ML20154N809
| ML20154N809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220099 | |
| Download: ML20154N809 (9) | |
Text
go 2llBO
.. .O TESTIMONY OF 3D 7 0;,,,a \
JOHN B. MA:tTIN DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
[ $
AUGUST 10, 1979 jf ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you some of the activities of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in nuclear waste management. I will' specifically try to respond to those questions you raised in your July 9,1979, letter to Chairman HendrieN. In doing so, I will briefly touch upon three facets of our program for radioactive waste management. These three elenents inci de: (1) the NRC's licensing and regulatory authority over facilities usec for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste material; (2) the licensing prot.edures .se are developing to review license applications for geologic repositories;.and (3) the role of states, and of New Mexico in particular, in the licensing process of a waste disposal facility.
1 In *ne July 9,1979, letter from Representative Harold Runnels, Chairman, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, to Dr. Joseph M. HendrN, Ch4 rman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, five questions were p;cd.
The2e included:
(i' If 00E were to gain congressional approval for NRC licensing of WIPP,
.vhat would be the timeframe in the licensing process?
(2) What is involved in the licensing process and what role would New Mexico play in the process?
(3' If NRC was to decide on a step-by-step licensing process of WIPP, would this mean that shaft construction could take place while NRC hearings are ongoingorwould there be no construction until NRC has completed its hearings and made a finaT decision?
(4) What NRC licensing authority exists with an Agreement State for the storage of defense waste in a non-defense facility?
(5) What agency of the Federal Government will fund the storage of defense wasn' 9810220099 790810 PDR ORG NOMA
-. -vn -i
. O O i l
'I l
NRC Licensing and Regulatory Authority l
I think it would be helpful to provide you with an overview of the '
NRC's present regulatory authority in the area of waste management. NRC authority to regulate radioactive waste is derived from three statutes:
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
The Atomic Energy Act authorized the NRC's predecessor--the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)--to license and regulate the possession and use of source, n byproduct, and special nuclear material. AEC facilities and certain defense V
activities were exempted from these licensing and regulatory requirements. The Act did not explicitly authorize regulation of radioactive waste facilities per ze.
Therefore, the NRC's authority to regulate waste under the Act is derived from ,
its authority over licensable radioactive materials. ! '
l The purpose of NEPA was to encourage productive harmony between man and !
his environment. . The Act r* quires a detailed environmental inpact statement I be prepared on any major fedar. action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
V Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred the AEC's licensing and regulatory authority to the NRC. The Energy Research and Development Administration, now a part of the DOE, was exempted from NRC licensing authority, except as provided in Section 202 of the Act.U USection 202, subsections (3) and (4) read as follows:
"(3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act."
(Atomic Energy Act)
"(4) Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level s radioactive waste generated by the Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research a' G development activities."
i
o fn
. LJ Section 202 provides the only explicit statutory authority for NRC licensing of DOE waste management facilities. Section 202, subsection (3), specifically requires an NRC license for any DOE facility used primarily for the receipt or storage of high-leve's radioactive waste resulting from activities licensed by the NRC.
Section 202, subsection (4), of the 1974 Act provides for NRC licensing !
of DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by DOE activities. However, j (N the long-term storage or disposal of DOE-generated high-level waste in a DOE
%)
research and development facility currently does not require an NRC license.
NRC licensing authority over DOE hm not been relinquished to the States through the Agreement State Program.
The NRC regulatory authority over commercial spent fuel disposed of in DOE geologic repositories is the same as our authority over other high-level wastes. NRC has no regulatory or licensing authority over DOE disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste or low-level waste (LLW).
fq Therefore, with regard to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) proposed v
by DOE near Carlsbad, if the repository is primarily for the disposal of TRU wastes, which is our understanding, then NRC does not have regulatory authority over that project under current legislation. Let me stress, though, that the Commissic has on several occasions urged expansion of NRC licensing authority to cover TRU waste disposal as has been recommended by the IRG.
l
. O O 4_
The Licensing Process NRC has the responsibility to review applications from DOE with respect to high-level waste disposal facilities and to determine whether radioactive materials can be. received and possessed at the proposed facilities without imposing unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, giving con-sideration'to the provisions of NEPA as to the protection of the environment.
I will first describe the licensing process we envision for high-level waste facilities. If we were to receive regulatory authority over WIPP, we most' likely would'use the same procedure.
O The licensing process which we will propose to carry out the review of an application and to make licensing decisions is being prepared for publication as a proposed rule for public comment in the early fall. This administrative rule is intended to provide a clear framework for the licensing review of geologic repositories, contains procedures for state involvement in the licensing process, and provides for public hearings preceding major NRC decisions. Subsequent to the publication of the administrative rule, the NRC will issue for public comment the technical requirements which describe the siting and design criteria O
V and fundamental performance requirements for geologic disposal.
The licensing process which I anticipate we will propose invnives our critical review of DOE proposals at a number of decision points. The licensing process has not yet been reviewed by the Commission and is subject to change.
The major NRC approvals envisioned are: (1) approval to construct the repository; (2)-approval to receive and emplace waste; and (3) closure of the repository.
This process is intended to ensure that at each succeeding step in the licensing process, our understanding of the behavior of waste in a repository will increase while the uncertainties associated with the information and data will decrease.
f
D D l
. O .
v i
Current scientific thinking on geologic repositories indicates that successful long-term isolation of high-level waste will be dependent upon the' geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the repository site. For this reason, it is necessary to have as complete a picture as practical of the geologic and hydrologic environment into which the wastes would be placed before making a decision to permit construction of the facility.
Exploration of repository sites at depth, i.e. , sinking of an exploratory shaft with lateral borings and in-situ testing at the planned depth of waste
~
q emplacement, is required to provide sufficient information and data to adequately v
assess the long term ability of the repository to isolate high-level wastes.
Furthermore, obtaining such information and data at several sites would permit a detailed comparison of the various sites that should promote the selection by DOE
~
of the environmentally preferred repo.:itory site.
Our current thinking on the development of a geologic repository is that DOE should characterize and evaluate several candidate sites prior to selecting one site for an application to the NRC for a construction authorization. Such an approach would permit DOE to conduct surface investigations, underground explora-im -
V tory investigations including sinking of an exploratory shaft, limited exploratory tunnels, in-situ tests, and experiments at several sites prior to submitting formal application for construction of a repository at any single site. It should be noted that characterization of several sites has been recommended by the IRG as being essential to the national program for the disposal of high-level waste. Prior to initiating such a characterization program, DOE would be required i to submit to the NRC and to make available to the public a site characterization report which, among other things, sets forth the rationale for selecting a particular site for detailed site characterization. The site characterization 1
. . . ._,m _ ___ . _ . _ . _ . _. ._ _ __ . . . _ . _ .
g .
. O O report should describe the site characterization program including the extent of planned excavations, plans for in-situ tests, and other investigative activities that DOE' intends to pursue. Site characterization activities conducted by DOE i
would.be carried out under the review and guidance of the NRC with opportunities for public comment and public meetings. The intent of this type of approach to licensing is to ensure that enough information and data is developed on a broad enough base so that the best licensing decisions can be made. Doing less may make it very difficult to conclude a construction authorization proceeding since basic information.might be missing. Investigating several sites will ensure O that the required technical data will be gathered without making a premature commitment to any one'particular site.
With regard to WIPP specifically, unless Congress authorizes WIPP to be treated as a special case, .the NRC staff recommends that the WIPP site be considered as a candidate for one of the several sites which DOE characterizes I in detail as part of the national waste management program. DOE should submit 1
- to the NRC and make available to the public a site characterization report for the WIPP site. This report should clearly indicate those activities that DOE O intends to Pursue in order to cherecterize tne site.
A decision on whether to pmceed with construction should not be made until other sites are fully characterized. At that time, a more informed decision could be made on the basis of detailed test data from the WIPP site as well as other sites. A selection could then.be made among the alternative sites as to which site is the preferred choice of 00E.
l l
l.
l
. . .. ._ . . _ - . . . . _ _.~ .. _ ._ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ ..._-.._. __ -
- O O We estimate that it will take from 9 to 12 years from receipt of an initial application, through the formal review and ' construction staces, to the granting of a license to receive wastes. Of this 9 to 12-year period, it is projected that approximately four years would be required to complete the initial construction authorization review. Construction of the facility and.various testing programs, including in-situ tests, would require from five to eight years.
While the four-year review period for the construction authorization may seem to be an excessive amount of time, we have recognized for some time that
..O the licensing review period for a first-of-a-kind repository facility will not be brief. First, although bedded salt has been discussed as a medium for geologic waste disposal for many years, the NRC staff has only begun in the last year to develop the technical understanding and the regulations for
' licensing such a facility. We are several years away from being ready to handle such an application. In addition to the many technical issues that will have.to be examined and resolved by the NRC prior to the issuance of a construction authorization, we anticipate a considerable amount of coordination between the NRC and other federal, state, and local agencies during the review process. _We feel that responsible interaction between various governmental agencie3 is an absolute necessity for a successful waste management program.
State Involvement in Licensing Process We want, and are. firmly comitted to obtaining, state involvement in our licensing process. NRC has been soliciting ideas and participation from
. states in workshops, Dublic meetings, and individual NRC/ state meetings for the past several years.
\
. (O C)'s With respect to the State of New Mexico, the NRC staff has been working closely with state officials in anticipation of reviewing the WIPP facility.
l Several meetings were held between the NRC staff and state representatives '
to discuss and explore possible mechanisms for state involvement in the NRC licensing review of the WIPP facility if NRC licensing should be required. l The most recent session was held in Santa Fe on March 1 and 2 of this year.
During this session, NRC staff members met with the Governor, members of the State legislature, and the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division. l Several proposals for improving state participation in the NRC licensing (lv process were discussed during these sessions. These included a personnel exchange program between the state and NRC, participation by the state in the l l
NRC licensing review of a repository application, and possible joint state /NRC l hearings on a repository application. Attached to this testimony is the minutes I of March 1,1979 meeting which describes in detail the various proposals that were discussed at that time. The Environmental Improvement Division of the state currently has these proposals under advisement. We expect to have
_ further discussions with state officials as the plans for the WIPP facility G
~
become better defined. It should be noted that the NRb intends to secure this V
type of working relationship with each state within which DOE proposes to characterize a site.
Implementation of any of these proposals will enhance the role of the state in the licensing process for WIPP, if NRC licensing were required, and would prove beneficial in that safety and environmental concerns of state officials could be identified and evaluated at early stages in the licensing review. In summary, we want a flexible procedure which would permit a state to participate in the NRC licensing process to the maximum extent of t
the state's capabilities and desires.
l l
t D. O l (j D. l
~ l The final question in your letter of invitation, Mr. Chairman, asked what agency of the Federal Government will fund the storage of defense waste. It is our understanding that funding for defense waste will come from the Departnent of Energy. However, a response to this question would be
, more appropriate from either DOE or the Department of Defense rather than the NRC. ,
j l
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to '
answer any questions that you or other Subcommittee members might have at this time.
() j l
I I
i u
1
.