ML20147B557

Responds to 780725 & s Re low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal.Claims the NRC Is Seeking a Contingency Plan to Assure Adequate Capacity,But That They Are Not Attempting to Federalize the Commercial Disposal Industry

ML20147B557
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/28/1978
From:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Johnson B CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
Shared Package
ML20147B560	List: IA-80-572, Responds to 780725 & 780804 Ltrs Re low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal.Claims the NRC Is Seeking a Contingency Plan to Assure Adequate Capacity,But That They Are Not Attempting to Federalize the Commercial Disposal Industry ML20147B557
References
FOIA-80-572 NUDOCS 7810110046
Download: ML20147B557 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ .

• t UNITED STATES comm CCA _

g(p # ",*%

$$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M VIASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1

• q p[ September 28, 1978 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Mr. Bruce W. Johnson, President Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.

P.O. Box 1866 Bellevue, Washington 98009

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Thank you for your letters of July 25, 1978 and August 4, 1978 and Mr. Andrew's letter of July 21, 1978 which expressed concern about commercial low-level waste disposal and our letters providing informa-tion to Congressional Committees and asking the Department of Energy (D0E) to develop a contingency plan.

You have misinterpreted the purpose and intent of our letters. Our letters were not intended to lead to the federalization of the commercial low-level waste disposal industry, but rather as an expression of concern and need for contingency planning regarding the question of adequate capacity for disposal of commercial low-level wastes. Our purpose in writing Dr. Schlesinger was:

To inform DOE of the present status regarding the commercial low-level waste disposal sites; To raise the question of whether adequate regionally dis-tributed disposal capacity for the nation's commercial low-level wastes will be available at the currently oper-ating facilities; and To express our opinion that standby capacity should be available.

Our letter to Dr. Schlesinger was not a direct expression of intent that the DOE take over the disposal of commercial low-level wastes but that they be prepared to accept comercial wastes should the need arise. We expect the industry to utilize effectively existing commercial disposal capabilities and resources. With the present public concern and uncer-tainties regarding institutional roles; development, operation, and ownership of disposal sites; cost; and regulatory standards and require-ments regarding low-level waste disposal, we believe it prudent not to 1t19LL H'l4

Mr. Bruce W. Johnson wait until crisis conditions develop in low-level waste disposal capacity before taking action. We realize, as noted in your letter, that many activities would need to be undertaken before the DOE could implement a policy to accept commercial wastes, if such action were to be necessary.

We believe that the DOE has national responsibilities to plan for low-level waste disposal capacity, and should consider the issue now and develop a contingency plan to address disposal options for low-level commercial wastes. You may wish to contact Dr. Goetz Oertel, Acting Director, Division of Waste Products, Office of Nuclear Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C. 20545, regarding their plans.

Your letters suggest a series of meetings to develop, among other things, a plan for the orderly development of commercially operated low-level radioactive waste disposal sites and identify what constructive support could be expected from the NRC. We believe discussions regarding planning should more appropriately be initiated with the DOE since DOE has the developmental responsibilities regarding the nuclear industry. We would be pleased to participate in any such meetings and recognize our responsi-bility to address the need for disposal capacity as part of the licens-ing process. With respect to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) low-level waste regulatory program, I have asked Dr. Michael J. Bell, Chief, Low-Level Waste Branch, to contact you regarding your interest in meeting with us.

In your letter of August 4,1978, you indicate that the NRC staff was not supportive of your Company's efforts to obtain a license for a commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in New Mexico.

As an example of this non-support by the NRC staff, you enclosed a letter from Wayne Kerr, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program, to Dr. Theodore Wolff of the Environmental Improvement Agency of the State of New Mexico.

The position taken by Mr. Kerr at that time was consistent with the recommendations of the NRC Task Force on Federal / State Roles in Regulation of Disposal of Commercial Radiation Wastes by Shallow Land Burial as presented in NUREG-0217, March 1977, which was also transmitted to New Mexico State officials. As you know, the NRC Task Force recommendation, that 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, was not adopted as Commission policy. In a Federal Register Notice dated December 7,1977 (Enclosure 1), the NRC stated that it would consider applications for new burial sites in the ordinary course of business with the need for capacity being demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. The NRC also stated that it would expect Agreement States to treat new applications in a similar manner. As noted in the

\ - - -

Mr. Bruce W. Johnson -

3-Federal Register statement, the Commission's decision in this regard was based on Tts evaluation of the comments received on the Task Force Report which questioned the assumptions of the Task Force regarding available disposal capacity. As you know, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.,

was one of the several commenters who raised this point. Copies of this Federal Register Notice were transmitted both to the State of New Mexico and Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., in December 1977.

Thus, while it is true that the NRC staff initially advked against new sites, this position was not adopted by the Commission and the revised position was published approximately five months before your application to the State of New Mexico was withdrawn. Since discussions with New Mexico officials were not held to clarify this matter, I have asked Mr. Kerr to contact the appropriate New Mexico officials to ensure that the present NRC position is understood.

In the December 7, 1977 Notice, we also stated that the Commission also indicated that it has taken a recommendation for increased Federal control over low-level waste disposal under consideration but has not formally adopted it as NRC policy. We are still evaluating the many issues which must be considered before this matter is finally resolved.

The question of Federal ownership and operation of the commercial burial sites is also a matter being addressed by the Presidential Task Force on Nuclear Waste Management as part of its efforts to develop a national waste management program. We are a non-voting member of this Task Force. We plan to review the Task Force report expected later this year. We believe you as a site operator should make every effort to make your full views on the capability of the nuclear industry to providt low-level waste disposal capacity known to this Task Force. You should contact Dr. John Deutch, Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington, D. C. 20545.

We appreciate your offer to provide further information on your position regarding this matter and commercial low-level waste disposal in general and would be pleased to receive your views.

Sincerely,

- o-

/&fdPfsn v oseph M. Hefidri c: -

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice

/9[/ Chairman dated. December 7,1977 cc: See Page 4 x . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

Mr. Bruce W. Johnson cc: Sen. Warren G. Magnuson Sen. Henry M. Jackson Sen. Gary W. Hart Rep. John D. Dingell '

j Rep. Mike McCormack Rep. Joel Pritchard Rep. Manuel Lujan Dr. James R. Schlesinger, DOE Dr. John M. Deutch, DOE Dr. Goetz Oertel, DOE Mr. Lloyd J. Andrews 3

7 gy-- ;c. , -,. -

7~l.-*pq'.2. Q':.7 "

• - c.7 .e.y * -

l. - m _ _' V , . .- ~

.~

QQQj;. - v t [ *' * .

. mpu a l 61904. { . _g NO{lCES . j .n ;w . 1.g ~ , '

, For the Nuclear Regulatory' Com U Por . Nuclear bg511akr'y 'Com-

' 1(uclearinRegulatory ulations 10 CFR Part Commission's 51, notice is reg.. mission.u i. .  ? mission. .'f

~

. hereby given that a Draft Environ. Wu. H. H r.cm, Jr., " , yRosmT D. Mmocer, mental Statcment (NUREG-0337), Chief Environmental Projects Director,0.fficc ol prepared by the Commission's Office Branch 2, Dit'ision of Site-  : b ., Standards Development.

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation related Sc/ety , and ,. Environmental IFR Doc. 77-34920 Mied 12-6-77; 8:4 5 aml 4 ot the proposed construction of the Analysis. .

y Srie Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2, to (ITt Doc. 77-34925 Fued 12-6-77: 8:45 aml '~

$4 be located in Eric County, Ohio, is [75H)-O f]'

f,t; avullable for inspection by the public '

' LOW-ttVEL WASTE DISPOSAL (T,TRoom in theatCommission's Public 1717 H Street NW., Document. (7590-01]

Washing.

. Comments en Tod rene E+ pod gem h ton, D.C., and in the Berlin Township F.fGULAfoRY culDE C217) and Statement en implementeben of

$ Public Library, 4 ' East Main Street, . luvence end Ave 11oM1ity Y w Berlin Heights Ohio.The DrafL State- '".* 8 '"'n,

)' ment is also being made eva!!abic at The Nu'elear Regulatory Commhion This 'No'tice presents: (1) A' brief '. l h

the Office of the Governor, State has issued a guide in its Regulatory summary of the public comments on. l h ClearinChouse, State Office Tower,30 Guide Series. This series has been de- NUREG-0217 "NRC . Task

• Force .

East' Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, veloped to describe and make available Report on Review of the Federal /

and at the Toledo Metropolitan Area. to the public methods acceptable to State Program for Regulation of Com ,  ;

Council of Governments, 420 Adison the NRC staff of implementing specif- mercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste '

Avenue. Toledo, Ohio. Requests for ic parts of the Commission's regula. Burial Grounds" (FR 42 13366-13370, copics of the Draft Environmental tions and, in sonie cases, to delineate March 10,1977; FR Doc. 77-7198); and

-Statement should be addressed to the techniques used by the staff in evalu. (2) a statement on implernentation of l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ating specific problems or postulated the NRC regulatory program for low-Washington. D.C. Attention: D! rector, accidents and to provide guidance to level waste management.

Division of Document Control. appilcants concerning certain cf the s art a ao fg 9{  ;

The Applican t's Environmental informatiott needed by the staff in its Report, as supplemented, submitted review of applications for permits and level waste management, the Nuclear by Oblo Edison Co., et al.,is also avail- licenses. L

' Regulatory Commission yublished-able for public inspection at tue above-

- NUREG-0217 NRC - Tssk-' Force ,

designated locations. Notice of avail- Regulatory ' Guide 3.5, Revision 1, f. Report on Review 'of the Federal / '

"Stcndard Format and Content of Li- State Program for Regulation of Com- -

ability of the Appilcant's Emironmen- cense Applications for Uranium Mills." mercial Low Level Es.dioactive Waste '

tal Report was published in the Fror:n- provides specific guidance ' on the Enrial Grounds" in March 1977."This ar. Rocmmt on,May 19,1977 (42 FR format and content of an application report presented the Task Fo-ce find.

25786). .

>/ for an NRC Source Material License _ ings and reco:mnendations on the pro-Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, inter- authorizing uranium milling activities. grams of NRC r.nd the States for regu-ested persons may submit comments Comments and suggestions in con. lating the disposal of commercial low-on l the App 1kant's Environmental nection with (1) items for inclusion in level wastes. The body of the report Report, as supplemented, and the guides currently being developed or (2) wcs.also published in the Frsana! Hr.c-Draft Environmental Statement for improvements in all published guides IsTrat on March 10,1977 (42 FR 13366) the Conunission's consideration. Fed- are encouraged at any time. Public .to solicit public comments which eral and State agencies are being pro- comments on Regulatory Guide 3.5, would be considered in the Commin vided with copies of the Applicant's Revision 1, viill, however, be particu; sion's deliberation on the Tash Force 1 Environmental Report and the Draft larly useful in evaluating the need for recommendations and in developing Environmental Statement (locr.1 egen* an early revision if received by Februg an NRC low. led wask mangemed -

cits may obtain these documents upon 6 1978 pmgram.

request). Comments are due by Janu. ornmen'ts should be sent to the Sec; The coms of W M h in ary 23,1978. Comments by Fedemi, retary of the Commission, U.S. Nucle- ""

• recommendamns in State, and lomi officials or other per- ar Regulatory Commission, Washing? - U *.* * ~

sons received by the Commission will be made available for public inspection ton, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing . The need to establish a regulatory strue-ture for low. level waste disposal:

at t.he Commt"!on's Public Document and Service Branch ^-

Regulatory guides'are avail The need to avoid site proliferation:

Room in Washington, D.C., and the Berlin Township Public Library, 4 inspecti n at the. Commission.able fors The Public ' The need to assure adequate capacity:

need to anure long. term care without East Main Street, Berlin Heights, . Document Room.1717 H Street NW., placing a large or inequitable burden on the

.3 Ohio. Upon consideration of com- Washington D.C. Requests for single few States.in which burial grounds are lo-g, ments submitted with respect to the- copies of issuel guides (which may be cated:

g reproduced), or for placement on an The need to assure the Congms and the Draft Environrnental Statement, the , automatic distribution list for sinf.le public that en adequate and fully coordinat-Commission's staff will prepare

4. a . copies of future guides in specific divi- . *d E"##"" ' I '. I'*#*I **"*

• D ovailability of which will be publishedPtnal Environmental Statement, the si nsThe should need be madeparticipation:

for State in writing to t.he ' erists: .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

in the Frpauu, RrorsTut. The need for coordination of Federal and d, ;5 Comments on the. Draft Environ- Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: DI- state activities: and g&

raental Statement from interested per. rector Dhision of Document Control. . The need for a thorough examination of cong of the public should be addressed Telephone requests cannot be socom- ' alternative disposal nethods.

7 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- modated. Regulatory guides are not From its findings, the Task Force 4 misalon. Washington. D.C. 20555. At. copyrighted, and Commission approval made the following recommendations:

tention: Director, Division of Site is not required t.o reproduce them. L The NRC should initiate action in Safety and Environmental Analysis. (5 U.S.C. 552(su cooperation with appropriate Federal and' State agencies to increase Federal Dated at Bethesda, Md this 30th Dated at Rockvt11e. Md.,' this 29th ~ control over the disposal of low level day of November 1977.'  ; day of November 1977, " . waste by; a

' ~

FEDE3jAt RfGitTER, VOL 42, Nd. 235- WEDNESDAY, DECEMatR 7,1977

.I -

J -

. n ,

[. [ NOTICE'S . J - '

, -[ Gi905 gy  : - -

Jifa. Requiring: 1. Joint Fed?ral/ State latory program) and part of Recom- Task Force Recommendation HI renf-N approvrfoi new disposal sites; ' mendation III (study of alternative firmed the uncertainties in the waste

2. NRC licensing, with State partici- disposal methods). If anything, their volume generation and disposr.1 capac-

N pr, tion. of current and new disposal comments strengthened the case for ity projections in the Task Force p ;f sites; and Recommendation II. Comments on the. report. Additional capacity may be g.a disposal 3. Federal ownership of land for all remainder of Recommendation III (n needed due to regional needs, equip-sites. licensing of new sites) questioned the ment limitations, costs, c.nd other fac-O b. F.stablishing a Federally adminis- assumptions of the Task Force regard-

/ , tered perpetual care prohram, ing waste volume . projections - and c. tors. Pending completion of ongoing P ;IL The NRC,in cooperation with ap' available disposal capacity. They also studies, the staff believes that the en-V ipropriate Federal and State agencies, indicated that additional factors (e.g., vironmental impact from any new site

, J . should accelerate development of the regional distribution) should be taken which might be licensed, if. properly

Z iregulatory program for the disposal of into account before implementing the sited and operated, will be small. /g.-

3]ow-level waste which includes regula- recommendation. pl cations for new burial sites will bit M *tions, standards, and criteria. treated by the NRC in_ the ordin_ary-III. The NRC should initiat.e imme- STATEMENT oN IMPLEMr.NTAnoM or NRC REcm. atony FxoGRAM FoR Low. course of business with the need for, J.

i' " diately the necessary studies to identi- additional Capacity being demonst*Bfc C 2 iy and evaluate the relathe safety and Lnu. WASTE MANAGEME*TI impact.s of alternative low-level waste ed on a case.by,-case _.kas.is. The NRC T * '# *** #

4, Afsposal" methods. Nountil newa disposal cgn ider g eT k Fo ce re en treat applications for new burial sites sites should be licensed full ex- dations, NRC analyzed the policy mat- they may receive in a similar manner.

. r.mination of alternative disposal ters addressed by the-Task Force in rnethods has been completed or unless preparing NUREG-0217, the public Low-Level Weste Program. The NRC

' perceptions as reflected in the com. Iow level waste management program d' oul u e cf ect ve se c' ments, and information. gained from includes development of a regulatory

?. J isting commercial burial grounds. - the comments of the ACRS, discus- framework, evaluation of rJternative y ,. . . .

. slons at several public meetings, and . disposal methods and supporting re-p# e '

SUMMARY

or PUscic CoMunrrs ~

additional analyses of low level waste search. The program emphasizes early

- Thirty three responses were received management. The NRC plans, based results* utilization of NRC in-house re-from Governors, State agencies. indus-

. ' try representatives, and other interest- onJr.crecsed this analysis, Federalfollow'ntrol.

Co The Com- sources, and cooperation with Federal and State agencies. Research efforts

, ed parties. Copies of the comments - mission has taken the Tas.J._tcree rei are being coordinated with DOE, EFA, s.nd a detailed staff analysis of the omme7iggUon for increased Federc.1 comments may be exarnined at the cTiifr5T'5E~ Tow-level _stasic.J is29 sal the USGS, and numerous State agen-Comtnission's Public Document Room under consideration but has not for- CiC5- -

at 1717 H Street, Washington, D.C., mally adopteOtlet as NTEC36 Among the' elements of the prograin he Md Meves thEt a numbir of are the following major actititiem

- n d at t or mi sion 1 as ass n RWW Document Rooms. Single copies of the E7ehf[cfore fl. a dec s on on t !}

strff analysis, which is being pub- recommendation 'is ' ma$e. Further, 2. Alternatives to Shrliow Land Burial Study; lished as NUREG-0217, Supp.1, are' there is no compelling need to make a available to the extent of supply from final decision on reassertion of Federal w - 3. Standards for Shallow Land ~

3 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis- control at this time since the States Burial; are adequately protecting the public 4. Standards for Alternative Meth-k ti an oc men Control. h health and safety. The NRCis study. ods; * .

ton. D.C. 20545. Copies are also avail- 5. Shallow Land. Burial Regula-1"U

. able for salelrom the Nationt! Tech .this.the remaining Task issues surrounding.

Force recommendation and _~ tions and Guides;

• ~

nical Information Service, Springfield, the NRC low Icyc1 waste management 6. Alternative Methods, Regula- _

Va. 22161. program described later will provide a '

Comments en Recommendation I for tions, and Guides.

,, increued Federal control varied from s[11d3gfoundation for making a !inal de-

% b WO O:'-

spo Standards Detilopment and Alterne. lished as NUREG-0240 may be exam-1 developed p It o tives Study. The NRC and all com- ined at the Commission's Pubile Docu-continuing the existing Federal / State menters agree that there is an urgent ment Room at 1717 H Street, Wash-roles. Those who agreed with the rec-ommendation generally reiterated the need to establish a regulatory program ington, D.C. and at the Commimion's conclusions of the Task Force. Many to develop a comprehensive set of Local Public Document Rooms. Single -

commenters agreed with the conclu. standards and criteria for low-level copies are available to the extent of slon that a better regulatory program waste disposal and to examine alterna - supply from the U.S. Nuclear Regula-is needed but questioned the recom. tives to shallow land burial. The NRC' tory Commission Dhision of Techn!-

' mendation that Federal control is the . Iowlevel waste management program cal Information and Document Con-best solution. The conunents recog. will include development of a compre- trol. Washington, D.C. 20545. Copies nized the need for active involvement hensive regulatory framework and an are also available for srJe from the Na-of the States in low level waste man. examination of alternative disposal tional Technical Information Service,-

agement to satisfy their vested inter- . roethods. -

ests in protecting the health and Mcensing of New Sites. As recom. Springfield, Va. 22161.

safety of their citizens and in land use mended by the Task Force, any new ' Dated at Washington, D.C, this

' decisions. While no conclusive reasons burial grounds will be fully justified 30th day of November 1977.

to alter Tr6sk Force Recommendation I on the basis of need. The NRC will were given, the comments indicated accept applications for new shallow ' 'For the Nuclear Regulatory Com-the need to develop a broader base of land burial grounds and will treat rnission.

technical support before adopting the them in the ordinary course of busi- Smm.1 cm, recommendation. ness with the need for additional ca- Secretcry o/ the Commission.

All commenters agreed with Recom- pacity being demonstrated on a case.

mendation II (development of a regu- by-case basis. The reevaluation of (m Doc.17-34922 nled 12-6-77; 8:45 aml

• IEDf RAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 23NWEDNESDAY, DECMBER 7, M77

. W

( ,

i

- .1 .

- _ _ . -_______