ML20154N589
| ML20154N589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/27/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-WM-6, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220030 | |
| Download: ML20154N589 (13) | |
Text
!
y..
- *~
n
+
p
- 4
. b.
v,.
Mt-R 1
'l
~
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH M.-HENDRIE, CHAIRMAN
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE'ON ENERGY AND POWER 100!3:ITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN C0!G'.ERCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF.REPRESE!:TATIVES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1978 N
r i
i..
4 1
. 9810220030 790627 i:
PDR WASTE Wit-6
. PDR..
o 1
O O
Mr.; Chairman and members of the. Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss legislative approaches to implementing the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste.
Appearing _with me today are i
' With'your permission, Mr. Chairman, my remarks this morning will i
address some of the difficult issues identified in your invita-l
- tion 'which requested the Commission's _ views on the legislative
. proposals now under consideration by this Committee.
My remarks
' will' focus on spent fuel, the Commission's licensing authority over
- DOE storage' facilities for spent fuel, the recommendations by-the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management (IRG), State
~
- participation in waste facility licensing, and Federal respon-sibility for providing interim storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel.
I will also submit for the record detailed replies
- to your questions and the Commission's comments on specific provisions in H.R. 2586.
Spent Fuel
- Mr. Chairman, as you know, growing quantities of radioactive waste,. including spent fuel, are being generated by commercial
?
users'of radioactive materials, especially the nuclear power industry... The continuing accumulation of waste volume and spent Jfuel has been accompanied by growing public concern over the continuing absence of final radioactive waste disposal facili-l t
[
ties.
l I
9 g-se-
'-ww M
g M
su
-We 4
m
~w gi e-
O o
~
2 Spent fuel is currently accumulating in spent fuel pools at reactors throughout the United States.
The NRC has evaluated the environmental impacts of the accumulating spent fuel and has published a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on this subject.1/
The GEIS concluded that there is a need for additional storage capacity to accomodate some of the accumulat-ing spent fuel.
The GEIS also concluded that additional storage facilities would have negligible environmental impacts, whether they were located on-site at reactors or at separate sites away from reactors.
In anticipation of requests to license away-from-reactor facilities, the NRC has developed and published for comment draft regulations for l'. censing of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation.
To date, no operating reactor has had to cease operation because of a lack of storage space for spent fuel.
There are, at the present, almost 15,000 fuel assemblies stored in power reactor pools, and approximately 5,000 additional assemblies are added each year.
Most utilities have accomplished or proposed modifi-cations which will provide sufficient storage for five to ten additional years of plant operation.
However, some facilities are approaching the physical capacity limits of their existing pools, and no federal facility for permanent disposal of spent fuel exists today.
There is a development program underway within the Department of Energy which has been reviewed by a 1/
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Reactor Fuel.
NUREG-0404 (March 1978).
O O
3 Presidenta11y established Interagency Review Group.
We under-
. stand.that the DOE plan under development would result in addi-
.tional interim spent fuel storage facilities by 1983/1984 and a geologic repository for permanent disposal of high-level waste by-the early to mid 1990s.
.The relation between spent fuel' storage and ultimate disposal was emphasized in a May 23, 1979, decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In Minnesota v.
150, a case related to the expansion of spent fuel pools at the
'lermont Yankee and' Prairie Island power plants, the Court - rema'ided to the Commission consideration of the following issues: (1) whether there is reasonable assurance that.an off-site solution will be available when the operating licenses for these' plants expire; and if not, (2) whether there'is reasonable assurance l
that spent fuel 'can be stored safely on site beyond those expira-tion dates.- The Commission has not had an opportunity to fully analyze this decision and determine the appropriate scope and procedures for a proceeding consistent with the Court's decision.
i The Commission is considering these matters and will inform you of~our. proposed actions.
j i
IEC Licensing Authority
{
H.R.. 2586 recognizes the need for additional storage capacity for spent fuel and would authorize the Secretary to acquire, con-struct', operate, and maintain storage facilities for such fuel.
L 4
- - - - =.
9 9
4 However, the bill does not address NRC licensing of Department of Enecgy (DOE) storageEfac111 ties.
The Commission believes it
-alread possesses legal authority to license the storage of spent fue.'.
such facilities, because the NRC considers spent fuel to be hit -level waste for the purposes of Section 202(3) of the j
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, (ERA).
Explicit legislative confirmation of _this authority would be welcome by the Commission l
to avoid any possibility of confusion on this point.
IRG Recommendations i
l In June 1978, the Commission expressed the view that it was reasonably confident that safe waste disposal will be available j
L when needed.S!
In March 1979, the Commission reaffirmed its con-fidence but committed itself to reassessing its basis for confidence 1
as new ' data are developed and progress is made in 'the Federal waste management _ program.S"I The Commission is now considering the form of a proceeding to review its basis for confidence.
]
In.the meantime, the Commission staff has reviewed the Final l
Report of the President's Interagency Review Group on Waste'
- lanagement and has expressed explicit agreement with the IRG's finding [ that: "Present scientific and technical knowledge is 3
l
. adequate to identify potential repository sites for further S/
Statement of' Dr. Hendrie before the Subcom=ittee en Nuclear i
Regulation, Committee on Environment and Public Works.
)
SEI
.The majority and minority ' separate views are attached.
1 t f~
Report to the -President by the Interagency Review Group on 5
Huolear Waste Management.
(March 1979).
m
_.. _.. _. -. ~.. _.. _. _. - _. _
m 5
L l
investigation. ENo scientific or technical reason is known that l-
' would prevent identifying a site 'that is suitable for a.reposi--
tory. provided that 'the systems view 'is utilized ' rigorously to 1
' evaluate the: suitability of sites and designs and in minimizing i
the influences 1of future human activities."
It would appear.
j l.
. prudent that several geologic ' environments covering a variety L
Lof emplacement -media should be examined in some detail.
Reposi-l l
. tory development. should begin with a number of geologic media and i
proceed.to the further development and useJof those which prove i
- to. be suitable on the basis of in-situ exploration and testing.
i.
In addition,_ several waste forms should be developed and.charac-terized.
This parallel development of sites and waste forms
'should result in combinations which would provide the required 1
protection of the public.
i The proposed'11 censing process, set out in the statement of Commission: Policy published for comment in November 1978, is
. consistent with such step-wise development.4/
Intermediate Scale
. Facilities (ISF) could be employed as part of a step-wise process-1 of proceeding from R&D facilities to a commitment to a full-scale
. repository.
~S ate Veto LYou have asked whether a state should be given the authority to veto an interim-storage facility or terminal repository sited V
~
- 43. Fed. ReE. 53869 (November 17, 1978).
l 4/
t l-
'].
m m-
. i,
~y,
-,yv 9
9
.y
-,.r,
l 6
within its borders.
While terminal repositories, because of the essentially unlimited duration of their existence (from a human i
viewpoint) require special consideration, we do not believe that interim storage facilities should be handled differently from other fuel cycle facilities.
We do not believe that states should have authority to veto or non-concur in the selection of an interim storage facildty.
States may presently participate as interested parties in hearings on the licensing of such installa-tions.
In NU?2G-0539, "Means for Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing and Development of Federal Nuclear Facilities,"
a repcrt to the Congress, the Commission addressed the question c f State concurrence in the following manner:
" Finding: The Commission believes it appropriate to give statutory re:cgnition to the legitimate concerns of States in which waste f acilities may be located.
Providing a State veto would mean that a relatively small percentage of the American people would t e empowered to halt or seriously impede the Federal waste manage-centEprogram even if the normal regulatory processes were to lead to the conclusion that the wastes can be safely stored and dis-p osed of.
P.e:cnnendation:
The Commission believes'that legislation for improving Stat'e participation in the Federal waste management program should provide additional recognition of the legitimate
m.
O n
V U
j 7
l concerns.of the state along lines suggested in this Report.
If provision for a State veto were made, that provision should be carefully drafted to clarify the circumstances under which the veto could'be~ exercised.
This would include requiring the State to exercise all reasonable means to resolve its difficulties.
If a State concurrence or. veto were authorized, it might come at
- the tbne at which a Commission decision has been made to author-1 ize facility construction.
Therefore, it would have the effect c f suspending the beginning of construction by DOE.
We emphasize the need to consider how issues identified by a State. veto would t e resolved; we see merit in providing for a Congressional role
- fJ1 this area."
i i
Should provisions be made -for State nonconcurrence, we prefer, as indicated, the ' concept of a final point of concurrence coming at a time when Commission decision has been made to authorize facility cons ruction.
This decision to license receipt of waste would be subj ect to the normal full formal proceedings which NRC provides for and as provided in Federal law.
Conmissioner-Gilinsky has asked me to state that he would have the Commission take no position on whether or not. States should have veto power over siting of waste repositories.
The advis-ability of permitting such a veto turns on political and economic considerations which are beyond the scope of the Commis sion' s responsibilities.
~
Q O)
G q
8 Commissioner Bradford has also asked me to express his views on State veto.
Because Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act denies states a voice in radiological standard setting for may types of nuclear facilities, these facilities have a uniquely privileged status among industrial installations in this country.
Most industrial facilities must conform their air and water discharges to both state and federal regulation.
For nuclear facilities, however, it is only in the event that something goes seriously wrong that the states (unprepared though they may have been rendered by having been excluded by the standard setting process) must deal with it, and then they must more effectively and quickly.
The situation seems to me to reflect an unwise overprotectiveness of nuclear development.
I feel that federal preemption of the state power to set standards relating to radiological health and safety should be terminated.
Instead, the federal government should, as it does for all other types of air and water emissions, set minimum standards.
States should be empowered to go beyond those standards, up to and including the prohibition of the facility in question.
Meedless to say, the full range of constitutional and other legal protections would still be available to any applicant who could show that the state was acting in an arbitrary, capricious, uncon-stitutional, or otherwise illegal manner.
These protections have been adequate for every other industry, and commercial nuclear
. -. - -. -...... -... -,.~.... - -.
. -..~.
O O
~
9.
t facilities -or facilities handling commercial nuclear wastes l
should-notz be treated any differently.
At the very least, this extrordinary preemption ~of the normal.
. state power to set. health and safety standards on facilities
~
within 'its-borders should not occur until it is clear from direct i
i experience 1that vital and ' clearly articulated national interests are'being harmed by arbitrary state actions.
The preempting of st' ate standard setting based on mere speculation that ' state governments may behave irresponsibly' sacrifices the normal workings of the. federal: system to what.seems to me to be misguided assertions about the special needs of the nuclear industry.
It also furthers che impression that the managers of nuclear waste fear the close scrutiny of those who will have to live near it.
I
~
i I
l
)
e
-l l
l v
e
O O
~
10 Federal Responsibility For Waste Management H.R. 2586 would explicitly affirm federal ownership and operation of a system for a long-term disposal of spent fuel generated by foreign and domestic nuclear reactors.
The Commission agrees that ultimate. disposal is a national problem which must be solved primarily by the Federal government.
This view is also shared by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste' Management (IRG).
I In its' March 1979 report to-the President, the IRG proposed a i
plan for_ carefully and expeditiously achieving ultimate waste l
disposal.
The Department. of Energy (DOE) has designed its Com-mercial Waste Management program to implement the recommendations
)
of the IRG.
These developments are of fundamental importance to l
.the Commission because it is authorized by Section 202(3) of the Energy. Reorganization Act of 1974 to license DOE facilities for.
j the storage of commercially. generated wastes.
H.R. 2586 would also assign to the ' Federal government responsi-1
- bility for providing interim storage for. spent fuel.
The Commis-sion has not taken a position on whether interim spent fuel-storage facilities should be owned privately or by the Federal
. Government.
The Commission believes that it can adequately analyze the health, safety, and environmental impacts of such facilities whether.they are constructed by the Federal Government or by private industry.
Although _the Commission offers no opinion on who should be 4
If responsible for providing facilities for the interim storage of i
j I
p p
d G
11 l
spent fuel, the Commission suggests that the following factors should be considered.
Before the President indefinitely deferred reprocessing in October 1976, private utilities constructed 1
nuclear generating plants under the assumption that spent fuel l
would be reprocessed.
Consequently, these utilities constructed spent fuel storage facilities having limited capacity.
Since In then, several nuclear power plant operators have applied improved technology to expand the capacity of existing storage facilities.
However, even with these increases in capacity, spent fuel pools will begin to run out of storage space by the mid-1980's.
If additional storage capacity is not available by that time, some nuclear plants will have to cease operation.
'fhe result would be a loss of generating capacity which could have national impact.
Of course, the prospect of power plant shutdowns might also encourage private investors to construct additional spent fuel storage capacity.
Private industry is technically capable of constructing away-from-reactor storage facilities.
The tech-
.nology of such storage facilities is well-developed, and substan-tial experience has been gained by the construction of smaller spent fuel pools at reactor sites.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks.
I will be happy to answer any questions by the members of the Committee.
l m
_.-... = -..
g
(,i a
w THE COMMISSION'S MAJORITY AND MINORITY VIEWS ARE CONTAINED IN THE COPIES OF THE ATTACHED LETTERS TO SENATOR GLENN.
L w