ML20154N681
| ML20154N681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1979 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220056 | |
| Download: ML20154N681 (14) | |
Text
,_
'8 8
4 N
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON 7
. h v'/..
t MS / / [1' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.s
[
April 26,1979 L
Vr BWJu WShopar r
R. N WOGG MEliOP,4DUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie h
CommissionerGilinskyj, Commissioner Kennedy ~
Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne L. (
FROM:
Carlton Kammerer, Director -
Office of Congressional Affairs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT TESTIMONY FOR JACKS 0" HEARING O
Senator Henry Jackson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has requested that the NRC testify on S. 685, a bill to establish a program for Federal storage of spent fuel from civilian nuclear powerplants', on Thursday, May 10, 1979.
Attached is a copy of the first draft of proposed testimony which has been prepared by the Office of the General Counsel.
It is requested that comments concerning the first draf t be provided to Steve Kent, OCA, by close-of-business Tuesday, May 1,1979.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
ED0/
O.
gg c_c_ p,&
NMSS dd SECY ffg 9910220056 790426 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR v o v v v~ us 6
W o
o o
DRAFT TESTIMONY FOR JACKS 0tl HEARING AS REVISED BY NMSS O
O
o Qc CHAIR!
US C
R ATbR 0.'11 SSION gg/SIO BEFORE THE C0!iMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES A / gggs UNITED STATES SENATE THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1979 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I\\ appreciate this opportunity to discuss legisla+4ve approaches to implementing the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
Appearing with me today are Comissioners Gilinsky, Kennedy, Bradford and Ahearne.
/
Wi th your permission, Mr. Chairman, my remarks this morning will address g eih3consw ut,g vb.(b d. p b
major features of the pending legislative proposalg in the nuclear waste 9~ 4 O
I will also submit comments on specific provisions management ++ee.
y d.spcM4.swur an S. 685 for the record.
Title V of S. 685 departs from the subject of nuclear waste management, to offer certain provisions related to the reform of the nuclear reactor siting and licensing process.'
The Cornission has been engaged in intensive consideration of siting and licensing issues for some time.
In December of last year, we directed our staff to prepare an analysis of the issues that might be addressed in O
legislation concerning the licensing process.
On the basis of that analysis, which included a discussion of the issues dealt with in Title V of S. CSS, the Commission began a series of meetings to discuss possible NRC proposals for legislation.
Our meetines were open to the public, in accordance with the Sunshine Act, and were attended by a large number of observers from public interest groups, the nuclear industry, and Congressional staffs.
The Commission held some half dczen meetings beateen January and l'. arch.
a
o o
.. The Commission had begun to consider the actual text of draft legislation when the Three Mile Island accident occurred on March 28.
Since that time, the accident and other regulatory issues raind by it have substantially dominated the Commission's attention.
The Co'rmission has not iiad the opportunity to complete the analysis of siting and licensing issues and draf t legislation on which it was engaged.
Consequently, the Commission would prefer to defer its comments on these important features of the bill in view of investigations currently underway O
both within and outside NRC to evaluate the recent accident at Three Mile Island (TMI).
He expect that these investigations will provide significant new insights which should be available in planning any broad siting or licensing reform measure.
Once our reviews of TMI have been concluded, we would appreciate the opportunity to return to the Committee to address the issues raised in Title V.
Before proceeding to discuss the waste management aspects of S. 685, 1 O
would like to present the Commission's view of its role in these hearings.
Mr. Chairman, in your letter of April 13, you stated that in addition to considering S. 685, these hearings would also provide the Committee an opportunity to assess the impact of TMl on energy policy.
The Commission believes that the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) represents a cleer statement of Congressional intent that the Cont,is sion's role in this country's nuclear activities be linited to that of a regulator.
o o
Developmental and promotional responsibilities were placed in the hands of the Department of Energy (DOE), to be reviewed and periodically revised by Congress.
Thus, we believe that our participation in the development of national energy policy is most properly accokplished by providing appropriate-decisionmakers with the results of our safed and environmental evaluations of nuclear energy systems and licensing procedures.
We expect to fulfill this role with respect to the incident at TMI by publishing the results of our investigation.
p
> bfScar A Interim Storaae of Commercial Spent Fuel Spent fuel storage capacity cssociated with the current generation of nuclear reactors was originally designed on-the assumption that commercial reprocessing would be available.
The fact that such reprocessing will not be available in the near term, and the President's decision to defer indefinitely commercial reprocessing led the NRC to consider alternatives idva/v5 7 ee the interim storage of spent fuel.
The results of this study were published in 1978 in a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) which analyzed interim spent fuel storage needs through the year 2000.
The GEIS concluded that additional storage capacity would be required in spite of increases in existing on-site capacity achieved through redesigning fuel racks in existence at reactor spent fuel pools.
The GEIS also concluded that additional storage facilities would have negligible environmental impacts whether they were located on-site at reactors or L
O o
(InsertA)
With regard to spent fuel and nuclear waste storage and disposal puhu q%.%
we see a three tiered approach in this proposal:
(1) interim spent fuel storage, (2) long-term storage of spent fuel and other high-level commercial waste and (3) ultimate disposal.
Although we do not see a significant distinction between interim storage
- /
and long-term storage we have organized our comments to track as far as possible the provisions of the bill.
O l
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - ~~
... ~..
O
'O 4
./ sepurWe w?$2
' 4 M :t y away from reactors.
In anticipation of requests to license
.we /. 576er4 pe---
r, y,~ c a Eci i t'c-s, the NRC developed and published for comment draft regulations for licensing storage of spent fuel in an independent Ass 6J spent fuel s torage 4 - 4 :k-fh.,
y.
s S. 685 recognizes the need for additional storage capacity for spent fuel and directs the Secretary to construct or acquire storage facilities.
These facilities would require NRC licenses under the bill.
The Commission
' believes it already possesses legal authority to license such facilities because it considers spent fuel to be high-level waste for the purposes O
or Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
However, the Commission would welcome explicit legislative ccnfirmation of this authority to avcid any possibility of confusion in the point.
The Commission believes that the purpose of Section 202(4) would be more fully accomplished by deleting the bill's reference to facilities " acquired or constructed", and by amending Section 202(3) to authorize the NRC to license facilities used to store foreign generated spent fuel.
By limiting O
"ac authority to ooc feci'itie8 "ecavired or com:tructed." the "ac nightnothaveauthoritytoliter52exijfngDCEfacilitieseveniftheyare used in the future primarily to store DCE acquired commercially generated or foreign spent fuel.
This result would be contrary to the concept that NRC licensing authority should extend over essentially all storage of conmercially generated and foreign spent fuel.
~
O O.
. s.
As currently draf ted, Section 202(3) of the ERA may exclude from flP,C licensing authority some DOE facilities used to store. foreign spent fuel delivered under a subsequent arrangement as provided for by the l'uclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 (t;NPA).
42 USC 2160a(a)(E).
For example, foreign spent fuel generated fra'm uranium obtained outside the United States would not result from any activity licensed under the AEA.
It is not clear that DOE's importation of such fuel would require an NRC license, or that issuance of an NRC license (should one be required) would imply that such wastes results from activities licensed under the Act for the purposes of Section 202(3) of the ERA.
O However, the storage and disposal of that fuel would present the same hazards as the licensed storage and disposal of commercial spent fuel.
Consequently, I will forward an amended version of Section 202(3) which would explicitly authorize NRC licensing of DOE facilities used for,the receipt and storage of spent fuel transferred under a subsequent agreement enteredintopursuanttotheQNPA,
> N tisposal of Commercial Radioactive Waste O
Before addressing the specific waste disposal proposals being considdred sN here, I t Stok it would be helpful to provide some perspective for the N
discussion by, iefly reviewing the developing federal program for waste facilities, with rhasis on the NRC's relation to the over.all Federal effort in waste manage.1 t.
Congress has charged DDE with responsibility for ultimate disposal of il evel radioactive waste from com'iercial s
~-
O o
Insert B.
Disposal and Storage of Commercial Radioactive Waste The major provisions of Title III deal with -
1.
Developing a system for the long-term retrievable storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste; 2.
Developing the first module of this long-term storage facility which will demonstrate the feasibility of long-term retrievable storage as a disposal technique; 3.
Authorizes and directs DOE to continue a program of research and development on permanent disposal methods.
O Let me comment first by saying that long-term storage of radioactive waste and spent fuel prior to disposal can be beneficial.
One of the primary problems to be dealt with in high-level waste disposal is the heat given off by the radioactive waste as it decays.
This can cause aggravated corrosion problems, high stresses in the waste material itself, and perturbations in the surrounding geologic repository.
By allowing the waste to decay for a period of time, say a few decades, the thermal problem is much reduced.
This reduced thermal loading O
can be used to provide much more margin in the ultimate disposal system to compensate for the many uncertainties involved in isolating wastes for the long-time scales necessary once it is ultimately disposed.
I might also add ??.S M50 that the spent fuel storage regulation we issued last year for comment would 61so b.e applicable to long-term storage of spent fuel or high-level waste for a few decades in engineered surface or near surface facilities.
2_
O o
~
At this point, let me stat satisfactory or useful onl e that NRC considers long te to ultimate disposal.
y as a link in the rm storage as not view long-term storagI should make it clear cha We do not consider that l e as a satisfacto of disposal.
proper way to proceed ong-term storage as a disp perpetual care, replacem This gets into very diffi osal method is a
cult issues financing such care ent of facilities by futur of way to resolve has yet been dover long-time periods e generations, and
, which no satisfactory evised.
In addition we do Q
should be delayed or redunot believe that the empha i s
long-term storage facilit ced in any respect.
s on ultimate disposal to that recommended bynot proceed j
excuse for ot serve as an e program in a fashion simil the IRG.
insight can be derived b NRC also believes that v l ar k storage facility under NEPAy evaluating the siting a uable options for I would also add at thi and that this should be pr a long-term commercial waste s point eserved,
that although O
soiutions to disposal of military end coand sp this bill deals with we hope that military high reason to find separate would follow the same tr
-level waste mmerciai weste.on the and commercial
- contrery, is ack as a technical basis (such a commercial high-level wasttransuranic waste for the programs to di s heat generation rates ounless there e
verge.
r waste form) 4p 9e s
1-
o o
l_
' l In summary, let me say that long-term storage may have substantial merit, however, only as a component of an overall disposal scheme.
O O
9
'd.
p-
~
disposal. Omilarly attention from the curre, the development of licensi long-term storage facility coulnc regulatory program ng procedures could divert disposal by delaying NRCimpede the federalThus, NRC licens licensing progran for waste ultima {e massaane waste repositories, sat The Commission is for concerned enhanced state particip tithat 5 685 does not cake s torage a
of commercial radioactivon in the proposed prog explicit pro sta te participation in e waste.
ram for long-term
' crucial element in any national nuclearThe Comnission believ es that This making any program waste management program i O
view is shared by the IRG which is adopted a sa ror state nerticipation.
, which has viable one.
directed the Commissi Also, I would note inetsuggested that legisl repcrt on on in the 1979 Consress on provide to participation in the pmeans for improving opp NRC 7
nuclear t;aste rocess for ortunities for improvin. L.95-601) or disposal facilitiessiting, licensing, and d g s ta te storage eveloping The Cc=,ission's repo OTheseveral recommendationrt, which we recently transmitted reco7JDend3tions re9Uis for irproving oppnet to Congress, made federally financed rin9 legisla tion incl dunities for state parti representatives; (2) fplanning council comp (1) establishment of u ed:
cipation.
of =~bh5U. 'under the discretionederal funding of an a
capability a'
ate ependent 2
+'4 grant pregram to allthe planning council technical review s
of i
./
n the federal was:e man ow host states to
- (3) establishment age ent progran.
more fully participate i
'1 p-
_/~"
O o
ROUTING AND TftANSMITTAL SLIP 5/1/79 To: (Namo, office symbol, room number, Initials Data building, Agency / Post) 2.
Steve Kent, OCA k
2-
.m,...>;.+..~..,.
-... ~
4.
It Action File Note and Return Approval for Clearance Per Conversation As Requested for Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your triformation see Me Comment Investigate signature O
Coordination Justify ftEMARKS NMSS-79-649 Attached is a revised version of the Draft Testimony for the Jackson Hearing.
Bill Dircks has read and approved this revision.
Please consult with us on any substantive changes concerning waste management to the testimony.
cc:
J. Burns W. J. Dircks J. Bunting E. Leins O
R. E. Cunningham N. Gill J. P. Roberts 00 Nor use this form as a RECORD of approvsts, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar ections
$ rom: (Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No.-Bldg.
J. B. Martin, WM pnene no, 74423 5043-107 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev, 7-76)
~"
- ,rr >
. toia-a-s,i-cir en s
1 I
.l D ATE OF D,0 CU M E N,T DATE RECEIVED
' DUE DATE REVISED DUE D ATE MPLETION D ATE CONTROL NUMBER
.t 04 26'79 04 26 79 05 01 79
/
ygg OFFICE ASSIGNED N AME OF ORIGIN ATOR AND OFFICE MNNM Kammerer C OCA (L. A. n h% os TEFERRED TO Q~
DESCRIPTION
--/&twS 12. cod' 67 Draft Testig for Jackson Hearing 2 ~W 3 1
1 TR ANSITION TYPE (Code Option)
- 1. Add new items
- 2. Delete items
- 3. Change item date REMARKS
- 4. Update item status (close out)
- 5. Revised due date 8do_tritt.lttm_111tus DISTRIBUTION FORM 300 U.S. NUCLE A R REGU L ATO R Y COM MIS $lON Al l
I WORK ITEM TRACKING SYSTEM I'
(WITS, NMSS) r i