ML20154Q465
| ML20154Q465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230246 | |
| Download: ML20154Q465 (9) | |
Text
-.. _. -
O O
Sa WW l
~
l
-Q,v 7vriWcAp TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE N
i ON ENERGY AND POWER JULY 25,1980 l
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, Comissioner Hendrie and I l
welcome this opportunity to appear before you to testify on the views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the disposal of nuclear waste. With your permission, I-will submit for the record. commission answers to the questions posed in your Tetter of July 9,1980, testimony previously given by the NRC to Congress on H. R. 7418'and the pertinent sections of H. R. 6390, and additional NRC comments on these bills.
O These should serve to give the Subcommittee a clear picture of the NRC's i
views on some specific provisions of these bills.
r I will confine my statement here primarily to a brief discussion' of important elements which the Commission believes should be reflected in any comprehensive waste management legislation.
These elements are (1) extension of NRC's l
regulatory authority, (2) a multiple-site characterization process prior 4
l to selecting the proposed site of a repository for permanent disposal of high-level waste, including spent fuel, (3) a multistep repository licensing procedure, (4) full state participation in the repository licensing procedure, (5) long-term storage of spent fuel and high-level waste, and (6) additional provisions concerning the disposal of non-defense low-level waste.
I will now address each of these elements in turn.
Extension of NRC Regulatory Authority Any comprehensive waste management legislation should clearly specify what extension, if any, of NRC's regulatory authority the Congress intends.
t 9810230246 000725Y PDR COfttG MtCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR;
w
+
2 In NUREG-0527, " Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste Activities," the Commission made two recommendations.
First, its licensing authority should be extended to cover all new DOE facilities for disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste and non-defense low-level waste.
This extension, which is consistent with the Report of the Interagency Review Group (IRG) on Radioactivelaste Managenent and is unanimously supported by the Commission, when coupled with our existing authority, would give NRC licensing authority over all new DOE waste disposal facilities except those' for defense-related low-level waste and those for high-level waste generated by DOE which are used for, or as part of, research and development O
activities.
Second, a pilot program, focused on a few specific DOE waste management activities but not including defense-related wa'ste, should be established to test the feasibility of extending NRC regulatory authority on a consultative basis to DOE waste management activities not now covered by NRC's licensing authority or its extension as recommended above.
Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford believe that NRC regulatory oversight should be Q
extended to cover defense high-level waste tanks.
They believe that a useful pilot program to test the feasibility of such an extension would have to include defense-related waste facilities, such as the high-level waste storage tanks at Hanford or Savannah River. Thus, the present four-member Commission is evenly divided on whether defense high-level waste tanks should be included in the pilot program.
Multiple Site Characterization The NRC has published for public comment a proposed rule (10 CFR 60) which outlines repository licensing procedures which conform to one of the major conclusions of the IRG Report, namely that a full-scale
.y_
high-level waste repository should be developed in an incremental fashion.
jl L
l The Commission suggests that an appropriate sequence would be initial f
site screening, detailed site characterization, and finally construction, y
emplacement of, waste, and closure of the full-scale repository. At each j
step, more would be leafned about the site and engineered features of j
the repository, increasing confidence in its successful operation.
i! !
x In the site characterization stage, DOE would select, based on the j
initial screening studies, four or five promising candidate repository O
sites representi,9 severa' 9eolo94c media and carry out detailed studies of the characteristics of each of the candidate sites.
We anticipate that this would include an access shaft and at least one horizontal drift at the anticipated below-ground depth of the repository to permit in s 3 tests and measurements of the site geoTogy.
On the basis of this extensive site characterization, DOE would then select a proposed repository site.
Under our proposed rule, NRC's formal licensing procedure would not begin until DOE applied for authorization to construct a repository of a specific design at a designated site.
However, it calls for informal NRC involvement in the site characterization effort.
In particular, DOE would be expected to submit its plans for site characterization to NRC for an advisory opinion on the adequacy of the plans and of the data the planned activities are expected to produce.
NRC would solicit public comments on the plans and its advisory opinions.
NRC would also monitor the characterization program during the period prior to DOE's
ta 4
I fomal application for repository construction authorization.
While NRC opinions on the plans and pr. ogress of DOE's characterization program would be only advisory, they should help to assure that resulting data l
l
)
are sufficient to support a construction authorization application for l
an acceptable site.
I h
The Commission believ's that in whatever waste management legislation it e
1 enacts, the Congress should recognize the necessity for multiple site
]
characterization and the appropriateness of NRC participation in the 1
process, such as through the informal role just described, j;
i Multi-Step Repository Licensing Procedure Because c f the benefits of the incremental approach to development of a repositoly, the Commission recormiends that the Congress adopt this approach in its waste management legislation.
The fomal NRC licensing procedure outlined in our proposed rule would consist of three major steps:
construction authorization, authorization i
to begin waste emplacement, and authorization for final repository O
c,osure once waste emplacement is completed.
At each step, the NRC authorization decision would be preceded by a public hearing if one is requested by a person whose interest may be affected, including the host state or a local Indian tribe.
The NRC staff is presently developing a draft technical rule which will clarify the types of data which should be submitted in support of an application for authorization at each step, as well as the performance criteria against which each application will be judged. An advance notice of rulemaking for this technical rule is now out for public comment.
We expect a proposed technical rule to be published for public comment before the end of this calendar year.
(b.(
((f A
5 iL In this regard, the Commission is concerned that some of the pending h
waste management bills incorporate specific standards, criteria, or l
design specifications for areas such as waste packages, repositories, and repository operation. We believe that under the Atomic Energy Act and the National Enviro 6 mental Policy Act the Commission has adequate authority and enough discretion to assure that waste disposal. facilities are technically sound, operationally safe, and environmentally acceptable.
[l
!i Incorporating new standards, criteria, or design specifications in Il statutes not only raises the possibility that the NRC may have to regulate
<s i \\
against multiple and possibly conflicting standards, but also may restrict U
our abi11ty to revise our criteria and standards as new information
~
develops and more experience is gained.
!j State Participation Most of the pending waste management bills contain some provisions for DOE to inform and consult with states throughout the site screening and l
The Commission supports such state-federal characterization stages.
If
(])
inter::tions, which hopefully will serve to resolve state concerns.
a significantly affected state's concerns are not resolved, we believe it should have an opportunity to object formally to the construction and operation of a high-level waste repository within or adjacent to its However, we believe that opportunity should come only after borders.
the NRC hearings on DOE's application for construction authorization.
At that point there will be a full record of information on the proposed site, the repository design, and the waste form to serve as a basis for evaluating the state's objection, but it will still be early enough that large commitments of resources to a particular site will not yet have
kI)
Nr-
,1 f
6
!j
!1 I
been made.
The Commission agrees that a procedure should be defined whereby the President and/or the Congress reviews and resolves such formal state objections; we have no posi-tion on what the details of that procedure should be.
il As presently amended, H. R. 6390 provides an opportunity for a formal objection by any state in wh.ich lies a site selected by DOE 'for site
,\\
characterization and a mechanism for Congressional resolution of any such objection.
Further, some seven years later, after DOE has completed
?
,q its site characterization, repository design and EIS and is ready to V
submit a construction authorization application to NRC, the host state f'
I again is g' anted an opportunity to object formally after Presidential review and approval of the site and repository design recommended by DOE. A concurrent resolution by Congress would be required to override the state's objections and thereby approve DOE's recommendations.
Only then would DOE submit its application to NRC. A strong case can be made that after both Presidential and Congressional approval of the reconnended site and repository design, DOE's application for construction would be
,-)
seen to have been approved. The Commission believes that, as the responsible federal regulatory agency, the NRC should be allowed to carry out independent l
regulatory proceedings. Thus, while states should have the same opportunity for participating in those proceedings as any other party, a formal l
l state objection should be allowed only after the full record of the construction authorization hearing has been established.
Therefore, we oppose this provision of H. R. 6390.
T(f 4
l 7
l l
l Long-Tenn Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste I
i The Commission believes that including a long-term (i.e., perhaps 20 l
years or more) retrievable storage component in an overall waste management strategy would be acceptable.
It mr.y even be desirsble, since it provides
~
time for the heat generation rate of the waste to decrease significantly l
and thereby makes any eventual permanent disposal easier. However, the p
Commission does not believe that including such a storage component l
should reduce the emphasis on developing one or more repositories for permanent disposal of high-level waste.
q O
Under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, NRC is charged with licensing facilities for the long-term storage of high-level waste, which the Commission considers to include spent fuel, except for those DOE facilities used for, or as part o'f, research and development i
activities.
The Commission believes any DOE facilities, other than R&D facilities, used for the long-term, retrievable storage of spent fuel should be licensed pursuant to that authority.
7-s Since previous NRC testimony on H. R. 7418, the bill has been amended to require DOE to identify at least two existing DOE facilities which can be modified and equipped to provide for a demonstration of dry, transitional storage of aged commercial spent fuel.
The Commission has no objection to large-scale wet or dry storage of spent fuel, and in fact will soon l
publish regulations governing such spent fuel storage.
However, under l
the present provisions of H. R. 7418, the DOE facilities selected for the demonstration would not be subject to NRC licensing on the basis that the primary purpose of the facilities would not be for "the receipt l
i I(~p N
8 i
and storage" of the spent fuel, but rather to develop data and experience l
on the use of existing structures for demonstrating this mode of dry
~
storage for aged commercial spent fuel.' The timing envisioned by the Committee report for project implementation would indeed make it difficult
~
to apply the normal NRC licensing process.
However, if future facilities for such dry storage should become rubject to licensing, we would consider it necessary to be closely involved with the proposed demonstration.
Accordingly, we welcome the direction given to DOE in the Committee
- l report to consult with NRC at all stages of the design, construction and l
operation. We note further that the Committee report suggests NRC i
consultation in the manner used for the DOE Fast Flux Test Facility reactor at Hanford. This rather formalized consultation process has also been used successfully for NRC review of r}aval reactors.
We believe that such an NRC role provides an added measure of safety review by a body not concerned with direct operational aspects and increases public acceptance.
]
Disposal of Low-Level Waste Recently there has been increased interest in developing additional low-level waste disposal facilities.
It is likely that new disposal facilities will be established in both Agreement and non-Agreement states. Therefore the Commission recommends that Congress enact legislation requiring that Agreement state regulatory programs meet at least minimum federal standards i
for disposal of low-level waste. This would be analogous to the similar provision in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of
.1978.
It would also help to clarify for the states what is expected of them if they wish to establish disposal facilities.
l
9 I
In a related matter, some present non. Agreement states may want to develop and regulate their own low-level waste facilities without taking on the larger regulatory burden of a ful'1 Agreement state.
The State Planning Council has asked whether the NRC could enter into agreements with such states covering only the licensing and disposal of low-levol waste.
The NRC believes it has the authority to enter such agreements l
under the At @ Energy Act of 1954, as amende.d.
The language in the statutes is ambiguous as to this type of agreement; however, there is no clear intent to preclude such an agreement and a literal reading of the AV law would.seem to allow it. To avoid any future confusion, the Commission suggests an additional amendment to the Atomic Energy Act which specifically permits the NRC to enter into agreements with states covering only low-level waste.
Finally, in order to assure long-term control of low-level waste disposal sites, the Commission suggests a legislative provision that, upon closure of a disposal site, title to the site is transferred to the state in which it is located or, if the state declines, to the Federal Government.
nV Such a provision, again analogous to one in UMTRCA, would help ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety af ter site closure.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my discussion of the elements which the Commission believes should be included in any comprehensive waste management legislation that Congress enacts.
I Commissioner Hendrie and I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the other members of the Subcommittee may have.
Thank you.