ML19250J217
| ML19250J217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/16/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250J216 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-81-383, TAC-48752, NUDOCS 8107200135 | |
| Download: ML19250J217 (2) | |
Text
.-
ENCLOSURE 1 1
ML.LGbilllCllb M C'0"NN'I's5"I'dN'E'R A V 'T I d 'N ;a.
RiiPdNSE SNFT
~
~
... TO:
' SAMUEL J. CHILK.) SECRETARY OF THE CoMMIS'SloN
,9..
FROM:..
comISsIONER HENDRIE
~
SUBJECT:
SECY-80-511 - STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES AT POWER '
8 RGGE SHE
~-
APPROVED'~ "
DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
T_. E x. h.- - St d._ o2 d S k.A.}. gek
(_ck M )
ao ak 2h e L PA ulte.
e-Q. r = eE-Q. Q &
n u
w ux h..
$ $CQ @ a QE %_ e-L wynd
.ek k s, G.
e-l Q& -
@ TURE
{b
~'
8107200135 810619
-~
~
CF SUBJ CF DATE SECRETARIATNOTE:'PCEAEEAisoREsPosnToAnn/oaconMENToNOGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF,oNE HAS SEEN ISSUED oN THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY Fons DEc. 7s
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE'S OUESTIONS ON SECY-80-511:
j 1.
What is the effect of this proposal on TMI-2 wastes of low-level classification? Do the EPICOR-2 resins fall in this category.
and if so how are they to be treated under this proposal? It looks to me as though this proposal leaves Het Ed with a built-in violation, and precious little way to get out of it.
Would it be reasonable to characterize this proposal as applying to LLW from nor:a1 operations and to exclude accident-recovery wastes?
2.
. The 5-year option requires a Part 30 license, with a hearing almost,
a certainty.
The schedule for TVA's waste proposal gives 7 months.
to issue the SER and EIA.
Since a hearing is inevitable, that adds one to two years for a decirion.
Is TVA's waste storage
~
capacity sufficient for that extended time? Would it be allowed under this proposal?
In general, where a plant's two-year capacity is partly or nearly used up and they file for the 5-year license.
how do you reconcile the review and hearing time requirements for the Part 30 license with the remaining available LLW storage capacity?
3.
Quite a number of plants have expanded their LLW storage capacity (19 or so, I think IE found) under a "no unreviewed safety question" finding per 50.59.
Are a~11 of these ending up with 2-year or less capacity, or will sore or all of these now be forced to file for 5-year Part 30 licenses?
~
4.
It is not clear to ce that a programmatic EIS for life-oftplant storage of LLW is necessary if.TYA is the only current prospect for such a facility.
My concern is that a programmatio statement will have to deal with the new LLW 1egislation and the effort to get states moYing on more LLW facilities.
That may take rany years to sort out and thus to complete the programmatic statement, with the TVA effort stalled in the meantime.
If TVA is the only such facility in sight now, an EIS for the TVA facility could be done much more quickly.
Then, if others want to follow TVA's lead, a programmatic statement might be undertaken and would have the TVA statement analyses to work from.
Please comment.
e
.