ML20236K955
| ML20236K955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/08/1977 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E585 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-235 NUDOCS 8708100069 | |
| Download: ML20236K955 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _
Af, 2 --
l t *e .
.G EWJ,fW
"- p g_
Statement of -
G. Wayne Kerr,' Assistant Director for '
State Agreem,dnts Program' l
Office of State Prog ~ rams. . ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
, at March ~8,1977 meeting of Interim SpecialrCommittee on Radioact.ive Waste Disposal Frankfort. .'Kentuc'ky I know that this Committee)is quite famil'iar with the background. of. the disposal of. low ' level radioactive. waste and-in particular at the Maxey.
Flats, Kentucky site. .I will not repeat any of tbis background' e'xcept..to ,.,.
say that this site has alwa'y~s been regulated byTthd State,of Kentucky g un, der; e an agr.eement entered into with, the Atomic Energy ~Cocissi.on.(now NRC) on March 25.-1962 . pursuant.to Section ~274 of 'the 'Atomi.c,-.Endrgy Act. .As part of out. continuing relationship with Kentucky, as'witih all Agreement. States.
l we have been cognizant of the'majof actions taken by the State in regulating l ..
this site and of the problems that'have be'en encountered.
Ppblicity began 'to. focus on the subject of low. level . waste disposal when..the State of Kentucky issued a report on the resu'lts of.a special six.-month.
environmental study at Maxey Flats in December 1974'. .. 'The report noted the I l
contribution of radioactivity to the' surrounding environs ~ resulting from .
~ '
operations'st 'the s'ite but concluded it did'not' create a public health
~
^
' hazard. . AtGovernorCarroll'sreques't,jtheNRCconductNdanindependent-assessment of conditions a't the'Maxey Flats site and. informed, hiin in
~
3 ~ July 1975 that there was no significant~ public health ' problem associated 1
with the release bf' radioactive'materila1.-from the burial grpund and that .
8708.100069 B70724 .
MINTONB7-235 PDR \
. ~ . . -
- " **.-D w .',.),g. Ea7 i , -- Ak a-
.-.~~.:' *
.- c. .
}
the State was taking appropriate action. We did make several commendations
- concerning methods to ' improve the water management prograin and to minimize the potential for migration of radionuclides. -
In January 1976 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report which presented the Kentucky environmental data and dsseiibed vario'us peitential migration pathways andLdrew conclusions .from.their analysis of the data.
Although we believe that.re, port did not give adequate emphasis td t'he public health and safety significance o~f the data, .it did conclude thal the con-
~ ~
b tamination noted does not pose an immediate health hazard.- '
During early 1976, three~ events took place' which' highlighted the' at't'ention the Federal Government-was giving.to.this mattei.
- 1. First, the General Accounting Office' issued a' rep ~ ort' on'Janitary 12,
~
1976.on. Land. Disposal of Radioact'ive Wastes. The general thrust of their recommendations related to the need for'developminEof~ste i selection criteria,: study of the ability of' exis ting. sites to retain
+MM.
wastes, improvement' of monitoring prograins an'd dsvelopmen't' of long -
term care requirements and funding. ,
- 2. The Conservation , Energy and Ratural Resources Subcommittee of the
~
House Committee on Government Operations held hearings on low level wastes in'early 1976. Their recommendations.'related to need for establishment of site criteria, coordination in the collection of data, provision of technical assistaq'ce in'i he t -areas of monitoring and security-of sites and one which'I quote in its entirety: -
4
- ] F' NF 7f $s#". % f'T.g- vn -m..
- y8psyrya g= e y w-syj 7 p -
p w j 7, 3, g , g, ,-p, gv 4 --
3- ,v -
,-gy , , _,_
_ ~ . - .
_,,...,,.-.,c.-
-~
1
~~. ~
- 3- -
"5.- Since the land disposal method of handling radioactive '
I waste is a problem of centuries duration and because no long-term care and funding requirements have yet been established the Congress and executive branch should give ' prompt considerd-tion to legislation which would: .
(a). reassert Federal jurisdiction and the regul,atory .
L authority of. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over
.,! . commercial land burial sites; and L
i (b) assign title to all commercial facilities within the United States and the leases governing these sites to the ~
[
l Energy Research and Development Admini.stration."
l' ] 3. During FY 77 authorization hearings before the Joint Committee on I , Atomic Energy, the' subject of regulation of the lo'w' level sites was discussed. During the hearings the NRC stated that it would reassesstherolesofthe. Federal'andStategovernmentsinthe-j regulation and operation of the commercial burial grounds.
l
, As a result of these hearings and the connitment made by NRC, an NRC.
Task Force was established to study the matter of Federal vs. State
, regulation of commercial radioactive waste burial grounds. During the l
- course of the study, its scope was expanded to include other related is tues which currently affect commercial burial ground operation such
_ as;the need for research and development, development of standards and a
i criteria, development of a national plan for low level waste disposal, and perpetual care funding.
The Task Force was composed of members of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and the Office of State Programs. The b
j Task Force met with senior management representatives in each of the _
]. sixstateswhichhavecommercialburialgrounds(Illinois,Xentucky,
=
, -.. ...e- , -
...w- - , . . .-e= -.-.mi.-----.~ a - ^ - - - - - *-
4 e
? gJ ~ *= r j w .,, eiv,y=- g ; _ , ,_ . _ _ .
~
n1
+ =& w ~ " "
r=/' . ;=x.,, '
_ z ;- -.- - - = . - -
Nevada, Washington, New York'and South Carolina) and visited each sit &.
The issues reviewed during each meeting are summarized in Appendix E
~of the~ report.
I The conclusions and recommendations of the Task Force 'are as follows:-
, " Conclusion.'I' ' -
" ~
' The present system for low-level radioactive waste management ladks national organization and direction. The Sta'tes, in discharging their- .
regulatory duties, have operated under difficult circumstances but have adequately protected the public health'and safety. The Task Force can find no compelling health or safety reason for reassertion of Federal control at this time. However, the States do not have the resources
.to provide the needed overall leadership or organization, nor do they have the obligation to find solutions to this national problem < The States will continue to have a vested interest in the protection of i
the health and safety of their citizens and in land use decisions.
- This vested interest can be satisfied by their participation in the
- site selection process and.their monitoring of day-to-day operations..
The development and implementation of a national waste management plan, which includes adequate capacity without site ' proliferation, can..be more readily achieved if the NRC assumes regulatory control (with State participation). The Federal government sho'uld assume responsi. s bility for perpetu'al care of the sites which can be.readily accomplished through Federal land ownership.
Recommendation I .
The NRC should initiate action in cooperation with approp'riate Federal and State agencies to increase Federal control o'er the' v
disposal of low-level waste by:
- a. Requiring Joint Federal / State approval of new disposal sites NRC licensing, with State participation, of current and new disposal. sites Federal ownership of land for all disposal sites 1
4 b. Establishing-a Federally administered perpetual care program.
j :.qps.p gy7, ~
4 1
-1 ~,. ; w i
.--..-y,,--.,.-,,_, . , - , - , , , , . , , . , ,
T .,e
. C h hh . :'
.( . . .
j- -
i Conclusion II There is an u'rgent need to establish a comprehensive set of st&ndards, criteria, and regulations governing low level waste management. . An
. integration and acceleration of ongoing efforts to estatriish such a '
program is required. Emphasis should be placed on:
- a. Developing operating, monitoring, decommissioning, post-operational maintenance and funding r, requirements for both ~ .
existing and future burial sites.
- b. Developing criteria for the acceptability of future proposed j g shallow land burial sites or alternative disposal methods.
I
' c. Developing criteria. for determining which wastes can be disposed
, of by shallow land burial.
Recommendation II ,
, The NRC, in coo eration with appropriat'e Federal and State agencies,.should accelerate development of the regulatory
. program for the disposal of low-level waste which includes regulation, standards, and criteria.
Conclusion III. ,, 3 National planning must assure adequate disposal capacity beyond 1990 while preventing an undisciplined proliferation of sites. While there have been other disposal methods used, the only currently practiced
' method is shallow land burial. Since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) a comprehensive Federal examination of alternative disposal methods has not been made. Such an exami-nation is needed. -
There is now sufficient burial capacity for the disposal of-comercial low-level waste to the year 1990. Until extensive.in-vestigation'of alternatives to shallow land burial is completed, the additional licensing of new shallow land burial sites should be avoided. That investigation may disclose better methods and
, -practices. The undisciplined proliferation of low-level burial sites must be avoided.
Recommendation III
+ -The NRC should initiate immediately;the:necessary studies to s identify and evaluate the relative safety ~ and? impacts of ~
alternative low-level waste disposal methods. No new disposal sites should be licensed until a full examination of alternative .
disposal methods has been completed or unless an urgent new )
need is identified. The NRC should assure effective use of existing comercial' burial grounds."
i e
m __ _ _ _
su
! +
e
o.
IV '
The six States also reviewed'the NRC staff's draft report and prdvided us with comments. The general thrust of the States' comments were that:
- 1) They supported the concept of a national policy and plan for site selection on a national or regional basis.
- 2) The States must be assured of active participation in the -
regulation of the sites, particularly in site selection and surveillance,no matter who regulates the site.
3). Some were open on the question of Federal regulation, of the sites.
- 4) Some indicated the States can more effectively cover the day to day activities of the sites. -
A summary of State views is as follows (and stated'on p.12 of the report):
The States believe they have an important role in the licensing of burial grounds within their own borders since they have traditional responsibility for assuring the health and safety, of their citizens.
They believe that they can fulfill this responsibility by participating in burial ground site selection, defining safety provisions for site operation, and inspections during operation, decommissioning, and long-term surveillance. Opinions among State officials vary as to how the State should fulfill its responsibility. These range from the view that State goals could best be accomplished through State licensing, inspection and monitoring under section 274 Agreements to views that the States could participate with NRC in a cooperative arrangement to accom-plish their goals while NRC retains regulatory jurisdiction over the sites.
I would like to emphasize that the recommendations of the Task Force are based on broad policy considerations and that the problem is of a national g: . .
nature and are not the result of a concern for safety of commercial disposal d
facilities as they are currently being operated.
e 4
l l
w 'A 4 %f, , ,t3 % We y *);-- ,
,,-wg, w
} a As : , $
t -
,-. . _. . . - . - . . . - . . . . ~ . . .- .. .
. . . - . .m f., , .
E
' ' i 7
A Federal Register notice will be pub,11shed in the very near future noting the availability of this Task Force report and requesting public comments on the report. -
d Obviously, if the report's recommendations are finally implemented, a.
number of actions have to take place. Legislation at the Federal level would be required to reassert regulatory authority over the. low level i burial grounds. Legislation would also be required for the Federal i
i Government to assume ownership of the grounds. Mechanisms for the Federal government to administer a perpetual. care program will have to be established. The development of criteria for site selection which is of l high interest to the industry is expected to be accomplished. in approximately .
2 years. We expect all steps would be completed in 3-5 years. ~
l 9 @
l 4 4
e I _ f j
l l d
?
l <
+ I
. \
4
\,
i
.= . ,, . .
m ... ,
s s 3 ). ,.[ + .,
a
. er W **
o ,
- j
- y. .
- / ,
'epariment for [uman %tsourtes ,
dommonfutalfl} ci [tufutlty (ORM KR 201 1 2 (Rev. 6-78) . . . Page _ of Pages hadtontfibt [atettal [ttense Pursuant to KRS 211.840 et seq., the Kentucky Department for Humarr Resources Regt.fations, and in reliance on statements and representatives heretofore made by the licensee, a licenss is hereby issued authorizing a licensee to receive, acquire, own, possess and transfer radioactive materlat listed below; and to use such radioactive material for the purposes (s) and at he place (s) designated balow. This license is subject to all applicable rules and regulations of the Department for Human Resources, and orders of the Department for Human Resources, now or hereinafter in effem-t and to'any conditions specified below.
Licensee Kentucky Department for Natural 3. License Number NBF-2-03 (02) 1.Name Resourceg and Environmental '
- 4. Expiration Date Protection
- 2. Address Bureau of Environmental Protection- June 30, 1980 Capital Plaza Tower, 5th Floor 5. Reference No.
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 TELEPHONE: (502) 564-2150 ATTF'< TION: Jack Wilson. Denuty Commissioner
- 6. Radioactive Material 7. Chemical and/or 8. Maximum Radioactivity (Element and Mass Number) Ph sical Form Which Licensee May Pos:ess At Any One Time A. Any A. Any chemical or A. As necessary for uses authorized physical form of buried in subitem 9.A. at location specified waste and. contamination in condition 11
.resulting from such previously buried wastes.
- 9. Authorized Use A. Care and maintenance of the closed 1tuey Flats Radioactive Waste Burial Facility.
CONDITIONS
- 10. Unless otherwise specified, the authorized place of use is the licensee's address stated in item 2 above.
i 0
r .
i o . . '
~
- ~..
- l partment for , human [tsources 6cmmonicealif{ cf %eufurkg FORM KR 201 A Pag, 2 of 2 pages (Rev. 6 77) udicarHn [nferial Kirrur l Supplementary Sheet Licensa Number NBF-2-03 (02)
CONDITIONS
-m%,. .
- 11. The authorized placerfh.,.9-r; dissos'ai'o,MadioattiyY6aterial shall be at Mixey Flats, Fleming County, Ke51 rentucky Atomice$ner%&y,inithiniths . boundary,ofitiie? land gyfAuthorityg;@ clear-Engineerin,gGgmpany, area described in Incorporated Agreement dat,,ed'Janu
,! ~ n~3 ,ary>21.d~ "'.D. .wm
- .941963. M a t mu,a The licenseg/ A%. Ar
- - 6 N(+, 'O l
- 12. c shali. comply (Wi't h tHb prini,sion's ob, hb[. t wentutky Department for 4
Human Res rcesl Administ1ative $adiation Regulat' ions,190'2'KAR(100.
(" % gy
( ~~% 'jf TQ jvQ f
- 13. Radioac edate'rialshallbe"'eb,bysoiunderthe'5hperviyibnof, individuals designat liffthyRadiation S icer. t UCO M 1gensrated
[i MMQg jd
- 14. Thereceiphand:disposalofoffdi comercialeradioactive waste is not auth(rizjd' tinder this licenseV qQp 15.
F- 0 This lic;;e)nse~5ndumy En D\}
document fEf$ren! Vcealby h this mlicense % . eels, subjec by the Department 3for Human Resourhes ihjaccordance with: 902"KAR 100:015, Section 8, of the Department for Human Re'souices Administrative;Radiffion Regulations. 2 NW n X . kQhp ll . V lH
- 16. The licensB is,l5ubidizn,dito $6SNE~ stand p h sstifhtiid radioactive waste 07 4 '
generated ons. sit 8?in n Sdcordance withTdescriptions, 5 designs, andMobEdur[cb'mplidnce-yith dstc6Ittdinb] iEtKeJja3sp'FlitisfRasidsctive and i.Wastero eBurial Facility Plan,*dat'ed:Juns51 19793C."5
[K % .. N W Me 1@60-# #M#*
WEEh'
- 17. This license shalfbiicEA[dbt$e?S$b1$idE$M. ddnight, on July 1,1979 3 ~g/'.e4.y
- 18. Except as specifically prov tim!Iserb9thislicense,thelicenseeshall possess and use radioactive material described in items 6, 7, and 8 of this license in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures contained in: .
A. Application dated June 18, 1979, signed by Jack Wilson, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Environmental Protection, Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.
B. Letter dated June 18, 1979, signed by Eugene F. Mooney, Secretary, Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.
C. Muey Flats Radioactive Waste Burial Facility Plan, dated June 1,1979, and attachments thereto.
I
) ;; % I b A W L SECR NTAR Y. D EPA R" MENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES Manager, Radiation Control Branch
{ 7 j7 7 Division of Consumer Health Protection Data of issuance
- _ _ _ _ _