ML19098B237

Questions & Comments Received on 6th Cycle U.S. National Report for the Joint Convention and Answers Current as of April 2018

ML19098B237
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/20/2018
From:	Melanie Wong Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs
To:
M WONG DUWP
References
Download: ML19098B237 (21)

Text

Number Sequence Article Reference Question Answer 1

1 Article 32 page 7 and 26 The analysis used in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel refers to three scenarios considered for the storage of spent fuel beyond the licensed operating life of the reactors. Two of the scenarios considered timeframes of 60 years (short term) and 100 years after the short-term scenario (long-term). Please describe the basis for selecting these timeframes.

The short-term timeframe of 60 years was selected because decommissioning is required to be completed within 60 years after a reactor shutdown (unless additional time is necessary to protect public health and safety). Thus, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumed for the purpose of estimating environmental impacts that all spent fuel will be moved from spent fuel pools to dry cask storage by the end of the short-term storage timeframe. The long-term period of 100 years after the short-term scenario was selected for the purpose of estimating environmental impacts and it is assumed that spent fuel canisters and casks will require replacement approximately once every 100 years.

2 2

Article 32 page 28 The preferred alternative in the final EIS for disposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Waste (GTCC) and GTCC-like waste is land disposal at generic commercial facilities and/or disposal at the WIPP geological repository. To what alternatives does land-disposal refer to? Were any of the alternatives for disposal (i.e. intermediate-depth boreholes, enhanced near-surface trenches, and above-grade vaults) ruled out? If so, can the rationale(s) be identified?

In the Department of Energy's "Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Disposal of GTCC low-level waste (LLW) and GTCC-like waste," the land disposal alternatives considered are intermediate-depth boreholes, enhanced near-surface trenches, and above-grade vaults. None of these alternatives were ruled out for generic commercial facilities.

The Final EIS can be found at http://gtcceis.anl.gov/. Volume 1, Chapter 5 contains an analysis of these three land disposal alternatives.

3 3

Article 4 page 5 and 103 One of the generic issues identified at the 5th Review Meeting was with respect to maintaining or increasing public involvement and engagement on waste management. While the 6th National Report does provide updates on this issue in various sections, it is noted that there seem to be no update on the consent-based siting initiative for future nuclear waste management facilities, which was one of the Blue Ribbon Commissions recommendations, and was previously discussed in the 5th National Report. Please provide an update on the consent-based siting initiative for future nuclear waste management facilities.

There are currently no consent-based siting initiatives for nuclear waste management facilities being undertaken by the Department of Energy.

4 4

General page 138 Section K.1 refers to revised Waste Acceptance Criteria for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which includes enhancements to ensure potential chemical incompatibilities, like the one that caused the February 2014 radiological incident at WIPP, are adequately assessed. With the potential for disposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Waste (GTCC) and GTCC-Like Waste at WIPP, please provide clarifications whether the current waste acceptance criteria would be sufficient to cover GTCC and GTCC-Like Waste.

The Department of Energys (DOEs) "Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Disposal of GTCC low-level waste (LLW) and GTCC-like waste" includes WIPP as part of the preferred alternative identified for GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste. However, no decision on disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste has been made. If DOE decides to move forward with WIPP as a disposal option, then additional evaluation of the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria, among other considerations, would occur to ensure disposal at WIPP would be in compliance with applicable public health, safety and environmental requirements.

5 1

General A.3.2.1, P9, Para 2 It is stated that licensees may mix higher activity LLW (Class B and C concentrations) with lower activity waste (Class A) to form a Class A mixture, meeting waste acceptance criteria (WAC) of a commercial facilityThe approach involving mixing materials resulting in an essentially homogeneous mixture. What are the principle, regulation and/or guidance for radioactive waste management based on when mixing the higher activity LLW with lower activity waste?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.55(a)(8), "Determination of concentrations in wastes," states, in part, that the concentration of a radionuclide may be averaged over the volume of the waste, or weight of the waste if the units are expressed as nanocuries per gram.

NRC regulations do not provide specific limitations on concentration averaging in the classification of waste. However, NRC developed and published detailed guidance on concentration averaging and encapsulation, "Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position," Rev. 1, Vol. 1 and 2 (CA BTP). The CA BTP can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1225/ML12254B065.pdf (Vol. 1) and https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1232/ML12326A611.pdf (Vol. 2).

The CA BTP provides guidance on appropriate volumes and masses to use in calculating average concentrations. NRC also recognizes that low-level waste (LLW), such as ion exchange resins, may be blended resulting in an essentially homogeneous mixture, where the average concentration of the final mixture is used for waste classification purposes.

The guidance details when waste may be blended and how to demonstrate that waste is adequately blended. The CA BTP also recommends constraints for discrete items based on their size and the amount or concentration of radioactivity they contain. The size, amount of radioactivity, and concentration of radioactivity helps define the hazard to an inadvertent intruder who might directly handle the discrete item. Additional information on LLW blending is discussed in the guidance, including guidance on averaging that meets the disposal requirements found in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55.

6 2

Article 32 A.3.1.1(P6),

B.3.2.2(P25),

D.1.2(P34)

It is mentioned in D.1.2, A.3.1.1 and B.3.2.2 that "An application for a construction authorization for a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is suspended. In August 2013, the U.S. Court ordered NRC to continue with the licensing process for DOE's Yucca Mountain construction authorization applicationThe FY 2018 Budget Request for NRC to restart NRClicensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository."

The Yucca Mountain construction authorization application is suspended, then continued, does it mean that the NRC's assessment standards on the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application had adjusted? What are the reasons for the Court ordering NRC to continue with the licensing process?

What are the measures of DOE supposed to do in order to receive support and agreement of competent authorities during the license application?

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to comply with its responsibility under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to review the Department of Energys (DOEs) license application using funds appropriated by Congress for this purpose until these funds were exhausted. In compliance with the court order, NRC staff resumed its review of the license application and issued its Safety Evaluation Report in 2015, although the adjudicatory proceeding has remained suspended. The funds previously appropriated to NRC for such review are nearly exhausted. The Presidents budget request for 2019 requests funds for both NRC and DOE licensing activities.

Although the adjudicatory proceeding is currently suspended, NRCs regulatory requirements have not changed nor has DOEs license application.

Questions & Comments Received on 6th Cycle U.S. National Report for the Joint Convention and Answers Current as of April 2018

7 3

Article 32.1.2 B2.3.2, P22, Para 1 It is stated that: NRC is in process of revising its regulations in 10 CFR Part 61and to accommodate disposal of previously unanticipated waste streams. What are the main revised contents in 10 CFR Part 61? And what are the main reasons for revising of 10 CFR Part 61?

Existing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.55, "Waste Classification," specify criteria for classifying low-level waste for land disposal at a near-surface facility. The original development of 10 CFR 61.55 did not explicitly consider the impacts resulting from the disposal of unique waste streams, such as significant quantities of depleted uranium from the operation of a commercial uranium enrichment facility. When 10 CFR Part 61 was initially developed, there were no commercial facilities generating significant quantities of depleted uranium waste streams. As a result, the analysis only considered the types of uranium-bearing waste streams being typically disposed of by licensees at the time. In 2009, the Commission directed NRC staff to pursue a limited rulemaking to specify a requirement for a site-specific analysis and associated technical requirements for unique waste streams including, but not limited to, the disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium. NRC staff is currently writing proposed rule that will be issued for public comment. The final wording will be developed after the public comments have been received and considered.

8 4

General A.3.8, P24 According to 10CFR61 Radwaste Classification method, Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) can not adopt near-surface disposal. But GTCC doesn't belong to high radioactive waste and no need to fulfill the requirements of geological disposal in the aspects of containment and isolation. Why is the geological disposal option considered as disposal of GTCC LLW? What's the consideration about the intermediate depth disposal option for GTCC LLW?

In the Department of Energys "Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Disposal of GTCC low-level waste and GTCC-like waste," the preferred alternative identified is land disposal at generic commercial facilities and/or disposal at the WIPP geological repository. The land disposal alternatives considered in the final EIS are intermediate-depth boreholes, enhanced near-surface trenches, and above-grade vaults. None of these alternatives were ruled out for generic commercial facilities. The Final EIS can be found at:

http://gtcceis.anl.gov/. Volume 1, Chapter 5 contains an analysis of these three land disposal alternatives.

Currently, GTCC LLW is not acceptable under applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for disposal at NRC or NRC Agreement State licensed facilities, except on a case-by-case basis. NRC is developing a regulatory basis to support a rulemaking regarding the disposal of GTCC LLW and transuranic waste. See 83 FR 6475 (February 14, 2018). NRC plans to complete development of the regulatory basis within six months of the publication of the supplemental proposed rule for the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking.

9 5

Article 32.1.3 B.3.1, P24 Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel change reflects the fact that the analysis considers the storage of spent fuel under three separate scenarios.

Regarding to the 3 scenarios, what are the regulatory measures and technical requirements for site selection, design, construction, operation and decommissioning of Spent Nuclear Fule storage facility? Especially long-term timeframe considers an additional 100 years, how to ensure the long-term safety of the structural materials and functional materials of the storage facility? What kind of material performance should be verified and how to verify the material performance equivalently?

In NUREG-2157, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (GEIS)," the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers the most likely timeframe for the storage period is the short-term timeframe, which analyzes 60 years of continued storage after the end of a reactors licensed life for operation. NRC acknowledged, however, that this short-term timeframe, although the most likely, is not certain. Accordingly, the GEIS also analyzed longer timeframes (i.e., the other 2 scenarios).

As noted in Section G.1 of the U.S. National Report, NRC approves dry storage systems for a period of up to 40 years which can be renewed. Also, Section G.2 explains that typical examinations for renewal requests will evaluate aging of components from corrosion, chemical attack, and other mechanisms that may cause a reduction in the efficacy of important storage cask components.

Thus, NRC licensing period of up to 40 years ensures dry cask storage systems will be evaluated on a regular basis regardless of the length of the storage period. In addition, inspections and monitoring at storage facilities will ensure early identification of potential problems so appropriate actions are undertaken to ensure safety. Although continued storage on a timeframe of 100 years or longer is considered unlikely, NRC recognizes that at some point in time it may be necessary to re-package and replace existing dry-cask storage systems.

10 6

Article 32.1.4 B.4, P27 It is mentioned that Commercial generators of LLW in the U.S. must treat these wastes to remove free liquids and stabilize or destroy other hazardous components contained in the waste. Wastes are also often treated to reduce the final disposal volume through compaction and incineration. What are the laws, regulations and standards utilized when reviewing the applicants document for a radioactive waste incineration facility license?

A discussion of the applicable requirements and guidance for licensing an incineration facility can be found in NUREG-1556, Vol. 18, Rev. 1, "Program-Specific Guidance about Service Provider Licensees." This document is publicly available at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1724/ML17242A055.pdf.

11 7

Article 32.1.5 B.5, P30 It is mentioned in B.5 that some sites may require significant remedial activities and may pose technical or policy challenges. What are the technical and policy challenges for the required significant remedial activities of some sites? What are the reasons that may pose the technical or policy challenges? What are the main principles, specific measures and methods for solving the challenges?

Under most circumstances, the termination of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license does not require the decontamination of a site and the decommissioning process is routine. However, a small number of sites present complex technical challenges or policy issues that need to be addressed before they can be safely decommissioned and the licenses terminated. Many of these sites were abandoned or the licenses were terminated before NRC regulations adequately addressed all aspects of decommissioning.

The technical challenges include, but are not limited to: (1) extensive groundwater contamination that must be remediated before a site license is terminated, (2) inadequate financial resources to complete necessary decommissioning activities, (3) insufficient environmental data to develop adequate site-specific cleanup targets and remediation plans, and (4) coordination at sites with concurrent regulatory responsibility by NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under different statutes.

NRC regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 20.1406 require that license applications detail how a facilitys design and procedures for operation will (1) minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, (2) facilitate eventual decommissioning, and (3) minimize the generation of radioactive waste. The regulations provide assurance that adequate financial resources are available to complete the decommissioning of licensed sites. In addition, NRC regulations at 10 CFR 30.35, 40.36, and 70.25 require that records important to the decommissioning of sites be maintained. NRC evaluates the proposed site design and operating procedures, prior to issuance of a license.

The rulemaking promulgating the regulations, "Decommissioning Planning Rule," can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1127/ML11272A154.pdf. The supporting guidance documents for this rule are Regulatory Guide 4.22, "Decommissioning Planning During Operations," which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1215/ML12158A361.pdf.

NUREG-1757, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance," describes procedures and practices that meet NRCs decommissioning requirements and addresses the technical problems and policy issues that challenged site decontamination and remediation in the past. NUREG-1757 can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12048A683.pdf.

At some sites, NRC has regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act and EPA has authority under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). For these sites, NRC and EPA established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each Agency and establishes a process for ensuring that, once the site is decommissioned, issues with respect to the concurrent jurisdiction are resolved. The MOU can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2002/mou2fin.pdf. Guidance for implementing the MOU can be found in NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2 at:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/v1/. Examples of how this process has been successfully implemented can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning/reg-guides-comm/comm/letters.html.

12 8

Article 32.1.5 B.5, P30 It's stated that "applicants for licenses are required to describe how facility design and procedures will facilitate eventual decommissioning". Please clarify which design measures and procedures should be mainly considered.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 20.1406, "Minimization of Contamination," require that applicants describe how facility design and procedures for operation will minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive waste.

Regulatory Guide 4.21, "Minimization of Contamination and Radioactive Waste Generation: Life-Cycle Planning," provides an extensive list of specific measures intended to address the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1406. Regulatory Guide 4.21 can be found at: https://scp.nrc.gov/special/reg_guide4-21.pdf. Examples of the measures to facilitate decommissioning in Regulatory Guide 4.21 include:

• The facility should be designed such that systems that have the potential for leakage are provided with adequate leak detection capability to the extent practical.

• Records on events involving leaks or spills should be maintained and readily accessible to facilitate cleanup and eventual decommissioning of the facility.

• Tanks, sumps, and ponds containing radioactive materials should have at least two impermeable boundaries to the environment, with an integrated leak detection system capability that triggers an alarm at an operator station.

• During the design stage, consideration should be given to facilitating the removal of any equipment and/or components that may require removal and/or replacement during facility operation or decommissioning.

13 9

Article 15.2 H.2.4, P118 It is mentioned that Radioactive waste facilities, operations, and activities must ensure protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Safety is ensured through specific waste management controls (waste acceptance criteria and waste certification programs) How to control the performance of accepted radioactive waste for disposal in practice? By what means to ensure the radiation safety of workers, the public and the environment druing the whole process of disposal?

During operations, strict procedures are in place at all stages to ensure waste is packaged, transported, and disposed of to ensure protection of the health and safety of the workers and the public, as well as the environment. Each disposal facility has an individualized waste acceptance criteria which determines what waste can be disposed of to ensure performance objectives and measures are met. Requirements for radioactive waste management at the Department of Energy (DOE) facilities are described in DOE Order 435.1, "Radioactive Waste Management" and DOE Manual 435.1-1, "Radioactive Waste Management Manual." For occupational radiation protection of individuals, DOE adheres to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 835, and for public and environmental safety, DOE regulates based on DOE Order 458.1, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment."

14 10 Article 19.2.1 E.2.1.4, P53; F.2.3.4, P76 "According to 10 CFR 50.82, power reactor licensees are required to complete decommissioning within 60 years. What factors are considered about complete decommissioning within 60 yeares? Does 60 years belong to immediate decommissioning?

In the 1980s, studies conducted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), now known as Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, showed that 50 years was the optimal SAFSTOR time for decommissioning to both reduce radiation exposures and minimize low-level-waste. An additional 10 years is provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to allow sufficient time for licensees to complete the decommissioning process. The PNL studies demonstrate that the major dose contributor at a nuclear power plant, Cobalt-60, which has a 5.26 year half-life, is essentially fully decayed after 50 years. The other major dose contributor, Cesium-137, with a 30 year half-life, is reduced to about 25% of its original activity during the same time period. The volume of radioactively contaminated material is reduced by about 90% after 50 years, and the dose to workers is reduced by roughly 95%.

Lastly, NRC regulations do not require immediate decommissioning. The regulations require the completion of the decommissioning process within 60 years. A licensee may choose SAFSTOR or active decommissioning. A licensee may choose to switch from one decommissioning method to the other, without seeking prior NRC approval.

15 11 Article 19.2.3 E.2.3.5, P62 It is mentioned that the independent technical peer review offered by the NWTRB contributes to the acceptance of different approaches to managing nuclear waste by the public and scientific communities. The NWTRB is an organization that performs an independent and integrated technical evaluation of DOEs implementation of the NWPA. What achievements have been obtained by NWTRB?

The U.S. considers recommendations from independent groups, including the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB), and implements actions as appropriate. Recent NWTRB recommendations addressed topics including research and development of spent fuel performance during extended storage operations, direct disposal of spent fuel dual purpose canisters, and age-related degradation of storage canister materials. These recommendations and others are under evaluation. For additional information on NWTRB activities, see www.nwtrb.gov.

16 12 Article 22.3 F.2.3, P73, Para 1~5 It is stated that: The licensees surety mechanism is reviewed annually by NRC (or Agreement State) to ensure sufficient funds are available for completion of the closure planThese assurances are based on NRC-approved cost estimates reflecting the Commission-approved plan for disposal site closure and stabilizationNRC regulations require that applicants provide a detailed breakdown of costs explaining the assumptions used in formulating the cost estimates. Please give more information about the methods of the cost estimates including radioactive waste disposal, and disposal site closure, stabilization and transferring to the long-term site owner. Or please give the names of the regulations and/or guidances which give the specific explanation on the methods of the cost estimates?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations pertaining to surety requirements for commercial low-level waste management facilities are Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.62, "Funding for Disposal Site Closure and Stabilization," and 10 CFR 61.63, "Financial Assurances for Institutional Controls." Further, NRC guidance on this subject is NUREG-2175, "Draft Guidance for Conducting Technical Analyses for 10 CFR Part 61," Section 9.1.3, "Financial Assurance," which can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14357A072.pdf.

17 13 Article 22.3 F.2.3.2, P74 Chapter F2.3.2 proposes that power company shall pay NWF enough fee related to the disposal activities of spent fuel and highly radioactive waste, this provision wasn't suspended until 2014. After suspending this fee charging, how to guarantee the follow-up sufficient funds for the disposal of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste? Please give more information about the plan for re-start the provision.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) requires the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) to be adequate to fully offset expenditures for radioactive waste disposal activities authorized by the NWPA, including Yucca Mountain. The NWPA also requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to perform an NWF fee adequacy evaluation annually and propose fee adjustments as necessary to ensure full cost recovery.

In 2013, DOE performed a fee adequacy evaluation premised on a repository other than Yucca Mountain. Later that year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided in NARUC v. DOE that this evaluation was legally inadequate and ordered DOE to submit to Congress a proposal to change the fee to zero until the Yucca Mountain project is revived, or Congress enacts an alternative plan. Accordingly, in May 2014, the ongoing fee was adjusted from 1 mill per KWh to zero.

In accordance with the NWPA, the Presidents 2018 Federal Budget Proposal requested funding to restart DOE's participation in the Yucca Mountain license proceeding. Congress did not appropriate these funds in 2018. The Presidents 2019 Federal Budget Proposal also requests such funding. The proposal is under review by Congress which appropriates funds for government programs. DOE will not conduct another fee adequacy evaluation or resume fee collections until Congress appropriates funding for Yucca Mountain and the project is revived.

18 14 Article 10 G.7, P114 It is mentioned that Department of Energy (DOE) has developed and is executing a research and development (R&D) program regarding the long-term management of spent fuel to ensure that any potential concerns are identified and addressed before safety is compromised.

What are the potential concerns that may compromise safety in the long-term management of spent fuel? Please give more information about the progress of the R&D program.

Existing storage systems are being evaluated as spent fuel will be stored in dry casks longer than anticipated when they were loaded. It is currently believed that storing spent fuel longer than originally anticipated will not present a risk to safety. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to conduct research to improve understanding of potential concerns (e.g., performance of long term behavior of hydride re-orientation of the cladding, stress corrosion cracking, and thermal performance of the casks) to ensure sufficient time is available to address any safety concerns should they arise. A continuous evaluation of research priorities is performed by DOE, and research results are shared with international groups at the Extended Storage Collaboration Project that is sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute.

19 15 Article 28.2 J.2/J.3, P132~133, Para 2/Para 3 It is stated that: Disposal access for many commercial Class A, B and C sealed sources are now available to LLW generators in all 50 statesThe Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors requested a state regulator evaluate the disposal of a device containing high activity sealed sources in commercial disposal facilityThe disposal was completed in September 2017. Please give more information about disused sealed sources classified as Class A, B, C, or GTCC LLRW waste. Please give more information about the acceptance criteria on disused sealed sources disposal, standards on conditioning for disused sealed sources disposal. And please give the lists of the related regulations, standards and guidances.

Disused commercial sealed sources that are determined to be low-level waste (LLW) are subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 that classify LLW for disposal in the commercial sector as Class A, B, C, or greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) LLW. Waste classifications are further described in Section B.2.3.2, Table B-1, of the U.S. National Report. Disused sealed sources comprise all LLW categories, from low-activity sources that are at a fraction of the Class A limit to high-activity sources, such as Cesium-137 sources used in irradiators that may be Class C or GTCC LLW. For a list of NRC regulations, standards and guidance applicable to disposal of LLW, including disused sealed sources, see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/regs.html. All of the Agreement States that regulate commercial LLW disposal facilities (South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington) require LLW generators to use NRC guidance for classifying waste prior to disposal.

As noted in Section J.3 of the U.S. National Report, NRC issued a revision to its "Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position" (CA BTP) in February 2015 Section 3.3 of the CA BTP provides updated guidance for determining the classification of waste packages containing discrete items, such as disused sealed sources, including acceptable methods for averaging the radioactivity over the volume of waste. For example, the guidance provides a revised generic Class C limit of 4.8 TBq (increased from 1.1 TBq) for disposal of Cesium-137 sealed sources, or 130 Ci (increased from 30 Ci).

Waste acceptance criteria (WAC), including requirements for conditioning of waste packages, are provided in the licenses for the operating commercial LLW disposal facilities listed in Section D.2.2.2 of the U.S. National Report. All of these facilities are regulated by Agreement States. For example, licenses for the Waste Control Specialists LLC facility in Texa can be found at: http://www.wcstexas.com/facilities/licenses-permits/, and the WAC is provided in Attachment C of the license for LLW disposal at: http://www.wcstexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/RML-R04100-Amendment-31.pdf. Among other requirements, the WAC notes that, All sealed sourcesshall be doubly-packaged and encased in concrete or similar inert material within the outer package. There are currently no disposal facilities for commercial disused sources that are classified as GTCC LLW. Generators are responsible for safely storing these sources pending availability of a disposal facility.

20 1

Article 25 F5, 90 The footnote 153 is not working.

The website is https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32230.

21 2

Article 25 F5, 91 What is the minimum period for exercises?

For spent fuel storage facilities that are not associated with an operating nuclear power reactor, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 72.32(a)(12)(i) states differing periodicities based upon the exercise types: Exercises. (i) Provisions for conducting semiannual communications checks with offsite response organizations and biennial onsite exercises to test response to simulated emergencies. Radiological/Health Physics, Medical, and Fire drills shall be conducted annually. Semiannual communications checks with offsite response organizations must include the check and update of all necessary telephone numbers. The licensee shall invite offsite response organizations to participate in the biennial exercise.

For spent fuel storage facilities that are sited with an operating nuclear power reactor, the emergency planning requirements for the nuclear power reactor are followed. Those requirements can be found in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E and state, similar to requirements for spent fuel facilities, overall biennial exercises with specific drills and limited-scope exercises at other periodicities.

22 1

Article 20 E.2.3 E.2.3. specifies that the DOE regulates its own installation of spent fuel and RW. Could the U.S. indicate how the independence of the controls is ensured? The paragraph also states that in some cases, when specified by the Congress, the NRC is regulating the installation of the DOE. Could the U.S. indicate what the rationale for this decision of the Congress was? Is this decision in any way related to earlier recommendations of the Governmental Account Office?

The Department of Energy (DOE) has established numerous guidelines, standards, and Federal regulations including a Quality Assurance/Quality Control process that provides for safe management of its spent fuel and radioactive waste. Sections E.2.3.1 - E.2.3.5 of the U.S. National Report address specific Federal regulations and external organizations that help oversee DOE's spent fuel and radioactive waste activities. Congress has granted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory authority over certain specific DOE facilities including those that are used primarily to store spent fuel generated by commercial licensees. For example, two of DOEs spent fuel storage facilities, a dry storage facility for spent fuel at Fort St. Vrain and one for certain Three Mile Island fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory, are regulated by NRC.

23 2

Article 7 B.3.2.2 As regards the Yucca Mountain geological repository:

What is the target date for the entry into operation of the Yucca mountain geological repository? Is there any intention to include this target date in the waste management policy and to what extent would it be binding on the operator?

Does this policy take into account the lifetime extension to 60 or 80 years of NPPs already decided and does it anticipate future extensions?

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) allows three to four years for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to complete the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding for a construction authorization. If the NRC issues a construction authorization, then it would take approximately eight more years until the repository could commence accepting spent fuel. Therefore if the Department of Energy (DOE) receives funding to restart the licensing in FY 2019, it is possible that DOE could begin accepting spent fuel at some point in 2031 The projected schedule for commencing operation of the repository is not affected by the lifetime extension of nuclear power plants.

24 3

Article 26 F6 What is the status of the decommissioning options for graphite reactors?

Have specific options already been tested against industrial capacities in this field and what about the ability of relevant industry to provide standardised services worldwide?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) experience with decommissioning and waste disposal for graphite reactors is somewhat limited. The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 and the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station are the only commercial helium-cooled, graphite-moderated nuclear power reactors licensed by NRC.

Peach Bottom Unit 1, a 40 MWe reactor, operated from June of 1967 to final shutdown on October 31, 1974. All spent fuel was removed from the site and the spent fuel pool was drained and decontaminated. The reactor vessel, the primary system piping, and the steam generators remain in place. The facility is currently in a SAFSTOR condition. Final decommissioning is not expected until 2034. The 330 MWe Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station shutdown in 1989. The reactor station went into immediate decommissioning (DECON) and the plant site was released for unrestricted use in August 1997. The graphite moderator and other plant components were disposed of as low-level waste at the U.S.

Ecology commercial low-level waste site located on the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford site. The remaining spent fuel is stored onsite in a dry storage facility.

Both the SAFSTOR and DECON approach are considered safe alternatives for decommissioning graphite moderated reactors under NRC's regulations. In the SAFSTOR approach shutdown reactors can be safely monitored in place for up to 60 years after shutdown or the facility can be immediately decommissioned with the graphite moderator disposed of as low-level waste.

DOE has successfully managed the decommissioning of a number of graphite reactors including the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and multiple graphite reactors at the Hanford site.

Requirements governing long-term management and safety of decommissioned reactors are described in DOE Order 430.1A, "Life Cycle Management," and associated guides. At the Hanford site, interim safe storage (ISS) and safe storage enclosure (SSE) methods were applied. Long-term surveillance and maintenance (S&M) plans were developed for each reactor, and include activities such as water intrusion monitoring and periodic entry. Reports for each ISS/SSE activity, as well as S&M plans are available via document searc at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/simpleSearch.

25 4

Article 27 I.2 The 5th review meeting underlined the challenge of Implementation of the strategy for the management and disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and HLW.

What is its status in terms of legal implementation?

The 5th review meeting agreed to hold a meeting on import of spent fuel and HLW where discussions took place on the possibility to offer in commercial contracts the options of disposal of spent fuel in an international repository.

Does the U.S. strategy include specific aspects concerning the import of spent fuel or HLW for disposal in the future Yucca mountain site?

The U.S. is no longer implementing the strategy discussed at the 5th review meeting for management and disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste. The Presidents 2019 Federal Budget Proposal requests funding to proceed with licensing of a repository at Yucca Mountain and for interim storage of spent fuel. The U.S. does not intend to import spent fuel or high-level waste for disposal at Yucca Mountain.

26 5

General A.3.6, K.2.2 "AMIPA also specifies DOE will take title to and be responsible for the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of the leased LEU for which DOE determines the producer does not have access to a disposal path."

Does it mean that the cost associated with the disposition of those waste will also be covered by the DOE?

If not, how are the financial estimates made? Is the waste stream already clear enough to determine the producer financial contribution?

In accordance with the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA), the U.S. molybdenum-99 (99Mo) producers that lease LEU from the Department of Energy (DOE) are responsible for paying the cost of the final disposition of radioactive waste without a disposal path. DOE prepared form contracts in 2016 that provided U.S. 99Mo producers with cost estimates for disposition of potential radioactive waste without a disposal path based on anticipated handling and storage costs upon acceptance by DOE pending disposal, and final DOE disposal costs. The cost estimates were based on the best available information and experience with storage and disposal of the anticipated waste forms. U.S. 99Mo producers will be responsible to provide the specific radioactive waste information necessary to refine cost estimates at the time a contract with DOE is executed.

27 1

Article 19 Section B.1 In relation to regulatory frameworks of NRC and DOE, how are the interfaces described and managed?

The different regulatory frameworks for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) for oversight of radioactive waste disposal are discussed in Section B.2.3.2 of the U.S. National Report.

In general, interfaces between NRC and DOE are managed on a case-by-case basis as needed. In certain situations, NRC and DOE may develop a memorandum of understanding to describe and manage the interface. An example of a memorandum of understanding between NRC and DOE can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML9929/ML992920012.pdf.

An important avenue of communication between DOE and NRC is through the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), which is comprised of eight Federal agencies, three Federal observer agencies, and two state observer agencies. ISCORS facilitates consensus on acceptable radiation dose levels and radiation risk to the public and workers, and promotes consistent risk approaches in setting and implementing standards for protection from ionizing radiation.

28 2

Article 22 Section F.2.3.2 Are the funds in the Nuclear Waste Fund of DOE sufficient, and if not, are there plans to set additional funds?

The Department of Energy does not have a current evaluation of the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund, and will not be able to perform one until Congress appropriates funding for Yucca Mountain and the project is revived. The Presidents 2019 Federal Budget Proposal requests funding for these two activities. The proposal is under review by Congress which appropriates funds for government programs.

29 3

Article 19 Section K.3 What are the main challenges identified in US regulatory framework related to transitioning from operation of a nuclear facility to its decommissioning, and how are these planned to be addressed?

The main challenge in U.S. regulatory framework related to transitioning from operation of a nuclear facility to its decommissioning is related to appropriately recognizing the lower risks associated with a facility in permanent shutdown. The risk of an offsite radiological release is significantly lower, and the types of possible accidents are significantly fewer, at a nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and removed fuel from the reactor vessel, in comparison to an operating power reactor. However, the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations maintain certain requirements during the decommissioning process that may not be needed for the protection of public health and safety and the environment or for security. For nuclear power reactors currently undergoing decommissioning, power reactor licensees have requested licensing actions (i.e., license amendments and exemptions) in order to change the regulatory requirements from those needed for an operating power reactor to those needed for a decommissioning power reactor.

On November 27, 2017, NRC published a final regulatory basis about a proposed rulemaking that would change the decommissioning process (82 FR 55954). Through the proposed rulemaking, NRC seeks to improve the decommissioning process to be more efficient, open, and predictable than this licensing approach. The rulemaking will also address decommissioning issues that will improve the overall decommissioning process. The proposed decommissioning rulemaking will not impose new requirements. Rather, the proposed rulemaking will align the requirements for decommissioning with the reduction in risk that occurs over time during the decommissioning process, while maintaining safety and security. Specifically, the proposed regulations would use a graded approach for topics such as emergency preparedness, physical security, cyber security, and onsite/offsite liability insurance. Documents related to the proposed rulemaking can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID NRC-2015-0070.

Other topics that NRC considers important in the revised regulatory framework for nuclear power reactors transitioning to decommissioning include:

• ensuring adequate funding for radiological decommissioning,

• encouraging the participation of state, Tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental stakeholders in the decommissioning process, and

• meeting NRCs obligations under national environmental law and other national regulations.

30 1

Article 32 Section B - page 21 The U.S. national report indicates (p. 21) that radioactive wastes in the U.S.

have many designations depending on their hazards and the circumstances and processes creating them and that NRC and Agreement States regulate most, but not all, sources of radioactivity.

Could U.S. specify which sources of radioactivity are not regulated by NRC nor Agreement States, and how these are regulated?

Radioactive wastes not regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement States includes the Department of Energy radioactive wastes and most naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). States are largely responsible for regulating NORM. Agreement States cannot regulate spent fuel and high-level waste. In addition, DOE generally regulates its own radioactive waste including NORM. Along with DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency certifies the disposal of transuranic waste generated by atomic energy defense activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

31 2

Article 32 Section B - page 24 The U.S. national report mentions (p. 24) that all operating NPPs are storing spent fuel in NRC licensed onsite spent fuel pools and that, in addition, over half are storing spent fuel in NRC licensed independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) located onsite. Table D-1 (p. 34) shows that almost 2/3 of the spent fuel stored onsite is in Wet Storage. However, the U.S. national report underlines that (p. 111) pool storage requires consistent operational vigilance by utilities or other licensees and relies on the satisfactory performance of mechanical systems using pumps, piping and instrumentation.

Could the U. S. clarify whether NRC encourages dry storage construction when wet storage facilities are (almost) full, or encourages replacing wet storages (aiming at emptying them) with dry storages?

The U.S. national report also mentions that R&D on geological disposal is in a generic stage (p. 6) and that in September 2014, NRC issued a revised rule at 10 CFR 51.23 adopting the new name Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and considering now three separate scenarios: (1) storing spent fuel for 60 years beyond the licensed operating life of reactors, (2) for 100 years more and (3) indefinitely.

Yet the final summary report of the 5th review meeting of the joint convention (JC/RM5/04/Rev.2) indicates that special efforts are necessary regarding the safety implications of very long storage periods and delayed disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste.

Regarding these necessary special efforts, could the U.S. provide details about the following issues:

(i) ageing of spent fuel pools (dedicated monitoring, maintenance, heavy equipment replacement, ensured availabilities...)?

(ii) the public acceptance of this approach to spent fuel management?

(1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) maintains that spent fuel pools and dry storage systems both provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment (for additional information, see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html). Therefore, NRC does not recommend one form of storage of spent fuel over another. The decision on which storage method to use is left solely to the discretion of the licensee. However, as part of the Fukushima lessons-learned activities, NRC evaluated whether nuclear power reactor licensees should be required to reduce the amount of spent fuel stored in their spent fuel pools. NRC concluded that the expedited transfer of spent fuel to dry storage provides only a minor or limited safety benefit and that the cost of mandatory implementation is not warranted. The Commission found that additional studies and further regulatory analyses of this issue were not necessary. For additional information, see https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/comm-secy/2013/2013-0030comvtr.pdf. NRC staffs detailed evaluation of this issue can be found in COMSECY-13-0030, "Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel," at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/comm-secy/2013/2013-0030comscy.pdf.

(2)(i) The long-term aging management of the spent fuel pool includes the management of the pool structure. NRC requires periodic visual inspections of accessible portions of the reinforced concrete structure of the spent fuel pool. Also, the stainless steel lined pool is subjected to routine operational monitoring to identify possible leakage. The spent fuel storage racks and overhead crane are also subject to aging management inspections and monitoring to verify continued safe operation.

(2)(ii) NRC has undertaken special efforts to inform the public of aging management issues. NRC provides opportunities for public interest groups and individual citizens to raise concerns about and comments on the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on nuclear power plant sites. Any member of the public may petition NRC to develop, change, or rescind a rule under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2.802, Petition for Rulemaking. In addition to the formal petition process under 10 CFR 2.206, where members of the public can request that NRC take actions such as modifying, suspending, or revoking a license, and the hearing processes integrated into the licensing program, NRC also uses feedback forms at public meetings to obtain public input. NRC permits any member of the public to report safety concerns anonymously to NRC at any time during licensing/certification, construction, or operation of an ISFSI or dry storage system. Sections A.2.2, A.3.8, F.7.8, and F.9 of the U.S. National Report describe opportunities for public and stakeholder involvement in NRCs licensing activities in greater detail.

32 3

Article 32 Section B - page 25 The U.S. national report indicates (p. 25) that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA, 1982) establishes the Federal responsibility for the disposal of spent fuel (SF) and high-level waste (HLW) and that responsibilities are assigned to three Federal agencies: (1) DOE for developing permanent disposal capability for SF and HLW, (2) EPA for developing generally applicable environmental protection standards and (3) NRC for developing regulations to implement EPA standards, deciding whether or not to license construction, operation, decommissioning and closure of the repositories, and certifying packages used to transport SF and HLW to the licensed repositories. Could U.S. specify how regulatory elaboration and disposal design are coordinated between different independent federal agencies?

The NWPA prescribes specific roles for the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Each Federal agency makes an independent decision with respect to NWPA assigned roles and responsibilities and available information.

33 4

Article 22 Section F - page 74 The U.S. national report indicates (p. 74) that utilities having a contract with DOE for the disposal of SF or HLW had to pay fees ($0.001/kWh) into the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) sufficient to cover the costs associated with disposal activities (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) and that after 2014, the fee was adjusted to zero and the payment was suspended to comply with a November 2013 court ruling. Nevertheless, the U.S. national report states that the balance of funds in the NWF continues to earn interest.

- Could U.S. clarify whether this money is only intended for the implementation of a long term waste management solution once it has been chosen and developed or if it is also used for financing R&D operations linked to the search for this radioactive waste management solution?

- Could U.S. specify if similar fund exists for utilities not having a contract with DOE or for other types of waste than SF and HLW (e.g. low level waste)?

- Could U.S. specify, since the NW Fund is expected to generate interest, how are guaranteed its sustainability and availability over several tens of years?

(1) Funds in the NWF are to be used for purposes of waste management disposal activities under titles I and II of the NWPA including non-generic research, development and demonstration activities under the Act. (2) All utilities in the U.S. that generate or possess spent fuel from civilian nuclear power reactors have contracts with the Federal governmen for the disposal of the commercial spent fuel. (3) NWF assets in excess of those authorized by the Congress to pay NWPA costs are invested in U.S. Treasury securities.

34 5

Article 11 Section H - page 120 Concerning Low Activity Waste (LAW), the U.S. national report states (p.

120) that for specific quantities, concentrations and radionuclides, and with the demonstration that exposures will be no more than a few tens of microsieverts (µSv), NRC may exempt such waste from further regulatory control with regard to the wastes radioactive content. Also for Surface Contaminated Radioactive Material, the U.S. national report indicates that if presence of controlled radioactive material above natural background levels is not detected, the solid material in question can be released for unrestricted use. Concerning volumetric contaminated radioactive material, the U.S national report indicates that e.g. controlled releases of volumetrically contaminated concrete may be approved under an annual dose criterion of a few tens of µSv. Could U.S. explain how the federal agencies manage the acceptability by the public or non-nuclear industrial operators of these materials?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducts its regulatory decision-making openly and candidly in order to maintain public confidence. NRC provides the public with the opportunity to comment on its regulations and guidance as they are developed. In addition, the public may comment on and participate in licensing actions, including license applications, applications for license amendments, and applications for approval of proposed waste disposal procedures under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 20.2002. When there is a high level of public interest in applications for alternative disposal, NRC conducts additional public engagement, as appropriate. Alternative disposal requests involving re-use can be made under 10 CFR 20.2002 and requests involving reuse or recycling would likely meet the conditions for additional public engagement. Further details on NRCs efforts to involve the public and stakeholders are discussed in Sections A.2.2, A.3.8, F.7.8, and F.9 of the U.S. National Report. Additional details regarding the enhanced communications for certain applications for alternative disposal are discussed in SECY-06-0056, "Improving Transparency in the 10 CFR 20.2002 Process," which can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2006/secy2006-0056/2006-0056scy.pdf.

For reactors, if contaminants are not detected above background levels, routine releases are permissible without NRC approval for each release. In the case of materials facilities, if contaminant concentrations do not exceed criteria committed to by the licensee (e.g., criteria may be provided in a license condition, usually following existing criteria in guidance (see NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2, Section 15.11)) routine releases are permissible without approval for each release. No public involvement is required for individual routine releases. Opportunities for public involvement in these cases would occur when NRC guidance is revised or when the licensee adopts or modifies its criteria for such releases.

35 1

Article 32

p. 26, Section B.3.3 Spent fuel management:

In the National Report it is stated that - among other scenarios - it is also considered that no repository becomes available. Are there any ideas how to react on such a situation?

The policy of the U.S., as established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is to permanently dispose of spent fuel and high-level waste in a deep geologic repository. However, the U.S.

will continue to store spent fuel safely and securely until a decision is made regarding final disposition or development of a new technology to manage the material.

As stated in Section A.3.1.3 of the U.S. National Report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the NUREG-2157, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (GEIS)," analyzed the environmental impact of storing spent fuel beyond the licensed operating life of reactors over three timeframes: for 60 years (short-term), 100 years after the short-term scenario (long-term), and indefinitely.

36 2

Article 22 pp. 77/78, Section F NRCs so-called Project Aim describes as a goal a right-sizing NRC. NRC has grown due to forecasted growth of nuclear power that did not occur.

How will the reduction in staffing levels affect the education, recruitment and training programmes of the federal agencies? What measures are planned to avoid effects possibly contradicting these programmes in the long term?

It is correct that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) increased its workforce beginning in the 2006 - 2007 timeframe in preparation for the expected increased workload related to new reactor licensing. However, when it became apparent that the expected growth in nuclear power would not materialize as predicted, NRC revised hiring plans accordingly. Beginning in June 2014, NRC embarked on Project Aim 2020, to ensure that NRC uses its resources effectively and efficiently.

The Project Aim 2020 report, "Achieving Exemplary Nuclear Regulation in the 21st Century," issued by the Executive Director for Operations and Chief Financial Officer on January 31, 2015, provided concrete and specific projections of the workload for the agency five years out, and developed recommendations to prepare NRC to excel long into the future.

This report can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1502/ML15023A558.html.

The project developed a forecast, along with the framework and recommendations, to enhance NRCs ability to plan and execute its mission while adapting in a timely, effective, and efficient manner to a dynamic environment. The project recommended, among other things, a plan for right-sizing, i.e., mapping the current workforce to the projected future state of the agency workforce and workload needs. To assist with right-sizing, NRC developed a strategic workforce plan to ensure NRC is positioned to have the right number of people with the right competencies at the right time. Strategic workforce planning takes a long-term view of the organization's staffing needs and how those needs may change based on internal and external factors. It allows NRC management to plan for current and future staffing decisions based on organizational mission, strategic direction and objectives, budgetary resources, and a set of desired workforce skills and competencies.

To date, NRC has accomplished the following Project Aim 2020 deliverables:

• Defined and implemented a workforce planning process across the agency,

• Identified and defined the functional work and occupations of the current agency workforce (e.g., materials inspections, reactor inspections, rulemaking) and the occupations and positions that support the work (e.g., reactor systems engineers, security specialists),

• Developed a future-state agency workforce and staffing plan (e.g., percent of technical vs. corporate staff, diversity, staff to supervisor ratios, grade structure, entry-level, and recruitment plans),

• Compared the current workforce to future agency workforce to identify staff overages and gaps,

• Identified critical, at-risk positions/competencies,

• Developed action plans and strategies to alleviate staff overages and gaps, and

• Identified best practices and lessons learned in order to continuously monitor and revise the agency workforce planning process.

These proactive steps have positioned NRC well to effectively prepare for changes in workload, budget, and other internal or external factors. Recruitment, hiring, retention, and training programs will always be high priorities for NRC, and will require careful and close monitoring to determine if and when adjustments may be necessary to meet changing NRC needs. NRC has not seen, and do not expect to experience, significant negative effects because of a reduction in staffing levels because the underlying human capital approaches, policies, and programs are quite sound and will remain important priorities now and in the future.

37 3

Article 32

p. 36, Section B Paragraph B.3.2.2 describes the Licensing Support Network (LSN) shut down which provided access to documents relevant to NRC's Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. The LSN documents have been preserved because all parties to the adjudication provided their copies to the NRC. This is a typical issue of knowledge management.

Have any distinct measures already been derived from this?

The LSN collection is currently maintained and publically available in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS). The Commission has directed NRC staff to gather input from the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) members and the public regarding reconstitution of the LSN or a suitable replacement system. Selection and/or recommendation of an approach for moving forward has not been made at this time.

38 4

Article 10

p. 124, Section G

Among others, paragraph G.7 mentions a research and development (R&D) programme regarding the long-term management of spent fuel.

Is there a schedule indicating when the next steps will be derived from the results?

Existing storage systems are being evaluated as spent fuel will be stored in dry casks longer than anticipated when they were loaded. It is currently believed that storing spent fuel longer than originally anticipated will not present a risk to safety. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to conduct research to improve understanding of potential concerns (e.g., performance of long term behavior of hydride re-orientation of the cladding, stress corrosion cracking, and thermal performance of the casks) to ensure sufficient time is available to address any safety concerns should they arise. A continuous evaluation of research priorities is performed by DOE, and research results are shared with international groups at the Extended Storage Collaboration Project that is sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute.

39 1

Article 19 A.3.2.3 Could you give us a brief overview about the comments that the NRC received on the public meeting in 2017?

During the February 2017 public meeting, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received divergent stakeholder comments on the Very Low-Level Waste (VLLW) Scoping Study. A number of stakeholders suggested that NRC define VLLW through rulemaking because that process affords the public a greater opportunity for involvement in the process Stakeholders also recommended that NRC align its VLLW classification with the VLLW definition in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) General Safety Guide No.

GSG-1, "Classification of Radioactive Waste." These stakeholders pointed out that the IAEAs categorization of waste has been in use by a number of IAEA member countries for many years. Other stakeholders suggested that NRC should use French and Spanish VLLW disposal sites as benchmarks for understanding the VLLW disposal experience.

Some stakeholder comments stated that the disposition pathway for radioactive waste that meet Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 20.2002 requirements, ensures a technical evaluation on a case-by-case basis rather than on a VLLW category. Stakeholders also stated that VLLW could be used to set a clearance standard as an unintended consequence. Some stakeholders thought the VLLW scoping study could result in a VLLW class of waste, which would cause financial instability or possible site closure of current LLW sites.

NRC continues to engage the public stakeholders during the VLLW scoping study process. For additional information, see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/very-llw.html.

40 1

Article 26 F.6.1, 93 Does NRC perform any check on the suitability of those proposed by the licensee?

As noted in Section F.6.1 of the U.S. National Report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees are required to analyze their particular facility and determine the appropriate health and safety measures necessary to maintain worker and public doses within NRC limits, and the health and safety plan is provided to NRC as part of the Decommissioning Plan (DP) or License Termination Plan (LTP). NRC evaluates each facility on a case-by-case basis and would evaluate the radiological safety aspects of scenarios proposed by the licensee during the review of the LTP or DP 41 2

Article 26 F.6.1.1, 94 Could USA clarify if the end state will be Green field or also Brown field could be considered if disposal option for spent fuel will be not available?

After decommissioning, the reactor license is either terminated and the site is released for unrestricted use under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 20, Subpart E, or the license is amended to include only the area housing spent fuel in dry storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation. Unrestricted use means NRC has not imposed limitations on the future use of the property by any owner.

NRC has never approved a restricted release. The requirements in such a case are in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The licensee has to provide institutional controls and a program to prevent inadvertent intrusion into the site and prevent exposures.

42 3

Article 28 J.2, 132 Could USA provide information about the re-entry of DSS from abroad?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for licensing and regulating the import and export of nuclear equipment and material as set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 110, "Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Materials." Under these regulations, (specifically, 10 CFR 110.2, 110.27, and 110.43),

radioactive waste cannot be imported into the U.S. unless authorized by a specific license. However, the definition of radioactive waste does not include disused sealed sources of U.S. origin that are being returned to a manufacturer, distributor, or other entity authorized to receive and possess the disused sealed source. Such disused sealed sources may be imported to the U.S. under a general license so long as the U.S. consignee is authorized to receive and possess the disused sealed source. In 2013, NRC published the "Branch Technical Position on the Import of Non-U.S. Origin Radioactive Sources," which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1317/ML13177A163.pdf. This document provides additional guidance to applicants and licensees on the import and export of disused sealed sources in an effort to prevent disused sealed sources being orphaned overseas and facilitating the return of disused sources to the supplier.

43 4

Article 25 F.5, 90 Do these phases take also into account the termination of the emergency as stated in req. 18 of GSR part 7?

The U.S. does not have a specific definition for the end of an emergency situation. All three phases (also known as early, intermediate, and late) are considered part of the overall emergency response, and there may be overlap between phases. In addition, the need to continue operating with legal authorities or funding sources that are applicable to emergencies may affect the decision to formally declare an end to the emergency. However, there will be a shift in activities as the situation stabilizes and transitions to a long-term recovery that will signal that the response is moving away from a traditional emergency posture. Such activities would include the transition of the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) leadership from the Department of Energy to the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as changes in the overall incident command structure.

Public messaging coordinated with this shift in activities would be important in ensuring that individuals remain aware of progress in the response and actions they can take to further reduce their exposure, such as changing filters on ventilation units. For additional information on the Protective Action Guides Manual, see https://www.epa.gov/radiation/pag-manuals-and-resources, and on the Nuclear-Radiological Incident Annex, see https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/25554.

44 5

Article 25 F.5, 90 Are bilateral agreements in force with neighbouring countries (Canada, Mexico)? Which federal agency or department is (EPA, DOE, NRC) is responsible for these agreements?

Yes, the U.S. has entered into bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico, and each agency has defined roles and responsibilities. These Agreements describe procedures and protocols to be implemented if an incident occurs that has the potential to affect a neighboring nation. For example, a key bilateral agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Canada (Environment Canada) is the Canada-United States Joint Inland Pollution Contingency Plan, which includes radioactive material in the definition of pollutant. For additional information, see https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/us-canada-joint-inland-pollution-contingency-plan. EPA is also U.S. co-chair for an agreement with Mexico, the Inland Border Plan (Preparedness for and Response to Emergencies and Contingencies Associated with Chemical Hazardous Substances in the Inland Border Area). Mexico co-chairs are the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Coordination for Civil Protection. For additional information, see https://www.epa.gov/border2020/mexico-united-states-joint-contingency-plan-2017.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also entered into arrangements with regulatory counterparts in these countries allowing for the exchange of technical information and cooperation in matters concerning nuclear safety.

45 6

Article 27 I,125 Is any inspection performed on shipment in case of import/export of radioactive waste?

The Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) oversees import/export requirements. In addition to requirements for advance electronic submission of cargo information for security purposes, CBP manages multiple programs for cargo control and examination. CBP administers the Container Security Initiative to pre-screen containers at foreign points o origin and identify high-risk shipments. In collaboration with host nation customs administrations, CBP uses risk-based analysis, intelligence, and technology including radiation detection to pre-screen, assess and examine suspicious containers. In addition, as a result of the SAFE Port Act of 2006, CBP has radiation portal monitors deployed at many ports of entry throughout the U.S. For more information, please visit: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry.

CBP is also the lead U.S. Government agency for the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a global effort that aims to stop trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from state and non-state actors of proliferation concern. For additional information on PSI, please visit: https://www.state.gov/t/isn/c10390.htm 46 7

Article 24 F.4, 78 Is the implementation of the optimisation demonstrated by the operator in the documentation submitted for the license issue?

In the U.S., the term, as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), is used instead of optimization. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts reviews of license applications and license amendments for spent fuel and low-level waste facilities that include an evaluation of whether the licensed facilities utilize procedures and engineering controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve occupational and public radiation exposures that will be ALARA.

Both NUREG-1200, Rev. 3, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," and NUREG-1567, "Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities," provide guidance to implement ALARA principles in the license application.

47 8

Article 24 F.4, 78 Does the operator provide, in the licensing documentation, an analysis of the possible accident scenarios involving unplanned or uncontrolled releases and the assessment of the relevant consequences in terms of radiological impact on critical groups of people concerned, with the aim of establishing ad hoc corrective measures?

NUREG-1567, "Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities," and Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)-16, "Emergency Planning," provide guidance for the review of emergency plans required for a spent fuel storage facility pursuant to the regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 72. The specific requirements for an emergency plan and its contents are delineated in 10 CFR 72.32 and are applicable to site-specific licensees. These requirements can also be applicable to a generally-licensed independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) if the licensee elects to implement the requirements in 10 CFR 72.32. These requirements include the analysis of the possible accident scenarios and the assessment of the relevant consequences in terms of radiological impact on critical populations.

ISFSI facilities generally-licensed under 10 CFR Part 72 may elect, under 10 CFR 72.32(c), to use their emergency plan required under 10 CFR 50.47, to satisfy the 10 CFR 72.32 requirements. These licensees must provide documentation of accident analyses performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67, "Accident source term," and 10 CFR 50.34 and 52.79, "Contents of applications; technical information," to meet the reactor siting criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria." Reactor designers who seek standard design certifications must also provide documentation of accident analyses in accordance with 10 CFR 52.47, "Contents of applications; technical information."

For low-level waste facilities, NUREG-1200, Rev. 3, includes Standard Review Plan 8.4, "Emergency Planning," which includes the requirements for operators to prepare an emergency plan for their facility. These requirements also include the analysis of the possible accident scenarios and the assessment of the relevant consequences in terms of radiological impact on critical populations.

48 1

Article 32.2.2 33 The report states that The United States of America (U.S.) nuclear power industry has generated approximately 77900 metric tons (MT) heavy metal (MTHM) of spent fuel as of the end of 2016. Of this, 27000 MTHM is in dry storage at nuclear power plant (NPP) sites.(p33,p34 D.1) On the other hand, at TableA-3(page16), long-term Management Policy for Spent fuel is Disposal in a geologic repository in compliance with the NWPA.

Can you provide annual accumulation of spent fuel after 2016 and estmation of future generation of spent fuel?

The average annual accumulation rate of spent fuel is in the range of 2,200 MTHM per year for at least the next ten years.

49 2

Article 32.2.2 33 F.4 describes the radiation protection for operating facility.

(1) In general, sampling and analysis should be implemented before the gaseous radioactive effluents are discharged to environment. Please explain the sampling method, sampling time(duration),

The Department of Energy (DOE) supports the resumption of the Yucca Mountain licensing process to help accelerate progress on fulfilling the Federal Governments obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future taxpayer burden. DOE also supports the development of an interim storage capability to accommodate spent fuel. The Presidents 2019 Federal Budget requests funding for these two activities. In terms of capacity, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act limits the quantity of spent fuel and high-level waste that could be emplaced at Yucca Mountain to 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal or a quantity of solidified high-level radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of such quantity of spent fuel until such time as a second repository is in operation. Congressional action would be required to raise this statutory limit or authorize and appropriate funds for a second repository.

50 3

Article 20 65 We recognise NRC is estimated one's work environment worth working most in the American federal government. Please provide what efforts have been made by NRC to win such prize.

The annual Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings are produced by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service and Deloitte, which calculates an index score based on the results from the Office of Personnel Managements annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The Partnerships rankings offer the most comprehensive assessment of how Federal public servants view their jobs and workplaces, providing employee perspectives on leadership, pay, innovation, work-life balance, and other issues.

First released in 2003, the rankings provide a mechanism to hold agency leaders accountable for the health of their organizations, serve as an early warning sign for agencies in trouble, and offer a roadmap for improvement.

At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey has been an important tool in providing useful information to help us continually improve as a place to work. NRC uses this survey with data from other sources such as our triennially administered Safety Culture and Climate Survey conducted internally by the Office of the Inspector General, data collected from exit surveys and interviews, and qualitative data derived from our organizational development interventions. NRC uses this body of information to develop action plans at the agency level, the office level, and the region level to identify opportunities for building a stronger agency culture. NRC believes it is important to address employee feedback by encouraging specific improvement initiatives and related action planning at both the office-and agency-wide levels.

The primary focus of the current Agency-wide Action Plan is to foster a greater climate of trust at NRC. In order to foster trust, three specific goals were identified: (1) strengthen the environment for raising concerns, (2) promote a culture of fairness, empowerment, and respect, and (3) establish clear expectations and accountability. A number of actionable activities that support these goals were implemented and are continually evaluated as new data becomes available. For example, NRC is embarking on an initiative guided by the FranklinCovey group on the Speed of Trust. The enterprise roll-out of the Speed of Trust workshops, tools, and resources pushes the agency towards dual-accountability and improved communications and this in turn builds employee morale, engagement, and satisfaction.

51 4

Article 20.1 65 We recognise most of NRC's fiscal resource is licence fee. Please indicate whether licencees can be involved in the process deciding it so that it isn't too heavy for them. And, if they can be involved in the process, please indicate measures taken by your government in terms of independency of the regulatory organization.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is required by law to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through user fees and annual charges. NRC funding is provided by the Congress, which also performs oversight of NRC activities. NRC conducts a rulemaking process each year that describes the basis for its proposed fees and allows stakeholders - including current NRC licensees and license applicants - to comment on the proposed fees. NRC also conducts an annual public meeting on the proposed fee rule to describe the proposed rule and answer questions from stakeholders. Comments from stakeholders are considered by NRC in preparing the final fee rule.

For Fiscal Year 2018, the proposed fee rule was published on January 25, 2018, and can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/25/2018-01065/revision-of-fee-schedules-fee-recovery-for-fiscal-year-2018. The assessment of fees does not affect NRCs ability to function as an independent regulatory agency, and NRC uses public forums when interacting with stakeholders regarding its annual fees. For additional information on NRC fees, see https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing/fees.html.

52 5

General page 26 On page 26 it says Commercial reprocessing.. was abandoned in the U.S.

in the 1970s. What does the US recognize as the milestone on this policy decision?

How does the research & development that is being conducted conform with this policy?

In the early stages of commercial nuclear power, reprocessing was thought to be essential to managing nuclear fuel. Federally sponsored breeder reactor development included research into advanced reprocessing technology. Several commercial interests in reprocessing were not successful due to economic, technical, and regulatory issues. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter terminated Federal support for reprocessing in an attempt to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons material. President Ronald Reagan lifted the ban four years later, but by then it was too expensive to reopen the closed plants, and, economically, this is still the case today.

53 1

Article 24 F.4 F.4 describes the radiation protection for operating facility.

(1) In general, sampling and analysis should be implemented before the gaseous radioactive effluents are discharged to environment. Please explain the sampling method, sampling time(duration), analysis frequency, and radionuclides to be analyzed, for particulates, noble gas, iodine, C-14 and H-3 in the gaseous effluents.

(2) Sampling and analysis should be implemented before the liquid radioactive effluents are discharged to environment. Please explain the sampling method, sampling time(duration) and analysis frequency for difficult-to-measure radionuclides such as C-14, Ni, Fe, Sr-89, Sr-90 in the liquid effuents.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.21, "Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste,"

describes methods NRC considers acceptable for use: (1) in measuring, evaluating, and reporting plant-related radioactivity (excluding background radiation) in liquid and gaseous effluents and solid radioactive waste shipments from NRC licensed facilities, and (2) in assessing and reporting the public dose from facility operations. This guide includes methods that a licensee can use to show compliance with requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 72 specific to spent fuel storage and 10 CFR Part 20 specifi to low-level waste facilities. The licensee could use this regulatory guide along with either NUREG-1200 or NUREG-1567 to design their facility-specific effluent monitoring and sampling program.

The routine measurement of difficult-to-measure radionuclides is addressed in Regulatory Guide 1.21. These radionuclides can be routinely determined using scaling factors. Once the facility identifies routine effluent pathways, detailed spectroscopy, and chemical analyses are performed to identify the radionuclides present and their concentrations. Once this ratio or mixture of radionuclides is established, the licensee would only need to measure one radionuclide in the effluent that is easily detected and quantified (such as Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137 which are high energy gamma emitting radionuclides). The licensee is then able to determine all the other nuclides and concentrations present by scaling them from the one measurement. The licensee can then meet regulatory reporting requirements by reporting all radionuclides and their concentrations present in the particular effluent stream.

Periodic re-evaluation is required of all effluent pathways to detect changes in the scaling factors or to establish new ones for new or modified effluents.

54 2

Article 26 F.6.1.1, p.94 What are the main safety issues during NRC's LTP review?

The primary safety issues to be addressed in a license termination plan are (1) dose modeling, (2) development of the Derived Concentration Guideline Levels, (3) final status survey plan implementing radiation survey measurements, and (4) contents of final status survey report. These technical issues are more fully described in NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, Rev. 1, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria" (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/). Guidance on the types of information to include in license termination plans is found in NUREG-1700, Rev. 1, "Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License Termination Plan." NUREG-1700 can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1700/.

55 3

Article 26 F.6.1.1, p.94 Related to regulatory controlled release of building and site, (1) When the licensee is planning to carry out DQO process mentioned in MARSSIM, what are the NRC's regulatory activities (i.e. historical site assessment, survey design, selection of radionuclides, etc.)?

(2) Is there any process on making a decision for radiation survey and site investigation between NRC and licensee (i.e. historical site assessment, survey design, selection of radionuclides, etc.)?

(3) How can NRC carry out the verification of site investigation result (FSSR) submitted by decommissioning licensee? Are there the guidelines or regulations for the verification?

(1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance in NUREG-1757, Vol. 1 and 2, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance," provides information on NRCs review of a licensees Decommissioning Plan (DP) or License Termination Plan (LTP), Historical Site Assessment, scoping surveys, characterization surveys, remedial action support surveys, and final status surveys. NUREG-1757 can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/. NRC reviews a licensees DP or LTP as a part of the process to evaluate a decommissioning application. A Final Status Survey Plan is submitted as part of the LTP by nuclear power reactor licensees. Materials licensees and Research and Test Reactor (RTR) licensees submit a Final Radiation Survey Plan as part of their DP. NRC reviews a licensees proposed survey design processes to determine if they comply with NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual - MARSSIM" which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1575/.

(2) NRC evaluates a licensees proposed processes as submitted in the DP or LTP, Historical Site Assessment, scoping surveys, characterization surveys, remedial action support surveys, and final status surveys.

(3) NRC often performs in-process surveys of a site during decommissioning and compares the results with the licensees remedial action support surveys. In addition, confirmatory surveys are generally performed by NRC after the completion of the decommissioning process to ensure a site has been properly remediated. Decommissioned sites must meet the criteria in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 20, Subpart E before NRC will terminate a license.

56 4

Article 32 B.4 As currently there are no facilities authorized for disposal of GTCC LLW, GTCC LLW should be stored in a storage facility for a long time.

Concerning long-term storage of GTCC LLW, is there any program to inspect the integrity of stored drums or containers for GTCC LLW?

It is the responsibility of the generator of greater-than-Class C (GTCC) low-level waste (LLW) to safely store GTCC LLW until a disposal facility is available. Requirements for storage of GTCC LLW are specified in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations mandating applicable public health and safety requirements.

57 5

Article 32 B.4 NRC has revised the Standard Review Plan Chapter 11 in Jan. 2016.

Could you explain the technical backgroud of SRP Revision in Jan. 2016?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC's) Office of New Reactors and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation revised NUREG-0800, Chapter 11, "Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition Radioactive Waste Management," to reflect lessons learned from NRCs reviews of nuclear power plant design certification and combined license applications completed since the chapter was last revised. The technical background for the revisions to Chapter 11 of the SRP can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2014-0198-0001 58 6

Article 26 Annex D-5 In Annex D-5, the decommissioning status of Halaco facility in California is marked as "EPA Superfund Site and estimated closure to be determined."

What is the difference between decommissioning site regulated by NRC and EPA Superfund site?

Sites designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, follow a specific process for cleanup that differs in some respects from the process used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to decommission licensed sites. CERCLA was passed by Congress to provide a mechanism to address significantly polluted sites that had been abandoned or for which the owners and/or operators do not have sufficient financial resources to conduct the cleanup. CERCLA provides a means for the Environmental Protection Agency to identify and recover costs from Potentially Responsible Parties, who have been determined to have contributed to the contamination. Most CERCLA sites are placed on the National Priorities List because of chemical, rather than radiological, contamination. For additional information on the CERCLA process, see https://www.epa.gov/superfund.

NRCs specific decommissioning process differs depending on the type of facility (power/non-power reactor, materials facility, or uranium recovery facility) and is described in detail i Section F.6 of the U.S. National Report. The main difference between cleanup at a Superfund site and decommissioning at a site licensed by NRC is that an NRC-licensed site undergoing decommissioning is a site that has reached the end of the operational life of the facility and the decommissioning is part of the life-cycle of the facility, whereas a CERCL site has been determined to be a potential threat to the public or the environment. Although the regulatory processes are different, the ultimate goal is to ensure that the responsible party pays for the cleanup of the site. For additional information on NRC's decommissioning process, see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning.html.

59 7

Article 26 Annex D-6 The terms of SAFSOR, SAFSTOR Possession Only and Monitored SAFSTOR are used for D&D status in Annex D-6.

What is the difference of each term?

Decommissioning strategies can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html.

• SAFSTOR - SAFSTOR, short for SAFe STORage, is one of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) approved methods for decommissioning a nuclear power plant in shutdown status. Under SAFSTOR procedures, a defueled plant is allowed up to 60 years to complete decontamination and dismantling of the site and to terminate its NRC license.

During the storage interval, the radioactivity at the nuclear power plant will decay, thereby reducing the quantity of radioactive material to be removed, and worker dose received during the final decontamination phase.

• SAFSTOR Possession Only - is a variation of SAFSTOR, in which the nuclear power plant was permanently shut down before NRCs current decommissioning regulations came in effect. Under this decommissioning method, although the facility license may have reached its expiration date, the license will not be terminated until cleanup of the permanently shut down plant is complete.

• Monitored SAFSTOR - is another variation of SAFSTOR and applies only to Three Mile Island Unit 2, which due its unique history and extended accident recovery phase, is now in a special status known as Post-Defueling Monitored Storage. Once Three Mile Island Unit 1 shuts down, both units will decommission concurrently.

60 8

Article 4 G.1 It is stated that the license period is 40-year term for ISFSI and the licensee has an option for renewal at the end of the license term.

Is license period applied on a per container basis or entire facility(ISFSI)?

As discussed in Section G.1 of the U.S. National Report, either a general license or a site-specific license is required to operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). Under a general license, as long as the licensee maintains a reactor operating license under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 50 and 52, the ISFSI license will remain operational.

The storage term for each storage system used by a general licensee is determined by the term of the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for the dry storage system selected for use under the general license. The CoCs are chosen from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved storage system designs listed in 10 CFR 72.214. The term for the CoC begins on the date that each storage system containing spent fuel is placed on the ISFSI storage pad and runs for the duration of the CoC term. The CoC for the dry storage system may be renewed, for a period of up to 40 additional years. Additional guidance on licensing terms may be found in NUREG-1927, Appendix F, Rev. 1, "Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel." NUREG-1927 can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1617/ML16179A148.pdf.

When NRC issues a site-specific license, the license covers both the site and the storage system. The license is approved for up to a 40 year period under a single license, with possible renewals.

61 9

Article 32 D.3.3, p.45 (1) As of April 2017, 20 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 4 research and test reactors are undergoing non-routine decommissioning.

What is the difference between routine and non-routine decommissioning?

What is the factor or regulatory principle to decide routine or non-routine decommissioning?

(2) NRC provides project management review for decommissioning. What kind of items and category does NRC use when reivewing project management of decommissioning? What criteria or standard does NRC apply?

(1) Routine decommissioning requires minimal remediation measures in order to meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) criteria for unrestricted release (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20, Subpart E). NRCs decommissioning program also includes termination of licenses for non-routine sites, which involve more complex decommissioning activities, including remediation. For additional information, see the "Status of Decommissioning Program, 2017 Annual Report" at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1727/ML17276A993.pdf.

(2) NRC reviews, through inspection, a decommissioning reactor's: 1) Organization, Management and Cost Controls, 2) Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications, 3) Self-Assessment, Auditing, and Corrective Actions, and, 4) Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews. The overall criteria for inspecting decommissioning reactors is contained in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2561, which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1734/ML17348A400.pdf.

62 10 Article 32 Annex D-1A p.144 (1) How do you manage or regulate the spent fuel generated from nuclear powered fleet of United States Navy?

(2) If the Navy operates separate spent fuel facilities, how do you regulate them from a perspective of safety? How does NRC participate in safety regulation of these facilities?

The Joint Convention does not apply to the safety of spent fuel or waste within defense or military programs unless declared specifically by the contracting party (Article 3.3). The U.S. Government has determined the Joint Convention does not apply to spent fuel or waste managed within the military programs in the U.S.

63 11 Article 24 F.4, p.84 What are the reasons for the publc dose limits listed in Table F-3 to be different by each type of facility(0.1, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 mSv)? Are there any problems that arise from applying different dose limits depending on the regulatory authority or facility?

Public dose standards are established by several Federal agencies and vary for a number of reasons. These standards reflect the scientific understanding and the dosimetry model available at the time adopted. They also reflect the differing responsibilities and statutory requirements for the responsible agencies.

The federal agencies with primary oversight responsibilities are the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Previously, a single agency (the Atomic Energy Commission) was tasked with regulatory authority over the use of nuclear materials in the U.S., pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). However, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 abolished the Atomic Energy Commission and divided its authority under the AEA between two newly-created agencies - NRC and what is now DOE.

Table F-3 of the U.S. National Report lists the dose limits of each of these agencies for facilities and materials regulated under their respective authorities. As regulatory agencies, DOE and NRC authorize the practices at each type of facility which has a dose limit specific to the cognizant agencys requirements.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes generally applicable standards to protect public health and the environment. These generally applicable standards are then implemented by DOE and NRC in their oversight roles. EPA also has authorities under different environmental statutes to address radionuclides in specific media, such as drinking water or air emissions, or for legacy cleanups. These different statutes often contain specific direction on how EPA develops these standards or requirements.

Public dose limits are generally established through a lengthy and involved rulemaking process with input from the public. The application of the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle results in doses to workers and the public that are below the regulatory limits. Typically, there are no problems associated with different public dose limits as agencies cooperate to ensure that limits remain protective and do not conflict in their application to any given facility.

64 12 Article 26 F.6.1, p.93 (1) NRC does not identify a reference scenario for a critical radiological accident during decommissioning. What is the particular reason that NRC does not identify it?

(2) To maintain the radiation exposure to worker and public within the limit, licensees are required to establsh appropriate work plan by taking into account radiation works to be conducted and characteristics of their facilities.

In case that even though licensees' measures meet regulatory limits or requirements, they are not the best optimal choices, does NRC enforce the licensee to take additional measures to reduce the risk? If yes, what measures are taken by NRC?

(1) As noted in Section F.6.1 of the U.S. National Report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) licensees are required to analyze their particular facility and determine the appropriate health and safety measures necessary to maintain worker and public doses within NRC limits, and the health and safety plan is provided to NRC as part of the Decommissioning Plan (DP) or License Termination Plan (LTP). NRC evaluates each facility on a case-by-case basis because variations in the types and degrees of potential radiological accident scenarios depend on the type of facility and its operating history. NRC also maintains radiological safety oversight prior to decommissioning a facility, and certain licensing conditions or technical specifications may remain in effect during decommissioning, as necessary, to maintain an appropriate level of protection. As an example, a nuclear power reactor undergoing decommissioning will pose a different level of risk while fuel remains in a spent fuel pool than when it is removed. Appropriate license conditions and levels of NRC's oversight will be in effect, commensurate with the status of the facility and in accordance with the applicable regulations.

(2) The general standard that NRC applies is to maintain exposures to radiation as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Standards for protection against radiation are discussed in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 20. Licensees are required to develop, document, and implement a radiation program commensurate with the scope and extent of licensed activities and sufficient to ensure compliance with NRC regulations.

65 13 Article 26 F.6.1.1, p.94 NRC holds a public meeting to discuss and obtain comments from the public near the facility on the LTP. Does NRC set any qualifications or requirements for particiation of the public meeting? (e.g. local residents only)

There are no specific qualifications for attendance in public meetings hosted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), including public meetings on the decommissioning process.

66 14 Article 4 G.2, p.111-112 The standards and procedures for handling and storage of damaged SNF are not included in section G.2.

(1) What is the definition of damaged SNF?

(2) How has it been stored and managed at-reactor sites?

(1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines damaged fuel as any fuel rod or fuel assembly that cannot fulfill its fuel-specific or system-related functions. This definition is found in Interim Staff Guidance - 1, Rev. 2, "Classifying the Condition of Spent Nuclear Fuel for Interim Storage and Transportation Based on Function." This document can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0714/ML071420268.pdf.

(2) In general, fuel classified as damaged may be stored in the spent fuel pool. Damaged fuel may be moved to dry storage, if first placed in cans designed for the dry storage of damaged fuel, and the dry storage system is approved for the storage of damaged fuel.

67 15 Article 5 G.2, p.112 Section G.2 describes that aging of components through corrosion, chemical attack and other machanisms are evaluated for renewal of storage license or CoC.

(1) What kinds of research have been done for mechanisms causing a reduction in the efficay of storage cask components over time?

(2) Has any detrimental effects been found on the storage system during the storage period?

(1) As described in Section G.2 of the U.S. National Report, typical examinations for renewal of a storage license or Certificate of Compliance (CoC) evaluate aging of components through corrosion, chemical attack, and other mechanisms that may cause a reduction in the efficacy of important storage system components. Current guidance on renewing site-specific storage licenses or CoCs is contained in NUREG-1927, Rev. 1, "Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel." NUREG-1927, Rev. 1 can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1927/r1/. NUREG-2214, "Managing Aging Processes In Storage (MAPS) Report," (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2214/) recently issued for public comment in the U.S., describes numerous research efforts to examine the technical issues related to extended dry storage of spent fuel.

(2) No. As described in Section G.6 of the U.S. National Report, studies indicate that at present there is no degradation over time in dry storage systems, which would warrant any changes in the licensing bases of these systems. To date, inspections of welded stainless steel canisters have not identified significant aging effects. Additional inspections of spent fuel storage systems will occur, as more systems enter the period of extended operation after license/CoC renewals.

The Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) established the aging management INPO database (AMID) to collect and evaluate aging effects on independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI). The database of operational experience at ISFSIs is available to ISFSI licensees and dry storage system vendors. (A description of the AMID database can be found in NEI 14-03, Rev. 2, "Format, Content and Implementation Guidance for Dry Cask Storage Operations Based Aging Management," at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1635/ML16356A210.pdf#page=58).

68 16 Article 32 B.3, p.25 Section B.3 mentions that $150 million are requested for FY 2018 budget to restart licensing activities for Yucca Mountain repository.

(1) How many years and how much are expected to spend for licensing of Yucca Mountain repository in total?

(2) If it is turned out that Yucca Mountain repository is not feasible as a result of review of licence application, is there any other alternative plan for siting?

(1) Although the Presidents Fiscal Year 2018 Budget requested funds to restart licensing activities for Yucca Mountain, no funds were appropriated.

In August 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) estimated that the resources needed to complete NRC actions associated with the Yucca Mountain construction authorization licensing proceedings would be $330 million. This represents NRCs costs and does not include the costs of other parties to the hearing (e.g., the Department of Energy (DOE)). NRC staff has estimated that it will take between three and five years to complete the construction authorization licensing process.

DOE does not have a current cost estimate for licensing activities for Yucca Mountain, and will not have one until Congress appropriates funds to DOE to restart such activities.

DOE supports the resumption of the Yucca Mountain licensing process to help accelerate progress on fulfilling the Federal Governments obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future taxpayer burden. DOE also supports the development of an interim storage capability to accommodate spent fuel. The Presidents 2019 Federal Budget Proposal requests funding for these two activities.

(2) No alternate plan or authority for a site other than Yucca Mountain is specified in the NWPA.

69 17 Article 15 H, p.118 As described in section H.2.4, safety is ensured through specific waste management controls (waste acceptance criteria and waste certification programs), and based on regulatory requirements.

(1) Could you please explain specifically what regulatory requirements are associated with establishing acceptance criteria?

(2) Is there a procedure for the regulatory body to review the acceptance criteria established by the disposal facility operator?

(3) Could you provide specific details of the main items and their content of the waste certification program?

(4). According to Chapter K 1.4, WIPP's WAC has been revised. What are the main reasons for the revision? (is it related to the February 2014 incident in WIPP?)

(5) If the waste acceptance criteria are revised during operation, as in the case of WIPP, what actions are taken against previously received or disposed wastes?

(1) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPPs) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) is derived from numerous regulatory sources including the WIPP Documented Safety Analysis, the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, and the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA's) Compliance Recertification Decision. (2) The Department of Energy updates the WAC as needed to reflect changes in the documents described above. If any changes are planned, they are communicated to EPA and to the New Mexico Environment Department for review via established procedures. (3) A waste certification program encompasses the disposal facilitys approved waste program, plans and procedures. Methods of compliance with each requirement and associated criterion are described or specifically referenced to include procedural and administrative controls.

Each waste container must meet the WIPP WAC established by the program prior to approval of the waste for disposal. (4) The WIPP WAC was revised after the 2014 WIPP radiological release event. Several new activities and process enhancements were established, such as enhancements to acceptable knowledge documentation. (5) In the case of revisions following the 2014 event at WIPP, the requirement for enhanced acceptable knowledge documentation was applied to both waste certified under previous versions of the WAC, as well as waste certified under the revised WAC.

70 1

Article 19 E.2.2.5 Other Environmental Protection A The report states that " Coordinating with DOE, NRC and states on orphaned sources, recycled materials, and controlling imports and exports to prevent radioactively contaminated scrap from entering the U.S.102 See Sections I and J for additional information. 102 Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection have the lead in detecting and taking steps to prevent the illegal entry of such materials. They have the authority to take enforcement actions and, depending on the circumstances, may seize or have a shipment returned to the point of origination." From previous Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) Incident Notification Forms, the Contracting Partynoted that such returns were quickly turned around. The Contracting Party is interested to learn of the procedure, including enforcement processes, on how the USA manages such quick turnarounds.

In general, when a product shipped to the U.S. is contaminated or otherwise violates laws or regulations, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has several options including seizure, destruction, and return of the product to country of origin. Generally, radioactively contaminated material is returned to the country of origin rather than seized, since the material cannot be destroyed and disposal is very expensive. In some cases where the material is in a radioactive source and presents national security or public health and safety concerns, the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy takes responsibility for the source and manages it through the Off-Site Source Recovery Program. For additional information, see http://osrp.lanl.gov.

71 1

Article 19 Section E.2 Do nuclear authorities (NRC, EPA, DOE) conduct joint inspections?

No, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are different agencies with different roles and responsibilities and do not conduct joint inspections. However, an agency may allow observers from the other agencies to attend inspections or reviews. In addition, regulatory agencies may coordinate activities and share information where the same facility is subject to their separate authorities. This also applies to states exercising authority on behalf of Federal agencies. For example, both EPA and DOE coordinate with state authorities when conducting inspections of waste characterization programs for compliance with Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance requirements.

72 2

Article 19 Section E.2.1.3 How often (yearly) does the NRC control commercial LLW disposal facilities?

Are there resident inspectors on site?

Currently, there are no low-level waste disposal facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The disposal facilities are regulated by Agreement States.

Section D.2.2.2 of the U.S. National Report lists these disposal facilities and provides their location. The inspection procedures are controlled and implemented by Agreement States. For additional information on the Agreement State Program, see https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-tribal/agreement-states.html. NRC has a review process for oversight of Agreement State radioactive materials programs called the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP). Agreement States are routinely reviewed every four years, although the timeline may be adjusted based on performance. For additional information on the IMPEP program, see https://scp.nrc.gov/impeptoolbox/impep.html.

73 3

Article 19 Section E.2.3 How is independent oversight over LLW management performing by DOE ensured, taking into account that DOE takes the position of operator and regulator at the same time?

The Department of Energy (DOE) has established the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group, consisting of Federal staff from multiple DOE Offices, to guide and provide oversight for low-level radioactive waste disposal. This group provides a check and balance system between Headquarters and the Field Sites, as well as across sites.

Typically, the oversight staff are selected from different organizations than operators. Section E.2.3.1 of the U.S. National Report discusses oversight activities.

74 4

Article 23 Section F.3 How are any possible discrepancies between the DOE and NRC requirements prevented?

The Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) facilitates interagency communication on radiation protection. It is comprised of eight Federal agencies, three Federal observer agencies, and two state observer agencies. ISCORS facilitates consensus on acceptable radiation dose levels and radiation risk to the public and workers, and promotes consistent risk approaches in setting and implementing standards for protection from ionizing radiation.

75 5

Article 32 Section B.3.1 Is a license for storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) issued periodically or for indefinite timeframe? Does the licensee conduct periodic safety review of ISFSIs?

Licenses for independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) are granted for a period of up to 40 years, with the possibility of being renewed for a period of an additional 40 years, as specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 72.42 and 72.240.

As described in Section G.4. of the U.S. National Report, and detailed in 10 CFR Part 72, Subparts G and L, ISFSI operations are required to implement a quality assurance (QA) program. As described in Section G.6. of the U.S. National Report, safety inspections are conducted by the licensee and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). When inspections identify specific safety issues, the issue must be resolved by the licensees to ensure safe operations. In addition, under 10 CFR 72.70, licensees are required to consolidate and update their Safety Analysis Report at regular intervals and licensees must seek amendments to their operational licenses for changes which require NRC review and approval.

76 6

Article 32 Section D.1.2 Is it planned to launch the Yucca Mountain Disposal project in the foreseeable future?

The Department of Energy (DOE) supports the resumption of the Yucca Mountain licensing process to help accelerate progress on fulfilling the Federal Governments obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future taxpayer burden. DOE also supports the development of an interim storage capability to accommodate spent fuel. The Presidents 2019 Federal Budget Proposal requests funding for these two activities. The proposal is under review by the Congress which appropriates funds for government programs. Congress did not appropriate funds for these activities in 2018.

77 1

Article 25 F.5 What measures have been taken in response to the HLW Tank incident of May 2017 both at the Hanford site and at other nuclear sites with HLW tank storage facilities (for example, Savannah River)?

The May 2017 event at Hanford was not a high-level waste tank incident. The roof of a plutonium uranium extraction (PUREX) plant tunnel used to store radioactively contaminated waste collapsed. There was no worker exposure or radiological release, and the Department of Energy (DOE) successfully placed engineered grout to stabilize the tunnel. A secon tunnel will be grouted in 2018 based on the recommendation of an independent panel of experts. Both tunnels store failed equipment from separations processes that were rinsed and decontaminated prior to transfer to the tunnels. DOE continues to assess infrastructure challenges across the complex and in collaboration with international partners. In summer 2017, DOE joined representatives from the nuclear cleanup programs of Canada and the United Kingdom to share best practices and develop common approaches to address their common aging infrastructure challenges.

78 2

Article 32 B.3.3 p. 26 Concerning the option of very long-term spent fuel storage, please, elaborate on the approaches applied to demonstrate its safety? Were there any R&D conducted to demonstrate that SNF reloading and transportation could be performed safety after such a long-term storage period?

Yes. Research undertaken by the Department of Energy demonstrates that the spent fuel can be retrieved safely after long-term storage. Results of this study can be found at:

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1133431.

For additional details on long-term storage, see NUREG-1927, Rev. 1, "Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance" which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1927/r1/. NUREG-1927, specifically, addresses aging mechanisms and aging effects that could affect structures, systems, and components relied upon for the safe storage of spent fuel in independent spent fuel storage installations or dry storage systems.

79 3

General A.3.1 The previous National Report mentioned the deep borehole disposal concept as a promising one for SNF and RW disposal in crystalline rocks and that relevant R&D activities had to be launched to study this issue. Were there any R&Ds performed in the reporting period to study this concept? If so, what results have been achieved?

The Department of Energy previously initiated Research and Development (R&D) activities to evaluate the feasibility of the deep borehole concept for disposal of certain smaller configurations of spent fuel and high-level wastes. These R&D activities were discontinued in early 2017.

80 4

Article 12 H.1 The Report provides no information on the management of reactor graphite?

Please, provide an overview of the current strategy adopted to ensure its long term safety.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) experience with decommissioning and waste disposal for graphite reactors is somewhat limited. The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 and the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station are the only commercial helium-cooled, graphite-moderated nuclear power reactors licensed by NRC.

Peach Bottom Unit 1, a 40 MWe reactor, operated from June of 1967 to final shutdown on October 31, 1974. All spent fuel was removed from the site and the spent fuel pool was drained and decontaminated. The reactor vessel, the primary system piping, and the steam generators remain in place. The facility is currently in a SAFSTOR condition. Final decommissioning is not expected until 2034. The 330 MWe Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station shutdown in 1989. The reactor station went into immediate decommissioning (DECON) and the plant site was released for unrestricted use in August 1997. The graphite moderator and other plant components were disposed of as low-level waste at the U.S.

Ecology commercial low-level waste site located on the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford site. The remaining spent fuel is stored onsite in a dry storage facility.

Both the SAFSTOR and DECON approach are considered safe alternatives for decommissioning graphite moderated reactors under NRC's regulations. In the SAFSTOR approach shutdown reactors can be safely monitored in place for up to 60 years after shutdown or the facility can be immediately decommissioned with the graphite moderator disposed of as low-level waste.

DOE has successfully managed the decommissioning of a number of graphite reactors including the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and multiple graphite reactors at the Hanford site.

Requirements governing long-term management and safety of decommissioned reactors are described in DOE Order 430.1A, "Life Cycle Management," and associated guides. At the Hanford site, interim safe storage (ISS) and safe storage enclosure (SSE) methods were applied. Long-term surveillance and maintenance (S&M) plans were developed for each reactor, and include activities such as water intrusion monitoring and periodic entry. Reports for each ISS/SSE activity, as well as S&M plans are available via document searc at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/simpleSearch.

81 5

Article 32 D.2.2.3, p. 42 The Report says that DOE performs annual site inspections as part of the long-term surveillance program at Title I disposal sites. What exactly is checked during such inspections of Title I inactive uranium milling sites?

The requirements for long-term surveillance and maintenance of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title I disposal sites are specified in site-specific Long-Term Surveillance Plans (LTSP) and in procedures established by the Department of Energy to comply with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 40.27. Site-specific LTSPs and site inspection reports are available at: https://www.energy.gov/lm/sites/lm-sites.

82 6

Article 32 D.2.2.3, p. 42 Indicate if Title I inactive uranium milling sites have the status of radioactive waste disposal facilities? If so, what scenarios were considered in relevant long-term safety assessments?

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title I sites do not have the status of radioactive waste disposal facilities because by law, they dispose of "residual radioactive material."

83 7

Article 32 B.4., p. 27 What kind of criteria are being evaluated (risks, costs, etc.) to choose the preferred and most feasible option regarding legacy RW disposal - whether to retrieve the waste and to dispose it of in a centralized repository or to perform necessary activities to enable its in situ disposal)?

In accordance with the Department of Energy (DOE) directives, ensuring protection and safety of workers, the public and the environment is paramount in disposal decisions.

Required performance objectives and measures must be met for disposal options. DOE Order 435.1, "Radioactive Waste Management," and DOE Manual 435.1-1, "Radioactive Waste Management Manual," contain specific requirements for the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of DOE radioactive waste.

84 8

Article 32 D.2 Please, indicate whether the list of radionuclides monitored during RW contro procedure is dependent on the origin of waste?

Origin of waste is used as a basis of knowledge for waste. However, additional waste characterization methods like non-destructive assay and sampling are also used to obtain data for disposal and waste classification.

85 1

General A, p. 7 What are the main improvements or actions taken based on the report Examination of Spent PWR Fuel Rods after 15 Years in Dry Storage (NUREG/CR-6381)?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relied on results of the Idaho cask demonstration presented in NUREG-CR/6831, "Examination of Spent PWR Fuel Rods After 15 Years in Dry Storage," which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0327/ML032731021.pdf) to develop criteria for the dry storage of low burnup spent fuel to apply in both an initial license term, as well as for renewal terms. NRCs Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) - 11, Revision 3, "Cladding Considerations for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Fuel," (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/isg-11R3.pdf) provides guidance on the implementation of the criteria.

ISG - 11, Rev. 3 provides guidance on the review of high burnup spent fuel (assembly average burnup exceeding 45 GWD/MTU) for up to 20 years in dry storage. NRC expects the licensee to provide information that confirms the behavior of spent fuel cladding of high burnup spent fuel for storage periods beyond 20 years through a demonstration cask as discussed further in ISG - 24, "The Use of a Demonstration Program as a Surveillance Tool for Confirmation of Integrity for Continued Storage of High Burnup Fuel beyond 20 Years," (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1405/ML14058B166.pdf).

Additionally, applicants may perform examinations of storage systems in place for longer than the initial storage period, in order to provide confirmatory data on the state of the storage system and its internal structures and components after the initial storage period ends. The results of these examinations are expected to indirectly confirm the condition of the fuel while in storage. NUREG-1536, Rev. 1, "Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility," provides additional information on dry storage system maintenance and inspection programs. NUREG-1536 can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1536/r1/sr1536r1.pdf.

86 1

General Section A.3.1.4 It is mentioned that several Interim storage facility applications were received by NRC. Could you provide some information on the types of proposed facilities? Please, update the information on the applications status as well on the technical review progress.

Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities (CISFs) are facilities proposed for the interim storage of spent fuel prior to final disposal in a deep geologic disposal facility. These facilities would be similar to existing independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs), providing dry storage for spent fuel with integrated shielding structures. CISFs will be regulated under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 72 and as proposed, would not be co-located with a power reactor. A prospective licensee for a specific license would submit an application under 10 CFR Part 72. Spent fuel would be transported to CISFs via approved transportation packages. The currently proposed CISFs do not include facilities to directly handle spent fuel assemblies.

In April 2016, Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) submitted an application to NRC to seek a license for a CISF in the state of Texas. In April 2017, WCS requested that NRC temporarily suspend all safety and environmental reviews. WCS has indicated they intend to resume the review. In March 2017, Holtec International, in coordination with the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance in New Mexico, submitted an application to NRC to seek a license for a CISF. The Holtec application was accepted for review by NRC in February 2018.

A license was issued to Private Fuel Storage LLC (PFS) for the Private Fuel Storage Facility by NRC on February 26, 2006. However, PFS has not undertaken the Authorized Use set forth in the license and no further action has been taken by PFS to develop this site.

Additional information on CISFs may be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis.html.

87 2

General Subsection K.1.4 Regarding the revised Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and the measures for the document control of the waste to be stored in the WIPP geological disposal facility, could you please explain in more detail the activities related to the document database? How the information provided by the wastes producers is verified? (through inspections or audits)?and which institution/organization is in charge of the corresponding verification and certification?

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Information System is part of the Waste Data System (WDS), a computerized data management system used to gather, store, and process information pertaining to waste destined for or disposed of at WIPP. After transmission of required characterization, certification, and shipping data to the WDS database, the system and administrator perform checks on each container. The WDS is equipped to verify that data submitted for a waste container is in compliance with the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). WIPP will not accept any waste shipments for disposal if the waste container information has not been correctly submitted and approved for shipment by the WDS Data Administrator at the WIPP site. The Department of Energy (DOE) and its WIPP site contractor are jointly held accountable for verification and certification that waste meets the WIPP WAC.

In addition, following the 2014 WIPP event, DOE developed enhanced systematic improvements to provide a deeply layered check-and-balance system for verifying TRU waste meets the WIPP WAC prior to shipment. The enhanced program fills gaps identified by the Accident Investigation Board and provides new layers of contractor and Federal oversigh to ensure that the gaps remain filled over time.

88 1

Article 25 F.5.1, 91 What are the arrangements for notifying the citizens in case of an emergency?

In case of emergencies, U.S. authorities issue communications to members of the public, including communications specifically directed to the potentially impacted area. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notifies the public of actual or potential radiological events through its public website, and may also use social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. NRC also sends email notification directly to members of the public subscribed to the agencys listservs.

State, local, or regional governments are responsible for issuing official announcements of events that may affect the public. These notifications, when appropriate, provide status updates and advice on the actions to be taken by the public during the emergency. The announcements may take the form of radio and television announcements, as well as robo-calls from public safety warning systems, such as REVERSE911. Notifications may also use existing civil defense sirens, which alert those in range to listen to the radio or television for specific instructions. The sirens are maintained and tested according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency standards.

As discussed in Section F.5 of the U.S. National Report, the National Response Framework describes the extensive emergency preparedness and emergency management programs in place at NRC-licensed and the Department of Energy facilities. All U.S. official response communications are coordinated through the National Response Framework to ensure consistent messaging. For additional general information on emergency preparedness and response, see https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness.html.

Licensees may notify members of public of emergency events that take place at their facilities through their public affairs offices, using websites, social media platforms, and where appropriate, through industry groups.

89 2

Article 27 I, 125-130 The requirements of transboundary movement are implemented into the national law (10 CFR Part 110). Is there any national regulation concerning the shipment of spent fuel or radioactive waste to a destination south of latitude 60 degrees South for storage or disposal?

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 110 does not contain a regulation specific to or concerning shipment of spent fuel or radioactive waste to a destination south of latitude 60 degrees South for storage or disposal. The specific export licensing criteria governing the export of radioactive waste is contained in 10 CFR 110.41, "Executive Branch review," and 10 CFR 110.42(d), "Export licensing criteria," which includes a requirement that the recipient country consents to the receipt of the radioactive waste and has the technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage and dispose of the waste 90 3

Article 26 A.3.7.1 In 2015, NRC initiated rulemaking with the objectives of providing a more efficient and predictable decommissioning transition process, as well as to address other issues deemed relevant by NRC staff or as directed by the Commission.

Are there any provisions foreseen in the rulemaking-process on regulatory improvements for Nuclear Power Plants for the need of licensed personal?

The proposed decommissioning rulemaking (82 FR 55954) is expected to address several aspects of licensee staffing at decommissioning sites:

1. Allowing a graded approach for emergency preparedness, thus permitting a significant reduction in licensee personnel who support the emergency preparedness function, without requiring prior Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of separate licensing actions,

2. Clarifying drug and alcohol testing requirements to support a licensees security program,

3. Modifying training programs for licensee personnel that handle spent fuel (i.e., certified fuel handlers), and

4. Clarifying the role of certified fuel handlers, including allowing a certified fuel handler to temporarily suspend security measures during certain emergency conditions or during severe weather.

Information on the proposed rulemaking can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID NRC-2015-0070.

91 4

Article 4 A3.2.1, 8 NRC regulations allow for concentration averaging of waste. How can be assured that averaging and blending are not utilized to the disadvantage of the environment?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission developed and published detailed guidance on concentration averaging and encapsulation, "Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position," Rev. 1, Vol. 1 and 2 (CA BTP). The CA BTP can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1225/ML12254B065.pdf (Vol. 1) and https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1232/ML12326A611.pdf (Vol. 2).

The guidance discusses when waste may be blended and how a licensee should demonstrate that waste is adequately blended. The CA BTP also recommends constraints for discrete items based on their size and the amounts and concentrations of radioactivity they contain. The size, amount of radioactivity, and concentration help define the hazard to an inadvertent intruder who might directly handle the discrete item. NRC or the responsible Agreement State has the authority to inspect low-level waste commercial facilities to verify compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

92 5

Article 10 A3.1.1, 6-7 and G7, 114 Department of Energy (DOE) has developed and is executing a research and development (R&D) program regarding the long-term management of spent fuel. It remains unclear, how and how often this program is updated or adapted in order to incorporate new developments.

Existing storage systems are being evaluated as spent fuel will be stored in dry casks longer than anticipated when they were loaded. It is currently believed that storing spent fuel longer than originally anticipated will not present a risk to safety. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to conduct research to improve understanding of potential concerns (e.g., performance of long term behavior of hydride re-orientation of the cladding, stress corrosion cracking, and thermal performance of the casks) to ensure sufficient time is available to address any safety concerns should they arise. A continuous evaluation of research priorities is performed by DOE, and research results are shared with international groups at the Extended Storage Collaboration Project that is sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute.

93 6

Article 8 F3, 77 Quality assurance (QA) requirements apply to institutions supervised by DOE and NRC (licensees, subcontractors etc.) and most DOE activities are also subject to QA requirements. It remains unclear, whether and how NRC activities are subject to QA requirements as well.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) use of quality assurance programs is unlike the Department of Energys because NRC does not perform activities that directly affect public health and safety (i.e., NRC is solely a regulator and does not operate any facilities itself). Nevertheless, NRC has internal procedures in place to control the quality of its technical research and regulatory activities. NRC's Management Directives System contains policies and procedures that govern the agency's system of internal NRC functions.

Management Directives are drafted by subject-matter experts, undergo internal administrative and policy review, and are approved for issuance by agency management.

For example, Management Directive 4.4, "Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control," provides policy guidance that ensures reasonable assurance that:

• Agency programs are achieving their intended results, and are protected from waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,

• Resources are being used consistent with the agencys mission,

• Information systems are authorized and appropriately secured,

• Laws and regulations are followed, and

• Reliable and timely information is obtained, maintained, reported, and used for sound decision making.

Additionally, NRCs Office of Inspector General (OIG) performs audits and investigations designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within NRC, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in agency programs and operations. OIG recommends corrective actions to be taken and reports on progress made in implementing those actions.

94 7

Article 10 F7.6, 102 The permanent disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste is a strong component of a strategy to avoid undue burdens on future generations. It remains unclear, however, whether passive safety of the permanent disposal sites or an unrestricted release will be achieved. For example, the DOE management facilities will not meet criteria for unrestricted release at any time in the foreseeable future (see section H.2.5).

Permanent disposal remains the desired long-term strategy for spent fuel and radioactive waste. The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to manage its inventory of spent fuel and radioactive waste in a safe and secure manner with continuous oversight until final disposition is achieved. DOE Order 435.1, "Radioactive Waste Management," and its associated manual, DOE Manual 435.1-1, "Radioactive Waste Management Manual," contain specific requirements for the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of DOE radioactive waste.

95 1

Article 32 Section A3.2 p.8 In Section A3.2, the report talks about concentration averaging and blending of wastes to dilute the higher activity wastes to meet the acceptance criteria for disposal at commercial facilities.

Whilst this can be a pragmatic and appropriate way to dispose of wastes where there are no other viable options it is broadly considered to be low down on the waste management hierarchy. What regulatory guidance is given on when this activity is appropriate and what degree of regulatory approval is required to dispose of wastes in this manner?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.55(a)(8), "Determination of concentrations in wastes," states, in part, that the concentration of a radionuclide may be averaged over the volume of the waste, or weight of the waste if the units are expressed as nanocuries per gram.

NRC regulations do not provide specific limitations on concentration averaging in the classification of waste. However, NRC developed and published detailed guidance on concentration averaging and encapsulation, "Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position," Rev. 1, Vol. 1 and 2 (CA BTP). The CA BTP can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1225/ML12254B065.pdf (Vol. 1) and https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1232/ML12326A611.pdf (Vol. 2).

The CA BTP provides guidance on appropriate volumes and masses to use in calculating average concentrations. NRC also recognizes that low-level waste (LLW), such as ion exchange resins, may be blended resulting in an essentially homogeneous mixture, where the average concentration of the final mixture is used for waste classification purposes.

The guidance details when waste may be blended and how to demonstrate that waste is adequately blended. The CA BTP also recommends constraints for discrete items based on their size and the amount or concentration of radioactivity they contain. The size, amount of radioactivity, and concentration of radioactivity helps define the hazard to an inadvertent intruder who might directly handle the discrete item. Additional information on LLW blending is discussed in the guidance, including guidance on averaging that meets the disposal requirements found in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55.

96 2

Article 9 Section A3.7 p.12 In Section A3.7, the report talks about changes to the level of public and stakeholder involvement in the decommissioning process for nuclear power plants.

Please provide further information on the changes that are being considered in this area and why these are beneficial.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) routinely engages specifically with state, Tribal, and local government stakeholders. NRC also participates, when requested, in meeting hosted by governmental bodies, for example, public utility commissions and environmental and radiological control boards. While these government to government meetings are largely open to widespread public participation, NRC is not directly responsible for the attendance or participation requirements for these meetings.

In addition, for many years, NRC has strongly recommended that licensees involved in decommissioning activities form a community committee or other advisory organization to foster communication and information exchange between the licensee and the members of the local community. Actively engaging the interested local community and seeking the views and concerns of local citizens on the decommissioning process and spent fuel storage issues enables licensees to better identify and consider local viewpoints and keep local communities informed of decommissioning activities. To date, all licensees decommissioning nuclear power plants have created some form of community advisory board with membership and activity levels commensurate with the overall level of community interest in the decommissioning activities at the facility.

On November 27, 2017, NRC published a final regulatory basis about a proposed rulemaking that would change the decommissioning process (82 FR 55954). Through the proposed rulemaking, NRC seeks to improve the decommissioning process to be more efficient, open, and predictable than this licensing approach. The rulemaking will also address decommissioning issues that will improve the overall decommissioning process. Documents related to the proposed rulemaking can be found at: www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2015-0070.

Other topics that NRC considers important in the revised regulatory framework for nuclear power reactors transitioning to decommissioning include:

• encouraging the participation of state, Tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental stakeholders in the decommissioning process; and

• meeting NRCs obligations under national environmental law and other national regulations.

97 3

Article 9 Section A3.9 In section A3.9 the report briefly describes progress on WIPP recovery. How has wider learning from the issues encountered at WIPP been fed into the design, quality and regulatory requirements for new and existing waste disposal facilities? What learning has been promulgated to consignors and how does WIPP ensure consignors comply with expectations?

The lessons learned as a result of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 2014 radiological release indicated a need for the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop new systems of control and oversight. DOE issued a major revision to the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) to incorporate the new requirements for transuranic (TRU) waste disposal at WIPP. In addition, DOE developed enhanced systematic improvements to provide a deeply layered check-and-balance system for verifying TRU waste meets the WIPP WAC prior to shipment. The enhanced program fills gaps identified by the Accident Investigation Board and provides new layers of contractor and Federal oversight to ensure that the gaps remain filled over time.

98 4

Article 12 Section D1.1 &

Table D-1 In section D1.1 the report states that spent fuel is wet stored and table D-1 shows that a significant quantity of fuel is currently stored in this manner.

Please provide more information about the length of time fuels will be wet stored, the type of fuel stored, and storage conditions of the fuel ponds.

The length of time that spent fuel resides in wet storage varies based on the specific nuclear power plant (NPP) site. In general, spent fuel cools for a minimum of three to five years in wet storage, and then each NPP site strives to maintain at least one full core off-load of fuel pool storage capacity. The fuel discussed here is commercial boiling water or pressurized water reactor fuel. Storage conditions in NPP fuel pools is typically in high-density fuel racks. Fuel stored in high-density racks is dispersed to mix higher decay heat assemblies with lower decay heat assemblies.

99 5

Article 7 Section G4 In section G4 the report identifies 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart F as detailing the minimum requirements for the design and operation of a Spent Fuel Management facility.

From time to time it is stipulated that these requirements will be reviewed and updated. When an update occurs how is this then implemented on existing facilities that met the old standard but not the new standard and how does the regulatory body drive ongoing improvements to safety?

When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers imposing new requirements, it evaluates how those changes will impact new and existing facilities. The backfitting provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 72.62 are applicable to new requirements of licensed independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facilities. NRC will impose new requirements on licensed facilities when those changes are necessary to ensure adequate protection to occupational or public health and safety, or to bring the ISFSI or MRS into compliance with a license or the rules or orders, or into conformance with written commitments by a licensee.

For additional information on backfit considerations, see Management Directive 8.4, "Management of Facility-specific Backfitting and Information Collection" (which can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12059A460.pdf), and NUREG-1409, "Backfitting Guidelines" (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0322/ML032230247.pdf).

NRC is currently in the process of revising both of these documents to reflect the Commission direction provided in SRM-COMSECY-16-0020, "Revision of Guidance Concerning Consideration of Cost and Applicability of Compliance Exception to Backfit Rule," a summary of which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1635/ML16355A258.pdf.

100 6

Article 9 Annex D2A Annex D2A shows that there are substantial volumes of highly active liquid wastes at various facilities. What is the plan for the disposal of this waste and how will the facilities that currently store the waste be cleaned out and decommissioned?

Liquid tank waste currently resides at three Department of Energy (DOE) facilities - Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, and Idaho Site. The U.S. plan for cleanup of the tanks for Hanford and Savannah River, comprised in part of waste from defense production activities, is to remove the contents of the tanks and to immobilize the waste for disposal. The low-activity fraction of the waste would be immobilized in either grout or glass and disposed on-site. The high-activity fraction would be immobilized into glass and stored onsite, pending availability of a disposal facility. Idaho's liquid waste is high in sodium and is planned to be steam reformed and disposed of offsite. For all sites, DOE has or plans to remove waste and radionuclides from the tanks, and then stabilize the tanks with grout.

101 7

Article 19 Section E2.2.3 In Section E2.2.3 the report describes the arrangements for the regulation of mixed waste disposal. This describes 4 different regulatory bodies which are responsible for regulating various sites. How is consistency of standards, requirements and outcomes achieved across these bodies?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ensures consistency among state hazardous waste regulatory programs by authorizing states to adopt and implement the national program. EPA specifically required authorized states to demonstrate that their programs apply to the hazardous portion of mixed waste. Similarly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ensures consistency among states through its Agreement State program. Both EPA and NRC allow, in certain cases, states to issue regulations that are more stringent than the Federal requirements. Mixed waste management, including generation, storage, treatment, and disposal, requires both radioactive materials licensing and hazardous waste permitting, as well as the appropriate documentation (e.g., manifests). The Department of Energy regulates the radioactive portion of mixed waste at its own sites, but must comply with NRC or Agreement State requirements when the waste is managed at commercial facilities regulated by NRC or an Agreement State. Where necessary, the state and Federal regulatory authorities coordinate their activities to ensure that all applicable requirements are identified and followed. Interagency coordination has significantly improved since mixed waste was determined to be subject to regulation as hazardous waste in the 1980s.

102 8

Article 26 Section F2.3.4 In Section F2.3.4 the report states that NRC evaluated the lessons from these existing legacy sites and issued a final rule on decommissioning planning to change its current financial assurance and licensee operational requirements to minimize or prevent future legacy sites Please provide an overview of the key findings from this evaluation and what actions are being undertaken to address them.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified several areas of concern and developed new regulations to reduce the potential for legacy sites by requiring procedures for: (1 preventing subsurface contamination, (2) promptly cleaning up leaks and spills, and (3) monitoring financial assurance mechanisms and trust funds to ensure adequate funding is available for cleanup. The rulemaking, Decommissioning Planning Rule, can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1127/ML11272A154.pdf. The supporting guidance document for this rule are Regulatory Guide 4.22, "Decommissioning Planning During Operations" (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1215/ML12158A361.pdf) and NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness" (which can be found at:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12048A683.pdf).

103 9

Article 26.4 p.93-97 Section F.6 There is no explicit reference in the report to arrangements for the retention of information to facilitate future decommissioning. Please identify the information that has been determined to be important for the purpose of decommissioning, and describe the arrangements that are in place to ensure that this information is kept.

The. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recordkeeping requirements concerning decommissioning activities are provided in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 30.35(g) for domestic licensing of byproduct material, 10 CFR 40.36(f) for domestic licensing of source material, 10 CFR 70.25(g) for domestic licensing of special nuclear material, and 10 CFR 50.75(g) for domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities. The regulations require the retention of information NRC has deemed to be important to the decommissioning process.

In addition, information from the decommissioning process is maintained in NRC information tracking system (Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System - ADAMS)

This information includes correspondence between licensees and NRC, which is searchable by facility, license number, and docket number. Public ADAMS contains letters from licensees stating the intention to cease reactor operations and begin the decommissioning process, License Amendment Requests from the licensee and the responses from NRC, Federal Register Notices, Post Shutdown Activities Reports, License Termination Plans, and all public meeting documentation. Public ADAMS includes all the guidance documents related to decommissioning, training qualifications documents, in-process and final status survey reports, and inspection reports.

104 10 Article 32 p.1 - 30 Section B & Section A.2.3 In this section, the report states - inter alia - that the U.S. has a policy in place to minimize the generation of waste that does not have a known disposal path.

Please explain what strategies and plans are in place to ensure that all wastes have an appropriate disposal path, to avoid creation of orphan waste streams.

Per Department of Energy (DOE) directives, life-cycle planning is required prior to waste generation to address all life cycle phases including disposal. Waste streams with no identified path to disposal may be generated only in accordance with approved conditions. Requirements for life-cycle planning and for generation of waste with no known disposal path are described in DOE Order 435.1, "Radioactive Waste Management," and its associated manual.