Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
June 23, 2000, Friday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1982 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF CARL J. PAPERIELLO DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
MATERIALS, RESEARCH, AND STATE PROGRAMS UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
SUBJECT - HIGH-LEVEL
WASTE MANAGEMENT
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, members
of the Subcommittee, the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
pleased to testify about our regulatory oversight of the management and disposal
of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Among the subjects I
will discuss today are the status of our review of the Department of Energy's
(DOE's) program to characterize the Yucca Mountain Site as a
potential geological repository and our progress in establishing site-specific
licensing requirements for the proposed repository.
The Commission
continues to believe that a permanent geologic repository is the appropriate
mechanism for the United States to ultimately manage spent fuel and other
high-level radioactive waste. We believe the public health and safety, the
environment, and the common defense and security will be protected best by the
development of a comprehensive system for the management and disposal of high-
level radioactive waste, that includes storage, transportation and deep
underground disposal. In our view, a deep geologic repository is a sound and
technically feasible solution to the problem of final disposition of spent
nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes.
Status of NRC's
HLW Regulatory Program The NRC's High-level Waste (HLW) regulatory program
remains on course, consistent with our responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This
legislation specifies an integrated approach and a long-range plan for storage,
transport, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and HLW. It prescribes the
respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC, the DOE and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the nation's HLW program. The Congress
assigned NRC extensive prelicensing responsibilities and the regulatory
authority to issue a license, if appropriate, only after deciding whether a DOE
license application for a geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, complies with applicable standards and regulations.
The NRC staff is in the midst of an important transition - from the
prelicensing, consultative role defined for NRC in statute, which has been our
emphasis to date, to the role as regulator and licensing authority, as we
prepare for a possible submittal of a DOE license application. In my testimony
today, I will highlight a number of the important milestones and activities that
comprise our program during this important transition. Among these are:
(1) establishment of a regulatory framework;
(2) comment on the
DOE's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed repository at
Yucca Mountain;
(3) review and, if appropriate, concur
in the revised DOE siting guidelines;
(4) comment on a DOE site
recommendation, should the DOE elect to pursue development of a repository at
Yucca Mountain; and
(5) if a license application is
received, preparation for making a licensing determination in the time allotted
by statute. In addition, I would like to say a few words about NRC's oversight
of the DOE's quality assurance activities and provide a brief update of our
transportation safety activities.
Establishment of a Regulatory
Framework
We take seriously our obligations to provide a regulatory
framework for the possible licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain; and to consult with the DOE and other stakeholders, including
the Nevada public, in advance of any license application should one be received.
We plan to have risk-informed regulations specific for Yucca
Mountain in place by the end of this year. Under the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, the Commission must modify, if needed, its regulations to be consistent
with final EPA standards within a year of their issuance. Because in 1998 we
expected only a very short period in which to issue final implementing
regulations after final EPA standards are issued, the Commission initiated its
own rulemaking in parallel with that of the EPA in formulating its standards.
The NRC was concerned about its responsibility to make public, as soon as
possible, how we plan to implement the health-based standards called for by the
Congress. In our view, prompt, public access to our regulatory intentions was
necessary, not only to enable the DOE to begin preparing a possible license
application but, just as importantly, to allow for timely and meaningful public
involvement in the development of our implementing regulations. After EPA issues
final standards, we will act promptly to prepare needed conforming revisions, if
any.
On February 22 of last year, the Commission published proposed
regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 for public comment. As soon as we proposed our
regulations, the NRC staff embarked on a series of public meetings to encourage
involvement by members of the public most affected by the decisions we face in
publishing final regulations for Yucca Mountain. From these
meetings, together with written submittals, we received more than 900 comments
on our proposed criteria. The NRC staff has carefully considered, and analyzed
these comments, and has incorporated many of them in a draft final rule that the
Commissioners now have before them.
Later last year, after the comment
period for NRC's proposed regulations closed, the EPA proposed standards at 40
CFR 197 for Yucca Mountain. The NRC has provided extensive
comments on the EPA proposal. The NRC has identified serious concerns with the
proposed standards that, if unchanged in the final standards, will increase
significantly the complexity of the NRC's licensing process without commensurate
increase in the protection of public health and safety and the environment. That
being said, however, we made clear in our proposed rule, that after final EPA
standards for Yucca Mountain are in place, tile NRC will amend
its regulations, as needed, to conform to the final standards, as required by
law.
NRC Reviews of DOE's Draft EIS, Siting Guidelines and Site
Recommendation
In July of last year, the DOE published, for public
comment, its draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a proposed
Yucca Mountain repository. The NRC provided detailed comments
on the DEIS in February 2000. The NRC comments identified several broad issues
and a number of specific topical areas that the DOE should address to make the
final EIS complete. The DOE is now completing its final EIS which must,
eventually, accompany DOE's license application to construct a HLW repository.
The NRC is required, by law, to adopt, to the extent practicable, the final DOE
EIS.
On May 4, 2000, the DOE forwarded its revised siting guidelines at
10 CFR Part 963 for NRC review and concurrence.
The DOE proposes to use
the revised guidelines to review and evaluate Yucca Mountain
for recommendation as a potential repository site. We expect that the Commission
will reach a concurrence finding on DOE's draft final guidelines later this
year.
If the DOE elects to pursue development of Yucca
Mountain as a repository, we expect the DOE will prepare to issue a
site recommendation in July of 2001. Before then, the NRC expects to review a
proposed DOE recommendation and provide comments, as required by statute, on the
sufficiency of DOE's site characterization and waste form proposal. The NRC
expects that it will take six months to complete the necessary review of any
site recommendation, and provide comments.
Preparation for Making a
Licensing Decision
As part of our overall prelicensing strategy, we
continue to focus our review on the nine key technical issues that are most
important to repository safety and, therefore, to licensing. Since we redirected
and streamlined our program several years ago, the NRC staff has completed a
number of significant reports on the status of resolution, at the staff level,
of each of the nine key issues. Now, we are applying the experience gained in
preparing these reports to the development of a Yucca Mountain
review plan that will eventually guide our review of a license application. As
this development progresses, we also continue to conduct public technical
exchanges between members of the NRC and DOE technical staffs and with NRC's
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
If DOE makes a recommendation on
the Yucca Mountain site, and if the President and Congress
affirm that recommendation, the DOE will then apply to the NRC for a license to
construct a repository. The NRC has three years to determine whether to approve
or deny the application, except that the Commission may extend the deadline by
not more than one year. Through early NRC staff identification and clarification
of key safety issues, we are optimistic that we will be prepared to complete
this demanding and first-of-a-kind review in the time allotted. Consistent with
this objective, we have completed a rulemaking to establish a Licensing Support
Network, using web-based technology to promote access to supporting documents
and, thereby, hasten review of the license application. A further rulemaking
with regard to the Licensing Support Network is now in preparation.
Quality Assurance
I would now like to turn to the subject of the
DOE quality assurance activities involving Yucca
Mountain. DOE has experienced problems in carrying out
its quality assurance program. In general, the DOE has done an acceptable job in
uncovering its own quality assurance problems. However, it has been less
successful in taking prompt corrective actions and preventing recurring
problems. I am pleased to be able to say that recent DOE actions have improved
the picture considerably in this area. However, the task is not complete and,
reflecting the need for continued vigilance, we have strengthened our oversight
of DOE's quality assurance activities.
Safety of Packages for Spent Fuel
and HLW Transport
In addition to our oversight responsibilities for any
potential geologic repository, the NRC is charged with certifying the safety of
the packages used to transport spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. NRC
continues to support the requirement that waste shippers use NRC-certified
packages for transport of spent fuel and high-level waste. In the past year, NRC
has reviewed and approved three dual- purpose cask systems for storage and
transport. We are also reviewing four more dual-purpose cask system designs.
The shipment of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved transportation
containers continues to have an unparalleled record of success from a safety
perspective. To date, there has not been a release of radioactive material from
an accident involving an NRC-approved spent fuel transportation container. In
March 2000, NRC completed a safety study on spent fuel shipment risks. This
study found the risks associated with transport of spent nuclear fuel by truck
or train are even lower than earlier risk estimates. NRC held a series of
meetings in 1999 to interact with interested stakeholders in a public forum to
discuss the issues related to spent fuel transport. The NRC has more meetings
planned for later this year.
Conclusion
It is important to
stress that the DOE bears the responsibility for demonstrating that licensing
and certification requirements are met to protect public health and safety and
the environment. The Commission independently must assess and find that such a
demonstration has been made before we can issue a license for any geologic
repository. Among other things,completion of NRC's review of a potential license
application depends upon: the timely establishment of scientifically- sound
standards and regulations; the receipt of a high-quality license application
from the DOE; and sufficient resources for the NRC to maintain its independent
technical review capability. I want to thank you for the opportunity to review
the status of NRC's HLW regulatory program, and will gladly answer any questions
you may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: June 27,
2000 
