Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 24, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
3934 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT BY
CHAIRMAN
SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT - NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL POLICY
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, and specifically, the Commission views on S.608,
the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999."
The NRC continues to make progress
and remains on schedule consistent with our responsibilities 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 Department of Energy
(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. This process is at the *heart of our ongoing review of
the DOE Viability Assessment that we received in late December. The Commission
was briefed last week on the results of the NRC staff review as well as on the
views of our Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and other stakeholders,
including the state of Nevada, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, tribal
governments, and various affected units of localgovernment in Nevada. I am
pleased to report that the NRC staff has Identified no major questions with
regard to many important aspects of the Viability Assessment. 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 Viability
Assessment. The staff review has identified some specific areas for improvement
within the DOE repository program. In particular, we have identified persistent
quality assurance deficiencies, and the DOE agrees that it must give increased
attention to implementation of its quality assurance program. However, we are
confident that the DOE recognizes many of the areas where additional work is
needed prior to NRC licensing of the repository.
Because we anticipate that
we will have only a very short period in which to issue final implementing
regulations once the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final
standards for the repository, the Commission initiated its own rulemaking in
parallel with the development of the EPA standards. On February 22 of this year,
the Commission published proposed regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 for public
comment. We feel that we have an obligation to make public now our proposed
approach for implementing the health-based standards called for by the Congress,
in order to provide guidance 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. This week, in fact, NRC staff
members are conducting public workshops in Las Vegas and Beatty, Nevada, to
encourage the involvement of members of the public most affected by the
decisions we will make in promulgating final regulations for Yucca
Mountain. Our proposed rule makes clear that the NRC will amend its
regulations in the proposed10CFR Part 63, if necessary, to conform to the final
EPA standards, or to any new legislation that may be enacted.
As an interim
measure until the repository can be licensed and constructed, the NRC considers
available technologies for wet and dry storage of spent fuel at reactor sites to
be safe. We view dry storage as the preferred method for supplementary storage
of spent fuel at operating plants. 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 when compared to having to continue
storage at permanently shut-down facilities), and would afford operational and
programmatic benefits for the DOE program for accepting waste from utilities. 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.
Although centralized storage offers several advantages,
the Commission firmly believes that continued at-reactor storage, for an interim
period, will continue to protect public health and safety. DOE Secretary
Richardson recently proposed for consideration an alternative to "take title" to
the spent nuclear fuel temporarily stored at the various utilities around the
country. From a safety perspective, the Commission does not object to the
concept of the DOE taking title to spent fuel at commercial power reactor
facilities. However, the concept does raise a number of legislative, legal, and
resource issues thatwould need to be addressed specifically by the Congress. If
this were to occur, the Commission firmly believes that the NRC should retain
regulatory responsibility for independent spent fuel storage installations, for
the following reasons:
- First, there is the issue of plant safety. The NRC
would need to review carefully the interface between each power reactor, in the
operation of its spent fuel storage pool, and the DOE facilities, particularly
in the areas of emergency planning responsibilities. Price Anderson liability,
financial assurance for decommissioning, storage of greater than Class C waste,
and other issues also would need to be addressed.
- Second, there is the
issue of consistency in regulation, not only for those sites planning to develop
a spent fuel facility, but also for those sites which already have constructed
one. If the DOE were to take title to the spent fuel and were to manage it at
the reactor sites, or elsewhere if it is already stored off the reactor site,
the potential would exist for multiple regulatory schemes at the sites, which
could complicate control of the spent fuel and, at worst, lead to diminished
safety and security. For example, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the DOE
to use NRC-certified casks for transporting spent fuel to the repository.
However, current law does not subject DOE-owned or DOE-titled material to NRC
transportation safety or physical security requirements. The lack of a
consistent regulatory oversight program could lead to mis-perceptions about the
safety of spent fuel transportation.
- Third, there is the issue of
stakeholder concerns. The public has come to expect a degree of external
regulation and monitoring of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, which
may not occur if the DOE has sole operational and regulatory responsibility for
the sites.
- Fourth, there is the potential for diversion of Nuclear Waste
Fund resources away from the primary mission of developing a permanent geologic
repository and supporting facilities. Depending on the financial arrangements of
this alternative, there is the potential for significant expenditures of Nuclear
Waste Fund (or general fund) resources for these purposes.
S. 608
Let me
turn now to the proposed legislation, S. 608, the subject of the hearing this
morning.
In general, the Commission agrees with the fundamental approach
taken in S. 608. 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 public health and safety, the environment, and
the common defense and security. These elements include deep geologic disposal
and centralized interim storage, together with a transportation program linking
the elements together. Moreover, S. 608 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.
Geologic
Repository
The Commission strongly supports including in S. 608 the
permanent, deep geologic disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste
as an essential element of the integrated system described in the draft statute.
The Commission continues to believe that deep underground disposal is a sound
and technically feasible 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.
In testimony on H.R. 45, the corresponding bill under
consideration by the House of Representatives, the Commission supported a
provision at section 205(a)(1) that would revoke the DOE repository siting
guidelines at 10 CFR Part 960 in order to allow the DOE to focus resources on
developing a high-quality repository license application. If the guidelines are
to be retained, the Commission agrees with section 205(f)(2) of S. 608 that
would require the guidelines to be amended such that any conclusion regarding
site suitability should be based on an assessment of overall system performance.
With respect to the proposed overall system performance standard for the
repository in S. 608, the Commission considers 10,000 years to be a sufficient
length of time to assessthe isolation capability of the repository system. The
Commission believes that the standard in S. 608 limiting the lifetime risk of
premature death from cancer to the average member of the critical group to
approximately (but not greater than) 1 in 1,000 is consistent with protection of
public health and safety. This level of risk corresponds to an average expected
annual dose of about 100 millirem (1 milliSievert) over a thirty-year exposure
period, which is consistent with the NRC public dose limit in 10 CFR Part 20,
the EPA proposed Federal Guidance on public protection, the recommendations of
the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, and the findings of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection.
The Commission supports inclusion of 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. In its proposed regulations
at Part 63, the Commission has proposed to restrict the expected dose to the
average member of the critical group in the vicinity of Yucca
Mountain to 25 millirem (0.25 miiliSievert) per year (which would be
substantially less than a lifetime risk of 1 in 1,000). The use of the
internationally accepted "constraint" approach will help ensure that exposure to
members of the public from all sources of radiation, excluding natural
background, is less than the 100 millirem annual dose limit for members of the
public. The constraint of 25 millirem/year is consistent with existing limits
for monitored retrievable storage and independent spent fuel storage
installations (Part 72) and lowlevel waste facilities (Part 61). The 25 millirem
annual value is also within the international constraints that allocate doses
from high-level waste disposal to between10 and 30 millirem/year and is
comparable to the risk range recommended by the National Academy of Sciences for
Yucca Mountain.
In this regard, we note that Section 205(e)
of S. 608 would direct the Commission to amend its regulations at 10 CFR Part
60, to be consistent with the provisions of the Act. We would ask that specific
reference to Part 60 be deleted because we believe that the requirements we
recently proposed at 10 CFR Part 63 are generally consistent with the intent of
the proposed legislation and in accordance with the 1992 Energy Policy Act.
Interim Storage Facility
We support the integrated waste management
approach as outlined in Section 204, which establishes a process for an initial
license for an interim storage facility, with subsequent amendments as needed.
Specifically, the DOE would be required to submit a license application for a
facility with a capacity of not more than 30,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)
within 12 months of enactment. The draft legislation provides that the
Commission may grant or deny this application within 32 months after the date of
submittal of the application, with an ultimate license issuance date of June 30,
2003. The term for the license would be for forty years with renewable terms
upon subsequent application. Additionally, the DOE would not be authorized to
commence construction until an appropriate environmental finding is made. The
proposed legislation also requires that the NRC regulations be amended to expand
the definition of spent nuclear fuel within 32 months after enactment of the
legislation toinclude noncommercial spent fuel and defense high-level waste,
inferring that these new waste streams could be added to the central interim
storage facility. Although the proposed legislation seeks to expand the
definition of high level waste for interim storage, the NRC has not developed
the technical criteria necessary to ensure safe storage of noncommercial spent
fuel and defense high-level waste. Including these additional waste types could
result in a far more complex and time-consuming review process for the
centralized interim storage facility and cask designs, because of the need to
integrate these additional waste types into planning for the central interim
storage facility cask systems. Consequently, we would prefer to issue a license
initially for spent fuel, and consider an amendment request in the future to
accommodate other suitable waste types.
The NRC regulations currently allow
site-specific interim storage license terms of 20 years, with the option for
renewal for another 20 years. Our regulations would need to be revised to permit
a 40-year license with renewable terms for a central interim storage facility
(as opposed to a monitored retrievable storage facility). The NRC staff only
recently has begun to evaluate the technical considerations associated with
licensing of dry cask storage systems and facilities for a period of 20 to 100
years. At this point, we have not identified any safety or environmental issues
that would preclude issuance of a license for 100 years for an above-ground,
centralized interim storage facility, or at reactor independent spent fuel
storage installations.
We would not oppose a provision, as in the House
bill, that would allow commencement of construction of the interim storage
facility subsequent to the submittal of a licenseapplication, with the provision
that the Commission could issue an order suspending construction if it
determined that the construction posed an unreasonable risk to the public health
and safety or the environment.
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.
Lastly, the Commission has not budgeted for the licensing
review and regulation of the proposed central interim storage facility as
outlined in S. 608. For the Commission to support such a review, which would be
concurrent with the repository action, the NRC should have a sufficient
appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support both activities.
Transportation S. 608 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 and transportation cask systems. By December 2000, we
anticipate that all of the storage reviews and two of the transportation reviews
will be completed.
Recently, there have been multiple press articles
and public statements that may fuel inappropriate and unjustified public fears
about the safety of spent fuel shipments. The shipment of spent nuclear fuel in
NRC-approved transportation containers has an unparalleled record of success
from a safety perspective. There has never been a release of radioactive
material from an accident involving an NRC-approved spent fuel transportation
container. Similarly, over the last 40 years, there have been thousands of spent
fuel shipments by the United States Navy that have occurred without a release of
radioactive materials.
We have identified specific changes to the
transportation aspects of the proposed legislation that should be considered.
First, Section 202 would require the DOE to 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 existing 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 for spent fuel shipments that do
not require avoidance of populated areas. The routing rules were developed by
the DOT after extensive public involvement and have been successfully
implemented. 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.
Additionally, Section 510 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 law,
shipment by the DOE of DOE-titled material is not subject to the NRC
transportation safety or physical security requirements. Consequently, unless it
is explicitly required in S. 608, the NRC would have no oversight role for such
shipments, including certification of casks, 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, S. 608 would need to be
modified to require NRC oversight of the shipments.
Finally, with regard to
transportation, we agree with the incorporation of a training standard in S.
608. We would look forward to consulting with the DOT and others on the scope
and elements for required training.
Other Aspects of S. 608
S. 608
provides schedule milestones for the licensing of the interim storage facility
and the repository, including a requirement for the DOE to apply to the
Commission no later than October 31, 2001, for authorization to construct the
repository. This deadline would be six months earlier than the schedule that the
DOE is working towards currently. Based on our understanding of the Viability
Assessment, the DOE will need until 2002 toconduct the site characterization and
design activities to support a complete and highquality license application. The
NRC also is working toward a 2002 license application date in preparing the
regulatory frame and review procedures. Therefore, accelerating the schedule for
submitting the license application would present difficulties for both the DOE
and the NRC and could detract from the quality of the DOE application or the NRC
review.
The Commission supports, based upon current experience, a provision
of 36 months for the NRC to review and complete the licensing action on an
application for a central interim storage facility. The Commission believes it
can accommodate the provision of 40 months for review and final action on an
application for authorization to construct a repository. However, we believe
that the timetables established for licensing of both the interim storage
facility and the repository will be adequate, only if:
- The license
applications and supporting documentation are submitted in a timely fashion and
are of sufficiently high quality; and
- Sufficient resources are provided
for the NRC programs to accommodate concurrent pre-licensing and licensing
reviews for the two facilities, and related transportation issues.
In order
to meet the schedules and milestones described in S. 608, the Commission notes
that the legislation would need to be enacted by October 1999.We support
provisions in S. 608 on the scope of NRC responsibilities for disposal under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that, consistent with existing
law, direct the NRC to adopt the DOE Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to
the extent practicable, in the repository licensing proceeding. The Commission
also supports the provisions of the bill 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 further supports the inclusion of section
206(b), which makes 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 sections 205(e) and (f).
Conclusion
The Commission is meeting its
obligations under existing law to prepare for licensing a geologic repository,
and to ensure the safe interim storage and transportation of spent fuel. 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.
The Commission agrees that S. 608 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.
Whether under the existing law or arevised legislative framework, the U.S.
high-level waste program needs both statutory and institutional stability to
proceed in an orderly, efficient, timely, and effective manner. The Commission
believes that, when coupled with sufficient resources to maintain progress in
all phases, S. 608 can supply this necessary stability. Thank you for this
opportunity to provide our views.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 26, 1999
