ML20154N614
| ML20154N614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1978 |
| From: | Meyers S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220038 | |
| Download: ML20154N614 (18) | |
Text
.--
&'s ,. g. . g i.
/
' STATEMENT OF SHELDON MEYERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FUEL CYCLE AND MATERIAL SAFETY, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS, USNRC, BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE HOF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES CONGRESS ON FEBRUARY 23, 1978.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's responsibilities and activities concerning the Sheffield, Illinois, shallow land burial site and the Morris, Illinois, spent fuel storage facility. I hope my testimony today will assist you in analyzing the problems raised at the Chicago Hearings held by this subcommittee on December 9,1977 and the actions NRC is taking to deal with them.
I will first address the Sheffield site.
SHEFFIELD The Sheffield, Illinois, shallow land burial facility is one of six commercial shallow land burial grounds that has operated in the United States. It is the only site located in a non-Agreement State where disposal of source and byproduct material are directly regulated by the NRC. The remaining burial grounds are located in States having Agreements with the NRC to regulate the possession and use of source, byproduct and small quantities of special nuclear material (SNM) in their Sta'tes. [ Table 1 is a listing of the commercial burial grounds in the United States and their current status.]
9810220038 780223 O PDR ORG NOMA
't 8 .
?. .
p O O f
Enabling legislation was passed in 1963 by Illinois to permit the State health department to license the disposal of low level waste in the State. Later that year, California Nuclear, Inc.' presented a proposal to establish a site in the State, but this was not acted upon until the health department issued criteria for such a site in 1965. Accompanying the criteria was a solicitation for proposals from industry to operate the site. Responses were reviewed by the Health Department, and in October, California Nuclear was selected. The Illinois geology and health departments assisted California Nuclear in locating a site and after preliminary investigations of several regions, narrowed the search to the Sheffield area--an area that had been heavily strip mined in the past. A geohydrologic investigation was conducted and the site was eventually approved by the Illinois geology and health departments, and later by AEC in consultation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
During the AEC licensing actions, there were several opportunities for l citizen involvement. There was considerable coverage and comment on the proposed site in the local new +,,ers. Also, representatives of California Nuclear held at least three meetings with civic groups from the Sheffield area prior to a well publicized zoning hearing in Mineral on July 29, 1966. At the hearing, the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals voted to recommend re-zoning the site acreage from agriculture to light industrial.
W -
- - 9 9 f Later that year, the AEC held an informal meeting with the-applicant, state officials, and lecal community leaders to discuss the site; sub-sequently, Federal Register notices proposing first the collection, and !
~ then .the burial of low level wastes at Sheffield were issued. In both i'
cases, the opportunity was presented to the public to request a hearing regarding the site. No hearings were requested, however, and the site was licensed to operate.
i 1
In accordance with AEC (and now NRC) regulations, which require that radioactive waste disposal be carried out on land owned by the State or l Federal governments, the land on which the Sheffield site is located was deeded to the State of Illinois in October of 1966. As part of the lease agreement, the State imposed a fee of $50.00 per year plus a fee.
l-I of $0.05 for each cubic foot of waste to be buried. The State chose to place the money into the general funds rather than establish an escrow account. As part of the licensing action, the State agreed to take responsibility of surveillance and maintenance obligations at the close of site operations.
A monitoring program was established for the site, and in August 1967,
- the first burial was authorized at Sheffield. The Nuclear Engineering Company (NECO) acquired control of California Nuclear and the burial i
license was transferred to NECO in March 1968. ' Later that year, NECO filed-
[ .for renewal of its license. The renewal application was deemed timely i
V c
o o 1
filed, and in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and the Commission's regulations, NEC0's license has not expired pending final action by the government. NECO continues to operate under this license as amended.
1 Following its formation in January 1975, the NRC requested, in July of 1975, an up-to-date license application and an environmental report i regarding the Sheffield site. NEC0 filed these documents 18 months later J
in December 1976, along with a request for site expansion to 188 acres.
The next month, a license amendment was issued based on a separate pending !
application which completely updated the Sheffield radiation safety program, environmental monitoring program, and site operation. However, no action was taken on the license renewal pending the review of the licensee's
- Environmental Report, in which considerable amount of information was identified as proprietary by the applicant. In September of 1977. NECO withdrew its proprietary status request for information essential to the EIS.
I j A concern raised at the hearings was the failure of the government to i-act on the Sheffield license renewal application since 1968. Delay was related to AEC policy changes regarding transuranic (TRU) waste j management and limited manpower. The manpower problem was eased in l-
O O
11975 .when the NRC established a functional unit for waste management. l Since 1975, when an up-to-date license application was requested by
' the NRC, items pacing the review of the license have been the delay on the part of the applicant in submitting an environmental report and resolution of the applicant's request for proprietary status regarding environmental information'about the site. In. retrospect, however, the l 1
length of time the Sheffield license has been under review is inexcusable.
i Following NECO's withdrawal of its proprietary request, the NRC has ;
progressed steadily on its environmental review. On December 5, 1977 the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Sheffield site and of opportunity
!- for hearing. Currently the NRC is selecting a contractor to prepare the I EIS and our_ schedule calls for publication of the EIS this year.
l-The NRC is also reviewing a separate application for a license amendment i to construct additional trenches within the already licensed site by the compact and fill method. On January 6,1978, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice that it was reviewing this application and requested public comments. The Commission has received three requests for a hearing on this application and for preparation of an EIS, which i
l
o>
9 o :
i are under. consideration by the Commission itself. The information {
1 submitted by NEC0'for this application is not yet adequate for us to reach any conclusion regarding these trenches.
i l
- A review of. the Commission's inspection history indicates no significant l problems or significant Items of Noncompliance with the operation of the l L Sheffield site. Inspections have been conducted at 6 to 12 month I
. intervals except for a 35 month period from 1970 to 1973 when no
- - inspections were conducted by the AEC. It is noted that no violations ]
were found during three inspections before the 1970-1973 period or during '!
l .the April 1973 inspection at the end of the period. The gap in AEC inspec- l l
tions was due to an oversite when responsibility for inspection of the site l
[ ' was' shifted from one regional office to another. There was an administra-- t l
tive error and it has been corrected. During the period in question Illinois inspectors did inspect the site.
e When Sheffield was commissioned, the facility was intended as a disposal site for radioactive wastes in the midwest region. This has proved to be I the case. Currently about 71% of the waste buried at Sheffield originates
> from the midwest. Forty-four percent of all waste buried at the site p comes from Illinois. Low level wastes, such as those buried at Sheffield, l: originate from both nuclear power reactor operations and from licensees L
L that use radioisotopes in medicine, research, universities and industry.
3 Radioisotope users account for about 40% of the wastes buried at i-
- , commercial sites.
L l . , . -. -
- . _ > m._ - . _._ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . - . _ _ _ .
i It.has been suggested that States not accept radioactive wastes generated in States other than their own. While we hold no position regarding ;
l
.which States should have a burial ground, we do believe.we have an obligation to control unnecessary proliferation of waste. sites. If l
States were to limit disposal of waste in the State to that which is 1 generated within the State, as many as 50 waste sites would have to be l licensed--a situation we think is undesirable. The amount of land set
~
i aside in this.way would be in excess of that necessary to accommodate !
the wastes generated, and would needlessly restrict the land from alternate uses. The NRC would prefer to make maximum use of a few sites. It makes little sense to dedicate many new sites to waste disposal l if a1 few can do the job. On December 7,1977 the NRC published a state-ment in' the Federal Register which stated that new sites should be l
established only if there is a demonstrated need for additional capacity. i Some confusion seems to have developed over the types and amounts of i
! wastes buried at the Sheffield facility. 'At Sheffield these.are
. limited to activity levels of one curie per cubic foot. Through 1976, 2.4 million cubic feet of wastes containing 46,500 curies of byproduct material, 188,000 pounds of source material, and 48.5 kilograms of special nuclear
-material have been buried at the Sheffield site. [The approximate volume and quantity of accumulated commercial waste buried at all six commercial . burial grounds t.hrough 1976 is given in Table 2.] The t ,
l - Sheffield facility is fourth in total volume of wastes buried and contains the least quantity of radioactivity.
i
- . . _ . _ . . . ~ . - - . - . - - , , - . - _ . _ . - - - . . . - -
O O Concern about safeguards has also been expressed for. plutonium and enriched uranium buried at Sheffield. By license condition,' no single waste package 235 233 may contain more than 100 grams of 0, 60 grams of U, or 60 grams !
of Pu. Since 1975 plutonium in concentrations greater than 10 nanocuries/ l gram have not been buried at the site. .No single package may contain i
more than 15 grams of special nuclear material (SNM) per cubic foot i
! of volume. The 48.5 kg of SNM (including 13.4 kg of Pu) are buried widely interspersed in 2.4 million cubic feet of waste. As each burial trench contains about as much dirt fill as low-level waste, nearly five million cubic feet of material would have to be excavated and 4 subjected to considerable physical and chemical separation in order to l l
recover the SNM in a useable form. 1 I !
l With regard 'to the ongoing monitoring program, tritium was detected in 1
test wells _ adjacent to the Sheffield burial trenches in late 1976. In t.
L late 1977 small amounts of tritium were detected in a test well approxi- I mately 70 feet from the nearest burial trench. Recent data (January 1978) indicates that the concentration of tritium in this well is about ,
10 nCf / liter, which is a factor of 300 less than the NRC limits for tritium concentrations for release to unrestricted areas. These limits are based upon recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), National Council on Radiation Protection ;
and Measurements (NRCP), and the Federal Radiation Council. From the available data, the tritium appears to be migrating laterally to the i
s
n :. .
p V
h i l
I south'and southeast at a rate of 20-25 feet per year. At this rate, it
~
would take the tritium about 28 years to move to a surface discharge point about 700 feet away.- By this time, if it is conservatively assumed that l'
existing groundwater does not act as a dilutent, radioactive decay would
. reduce the tritium concentrations to less .than 1/4 of its present levels.
In reality, groundwater will- certainly dilute it below these levels.
L Thus far, only tritium has been detected. The tritium has not progressed i
into an' uncontrolled area and its movement is being carefully monitored l
by test wells established for the express. purpose of detecting potential nuclide migration. None of these sampling wells is otherwise used by either the site personnel or' the general public. Although the NRC f does not' feel that this presently poses a radiological health or l
l, safety risk to the surrounding population, studies are nonetheless l
being conducted to determine the cause and potential impact of the L migration. A range of possible corrective measures may be applied if
' investigations determine that they are warranted.
l
- j. The geology and hydrology of the site is currently under close review by both'the State of Illinois and the NRC. It may be noted that the geohydrologic suitability of a given site is governed by a complex series of interactions; including climate, hydrology, subsurface
~
-geology, permeability, porosity, sorptive potential, seismic potential, and the geologic history of the area. Field investigations of sites y
N' I
- ._ . .. . - . - - . = . .
~ '
O O I
I l coupled with laboratory measurements are utilized to establish parameters to model. the potential velocity and direction of waste movement. A i
factor tending to increase the movement of radionuclides is availability of circulating groundwater. A factor tending to decrease the movement of nuclides is a high ion exchange capacity in the soil. In the geohydrologic models, no credit is allowed for the packages in which the wastes are buried; only the geologic medium is credited with the containment of the wastes. The models are then used to calculate possible concentrations of nuclides at given site boundaries. Reasonable assurances must be established that the calculated concentrations will always be well below the maximum concentration limits tabulated in 10 l CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
Our understanding of the principles governing shallow land burial and geologic containment has shown steady improvement since the time of the establishment of the waste sites in the 1960s. For example, certain elements previously considered immobile are recognized to be -
potentially mobilized by chemical means, such as by organic chelating agents. It is also recognized that tritium does not necessarily need a transport medium such as circulating groundwater in order to migrate.
Nuclide migration is a slow process, and when detected, appropriate countermeasures can be instigated well before any hazard to the public health and safety arises. Instrumental in migration detection are the site monitoring procedures established for just that purpose.
l
L 1
The NRC is currently involved in a number of ongoing and planned l i
g programs designed to establish adequate models, performance criteria, and regulations. These are described in a document entitled "The NRC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program"-(NUREG-240). For
. example, the program includes development of acceptable risk criteria, a method of classification of wastes suitable for shallow land burial
- l. and the development of standards and regulations for shallow land burial.
Standards undergoing development include criteria for solids performance and waste acceptance, site suitability, site design, site operation, and' improved monitoring. The NRC is assisting the USGS in a study of-existing commercial burial- sites to more completely determine the j processes and underlying principles controlling radioactive migration through soil. In cooperation with the USGS and the EPA.- the NRC is
(
initiating studies to model radionuclide migration at West Valley and Maxey Flats. The other two eastern sites (Sheffield and Barnwell, j i
South Carolina) will also be modeled. Standards related to site decom-
.missioning, long term maintenance and funding for these activities are
- also being developed. Following development of these standards, the I Commission will make its decision on Federal versus State regulation and control of the sites and make its final recommendations to Congress.
Regulations and a comprehensive series of regulatory guides are scheduled to be developed by 1980. It.is noted that the report of the House Committee on Government Operations based on a study by the Conservation, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee in the 94th Congress (House 1
I
! l
.._ . . _ . , - _ _. m.. . _.__ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ .
O O 12 -
Report No. 94-1320, June 30,1976) has been helpful in providing guidance to the staff in formulating our program.
Now I would like to summarize the NRC actions related to Sheffield.
First, no public health and safety problems have been identified. A site monitoring program has been established which is designed to detect potential problems in sufficient time to take any needed correc-tive measures. An NRC program to upgrade shallow land burial practices is underway and is being coordinated with those Federal agencies (such as'the EPA, USGS, or the DOE) having expertise that can be applied to improving waste disposal practices. Also, the NRC staff has taken steps to initiate the preparation of the EIS for the Sheffield site and to provide the oppotunity for public hearings. Further, the site is inspected at regular intervals. by both the NRC and the Illinois health department. As a result, we believe that although there have been deficiencies in the past, NRC is responsibly fulfilling its duty to protect '
the public health and safety in its regulation of the Sheffield site.
l r
1-I l
l,
. . _ _ ._ __ > ... __ . .. _ . _ -. ~_ _.__ _ _ _ .- -. __ _ __ _.._.
13 -
i
!3 MORRIS-
. Let me now turn to the Morris spent fuel storage facility.
l The General Electric installation at Morris, Illinois, (GE-Morris) presently operates under Specia: Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1265.
Although the installation was originally designed to be an entire reproc-essing plant, it was never placed into active use and is currently only
- being used-to store spent fuel. It currently has a spent fuel storage capac'ity of-750 metric tons, and at present, approximately 300 metric tons are onsite. l I
L In 1967 the AEC issued the General Electric Company a construction
. permit for a spent fuel reproces' sing plant at Morris, Illinois. The plant was completed-including its spent fuel storage facilities in 1971.
The.first spent fuel was received at GE-Morris in January of 1972.
L
- During this time period, safety and environmental review for the entire l reprocessing plant including the spent fuel storage pool were completed; and a: Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) were issued in 1972. These documents consider both the safety and the environmental impacts from the complete facility--both from the fuel storage and from the reprocessing operation.
k J
W 't Of w - a w - P,
_ . . -, . . . _ . . . ._. - . . - ~ . _ . - - - - . - . _ - . . _ - . _ . . . _ _ . _ -
o o Because of process difficulties experienced by GE during preoperational
' testing of the: reprocessing plant, GE decided in 1974 not to operate the l --
reprocessing plant. As a result, the reprocessing plant itself was j- never contaminated from reprocessing and presents no radiological problem
- today. The spent fuel holding pools represent the only nuclear operation at the site.
l-Because GE had several outstanding contracts with their customers-for
(
I
- reprocessing services, the spent fuel holding pool capacity was expanded
- to 750 metric tons from the original holding capacity of 100 metric tons. The spent fuel currently at GE-Morris is either fuel owned by the l General Electric Company or is fuel which GE has accepted fron utilities w'ith which GE had reprocessing obligations. When the storage capacity ;
was-increased from the original-_100 metric tons to 750 metric tons, this ,
l 1
. was done by more efficient use of the already existing spent fuel holding
- i. :
pools. No new pools were constructed. At that time, NRC reviewed the change and performed an Environmental Appraisal in addition to preparing
( ' a Safety Evaluation Report. Notice of this approval was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1975. The present operations being
- conducted at GE-Morris have all received detailed analysis by NRC and have gone through the full public process as provided by the National i Environmental Policy Act and all applicable rules contained in Title 10, a
Code of Federal Regulations.
1 i
J l
+ n - , . ,
~
O O !
I General Electric submitted to us in early 1977 an application for an even further expansion of the Morris spent fuel storage capacity by another 11'00 metric tons. The NRC staff has been reviewing this request, but it is too early in the review to provide any conclusions on the adequacy or desirability of this expansion. On October 18, 1977, the Department of Energy announced a new national policy for dealing with the spent fuel problem. This policy essentially involves the Federal l
Government taking title to and possession of excess spent fuel from utilities. Exact details, however, on how this might work have not been formul ated. On November 8, 1977, General Electric requested that the l proceedings on the expansion at Morris be suspended indefinitely to give ,
them time to see what bearing the new national policy might have on l their operation. The present spent fuel storage operation at GE is not l
intended and never has been intended by either GE or t'.1e Commission for l final storage of spent f,tel. The facility only provides temporary l
l storage space for fuel unuf1 such time as the spent fuel is reprocessed l
or is transferred to a federal repository for final disposal.
I Now I would like to discuss briefly the health, safety, and environmental 1
, concerns involving a spent fuel storage facility. First of all, it is l
important to point out that spent fuel storage or holding facilities such as GE-Morris are generally used to hold fuel which has been removed I
i from the reactor for a year or more. The longer the fuel is out of the reactor, the less radioactive it becomes. Spent fuel elements such as those stored at the GE-Morris facility contain less than 1% of the
. 16 -
l !
1 radioactivity contained in freshly discharged spent fuel elements such as that being held at the onsite spent fuel facilities of nuclear reactors.
Concurrently, the residual or decay heat due to the radioactive decay is
.also greatly reduced. This has an important bearing on possible environ-mental impacts such as that wh'ich might occur due to accidents involving i
loss of cooling.
l 1
- l. i
! Another major concern is that unless something is done with the nation's spent fuel, there will be a proliferation of spent fuel storage sites.
4 The staff has recently completed a Draft Generic Environmental Impact l Statement on Spent Fuel Storage in which the environmental impacts of facilities such as Morris were investigated in some detail. In our GEIS, j we found that even if reprocessing or direct disposal of fuel were not
. to occur, to the ' year 2000, five or six spent fuel storage facilities l . away from reactors of about five to seven thousand ton capacity each
- would be sufficient for all domestic spent fuel needs.
.In summary then, we feel that the present operation at GE-Morris is safe, presents no undue hazard to the general public, and that the
- l. sequence of events which has led to the licensing of the facility was arrived at in an open and above board manner with full public notice and public participation.
l
~
TABLE B-l' Connercial Waste Burial Grounds ;
Originally Licensed Currently- -Operational Location Operator by:(year) Licensed by Status Beatty, Nuclear Engineering AEC (1962)- State Open Nevada Co., Inc. (NECO)
Maxey Flats, NECO Kentucky (1962) State . Closed I;entucky West Valley, Nuclear Fuel New York Services New York (1963) State Closed h 1
llanford, NECO AEC (1965) State & NRC* Open Washington Sheffield, NECO AEC (1967) NRC Open Illinois Barnwell, Chem-Nuclear South (1971) State & NRC* Open S. Carolina Systems, Inc. Carolina
- NRC. licenses only Special Huclear Material.
O O
b t
. >~-
. APPROXIMATE VOLIRlE AND QUANTITY 0F C0!ffERCIAL-WASTE BURIAL l
Cl#10LATIVE TIIR00Gil 1976 3
-Volume (ft ) BPM *(C1) Source (lbs) Stiff *(Kgm) Pu(Kgm)
Deatty, llevada 1,970,000 132,000 121,000 180 14.3
~ llaxey Flats, Ky. 4,950,000 2,120,000 510,000 403 69.1.
llanford, liash.** ' 512,000 544,000~ 27,700 57.6 22.7 hi .
11 s t y , il Y.
~
0 54 0 0 60 00 8 .6 Darnuell, S. C. 3,520,000 343,000 337,000 343 0 't i
Totals 15,800,000 -3,730,000. 1,790,000 1100 123 i I
(rounded off) ,
- BPM, by product material; SNM, special nuclear material, including plutonium.
- At .the present time, only the Hanford site accepts Pu for burial in concentration above 10 nanocuries/ gram.
t J
i i
t 4
-. . . __ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ --n