ML20154Q002
| ML20154Q002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230115 | |
| Download: ML20154Q002 (3) | |
Text
..
,. ^
_f
+<
y.
,.; b <
gm mmmy f; y w# h-??q -
(~23
-.w, b
AW-f I
DISTRIBUTION: NMSS 285 WMPI r/f-t.4n5 ject File MAR 11 1980 WM r/f NMSS r/f.
JSurmeier 4
J0 Bunting HENORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Acting REBrowning Executive Director for Operations JBMartin WJDircks FROM:
William J. Dircks Director Eleins Office-of Nuclear Material Safety NGill and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
ANALYSIS OF-H.R. 6390, UDALL OMNIBUS NUCLEAR LEGISLATION (NMSS 80028S)
Section 212 was inadvertently omitted from our submission on the subject Bill. The Offic:e of State Programs has reviewed Section 212 and concurs i
with the analysis provided in this memorandum.
l l$('
ltpfs igy l
/. " William J., Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety
/
and Safeguards t
l s
Enclosures:
As stated.
i q,i 1
9810230115 800311
[
PDR ORG NOMA t.
,i y
5[
SP j10 3/7/80 i
i d...
.pJDircks&
.....}I;,prt,_,,J,08,d,,p[}g,,,,...up
....m.............
......1.......
MSS R,E B.r.
n i n,g,,,,,,
J B,,,,,,, {,,,,,,,,,J Da,v,,,,,,,,,,,
,,, j J S,u tm,e,j..
.=h = >
..... 341989..........3/$/.80.....
... A... /............ 341.128.0.....
.. 3///./80..
,.,3/L./80 y
L
-macumu m o.ui uneu em
.1
g;
~ ~
~~~~~'R
.o
.o Subtitle B Low-Level Waste I ection 212-S l:
i
'(1) Concept ~
This Section would encourage-States.to provide adequate disposal capacity for low-level waste. generated by licensees.in that State.
If States do not provide for adequate disposal capacity withih five years of the enactment of this Bill, all licenses for activities which generate such
. low-le~ vel waste would.be discontinued and no new license could be
, issued.- In' addition,Lthe Commission would be authorized to reimburse L
States for preconstruction activities involved in the establishment of l:
low-level waste facilities.
l l
(2) Past Action 2
l-
.Neither the Commisssion nor the staff has taken any action on this concept.
K (3)
Future Action L
No action is anticipated with respect to this concept during the near L
future.
l l L' The Commission has not taken a position on this concept.
l (4)'PreviousPo~sition
-(5) General Impression of Concept i
The staff endorses the general concept of encouraging States to establish adequate disposal capacity for low-level waste.
However, it appears that'this Section has serious flaws and should be. corrected as a condition p
of support by the Commission.
L
.1.. Sec' tion 85(a) links continuation of nuclear benefits to action by the State to take "...
steps as may be necessary to assure safe storage' and disposal..." "Such' steps" are not clearly defined. -
However, "such steps may include the establishment...in any other state of a. facility..." Ong could argue and many' probably will.that L
the establishment of. sites in South Carolina, Nevada, and Washington satisfy this requirement.
KO.
2.
Section 85cb) of the siii authorizes interstate compacts to estabitsh lL disposal facilities. We understand that this obviates the requirement that each compact be authorized by separate federal legislation. We support this provision. However, it is not clear to us that such compacts would have the authority to allocate and guarantee annual disposal capacity among the states in the compact, excluding all others, without soecific enabling legislation.
i 3.
A recent Supreme Court. decision on a New Jersey law banning the L
importation of hazardous waste raises questions about whether a State could constitutional 1y impose similar strictures on out-of-State or even wastes from States outside a regional interstate compact.
Therefore, this Section may well induce States to postpone development of new low-level waste disposal facilities out of fear that the i
first State to put such a facility into operation would enable most o'ther States to comply by shipping their waste to the new facility.
A legal analysis of this provision is required.
O e e
,w
.u-.,
w
_,. ~,
. %.].
. o o.
- Subtitle B Low-Level Waste Section 212 4.
The requirement that each State provide for disposal.of "all
. low-level radioactive wastes generated within that State" could produce major jurisdictional uncertainties in those States with DOE
- facilities for storage or disposal of defense or research low-level waste. We suggest that defense waste be excluded.
- 5.. Inclusion of the word " storage" in Section 212 may encourage the
. proliferation of long-term storage facilities as a means of postponing the need for additional disposal capacity. This would-reinforce the reticence of States to be the first in their region to provide such disposal capacity.
The proliferation of temporary storage facilities could also increase the probability of failures and accidents, with a correspondingly increased strain en NRC inspection and enforcement capacity.
We recommend that
- storage" be deleted from Section 212.
6.
There.are a number of licensed activities in individual States that
.Q have interstate impacts and may even affect the welfare of the nation.
Examples are fuel cycle plants and radiophamaceutical I
manufacturing plants. The tennination of a license for one or more l
radiopharmaceutical manufacturing plants could adversely affect the i
health and, safety of the public by seriously _ curtailing, or shutting off completely, the supply of radiopharmaceuticals necessary for the diagnosis'and therapy of diseases.
A similar argument can also be made for power reactors'whose continued operation depends on the output of the various fuel cycle plants.
7.
NRC staff recommends that the Commission be authorized-to provide technical and/or financial assistance at the request of a State only for activities associated with the licensing of new or expanded disposal facilitias. Assistance for other forms of
" preconstruction activities" should be provided, if at all, by DOE.
The staff believes that since " preconstruction" would include the activities ranging from detailed site surveys to the actdal design O
and layout of a site, such activities appear inappropriate for NRC-funding.
The staff believes, however, that the recommendations of
. Charles F. Tedford, Chairman of an Ad Hoc Committee of Agreement States, deserve Congressional consideration.
In a recent letter to Chairman Ahearne, Mr. Tedford wrote, "In special cases where an Agreement State licensee provides unique regional and national gervices and the licensing and inspection costs are unusual, the NRC should provide special funding." The NRC staff considers this concept applicable to Agreement State licensing of regional low-level waste disposal sites.
l l
j p
,,m.,
..,c.