ML20154N892
| ML20154N892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/07/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154N896 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220120 | |
| Download: ML20154N892 (9) | |
Text
.
.r<
~f' l
1 I
TESTIMONY ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL 1
BEFORE THE l
l SUBC0hBiITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION l
m HOUSE C0hB!ITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY I
l PRESENTED BY l~
JOSEPH HENDRIE CHAIRMAN L
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0hBiISSION O
novtussa 7. 1979 i
I
(
9810220120 791107 PDR COMMS NRCC
. CORRESPONDENCE PDR j
t
)
h..'
- o O
4.
c l,
'We.are pleased to testify.before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production on the very ^important subj ect of low-i
- lev'el? radioactive waste disposal.
About 3 million cubic feet of Elow-level radioactive waste are currently generated annually.
Of this volume,'about 30 percent is medical wasts, 50 percent is s
reactor and fuel cycle waste and 20 percent is waste from industry.
L As the Subcommittee knows, there are only I
L andigovernment. sources.
{]pLthreefdisposalsiteslicensedtodaytoreceivecommerciallos-level waste.
In recent weeks, only one of these sites has been accepting i
c
-wastes.
i l
There is a need-for more low-leve1~ waste disposal sites in the LNation and these should,be equitably ~ distributed geographically.
^
The. Governors. of the three states in which burial grounds are L
' located have. indicated that they do not intend to have their states l
ibear'soleEresponsibility for the' Nation's wastes.
If regions of
,; A i
'^ the' Nation are to continue to obtain the benefit from services q
L ranging' from nuclear medicin'e to nuclear power production, we L"
. bel'ieve it is imperative that additional low-level waste disposal capacity be established on.a regional basis.
To do this requires L
cooperation!of agencies within the Federal government as well as
' state governments.
t.
The situati'on we face today can be broken down into a near-(
term:and.a;1ong-term problem.
In the near term, a short fall of L
disposal capacity _ is developing which must be managed until l
l 4
c-.p w.-
y
- f. ;.
~o o
3 A-
- t additional disposal facilities can be established.
The exact size of. this short, fall. over the next seve$ al years is difficult tc.
predict since-it depends on the future operation of the thre'e existing sites.
South-Carolina places an annual volume limit on waste' received for disposal.
This limit will be reduced over the next two years.
Over the past year.it' has accepted waste at the
- rate :of 2.4 million cubic feet per year.
By the close o'f 1981
]. this rate will be reduced to about 1.2 million. cubic feet per year, a 50 percent reduction.
The other sites do not yet have volume' limits-but they have been shut down for certain periods in recent months.
If. decisions were made today to establish new
. disposal sites,yit would take about two years to do all the technical and environmental analyses required prior to startup of
'the disposal operation.
In the meantime, the short fall of dis-R posal' capacity can be expected to increase with the potential for
'Q adversely affecting the public welfare if interim solutions are not found.
Most significantly, the early consequences of this short fall could be the inability to deliver nuclear medicine services at the rate needed.
If the situation grows worse, it could also affect other services including nuclear power production.
In' order to cope with the near-term problem, the NRC will do the following.:
1.
Assign a high priority to applications for increased storage capacity and waste volume reduction operations at licensed facilities where wastes are generated.
1 e
F 6
- o
.s:
3 2.
Provide' technical assistance to Agreement' States upon I
request for similar' license applications which they i
might. receive.
3.
Provide technical assistance to state governments upon j
request in formulating storage requirements needed to protect the health'-, safety and welfare. of the public.
4..
Assign a high priority to applications from state l) governments or state endorsed private organizations
.for interim storage of low-level radioactive waste within the state.
5.-
Provide technical assistance to Agreement States for
~ imilar applications.which they might receive.
s 6.
If a. state finds that it cannot provide sufficient storage or disposal capacity to prevent endangering-i the public' health, safety and welfare caused by
()
curtailment of licensed ep~erations, such as nuclear i
medicine laboratori'es, the NRC will report to the DOE the unavailability of capacity to store or dispose of L
waste generated by certain licensed operations.. Such NRC reports will be specific for certain licensees or
. categories of licensees and cover a limited time while the sta.te continues. efforts to provide storage or F
l.
disposal capacity.
4 i
('.
l
>4 It should be noted that -the ability of the existing sites r
-to.. continue reteiving any waste is highly dependent on waste j
generators and transporters adhering strictly to waste packaging and. transport rules.
The record of compliance with these~ rules i
has not been good and has resulted in the temporary closure of
'the Nevada and Washington sites in recent months.
This matter was; brought forcefully to our attention in a July 10, 1979
( )
letter sent to me by Governors Riley, Ray and List.
Abuses must be corrected.
Since July we have taken a number of steps to i.mprove compliance with rules.
A list of these steps'are enclosed with the. prepared testimony.
There are, however, practical limitations on the amount of waste that can be accommodated in ' temporary storage or at DOE facilities, and the near-term short fall is just the tip of the
-u) iceberg.
Unless steps are taken to, establish additional disposal
(~%
l sites in the next several ye.ars, we anticipate reduction of some nuclear services.
The NRC, under its enabling legislation, the Atomic Energy l'
Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, has responsibility to license and regulate i
concercial low-level' waste disposal.
The legislation does not
(- [
authorize the NRC to establish or promote the development of commercial nuclear activities including the establishment of F
l l
i}
n
+
v is' 1
1.e, l
low-level burial sites; nor do we believe it is appropriate for l
/
i an independent regulatory. agency to engage in this type of i
activity.
However, we do have an obligation to develop and
{
J implement suitable regulations for disposal which provide adequate
-)
protection of the public health and safety.
We also can provide
-technical assistance to Agreement States for disposal sites which i
they regulate under the terms of the agreement with the NRC.
Il ms When the NRC was formed, it was obvious that improvements needed to be made in regulations governing low-level radioactive waste disposal.
We initiated a series of studies over the past several years to make these improvements.
Significant studies include:
Waste Classification Study e
e ' Volume Reduction Technology for Low-Level Waste
()
Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a e
Low-Level Waste Burial Ground Environmental Impact Statement for Low-Level Waste e
Regulation-These and other studies are forming the basis of improved criteria which have been drafted.
Of course, the work does not stop her'e.
Improvements are an evolutionary process.
Additional studies and investigations are underway.
The draft criteria are expected to be published as a Preliminary Notice of Rule Making by the end of
- O o
the1 year... In'the meantime, the criteria can be applied on a case-by-case basis under existing general rules for disposal license: applications-which we or the Agreement States might receive.
'New low-level disposal operations do not need to be delayed until.the1 criteria are published as a final rule.-
In order to
{} alleviate.anymisunderstandingonthispoint, I sent a telegram on October 24, 1979, to all state Ge',ar. ors indicating that we are prepared to receive 'and act o:
sop'ications for new low-level
- w'aste-disposal operations in non-Agreement States.
I also said that we would provide technical assistance to Agreement States-for applications which they might receive.
Asia final point, I would like to mention our thoughts about new legislation since you. asked for our views on it.
We believe pv i:there are two general areas where n'ew legislation could be helpful.
^7-One relates to financial and' institutional arrangements for long-term $ontrol of. disposal sites.
The other relates to minimum technical and procedural standards.
We believe legislation should i be enacted which assures uniform minimum national standards are
.followed in these areas for both non-Agreement and Agreement States.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we agree with Governors Riley,
. Ray _and List that there is a need for additional sites with better regional distribution.
It will take good cooperation from both the 4
O O
federal and state governments to establish these sites.
It will take courage dnd a good s.ense of community spirit for those states not equitably sharing the burden to face the problem squarely.
The time for protracted debate and dodging the issue has ended.
Action is needed.
The NRC stands ready to assist in coping with this problem in any way it can within its statutory and resource capabilities.
O ThisLeoncludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to submit for the record copies of several report.s which-provide details on a number of the points raised in your letter announcing this hearing.
I will be pleased to answer questions.
L, 9
i i
4
o o
RECENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE NRC TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
- WITH LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION RULES
.1.
Bulletins were. issued to.all NRC-licensees requiring specific actions leading 'to waste packaging improvements.
- 2. - Agreement States were requested to send the bulletin to their licensees.
- 3. ' An NRC.Information Notice was sent to NRC licensees providing instructions
.on NRC, DOT, and burial site requirements.
4.
Assistance was obtained from the Society of. Nuclear Medicine in bringing
.'the waste packaging problem to the attention of their membership..The cooperation of the AIF in their' preparation of a guide for packaging wastes was obtained.
~
NRC inspectors.were assigned to inspect at disposal sites about 3-5 5
. days / months / site.
6.
NRC regulations were amended to inco'rporate certain DOT requirements thus
-providing greater authority to inspect and enforce packaging rules at
. waste generator sites.
Agreement States have been advised to adopt a similar rule change as a matter of compatability.
About 11 man-years of effort is being reallocated to conducting inspections under the rule. A supplemental budget request is being prepared to continue this effort.
-Q
- 7. - Improved enforcement criteria are being developed to facilitate consistent enforcement.of the revised NRC rules when they become effective.
)
e O
. _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ - -. _ - _ _. -