ML20154N631
| ML20154N631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220044 | |
| Download: ML20154N631 (24) | |
Text
_
o
,0, r .
Testimony Be.? ore the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Presented by
. Joseph Hendrie Chairman USNRC July 26, 1978 I am pleased to be here today tcf discuss with you the activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in nuclear waste management.
I would like to summarize four facets of our program for waste management:
(1) our regulatory authority over storage and disposal of nuclear waste; (2) the regulatory program which we are developing; (3) our interactions with other agencies which also have responsibilities in this area; and (4) our thoughts on the role for States in nuclear waste management.
I will also discussingeneraltheconceptsandproposalsiny.2189andSenators Percy's and Mathias' draft bills.
On short notice we have not been able to fully analyze these bills and therefore what I will discuss here does not represent a Commission position on the proposals.
9810220044 780726 bhREbONDENCEPDR
O O NRC AUTHORITY TO REGULATE RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES 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.
The Atomic Energy Act authorized the NRC's predecessor--the Atomic Energy Comission--to license and regulate the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material.
The AEC itself, and certain defense activities were exempted from these licensing and regulatory requirements.
The Act did not explicitly authorize regulation of radio-active waste facilities.
Therefore, the Commission's authority to regu-late waste uhder the Atcmic Energy Act is derived from its authority over licensable materials.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Commission has additional implied authority over nuclear waste management associated with licensed activities.
This authority is derived from the environmental analysis required under the Act which permits the Commission to impose license conditions on waste management activities to minimize their environmental impacts.
Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred the AEC's licensing and regulatory authority to the NRC.
The Energy Research and
9 9 Development Administration, now c part of the DOE, was exempted from NRC licensing authority, except as provioed in Section 202 of the Act.
Section 202 provides the only explicit statutory authority for NRC licensing of DOE waste facilities.
Subsection 3 specifically requires an NRC license for any DOE facility used primarily for the receipt or storage of high-level radioactive waste resulting from activities licensed by the NRC.
In our view this NRC authority extends to DOE temporary storage of commercially produced irradiated nuclear fuel because spent fuel contains high-level waste and storage of spent fuel involves similar technical problems and levels of radiation hazard as the storage of high-level 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 present law.
Subsection 202(4) of the 1974 Act provides for NRC licensing of DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent 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 development facility currently does not require an NRC license.
Under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC may discontinue some regulatory authority over byproduct, source and special nuclear material
O O by means of a formal agreement process with individual States.
Pursuant to such agreements, several States currently license commercially operated burial sites for low-level radioactive waste, uranium milling operations, and decommissioned facilities.
As I am sure you are aware there are numerous bills before the Congress which would substantially change the NRC authority to manage radioactive wastes.
We will shortly be sending you a summary of the Commission's position on modifications to NRC regulatory authority in the area of nuclear waste management.
STATUS OF THE NRC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The role of NRC in nuclear waste management is both responsive and assertive.
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 the public health and safety will be protected.
For this reason our program is designed to provide (1) stand-ards on which to judge applications and (2) tools to assess the proposals submitted against the standards imposed.
- - _ On the other hand, the NRC program is assertive in that the NRC will develop regulations which may 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 Statement (GEIS) on commercial waste management and the NRC's evaluation of that statement will be important in shaping NRC conclusions on appropriate options for radioactive waste 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.
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 We made a very early program decision in 1975 right after the NRC was established to develop a regulatory base for those disposal methods and technologies most likely to be proposed early on by 00E.
The alternative was to immediately recruit a very large staff and consider all possible alternatives in order to develop regulations for each one.
As a result, though, programs and the required research have changed with changes in Administration or DOE policies.
For example when it became clear that
O O commercial spent fuel would not be reprocessed in the near future and that therefore spent fuel itself must be disposed of, we had to redirect our HLW standards and modeling development efforts to account for spent fuel.
With regard to the permanent disposal of either solidified high-level waste or spent fuel, the principal option being examined by DOE is emplacement of waste in deep geological repositories using normal mining techniques. While some uncertainty still remains regarding repository engineering such as thermal limitations, potential corrosive interaction and retrievabilitity, a review of the available technology leads one to conclude that it is technologically possible that a repository can be successfully located in a geologic medium in the next decade.
Our regu-lations development effort is currently directed at providing guidance specific to deep geologic repositories.
Yet these regulations will also allow for additional future options.
We are developing regulations which will address:
A.
Waste classification - what wastes must be placed into a HLW repository; B.
Waste form performance criteria - what physical and chemical form the wastes must be in;
O O C.
Site suitability criteria - what consititutes an acceptable site for a repository; D.
Repository design criteria - wiat constraints must be placed on development and operation of a repository; E.
Repository decommissioning criteria - what constraints must be placed on closing a repository; and F.
Radiological objectives - what level of radiological containment the repository system must provide.
Licensing and other administrative procedures are being developed which will address not only what steps NRC and 00E will have to take in proposing, constructing and licensing a repository but also will include provisions for State participation which are beyond the traditional approaches which have been taken in other NRC licensing proceedings.
Finally, we are developing the methodologies and other tools to enable NRC to independently assess how a proposed site and design will perform "In one case, the State of Kentucky purchased the operation and contracted with l
the previous owner to maintain the facility but not to receive waste for l
disposal.
O O and whether the predicted actions will meet the minimum acceptable perform-ance required by our regulations.
Low-Level Waste Programs Low-level radioactive wastes resulting from the commercial nuclear fuel cycle and from other activities utilizing radioactive material (e.g.,
hospitals and universities) are currently disposed of at shallow land burial grounds owned and operated by commercial companies.* The laed itself must be owned (pursuant to Commission regulation) by either the Federal government or a State government.
There are currently six commercial shallow land burial facilities; only three are in operation.
As indicated earlier NRC regulatory authority over disposal of low level waste can be relinquished to States by entering into formal agreements.
Five of the six commercial burial grounds are located in and regulated by Agreement States.
NRC low level waste management efforts, similar to our high level waste efforts, can be classified into standards and assessment methodology development as well as licensing actions.
The low level waste regulations being developed will address:
O O
-g-waste form performance criteria, site suitability criteria, design and operation criteria, monitoring criteria, decommissioning criteria, post-operational maintenance criteria, and funding and other institutional requirements.
In addition we are performing an in-depth evaluation of the technical, environmental, economic and socio political aspects of four alternatives to shallow land burial--engineered structures, ocean disposal inter-mediate depth burial and mined cavities.
The four alternatives were selected after screening a comprehensive listing of alternative methods for disposal of low level wastes.
In the area of mill tailings management, the problem is one of safe management of a small concentration of radium in enormous quantities of tailings.
Although NRC does not currently have direct regulatory authority over mill tailings, we are seeking such authority and Congress is considering legislation which would expand NRC authority in this area.
The exact nature of the risk to the public from mill tailings, while estimated to be very low, is not known with precision.
We are inves-tigating improved methods for tailings stabilization and improved
~
O O.reglations for operational and long term control.
A generic environ-mental impact statement on uranium milling is underway.
In the meantime, NRC is requiring that each applicant for a new mill license or license renewal develop a tailings management and reclamation plan which meets interim performance objective developed by the NRC licensing staff and make provisions to assure that funds are available to pay for the reclamation.
INTERFACES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES A number of Federal agencies have substantive regulatory, research or operational responsibilities in the area of nuclear waste management.
Most of these responsibilities interface with NRC regulatory respon-sibility.
The principal agencies with which we interact are DOE, EPA, USGS, and DOT.
Cooperation and communication among agencies to minimize duplication 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 rer.pective waste management programs.
1.
Low-Level Waste Working Group:
An informal interagency working group was established in February 1975 to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies and the States in responding to the GA0 recommenda-tions on low-level waste burial grounds.
Representatives on the working group are from NRC, DCE, USGS, and EPA.
The group meets
O O
~ about every three months to review agency programs and exchange information of mutual interest.
In certain areas, the agencies participate in joint projects such as the USGS migration study and the field studies at existing sites.
Representatives from the States will be included in this group in the near future.
2.
NRC/ DOE Interface DOE has been supplying the NRC staff with schedules and program plans for its planned repositories, and we budget our time and resources accordingly.
We keep the DOE staff informed of our progress and thinking in developing regulations.
When requested, the NRC staff also reviews program and environmental statements prepared by or for DOE or its contractors for non-licensed waste facilities or activities.
One such program presently undergoing review involves the interim management nf Savannah River Plant wastes during the development of long-term disposal methods.
DOE has supported research activities to provide answers to specific questions posed by the NRC and several reports have resulted from NRC requests.
_ _ _ _.. _. ~.
O O~ We have been informed by DOE of their intention to seek a license for the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located in Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Yet DOE plans to submit a license application for WIPP in early 1979 and we are preparing to consider WIPP as our i
first licensing action.
We might require explicit legislative authority to continue this effort.
In this proceeding, DOE is being treated like any applicant. A docket file has been established in our public document room.
3.
NRC/ EPA Interface NRC and EPA have both participated in a number of interagency working groups, including a now defunct OM8 interagency task force on waste management, the ongoing Interagency Review Group chaired by DOE and the low-level waste working group mentioned above.
EPA has authority in the area of waste management to:
- 1) promulgate generally applicable ambient environmental radiation standards and with the President's approval, broad guidance to Federal agencies on radiation standards; 2) grant permits for ocean disposal of radio-active wastes; 3) regulate emission of radioactive effluents into the air; and 4) regulate hazardous wastes including radioactive wastes not covered by the Atomic Energy Act (i.e., uranium mill tailings).
The NRC licenses and regulates nuclear facilities and
.~ -
.o o
defined classes of radioactive materials to protect the public health and safety and common defense ar,3 security and to preserve environmental quality.
EPA standards and guidance referred to in (1) would be binding on NRC.
I There has been and may in the future be considerable duplication of effort between NRC and EPA caused by NRC's. responsibilities to:
1) 1 consider alternatives under NEPA (e.g., considering ocean disposal as an alternative to shallow land burial of low-level waste), 2)
)
consider all environmental impacts f rom licensed activities (e.g.,
the environmental impacts of mill tailings), 3) consider all aspects of nuclear facilities including emissions into the air, and 4) promulgate timely standards for waste facilities.
Possibly in advance of EPA environmental standards.
While EPA has discussed some overall criteria for waste management, they have not as yet promulgated generally applicable environmental st rdards or Federal' guidance for waste management.
From our day-to-day contact with EPA we understand that EPA expects to publish these overall criteria and the associated draft EIS sometime this fall.
We plan on publishing a draft administrative regulation for disposal of high-level waste late this year.
Interim radiological criteria will be added in 1979.
These criteria will be subject to modification, if necessary, upon promulgation of EPA standards.
-wr irwv
--g-i-- r er
.. O O l 4.
NRC/USGS Interface NRC is' supporting part of the USGS research relat_ed to the geohydro-logical characteristics of low-level waste burial sites.
We also anticipate that the USGS will provide licensing review consultation to the NRC staff regarding the licensing of waste disposal facilities.
5.
. Interagency Review Group As you are undoubtedly aware,'this spring the President appointed an Interagency Review Group'(IRG) en nuclear waste management.
The principle objective of the IRC is to prepare a report for the Presi-dent, setting forth recommendations for establishment of an overall decision making and implementation process for dealing comprehen-sively with the nation's radioactive wastes. -NRC is a nonvoting participant in the IRG's deliberations.
ROLE OF THE STATES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT I would like now to discuss our thoughts on the role of States and the public 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 and legislators on repository siting and licensing (see NUREG-0353 and NUREG-0354).
l
--r-r w
ew-i w-
" ~
O.
O 1 i
We confirmed certain ideas during the workshops which have been incorporated
.into our thinking as bases for developing licensing procedures and regulations.
These include:
)
- 1.
States intend to be. involved in repository siting and licensing j
decision making; i
2.
. States will actively cooperate with the NRC (and DOE) if given an i
opportunity; i
i3.
States are willing and able to be involved with decisions concerning:
i o
complex policy. issues,
.o specifics of the licensing, standards and repository siting and development, o
local issues, and o
specific health and safety and environmental issues; and 4.:
The Federal program can benefit from State involvement.
State representatives raised a number of policy issues:
o Funding and technical assistance to the States,
O O.
-.16'-
t Federal indemnification-and' financial liability, o
o
' Compensation and/or.special incentives to the' States, o
Transportation of wastes, o
Mulitple sites / multiple geologic media, and
-o Federal conformance with State 1aws.
~
.We' plan on going back to the States for further review as we develop our tandards.
In addition we are developing procedures for involving States s
in licensing high-level waste repositories.
In providing opportunity for State participation in licensing repositories we intend to encourage States to participate with'our staff in conducting 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 er. tent' allowable in order to facilitate effective participation.
As-a result'of the workshops and other discussions with State officials, a number of ideas which could potentially be used to improve state involve-
-ment have been developed.
Although neither the Commission nor the States have fully analyzed them, we suggest that the following mechanisms may be iD mportant to effective state participation:
1.
Participaton in developing and reviewing the scope and content of NRC and EPA regulations and standards.
~
O O 2.
Active participation by all levels of State government, interest I
l groups, and the general public in DOE site selection and repository development, accompanied by early identification by DOE of environ-mental, economic and social impacts.
Plans for mitigating adverse impacts might also be submitted to the State and local governments.
3.
Opportunity for participation in the NRC staff licensing review afforded as soon as NRC receives notification of a pending applica-tion and continuing until completion of the safety and environ-mental review.
No mechanisms provided would diminish the opportunity for involvement in formal NRC hearings.
4.
Identification by DOE of all state and local laws and statutes which would apply to a waste facility if the same facility were a private enterprise on private land and whether DOE would and could comply with those statutes.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION As I indicated we have not had time to fully analyze the bills you are considering here today.
Since we have had more time to consider the provisions of 6.2189 most of my remarks will be restricted to this bill.
l
~
._7._.
~
O O S.2189 has the potential for becoming an important step in establishing a comprehensive national approach to the problem of nuclear waste manage-meat.
Especially noteworthy in the bill are:
1) the objectives of timely, coherent and uniform regulation of all radioactive wastes regardless.of source or ownership, 1
2) the objective of defining a substantive role for the states, 3) providing an opportunity for the public and the NRC to review the waste management program in its entirety rather than on a piece-meal, project by project basis, 4) provision for NRC to license only one organization for all waste J
f-management operations, t
5) separation of research and development from operation of waste facilities, and 6) creation of an independent organization devoted to managing nuclear wastes; this might aid in maintaining the momentum required to solve i
l l
the waste problem.
l f
O O
zt.
- l. i i
t l
We feel though that there are substantial sections of.the bill which require revision.
I will briefly list some of our concerns:
Functions and Powers of the Authority L
The Authority would have jurisdiction over temporary storage and treat-ment of wastes which sould. include activities at facilities not primarily intended as waste management facilities.
There is lack of provision for how and when existing waste management
~
operations and facilities would be acquired, i.e., at what point will an operating mill become a waste site?
The. power of the Authority to acquire patents, copyrights and the like at will seems unncessarily broad.
The waste management problem is not such that its solution demands extraordinary institutional controls.
Powers of EPA and NRC Although I suspect that the proposed division of authority between EPA and NRC is intended to clarify existing responsibilities and thereby "get on with the job", it tends add to the gray areas which currently exist.
The bill would transfer to EPA some of the regulatory authority currently under the jurisdiction of the NRC.
Such transfer would only further delay establishment of an effective waste management program while
o o respective agency roles are sorted out and while results of work already well underway at NRC are confirmed by EPA.
If I assume the above noted problem is, in fact, unintentional and that no such transfer of authorities was intended, there are still problems I
with the scope of NRC's authority as prescribed by S.2189.
Section 601(a) gives NRC authority over operation but not construction of waste manage-t l
ment facilities.
Section 103(4) on the other hand provides that NRC shall license "the siting, design, construction, and operation" of waste management facilities.
Notwithstanding the fact that these two sections are inconsistent, Section 103 implies that NRC must issue 4 separate licenses.
Further, I'm not sure how siting and design could be licensed apart from construction.
We feel that the initiation of construction of-the repository is the crucial time for safety and environmental review and not at the time of acceptance of the waste.
i i
Section 601(b) provides that NRC licensing authority would be exercised in accordance with Secton 206; Section 206 provides for the preparation 1
by the Authority of two specific plans for the management of existing and future waste to be submitted to and appoved by the President and Congress.
Since these plans are to contain specific waste management proposals, the function of NRC licensing and, in fact, the very independence of the l
Commission would be compromised by requiring the Commission to license in
O O
' accordance with Pres'idential and Congressional approval.
I suggest that since the President and Congress have delegated research, development and licensing of waste management to DOE and NRC respectively, that the plans receive the review of those agencies.
Congress always has an oversight role, and needs no legislation to affirm this role.
Powers of the Department of Energy Section 401 provides that DOE shall determine the integrity of "any proposed disposal technique over a period of one hundred twenty-five years with minimal human supervision and periods greater than one'hundred twenty-five years up to a maximum of one hundred thousand years with no assured human supervision." ~(Note Section 206(a) contains a similar provision.)
.This provision would. apply to all wastes types (low-level wastes, high-level wastes, spent fuel, mill tailings, and so on independent of concentration or half-life) yet it is not technically appropriate to any waste type or disposal method.
Under'the waste classification system we are developing, certain waste disposal facilities will not require very long term control because of limits to be placed on the waste they may contain.
In regulating and licensing waste disposal facilities, the NRC will not only promulgate site suitability criteria appropriate for alternative disposal methods but will also verify through the license review that the site will perform
~
Ol O so as to protect'the biosphere from potential hazard.
Thus the provision seems unncessary.
Although the broad objectives of this bill are attractive we are concerned that the substantial reorganization (such as creation of an entire new agency) as presented in this bill or in Senator Mathias' draft bill at this time would probably serve to delay resolution of the waste problem with'out compensating advances in knowledge-or-approach.
Organization is less-important at this point in time than clear direction and sound management.
Provisions for State involvement, uniformity in regulation and disposal, clarification of regulatory responsibility, user charges and so.on do not require substantial recrganization but instead can be
-integrated into the existing organizational s.tructures.
Senator Percy's draft bill seems to accomplish within the existing Federal structure many of the institutional measures embodied in two bills sponsored by Senator Mathias as well as additional institutional measures.
The bill has numerous far-reaching provisions which we have not had time to analyze but which we feel require study.
Of particular interest in this draft bill are:
+
o o.
designation of 00E as the lead waste management agency with accom-panying planning requirements; DOE operz.. ion, ownership and management of all waste facilities (including uranium mill tailings which may be at the site of operating commercial mills);
l
~
creation of a permanent interagency coordinating and advisory panel l
for waste management which panel excludes, for example, the NRC, OMB, and CEQ; statutorily established decision and action deadlines; provisions for substantive State and public involvement in DOE
. decision making; required identification by DOE of State and local permits and like; Congressional authority to approve or veto such waste facility specifics as siting and design prior to or concurrent with NRC licensing; and I
9 o responsibility of EPA to perform environmental assessments of 00E programs (within 45 days of program plan submittal).
As I indicated we have not had time to consider these and other provisions many of which are beyond the traditional concerns of the NRC.
I request that we be given some additional time to consider this bill.
We will be happy to provide comments for the record after we have had time to take a closer look at these bills.
e
_-