ML20137H918
| ML20137H918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137H924 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-055, COMSECY-96-55, DSI-5, SECY-96-055-C, SECY-96-55-C, NUDOCS 9704030156 | |
| Download: ML20137H918 (11) | |
Text
. .. . _.....~m . _ . . . . . . _ . _ _ _m . . ~ _ . . u i .. <.
. N.,
April 1, 1997 4
1 SECL NQTE: The following documents are being released to the public at this timei l 1. Text of DSI 5 (Low-Level Waste)
- 2. Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 7, 1997.
- 3. Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 30, 1997.
- 4. ~ Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 22, 1997.
- 5. Views of Commissioner Dicus dated January 16, 1997.
- 6. Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 27, 1997.
- 7. Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated January 24, 1997.
%'y John C. Hoyle l Secretary of the Commission i
i I
l i
1 i
J.
4
- o 1 M 00 m.' W.useppumust 9704030156 970401 -
PDR NRCSA I ~
c i 5 PDR 3 /} }
Inw4evel Wane
, Summary Analysis of Comments
- ' ; consecx-36.oss..
3.3 LOW-LEVEL WASTE (DSI 5) * .
The Direction-Setting issue and the Options e :
3.3.1 *O s
J f? .
What should be the role and scope of the NRC's low-level radioactive waste *$ :y; program? ;y .
Option 1: Assume a Greater Leadership Role I*
lc$ D Option 2: Assume a Strong Regulatory Role in the National LLW Program ;y t Option 3: Retain Current Program *"j R S!
lw 4 G**
Option 4: Recognize Progress and Reduce Program ;*
Transfer LLW Program to EPA ******* .
Option 5:
Option 6: Accept Assured Long-Term Storage 3.3.2 Commission's Preliminary Views The Commission's preliminary view on this is:,ue is that the preferred ontion is Option 2 (Assume a Strong Regulatory Role in the National Program). This option would encompass all of the activities that were performed before the recent reductions in the low-level waste program.
In addition, the Commission seeks public comment on whether NRC should involve itself to a greater degree in implementing this option in such a way as to encourage an integrated approach to the regulation of LLW handling, processing, recycle, and disposal. For example, should NRC actively participate in the development of new technologies for waste compaction and better waste forms for on-site storage for licensees, to maximize safety and efficiency across the entire waste management and disposal process? Further, how should NRC address unauthorized disposal? Adopting such an approach would, of course, require that the NRC have a strong presence in the National low-level waste program and maintain an appropriate set of core capabilities.
3.3.3 Summary of Comments A. Significant/Important Comments Directly Affecting the Preliminary Views or the Direction-Setting Issue In reviewing the written comments and those provided at public stakeholder meetings, the Committee did not identify a clear consensus regarding the Commission's preliminary views on this DSI. In broad terms, commenters appeared to fall into two groups. The first group, composed of LLW generators, (including nuclear ut;11 ties; the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
the Council on Radiopharmaceuticals & Radionuclides. (CORAR), and several other individual licensees) and, to a lesser extent, Agreement and Non-Agreement States, favored the Commission's choice. It should be noted that three of these States (Connecticut, Michigan, and New Jersey) are non-Agreement States that have plans for new LLW disposal facilities which would be licensed by NRC. Thus, their interests may be different from other States.
Page 345 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaaion Repon
~ !aw-Lewi Caste The second group of commenters consisted of a number of Agreement States I .
(including the'0rganization of Agreement States [0AS] and the Conference of ,
Radiation Control Program Directors [CRCPD]) who disagreed with the l Commission's preliminary view favoring Option 2, in some cases strongly, and favored an option between Options 3 and 4, or Option 4. These State ,
l organizations believed that the States are adequately regulating new and i existing facilities and view as especially undesirable those aspects of the '
preferred Option 2 that would involve more NRC oversight and review of Agreement State programs. Although they did not disagree with NRC's responsibility to review their programs, they emphasized the importance of a j partnership between NRC and the Agreement States and of the NRC's facilitating l j
implementation of their programs. One comenter (Utah), felt that the solution to the national LLW disposal program is political and that a strong i NRC program would not influence this factor.
l
)
One comenter, (0AS) stated: "All States [that provided an input to 0AS] were i opposed to NRC's assuming a strong regulatory role [ Option 2] that encompassed )
all LLW activities. Most comenting states felt that states involved in low-level waste management programs, including those with existing sites, were i doing an adequate job in protecting the environment and the public." States l' endorsing the OAS comments on the preliminary view included New Hampshire, Mississippi, South Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, and Utah.
One commenter, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, stated that "Our advice (in a July 24, 1996, letter to Chairman Jackson) is consistent with the Commission's preliminary preferred option in Direction-Setting Issue Paper 5.
Agreement State programs and the progress of compacts and individual States in developing new disposal facilities remain an issue with ACNW."
Although many coments were made on which activities to include in the implementation of Option 2 (which are not addressed here), the principal one that affects the preliminary view is how to distinguish between those activities that could be interpreted to fall within either Option 1, " Assume a Greater Leadership Role," or Option 2. For example, many comenters, in addressing Option 1, favored NRC's being more of an advocate of its own expertise in LLW disposal matters, particularly with respect to Ward Valley and the Department of Interior's concerns with radiological health and safety '
is:ues in connection with the transfer of the land from the Federal Government to the State of California. Others advocated greater NRC outreach to the l l
public and other groups with concerns about LLW so that they can better understand NRC regulations and the protecti"e measures that are in place to ;
ensure public health and safety. NEI specifically recommended that " disposal policy aspects of Option 1 should be incorporated into the regulatory aspects of Option 2." The State of New Jersey and NEI also suggested that NRC could include for Option 6 (" Accept Assured Long-Term Storage") as one of the activities within Option 2.
B. Coments on Other Options Although commenters did not overwhelmingly favor any one of the remaining options over another, some trends are apparent in the comments. First, all but one comenter who took a position were strongly opposed to transferring the NRC LLW program to EPA, citing inefficiency and EPA's lack of expertise in disposal licensing as primary reasons. An anonymous commenter recommended that NRC "get out of the LLW program and le+ the States, EPA deal with it."
l Phase 11 Stokeholder inte~ tion Report PEge 3-26
~
Lowlew! Waste
, Summary Analysis of Cants
~
A comenter (the League of Women Voters), although not recomending transfer of the program to EPA, believed that [PA's involvement in the program is i helpful because it balances the views of the nuclear industry and because it is a strong force for reducing the production of wastes. l With the exception of substantial support for NRC's becoming more involved in !
the Ward Valley facility decision making as discussed above, there was limited )
support for the broader actions included in the scope of Option I, such as NRC l facilitating the use of Department of Energy (DOE) facilities for comercial LLW, or privatization of new LLW facility development- Two comenters, l (Michigan [MI), ATL International) favored these broader actions. Another comenter (NE) favored NRC's keeping the same program that it now has but, I also advocated a single facility for both High-Level Waste (HLW) and Low-Level Waste (LLW). This comenter noted that there are problems with LLW disposal under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA).
However, he did not believe NRC had a role in addressing these broader issues of the effectiveness of the LLRWPAA. The State of Tennessee wanted NRC to assume a leadership role as a strong advocate for disposal capacity and recomended that NRC could take a strong regulatory stand against LLW storage by putting a moratorium on new licenses without new disposal capacity, or by ,
requiring significant financial assurance funds.
A number of commenters specifically objected to the aspects of Option 1 in which NRC would promote new disposal capacity. Although the premise of the option was that NRC has a legitimate health and safety interest in promoting disposal, comenters, (NJ, UT and one NRC staff member) did not see this advocacy role as appropriate for the agency.
As noted in the first section, many Agreement States prefer an option like Option 3 or 4, or in between. 0AS preferred an option between Options 3 and 5 4, and CRCPD preferred Option 4.
A wide variety of coments was received on Option 6, " Accept Assured Long-Term Storage." One of the authors of the assured storage concept, David Leroy, took exception to the characterizatior, of assured storage in the LLW options paper and provided what he believes to be a more straightforward description of the option as an attachment to his letter. In sumary, he stated that the
, ed storage concept does not fall within NRC's policy of discouraging LLW ge; that assured storage is an "alteuative" to disposal for places in
,ch States cannot develop a disposal facility; that the paper misrepresents the nature of the support for the assured storage concept and that there is ,
" strong support" for the concept from State officials, industry .
representatives, and " knowledgeable observers"; that assured storage may, in fact, fulfill obligations of the LLRWPAA and that the description of the -
concept in the paper is too superficial. His revised option for assured storage is for "the Comission...to formally recognize assured storage, in concept, as a viable waste management option, recognizing that specific issues...would have to be addressed as part of a licensing action."
i Another comenter (CT) addressed the description of assured storage in the DSI. The author noted that while it is "not necessary that the NRC accept assured storage as an option to disposal at this point in time (after all, the studies needed to make a determination about whether it is a viable option are just beginning), the NRC should adopt a more objective view of the concept."
Page 3-27 Phase !! Stakeholder interaction Repon
LGEMiMaste _
u m pamp%T ra m a The commenter recommended that NRC's role for a:,sureo storagt be one of monitoring and, if requested, participating in varim studies that are underway.
Other commenters (C0, MI, NJ) also expressed support for at least exploring '
j the concept further. One commenter representing a CRCPD working group on regulations, stated that in a recent meeting,15 Agreement State regulators !
wanted the concept explored further. However, in CRCPD's written coments, CRCPD stated that " acceptance of long-term storage, as described in Option 6, would do nothing for the cu-rent long-term storage versus disposal debate, except to delay the inevitable use of disposal for LLW." NEI stated that
" Option 6 could be included under Option 1 or .2 and worked in parallel with disposal site development. However, recognize that this concept does not avoid many of the public perception issues which have slowed disposal site development."
Other comenters were opposed to option 6, if not the concept, in varying degrees. The OAS, for example, in its written coments, stated that of the six States that had provided input to 0AS, tour were "strongly opposed" to the concept and that "one state is very critical and suspect of this option." 0AS concluded that a majority of the commenting Agreement States believe that assured storage is not the answer in helping to resolve the LLW problem. A State of Illinois official stated that this is an effort to try to solve the problem of LLW disposal by calling it something other than disposal. An NRC staff member had a similar comment, stating that accepting long-term storage may be acceptable under 10 CFR Part 61 now that the scope of Part 61 includes above-ground disposal. He state if long-term storage is not distinguishable from above-ground disposal, Option 6 is not really separable from other options.
Another comenter (NMA) stated that " Option 6 (assured long-term storage) is a somewhat confusing concept. It raises questions of perpetual licensing that conflict with traditional assumptions regarding appropriate reliance on institutional / active controls. It could also cloud the issue of whether on-site disposal is a viable option and it appears to conflict directly with the assumptions underlying NRC's final regulations governing the timeliness of decomissioning. Finally, it raises the obvious question that if assured storage is somehow different than long-term storage, how then is it different from disposal?"
C. Coments on Important Omissions One commenter (NEI) had a number of comments on what it believed to be omissions from the discussion. First, it believed that an important I
consideration not fully developed is the dynamic, tenuous status of LLW treatment and disposal. It also believed that the paper did not identify the potential that a simple, unilateral decision by one of the major players in '
l the national program can completely redirect waste management practices I nationwide. It termed the description of the national situation for LLW disposal in the DSI paper a " snapshot." It considered that the staff's ;
forecast of future possibilities in the national program, contained in Attachment 2 to SECY-95-201, " Alternatives to Terminating the Nuclear j Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program," provides a better assessment of the dynamic nature of the LLW issue.
l Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report Page MS
- Lo+Lui Waste
, S= gry Analysis of Comments Second, NEI inferred that the paper assumed that disposal capacity at any cost is acceptable. It stated that over $512 millionCORAR has been spent to date and Siemens also noted without development of new disposal capacity. CORAR also noted that costs have that the paper did not consider cost impact.
caused a significant curtailment of the use of radionuclides in the research comunity, especially biomedical research and that society at large has lost an important benefit. Both NEI and CORAR provided a copy of the report entitled " Lessons Learned from the Barnwell Closure to 31 States" that mentioned cuts in services by licensees, cost impacts, and generators' views that the loss of disposal capacity is a major problem for the Nation. ,
Third, NEI noted that current and future disposal capacity may not be adequate to handle future generation rates and volumes. It pointed out that decomissioning waste volumes from one or two facilities can approach the annual LLW volume disposed of in the country today and that lack of disposal Other capacity in the future could virtually stop decommiscioning activities.
factors contributing to uncertainties about future waste volumes are deminimis levels of radioactivity, the criteria to be contained in the final cleanup standards, and the extent of recycling of LLW in the future. Fourth, NEI asked that NRC play an active role in ensuring that manifesting and reporting requirements for waste shipments be implemented uniformly by Agreement States and NRC.
Other commenters also identified what they believed to be omissions. These included deminimis levels of radioactivity, recycling, mixed waste, and the failure to address the uranium mill tailings program.
D. Coments on Internal / External Factors Several commenters, (CORAR, Entergy, a private consultant, and NEI) took issue with the statement in the DSI paper that the need for new disposal capacity is less than that of 10 years ago. The staff had noted in the DSI paper that
- interim storage appears to have presented few problems." NEI pointed out that this statement ignores the costs associated with interim storage (" tens of millions of dollars") and the future impact of utility deregulation on cost pressures.
E. Commet: on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions The Commission, in its preliminary view, requested specific comments on two issues, as noted below:
Should NRC encourage an integrated approach to the regulation of LLW handling, processing, recycle, and disposal?
In the Colorado meeting, a representative of the CRCPD working group on LLW regulations reported that the group had recently discussed revising CRCPD model LLW regulations to include LLW management, including storage, treatment, processing, and handling, along with waste volume reduction and waste minimization. Thus, he concludeo, his group favors an integrated approach to regulation of LLW.
An NRC staff member pointed out that furtner clarification of what~ is meant by i
the Commission's being actively involved in the " development" of new I technologies is needed. He noted that the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 l
l Page 3-29 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Repott
L@MBC{ Waste u"m107 dlRRWQJ wAu7cs that created NRC prohibits the agency from process development and other ,
l '
activities and that this prohibition would need tt. be examined in the context -
i of the question. !
As noted in the previous section, several commenters noted that the p:per did not address deminimis levels of radioactivity, recycling, or mixed waste.
A1; hough their coments were not offered in response to this specific question, they provide some support for an integrated approach to waste management.
How should the NRC address unauthorized disposal?
No comments suggested that unauthorized disposal is a problem in the U.S.
However, the State of Utah expressed a major concern about brokers who arrange for disposal services for generators but lack sufficient funds for cleanup if they go out of business, and a similar concern if an unauthorized disposal were to occur. The comenter pointed out that funds, if available, would enable the State or the Federal Government to hire a third-party contractor.
The comenter also noted that NRC could establish a cleanup fund similar to EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act fund for such situations.
3.3.4 List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTS
- 1. July 24, 1996, Advisory Comittee on Radioactive Waste (Paul Pomeroy)
- 2. October 21, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert Quillin) l l
l 3. October 24, 1996, State of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection (Rich Janati)
! 4. October 25, 1996, John Randall, U.S. NRC l S. October 28, 1996, State of Washington (Terry Frazee)
L
! 6. October 29, 1996, Richard Barkley, U S. NRC i l 7. November 1, 1996, David Leroy, Attorney at law ;
l
! 8. November 3, 1996, Marvin Lewis i
4 9. November 4, 1996, State of New Hampshire (Diane Tefft)
- 10. November 5, 1996, State of Michigan (Flint Watt) t
- 11. November 6,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith H.
! Johnsrud)
- 12. November 7, 1996, State of Mississippi (Robert Goff)
- 13. November 8, 1996, State of Tennessee (Michael Mobley) i 14. November 12, 1996, State of California (Carl Lischeske)
Phase 11 Stakeholder intr ~nion Report Page 3-30
. . . . _ . _ _ _ ~ .
. Low-Ine! Waste
, Senmary Analysis of Comments
.- November 13, 1996, State of Oregon (David Stewart-Smith}
15.
- 16. November 14, 1996, League of Women Voters of Rockford,-IL (Betty Johnson)
- 17. November 14, 1996, November 14, 1996, State of Oregon (Ray Paris)
- 18. November 14, 1996, State of New Jersey, LLW Siting Board (Paul ,
Wyszkowski)
- 19. November 14, 1996, State of South Carolina (M.K. Batavia) ,
- 20. November 15, 1996, State of Nebraska (Steven J. Moeller)
- 21. November 15, 1996, League of Women Voters of Rockford, IL (Betty l Johnson)
- 22. November 18, 1996, Siemens (L.J. Maas)
- 23. November 20, 1996, State of Massachusett.s (Joe Ring)
- 24. November 21, 1996, State of Louisiana (Ronald Wascom)
- 25. November 21, 1996, State of Georgh (Thomas E. Hill)
- 26. November 21, 1996, State of Utah (William J. Sinclair)
- 27. November 22, 1996, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Gary J. Taylor) ;
- 28. November 25, 1996, Westinghouse (N.J. Liparulo)
- 29. November 27, 1996, Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas D. Ryan)
- 30. November 27, 1996, State of Texas (Richard Ratliff)
- 31. November 27, 1996, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (William P. Dornsife)
- 32. November 27, 1996, Council on Radior uclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (Roy W. Brown)
- 33. November 27, 1996, Detroit Edison (Douglas R. Gipson)
- 34. December 2,1996, ASME International (Stacy Jarboe)
- 35. December 2, 1996, Phillip R. Reed, U.S. NRC
- 36. December 2, 1996, Florida Power Corporation (Steven Garry) l
- 37. December 2, 1996, Envirocare of Utah (Charles Judd)
- 38. December 2,1996, riel Silberberg & Associates (Mel Silberberg)
- 39. December 2, 1996, S't ate of Ohio (Pobert Owen)
- 40. December 2, 1996, State of New Jersey (Jill Lipoti)
Page 3-31 ;
Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaaion Report
me Summary Analysis of Comments
- 41. December 2, 1996, Yankee Atomic Electric (Jane Grant) '
- 42. December 2,1996, State of Maryland (Roland G. Fletcher)
- 43. December 2, 1996, Entergy (Michael J. Meisner)
~
- 44. December 2,1996, State of Connecticut (Ron Gingerich)
- 45. December 2, 1996, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. (Ashok Dhar)
- 46. December 2,1996, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (Charles B.
Brinkman)
- 47. December 2, 1996, National Mining Association (Richard L. Lawson)
- 48. December 2,1996, State of Illinois (Thomas W. Ortciger)
- 49. December 3, 1956, No Name ORAL COMMENTS Washington, D.C. (October 24-25, 1996) pages 5 - 59
- 1. Lynette Hendricks, NEI
- 2. Paul Genoa, NEI
- 3. Tony Thompson, Shaw Pittman
- 4. R'th u McBurney, CRCPD
- 5. Steve Collins, OAS
- 6. Lynn Fairobent, ATL International Inc.
- 7. Ray Daniels, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
- 8. Ed Regnier, DOE
- 9. Tom Hill, CRCPD
- 10. Jim Riccio, Public Citizens' Critical Mass Energy Project
- 11. Jane Fleming, NNSN D.N.A.C.
Colorado Springs, CO (October 31 - November 1,1996) pages 370 -397
- 1. Marti Mitchell, Roy F. Weston
- 2. William Sinclair, 0AS -
3 .. Ken Weaver, State of Colorado and CRCPD Chicago, IL (November 7-8, 1996) pages 4 - 37
- 1. Gar < ion Appel, State of Illinois Page 3-32 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Repon
)
- , inimi % e j snmmay Analpit of comnwats !
l
- 2. Thor Strong, State of Michigan l
- 3. Kristin Erickson, Michigan State University
- 4. Mark Doruff, CORAR
- 5. Betty Johnson, LWV of Rockford l
i i
l l
3 P
v P
4 l
Page 3 33 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaalon Report
LGB92Elit' esse Summary Analysis of Comments l .
This page was intentionally left blank.
1
]
1 1
1
)
l l ,
1 i
Page 3-34 Phase 11 Stakeholder Ents :sion Repon
[
,