like any applicant. A docket file has been established in our public document room.

l

4. NRC/ EPA Interface Both NRC and EPA have responsibilities for setting standards in the area of waste management. EPA has responsibility to set generally i

~

applicable environmental standards for the nuc1 ear fuel cycle. NRC has responsibility to regulate the operation of specific waste manage-  ;

ment facilities. There appears to be some overlap in our respective I authorities, and thus far no formal understanding as to division of authority has been reached.

' 5. NRC/USGS Interface NRC is supporting part of the USGS research related to the geohydrol-ogical characteristics of low-level waste burial sites. We also 16

b l

l anticipate that the USGS will provide licensing review consultation to the NRC staff regarding the licensing of waste disposal facilities.

6. NRC/ DOT Interface The Department of Transportation (DOT) has the responsibility under the Transportation of Explosives Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act for regulating the shipment and transportation of l radioactive materials including wastes. The delineation of responsi-l bility between AEC (NRC) and DOT is spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding dated March 22, 1973, and activities under that agree-ment are proceeding smoothly.

7. Joint Funding Joint sponsorship by several agencies for waste management activities helps in moving forward with a coordinated Federal program. Recent i efforts in this area include interagency funding of a study by the l

~

American Physical Society, funding of a conference held October 1976

, on Public Policy Issues in Nuclear Waste Management, and cooperation 1

in presenting the several agencies' programs to numerous forums around the country.

l l

It is evident from even this abbreviated listing of agency interactions, that there are intersecting responsibilities among the several Federal agencies in the area of waste management. In response to this situation I

17

., .- , - - , -- ---ry

a- ,, * - M - m a.-___ 4 s. - _ . . p. ._ _ a 4 l

Q Q the agencies have developed a variety of mechanisms for exchange of informa-tion, program coordination, and agreement on responsibilities and schedules.

Understandings regarding many of the interagency interactions still need to be developed thrcugh mutual efforts.

l l ROLE OF THE STATES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT l

The final area I would like to address today is the role of States in waste management. In support of the high-level waste program, we held a series of workshops to solicit ideas and comments from State executives l and legislators on portions of our preliminary regulations and procedures.

We plan on going back to the States for futher review as we develop our standards. In addition we are developing procedures for involving States in licensing high-level waste repositories.

l In providing opportunity for State participation in licensing repositories we intend to encourage States to participate with o'ur staff in conducting the license review. We expect to offer assistance and information to the States in many forms such as public meetings, seminars, exchange of staff members, and training to the extent allowable in order to facilitate their effective participation.

In low-level waste management, Agreement States currently regulate five of the six commercial low-level burial grounds. While NRC is evaluating the wisdom of reasserting Federal regulatory control over low-level waste 18 i

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

J disposal. it is' clear that the role for States in low-level waste management is.no less and may be greater than their role in high-level waste management.

1 Mr. Chairman, what I h' ave given is a summary of where we are and where we are going.in our regulatory program for the management of nuclear wastes.

r The program I have described is premised upon the program schedule and directions anticipated from the ERDA plan of October 1976.

f

~

As you know the task force chaired by Dr. John Deutsch, Director of the

' Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy, has released a report a

reviewing the DOE waste management program. We have identified some forty 4 i

i 1

policy statements or recommendations in that report which would impact our i

$ program if adopted. Much of the impact would increase NRC responsibilities. I e  ;

If the recommendations of that report are confirmed through the planned l

review and become administration policy, we will make appropriate changes in our program and will' identify and request the additional resources l needed to meet our increased responsibilities.

~

2 I 4

l 19

-- .-