ML20154Q017

Submits Comment on HR 6212,bill to Motivate State Regional Action to Address Current low-level Waste Disposal Problems by Linking Benefits of Nuclear Energy & Medicine with Responsibility for Disposing of Radioactive Wastes

ML20154Q017
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/21/1980
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20154Q020	List: ML20154Q017 ML20154Q028
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230118
Download: ML20154Q017 (5)

Text

. ._ . . . . _ __

x

n. --

, l

< ~~ -

, 9 .

r f-

1. 4

- <s .A -

m ,,

r l

y ' _

i.  %  %%

T Q

l FEB 211980 l l

1

\

\ ,

t 4 1 k

FEPORAt!DtN FOR: 1.conard Dickwit' \'

General Counsel ,

a FROM: '_ William J. Dircks, Director Office of Muclear Paterial Safety 4 ~and Safeguards _ l l

. SUNECT: 'C'OMMENTS OF H.R. 6212

. (i .

]

It appears that the iritent of this Bill. is to notivate state regional action to-address the current low-level waste disposal problems by linking the benefits:of nuclear energy and redicine with the responsibility for disposing. ,;

of radioactive wastes. 1

' The NPC should. endorse this concept. Powever, it appears that this Bill

.Q ha's serious flaws and they should be corrected as'a condition of support by Ni the Commission., Our comments are as'follows:-

• "m .

i -1. Section 1 links continuation of nuclear benefits to -action by the l  ; V)- state to take '...such steps as may be necessary to assure safe storace

.c and disposal ..." "Such steps" are not clearly defined. Powever, "sech steps' may include the establishment...in any other state of a facility..."

One could argue and many probably will that the establishment of sites in South Carolina, t'evada, and Vashington satisfy this requirement. 3 Ve recommend that Section 1 he expanded to (1) authorire states with disposal sites to enter'into arrangements with other states to nuarantee annual volume capacity and (2) define "such steps" to ,

require agreements with a disposal site state for guaranteed annual l volume capacity to meet the volume of waste generated within the waste generator state, and that such agreements be updated periodically; (suggest five years). /

4

. P.~ Section P o# the Bill authorizes interstate compacts to establish j disposal facilities. We understand that 'this obviates the requirement j that each compact be authorized by separate federal legislatio'1. Uc  ; j support this provision. -However, it is not clear to us that such  ; 1

+ compacts would have the authority to allocate and guarantee annual .

puwi wmu b c aun , m; u s e :, m w w. pou , c u.i ul i m, oli j

• eries * ..'0theCL.ttit JOkt..finCGifit. .9D.1h.l.1D0.100id. At10h..... .. .

..................... .................l

< ., svaaaus >

... 9810230118 800221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............2 i

M. p )26.fl[ PDR ORG NOMA

... .PDR , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................

p guncacem ne p.m Nacu oue ' *v...==========oic=is==*'** " " ,

i

~=

4- e c

Typ! T*y YE% D Q

l,

,  %% W'l",$['

j Leonard Bickwit - 2-L l

3. A recent Supreme Court decision on a P'ew Jersey law hanning the importation of hazardous waste raises questions about whether a '

i state could constitutionally impose similar strictures on out-of-state or even wastes from states outside a regional interstate compact.

Therefore, this Bill may well induce states to postpone development of new low-level waste disposal facilities out of fear that l

the first state to put such a facility into operation would enable most other states to comply by shipping their waste to the new facility. Wo note our uncertainty on these questions for your

-legal analysis.

e 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 U.S. Department of Energy (DOF) facilities for storage or disnosal of defense or research low-level waste. Ue sugqest that defense waste be excluded. i' G. . Inclusion of the mrd " storage" in Section 1 may encourage the proliferation of long-tenn 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 l such disposal capacity. The proliferation of temporary storane facilf ties could also increase the probability of failures and accideats, with a correspondinoly increased strain on NRC inspection l -and enf reement capacity. We recommend " storage" be deleted in l

Section 1. '

6. W agree with the attached comments from the Office of State programs on Sections 2, 3, and 4 but have the following additional conments on Se

'/ction4L~~

a.

I es fmc should be authorized to provide technical and/or financial assistance at the request of a state only for activities j associated with the licensing of rew or expanded disposal j y facilities. Assistance for. other forms of " preconstruction '

activities" should be provided, if at all, by pnf.

N N~ _ #'-

},

)

i

, 1

t i

omaa n

""" ' .o ..

...u..... ..n ..

• """'"'"q nu ""a"'*."" l

...................,. . . . . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - '

.m > .................... -..- ~~~ - "" "" ' " " * * * ' " " " " ' " " " " " " " ' " ' ' " " " " " " " "

• ua*="""""""'""""*"'"""'""""

. g ,oan p p. m wacx one .

- l i

- - ^

, ,- s. . -- 1

.- g, , , ,.

m c ~ * ()

i 4$f i; } gq# $

Leonard Pickwit b. Fuhsection (h) should be amended to require tha paynent of fees for receipt of LLW at all licensed storage or disposal facilities, not just those for t!hich assistance is provided.

The second sentence shoulti he clarified so as not to preclude the Commission or an fqroerent Etate from establishing fees to anortire not only the full costs of construction and operation, but the full cost of decontanination and decommissioning and subsequent lonq-tenn care, whether or not assistance is provided.

Please provide a copy of the final Commission cements to the rivision of Faste t'anaqenent/L"I, Pail Stop 0% SS.

t

'F Milliam J. nircks, Director Office of "uclear f'aterial Wety and Safequards l rnclosure:

"emo to J. O. nunting fm C. V. Perr on I!.R. 6?l?

dtd 1/24/qq l

DISTIRBUTION:ED0 8195 NMSS r/f WMPI r/f ED0 Jtibject File 4wn ED0 r/f WM r/f GErtter J0 Bunting REBrowning JBMartin NGill 1 Eleins WKerr i HShapar WJDircks 1 ,

t v j gu) 2y/80

• See previous yellow for c,oncurrence. gq/p W ii,,, , t- N!iSS

.me * . *W M. .P. .I. . . . . . . . WMPI..

.... . . . S. P. .\. .). , , , ,,, . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , ,

..R,M,a,c D,g,u,g.allurh.,@E u,,,,,,,ng , , E,e r,r,, , ,, , , . REB wni ng,, J,BM , ti n ,,, WJDircks

.. .2/19/8p ,, 2g/,80 2/pj/8g,, , 2/ / ,, 2p,80, 2/ /80

..r * ,,, , , , ,, ,, , ,,,.

4 4

1k .. . . . - r .a n- . . = i i . . . - . . . - . . .

[ M'inu sis (9 7s> xaca o24o ,

s

-u- ,. /,

.5- . [..' la% OW , y j 411_ y Q <lf y. #

leonard Siebrit -?-

6 inclusion of the word "storaqe" in Section 1 may encourane the nroliferation of long-tern storane facilities as a means of postponinn the 47 for additional disposal capacity. This muld reinforce the ret .ence of states to be the first in their reqion to provide such. isposal capacity. The proliferation of tennorary.storace facil) ies could also

-increase the prohahility o' 'ailures and accidents, w .i a corresponiinq1y increased strain on t'PC inspection and onforocement anacity. ,

I Ife eqrea witb the attached cnarmnts of the Office of tate Pronrams on s

ections 7,1, and i but have the followinq additig 1 corwents on Section 3:

1. t'"C'sbnuld be authorized to provide technicpT and/or financial assistance at the request o# a state only for activit bs associated with the licensino of new or exnanded disposal for/)lities. Pssistance for other forms of " preconstruction activitJes" should he provided, if at.

all, by 00F. / l

. Subsection (h) should be amended t require the payment o# fees #or receipt of Llu at all licensed sty age or disposal facilities, not just thoso for which assistance is erEvided. The second sentonce should also clarify that the enrv,issic' or an Anrcement State would establish i fees to amortire not only the ull costs of construction and onaration, I but the full cost of dnconta ination and deconmissioninn and subsequeet lonn-tem care.

William J. nircks, Director Of fice of t'uclear Material Safety

{} and Safecuards .

Fnclosure: 3 "emo to J. O. non. inn DISTRIBUTION ED0 8195 l fm A 'J. Merr in H.D. r,"1? WMPI r/f dtd 1/ M/PO Subject File ME'D WM r/f i NMSS r/f '

J0 Bunting REBrowning WM WM B rtin REBrowning JBMartin Eleins 2/ /80 2/ /80 2

WKerr

,x HShapar y

~ . - ....WM?.1/[j)2 . . . . . .W.P I,, , ELD , ,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SP

,, ,,,,, , ,,g _

ygy),,,,,,,,

--- , RMacD9,ug.allyf 1,,,qu,9t,1.ng,, , WKer r . ..... ... ....JDa.v.is.. . . J.q.ir.9.4.s.,,, l

..... ...ameo... . . . . .. 2 /...../.80....

. g,,,..L8.o.x...

H S ,, . 4t,,,,,, 21...za.0...... ...2z....z.80..... ...g L ].s j '

• ......... _ ....... .x................... j E= yc m o.m = = ou. ,

' nd . a l 2l. . VR wp lm#

r. <

l l

l l

l

,  ; prM0MHDH" FOR: Leonard Rickwit ceneral Counsel

, .< RPM: -

Milliam J. Dircks, Director l Office of "uclear f'aterial Safety

! and Safoquards Sif9.1FCT: Cnnurvis nM H.N. 6?l2 i

Ue cannot support this Bill in. its present fom, n'incipally b cause Section 1 is unwarranted. Un consider this provision ill-ad sed because:

1. It may mil induce states to postpone development o ew low-level waste (Llu) disposal facilitics 'out of fear that first state to put such a facility into oneration would enable st other states to .

comply by shippina their waste to the new faci y.,-A recent 9 preme 9 fourt decision on a t'ew Jersey lau banning t importation of hazardous easte. raises'ouestions about whether a stat' could constitutional 1y l impose similar strictures on out-of-stat - .t.9, or even wastes from states outside.a regional interstate c . pact. Since the Office of the

'Txecutive leqa1 Director has informed us that tbev will no longer provide analyses of bills, we note ur uncertainty on these questions

! for your possible analysis.

I ,

2. Since conv*erce in nuclear not - and riedicino often crossas state lines, ve question the equity of f .inq all states enjoyinq the benefits of

! a nuclear facility to in elsnwhere or qn without simnly because tbn 1

state in which the facfity is located nav not have taken the "necessary l

' steps" to store or d 4 pose of its low-level wastes.

t I

7 The requirement jat each state provide for disposal of "all low-level

- radioittive * .stes cencrated within that state" could produce ma,ior jurisdicti .al uncertainties in those states with H.s. ponartnent of r. er (pnr) facilities for storapo or dicposal nf de#ense or resee .1 low-level waste. , (

A. Cou ed with thn forencinq inequities and uncertainties, the venueness

of he renuirement that each state "take such steps as may be necessary .i to assure the safe storana and disposal" of its vastes enuld ontannle i

+hn *rne in nann 4 u, 14+4cn+4en - .v-- 1 4 r , + 4 n - + t. n 4~.,1rm +-+4en e r 3 j ady likelv to intensifv nub 'ic criticism, i- 1 mandate ome=>- . . . . . .... . ..... . . . .............:.....

.L..al rr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .........._......... .j I

• ==* ...................... .....................

{

A l

.m > - ........................ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................:........j

.mme.esma m o.s macu eue ' .*u.....- - --..~. .n u.u. .

~

l l

> l