Text

Speech Entitled Interstate Compacting Per Provisions of Low Level Radwaste Policy Act of 1980, to Be Presented at State of CA 830429 Radioactive Matls Mgt Forum
	ML20204F186
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/28/1983
From:	Kerr G; NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 8304290044
	Download: ML20204F186 (9)
	v • d • e

- _ . . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[s ** *' %,(c,, UNITED STATES Dk g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

['

,,- ;y WA5mNGTON, D. C. 20555

s; }

e CONFERENCE PAPER TRANSMITTAL SHEET A SPEECH OR PAPER TO BE PRESENTED AT/BY NRC EMPLOYEE: /##

OFFICE: -

~

/ N.

ASSOCIATION OR JOUR!1AL: M*

TlTLE OF CONFERENCE: R"&# #d# A 3

~

Fo ram AQ' 11 -M # /773 DATE OF CONFERENCE:

LOCATION OF CONFERENCE: Acre ^ Of PDR TRANSMITTAL DATE:

TO ,RECORDSSERVICES BRANCH

) INTERSTATE C0'PACTING M PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1980 Presented by G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 1

t at the First Annual Conference -

California Radioactive Materials Management Forum .

Sacramento, California April 29, 1983 d

4- y w w -,~w-, ,

.-w n r m, -- ,

f ,- ,

, INTERSTATE COMPACTING PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WAS1E POLICY ACT OF 1980 G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission INTRODUCTION I am pleased to be here today at your First Annual Conference to address the* subjects of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of j 1980, the status of development of compacts and possible impacts in California. It may be somewhat redundant to recite the lengthy history 2 of the low-level radioactive. waste situation to a group as knowledgeable as this audience. However, since one of the stated objectives of the Forum is to provide information to your membership on dealing with

, disposal and evolving legislation and regulations, a brief surinary would seem appropriate.

i When the first commercial sites for disposal were licensed in 1962, the review of applications covered geological and hydrological charac-teristics of the site as .well as the usual information on applicant

qualifications, operating procedures, and the applicant's radiation i safety program. The scope and depth of information reviewed would be onsidered modest by today's standards as covered in NRC's final rule 10

CFR Part 61 " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

, Waste" published on December 27, 1982.

I .

Some technical problems regarding site operations began to appear in the mid-1970's at the Maxey Flats, Kentucky; West Valley, New York; and Sheffield, Illinois sites. In the aftermath of the Three Mlle Island

incident in 1979, there was a heightened sensitivity to the transportation and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. By mid-1979 only three sites were accepting wastes with about 75% of the Nation's wastes going to the Barnwell, South Carolina site. A number: of incidents occurred in 1979 involving leaky shipments, a truck fire, faulty vehicles,~etc. In retrospect, some of the problems noted at the burial sites and in transportation seem elementary; e.g., lack of compaction in burial trenches, improper packaging, and inadequate surveys of containers and vehicles.

As .'a result of the accumulating problems, apparent lack of policy and direction for the low-level waste program, and the concern ' of Govsrnors Riley (Scuth Carolina), Ray (Washington) and List (Nevada) of hosting the only shallow land burial sites, the three Governors met with NRC and other Federal officials in November 1979 to express their concerns.and their opinion that Federal agencies were not doing enough to l improve and coordinate the . regulatory programs for transportation and disposal of low-level' wastes or to assure that additional capacity would

, be available. They were (primarily NRC and D0T)were particularly concerned not imposing severe that the Federal enough agencies penalties on those who violated regulatory requirements.

4

-, - .n. . - - , . -

4 -,

After a number of meetings and discussions, several groups stated that they felt the States were in the best position to solve the problem as evidenced by the following:

1. NRC Chairman Hendrie's te'stimony before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the House Committee on Science and Technology on November 7,1979.

2. Testimony by Governors Riley and Ray and Congressman Derrick at the November 7, 1979 hearings.

3. A recommendation in the National Governors' Association Task Force Report on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal in August l 1980.

4. An endorsement by the National Conference of State Legislatures l of the policy established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act at their July 1981 annual meeting.

5. A recommendation cf the State Planning Council (established by Executive Order of President Carter on February 12, 1980) in its report to President Reagan on August 1, 1981.

l LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY ACT

! The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act was approved on December 22, 1980. Key points of the Act are:

1. A clear statement of policy of the Federal Government that each State is responsible for ' providing for available capacity

l. either within or outside the State for disposal of waste generated within its borders, except for those generated as a result of defense' activities of the Secretary of Energy or Federal research and development activities.

2. The States were authorized to enter into compacts for the establishment and operation of regional disposal facilities to carry out the above policy.

, 3 Compacts established and approved by Congress pursuant to the l Act could exclude out-of-region wastes after January 1,1986.

l 4. Clear definitions- of the term " disposal" and the term l " low-level radioactive waste" were provided.

1 -

l I would now like to turn to the implementation of the Low-Level l Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA)'. Several groups of States began to l organize their compacts early in' 1981. The Northwest group of .eight States moved most rapidly with Idaho enacting the compact on April 7, 1981. In response to a request from the Northwest Compact Committee, we provided them with NRC's comments on the compact. Our comments on this compact as well as others were widely distributed to all negotiating groups so they would be aware of any concerns which we had. Comments were furnished to each compact group upon their request. The several

compacts vary widely in complexity and scope. NRC has not commented on how they are structured, how they carry out their duties, or on procedural aspects of the compacts. ;

The key areas in which the NRC and other Federal agencies have noted real or potential problems (although not necessarily in all compacts) are as follows:

1. Inconsistent . definitions of low-level radioactive waste including transuranics (NW, RM,' Cent., SE, MW).

2. Discriminatory provisions for.out-of-region wastes (NW).

3. Date of implementation (NW).

4. Possible new' reg'ulatory schemes that could be dupl'icative of or inconsistent with NRC, D0T and Agreement State authorities (All).

5. Exportrestrictions(RM, Cent.,SE,MW,MA,NE).

6. Exclusion of Federally generated wastes befand the exclusions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (RM, Cent., SE,-

~

MW,MA).

7. Stateinspection-ofNRClicensees(All).

Congressional Hearings held in November 1982 and March 1983 .: ave aired these. matters in some detail. Further, we have seen some changes in more recent versions of compacts 'which addressed 'some of the problem areas and we have received letters from some compact groups addressing the management / regulatory scheme issue which has been of concern to NRC.

In our recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee we have taken the following positions:

1. It may be useful to allow export bans to remain in compacts; however, provisions for exemptions to such bans for health and safety reasons will have to be accommodated.

2. There should be a high degree of consistency and uniformity in all compacts regarding: .

avoidance of regulatory authority which is duplicative of NRC.and/or the Agreement States, c

definitions of- low-level' radioactive waste and transuranics, ,

l standards for packaging and transportation. '

I

3. The July 1, 1983 cutoff date in the Northwest Compact discriminates against out-of-region States. The 100%

inspection requirement for out-of-region waste and liability of l l

- -w. ge - m-

4 +

other States for accidental releasc of waste in the Northwest Compact may also be discriminatory.

!. 4 We believe consistency, and uniformity -with respect tom the i treatment of Federal waste in regional disposal sites is

desirable.

~

I believe that with appropriate Congressional direction there will

! result a good workable set of compacts that will enhance an overall j national scheme for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes.

STATUS OF COMPACTS

! I would ' now like to ' turn to the status of developments in the P Western compacts and California and Texas. The enclosure to this paper j shows the current status of the various compacts. I choose to deal with

~ '

1 the term " Western"~ as those States from the Great Plains (tier from the ~

j Dakotas and ' south) and west with a- few modifications. The two Dakotas

have indicated their. desire to affiliate with the Midwest group to the j east and Arkansas and Louisiana have affiliated with the Central group to

the west. Thus, I exclude the Dakotas and include Arkansas and Louisiana '

j in this discussion.

i i It is interesting to note that based on DOE's 1981 data for waste

{ generated in these western States, the total volume (about 475,000 ft8) 1 amounts to about 15% of the waste generated in the United States in 1981.

l The economii:s of disposal is not of prime concern to NRC, although it '

j certainly is of high interest to those attending'this meeting. One would

.. expect that economics of site operation, transportation costs, and effect h of transpo*tation ' distances would have significantly affected the i , development of compact groups'. It would appear that political factors j and perceived public acceptability, or lack thereof, were probably more j dominant. A recent DOE publication "An Analysis of Low-Level Waste i i Disposal Facility and Transportation Costs" (DOE /LLW-6Td, April 1983) has j some interesting figures on costs for various size sites.

l In the West, the Northwest group moved the quickest and was the i first to be enacted by the required number of qualifying States and has i been the only compact introduced 'in the U.S. Congress for consent. The j Rocky Mountain Compact has been enacted by three States. This compact is ;

unique in' that it !s the only one so far where a private company has j i indicated it intends to develop a site although there have been reports 1

i. that this may also be- the case in South. Dakota (M.idwest). The Central -l

! Compact has been enacted by three States. Texas indicated early on its j intention t'o pursue -a . State operated site for Texas generated wastes

only. Finally, California was . willing to discuss compact arrangements

, with. other States early -in 'the process but, as a result of choice , by -

i others, had to pursue other options which you will be hearing about from i

a subsequent speaker.

j One current concern of many people 1.s the unlikelihood of any new ;

l sites being ' open by January 1, 1986, the date specified in the 1980 l 1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act when import restrictions can be '

implemented under provisions of the compacts. In some respects those ,

,m _. _.-_m_ _. , _ _ , _ _ , . _ _ _ - , . _ . . , . . _ , . - _ , . , ~ . _ - _ . . . ~ . . , , .

--.,.-.,m- ,,,.,.v,, ,.-,,.m, ,,._m . ,

D l Regions' with exi_ sting sites had an easier time in developing their

-compacts than those without sites. Nevertheless, at the November 9, 1982 and. March 2,1983 hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee and at a

+

November 1982 naticnal meeting in Seattle, there was considerable talk of ,

making interregional accommodations for those regions without' sites.

4 Further, one representative of an unsited compact group stated at' the March 2' hearing "The' best equity for the Midwest group is non-ratification of compacts with sites at this time." He went on to

recommend Congress not approve any corr. pacts until they (the Midwest

group) have time to work out the interregional arrangements.- It is apparent that the . sited compact groups will want . to see significant

. progress by . the unsited regions, or States,- before = finalizing

interregional arrangements. On the other' hand, the unsited groups will j want to see concrete evidence by the sited regions that they are willing to accept their wastes during an interim period. Despite the possible probl. ems outlined we believe interregional arrangements are the best'.

solution for interim periods.

There have also been some reported statements that various States

may back out of a compact- if they are selected as a host State. This

would be unfortunate if it became widespread, particularly after

negotiation of a compact in good faith by several. States.

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE i

As you can see, situations have changed from the crisis times of i 1979 and from the time of enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste

j. _ Policy Act in late 1980.. It may be time for new initiatives on the part, of Executive Agencies, _ Legislatures, Compact Groups. and Users. The studies and plans- performed by the California Department of Health are.

. extremely important and will directly affect those of ~you - -at this

. meeting. On the part of NRC, we released an early draft of the Part 61 regulations in November 1979, issued the! proposed rule in July 1981, and

! issued the final rule in December 1982. This regulation establishes a

!- stable regulatory framework for development and operation of -low-level l waste disposal sites. We have issued policy statements and guidance on j volume reduction, interim storage and waste management practices for.

licensees. We have provided technical assistance to Agreement States and.

1 issued guidance for limited agreements (for.-just _ low-level waste 1

disposal) and met with the three Agreement States .with- sites on j implementation of Part 61 and recently met with Texas, i

i Legislators have been active in enacting compact legislation and in-l 'some cases participating,in the negotiations. In California, the studies

I~ referred to earlier were required by Assembly; Bill 1513 approved in 1 March.1982.

l The prospect of having no access to low-level radioactive wastei

sites for California waste generators has prompted two bills to be i

introduced into the' California Legislature, SB 342 and AB 284 which would ultimately result in the estcblishment ' of a site here' in ' California, i These will be addressed by your luncheon speaker. Therefore, I will not

address them other ~ than to note that the ~ NRC .is supportive of the provisions in -both bills which would. require the Governor to pursue h

j

? -

~

negotiations for compacting or other arrangements with other States .on 1 the matter of low-level radioactive waste disposal. We are hopeful that the California Executive Agencies and the Legislature can bring to l fruition new initiatives such as compacting or other interregional j arrangements. As times change, fresh winds may provide opportunities for

charting new courses.

i What can you, the generators, brokers and site operators do? First, 1

you can practice good waste management practices. I understand many

nuclear medicine departments no longer have a need to send waste to the

' burial sites. That is a' great improvement over the situation of the 1970's and nc doubt has two advantages - it is. both safer and cheaper.

Second, you can assure that wastes are properly packaged, labelled, surveyed, and disposed of. Generators, brokers, transporters, site' ,

. operators, and regulators, I might add, must build a solid record before the general public that nuclear waste can be packaged, transported and l- ' disposed of safely. Through our collective efforts the stream of news!

j stories of leaky waste packages being received at disposal sites can end.

j Finally, what about interim and long-tenn solutions? With the momentum currently underway in compacting, the strong support of- State

organizations desiring to have States solve the problem, and the position i of DOE, NRC, and the Congress opposing the use of DOE sites, you should j not consider the DOE site alternative as a viable option. There is also i little or no support for extending the 1986 date.. Further, although

! interim storage at reactor sites and other generating facilities may be 1

useful in the short-term, it should .not be considered a long-tenn and i final solution. It merely' defers a final decision to a later date. Some 4

people in Washington, D.C. express impatience with the lack of progress a on new sites. They see a lot of studies and a lot of paper but see no j new applications. My message to the Panel .which will be heard later j today is to grab the bull by the horns and get on with it. For some i time, you awaited Part 61. Part 61 is here and I believe the compacts j will be in place by January 1,1986. So now is .the time to proceed. ~I .

1 am optimistic that the policies established by the Low-Level Radioactive f Waste Policy Act of 1980, which were strongly supported by the States and' l the Federal Government, laid a- sound basis for solution of the problem.

j The cooperation of Executive Agencies, Legislatures, the regulated

{ community, and the public is necessary to implement it.

1 l

1 I'

i 4 , .

I

~

INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS ,

LEGISLATIVE STATUS AS OF APRIL 12, 1983 -

Rocky Mountain Central States Midwest Southeast Mid-Atlantic Northeast (Dormant)

Arizona Arkansas-e Delaware