ML20154N569
| ML20154N569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/14/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-WM-6, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220024 | |
| Download: ML20154N569 (22) | |
Text
.
- 4' '
(]
'A.m..-
v STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, CHAIRMAN UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE-SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS l
UNITED STATES SENATE j
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1978 l
I l
Mr.: Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to j
i begin.lar thanking you for this opportunity to discuss legis-
)
i lative approaches to the critical issue of nuclear waste management.
Accompanying me today.are Commissioners Gilinsky j
l and Bradford.
As a preliminary observation I would like to express the Commission's view that the.present statutory framework for regulating the waste management aspects of nuclear activities-inLthe United States could be considerably improved.
Federal l
agencies responsible for waste management must have clear legal authority to take'whatever steps are necessary to i
l continue to protect the public health and safety.
Therefore, i
j we.believe that legislative changes in the Atomic Energy Act j
.,and. Energy Reorganization Act would be desirable to ensure r
...that waste management practices are regulated in accordance
[
I with.a consistent set of standards.
L NRC's Present Regulatory Authority Over Waste 1Before addressing specific legislative proposals being con-sidered here, I think it would be helpful to provide some W
a
(
WM-6 j
j.
.-~
- - - ~ -.. - -
2 l
perspective for the discussion by briefly reviewing the
- NRC's present regulatory. authority in the area of waste I
management.- NRC authority to regulate radioactive waste
- is derived'from three statutes:
the Atomic Energy Act of
.1954, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and-the-Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
1
. l The: Atomic Energy Act authorized the NRC's predecessor ---
I the Atomic Energy Commission -- to license and regulate the 1
possession'and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material.
'AEC facilities and certain defense activities were exempted from this regime.
The Act did not explicitly l
authorize regulation-of radioactive waste facilities per se.
Therefore, the Commiss' ion's authority to regulate waste undSr the Act is derived from its authority over licensable i
byp'oduct materials.
r Under the Nationa1' Environmental Policy Act, the Commission j
L has additional ~ implied authority over nuclear waste management L
' associated with licensed activities.
The Act permits the i
Commission to impose license conditions on waste management
(-
activities to minimize their environmental impacts.
p
. Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred
- the AEC's licensing and regulatory authority to the NRC.
The W
.. ~ -
r
.~
._~
O O
3'
' Energy [Research and-Development Administration, now a part of the. DOE, was exempted from NRC licensing authority, except as provided in Section'202'of the Act.
Section 202 provides the only-explicit statutory authority for'NRC licensing of DOE waste management facilities.
However, because waste facilities.
l are neither production nor utilization facilities as defined by'the Atomic Energy Act, waste facility licensing is currently implementad via licensing the possession of materials.
Such
. licensing.does not focus on the predominant licensing interest which is the purpose of the facility.
Thus, the Commission
-1 believes ~that licensing of repositories intended to handle a significant amount of waste.should be done on a facility basis rather than a materials licensing basis.
.Accordingly,
' the: statute should be amended to establish waste _ management
- facilities as a third category in addition to production and z
utilization facilities'and materials, subject to direct licensing.by the Commission.
Establishment of a third class of licenses would allow the Commission to develop a suitable licensing procedure.
i Section 202, subsection (3) specifically requires an NRC j
-license for any DOE facility used primarily for the receipt i
j~
or. storage of high-level radioactive waste resulting from activities licensed by the NRC.
In our view this NRC authority E
i
. ~
p-
.O.
o
~
l 4
I~
t L
extends to DOE temporary storage of commercially. produced I
- irradiated nuclear fuel because spent reactor fuel should be
{
- regarded as high-level waste.
Storage of spent fuel involves i.
L similar technical problems and levels ~of radiation hazard I
' similar to those associatedz with the storage.of high-level i
' waste.
- Therefore, the Commission believes'that any DOE away-from-reactor spent fuel facility (usually.known by the acronym AFR) would require'an NRC license under the.
-present statutory scheme.
However, as I will note later, we'would welcome statutory language in any bill which is adopted that would make this authority unmistakably clear.
- Subsection 202(4) of the 1974 Act provides for NRC licensing of-DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of~
long-term storage of high-level radioactive' waste generated by DOE activities.
However, the'long-term storage or disposal
- of DOE-generated high-level waste in a DOE research or develop-L ment facility. currently does not require an NRC license, although such action may present similar potential health and safety problems.
High-level. waste and spent fuel are not the only forms of waste which present the possibility of significant long-term health hazards.
Trans-uranic wastes (TRU) also present a potential long-term radiation hazard.
Under the current, 4
e g
iu pm p
+
o 9
5-long-standing interpretation used by the' Commission, TRU has i
i I
L not - beer. ' categorized as high-level waste.
In view of this interpretation,1the. Commission could not clearly' assert statutory authority over TRU wastes at DOE facilities.
Uranium mill tailings produced in the initial stages of the uranium. fuel cycle.are also a subject of growing. concern j
.because of the hazard associated with long-term radon emissions.
Yet the-Commission currently lacks statutory authority over uranium mill tailings except indirectly through the licensing of milling operations.
I will return to these issues at a later point in my testimony.
I Under Section-274 of'the Atomic Energy Act, the'NRC may
- transfer some regulatory authority over byproduct, source and-special nuclear material to the states by means of a formal agreement process.
Pursuant to such agreements, several states. currently license commercially operated burial sites for low-level radioactive waste, uranium
]
cmilling operations, and decommissioned facilities.
Revising the Regulatory ~ Framework for Waste Management The brief' statutory outline I have just presented illustrates j
the disjointed nature of the NRC's current authority over nuclear waste' management.
In the future, as wastes accumulate, j
this uneven pattern of authority could lead to confusion about
]
em L.)
0 6
the exercise of effective regulatory control over several potentially hazardous waste management activities.
Therefore, it is appropriate for Congress to review the current regula-tory situation and to adopt a regulatory framework which will not only be logical and coherent, but will also be
' flexible enough to reflect the realities of the nuclear industry and to accommodate future advances in technology.
In formulating views about the proper scope of NRC'jurisdic-tion over current and future waste management activities the Commission has been guided by two primary considerations.
The first is that nuclear wastes which have comparable properties and hazard levels should be dealt with in ways which provide comparab'le levels of public protection.
The nation would be ill-served by any regulatcry scheme which would permit hazardous materials of a similar character to be governed by widely differing measures of protection, merely as a result of fragmented institutional arrangements.
The second consideration which has shaped the Commission's view of NRC's appropriate role concerning waste management rests on our belief in the value of the regulatory process in assuring the public health and safety.
When it enacted j
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Congress established a basic principle that continued development of nuclear l~
-. ~. -,. -
O O
'7
. energy should be' subject to the. separate scrutiny of an
' independent regulatory agency. 'To give body'and meaning ito this_ principle, activities associated with the nuclear
-fuel cycle which may involve.significant, long-term risks.
to the public health and safety'should, in our view, be
- subject to the kind of scrutiny typically afforded by NRC
~
licensing and~ regulation.. We see two principal benefits in i
such NRC involvement.
First, the independent perspective and institutional competence of the' Commission can make an
'important contribution to: assuring that all aspects of an activity which may impact upon the public health and safety are thoroughly and objectively analyzed.
Second, the
_ regulatory process provides a structured means'of involving
]
concerned members of'the public in decisionmaking on issues
.affecting their interests, l
u In view oflthis need to revise the regulatory' framework for
! waste' management, the Commission believes that legislation
' strengthening or clarifying NRC's statutory authority in this1 area would be desirable.
For convenience, I have divided the following discussion of the Commission's specific
. recommendations into three categories.
First, I will list several activities where NRC should possess clear licensing authority.
Second, there are activities where licensing
~. _
8 may not always-be practical or appropriate, but where NRC
'should have a. combination of. licensing authority and expanded' iregulatory involvement.
Third, there are other major issues arising from the legislative proposals before you which I
~
-will. address in.the final portion of my remarks.
Activities Warranting Expanded NRC Authority LWeLthink' that an important initial. legislative judgment which-
-must be made in connection with the bills current 1y'before j
this Committee'is-the extent to which the Commission's regu-latory authority should be enlarged -- especially with regard j
to DOE facilities.
The Commission has identified several
- specific areas which it believes require clear NRC licensing authority.
Waste Isolation Pilot' Plant Under current. DOE plans, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) will be the first federal radioactive' waste facility for the disposal of trans-uranic and some high-level wastes.
We agree R
with'the conclusion of the DOE Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management that NRC licensing of WIPP is appro-D priate because of the potential health and safety hazards i
arising from the long time periods associated with the wastes it:will receive.
These hazards have justifiably led the public tol expect'NRC. review as part of the government's licensing
. -.. - -. ~. - -.,
O~
o 9
i l_
procedure.
In addition, NRC 11censin6 Will provide important experience for future Commission licensing actions of other disposal-facilities.
I
' Away-From-Reactor Storage
.As.already mentioned, we believe that'a fair reading of the Energy Reorganization Act of.1974 grants the Commission authority to license AFRs.. However, because AFRs.present i
1 health and safety. hazards similar.to those associated with the commercial storage of spent. fuel which is-licensed by the Commission,'we would welcome statutory language which
{
would make this authority unmistakably clear.
~
4 Trans-Uranic Contaminated Wastes Trans-uranic-contaminated wastes contain quantities of long-lived radioactive material which remain hazardous for very I
long' periods 1of time.
.Thus, their safe disposal requires that they remain isolated from the biosphere for very long
- time periods.
We believe that the viability of such long-
- term isolation will. be enhanced by subj ecting disposal facilities for trans-uranic wastes to NRC licensing.
'1 Waste-Solidification Facilities Waste' solidification facilities should be subject to full NRC-licensing because they.are-closely associated with NRC-
. licensed. waste repositories.
The final product from a waste 1
l 4
. __ ~ ~_..
O O
10 l
solidification-facility must' be-inlan acceptable form and of high. enough quality to satisfy NRC Lisposal~ requirements.-
The necessary compatibility'between: final waste form and' repository design can best be achieved by continuous.NRC-monitoring of the waste so11d1fication process in an NRC-
' approved solidification facility.
In addition to those activities'which we believe should be subject to NRC licensing, the. Commission has identified other waste management activities for which a combination of regulation and licensing would be more appropriate in l
light of existing conditions.
L
- High-Level Waste Tanks
-The storage of DOE-generated high-level liquid waste in surface' tanks presents what is perhaps the most significant current health and safety hazard involving nuclear wastes.
However, for reasons I will detail shortly, licensing of
-these. existing facilities would not be meaningful.
- Instead,
-the Commission believes that a specifically tailored method f
of~ regulatory oversight by the NRC would be a more sensible
.and realistic alternative for protecting public health and I
i safety.
Such regulation would include four main elements.
I NRC should possess authority to:
require DOE to supply all information requested; review the health and safety aspects i
~ _.
O O
11 of existing facilities; make recommen.dations for resolving
- any. identified problems; and concur in any DOE plans for remedial action concerning problens identified by the NRC.
Unlike existing tanks, it might be reasonable to make new DOE
- surface storage tanks subject to NRC licensing, like any other
. new facility.
In considering whether the Commission shculd be given this. authority, the unique role of these tanks in
=the defense-related processing chain should be kept in mind.
Regulatory oversight may provide sufficient protection to the
. public here because new tanks will be located on relatively L
- isolated federal installations, and will be built and operated I
by.another federal agency with extensive experience and i
P expertise in the field.
On the other hand, the potential hazards associated-with these tanks could justify their
. licensing by NRC whenever practical.
Low-Level Wastes I.
Currently the NRC has no regulatory authority over DOE low-t
-level waste disposal sites.
Several of these facilities are inactive.
Others, though active, already contain substantial C
. quantities'of low-level wastes in shallow land-burial facilities.
These passive existing facilities are not amenable to licensing for reasons which I will detail later.
Therefore, the Commis-sion believes that the more limited regulatory oversight already i.:
4 3
y e
<m
D o
j 12 discussed forLexist'ing waste tanks would also be appropriate here.'
>New DOE low-level. waste facilities and existing DOE facilities used for_the disposal of commercially generated-low-level-
?
waste'can-and should be subjected to full NRC licensing l
authority for the'same health and safety reasons which support NRC licensing. authority over commercially generated i
low-level waste facilities.
i For the most;part, NR'C licensing authority over commercially l
L operated low-level waste facilities has been transferred to theEstates under the Agreement States program.
Under that program, the Commission can reassert its authority only if it finds that public health and safety requires' termination or suspension of a State-Agreement.
The Commission believes that this standard is'too strict to be effective.
We recommend amending Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act
'toLauthorize the Commission to set minimum standards for l
[
facility operation, and to' permit the Commission to reassert its authority if' states fail to comply with those standards.
Uranium Mill Tailings l-The Commission. supports.the provisions in S. 3146 which would extend the Atomic Energy Act's definition of licensable by-1 product, material to include uranium mill tailings.
We note
(}
~
(
13 that S. 3146 would also specifically. amend Section 274 to permit regulation 'of mill tailings by the states, pursuant to a' suitable agreement which provides that NRC standards shall be met or exceeded.
The Commission endorses the concept of requiring that mill tailings be disposed of in a m?
'.er that meets or exceeds national standards set by the NRC.
We note with regard to a related legislative proposal by the Department of Energy that the proposed remedial action programs in cooperation with the states at abandoned tailings sites will, as we have urged, be made subject to review and concurrence by the NRC as a way of assuring uniformity of treatment.
There are, however, aspects of S. 3146 as.it affects the states which require clarification.
At present, the states exert control over l
tailings piles through their inherent police power to protect public health and safety.
By giving NRC direct authority l
over tailings, passage of S. 3146 would terminate this state control abruptly through federal preemption.
State regula-l
' tion of tailings would remain preempted until the states 1
i enter into new or revised Section 274 agreements.
Where a state has shown an active interest in the control of tailings l
piles _and would seek to continue its authority by means of l
\\
a Section 274 agreement, such a lapse of authority would be unnecessarily unsettling.
What is needed is legislative 1
r~
/~
14 provision'for a transition period which allows for a state role and makes clear what standards shall apply while new l
t Section 274 agreements are being negotiated.
The Commission has been working on legislation which would establish Commission control over mill tailings in a manner similar to S. 3146.
This proposal provides for a transition period during which the states may continue to regulate mill tailings, pending completion of a modified agreement in accordance with Section 274.
Estimated NRC Resou:
'.~ irements
'a These expanded NRC responsibilitics. 21d require substantial additional manpower and budget resources.
While no precise i
estimates are available at this time, we have made a very rough preliminary evaluation of resource requirements necessary l
to implement the proposed new licensing authority.
- However, we have not attempted, at this time, to estimate resources t
which would be required to fully implement the proposed I
regulatory oversight program because we do not have detailed information concerning the present state of existing facilities.
Thus, we cannot estimate the extent of remedial actions they might require, or what NRC resources might be reasonably
[
~ required to monitor any remedial program.
Therefore, at this time the Commission can only estimate the resources I.
'N '
(q
/
15 l
required to review existing conditions in those areas which might be subject to regulatory oversight.
In the judgment of the NRC staff,.the likely budgetary and staffing impact l
of the proposed expansion of NRC licensing and regulatory activities discussed in this statement would be the order of 120 persons and $4 to $5 million per year.
This estimate is for a program which has reached a fully developed stage.
Other Major Issues l
Having discussed possible expansions in NRC licensing or regulatory authority over waste management, I would now like to turn to several other major issues which arise from the bills being consid'ered today, i
Licensing of DOE Research and Development Facilities S. 3146 would expand NRC jurisdiction over DOE research and development facilities now excluded under Subsection 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act.
The only exemption would i
be for faci.11 ties subject to a Presidential waiver, a feature of the legislation I will discuss later.
S. 2804 would not go as far, and would exempt certain operations at existing r
federal installations.
However, both bills would extend NRC licensing authority to DOE research and development activities n
o o
16 1
without regard'to their scope.
The C,ommission believes that protection of public health and safety does not require NRC
]
licensing of DOE short-term activities or facilities designed
)
for small quantities of waste.
NRC licensing of numerous I
small DOE research and development waste activities would also be impracticable because their diversity would require Commission resources incommensurate with any potential i
increase in the protection of public health and safety.
Therefore, the Commission recommends that its licensing authority over DOE research and development activities be limited to those facilities which are large enough to present i
potential public health and safety hazards requiring more than DOE self-regulation.
This class should include any sufficiently large facilities intended to demonstrate long-term storage or disposal.
The suitable limits on NRC authority in this area could be established by setting a legislative threshold, cn' by authorizing the Commission to establish by rule or regulation which DOE facilites will be excluded from licensing.
Licensing of Existing DOE Facilities The provision in S. 3146 for NRC licensing.of existing DOE facilities would present practical difficulties for NRC.
These difficulties are readily apparent in the case of the
{}
f)h G
u 1
~
17 i
DOE carbon-steel tanks used to store.most of the high-level waste from the defense program.
Under S.
3146 the Commission would presumably be called upon to license these tank storage facilities or to determine what remedial actions should be taken to make them licensable.
For NRC to issue a license j
for these tank facilities would carry a clear implication that the tanks meet some reasonably stringent set of standards I
that might have been established prospectively, had the facilities been subject to licensing at the time they were l
originally proposed and built.
Alternatively, S. 3146 would require the NRC to specify remedial' action either to make the defense waste facilities licensable or somehow to satisfactorily terminate existing operations.
The practical difficulty here is that the NRC cannot specify and direct such remedial actions because the necessary technology may not be available, although DOE has suggested.several alternative possibilities for managing defense high-level waste.
Many'short-term DOE storage facilities are part of DOE reactors and reprocessing facilities which temporarily store waste as part of their ongoing activities.
The Commission has no licensing authority over the primary activities of these facilities and did not always perform safety reviews
p
,n d
kJ 18 when these facilities were built.
Therefore, the Commission doubts whether it is practical and possible to license only the waste-storage parts of otherwise unlicensed facilities.
Role of State Governments S.
2761 provides for state participation in waste facility licensing proceedings and for a state veto over NRC au'n..ri-zation of a waste facility.
The Commission believes it appropriate to give statutory recognition to the legitimate concerns of. states in which waste facilities may be located.
l
.However, provision for a state veto does mean that a rela-j tively.small percentage of the American people will be empowered to halt or seriously impede nuclear development l
throughout the country even if the normal regulatory pro-l cesses lead to the conclusion that the wastes can be safely i
l stored and disposed of.
Therefore, we recommend that any state veto be carefully drafted to clarify the circumstances under which it could be exercised.
This would include requir-ing the state to exercise all reasonable means of resolving its difficulties, i
The Commission recommends that emphasis be placed on state
_ participation in the licensing process for waste management activities.
Under present regulations, the states are entitled to participate fully as a party to any licensing
[-
O o
19 l-proceeding.
We believe that state participation should begin with DOE's site selection procedure and continue through the NRC's licansing review process.-
With-the states thus having
~
. participated in the licensing process, we think it reasonable to;11mit-the' opportunity for a formal state veto to the time L
.at which'a final decision is made to fully tuthorize facility j.
" construction.
'Presidentia1' Exemption l
S. 3146 provides a Presidential waiver or' exemption from NRC licensing of DOE. waste facilities if such a course is deemed necessaryLin the interests of national security.
The Commission i
does not objectLin principle to such a provision.
However, the j
t-
[
need for:such an exemp' tion would.be substantially diminished
' if the NRC's' licensing authority over DOE research and develop-
< ment / activities were to be limited as I'have suggested in an earlier portion of my remarks.
Furthermore, we.believe that any reintroduction of the l
L Executive Branch intolthe licensing process should be limited L
,to-matters directly involving military or national defense L
activities of the government.
Therefore, we recommend a waiver applicable only to the temporary storage of defense-related wastes.
p l
l.
~
i i -- -
I Y
/~%.
+
rs V
()
20 This111mited standard would satisfy the national interests in both security and public welfare by recognizing the need for temporary emergency. action, while preserving the NRC's authority to regulate hazardous activities.
Alternative Sites S. 3146 would require each license application for a waste
-facility to identify alternative sites and provide whatever information concerning them that the Commicsion desas sufficient.
The Commission, consistent with its respon-I cibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, already-requires power plant license applicants to identify and evaluate alternative sites in accordance with an "obviously superior" standard.
dnder the standard, a proposed site is compared with alternatives and would be rejected only if another alternative is obviously superior.
This is not necessarily the standard that we would apply to all waste 4
facilities, but an alternate site review to at least this level will be done under NEPA.
i l
We also believe that extensive state participation in DOE's site selection process will ensure the consideration of reasonable alternatives.
Therefore, we do not see a clear need for an additional explicit statutory directive to consider alternative sites.
The Commission would also I
y o
o-21 a
.observerthatLit is possible that geologic factors will cause one or a limited number of sites to be particularly-o l
L well-suited for waste disposal.
Therefore, site selection p
.must be somewhat flexible as is already realized.by the j
" rule of reason" interpretationJof requirements in.the L
- National Environmental Policy Act.
l i
L Study and Report i
S.-3146 directs.the Commission to undertake a comprehensive study to determine whether sufficient information exists to i
support a conclusion that a_ sound method and plan are avail-able for waste disposal.
Waste management studies of several
!~
types'have already.been conducted by the American Physical Society and tofsome ex' tent by the Ford-Mitre Nuclear Energy l
Policy' Study. Group.
Related efforts, in which the NRC.may l
- participate, are being' conducted by the Interagency Review I
. Group on Nuclear. Waste Management.
l 1
l 1A study offthe type-suggested would require additional i
resources or divert Commission resources currently devoted E
to' developing a waste' management !?egulatory program.
The j
Commission recommends that, if the NRC is to conduct a l
study,-it,should focus on determining the stage of develop-ment of various areas of disposal technology, and suggesting areas needine additional. examination.
_.J
i
.Q O+
c.
V U
22 l
l.
Such a study would enable the Commission to help ensure that
~
effort is being applied to areas needing it.
1 l
........