ML19249D935
| ML19249D935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Jeanne Johnston SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249D936 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909250571 | |
| Download: ML19249D935 (49) | |
Text
p nneLuq ye t
UNITED STATES C. 0,. #
j, X(
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION eg rq
- gt c
WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 s, v /
OFF CE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chainnan Subcommittee on Energy Regulation Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear,
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your note of May 14, 1979 forwarding the questions raised by Senators Domenici and Tsongas following the May 10th waste management / siting hearing.
I hope the enclosed answers will be helpful to the Senators.
If we can hgip in any other way, please let us know.
b i
Sincerely, i e ph
., Hendrie Chairman
Enclosure:
As stated 0
t *
%D
/
. w.
1019 286
.-b-7909250
/
ANSWERS T0 QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR D Question 1: Does NRC support the licensing of TRU waste?
Response
Yes.
NRC does support licensing of DOE disposal of TRU waste.
In addition, the Interagency Review Group (IRG) om Nuclear Waste Management has recomended NRC licensing of all new TRU disposal facilities, including facilities for militarily generated TRU waste.
Legislation would be needed for NRC to license such TRU disposal facility.
Question 2: Does the source of TRU waste in any way affect the desirability of licensing? In other words, does the fact that ti'e TRU waste for WIPP is a defense waste in any way diminish the casirability of licensing this facility er waste?
Response
The source of TRU waste does not affect the desirability of licensing disposal of such waste. The present preci. ice of retrievable storage for defense-related TRU effectively decouples Ticensing the disposal from the operation of plants which generate the waste. Also, certain physical characteristics of some defense-relate:d TRU waste might be classliied. We believe, however, that information concerning the general ch&acteristics of the waste would not ordinarily be classified, and that we vould use them as a basis for our safety and environmental assessments fer licensing.
Question 3: Can you briefly describe what you would considesr to be the scenario s for licensing the WIPP facility with and withow:t spent fuel?
m N
A.
Specifically, will the waste be licensed or the facility?
CN B.
If the waste is to be licensed to you beliewe that can be done -
with defense TRU without endangering the nacional security?
]
Response
A.
NRC licensing authority over DOE waste management activities is derived from sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. These sections confine NRC licensing authority over DOE waste management activities to certain DOE facilities for receipt and storage of high-level radioacti've waste.
If WIPP were to be used either exclusively for disciosal of transuranic wastes from the defense program or primarily for disposal of TRU and up to 1,000 commercial spent fuel rod assemblies, then WIPP might not be required to be licensed by the NRC.
While the 1,000 comercial spent fuel rod assemblies would be "high-level radio-
' active waste," the transuranic wastes woulci not be, and the facility would probably not be "primarily" for receipt and storage of "high-level radioactive waste" (section 202(3) of the Energy Reorgan-ization Act).
If WIPP is to be authorized for the purpose of disposal of defense program high-level wastes, NRC would be required to license that facility under section 202(4) of the Act provided it was not "used for, or... part of, research and deveicoment activities."
Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, repositories would not be licensed as " production" or " utilization" racilities.
Rather, they would be licens;ed under those provisions of the Atomic Energy Act dealing with receipt and possession of
2 "by product" and "special nuclear" materials.
However, the Conmission has authority under the Atomic Energy Act to fashion procedures for licensing of byproduct and special nuclear material that are tailored to the kinds of activities being authorized and the potential hazards involved. The licensing procedures for geologic repositories set forth in a proposed general statement of policy in' the Federal Register of November 17,1978 (copy attached), provide a review process similar to that used for production and utilization facilities.
B.
The IRG believed and we concur that disposal of defense TRU can be licensed without endangering the national security whether it is -
disposed of at WIPP or another facility. Administrative controls are -
in existence to protect any classified information from public disclosure.
Question 4:
In your statement you say the success of any national nuclear waste policy requires public participation.
Have you been in communication with the State of New Mexico in regard to the WIPP facility and in regards to what specific issues?
Response
14 embers of the HTC staff have met with representatives of the New F.exico Health and Environment Department of January 6,1978, April 13,1978 and March 1,1979, to discuss State participation in the NRC licensing of WIPP should such licensing occur.
The January 1978 rneeting was coupled with a public meeting.in which NRC described its thoughts on licensing pro-cedures and State particpation and then responded to questions.
The March 1979 meeting was coupled with a briefing before the New Mexico Senate Conservation Comnittee and the House Energy.and Natural Resources Committee and a meeting with Governor Bruce King. As a result of these meetir:
we have established a working relationship with the Health.and Environment Department and with the DOE-funded Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG) designated to perfonn an independe.nt review of WIPP.
Specific issues discussed included:
(1) est'.olishment of public document rooms, (2) timely receipt by the State of DOE infonnation submitted to NRC, (3) public meetings, (4) assignment of an NRC employee to New Mexico, (5). assignment of State employees or a university professor to IRC or.an NRC contractor, and (6) State assistance in preparing required environmental ~
assessments.
If NRC is authorized to license WIPP, these and other arrangements might_be,the_ subject of formal agreements.
NRC has also discussed related issues with members of the EEG and ti)e New Mexico Energy and' Minerals Department during their visits to the Washington area.
1019 288
5 9 1 g pile p I
- A NOTICIS 53869
'6 3
[/537-OI-M]
1978. from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m Decem-March 17,1977, these sessions will be ber 6.1978. from 1:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m closed to the public pursuant to sub-
- .S M101At ARTS (rpODUCDON AID) ADVtSoty and on December 7.1978, from 9
- 30 section (c) (4), (6) and 9(B) of section PAntts HATIONAL tNDOWMINT FCR TMI a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The topic of discus-552 of Title 5. United States Code.
ir ARTS sion will be Policy and Guidelines.
Further information with reference T.6 The remaining sessions of this meet-to this meeting can be obtained from
"**"8 Ing on December 5,1978. from 5 p.m.
Mr. John H. Clark. Advisory Commit-9
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the to 6 p.m December 6,1978 from 9:30 tee Management Officer. National En-
.M'.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
a.m. to 1:45 p.m December 7,1978 dowment for the Arts. Washington.
k L.
92-4G3), as amended. notice is from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m and Decem-D.C. 20506. or call 202-634-6070.
.Y hereby given that a meeting of the ber 8,1978. from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m
-4 Media Arts Advisory Panel (Produc, are for the purpose of Panel review.
U tion Aid) to the National Council on discussion, evaluation. and recommen-Jorne H. CIAxx.
W the Arts will be held on December 11.
dation on applications for financtal as-Dirretor. Office of Cosmcil and
.0-1978. from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m December sistance under the National Founda-Panel Operations. NationcI 12.1978. from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and De.
tion on the Arts and the Humanities Endotement for the%Irts.
Y.E cember 13,1973, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m Act of 1965, as amended, including dis
- WR h '!8-32428 N 11-1648-3:45 am)
Room 1220 Columbia Plaza Office cussion of information given in confi-
..'t.-
Building 2401 E Street NW., Washing-dence to the agency by grant appli.
O D
cants. In accordance with the determi-h 11s'C.
meeting is for the purpose of nation of tne Chairman published in 3MMI 4
P nct review. descussion, evaluation, the FamAL PtctsTER. Ma.rch 17,1977, w B4UCLEAR REGULATORY f*.
and recommendation on applications
- T.
for financial essistance under the Na-pu 1 e p u t tseet s (c) h tional Foundation on the Arts and the (6) and 9(b) of section $52b of Title 5 UCENSING PROCIDUXf3 FCE GEOLOG1C Rf-5 *.
Humanities Act of 1965 as amended. United States Code.
PoslTot!Es roa HIGH-tKVIL RADICACUVE including discussion of information Further information with reference-WA5TE5
.J' to this meeting can be obtained from M.
Mr. John H. Clark. Advisory Commit.
Pr*Pe**d G4ae==l Sle'es=*at of Perwy nnt app a
e U
the determmation of the Chairmen tee Management OUker. National En-AGENCY: UA Nuclear Regulatory d
[.[
published in t,he FmERAI, RrcisTra of D 20506,or 20 -634 60 U**
- U"'
3:;-
Ma ch 17.19... these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to sub.
Dated: November 14.1978.
ACTIOm Proposed General State-
- I-section (c) (4). (6), and 9(3) of section ment of Policy.
JOHN H. CI. ARK.
i 552 of Title 5. United States Code.
Director, O//iee of Council and SMME Tim U.S. Nuch Regula-R Furtner information with reference Penel Operetto rts.
Nationc!
tory Ce nission (NRC) has under
-F to this meeting can be obtained from Endotcmentfor the Arts.
consideratiort tire following proposed GJ Mr. John H. Clark. Advisory Commit.
policy s%2tementt regardhg establish-
}-
tee Management Officer. National En-p D c.7&-sn:t N Ms4a: 8:45 aml ment of proceduires for IIcensing geo-T dowment for the Arts. Washington, logic high level waste repositories to y
D.C. 20506. or call 202-C34-6070.
[7317-01-M]
be cons:ructed :and operated by the
.h Dated: November 14.1978.
U.S. Departmen.t of Energy (DOE).
VISUAL At71 (C:AFTS EXH13!T10N AID / This NRC policy' statement is intended JonN H. Ctanx.
woaKSHO?$) PANEL: NATICNAL endow. to inform DOE interested States and Director. O//ier of Councti cnd MENT 'FCR THE ART 5 members of the public of the proce-9 Penci Operations, National dures w2th whicch DOE will be re-Endo:rment for the,trts.
M'*
- quired to comply' to reo.ive a license to (f'It Doc.78-321:$ ri:ed 11-16-78: s:45 aml Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the construct and operate a repository.
f Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. The pohey, as finally adopted may be
-er L 92-463), as amended. notice is codified as part of the Commissaon's
[7537-01-M]
hereby given that a meeting of the regulations.
1 Ans (C E hibition Ald/ DATE: Comments are due on or MUDC (PLANN!NG SECTICN) 1.DV15 CRY PANit; NAT:CNAL. ENDOWM NT FOR THE
"""*#Y
- I o
Panc! to the National
^"IS Council on the Arts will be held De-ADDPMES: Send comments and su-h-
cember 11.1978, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 gestions to: Sectetary of the Commis-g,%
p.m December 12, 1973 from 9:30 sion. UA Nuclear Regulatory Com-Pursi ;nt to section 10(a)(2) of the a.m. to 5:30 p.m and December 13 mission. Washington, D.C. 20555. att FederM Advisory Ccmmittee Act (Pub.
1978. from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.. In tention:
Docketing and Service L 92-4 G3 ).
as amended, notice is Room 1426 Columbia Plaza Office Branch. Copies of cornments may be
.~
hereby given that a meeting of the Building. 2401 E Street NW., Washing-examined in the: U.S. Nuclear Regula-Music (Planning Section) Advisory ton. D.C.
tory Cornmission Public Document Panel to the National Council on the This meeting is for the purpose of Room.1717 H Street NW Washing-Arts wt!! be held December 5,1978.
Panel review. discussion. evaluation.
ton, D.C.
f rom 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m December 6 and recommendation on applications FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 1D78. from 0:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m De-for financial assi. stance under the Na-cember 7.1D73. from 9:30 a.m. to 6 ticnal Foundt.tlon on the Arts and the CMAC p.m., and December 8.1978, from 9:30 Humanities Act of 1965, as amended.
James C. Malaro Chief. High-Level J
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.. In room 1422. Colum. including discussion of information and Transurartic Waste Branch. Di-bla Plaza Office Building. 2401 E given in confidence to the :tgency by vision of Fuel Cycle and Material Street NW., Washington. D.C.
grant applicants. In accordance with
- Safety.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory A portion of thl4 meeting will be the determination of the Chairman Commission.
Washington, D.C.
s open to the pubiac on December 5 published in the ProtRat. R::c:sTra of 20555.
FEDIR AL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. 223 8 AIDAY, NOVEMilt 17, 1973 4
4n 1019 289
UNhlO [
i!
TL NOTICES 53870 i
SUPPLE!.IENTAL INTORh1ATION: and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganiza..constructiort of this shaft is expected The Commission is constdcring the tion Act of 1974. These sections refer to di:pmel some of the uncertainties in procedures to be used in the licensing to:
the acruracy of data nece::ary for of hi:h level waste repositones, and (3) Faci 11 tics used primarily for the design of the underground repcsstory, believcs that it would be useful to co.
recetut and stora:e of hish level radio. Thus tubile a safety review prior to helt the viers of intere:ted pctsons active wastes rc uiting from activitics sinking of a shaft would be appropri-Unor to making any final decision. Ac.
licensed under such Act (Atomic ate, tre scope of review and the find.
cordingly. the Commitston is publish
- Energy Act).
Incs re:;uired need to take into ac.
in; for commcnt thi Proposed Gener*
(4) Retnerable Surface Sforage Fa.
count rbc possibility that only limited al Statement of Policy on hich level cilitics and other fa:alities authon cd data =:ay be available. Further, there radioactive waste repository lictnstn for the exprets purpcce of sutmequent should. be a form:1 safety review of procedures set forth celow. "1he I ro-long tcrm storage of hi;h-levc! radio. the =Wn repository design features active waste generated by the Admin. before substantial commitments arc e use[b C for in m
- n. which are not med for, or M d sh&gecome iscS co al o planmng purpsse: pendin"~ a final are part of, research and devcicpment cacle tss implement. cinally tha Com-
- Commtulon decision on repository 11 mis:io:a believes that it :hould e: cam.
activitie:.
censtn procedures.
Under the Ener:7 Reorganization ine the methods of constructicn and Act of 1974, as amended. and the any crv inforrnation that mfy have Under prc ent statute. It is not clear whether ?mC would have licenring au-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amend. been ct:yeloped dttrin con:truction thority over DOC's planned Waste Iso.
ed, such repcsitories would not be lj.
before formally authoriz:== receipt lation Pilot Plant (WIPP) proposed to censed as "prcduct'on" or "utili.:ation*
and sto:rnge of radioactive snater:21s at 3
be located at Carhbad. N. Mex. I!ow.
faci!Itics. Rather, they would bc 11 the repesto,ry.
f; ever. If the WIPP facdity is subject to NRC licensmg. NP.C cxpects to apply. censed under the.;e provisions of the If a repeatory is cubject to the NRC th ese procedurcs in the licenstn Atomic Energy Act der. ling with re.
!!cww authority. the entire reposi.
7 ceipt and pc::e:: ion of " byproduct tory w GJ be subjected to licensin renew.
NRC licensing authonty over DOE and "special nuclear" matenals. How. revte s including those activities c
waste management activitics is derived ever, the Co-Mion has authonty whi#. by thernselves rnight not be from sections 202(3) and 200t4) cf the under the Atomic Energy Act to fash.
wi'.hin 4he scot'e of NEC resconcibili.
"F, Energy Reorgam:ation Act of 1974. ton procedures for hcenstt: of byprod.
t;. Tt:m compMhensive revtew wiD be il These sections confine NRC licensing uct and spec:al nuclear material that uccaserry b*cause loss of integrity in a'
authority over DOE waste manage. are tailored to the kinds of activities any p::-*. of a repositcry eculd imperil E
ment activities to certain DOE factli. being authon=ed and the potential the in:t::nty of the entire repo:itory.
O ties for recerot and storage of high h=ard: involved. For exa:nple. al.
The Cc=unission believes it should level radioactive waste. If WIPP is to though a license for posses:icn and prepare-an environmental impact be used exclusisely for di:posal of use of plutoniu=1 in a sealed calibra. statement pursuant to section transuranic wastes from the defense tion source and a licence for pcssession 100C'MO) of the National Environmen.
program and 1.000 commercial spent and u:e of plutonium for purposes of tal Poury Act of 19C9 ("NEI2A") prior fuel rod assemblics, then WIPP m!:ht proce:::ing and fuel fabrication are to aut. ton:ing construction of the i'
not be licenseable. While the 1.000 botn spec:al nuclear mateials licenses, main re:positor; shaf t. This staternent commercial spent fuel rod as:en.blies the former licenn may be issued af ter could Die updated prior to receipt and E
would be "high level radicactive a single review (and indeed niay even storam of radioactive materials at, the 3
waste." ' the transuranic wastes would be generally heensed without the need repos;=zry should new information net be, and the facility would not be for filin: and review of a specific 11 warr -'
"pnmarily" for receipt and storage of cense application-see 10 CFR 70.19).
E^^1# U NC" TO UA 9
"high level rad:oactive wastes" (sec-while the latter license may only be
- I " 23'U I^^
- 3 tien 200:3) of tlie Energy Reor:aniza-issued after a review process resem-tion Act). If WIPP is to be used for bling in many respects the two-step li-In c:Ter to provide cpportunity for Sj.
disposal of defense program high level censing review provided in the Atomic early.7._ut frosu States and other in.
wastes then it would be licenseable Energy Act for production and utili:2 terest=c parties. the Commission under section 202(4) of the Act pro-tion f acilities (see 10 CFR 70.00(f) and would. uzpon receipt of a DOE license f
vided it was not used for, or.. part 70.03(b)).
appli::nnon or request for an inferinal of, research and oeveloprnent t.ctivt-In fashionirg the procedures which early : rte review. (1) publish in the ties. It is possible that, depending follow, several unique features of geo-FrDIma.::. R: cts rs:t a notice of such re.
7 upon the exact program proposed by logic high-letel waste repcsitones were ceipt O) make a copy of the applica-
?)
DO WIPP could be regarded as a re-carefully considered. For such a re-tion cr fr-quest available at the Puolic
' N' search and development facthty
. the su2tability cf the site be-Docu=c nt Room, and (3) transnlit exempt from licenstng.
comes crucial, for the integrity of the copies c.f such request to the Governor i
INTRoDUCT!oN site itse!I is easantial to assure contain-of the State and to the Chief Execu.
i' ment of the radioactive materials. tive ci-the municipality in which the The U.S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Com-Thus, sound policy succests that the respe:cory is tentatively planned to i
miss;on ("URC" or " Commission") is Commis:, ion be alforded the opportu. be loc =ted and to the Governors of
'E se:ted uith licensing authonty over nity to partic:pate in DOE's site selec. any c: ntiguous States. Also, the str.ff 7'
certain DOB high level radioactive tion process, though--considenne the would offer to meet Cth State and waste repositorie by sections 202(3) tentative character cf the activities in-local C*ficials to provide them with in-E volved--only in an informal advisory forma::.on about the Commissien's
'V
' Den though spent fuel which is to te capacity. Also, for such an application, review and to explore the possibihties
_.f"-
dispo>ed cf in a geoiacie repo:itcry rnaY construction of a repcsitory shaft of Stue and local participation in the have some resource value. it contains radio-would constitute the first major pene.
CornmXssion licensing prVcess.
i-
/
acuve war.te. Thu:. it is clearly a"hsh tration of the geole :e containment. If I.tcmsm hoccms 3
1esel radioactive waste because it contains improperly constructed or scaled, it could impair the ability of the :eolo:ic The prcoosed repository lice::stn
.( t a.Il the tone and torig-hved radionuetides contained in the baues ustes f rom repro-cessme tM haic tradiuonaHy teen reord. containment to isolate wastes over proce:1ures are divided into four parti ed as a fot m of high levet adioactne wa.ste.
long periods of tune. At the same time, review of DOE site selection. review of d
'.*.O FEDER AL RtGit:IR. VOL. 43. NO. 223-f tloAY, NOVEMBER 17, 177:3 s-
.:. ~
-W 3-1019 290
@g.
-*?"
m NOTICES 53871 repository development, repository 11 under NEPA, and (2) that there is rea-the repository. DOE will need to f!Ie censmg. and respository closure.
sonable assurance that the types and n.n updated license application with
- 1. neriets of dor site selectio i amounts of wastes desenbed in the ap-the Commission. The license authoria-There would be informal NRC stafT pI! cation can be stored in a repository ing actu.al receipt and storage of radio-comments to DOE on site suitabilu of the design proposed without unres. active matenals would be issued after matters after DOC's site selection. sonable risk to the health and safety the Commission has conducted a final Euch informal consultation, which of the public or being inimical to the rewiew of health a.nd safety and might take the form of wntten NRC common defense and security. Con-e vnmcas defense and security issues ha stati comraents supplemented by one structiors would commence with the the light of (1) any additional geolog-or more open meetings between the sinking of the main repository shaft.
lc. hydrolocte, and other data obtained two agency staffs, would enable the In the alternative, where Ins.:fficient c::: ring construction; (2) conformance NRC sta!! to point out these aspects information is available prior to shaft of construction of repository struc-of a location which in its judrnent sinking to permit the Comnussion to t=:ts, systems, and components with mi:ht require special attention or pre-make the complete findings set forth the earlier received designt (3) resulta sent spectr.1 problems, and would hcip to define the kinds of information above, on request by DOS or on the of research programs carated out to re-that might be needed for the Commis-C mmission's own initiative, the Com-sdve cuestions identitled during prior mission could allow the safety review review.. (4) plans for startup and rou-ston to, make !! censing decisions.
As indicated, the intern tien be-to be conducted in two phases. Con-t=ae operations; and (5) plans for iden-struction of the shaft could commence t.:fying. and responding to any unan-tween NRC staff and DOE at this early stage would be censultive in upon finding (1) after considering rea-theipated releases of radioactive mate-nature. That is. NRC staff may pro-sonable alternrdlves, that the benefits r:21 from the repository. Iasuance of a of the prcposal exceed the costs under bcense will require a definitive finding Co i
11 e ther s'ke NEPA. and (2) that there is reasonable u= der the Atomic Energy Act that the i
find!ngs nor take other formal action. assurance that: (a) The site is suitable receipt, possession, and use of the spe-DOE would remain at liberty to come for a repository within which high-cim3 nuclear and byproduct materials forward liter with any license apphca-level wastes of the kinds and quanti-at the repository will not constitute tion that it believed would conform to ties descriced in the application can be uz: reasonable risk to the health and Commission requirements, and the stored without unreasonable risk to saiety of the public or be inimical to Commission would be free, as the evt. the health and safety. of the public or the conmson defense and secenty. If dence might warrant."to formally ap.
being inimical to the common defense warranted by new information which prove or disapprove the application.
and security, and (b) the plans for ccn-the staff judges could materially alter
- 2. Retteto of repesitory developmenf. struction of the main shaft and relat-the NEPA cost-benefit balance, the The formal Commission !! censing ed structures can be implemented in a earlier environmental impact state-review preceas would begin Mth the manner compatible with the use of the ment wiII be updated. Also, if request-filing of an application for a license by site for a respositcry. The full findings edi by a person whose interest may be DOE pnor to cor.mencement of con. set furth previously would, then. have affected, a hearing in accordance with struction of a repository shaft. The to be made before the start of con-subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2 would be application would be docketed for sucction of surface and underground he5d pnor to license issuance.
review after a prel!minary review for structures. Safety issues that could
- 35. License cmendment (cs needed3.
completeness, notice of the apphcation not be resolved based upon the avalla. If spec:21 restrictions such as retireva-would be published in the Ftcr:t.u. ble information might be deferred buMty or a limit on amounts or types of Rectsm offenn; an cpportunity for until the repository operating license wastes have been Lnposed in the 11-interested persons to intervene and re-review provided that: (1) an adequate cense, an amendment will be required quest a hearmg. and a public an-program has been developed to re olve p=or to cornmitting waste to irretrier-nouncement would be issued.
the tasue prior to that time, and (2) an.ta disposal or pnor to the receipt of The application would include infor-there is reasonable assurance that the act:itional waste. It is anticipated that mation on site suitability and reposi-issue can be resolved in a favorable the required review procedures and tory dt; sign features important to manner at the later date. The Com-findings will be similar to those de-safety. An environmental report pre-mission requests pub!!c comments on scibed above for initial licensing, pared by DOE addressinst the matters this pc.re.i"le course of action.
tating into account additional infor-set forth in section 102(2XC) of MEPA The Ul:PA environmental review r~-tien abtained during the retnerable would be submitted with or prior to would adress, to the extent pomible s:nrnge phase or during operaticrz the application.
based on available information. envi-w2h limited inventory.
It is probable that some information renrnental impacts and alternatives as-DOC will be required to conduct and necessary to make a definithc Cnding sociated directly or indirectly with mmitor its operations. to keep rec-of the repository's safety vrtil not then siting, construction, and operation of ords, and to submit routine and special be, available. Nevertheless, the Com-the repository. Any hearing held upon re ports. In accordance with Commis-miclon 8 could attthonae con:truction request of an Interested person would sian regulations and orders. All oper-of the repository upon completion of a be conducted in accordance with sub-annns will b iubject to such continu-review of all NEPA. safety, and part G of 10 CFR Part 2.
trc NRC in ?ction acti ities as may common c'efense and security lasues.
The applicant will be required to be found to appropriate.
and upon finding (1) af ter considenng report to the NRC, during the course
- 4. Renc*o w repository closure. After reasonable alternatives that the bene-fits of the proposal exceed the costs of con:truction, any site characterias-thie repository has been developed and tion data obtained which are not fined to rnaximum capacity but prior within the predicted limits upon to fina1 closure of the underground ex-
'I'or hearines granted on an spolication. which the repository desi:;n was based. carations and shafts and the decom-the Cemmuaon ecects, as in a nuetear Also, it would be required to report de-missioning of surface facihties, and power reactor tieensing proceedinc. to desis.
f ciencies in design and construction NRC review and approval will be re-ho and $ si which. If uncorrected, could have a sig-quired of the licensee's proposed pro-8 ed the nte ed mues. As m any licensing case. it sould be nificant adverse effect upon the safety g2am for compliance with regulations posuble for the Dosrd to render partial de.
of the repository at any future time.
gcvctning sealing of the underground cuiens on several ducrete issues, such as
- 31. Repository licensing. Prior to re-repository, decommtssiomng of surface flEPA usues.
ceipt of an}* r3Jioactive material at fac1hties. storage of permanent rec-FEDIRAL RfCititR. Vgt. 43. NO. 223-#RIDAY, NOVEM312 Ir.1973 1019 291
=
yJh N Q l ((Ll m gg e l
NOTICES 53872 Ords, and long-term monitorin::. Fol-CAMPUS /CA'IPVA Unified Report Economics. Statistics, a.nd Coopera-lowing completion of the :eview, a on Mental Health Services tives Service change in !! cense status may be war.
CA'.:PU3 G8 Retai3 seed price inquiry tanted.
On cecasion Semi-annually M ental health service professional Retail seed dealcrs.1.400 respon:cs:
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry prouders. 149.000 reponses: 22.350 467 hours0.00541 days <br />0.13 hours <br />7.721561e-4 weeks <br />1.776935e-4 months <br /> Commission.
hours Elletr C. A., 395-6132.
Dated at Washingten. D.C. thh 14th Caywood.D.P., 305-3443 DAvto R. Lrtmtot.n.
day of November. IS"8.
R:sdget and Management Offecer.
REvistons Joacs C. HoTL:'ry Acling Secregg TEDERAL REIRVE SYsTC4 fFR WS-m15 Ned 11-M8Ms aml CM8 C#*#3*0""
Domestic Finance Company Report of IFR Doc. 73-3:416 Filed 11-16 "8: 8:45 am)
Consolidated Assets and Liabilitics
[4510-23-M]
Udonthly Reprot)
FR:M8 PRES:0EWS COMMISSION C,N <OA!.
[3110-01-M]
Monthly 8**PI*
I U"*"C' *"E*"I'*'
CFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND spen:es: 2.400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> will be holding public heanngs at the The President's Commission on Coal EU'1GET Geiger. Susan B 395-5367 ollowing locations and times:
Ct1 ARAN;2 C* EtrORT3 TE:;ERAL REsIRVE sYsTE3d Use of tequests Domestic Finance Company Report of
$d *[ "'**' * # # '^
The following is a li:;t of requests for Consolidated Assets and Liabilities Piace: city Council Chambers. Cty Han. 55 clearance of reports intended for use (Quartch c.cport) hm.ame.s St. xt.Madunsten. Pa.
In collecting information from the FR 2:48A Date and time: December 14,191t; 9:30 a.m.
U public recenca by the Office of Man. Q terly agement and Budget on November D.
Ausr.nonum. Pikerille Co11cre. Plzen'Je.
1978 (44 U.S.C. 3509). The purpose of sponses: 1.440 hours0.00509 days <br />0.122 hours <br />7.275132e-4 weeks <br />1.6742e-4 months <br /> g
publi:hing this list in the FEDERAL Ceiger. Susan B 395-5867 REctsTER is to inform the public.
DEPAEnfENT or AGRICULTURE assure that the views of the public are en.
f the agency sponsoring Economics. Statistics, and Coopera, heard and considered by tr.e Commis-the proposed collection of informa.
tires Service sion un its study.
The Ccmmission was created to con-tion-Li:t sampling frame T!$e title of eachIequest received; Annually duct a comprehensive review of the 7he agency form numberts) if appli. Farmers. 406.530 responses 33.745 state of the coal industry in the ctole-hours Unned States with _particular ernpna-The frequency with which the infor. Office of Federal Statistical Policy sis era matters pertatning to productiv.
mation is proposed to be collected; and Str.dard. 673-7056 ity. capital investment, and the gener-al economic health cf t22e industry; An indication of who will be the re-DUARTMENT or THE TREASURY Collective bargahung. Enevance proct-spondents to the proposed collection:
dures. and such other arrects of labor.
The estimated number of responses: Bureau of Customs n22nagement relat!ans as the Commis-The estimated burden in report:ng Special summary steel invoice sion deems appropriate; health, saiety.
hours: 2::d Customs 5520 The ns:ne of the reviewer or review-On occasion and living conditions in the Nation',s ing division or office.
Foreign shipper, seller, or m:mutactur, coal fields. the development and apph-cation of new technologies to the in-Rec:uests for extension which appear er,175.00J responses: 43.750 hours0.00868 days <br />0.208 hours <br />0.00124 weeks <br />2.85375e-4 months <br /> to raise no significant i:; sues are to be Geiger. Susan B 395-5367 dustry; the impact on the coal indus-try of Federal regulations and such approved after brief no*1ce through E=T ssrcxs other matters as the Ccmmission th:: relea.
deem appropriate.
Further mformation about the items EQUAL E:IrLoYttmfT CFPonTUNITY He2rmgs have already been held by on th:s daily hst may be obtained from con.:nsslos the Clearance Office. Office of Man, the Commission in Charleston, W. Va State and local government informa-and Denver. Colo. At these sessions.
y agement and Budget. Washington.
D.C. 20503 (202-395-45:0). or from the tion (EIO 4) witnc=scs discussi:d the broad range of EEOC 164 issues which the Comrnission will be reviewer listed.
Annually con =dering over the co:ning year. The NEw PoR3ts Ltate and local governments with IS+
Wnhir.; ton, Pa., and Pskeville. Ky Cmployees. 45.600 responses: 364.800 hesnngs will be more directed in their DErARTyENT or ACRICULTURU hours Economics. Statistics, and Coopera-Laverne V. Collins. 395-3214
- scope, with segments of each heann:
being devoted to a single topic.
- 8 D
on d M Wd.MM.
DEFARTLtENT or ACRICULTURE Po!nt of Purchase Survey Pa.. hearing will be cevoted to testico-Smgle-time Forest Service ny from witnesses addres. sing issues re-Various farm operations. 11.000 re-Technical data--electronic type land lating to productivity in the coal in-soonses: 7.333 hours0.00385 days <br />0.0925 hours <br />5.505952e-4 weeks <br />1.267065e-4 months <br /> use dust.ry.
Office of Federal Statistleal Policy 3700-10 The murning sess'on of the Pikeville and Standard. 6"3-7956 On occasion heanne Mll focus on problems of the Radio, TV. and telephone companics, trarr:portation of coal. a..d the after-DD^RC DTOFDUENSE 100 responses; 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> noon. housing needs in coal proctuc.
Departmental and other Ellett. C. A., 305-6132 tion areas.
ftDE2At EEGl$ff t. VCL 43, NO. 2g3--TRioAY, NOVEM&tA 17, 1978 1019 292 o*
es*
i ANSWER T0 QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR TSONGAS Question 1:
What is the sMtus of -preparation of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel - NUREG-04047 When will this statement be completed?
Response
The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Stcrage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Funel, NUREG-0404, is in the final stages of preparation by the staff and its consultants.
The document, incorporating responses to coments received on the draft statement and updated as necessary, is undergoing NRC management review and is scheduled for publication by August 1979.
Question 2:
What is the status of the Part 72 rulemaking on regulations for the licensing of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Faci?ities? What generic safety and licensing issues has the Comission staff identified thus far in the rulemaking process? What is the expected schedule for promulgation of the final rule?
Response
The proposed rule 10 CFR Part 72 was issued for. comment during the period October 6, 1978, to January 5, 1979. Seventy responses com-prising some 650 comments have been received, and the NRC staff has been responding to the comments and analyzing the issues raised.
The staff presently is making appropriate charages to the draft rule.
Major generic and licensing issues addressed iin developing the rule and responding to comments include:
1.
adequacy ef technology for long term storage.
2.
accident potential, i.e. the risks associated with spent fuel storage.
3.
allowable dose limits in accident situations, and the related ALARA criteria for occupational exposures.
4.
"away-from-reactor" vs. "at-reactor" fuel storage sites 5.
public (hearings) and State / local participation in regulatory processes 6.
backfitting to accommcdate new criteria 7.
decomissioning of plants 8.
specific licensing requirements for facilities, possession of materials, etc.
1019 293
30DRBRBINM 2
9.
relationship of Part 72 to the development of a national policy on nuclear waste materials.
The staff plans to coordinate the revised draft rule together with the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on spent fuel storage (See Question 1, above). Current target for the prw1ulgation of the final rule is late Fall, 1979.
Question 3:
What is the status of the materials license renewal for the General Elec-tric Morris Operation Fuel Storage Installation (License No. SNM-1265)?
What has been the operating history of this facility? What is the status of the proposed modification of the facility to expand its storage capacity and noticed in the Federal Register (Docket 70-1308.)?
Its present storage capacity?
Response
The expiration date for License No SNM-1265, Docket No. 70-1308, for the General Electric Morris Operation for spent fuel storage is August 31, 1979. However, on February 27, 1979, an application for renewal of this license was received from General Electric and, pursuant to NRC regulations, the license will remain in effect until a determination is made on the renewal request.
On April 25, 1979, NRC announced in the Federal Register that the renewal application was being considered and that interested parties could petition for leave to intervene and to request a hearing in this case.
Petitions were filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois and by four individuals who have joined in a petition.
The GE r%rris Operation Fuel Storage Installation was built as a part of the Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant (MFRP) which was designed for the processing of Light Water Reactor (LWR) Fuel.
A license for early receipt of spent fuel prior to licensing of the MFRP was issued in December 1971.
Following GE's decision not to operate the MFRP in July 1974, NRC issued the fuel storage license for a five year term in August 1974.
In February 1975, GE applied for a license to in-crease storage capacity at Morris from 100 tonnes to 750 tonnes uranium (Te[U]) of spent fuel through storage rack rnodifications and the use of a pool area originally intended for the storage of canisters containing solidified high level waste.
Following safety and environmental reviews, NRC amended License No. SNM-1265 in December 1975, thereby authorizing the requested increase in storage capacity.
The op'eiating history of the Morr is Fuel Storage Installation has been uneventful with the exception of an incident in June 1972 when an empty fuel cask (of a type no longer used) tipped against the basin liner in the unloading pit of the fuel storage basin, puncturing the liner. This allowed basin water to enter the space between the liner and the structural concrete wall, and some water seeped into the ad-joining main process building. A temporary patch was installed the next day and the puncture was permanently patched in twelve days.
1019 294
P00RORIBilR 2
Question 3 response continued:
Water loss during this leak was carefully monitored and found to amount to approximately 2500 gallons.
The radioactivity level 6f the water was quite low - several orders of magnitude below the limits permitted by the NRC license and by'10 CFR Part 20 of the Commission's regulations. We believe that miost of this water was contained within the structure with the possibility that some may have entered fissures in the surrounding rock which resulted from blasting during construction.
Monitoring of four wells around the plant has indicated no activity above background.
The operation for more than six years of the Morris Operation fuel installation storage has not resulted in any significant safety or environmental impact.
On April 30, 1977, General Electric applied for an amendnant to License No. SNM-1255 which would allow an imcrease in fuel storage capacity at Morris from 750 to 1850 tonnes through the construction of an additional pool adjacent to the existing pool. Follow!ng notice of receipt of this application in the Federal Register, both the Attorney General of the State of Illinciis and trie itaturaT Resources Defense Council filed petitions for leave to intervene, and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was appointed for the case.
However, before the Board could decide on tfne status of the petitions, the Department of Energy issued a policy statement to the effect that the Federal Government would. accept irradiated fuel for storage.
Because of the uncertainty over ~ miementatiian of this National Spent Fuel Policy, General Electric petitioned the Board in November 1977 that the proceedings be suspended. The Board granted this petition in December 1977. The staff's safety and emvironmental reviews on the proposal have continued and are essentiilly complete.
The present licensed storage capacity at the GE Morris Operation is 750 Te(U) and the pool is racked for approximately 700 Te(U).
Spent fuel presently stored at Morris comprises about 50 percent of this capacity.
Question 4:
What is the license status of the spat fuel pool at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center operated by l Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.? What is its present storage capacity't
Response
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) operates the spent fuel pool under a provisional operating license issueci in accordance with~ ~~
The' New York State Energy Research and Development Authority owns the. site and is co-licensee with NFS. The pool was constructed to provide for receipt and storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to its reprocessing in the adjacent sieparations plant.
The pool presently has in storage ap' proximately 165 tonnes uranium (Te[U]) of spent fuel and has a capacity of about.250 TE (U).
Although the present license permits NFS to receive, store and transfer spent fuel, NFS has indicated it has no plans to accept additional spent fuel.
1019 295
P00R R GIRL In Minnesota v. i4RC, Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032 (D.C. Cir. decided May 23, 1979), a case related to the expansion of spent fuel pools at the Vermont Yankee and Prairie Island power plants, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the Comission consideration of the following issues:
(1) whether there is reasonable assurance that an off-site resolution will be available when the operating licenses for these plants expi e; and if not, (2) whetbr there is reasonable assurance that spent fuel can be sto.ed safely on site beyond those expiration dates.
However, the Court did not disturb the Comission's issuance of licenses for these spent fuel pool expansions.
The Commission has not had an opportunity to fully analyze this decision and determine the appropriate scope and procedures for a proceeding consistent with the Court's decision.
1019 296
4 g
Question 5:
What is the license status, and the scope of review completed thus far, of the Allied-General Nuclear Services ' reprocessing complex at Barnwell, South Carolina? What is the desrign capability for spent fuel storage of this facility?
Response
The major components of the nuclear fuel reprocessing complex proposed by. Allied-General Nuclear Services.(AGNS) fcn its site at Barnwell, South Carolina were to consist of a reprocessing plant featuring a high-level liquid waste storage system;.a related spent fuel storage pool; a plant for.the conversion of recovered uranium nitrate solution to uranium hexafluoride feed. material for enrichment plants; a facility for the conversion of recovered ;dutonium nitrate solution to plutonium oxide; and a. waste solidification and storage facility for conversion of high level liquid waste tar a solid form.
A construction permit was issued to AGNS in 1968 authorizing con-struction of the reprocessing plant, the spemt fuel storage pool and the liquid waste storage system. Later, whe.m AGNS applied for an operating license for these facilities, the AEC staff completed a safety evaluation report and a final envirommental impact statement.
During a contested hearing on safety and enwiironmental issues that begain in September 1974, these evaluations were introduced as part of the testimony by the staff and its consul:tants. After several wee'Ks of hearings in 1974 and 1975, the proceeding;were recessed pending the possible resolution of generic i:ssues on reprocessing and plutonium recycle anticipated in connect-ion with the NRC's Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed 0xides (GESMO), then in preparation.
Prior to reconvening the hearing, a Commission order dated December 23, 1977 terminated proceedings on pending or future plutonium recycle related license applications.
At the time of the Comission decision, the NRC staff was awaiting clarification from AGFS on certain safeguards issues.
(NRC had notified AGNS that additional safeguards measures would be necessary to protect the large quantities of plutoniunz to be stored and processed at the Barnwell facility).
Since the facilities covered by the construction permit were essentially complete, the Comission saw no need to alter the construction permit when the operating licensing proceedings were terminated, ant ttr,at permit remains in effect.
While considering the ope"ating license application for the re-processing plant, the statf also received an application from AGNS to authorize receipt and storage of spent fbel at Barnwell. A safety evaluation report and final environmental impact statement on the latter application were published in January 1976, and a public hearing was requested. The proceedirigs were delayed, however, because of the plutonium recycle issue described above, 1019 297
Question 5 response continued:
and AGNS has not pursued this. proceeding because of the indefinite deferral of. fuel reprocessing. The safety evaluation addressed the spent fuel storage pool as originally. designed and constructed (capacity about 400 tonnes uranium (Te[U]) of spent fuel).and any modifications to the facility would require further evaluation.
Its use as an independent spent fuel storage installation, for instance, rather then for its original. planned use associated with the reprocessing. plant would entail revisions to the environmental impact statement.
The staff's safety evaluation of the AGNS UFg facility and the final environmental impact statement were essentially complete at the time of the Commission's December 23, 1977 order, and licensing reviews were terminated.
Staff reviews of the application for the plutonium product facility had progressed through the early stages when AGNS informed the NRC in January 1975 that it was terminating final design of the facility because of the generic issues associated with plutonium recycle. AGNS did not submit an application for the waste solidification and storage facility.
As noted above, the design capability for the spent fuel storage pool at Barnwell is about 400 Te(U) of spent fuel.
Question 6:
What is the review status and scope of review completed for the Exxon Nuclear spent fuel storage and reprocessing complex planned for Oak Ridge, TN?
Response
In accordance with the Commission's Order of December 23, 1977 terminating GESMO and plutonium recycle-related proceedings, the NRC staff ceased its review of Exxon's application to construct and operate a Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center at Oak Ridge, TN.
The safety review had progressed to a point at which Exxon had responded to the NRC staff's initial comments and requests for additiona information, and the reviewers were preparing preliminary safety evaluations and developing further questions.or positions. Without any additional review effort, most of the reviewers subsequently prepared status reports to preserve a record of their work on the project. The environmental review had progressed to preparation of a preliminary and partial draft environmental impact statement.
Question 7:
How many applications has the Comission received for expansion of spent fuel storage capacity by licensees operating or constructing nuclear powerplants? What is the status of these applications?
How many have been approved?.What has been the length of time required for Comission approval?
1019 298
6 i
Question 7 response
Response
Tabulated below for three categories of power reactor owners or applicants for ownership is a list showing the number of reactors in each category, the number of applications received by NRC to increase storage capacity, the number of applications that have been approved, and.the number of reactors affected by the applications received.
Number of Applications to Increase Capacity Number of Number of 2
Reactors l_/
Received Approved Affected Reactors,
Licensees 70 52.3/
40 60 Holding Operating Licenses (OL)
Applicants Holding Con-struction Permits:
Under OL 37 17 28 Review Other Plants Under Con _
53 2
5 struction Applicants for 32 6
11 Construction Permit 1_/ Taken from NUREG-0380 " Program Summary Report," Jan:uary 19, 1979.
2/
Includes request to store spent fuel shipped from cine reactor site to another pool.
3/ Includes 6 second-time applications still under rewiew by NRC.
Of the 70 operating reactors, 60 are affected by one or more requests.
Of the other ten, one owner plans to increase on-site storage capacity but has not yet submitted a request.
Four inc:reased their storage capacities before their operating licenses were issued.
For two reactors there are no identified plans to increase capacity beyond the initial 9 l-1/3 core size. One gas cooled r eactor and two reacters which are shut down are not involved in s; pent fuel storage.
1019 299
7 I
j j
Question 7 response continued:
Of_the 37 reactors under review for operating licenses 28 will hcVe storage greater than the originally proposed 1-1/3 cores.
Of the 85 reactor applications not yet involved in operating license review,16 include plans for increatsed storage capacity.
Applications submitted by licensees with operating reactors are reviewed and approved or denied as separate actions.
That is, the requests for increased spent fuel storage capacity are.not tied to other subjects of review. The time required to review and dispose of the 40 applications received to date has varied from two months to 25 months, with a mediart time of nine months.
When an applicant who holds a construction permit, or is applying for a construction permit, also applies to enodify on-site storage capability, that application becomes part of the overall reactor plant review, and the review time for that discrete portion of the application dealing with storage cannot be separated out and measured.
1019 300
P0tR Nglut Question 7-A:
Identify each application, its status, and type and extent of modification. Coment on the status of any interventions in the licensing review of these spent fuel. modifications and identify and comment on the safety and public health issues raised in these interventions referencing where possible License Board proceedings.
Response
The attached Table shows the original spent fuel storage capacity for all operating reactors and the proposed expansion for reactors with applications either pending or reviewed.
Dates for appli-cations that have been approved also are shown. All applications propose increasing on-site storage capacities by adding. racks of the same design, or replacing old racks with new racks.of a different design, to existing. spent fuel storage pools.
No new pools or pool enlargements have been proposed.
A total of 52 applications were received, and requests for. petitions to intervene have been received in 13 cases.
Eight cases have been concluded.
Four cases involved adjudicatory decisions.
Nuclear Reaulatory Issuances for each of the four completed hearings toIiow:
Facility ASLB ASLAB Beaver Valley 7 NRC 811 (1978)
Prairie Island 6 NRC 265 (1977) 7 NRC 41 (1978)
Trojan 8 NRC 413 (1978)
Vermont Yankee 6 NRC 436 (1977) 7 NRC 41 (1978)
Issues raised during the interventions included heat rejection from the pool, corrosion of pool liner and rack components, the expected life of spent fuel stored under water, comparison of alternatives, increased on-site fission product inventory, the relation between spent fuel storage and ultimate disposal, and evacuation plans.
1019 301
TABLE 1 l
SPENT FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY - 7/10/79 Original Requested Licensee Capacity Expansion Approval Arkansas Nuclear One 1 253 Bundle 590 12/76 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 486 Beaver Valley 1 272 833 5/78 Big Rock Point 193 441 Browns Ferry 1, 2 & 3 1080 (each 3471 (each) 9/78 Brunswick 1 and 2 720 (each) 1386 (each) 10/77 Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 190 (each) 528 (each) 1/78 Cook I and 2 500 2050 Connecticut Yankee 336 1172 6/76 Cooper 740 2366 9/78 Crystal River 3 256 1163 Davis Besse 260 735 Dresden 1 672 Dresden 2 and 3 1160 (each) 1440 (each) 1/78 (Second) 1440 (each) 3780 (each)
Duane Arnold 510 2050 7/78 Farley 1 675 FitzPatrick 760 2244 Fort Calhoun 178 483 7/76 Ginna 210 595 11/7 6 1019 302
TABLE Original Requested Licensee Capaci ty Expansion Approval Hatch 1 840 Hatch 2 1120 Indian Point 2 264 482 12/75 Indian Point 3 264 840 3/78 Kewaunee 176 990 3/79 Lacrosse 84 134 3/76 (Second) 134 440 Maine Yankee 318 953 10/75 Millstone 1 880 2184 6/77 Millstone 2 301 667 6/77 Monticello 740 2237 4/78 Nine Mile Point 1 1140 1984 1/78 (Second) 1984 3009 North Anna 1 400 966 Oconee 1 and 2*
336 750
.6/79 Oconee 3 216 474 12/75 Oyster Creek 840 1800 3/77 Palisades 276 798 6/77 Peach Bottom 2/3 1100 (each) 2816 (each) 11/78 Pilgrim 1 900 2320 8/78 1019 303
TABLE
' Original Requested Licensee Capacity Expansion Approval Point Beach 1 and 2 296 351 10/75 (Second) 351 1502 4/79 Prairie Island 1 and 2 198 687 8/77 Quad Cities 1 and 2 1140 (each) 1460 (each) 1/78 Rancho Seco 244 579 6/76 Robinson 2 236 272-2/76 Salem 1 264 1170 St. Lucie 1 310 728 3/78 San Onofre 1 216 Surry 1 and 2 464 1044 3/78 Three Mile Island 1 174 496 12/77 Three Mile Island 2 442 Trojan 280 651 11/78 Turkey Point 3 and 4 217 (each) 621 (each) 3/77 Vermont Yankee 600 2000 9/77 Yankee Rowe 172 391 12/76 (Second) 391 721
' Zion 1 and 2 340 868 8/76 (Second) 868 2112 Storage capacity at fuel reprocessing facilities expressed in MT (metric) tons).
One NT is equivalent to about 2 PWR bundles or 5 BWR bundles.
- 0n site fuel transfer requested and approved as part of action taken for other units on site.
1019 304
QJestion 8:
How many applications has the Commission received for transhipment of spent fuel; a) between pools of the same utility, b) between pools of different utilities, c) between a utility and an independent away-from-reactor pool? Please identify shipments proposed between different reactor types and comment on the technical issues underlying or preventing such shipments. What is the status of these applications?
Response
The terms of reactor licenses usually confine the storage of spent fuel to the facility where the spent fuel was generated.
Therefore, regulatory approval is required for the receipt and storage of spent fuel from another facility, even though two facilities, each with its own pool, are on the same site. Turkey Point. Units 3 and 4 are examples.
It should be noted here that NRC approval is not required to ship spent fuel; only the recipient of the spent fuel needs approval.
Listed on the attached table are proposals to tranship spent fuel and their review status. All proposals involve. shipment between facilities owned by the same utility. No proposals have been made to ship spent fuel for storage between facilities of different utilities.
Proposals to ship spent fuel to an independent spent fuel storage facility are not required because, as stated above, regulatory approval is given to the receiver, not the shipper. Spent fuel has recently been shipped only to the Morris Facility.
Two of the proposed transhipments involve fuel of different types.
The storage of spent PWR fuel from the H. B. Robinson facility at Brunswick was approved. A proposal to store spent fuel from the Oconee Station at the McGuire site is under review.
Both the shipping and receiving facilities are designed to handle and store spent fuel, so the technical considerations involve only the adaption of fuel handling systems to the different fuel types, storage rack adaptions, etc..
These considerations are accomodated durine the normal reviews of spent fuel storage pool and related systems and new kinds of technical issues are rarely involved.
1019 305
TABLE INTER-REACTOR FACILITY TRANSFERS Involved Facilities On Site Transfers Oconee 1/2/3 (B&W)
- Approved Turkey Point 3/4 (W)
- Approved Dresden 1/2/3 (GE)
- Approved Quad-Cities 1/2 (GE)
- Approved Brunswick 1/2 (GE)
- Approved Between Site Transfer and Storage Robinson (W) to Brunswick (GE)
- Approved Dresden (GE) and Quad-Cities (GE)
- Under Review Oconee (B&W) to McGuire (W)
- Under Review 1019 306_
Question 9:
What are the Commission's regulatory requirements and regulatory position concerning the design and capacity of spent fuel storage at nuclear powerplants? How much capacity does the Commission require for individual and multi-unit sites?
What are the Comission's requirements for the maintenance of full-core reserve for powerplant spent fuel storage pools? Under the conditions is a licensee required to remove the entire core load of fuel?
Response
NRC has no regulatory requirement for a particular spent fuel storage design or capacity, nor is it aware of any cornpelling safety reason for requiring a full core discharge capability.
Historically, power reactor facilities have been designed and built with storage. pools that could accommodate the irradiated fuel assemblies discharged during refueling, plus some additorial space.
Generally, the designs also provide enough additional space for a full core, so that if a need to unload the core should arise, space would be available to do it immediately. The staff has encouraged this design philosphy.
NRC practice, as described in current review guidance, is.to require applicants to justify the spent fuel storage capacity provided in the design.
For example, some recent safety analysis reports state that storage space provided is consistent with the maximum number of spent fuel assemblies to be unloaded from the cars during the refueling cycle, plus the fuel contained in a full core load. This would mean a capacity of 1-1/3 cores for a single-unit plant and 1-2/3 cores for a two-unit facility. The staff considers this an appropriate basis for the selection and design of plant storage capacity, and has informed applicants to this effect, but no guides or regulations have been published which require it.
The staff has studied the need "or a full core reserve capacity, considering the benefits which might derive from an ability to com-pletely unload a reactor -- for needed repairs or modifications, or to reduce accumulated man-rem dose to workers during certain main-tenance or inspection activities, for example -- and it found that none of the postulated events or safety considerations studied demonstrated a need for immediate unloading. _ Core cooling system redundancies and reactor vessel integrity provide assurance that the reactor vessel is a safe location to keep the fuel already in the core for an indefinite period, following shutdown of the reactor.
Similarly, none of the postulated situations presented any compelling safety reasons for requiring a full core reserve, although the lack of such a capability could be expensive in cases of extended outages.
The NRC staff points out these benefits to applicants and licensees, but sees no reason to impose a formal requirernent to maintain full core reserve fuel storage capability 1019 307
l i L
Question 10: What is the review and licensing status of the Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Topical Report SWECO-7601 " Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility"? What is the procedt.re for utilities to reference this report? Are there any reactor sites or situations where the facility outlined in this report could not be constructed and licensed? Are there other such proposals under review?
Response
Stone and Webster) Topical Report, SWECO-7601, describes a stand-ardized design for a spent fuel storage pool for construction at an existing reactor site (nominal capacity of about 1100 tonnes uranium of spent fuel).
By letter.of July 12, 1978 the NRC staff approved the conceptual design, subject to additional information to be provided by a utility applicant for a specific reactor site.
In a letter dated January 12, 1979, the staff also identified specific sections of the report for reference in such applications.
That letter stated that design requirements and specificationsin the identified sections need not be reevaluated when referenced in site specific applications, and that utilities referencing those sections need only commit to design, construction and operation in accordance with them.
In general, the sections approved for refererscing cover the design and construction of the pool structure, taking into account seismic, wind, tornado, anti flood design requirements.
Other sections that may be referencec~ describe radiation protection features and quality assurance requirt.ments.
The Stone and Webster design. incorporates an envelope of parameters (e.g. seismic design at 0.39).that fits the chara::teristics of most reactor sites. The staff's evaluation would see to it that the site characteristics fall within the Stone ard Webster design envelope.
The NRC has received no other proposals for standardind designs of spent fuel storage pools.
1019 308
s 8
estesRT M. JACptJN. WesM., CMatAMAN 8
F A Asset C64JfBCM. 004840 MARK O. MATFIELD. ORES.
J. DEssastTT JosecesTese. LA.
JAMES A. MC CLuet. IDA880 DakE RUMPEms. AAK.
LOwEu P. WEICKER, JA-. COMN, n' M.
%~A.'"* ";. "!."'AO.*"' "'!:"' '"i"Am"".*"A 3Cnifeb,Sfa{cc,$enafe to a
na A
a COM MITTEE ON g.
s es, 846L BR Abdt ?
M.J.
ENERGY AND N ATUR AL RESOURCES pacek A. omrvrws. starr centCTom WAS HINGTON. D.C. 20510 svevo. ".' "e.l'"",'.'sT'.'."c0*"J"' M oaivv May 14, 1979 Honorable Joseph M.
Hendrie Chairman NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Subsequent to the hearing on May 10 on nuclear waste management and facility siting, several questioms were submitted for your written response by memben' raf the Committee.
These questions are attached.
In order to expedite the printing of thesa hearim.g0 it would be very helpful to have your reply by close of business Friday, May 25, 1979.
S i.
rely your ak J.
Bennet Johnstor:
Chairman, Subco.Wifee on EnergIy Regulation JBJ:bcg 7900250 77 1019 309
f QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI
^
For Chairman Hendrie:
A e
1.
Does NRC support the licensing of TRU waste?
2.
Does the source of TRU waste in any way affect the
~
desirability of licensing?
In other words, does the fact that the TRU waste for WIPP is a defe:nse waste in any way diminish the desirability of licensing this facility or waste?
3.
Can you briefly describe what you would cc:nsider to be the scenario for licensing the WIPP facility, with and without spent fuel?
A.
Specifically, will the waste be licensed or the facility?
B.
If the waste is to be licensed do you believe that can be done with defense TRU without endangering the National Security?
4.
In your statement you say the success of any national nuclear waste policy requires public participation.
Have you been in communication with the State of New Mexico in regard to the WIPP facility and in regards to what specific issues?
1019 310
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR TSONGAS Questions for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'j
- 1) What is the status of the preparation of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel--
NUREG-04047 When will this statement be completed?
- 2) What is the status of the Part 72 rulemaking on regulations for the licensing of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities? What generic safety and licensing issues has the Commission staff identified thus far in the rulemaking process?
What is the expected schedule for promulgation of the final rule?
- 3) What is the status of the materials license renewal for the General Electric Morris Operation Fuel Storage Installation (License No. SNM-1265)? What has been the operating history of this facility? What is the status of the proposed modification of the facility to expand its storage capacity and noticed in the Federal Register (Docket 70-1308)?
Its present storage capacity?
4)
What is the license status of the spent fuel pool at the L'estern New York Nuclear Service Center operated by Nuclear Fuel Services? Its spent fuel capabili
- 5) What is the license status,and the scope of review completed thus far, of the Allied-General Nuclear Services reprocessing complex at Barnwell, S.C.?
What is the design capability for spent fuel storage of this facility?
- 6) What is the review status and scope of review completed for the Exxon Nuclear spent fuel storage and reprocessing complex planned for Oak Ridge, TN?
/)
liow many applications has the Commission received for expansion of spent fuel storage capacity by licensees operating or constructing nuclear powerplants?
What is the status of these applications? How many have been approved? What has been the length of time. required for Commission approval?
7a) Identify each application, its status, and type and extent of modification.
Corment on the status of any interventions in the licensing review of these spent fuel modifications.and identify and comment on the safety and public health issues raised in these interventions referencing where possible Licensing Board proceedings.
- 8) How many applications has the Con ~.ission received for transhipment of spent fuel; a) between pools c' the same utility, b) between pools of different utilities, c) between a utility and an independent sway-f rom-reactor pool?
Please identify shipments proposed between dif ferent reactor types and com-ment on the technical issues underlying or preventing such shipments. 'ihat is the status of these applications?
- 9) What arethe Commission's regulatory requirements and regulatory position con-cerning the design and capacity of spent fuel storage at nuclear powerplants?
How much capacity does the Commission require for individ ual and multi-unit sites? What are the Commission's requirements for the maintenance of full-core reserve for powerplant spent fuel storage pools?
Under what conditions is a licensee required to remove the entire core load of fuel?
- 10) What is the review and licensing status of the Stone and Webster Engineeriig Corporation Topical Report SWECO-7601" Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility"?
What is the procedure for utilities to reference this rep, ort? Are there any reactor sites or situations where the facility outlined i.n this report could not be constructed and licensed?
Are there other such proposals under review?
1019 311