ML20154N789

Testimony of R Boyle Before Joint Legislative Waste Consultation Committee,Nm Legislative Council

ML20154N789
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/03/1979
From:	NRC
To:
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220093
Download: ML20154N789 (10)

Text

..- ,_. .-. _ _._ . .._ _ ._ _ . _ . . _ . ...

r .. ._ . _

4- i f L

+

,.i TESTIMONY OF -

,C.

REGIS R. B0YLE.

LEADER, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 1979 SANTA'FE, NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE WASTE CONSULTATION COMMITTEE, NEW MEXICO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL I

i s)- Mr. Chairman and members. of.the Committee, I would like to begin by thanking you-for providing me' with the opportunity to testify before your Committee on activities of the U.S. ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the management of radioactive waste. 'As Mr. Gant'and some other Committee members might recall,

' Mr; John'B. Martin, Director ~of the Division of Waste Management was here on March 11of this' year to testify before the Senate Conservation Committee on

- NRC waste management activities. 'The testimony I will present today is, to

'a large. extent, similar to that' presented on March _1. However, some elements

[] of our program have been_ modifi d since that time and I will try to bring .

'you up to date on these matters. ,

I will briefly touch upon three facets of our program for radioactive. waste

' management. These three elements include: .(1) the NRC's licensing and regulatory authority over facilities used for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste L . . material;J(2) the licensing procedures we'are developing to review license p

- . 9810220093 790003 l3 p PDR STPRG ESG l l lt j

l

7; .

r applications for geologic repositories; and (3) the role of states, and of

! New Mexico in particular, in the licensing process of a waste disposal facility.

-NRC Licensing and Regulatory Authority I think it would be helpful to provide you with an overview of the NRC's present regulatory authority in the area of waste management. NRC authority to regulate radioactive waste is derived from three statutes: The Atomic Energy Act _of 1954, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

l f) The Atomic Enargy Act authorized the NRC's predecessor--the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)--to license and regulate the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. AEC facilities and certain' defense activities were exempted from these licensing and regulatory requirements.

The Act did not explicitly authorize regulation of radioactive waste facilities per se. Therefore, the NRC's authority to regulate waste under the Act is derived from its. authority over licensable radioactive materials.

The purpose of NEPA was to encourage productive harmony between man and A

t) his environment. The Act requires a detailed enviornmental impact statement be prepared on any major federal. action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred the AEC's licensing and regulatory authority to the NRC. The 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.2_/

U Section.202, subsections (3) and'(4) reads as follows:

"(3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act."

(Atomic Energy Act)

"(4) Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of highwlevel radioactive waste generated by the Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities,"

_- p . ,

j s

4 Section'202 provides the.only explicit statutory ' authority for NRC licensing

of~ DOE wa'ste management facilities. Section 202, 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.

I

Section 202, subsection (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 and development facility currently' does not require'an NRC license! '

The NRC regulatory authority over consnercial spent fuel disposed of in DOE geologic repositories is the same as our authority over the high-level wastes. NRC has no regulatory or licensing authority over DOE disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes or low-level waste (LLW).

Therefore, with regard to:the Waste' Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) proposed by DOE near Carlsbad, if the repository ib,primarily-for the disposal of TRU

[]

wastes, which is our understanding, then NRC does not have regulatory authority over that project under current . legislation. Let me stress, though, that the Commission has on several occasions urged expansion.of NRC licensing authority to cover WIPP'. -

j The Licensing Process NRC has the responsibility to review applications from DOE with respect to high-level waste disposal facilities and to determine whether radioactive

( materials can be received and possessed at the proposed facilities without l -,

i.

. . . - . . . . . - - . . . - . . . - . . - - . . - - . . . . . . . - . ~ . . . . - . - - . - . - - -

[ I l'

i

imposing unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, giving consideration to the provisions of NEPA as to the protection of the environment.

l j I will first describe the licensing process we envision for high-level  !

waste facilities and then discuss how we would recommend proceeding on WIPP l l i if we were to receive regulatory authority.

l The licensing process which we will propose to carry out the review of  ;

an application and to make licensing decisions is being prepared for publication I as a proposed rule for public comment in the early fall. This administrative j d rule is intended to provide a clear framework for the licensing review of geologic repositories, contains procedures for state involvement in the licensing process, and provides for public hearings preceding major NRC decisions. Subsequent to the publication of the administrative rule, the NRC will issue for public comment the technical requirements which describe the siting and design criteria and fundamental performance requirements for geologic disposal. _ . .

ww U The licensing process which I anticipate that we will propose involves a our critical review of DOE proposals at a number of decision points. The q licensing process has not yet been reviewed by the Commission and is subject to change. The major NRC approvals envisioned are: (1) approval to construct

l j

q the repository; (2) approval to receive and emplace waste; and (3) closure of the repository. This process is intended to ensure that at each succeeding 1

l' step in the licensing process, our understanding of the behavior of waste d

in a repository will increase while the uncertainties associated with the n

1 information and data will decrease. 1 i

l Current scientific thinking on geologic repositories indicates that I

successful long-term isolation of high-level waste will be dependent upon the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the repository site. For this

reason, it _is necessary to have as complete a picture as practical of the j 1

geologic and hydrologic environment,into which the wastes _would be placed  ;

before making a decision to permit construction of the facility.

l Exploration of repository sites at depth, i.e., sinking of an exploratory  ;

shaft with lateral borings and in-situ testing' at the planned depth of waste emplacement, is required to. provide sufficient information and data to adequately assess- the long-term ability of the repositoij to isolate high-level wastes.

' Furtharmore, obtaining such information and data at several sites would permit

, , . a detailed comparison ofithe various sites that should promote the selection I i") by DOE of the environmentally preferred repository site.

Our ~ current thinking on the; developing of a geologic repository is that DOE should characterize and evaluate in detail three to five candidate sites I in different geologic media prior to selecting one site for an application to the NRC for a construction authorization. Such an approach would permit 4 DOE to conduct surface investigations, underground exploratory' investigations including sinking of an exploratory shaft, limited exploratory tunnels, in-situ T tests, and experiments at several sites. It should be noted that characterization

~(V of several sites has been recommended by the IRG as being essential to the national program for the disposal of high-level waste. Prior to initiating such a characterization program, DOE would be required to submit to the NRC r

and to make available to the public a site characterization report which,  !

among other things, sets forth the rationale for selecting a particular site

- for detailed site characterization. The site characterization report should describe the site characterization program including the extent of planned

. excavations, plans for in-situ tests, and other investigative activities that l

.t

5 6-

'D0E intend' s to pursue. Site characterization activities conduct'ed by DOE would be). carried'out under the review and guidance of the,NRC with' opportunities for

~public comment and public meetings. The'-intent of this type of approach to licensing'is to ensure that enough information and data is developed on a broad enough-base so that the best licensing decisions can be made. Doing less may make.it very difficult to conclude.a construction authorization.

proceeding since basic information might be missing. Investigating several

• sites wil11 ensure that the required technical data will be gathered without tra king an improvident and premature commitment to any one particular' site.

. b<' ,

With regard to WIPP specifically, the NRC staff reconnends that the WIPP site be considered as a candidate for one of the three to five sites which DOE characterizes in detail as part of the national waste management program.

DOE should submit to the NRC and make available to the public a site characterization report for the WIPP site. This report should clearly indicate those activities that DOE-intends to pursue in order to characterize the site.

• A decision on whether to proceed with construction should not be made until other' sites are fully characterized. At that time, a more informed  !

decision could be made on the basis of detailed test data from the WIPP site as well as other sites. A selection could'then be made among the alternative sites as to which site is :the preferred choice of D0E.

]

.: 5,

'l

. g.

,.p.

,.m. , -

]'

7 j 1

+

y; ,>

ls .e .

?

As I had indicated earlier, the first major decision point for the NRC would.

come at.the construction authorization stage. A construction authorization would allow DOE to begin the full construction of the surface and subsurface ,

repository facilities. :The formal NRC licensing review process begins at this stage with the filing of an application by DOE for a license. The application would include information on site suitability and repository design features important to safety. An environmental report prepared by DOE would also be submitted

/~'\ The NRC review will consist of concurrent safety V with or prior to the application.

and envitonmental reviews. The purpose of the safety review is to determine if there is reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of wastes described -

in the application can be stored in the repository of the design proposed without causing undue risk to the public health and safety. Our findings on these matters will be set forth in a safety evaluation report for the proposed facility. The granting of any permit by the Commission to allow the construction of a waste reposito y facility would also require that the NRC prepare and issue for public comment a draft environmental statement pursuant to the Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA. After Q

consideration of the comments received, the NRC will be required to issue a final environmental statement. We would then hold hearings before the Atomic Safety I

and Licensing Board (ASLB) during which evidence could be presented on various 1 iss"2s and witnesses examined. Intervention by the state and other affected parties would be considered by the hearing board. Completion of the construction i

I

v. _-

• .'- -h 4

&x: -

- W . ..

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

1

.:i. . , .

)

8 2--

t 2 f

f authorization' review and a,fa'vbrable: decision by the ASLB will be required prior. to the

, ' commencement of full constru t' ion. ,

V The~secondmajor. decision,poliitforthe'NRCinthelicensingprocessfora l -

. repository facility comes 'when DOE wishes to.begin _ operation of the facility by re-ceiving and emplacing waste. To receive sucti a ~ license, DOE will have to file an. updated license application which presents all the new information learned during construction. The NRC would conduct a review similar to that which was 1

performed during the construction authorization review. However, the review I l

at this stage will be primarily directed toward new information or data that ll/]

has been obtained during the construction phase. A public hearing at this stage could also be held if requested.

We estimate that it will take from 9 to 12 years from receipt of an )

application, through the formal review and construction stages, to the granting of a license-to receive wastes. Of this 9 to 12-year period, it is projected that approximately four years would be required to complete the e

initial construction authorization review. Construction of the facility and p

, Ql various testing programs, including in-situ tests, would require from five to

'eight years.

While the four year review period for the construction authorization may seem to be an excessive amount of time, we have recognized for some time that

.the licensing review period for a first-of-a-kind repository facility will not be

, brief. In addition to the many technical issues that will have to be examined and l

lf resolved by the NRC prior to the issuance of a construction authorization, we

• e A

t , .

, r y, ,,-4 7,

4 -_ m . -. - - - - - .- -- . . -

Qj h a ~;, -

.;9' 3 'y i s

s f

1. g^ ': anticipate a considerable amount.oflioordination between the NRC end other.

4

7 3 Fede~ral', state',~and local agencies.during'the review process. We lfeelithat- '

. - respons'ibleIinteractionbetween1various'governmentalagenciesisanabsolute

[ 'nec~essity for.a successful waste management program.

w;; <

, , State Involvement in Licensing Process -

We want,-and are-firmly committed to obtaining, state. involvement in our.

h .

f licensing proc ^essj NRC h'as been soliciting ideas and participation from states. j 1 ,in workshops..public meetings,'and individual:NRC/st' ate meetings for the past j

t' W %f several-years.. ,

j

)

With respect to the State of New Mexico, the NRC staff:has been working i

~

./, closely:with state officials.

Severa1' meetings were held between the NRC; staff and' E< ' state hepresentatives to discuss and explore possible' mechanisms for state: involvement )

-in the NRC licensing review of- the WIPP facility. if. NRC licensing should be  !

J required. The most recent session was held in Santa Fe on March 1 and 2 of  !

of this year. During this session, NRC-staff members met with the Governor, members j

of, the State legislature, and the.New Mexico: Environmental Improvement Division.  !

Q Several proposals for improving State participation in the NRC licensing process were discussed during these sessions. These included a personnel exchange program  !

between the state and NRC, participation by the state in the NRC licensing review of a repository application, and possible joint state /NRC hearings on a i

repository application. The Environmental Improvement Division of the state  !

i currently has these proposals under advisement. Implementation of any of these l 1

proposals will enhance the role of the state in the licensing process for WIPP, )l l

4

, c 9 4 _ m _ -

.: #c f

b if NRC licensing were required, and would prove beneficial in that' safety and' environmental concerns of state officials could be identified and evaluated at earlyEstages'in thel licensing review. We' expect to have further discussions with state officials asithe plans' for the ,WIPP fa lity become'better defined. It

~

should be noted that the'NRC intend 1;to' secure this(type of working relationship with each state in which DOE proposes to characterize a site.

l All of our efforts to date to-improve state. participation in the licensing process, and particularly those withi he t State'of New Mexico for the WIPP

(

.fw). ffacility, have had as an underlying assumption that the NRC wouldhave regulatory authority over the proposed facility. As you'are aware, a DOE official testified before the House Armed Services Committee on July 18, 1979 and indicated that DOE will not take an active role in supporting legislation to require NRC licensing of WIPP. Thus, it now appears that the NRC may not have j

' licensing authority over WIPP. Up to this point, the NRC has not addressed the question of.the degree,and type of our involvement, if any, in a non-licensed geologic waste repository. Over the next several weeks, we intend to consider y'l .

p.

this. matter in greater detail.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other Committee members might have at this time.

?

9 l

i