ML20154S714
| ML20154S714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/06/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810280068 | |
| Download: ML20154S714 (10) | |
Text
7
,Q
/~ '
V k
.., o e '
u fdsst!O UNITED b7+TES o,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
_ f p, -
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MM 1 ESO 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: M B. Martin, Director Division of Waste Management FROM:
Richard E. Cunningham. Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
SUBJECT:
ANALYSIS OF H.R. 6390, UDALL OMNIBUS NUCLEAR LEGISLATION n
Enclosed is our input on the subject bill in the requested format.
V Specifically our input consists of comments on the following aspects.
Section 102 - Proposed amendment of the Act defining authorities and responsibilities of FEMA and NRC on Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness Section 103 - A requirement for an NRC report to Congress dealing with alternate safety objectives for reactors, nuclear material processing and transportation and storage of nuclear materials.
Section 212(a) - Proposed amendment of the Act that would terminate all licenses of low level waste generators in a state if in 5 years the state has not provided for i
assurance of disposal of low level wastes generated in that state.
-t t
'd Subtitle C (Sections 221 and 222) - Provisions to authorize DOE to provide for storage of commercial domestic and foreign spent power reactor fuel.
i 1
en 9810280068 000306 l
PDR ORG NOMCp f
f)
-Q z.
+-
u l~
a l
l
' John B. Martin -
2 --
MAR 6 1980
(
Section '305 - Proposed amendment.to-the Act that would add certain' requirements in the agreements between NRC and
. Agreement States..
In addition, we have reviewed the proposed response to Section 211:
t of. the bill (Low-Level Waste)~ that incorporated input from OSP. We Accordingly the
. disagree with the OSP recommendation regarding NARM.
l NMSS position should be ' expressed as follows:
Delete the last sentence of your draft response-(NMSS concurs with OSP.~...) and add the following as a final paragraph --
The matter of'.NRC regulating NARM is a complex issue which'NMSS has had under active consideration for some
,s.Q' time. NARH usage involves essentially the same wide f
' spectrum of applications as that involving byproduct material.. The usage includes medical diagnosis and therapy, industrial applications, and consumer products.
- Also, the consideration of. NARM regulation by NRC should
. include the identification of resources necessary-to regulate this broad area.
NMSS does not believe that' the issue of NARM regulation by NRC should be approached e
through the avenue of low-level waste, since this is only one facet of the complex area and not necessarily the one of primary concern.
Therefore, NMSS does not.
concur with OSP's position that NRC's testimony on.HR 6390
- should fully address the issue whether or not NRC should regulate NARM.
i 4
Please also delete the~ sentence in the preceding paragraph of OSP's discussion of NARM that contains the reference to Don-Nussbaumer (last A(T sentence,.first' paragraph of the second page dealing with Section 211).
J If you have any questions regarding our input, please let me know.
((C Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety a
Enclosures:
As stated cc: ' John.G. Davis
- John'Surmeir r
i L
r L
.s y
O o
i Sec.'102 i
a A.
(1) Concept Paragriiiph a of Sec. 276 of the amended Atomic Energy Act, on page 7 of. the Bill, would designate FEMA to have the primary responsibility for detennining which facilities licensed by NRC have the potential for significant accidental offsite radiological releases.
(2)
Past Action The Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and FEMA'To Accomplish a Prompt Improvement in Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness l
(published ~in the' Federal Register on January 24, 1980) states in Section III'A that NRC will supply FEMA a listing of all fuel and
[
materials facilities and identify those facilities with potential for significant accidental offsite radiological releases.
. may, if it chooses, question NRC determinations.
(3)
Future Action O
we favor a continuation of the concept discussed in (2).
l (4). Previous Position l
The Commission previously approved the aforementioned Memorandum of l-Understanding agreement, on this matter.
~
(5) General Impression of Concept We believe that the proposed legislation should be changed consistent with the discussion in (2). This could be accomplished by replacing the word " determines" on the twelfth line, on page 7 of the Bill, with the word " agrees."
l B.
O m Concept Paragraph b(2) of Sec. 276, of the amended Atomic Energy Act, on page 8 0f the Bill, would require NRC to provide FEMA an adequate opportunity for review and comment before making any assessment or determination of the general state of emergency preparedness with respect to any facility or material.
The last sentence of the par,agraph states that nothing is intended to apply to or affect the* respective ^ functions and authorities of FEMA or NRC, "except l
totthe extent that such material or transportation is within a l
facility required to be licensed under this Act."
In addition, paragraph d(1),of Sec. 276, on page 10, states that no utilization or production facility license shall be issued until NRC has determined "in cooperation with FEMA" that the licensee's emergency response plan is adequate.
I t
- -[...
O o
(2)
Past Action
~The~. Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and FEMA To Accomplish a Prompt Improvement in Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness (published in the Federal Register on January 24,1980),
states that FEMA will take the lead in offsite emergency planning
'and the assessment of State and local emergency plans for adequacy, but NRC will take the lead for onsite emergency planning and the assessment of licensee emergency plans for adequacy.
In the past, NRC has carried out its assessments of licensee onsite plans without asking FEMA to review and comment on them.
(3)
Future Action
'We favor the concept that fella assess and determine the. adequacy of offsite emergency planning, including State and local emergency response plans, but not become directly involved in NRC assessments and determinations of licensee onsite radiological contingency planning actions.
Radi'ological contingency planning is that part of emergency O
preparedness contributed by plant operators to assure (1) that plants are properly designed to limit releases of radioactive materials and
. radiation exposures if an accident should occur, (2) that a capability ~
exists for measuring accidental releases of radioactive materials, (3) that. appropriate emergency equipment and planning is provided onsite to protect workers against radiation hazards that might be encountered following an accident, (4) that notifications are promptly
~
made offsite to Federal, State and local government agencies and (5) that necessary recovery actions are timely taken to return a plant to a safe operating condition following an accident.
NRC believes it sufficient for FEMA to make any needed assessments and determinations of planned onsite actions through reviewing and comenting on proposed NRC rules and regulations on,this subject.
(4) Previous Position The Comission previously approv'ed the aforementioned Memorandum of O
understanding agreement on this matter.
(5) Ge'neral. Impression of Concept We believe tne proposed legislation should be changed to reflect the thinking expressed in (3) above.
Also, the exception provision in thelastsentenceofSec.276b(2)needstobeclarified.
4 C.
i
.(1)
Concept Paragraph d(3) of Sec. 276 of the amended Atomic Energy Act, en page 10 of the Bill, would require NRC to determine, in cooperation w1 6 FEMA, that the emergency preparedness of Federal agencies is adequate.
O
~ -
O O
I (2) Past Action l
-In.the past, the Commission has looked to FEMA, and its predecessor
~ organizations, to assure this, i
(3) Future Action We favor the concept that FEMA, in cooperation with NRC detemine that Federal agency emergency preparedness is adequate.
FEMA will need to make determinatio'is of this type in connection with its i
other emergency planning responsibilities for non-nuclear accidents.
Direct involvement b,y NRC in making those determinations is believed unnecessary and undesirable.
(4) Previous Position The concept has not been considered by the Commission. '
(5) General Impression of Concept We believe the proposed legislation should be changed to designate P
FEMA instead of NRC as having lead responsibility for determining the adequacy of Federal agency emergency preparedness.
l e
i e
i g
i O
e 4
I e
9
~
O o
Sec. 103 (1)' Concept Sec. 103,"on page 12 of the Bill, would require NRC to prepare and subm.it a rep. ort to Congress not later than July'1, 1981, setting forth alternative safety objectives respecting nuclear-reactors, nuclear material processing, and the transportation and storage of nuclear materials. Although the last sentence of the section implies that a cost'/ benefit analysis should be conducted, the section is unclear as to what kind of evaluation is. desired.
(2) Past' Action We cannot determine precisely what kind of evaluation is being sought, and', consequently, do not know if a similar analysis has ever been
.()
carried out.
(3). Future Action We need more definition of the concept before we can fully respnnd to l
it.
~
(4) Previous Position
~
The concept has not been considered by the Commission in the form presented in Sec. 103.
(5) General Impression of Concept The scope of the desired study needs to be defined, including some indication of the types and quantities of nuclear materials that need to be considered.
O O
e O
k e
O (G
h q.)
(
Section 212(a)
- (1 ) Concept This Sec' tion provides that after five years following the date of enactment of this Section, no license,or permit under this Act for any facility or; activities that may result in generation of low-level
' radioactive waste shall continue in force and no license r permit may be issued or renewed unless the State in which the lice Lee is located has' taken steps to assure safe storage and disposal of all low-level waste generated in that State. A second provision of this Section provides that each State in which low-level waste is generated is authorized to enter into agreements and compacts with other States as may be necessary to establish facilities for disposal of low-level waste.
(2)
Past Action The Commission has taken the position in the past that a solution to the low-level waste disposal problem is primarily a responsibility of (7
the States.
It has not attempted to force the States to develop new storage or disposal capabilities through legislative or regulatory.
v mea n s'.
(3)
Future Action We believe the (a) paragraph of Section 85 is inappropriate and should be deleted from the Bill for the.following reasons.
There are a number of licensed activities in individual States which have an interstate aspect to them and whose activities affect the welfare of the nation.
Examples are, fuel cycle plants and radio-pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. The termination of a license for one or more radiopharmaceutical manufacturing plantswould adversely affect the health and safety of the public by seriously curtailing, or shuting 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 1
(
output of the various fuel cycle plants.
We support Paragraph b of this Section which permits the States to enter into agreements and compacts for the purpose of establishing regional storage and disposal capability.
This will enable states to better control the use of their burial grounds by not being required to accept waste from all who wish to use their facilities.
Some states have been reluctant to open burial grounds b
. hey want their use to be limited to a geographical area.
(4)
Previous Position See (2) above.
(5)
General Impression of Concept Paragraph (a) is inappropriate (see (3) above).
Paragraph (b) should be supported (see (3) above).
$3l
O O
Subtit1e C - Interim. Spent Fuel Storage Section 221 and 222 (1)
Concept The bill would authorize DOE to provide for interim storage of j
domestic and foreign commercial power reactor spent fuel, subject t
to certain limitations:
DOE could not enter into contracts with domestic or foreign utilities to provide for spent fuel storage after December 31, 1982.
Initially, DOE could provide capacity for storage of not more than 700 metric tons of spent fuel; additional capacity could be provided if justified in a report to be filed with Congress by February 15, 1983.
l Contractual obligations with a domestic utility to provide for Federal storage would have to be based on a determination by DOE (V
that the utility could not provide for storage of the spent fuel at 7
its site or other commercial sites in a timely manner taking into'
' account technical, economic and regulatory considerations.
NRC would have to concur in the DOE determination of need.
Domestic spent fuel accepted for Federal storage would have to be discharged from the reactor.before January 1, 1990 and have cooled for at least five years.
Acceptance of foreign spent power reactor fuel would have to be in accordance with U.S. non-proliferation objectives and Section 131(f) of the Atomic Energy Act.
DOE would. not take title to the spent fuel and charges for the storage would not include transportation costs or costs associated with storage in a facility constructed for permanent disposal.
(2) Past Action The Commission has maintained a neutral position with regard to Federal or private storage of spent fuel. The Commission has taken no position regarding the limitations on the DOE program listed above with the exception that it has supported United States non-proliferation objectives and that Federal storage of commercial spent fuel should be subject to NRC licensing.
(3)
Future Action The Commission would license either Federal or private applicants in accordance with its regulations.
(4)
Previous Position The Commission has neither opposed nor supported a DOE spent fuel storage program.
J e
O O
l (5) General Impression of Conceot l
The provision as stated, does not address NRC licensing authority.
l
.This lack may create administrative problems for the proposed DOE program.
In previous testimony before the Congress, the Commission has held that it holds the authority pursuant to the Section 202(3) cf the i
Energy Reorganization Act of.1974 to license any storage by DOE of l
domestic commercial power reactor spent fuel.
It has, however, requested that Congress make clear such authority in any legislation authorizing DOE to accept commercial power reactor spent fuel for storage.
Foreign spent fuel poses a potential problem in that some foreign spent fuel might not come under the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Thus, explicit authorization by Congress for NRC licensing authority may be required to cover storage of foreign spent fuel that did not derive from domestic industry production or.. source material, i.e, because of government to government transfers.
The purpose and utility of the time limitation to enter into contracts and.the initial limit on storage capacity is not clear.
It may result in a period of continued uncertainty in the industry regarding the availability of adequate spent fuel storage capacity.
It may result in a rush by domestic utilities and other countries to obtain a storage commitment from the Department.of Energy.
The wording of the bill also appears contradictory in this instance since in Sec 222(a)(1) the Secretary can only initially acquire 700 metric tons storage capacity to fulfill contracts for storage, while in Sec 222(a)(2)(A) the Secretary must report to the Congress'on contracts for storage above this amount.
The requirement for NRC to concur in the DOE determination of a domestic utili ty's need for Federal storage capacity is inappropriate.
This would appear to place the NRC as a proponent of DOE's program and limit or compromise the consideration of alternatives in spent fuel licensing actions.
NRC licensing authority is the important issue, not concurrence
^
in DOE need determinations.
Prohibition on acceptance of spent fuel after 1990 under the DOE program for storage will probably have no effect since presumably if need for such storage exists at that time then Congress would extend this cut-off date or eliminate it.
The limitations on acceptance of foreign spent fuel for DOE storage seem appropriate.
O
f
- S ction 305 (1) Concept l
The revisions to Section 305 in the Bill add provisions with respect to the Coninission's' determination that the state is adequately carrying out the agreement and assuring that the Agreement States process license renewals in a di,11 gent manner.
We assume that the new provisions apply retroactively to the existing agreements and not merely to any new agreements that may be entered into.
(2) Past Action We have taken the position that the NRC should develop a plan for achieving improvements in the Agreement State programs. One important problem in
,some states has been lack of complement of technical staff to handle broad range of technical problems.
(3) Future Action
~
We b.elieve that it would be useful to provide at an appropriate place in Section 274, provisions which would permit the States to enter into h-s agreements with the Commission for classes or categories of radioactive l
material uses such as medical or academic uses.
The NRC determination 1
of the adequacy of the states' proposed program would be based on only those categories provided by the state.
Because of the wide spectrum of complexity involved in the various categories of radioactive material usage, the state would have the flexibility to select those categories or that degree of complexity best suited to its particular qualifications.
Conversely, the state could exclude those categories it was not qualified to regulate.
This then would permit the Commission to maintain regulatory control over the more complex activities and those activities which under federal law would be subject to environmental assessments and statements l
pursuant to NEPA.
In view of the proposed revisions of 10 CFR Part 51, which provide. for the first time, a requirement that a number of material licensing categories be subject to environmental assessments and possible environmental impact
{')
statements, we believe provisions should be included in Section 224 to require the Agreement States to perform environmental assessments for the same categories of activities they regulate. This revision to 274 is necessary in order that these be consistancy nation wide with respect to the kinds of activities environmental assessments are performed on.
l (4) Previous Position Revisions are in line with previous positions tut do not go far enough (see (3) above).
l (5) General Impression of Concept l
Changes do not go far enough.
Further provisions should be added as j
outlined in (3) above.
e d
1