Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
3718 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
THE
HONORABLE SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON
CHAIRMAN
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEEE
ENERGY AND POWER
SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1999
BODY:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HIGH
LEVEL WASTE TESTIMONY OVERVIEW
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is pleased to testify regarding the U.S.
program for management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent
nuclear fuel. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss our observations on the
progress of the Department of Energy (DOE) program to characterize the
Yucca Mountain Site as a potential geological repository,
including the recently-released viability assessment, and to present the
Commission views on H.R. 45, the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999." I also will
address the NRC efforts to establish site- specific licensing requirements for
the proposed repository, and our general views on the Yucca
Mountain standards prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
The NRC continues to make progress under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
(NWPA) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA). We are meeting our
current obligations to provide a regulatory framework for the licensing of a
geologic repository and to consult with the DOE and other stakeholders in
advance of the license application. As part of our overall pre-licensing
strategy, we are concentrating our review on those key technical issues that are
most important to repository performance and, therefore, to licensing. Since we
refocused and streamlined our program in Fiscal Year 1996, I can report that the
NRC staff has progressed, completing substantive reports on the status of
resolution, at the staff level, of each of the key technical issues. These
reports ultimately will form the basis for the Yucca Mountain
review plan that will be used to guide our review of a license application.
VIABILITY ASSESSMENT
I will begin by discussing the status of the NRC
review of the DOE December 1998 Viability Assessment (VA). We received the VA in
late December, and review by the NRC staff is continuing. The Commission expects
to receive the results of the NRC staff review in mid-March. The principal
objectives of the NRC review are to assess the DOE program in preparing a
high-quality license application, to highlight significant information
deficiencies, and to identify any major concerns with the DOE test plans, design
concepts, or total system performance assessment. We define "major concerns" as
ones that might result in an incomplete or unacceptable license application.
These objectives are consistent with NRC responsibilities for preliminary
consultation under the NWPA. I am pleased to report that the NRC staff has
identified no major concerns with many important aspects of the VA. We believe
this can be attributed, in part, to the frequent, open interactions the NRC
staff has maintained with the DOE over the past year in preparing the VA. During
these public interactions, the DOE has furnished substantial information to our
staff in advance of the VA release, which has facilitated our review. We are
confident that the DOE recognizes many of the areas where additional work is
needed prior to licensing. However, the NRC staff is identifying some specific
issues during its review, which the staff will present to the Commission in
March 1999.
For example, we expect to highlight the increased attention the
DOE must give to the implementation of its Quality Assurance (QA) program for
Yucca Mountain. As part of our continuing pre-licensing
interactions, the NRC staff has identified persistent QA deficiencies in the DOE
program. While most of the issues were first brought to light by the DOE itself,
the DOE needs to be more effective in preventing and resolving these problems in
a timely manner. We understand that DOE management agrees with the need for
improving the QA program and is moving aggressively to make the necessary
upgrades prior to submitting its license application. The DOE recently briefed
the NRC staff (December 9, 1998) on its plans for corrective action, and plans
to meet with the NRC in April 1999 to present their results. In response, the
NRC has formed a team to determine whether the DOE has identified the problems
adequately and implemented the needed corrective actions.
We are encouraged
by the clear improvements in the overall DOE program, including planning,
focusing on a "safety case" for licensing, and communicating with the NRC.
However, it is important to emphasize that the ultimate responsibility rests
with the DOE for demonstrating that licensing requirements are met to protect
public health and safety and the environment. The Commission independently must
assess and find "with reasonable assurance" that such demonstration has been
made prior to licensing the repository. Among other things, the timely NRC
review of a potential license application, consistent with the schedules laid
out in the VA, depends on receipt of a high-quality license application from the
DOE, a scientifically based and demonstrable standard on dose limits, and
sufficient resources for the NRC to maintain its independent technical review
capability.
The NRC HLW program remains on schedule consistent with our
responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. We are developing the regulatory framework and review
criteria to prepare ourselves to review a repository license application from
the DOE in 2002. We expect to comment on the DOE draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for a proposed Yucca Mountain repository in
Fiscal Year 2000, and to provide comments on the DOE site recommendation in
Fiscal Year 2001. Through early NRC staff identification and resolution of key
technical issues for repository licensing, we are preparing to complete our
review of the DOE license application in three years. We also have recently
completed rulemaking to establish a Licensing Support Network, using web-based
technology, to facilitate access to supporting documents to expedite the review
of the license application.
DRAFT PROPOSED EPA STANDARDS
Let me turn now
to your second area of interest, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
efforts to develop radiation standards for the repository. The EPA is obligated,
under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to issue final health-based standards for
Yucca Mountain that are based on, and consistent with, the
recommendations and findings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS
reported its findings to the EPA on August 1, 1995. The Commission, under the
same Act, must modify, if needed, its technical criteria to be consistent with
the final EPA standards within a year of their issuance.
The Commission is
aware of continued efforts by the EPA over the last two years to develop
radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. To facilitate this
process, the NRC and EPA staffs have held several meetings for the exchange of
information. The Commission also is aware of recent discussions between the EPA
and the DOE, to which the NRC is not always privy, that may have resulted in
revisions to the current EPA approach. The EPA and DOE staffs have advised the
NRC staff that the EPA soon may move forward with interagency review of the
draft standards. The NRC plans to review these draft standards when they become
available to determine whether they raise any implementation issues.
Because we anticipate that we will have only a very short period in
which to issue final implementing regulations once the final EPA standards are
issued, the Commission initiated its own rulemaking in parallel with the
development of the EPA standards. The NRC staff provided the Commission a draft
proposed rule last October, which the Commission released to the public
concurrent with the Commission review. The Commission recently approved
publication of proposed regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 with some minor
modifications. In fact, the proposed rule is expected to be published for public
comments soon. We believe that we have an obligation to make public now our
intended approach for implementing the health-based standards called for by the
Congress, in order for the DOE to begin preparing a license application, and to
allow for timely and meaningful public involvement in the development of our
implementing regulations.
Our proposed regulations include an individual
dose limit, which we believe is generally consistent with the requirements of
Section 801 of the Energy Policy Act and with the recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences. We propose an all-pathways standard of 25 millirem
per year expected dose to the average member of the group which receives the
greatest exposure, the so called "critical group." We believe such a standard is
protective of public health and safety and the environment. It also is
consistent with standards for other waste management facilities licensed by the
NRC, and with national and international recommendations for radiation
protection. As our proposed rule makes clear, the NRC will amend its regulations
in the proposed 10 CFR Part 63, if needed, to conform to the final EPA
standards, or to any new legislation that may be enacted.
H.R. 45
Finally, I will offer our views on the proposed legislation, H.R. 45, the
subject of the hearing this morning. In general, the Commission agrees with the
fundamental approach taken in H.R. 45. This Bill contains the basic elements of
an integrated system for the management and disposal of high-level radioactive
waste that is necessary for the protection of the public health and safety, the
environment, and the common defense and security. These elements include central
interim storage and deep geologic disposal, together with a transportation
program linking the elements together. Moreover, H.R. 45 recognizes that the
overall, long-term success of the national program to manage spent fuel and
other high-level radioactive waste requires a permanent disposal solution.
As an interim measure, the NRC considers available technologies for wet and
dry storage of spent fuel at reactor sites to be safe, but we view dry storage
as the preferred method for supplementary storage of spent fuel at operating
plants. Continued at-reactor storage, for an interim period, will continue to
protect public health and safety. However, we believe that centralized interim
storage of spent fuel in dry cask storage systems offers several beneficial
features. A centralized interim storage facility, when compared with dispersed
storage at about 75 sites across the country, would allow for more focused
inspection and surveillance by both the DOE and the NRC. In addition, such a
facility would be more efficient (especially at permanently shut-down
facilities), and would afford operational and programmatic benefits for the DOE
program for accepting waste from utilities. However, as the regulator of such a
facility, the NRC takes no position as to where a centralized facility should be
located. For any proposed site, the Commission must make the appropriate safety,
security and environmental findings before issuing the license.
Section 204
of H.R. 45 establishes a two-phased licensing process for an interim storage
facility. In the first phase, the DOE is required to submit an application for a
twenty-year license for a facility with a capacity of not more than 10,000
metric tons of uranium (MTU) within 12 months of enactment of the Act. The draft
legislation provides that the Commission may accept or reject this application
within 36 months. In the second phase, the DOE will submit an application for a
license with an initial term of 100 years, which would be renewable for
additional terms, and have a capacity of 40,000 MTU. The DOE would be allowed to
commence construction as soon as it submits its first application; however, the
NRC may suspend construction if it determines that there is unreasonable risk to
the public health and safety.
If the initial license were granted, an
effective way to implement the second phase would be to amend the original
license to accommodate an increase in capacity. I hasten to add that the NRC
regulations currently allow site-specific interim storage license terms for 20
years, which may be renewed for another 20 years. The NRC regulations would need
to be revised to permit a 100-year license. The NRC staff has begun only
recently to evaluate the technical considerations associated with licensing of
dry cask storage systems and facilities for a period of 20 to 100 years. We have
not identified any safety or environmental issues that would preclude issuance
of a license for 100 years. However, given the information available at this
time, we have not yet determined that 100 years should be established as the
license term for an above-ground, centralized interim storage facility. Whatever
the specified term for second phase, from an NRC perspective, an effective way
to implement the second phase would be to amend the original license to
accommodate an increase in capacity.
As you may know, the NRC currently is
reviewing the DOE May 1997 topical report for a non-site-specific centralized
interim storage facility. The NRC staff expects to complete its review by
October 1999. The NRC Assessment Report will provide an early indication of the
acceptability and feasibility of the DOE approach to centralized interim
storage, which should be useful to the DOE prior to its submission of a license
application.
H.R. 45 also recognizes the importance of the integrated
transportation of spent fuel and high-level waste in the current regulatory
system. The NRC supports the requirement that NRC-certified packages be used for
these activities. To this end, we currently are reviewing six commercial designs
for dual-purpose storage/transportation cask systems. By December 2000, we
anticipate that all of the storage reviews and two of the transportation reviews
should be completed.
We have identified three specific changes to the
proposed legislation that should be considered. First, Section 202 would require
that the Secretary of Energy use routes that minimize the transportation of
spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste through populated areas to the
maximum practicable extent, and consistent with Federal requirements governing
transportation of hazardous materials. This provision is not consistent with the
route selection requirements for spent fuel shipments not subject to this Act.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) currently has established highway
routing rules that apply to spent fuel shipments, and they currently do not
require avoidance of populated areas. The routing rules were developed by the
DOT after extensive public involvement and have proven successful. In fact, the
current DOT rules require the use of the interstate system, an implication that
spent fuel shipments may transit populated areas. Further, the avoidance of such
routes might increase shipment distance, time, and risk. Therefore, it is not
clear that this provision enhances public health and safety.
Section 203
states that "acceptance by the Secretary of any spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste shall constitute a transfer of title to the Secretary." If the
transfer were to take place at the utilities prior to shipment, the material
would become DOE-titled material, not NRC-licensed material, at the time of
shipment. Under current statute, shipment by the DOE of DOE-titled material is
not currently subject to the NRC transportation safety or physical security
requirements. Consequently, unless it is explicitly spelled out in H.R. 45, the
NRC would have no oversight role of such shipments, including inspection of the
shipments for radiological safety, or review and approval of shipment physical
security plans. Although the shipments would be subject to the DOT Hazardous
Material Regulations, many stakeholders expect that such shipments would be
subject to regulation by the NRC. For the NRC to assume this role, H.R. 45 would
need to be modified to require NRC oversight of the shipments.
With regard
to transportation, we agree with the incorporation of emergency response
training requirements in H.R. 45. We believe this mechanism would provide for a
more coordinated review and would enhance consensus building. We would look
forward to consulting with the DOT and others on the scope and elements for
required training.
The Commission strongly supports including in H.R. 45
permanent, deep geologic disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste
as an essential element of the integrated system, described in H.R. 45. The
Commission continues to believe that deep underground disposal is a sound and
technically feasible solution to the problem of final disposition of spent
nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes. Because the Waste
Confidence decision of the Commission is predicated on the eventual availability
of disposal in a mined geologic repository, we strongly support the inclusion of
Section 204(g).
Such a provision would permit the Commission to base its
waste confidence determinations not only on the DOE obligation to construct and
operate an interim storage facility, but also on its obligation to develop and
implement the integrated spent fuel management system, including permanent, deep
geologic disposal.
With regard to licensing schedules in H.R. 45, the
Commission supports the provision of 36 months for the NRC to review and
complete licensing action on an application for an interim storage facility. The
Commission also supports the approach taken in section 205(a)(1) to revoke the
DOE repository siting guidelines to allow the DOE to focus on developing a
high-quality repository license application.
The Commission also supports an
effective and efficient public hearing process. The Commission currently is
studying the NRC hearing process, including the process that would be used for
repository licensing. If, on the basis of this study, the Commission concludes
that changes to the hearing process are warranted, we will propose them for
adoption in a separate notice and comment rulemaking. In the Part 63 rulemaking,
the Commission is not seeking comment on potential changes to the hearing
process. However, in the interest of openness, the Commission wishes to say
that, at present, we are considering improvements to our hearing process to
increase its efficiency and effectiveness.
We believe that the timetables
established for licensing of both the interim storage facility and the
repository will be adequate, provided:
(1) That the license applications and
supporting documentation are submitted in a timely fashion and are of sufficient
quality, and (2) That sufficient resources are provided for the NRC programs to
accommodate concurrent pre-licensing and licensing reviews for the two
facilities. In order to meet the schedules and milestones described in H.R. 45,
the legislation would need to be enacted by June 1999.
With respect to the
proposed performance standard for the repository in H.R. 45, the Commission
considers 10,000 years to be a sufficient length of time to assess the isolation
capability of the system, including contributions from both engineered and
natural barriers. The Commission believes that the standard in H.R. 45 of an
annual effective dose of 100 mrem (1 mSv) to the average member of the general
population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain is consistent with
the protection of public health and safety. The Commission believes that, within
the context of implementing the 100 mrem annual dose limit specified in H.R. 45,
the NRC has the flexibility to implement the internationally accepted "average
member of the critical group" approach, using a reference biosphere, as
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, for application to the
Yucca Mountain repository. To provide reasonable assurance that
the 100 mrem annual limit will be met, the Commission anticipates that the
expected value for dose to the average member of the critical group would be
restricted to 25 mrem per year (as specified in our proposed 10 CFR Part 63). We
understand that H.R. 45 intends to give the Commission the flexibility to adopt
this approach.
Further, we support provisions in H.R. 45 on the scope of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) responsibilities of the NRC for
disposal that, consistent with existing law, direct the NRC to adopt the DOE
EIS, to the extent practicable, in the repository licensing proceeding. The
Commission also supports the provisions of the bill on specifying the scope of
the NRC EIS, requiring the generic consideration of transportation impacts, and
identifying the issues that should not be considered by the Commission under
NEPA for interim storage. The Commission also recommends that H.R. 45 make clear
that the NRC will not be required to prepare an EIS under section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA, or any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of the Act, in
connection with the issuance of disposal regulations in Section 205(b). This
would be comparable to existing law contained in section 121(c) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982.
CONCLUSION
The Commission agrees that H.R. 45
outlines an appropriate program for the permanent disposition of high-level
radioactive waste, by providing an integrated spent fuel management system,
on-site storage, centralized off-site storage, and deep geologic disposal, with
a transportation system to link them. However, the Commission is meeting its
obligations under existing law to prepare for licensing a geologic repository.
The Commission believes that its proposed Part 63 regulation is an appropriate
approach to ensure that the regulatory framework is sufficiently protective of
public health and safety and the environment and developed in a timely manner.
Whether under the existing law or a revised legislative framework, the U.S.
high-level waste program needs both statutory and institutional stability in
order to proceed in an orderly, efficient, timely, and effective fashion. The
Commission believes that, when coupled with sufficient resources to maintain
progress in all phases, H.R. 45 can supply this necessary stability. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide our views.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 17, 1999