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 local government 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
proposed 10CFR 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 that would 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 assess the 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 milliSievert) 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 low-level waste facilities (Part 61). The 25 millirem annual
value is also within the international constraints that allocate doses
from high-level waste disposal to between 10 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 to include 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 license application, 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 to conduct the site characterization and design activities to support
a complete and high-quality license application. The NRC also is working
toward a 2002 license application date in preparing the regulatory framework
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 a revised 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.
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, July 10, 2020