ML19253A923
| ML19253A923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Glenn J SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253A924 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909120495 | |
| Download: ML19253A923 (1) | |
Text
p * * "%,,
[5,3
- t tw UNITED STATES
'6"'
{ fg j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o',
yC WASHING TON,0.C. 20555
%. ) 4
.... p*
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Glenn Chaiman, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services Committee on Governmental Affairs Unitei States Senate Washi.'gton, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are pleased to provide the information requested in your letter of April 9,1979 to supplemert the record of the hearing of the Subcom-mittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferati^n and Federal Services on t' arch 14,1979.
Our response to Senator Javits' and your questions are enclosed. We will be glad to furnish any further information y]a may require.
\\\\
\\ Sincerely,
\\' Am(%1it doseph M. Hendrie s
Chairman
Enclosure:
NRC response to questions 3,3SOV:
gg 7900120 W f4
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR GLENN 1.
You stace in your testimony that the Commission does not "see the value of developing ISF's as separate demonstration facilities.iith no intent to expand these facilities for full-scale use".
Does this mean that the Commission believes that the WIPP facility, which is not expected to be expanded into a full-scale high-level waste or spent fuel facility, is ill-advised?
Response
No.
It is our understanding that the Department of Energy intends, if the site and concept prove favorable, to use the WIPP facility as a full-scale, permar ent disposal facility for transuranic wastes.
We do not believe it is necessary that a faci.ity provide permanent disposal for high-level waste as well as transuranic waste for it to be of value.
NN 2.
In performing its liEPA analysis of an application for a license to construct a repository, the Commission will have to consider alternatives to the proposal contained in the application.
If the WIPP facility were to be licensed and were to proceed on the sche-dules contained in the IRG Report for its construction at the earliest time, would adequate information about alternatives to this project be available sufficient to permit the fiRC to complete its fiEPA analysis, or would additional study of alternatives be necessary?
Response
In accordance with CEQ guidelines that require Federal agencies to review Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that fall within an agency's particular area of expertise and at the Department of Energy's (DOE) specific request pursuant to those guidelines, the NRC will review and comment on the DOE's draf t site specific EIS for WIPP which has just been issued.
In addition, should the WIPP facility f?.ll within fiRC's licensing jurisdictions, we would comply with our obligations under fiEPA, by preparing our own site specific EIS which would be based on our evaluation of the WIPP license application which would be submitted by DOE and the responses to staff questions that arise as part of our review.
Prior to completing either of these efforts, in which DOE would be required to present the full extent of their available data, we are not able to indicate whether or not information about alternatives is sufficient.
However, there appears to be no inherent reason why ade-quate information could not be made available.
Tne IRG Report schedule shows an earliest license application date for WIPP as mid 19/9.
However, the report also shows DOE's draft EIS on WIPP as being issued in the Fall of 1978.
In fact, this EIS was released the week of April 16, 1979.
Although tne early IRG schedule seems unlikely to be acnieved, for this discussion ws will assume the possi-bility of a license application being tendered sometime in 1979.
83CO m g
g Programmatic alternatives to the WIPP will be considered in Administra-tion decisions based on the IRG report and the supporting Generic Environ-mental Impact Statement (GEIS) on the Management of Conmercial Radioactive Waste.
This GEIS was also released the week of April 16.
These programmatic alternatives are expected to include such considerations as the need for facilities and the appropriate timing for the development of various technologies and options.
The NRC will review and comment on this draft GEIS.
We do not expect to reconsider these programmatic decisions in the context of a site specific licensing action.
If a decision to proceed with the development and licensing of the VIPP facility is made, the alternatives evaluated by the site specific EIS to support NRC's licensing action will include alternative sites and designs.
The adequacy of the data obtained for alternative sites is of crucial importance to such an evaluation.
9 kJ s ' k 3.
At page 50 of the hearing record Dr. Hendrie indicates that DOE may have to do some "backfitting" at the time tiRC regulations concerning pemanent repositories are issued in order to comply with such regulations.
In what areas specifically might such backfitting have to take place and how significant woulo it be?
Response
We are trying to eliminate the possibility of backfitting due to our criteria for licensing pemanent waste repositories by keeping DOE inforced of our decisions and interim thinking through information exchanga meetings which are open to the public.
However, backfitting cculd conceivably be necessary in any area subject to engineering design such as repository configuration or waste form.
The significance of such backfitting could range from trivial to total rejection of a partially completed site. While we cannot predict specific problem areas, we believe that the likelihood of major changes due to development of new standards or criteria is not great.
- t should be noted that the fiRC is developing regulations for the re-f:r ance of permanent waste repositories without specifying their desians.
We have neither the responsibility nor the resources to dirert JCE nca to achieve the required performance.
Furthermore, the initial
-e:csitory will be a first of a kind facility.
With no previous exper-ience for guidance in this area, tiRC's standards and criteria nust, of neces sity, ce ger.eral.
Inus, it is from the actual evaluation of a specific site
,r:p::al tnat recuirements for backfittinc ire most likely to be ident:ified ar: -o: #rcr ne ger.eral criteria themselves.
me e7 (a
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR JAVITS 1A There is discussion of enlarging spent fuel storage pools at the West Valley facility to accomodate reactor fuel rods now stored at operating reactor sites in New York.
Does this represent a national policy decision favoring regional away-from-reactor storage sites?
Do you believe it appropriate? Should NRC license such sites?
Response
In his testimony of January 26, 1979 before the House Committee on Incerior and Insular Affairs, Worth Bateman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, of the Department of Energy (DOE) indicated that in order to meet its goal of having away-from-reactor
( AFR) storage capacity on line by 1983, DOE was considering acquiring one or all of three existing installations; the Nuclear Fuel Services facility at West Valley, New York; the General Electric Morr.is Operation at Morris, Illinois; and the Allied-General Nuclear Services facility at Barnwell, South Carolina. The recent discussion concerning possible use of the spent fuel pool at West Valley is in line with DOE's testimony cor.cerr.ir.g their present plans fcr implementing the national spent fuel policy originally anncunced October 18, 1977.
In March 1978, tne NRC published a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) which analyzed interim spent fuel storage needs through the year 2:0:. The GEIS concluded that additional storage capacity
..culc te repuired in scite of the increases in existing on-site capacity ac-feved tr.rcu;h recesigning of fuel racks in existence at reactor a n a & L'f WM spent fuel pools. The GEIS also concluded that additional storage facilities would have negligible environmental impacts, whether they were located on-site at reactors or at separate sites away from reactors.
Accordingly, the NRC has taken a neutral position on the appropriateness of a national policy favoring regional away-from-reactor storage sites.
However, in anticipation of requests to license away-from-reactor facilities, the NRC developed and published for comment draft regulations for licensing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation.
As regards Federal Government or private spent fuel storage installations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes a neutral position.
As long as the public health and safety and environmental impact issues are adequately addressed, the NRC does not believe it should express a preference concerning the ownership of such installations.
In his testimony of June 14, 1978, before the Subcommittee on Nu clear Regulation of the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works, Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie stated NRC's position that NRC has the authority to license the storage of co=ercial reactor spent fuel at a Federal spent fuel storage installation.
Nevertheless, Chairman Hendrie requested that the Congress, should it authorize such Federal installations, make clear the NRC licensing authority over such storage.
Subsecuently, to corplement tne Acministration's bill on spent fuel storage (HR25SE) submitted by Congresscen Stac;ers and Devine, Congressmen Udall and p
hJ l
L 7o-m ut 1 a
e Bingham have submitted a bill (HR2611) to amend section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to specifically include NRC's licensing authority over DOE spent fuel storage installations.
4
,, d
( '
41 g u n..a.
mW 2A Similarly, the State of New York is considering reopening the West Valley low-level waste burial site. Do you believe State or regional low-level storage to be as safe as more centralized storage sites?
Should NRC have a role in licensing or overseeing state low-level waste repositories.
Response
We consider regional siting of low-level waste disposal sites to generally meet the concept of centralized sites as opposed to individual sites in each state.
Regionally located sites, properly sited and operated, can provide safe disposal capacity for LLW.
The degree of safety of disposal sites is related more to individual site characteristics, disposal facility design, and operating practices thar. to the numbeers of such sites.
The number of sites needed should be kept to a mi:rimum, however, to prevent unnecessary commitments of natural and institnional resources.
The siting of LLW disposal facilities involves many factor:s, including projected waste disposal needs, social and political considerations, site characteristics and transportation.
We believe low-level waste disposal sites should be regionally located to meet regional needs, to minimize transportation impacts and to avoid unnecessary proliferatica in the number of individual disposal sites.
Regicnal siting should result in a minimum number of regionally located, centralized disposal sites.
You also inquired whether NRC should have a role i:n licensing or overseeing state low-level waste disposal sites.
NRC presently has a role in that NRC reviews the adequacy of individual licens-ing actions, including those for low-level waste disposal as part of its program of adequacy and compatibility determinations for Agreement State radiation ccctrol programs.
URC has traditionally offered and provided technical assistance to the Agreement States in support of iridividua~1 major state q.' " O ' '
,n< wc r 1
m
,U qj, o ! j JL ua v
licensing actions.
NRC is continually strengthening this technical assistance program and will be providing environmental assessments for state low-level waste disposal site licensing actions as well as other technical assistance. We believe the present role of NRC of providing general oversight responsibility and technical assistance to th igreement States to be adequate.
rg* '[.$li
- O
( *>
^
f 9
9 t
es e, l\\
m
. h Lilj 8.
J J u __a 9
3A Have JRC waste disposal experts been working with the State of flew Ycrk and the Department of Energy on the West Valley question?
Response
The Department of Energy (DOE) has recently completed a study on avail-able future options for the entire West Valley site.
The report of this congressionally mandated study (Public Law 95-238, Section 105) was submitted to the Congress on February 24, 1979.
DOE conducted this study in consultation with the t4RC, the State of New York and other governmental agencies.
During the course of the study, the NRC staff provided DOE with technical input and licensing requirements.
The tiRC has long felt that the most important technical questions concerning West Valley involve the determination of the detailed and specific engineering efforts needed to retrieve and solidify the high-level liquid wastes. We have been urging DOE, as the organizaticn with the expertise to retrieve and solidify high-level liquid wastes, to undertake these detailed engineering efforts for the West Valley wastes.
nithin the limitation of our authority as an independent regulatory agency, we will continue tc work with DOE on the West Valley waste questions.
33 ',', C M
[
EM 4h Please furnish this Subcormiittee with a staff e"aluation of the exact costs and fuel use impacts of the five reactor shutdowns and with your estimates of the time needed for repairs.
Response
At present, we have only tentative and preliminary staff estimates as pro-vided below.
Definitive information will depend on the actual experience of the various utilities involved.
Tne additional cost of generating electricity by burning fossil fuel instead of operating four of the reactors that are shut down may be as much as $1.4 million per day. The fifth reactor, Surry 2, is not included because it had already been shut down for a repair program on steam generators.
Speci fic costs for individual reactors depend on a number of factors such as type of fossil fuel and nuclear fuel, cost of purchased power, plans for scheduled outages and allowances for unscheduled outages, and effects on costs of operation and maintenance.
Oil consumption for replacement for Fitzpatrick, Surry 1, and Maine Yankee could total as much as 93,000 barrels per day.
Replacement powor for Beaver Valley wou'd probably be supplied mainly by burning coal.
We had been informed by the licensee for Maine Yankee that there could be a reliability problem in Maine, where the only other large thermal unit was shut down fo naintenance, where operation of the second largest f:ssil plant vias restricted because of oil delivery oroblems, and where t'es to New Brunr. lick depended on a single transrission line to New
,ar:snire on two lines on a common right-of-way.
HNever since that 33[.A b
- OU time we have completed our review of the reanalysis of the Maine Yankee facility and by Order dated May 24, 1979, have allowed that facility to return to operation. There also may be a re'.iability problem because of the shutdown of both Surry Units 1 and 2.
Commissioner Bradford feels that the NRC has no basis at the present for disagreeing with the enclosed estimates presented by Charles Komanoff at the March 16, 1979 hearings bt are the Senate Subcommittee on Nuciear Regulation.
The following estimates of the time needed for repairs of the affected facilities represent the projected earliest date for return to service:
Surry Unit 1 September '
Surry Unit 2 October 1 Fitzpatrick End of July Seaver Valley July 21
{j33CUC W W