ML19340E174
| ML19340E174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340E175 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-551, NUDOCS 8101060590 | |
| Download: ML19340E174 (44) | |
Text
jo j
NUC'J.AR REGULATOR'? CCMMISSICN
/,/
'd
(.
COlitiISSIO!! fiEETING
('
-4 s
?
1 m 3 gg,. g.
BRIEFING ON SECY-80-551 - STORAGE OF LOU LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES AT POWER i
REACTOR SITES l
(
k DATE:
December 10, 1980 PAGES:
1 -42
.U:
Uashington, D. C.
.uDERSON BEPORTTNG l:
400 Virginia Ave., 5.W. Wasnin g=n, C. C.
20C %
Talachche: (202) 554-2245 l
WS13 0106 0 53D
.--w
,w
,%e y
e
- R/ar, 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 e
5 BRIEFING ON SECY-80-Sil STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL 5'
RADIOACTIVE WASTES AT POWER REACTOR SITES 3
6 e
R 8
7 N
8 8
N d
6 9
i Cg 10 Room 1130, 1717 H Street Northwest, j
11 Washington, D.C.
B y,12 ;
Wednesday, December.10, 198 3
c, E
13 m"
mg 14 The meeting was convened at 1:37 p.m.,
pursuant to
,j 15 notice.
=
j 16 PRESENT:
A N
I7 !
JOHN AHEARNE, Chairman.
f 18l VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner.
-g PETER B RADFORD, Commissioner.
P" 19 g
PRESENT FOR THE NRC STAFF:
l E
20 W.
Dircks L.
Rouse 2I J.
Davis i
H.
Shapar 22 E.
Case L.
Barratt 23 l D.
Smith R.
Clark 24l H.
Thornburg 25,
I ALDERSON REPORTING dGMPANY, INC.
. _ _ _ =..
2 1
ALSO PRESENT:
2 Samuel Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
3 Leonard Bickwit ani Martie Malsch, General Counsel's Office.
4 c
5 e
3n 3
6 e
R
^
?,,
7 3
j 8
d 6
9 ie g
10 a.
11
!E
.c is d
12 E.
13 s
E 14 x
2 15 wx g
16 as 6
17 x=
5 18 E
l I
19,
x l
M i
l 20 21 l
l 22 23,
i 24 i l
\\
25.
- I I
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
DISmM Sis is an 'r.cffd.cial ::asse:1pc of a. =aaH g of ha U:1:ad Sca:as Nuclaar Zagula: cry Cc =tission held on December 10, 1980 12 tha Ccamission's.officas a: 1717 E S::as, N. W., Washing:cu, D. C.
Da maa:1=g was open :n puht'- a::acdanca and obsa=va:1cu.
His ::ansc=ipe has =ct base :aviewad, cc :ac:ad, or edi.ad, a=i i= may cen:ais i=ac e d==.
na ::zusc=ipe is.1 :andad solaI7 for gn=aral ' #c:=a:1onal purposes.
As providad.by 10 C2"1 9.103, 1: is ser par: of -la formar or d-4:=al raceri of decisics of da ma::ars discussed.
Expressicus of op d =. is -lis ::ansc=1pc da so: secessarily d
reflace fi=al da:ar. d.=ations or beliefs.
No plead 1 g or c:har paper =a7 be. filad vi:h de Commissicn. i= any p ccand1=g as -la rasul: of or addressed. =c any sta:amaer or arg=me== cen=aised harais, excape as :ha; Ccu=riss1.:n =ay au:horica.
9 9
6 t
i l
O e
,------n
~~- -
3 1
P R OC E E D I N G S 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We meet this afternoon to hear 3
from Mr. Dircks and company regarding a relatively new concept 4
that at least formally was brought to our attention at<the e
5 initiative of the Tennessee valley administration, and this A4 j
6 is the storage of low-level radioactive waste at reactor sites.
R 8
7 We do have a paper in front of us and, Bill --
E j
8r MR. DIRCKS:
As you pointed out, the matter was d
d 9
brought to our attention by the situation at TVA.
However, in 2"
C g
10 looking at other sites, we feel as though there are similar 3
E 11 circumstances giving rise to the consideration of the problem,
<3 l
'i 12 and it's due to the uncertainty and restrictions dealing with 3:
=
13 lbw-level waste disposal sites throughout the country.
And so
=
a l
14 !
it is forcing reactor operators to plan for --
2 15 (Commissioner Gilinsky entered the meeting w=
y 16 room at' 1:38 p.m.)
A y
17 for longer-term storage of waste on the site.
w=
i 5
18 Not only in the cases where low-level disposal sites shut down 5
{
19 for some period of time, but it should deal with the problem of t
n 20 interim shutdown at low-level waste disposal sites.
21 So what we are trying to do is come up with some 22,
proposals that would allow a range of actions to deal with i
23 !
these and the vagaries of the operation.of low-level disposal 24f sites throughout the country, and to' deal with them in a period l
25 of time that the Department of Energy is taking on this task of I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I i
4 1
reviewing the situation of low-level waste disposal sites, and 2
giving some time to the states to work out how they intend to 3
deal with low-level waste disposal.
4 As you know, there have been developments in this 5
=g
.. -. area.
The 11 western states are meeting to discuss thir very 3
6 problem today, I guess.
e "M
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But just to be clear, when we N
I 8
8 began, when you are saying give the states or DOE time, the d
=
9 g
issue here is only the waste from reactors?
E 10 y
MR. DIRCKS:
This deals only with --
=.._
E 11 g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And is not, therefore, low-level d
12 g
waste site per se for taking any other low-level waste?
E 13 j
MR. DIRCKS:
No, no.
But when the low-level waste s
14
~
d sites did close down last year, we found that everybody was h
15 !
2 storing these wastes in the interim on their sites bY M2 '
- Y 16
=
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Certainly.
But this, for example,
.t f ^ Y & Y m.&n 37 d
won't alleviate any problems f~
avra-*
b 18
=
MR. DIRCKS:
This is directed only at the reactor S
I E
19 i g
problem.
It's a three-tiered approach that Lee Rouse will be 20 discussing with you.
I think there are long-term questions we 21l raised when we talk about life-of-plant storage.
Will these 22 l l
reactor sites become de facto disposal sites?
How does it fit 23 in with state plans, with the DOE plans?
i 24 As Lee will get into this, this longer term life-of-plane 25 aspect, we intend to govern the programmatic environmental f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 I
impact statement that will be recommending to the Commission that 2
we undertake.
3 What we want to do today is seek the Commission's 4
approval for this three-tiered approach to the problem; short e
5 term, mid-term and long term, and seek the Commission's approach 8n 6
and approval to do this in the programmatic impact statement.
G 8
7 Lee Rouse of the Fuel Cycle Division of NMSS will go E
8 through the licensing approach.
Lake Barrett, lately of d
=;
9 Bethesda, now of Middletown, is here to talk about the interests o f-2 O
g 10 NRR and how they have been factored into NMSS I
z
/
k II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Just to clarify, Lake is here 3
N I2 l speaking with regard to his previous involvement.
This is not 5
l l
13 I any linkage to his current job?
=
m 5
I4 MR. DIRCKS:
No, this is a longer term thing that y
15 he has been working on.
=
[
Ib MR. GILINSKY:
Of course, it's not unrelated.
i A
N I7 MR. DIRCKS:
In effect, it is not -- it is not as W
I 5
18 l
-g directly related as other, sites are.
It's related in a way
~
19 that this is not the motivation _for this approach.
I think that 5
20 point shoulf. be made clear at this time.
It is not dealing with II
-- it's not designed to deal with special problems of Three Mile 22 Island.
In fact, we consider that a special case.
i 23l Well, I think it's better to break off at this 24l point.
John, did you want to mention anything?
Okay, then, Lee 25 can pick it up at this p o i n t'.
i 5'
I ALDERSON REPOR TING COMPANY, INC.
[
6 MR. ROUSE:
Thank you, Bill.
I wonder if we could have the first viewgraph.
(Slide.)
As Bill has indicated, TVA this past year announced its plans for lif e-o f-plant storage of low-level waste generated n"
by the reactors at each site.
Its plans were to provide the 3
6 e
6 u
facilities for life-of-plant storage at each of its nuclear E
7 a
stations for the onsite-generated waste.
5 8
n We since have received an application from TVA for 9
z O
the Browns Ferry site, and very recently have received a very g
10 z
3 similar application for the Sequoyah site.
Both of these 4
11 a
applications'have been modified from an initial request for c.
12 3
authority to store for lif e-o f-plant, to cover five years of 3
3m storage.
g 4
N 5
is Following a meeting that the Staff, both NMSS and U
NRR staff.had, with TVA people --
A CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You have not receive any Q.
17 A
l a
E MR. ROUSE:
No.
Now I want to mention that the TVA m
18
=
l announced plans do include major volume reduction methods a l
^
9 5"
little later d wn the pike.
For example, in terms of Browns 20 i
Ferry, they would hope to have these processes, the volume reduction -- most explicitly, I think, incineration available 22 l
23 l by 1985, and the indicated plans would be to incinerate certainly 24 l the combustible waste and trash and the resins.
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does that in the Staff's view 25 t
l j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 I
represent putting in place something which they need formal 2
Staff approval for?
3 MR. ROUSE:
Yes.
(
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What kind of approval?
g 5
MR. ROUS.E :
We have considered the volume reduction.
E j
6 i
Is that what you mean?
I g
8 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
For the incineration.
El 8
MR. ROUSE:
The incineration, yes.
I think that d
d 9
would be considered under the operating license an unreviewed Y
10 safety question, certainly.
Z j
11 We have indicated in the paper -- you may have noted --
y 12 that when we get to volume reduction, we in NMSS may also G
)
g 13 assist our friends in NRR with some of the licensing.
It depends 3
=
mg 14 exactly how close it is tied into the existing facilities.
.D E
15 But, anyway, with the announced plans of TVA, trying w=
j 16 to get a handle on just what some of the other utilities were M
d 17 thinking, I&E made a canvass of the other operating sites and
- =
{
18 just to summarize basically, what we found, 70 percent of the E
19 l utilities with operating reactors were indeed considering or g
M 20 even had underway some additional storage to take into account 21 this uncertainty, the restrictions being placed on them, the 22 disposal capacity.
23!
The range of planning that is going on is up for 24 some consider a few months of additional storage right now in 25 f their plans, all the way up to four to five years by a few.
d, j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8 Thus, it appears that the long-term storage or life j
of the plant has not been considered.to any great depth by the utilities at present.
But I think we have to anticipate with 3
TVA's lead, that others may consider the longer-term storage, 4
Could I have the next viewgraph, please.
g 5
n 3
(Slide,)
g 6
Now we take a look at long-term storage or life of 7
the plant.
TVA clearly pointed out some advantages to the g
N long-term storage.
From the standpoint of reactor operation, 9
i react r perati n can ntinue s rt f without
- well, 10 j E
independent of external facters, that is, independent'of the
=
11 B
availability of the disposal capacity over these next few years.
d 12 E
g 13 They store the waste the reactors would store the waste and 2
a I
it would re'li e f the pressure on 'the existing disposal sites.
g j4 d
It w uld als pr vide a me time f r the government 5
5
].
16 agen les, whether it be federal or state and commercial firms, 3
A to develop new disposal facilities.
And from a more technical
)7 w
standpoint, the storage does provide some sign!.ficant radioactive g
=
decay which would then reduce radiation levels and some benefit, j9 95 20 certainly, fr m the transportation aspect and the handling of 21l the disposal sites.
M CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Currently at a typical site, for 22 i
nw 1 ng w uld they keep low-level waste on site?
23 MR. ROUSE:
I think if I understand correctly -- and 74 l
I unders,tand it's some of my reactor friends may help me out l
25 h
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 I
basically just at the convenience of shipping, so it's a few 2
months.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Lake?
4 MR. BARRETT:
Norma ly they shi, it off as soon as e
5 Y
g they can af ter about a 30-day dri;; to let the eight-day iodines 4
n 8
6 decay, although sometimes in special cases it may be around as e
f7 h -69s
^
long as a year, if it was some resi N
4 8
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So the period of holding is more d
c 9
aimed at allowing certain isotopes to decay?
jc h
10 MR. BARRETT:
And also coordinating shipping to have a z=
E 11 g
full truck when it goes, and weather conditions, strikes; thgat d
12 2
sort of thing.
=
=
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Eut they do, in some cases, leave it j
E 14 d
en site for as long as a year?
$r 15 2
MR. BARRETT:
It can be.
x
?
16 E
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is within the whatever m
h' 17 i G
l restrictions do exist within the current license?
E I
w 18
=
MR. BARRETT: Yes.
It would be unusual to be that H
19 g
long, but it can be there.
20 CHAIRMAM AHEARNE:
Okay.
i 21 MR. ROUSE:
Well, these advantages are the benefits 22 of storage, are one thing that are certainly from the standpoint t
23 '
of looking at long-term life-of-the-plant type storage do raise 24 i some issues that concern us and others.
25 One of the first things is that these actions, this i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
10 I
type of storage, could, at least, if nothing else, give the 2
appearance of perhaps the NRC endorsing a de facto disposal 3,
site.
If the NRC were to approve individual actions by utilities, 4
this could end up interfering with state or regional planning e
5 that might be going on for low-level waste disposal or storage.
0
{
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you expand on that a little R
R 7
bit?
In what way would you see that interfering?
h 0
M'R. ROUSE:
Dale Smith with Waste Management may want d
9 to help me out.
z Cy 10 MR. DIRCKS:
Let me mention a point.
I think on this E=
i y
II one, points 1B,2 and 3,
it may interfere with state or regional B
f I2 planning for the storage or disposal, or it may reduce incentives m
j 13 to develop disposal capacity.
Both of these points vic Stello
=
m 5
I4 raised and indicated that if the pressure is taken off, the
{
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
To reducing incentives, reducing
=
g 16 pressure I can understand.
" Interfere with" I was having trouble A
I g
17 i with.
l' A
E
- A IO Dale?
=
I9 g
MR. SMITH:
There are some 11 or 12 states in the n
20 southeastern region that have recently completed a study on i
Jo ;
21 the need for and #EU_Ur ilit o f es tablishing a regional site, 4
l 22 and the results of that study will be presented to the governor 23 of Tennessee, I understand, in a few days.
24 One of the conclusions is that the quantity of vaste 3
25j that is available for disposal in that region is about what i
ALDERSON REPORTl'NG COMPANY, INC.
11 I
would support one regional site. If we were to take action to 2
allow TVA to store a very large fraction of that waste on site, 3
as our action, it may well distnrb or scuttle a regional disposal 4
site that is dependent on that waste for operation.
g 5
These are the kinds of things we see as being a 0
3 6
potential interference with state or regional planning.
e R
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I,
of course, have not seen 5
j 8
that report.
This issue had come up in some discussions at the d
d 9
State Planning Council, and there had not been any adverse i
Cg 10 reaction at that time, and that's why I was kind of surprised E
11 at this statement of " interfere with."
E<3 d
12 MR. DIRCKS:
I don't know how that crept in there.
E 9
g 13 I don't see it myself, because the thrust of what we are trying svu%v.
E 14 to say here is that this is deal with the problem of.acavailability N
4 E
2 15 of disposal sites.
w M
g 16 I think there are disposal sites available, and with
?A g
17 assured availability, the reason for this proposal wouldn't x=
18 exist.
5 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE :
If, as I understand, at least A
20 the proposal, that it is not for permanent disposal, in any 21 event?
22 MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
i 23 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And the regional compact approach 24 is to try to devise mechanisms to develop permanent disposal 25I sites, so --
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 1
MR. DIRCKS:
This doesn't ring true.
That's why I 2
took the other course in saying it's the lack of incentive, 3
and it removes the incentive.
I think if the incentive is 4
there and disposal sites became available, much of the rationale s
5 for this would disappear.
N{
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And as you poirted out in your R
7 opening comments, since this in any event only addresses A
j 8
reactors, and since that still leaves much industrial and d
d 9
medical waste that still is in search for homes for disposal i
O b
10 sites, that this would not completely eliminate that need, 3_
g 11 anyway?
M y
12 MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
E,
.g 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
=
i m
g 14 MR. ROUSE:
From just simply the technical standpoint
$j 15 of long-term storage, we become certainly much more interested in m
l g
16 the integrity of co n'ta ine r s, the waste forms, how also the waste i
A I
b.
17 i form may fit into some of the thinking and planning.
s 5m 18 Could I have the next slide, please.
P i
l 19 f (Slide.)
l 5
I 20 well, in view of these, these long-term consideraticns 21 on the TVA plans, we have in NMSS coordinated very closely with 22 NRR and come up with a proposed licensing position to handle i
23 this aspect at this time.
r 24 Basically we call it the three-tier approach.
One 25 of the tiers would be the short term contingency storage that t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 1
would provide for up to one to two years perhaps of waste 2
accumulation on this site.
3 The second tier would sort of pick up at that point 4
and would provide contingency storage over the interim term, and a
5 we are thinking acW on the order of capacity of five years' E
3 6
accumulation, and then beyond that we get into the longer term E
$t/
M 7
yse the life-of-plant storage.
And I would like to talk about Ul 8
each one of those a little bit, some of the thinking that went d
d 9
on.
Y 10 Basically could I have the next slide, please.
E g
11 (Slide.)
W y
12 Basically the short-term contingency storage, the
=
m g
13 reactors can probably -- most reactors can probably provide for
=
i g
14 this type of storage capacity with modification, using the w
r 15 existing space or additions to existing facilities.
w=
16 g
As a matter of fact, TVA at Browns Ferry did this M
M 17 i ve ry thing, and has provided for two years of storage, with l
5 18 relatively straightforward modifications and additions to the 5
l
}
19 existing capability.
5 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In existing reactor licenses, is 21 there any res tric tion on length of time or volume of the material?
l i
22 MR. CASE:
Generally not.
Some, yes; but generally 23 not.
j 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So that the issue here of any l
l 25 modification really has to do with thinking of additional i
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
1 14 I
buildings that have to be added, as opposed te authority to 2
actually store?
3 MR. CASE:
Yes.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
We are going to get to a point, but I e
5 might mention it here, some o f ' the rationale that I feel for h
j 6l the th re e-t ie r approach is up to two years, and that's basically R
R 7
not to interfere with the f'le xib ili ty that's already there in j
8l the system.
Reactors do it, hospitals do it, research institu-d 9
tions do it.
We don't want to interfere with sort of the short-i OH 10 e
term management of these wastes that they have right now.
The E
II flexibility is there.
E I
12.
Moving beyond two years, I'd say up to five-year 5
1 4g 13 i limit, that's a little bit more, and that's something new.
That a
m 14 is the new factor that requires a new facility.
That's why we j
g 15 divided it into three.
=
y 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, let me see if I can get it I
g 17 clear:
w=
5 18 Are you saying that there is currently a restriction 5
19 g
i that cannot go beyond two, or are you saying that you will impose A
l 20 l a restriction that they cannot go beyond two without coming in t
2I for a special requirement to go to five?
22 MR. DIRCKS:
I can be corrected on this.
I think i
23 they can go up to two without substantial new facilities on many 24 I reactor sites, and when you go up to five, you are talking about 25 new facilities and new structures, and that I can be corrected i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 15 1
on, but I think what we want to do is say up to two gives them 2
the flexibility in the system hat
- hey already have we W&
3 don't want to interfere with se, 4
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
To go a little further, let's e
5 say that reactor X,
for whatever reason, has space to s tore for E9 6
three.
Would this regime, three-tier regime of yours, in some R
7 mechanism eliminate the use of that space past the two years?
E j
8 MR. DIRCKS:
I don't know.
First of all, I don't know d
=
9 whether any reactor would even have space to go up to two or i
Og 10 beyond.
I don't know.
And we said two because we built in some 3
G 11 cushion in there to --
B f
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think it probably depends to some 3
13 extent on the incineration and compaction, 3x h
14 M R." DIRCKS:
Which today is nonexistent.
2 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So it is entirely possible that w
M g
16 Ed?
'A b'
17 l MR. CASE:
I don't think there are any reactors today w=
i 18 that have that capability of three-year storage.
In effect, E
l
[
19,
th is new policy would prohibit from going that far.
In effect, l
a 20 we are talking about limiting the authority they presently have.
l 21 Now you may ask, well, why didn't we put those limita-l 22 tions in there to begin with?
Because no one contemplated this I
23 '
problem, and 24 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I wasn't going to ask that.
25 (Laughter.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16 I
MR. CASE:
Well, I'll answer it, anyway.
For the 2
same reason we don't have tech specs against any alligators, 3
because we don't expect them, either.
We only tech-spec things 4,
we think are necessary or reasonable.
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would hope so.
4 l
4 h
6 MR. ROUSE:
Well, I might just say one more this;g R
i 7
about that, and we might skip to the next slide then and a
j 8
begin to talk about this intermediate could we have the next d
c; 9
viewgraph?
Cg 10 (Slide.)
z=
l ll Basically in our working with NRR, I think there was B
[
12 a general consensus that at some point along here, that there
=
3f 13 l ought to be explicit approval by the NRC for such storage, I
l m
5 I4 think it is, as Ed said, th is has got to be sort of an arbitrary, Y
j 15 maybe, but a reasonable cut-off point.
e l
16 j
Beyond that, I think it is regarded in the terms of M
17 the reactor licensing that perhaps storage at three to five w=
h 18 years, you begin to get into some of these unreviewed safety P
19 l
g questions that should be looked at, as opposed to the licensee n
20 being able to do it under his 50.59 authority.
l 2I So, thus, this tier two intermediate contingency 22 storage would consider presumably facilities generally that we i
23 '
expect to be separate from the reactor plant more or less, to l
24 provide for, and we have put in this cut-off point of five years 1
25 waste accumulation.
i t
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
17 i
1 I
(Commission Bradford entered the meeting 2
room at 2:00 o' clock p.m.)
3 This, to us, would provide some assurance of 4
continued reactor operation considering uncertain disposal capability, while some of theseiissues we can take a better look 3
6 at, that are related to the very long-term storage.
e R
7 We don't think that authorizing, say, five years n
S 8!
M waste accumulation on the site is probably going to foreclose d
=
9 j
any alternatives for disposal.
Certainly that's one of the 1
H 10 j
things we ought to find in each case.
In each case that we
=
E 11 g
look at, for example, we want to make sure, yes, yo.u can get d
12 z
the waste out of what you are going to store in, it can be c
13 retrieved and shipped.
E 14 g
Another aspect, this timing does, as you have recog-9 15 j
nized, Mr. Chairman, permit the introduction of some of these 16 y
advanced volume reduction techniques such as incineration.
g 17 i g
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Have we received applications E
18
=
or proposals from anybody other than TVA?
s 19 j
MR. ROUSE:
No.
We have, other than the indication 20 in the survey, we have just received a letter from Pennsylvania 21 i l
Power & Light indicating they are considering four years of t
l l
22 l l
storage for the Susquehanna.
I 23l (Commissioner Gilinsky left the meeting 24 I j
room at 2:01 o' clock p.m.)
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In TVA's case, is this a separate t
l s
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
18 I
I I building, above-surface, subsurface building they are proposing?
2 M R..R O U S E :
Yes.
Let me describe very quickly the 3
TVA/ Browns Ferry concept.
They are thinking life of the plant.
i+
4 They have in mind,}5 concrete modules, quite some distance from s
5 the reactor.
I believe it's something on the order of more h
6 than half a mile on the site.
The modules are a couple hundred i
R i
yle e
feet long, 35 feet wide, and are divided up about equally, S
s I
8' whether it's trash or resins that they would handle.
d 9
The concept of Sequoyah is very similar.
2 Cg 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I was just trying to make the 3
h
'Il point that it is not essentially burial in ditches underground, j
3 f
12 I
like one might find in a permanent, low-level waste site?
N
\\
g 13 l MR. ROUSE: No, that's very true, Chairman.
The
=
m 5
I4 modules are aboveground concrete structures, cell-like structures,
{
15 with a cell opening, lifting the covers off, setting the waste
=
g 16 in.
I l
N l7 l In dealing with this intermediate contingency storage, 5
18 as I indicated, we felt that specific NRC approval should be P"
19 g
required.
Since we began to get into some of the waste manage-l M
l 20 ment issues, in discussing with NRR, we have agreed in NMSS we 2l would do the review, working closely with the NRR staff, and 22 cover th is through issuance of a Part 30 license, a separate I
23 license.
I 24 ihis is, I think, as Howard termed it, for the 25 :
administrative convenience of the Commission.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you explain that?
2l MR. SHAPAR:
Well, I guess we could continue to call 3,
it a part 50 license if we wanted to.
we also have an option 4
clearly to call it a Part 30 license.
If it were located 100 5l yards beyond the site, obviously it would be a Part 30 license.
s i
N j
6l The question is, what kind of interaction does it have with i
7' the facility operation?
Very little, if any.
And it's only Nj 8
economics and the convenience for the licensee, that it's located dd 9
within the site rather than outside the site.
So it makes a let i
Cy 10 of obvious sense to call it a materials license, which it could
_E j
11 be without any argument, if it were located beyond the gate.
B 12 '
So you could go either way in the abstract.
j
=
m g
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And your rationale going one way x
14 or the other is based o n --
5 2
E 15 MR. SHAPAR:
That it's the kind of review that s
y 16 is typically 'one in NMSS, calling for experts in NMSS, rather A
p 17 j. than reaccor specialists.
l E
I C
I 13 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Then would that also be 2
C 6
l 19,l g
true for any review of the one to two-year contingency dl Y lm)ge? /
stora 20 MR. RoUS E :
Mr. Chairman, since we expect those --
h(
21 to fit very closely, generally very closely, connecting to the l
1 22 !
existing operation, I think if the applicant determines in his 23 50.59 review that it would require atendment, either because of 24l an unreviewed safety question or tech spec change, that that 25 would be nandled by NRR because of this interaction l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 t
I interrelationship with the reactor operation.
2 We have agreed in NMSS again to work with them and 3
give them any assistance they may ask for, but it would b3 4
handled as an amendment to the OL, as I understand.
g 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
I'll just make a comment O
3 6
and you can go on.
I see a potential problem in arbitrary R
- E 7
distinction in time which could lead to two different licensing A
j 8
regimes and two different approaches, and I leave it up to the 4
Cb844) c 9
2, EDo to make sure that that not happen.
i eg 10 MR. DIRCKS:
The point I made earlier is that what E
II we didn't want to do in reviewing this is to reduce the B
N I2 flexibility that's already there.
=3
~
5 13 1
m
~ think CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I understand that.
I 4
m i
5 I4 you understand that at times we have had problems with two l
2 15 different groups of the agency.
1
=
Ib d
MR. D I RC KS :
We don't have that problem any more.
l
-A II (Laughter.)
=
There are a couple of points procedurally T.2 E"
19 g
I would like to mention with this approach of issuing a l
C 20 separate Part 30 license.
There is no requirement under the 2I materials licensing such as th is would be for providing notice 22 of receipt of these applications and opportunity for public l
i 23 [
hearing.
In these cases we would plan to use the optional 24 authority we have under 2.105 and provide notice and opportunity 25 for hearings for these.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
21 1
I In the case of TVA now, we have done so.
The 2
Federal Register notice should be appearing, I think it's 3
12/11, December 11, and TVA has been informed.
4 Price-Anderson indemnification --
k COMMIS SIONER BRA DFORD :
Before you move off that N
l 3
6 point, when does an application have to be filed under Part 307 e
,n 8
7 MR. ROUSE: Under Part 30, the application could be n
8 8
N filed when the individual has completed all of his actions, d=
9 j
whatever design, and construct his facility, and ready to receive 0h 10 g
the material.
There are certain limitations, certain restrictions
=
E 11 g
there.
d 12 55f E
For example, Part,Se' calls it explicit.'y the
=
=
13 3
commercial low-level disposal site as one that ree,uires a full E
14 y
environmental impact statement, and therefore construction should z
9 15 g
not proceed until,you know an application should be filed at 16
{
least nine months before construction.
p 17 !
w CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you view these as disposal Ew 18
=
sites?
9 C
19 '
g MR. ROUSE:
No.
There is a clause in Part 30 and 20 Part 40 and Part 70, Commissioner, that identify specific kinds 21 of thinys that fall under this, and then there is an option for 22 the Commis sion that on any other activity they may decide, 23,
first the potential for significant environmental impact to 24 '
l require the same provision; that is file an application nine months 25 ahead of time.
This is -
normally I guess the thought there is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
T
.22 4
I that the licensees would come,in ahead of time, discuss it 2
informally with the Staff, and if there was a potential, then 3
)
they would wait for the Staff's assessment.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But in terms then of the e
5 g
requirements, filing requirements, it's possible that the notice 3
6 e
and the hearing that you described a moment ago would take place i
a i
R 7
after the 'acility were built?
N 8
8 MR. ROUSE:
It is possible, yes.
O m
9 j
MR. DIRCKS:
It is possible, Lee, but what I gather 0g 10 in this case, this is not the course that's being taken.
Is z=
2 11 g
that right?
I mean unless i t ',s changed between there and here, d
12 Z
I assume that we would m
d 13 i
g
( Laught e r. )
E 14 d
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess I'd feel better if k
9 15 j
you were telling me, rather than asking me.
I 16 l
MR. ROUSE:
I'm sorry.
I was making the point g
17 l1 w
very generically.
Now on this case here, we intend to notify i
Cw 18
=
the utilities of this approach, if approved by the Commission, N
19 l
g and then that we would intend on doing an environmental impact 20 appraisal on each of these applications and based on that 21 finding, make that determination under, let me see, 30. 3 2 ( #)
22 is the exact provision.
And thus they are on notice and 23 '
informed, you know, that if they should provide with construction, 1
24 i i
it is certainly at their risk.
25 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me ask, che hearing that would I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
r 33 1
go underway, it would have to be completed and a favorable M
2 decision rendered prior to th: ; tu; putting material into 3
this facility; is that correct?
4 MR. ROUSE:
That's the way that I understand in 1
e 5
talking with counsel, that there is some question on that, as a N
j 6
policy matter.
As a practice, I certainly would never issue a R
7 license while a hearing was in progress.
I don't think any of A
j 8
my management would allow that.
d d
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bill or John, what is the does ie 10 the rule or does your approach speak to that?
3 j
11 MR. DAVIS:
What our approach would be of course, 3
y 12 now, we would like to separate out TVA from the generic 5
y 13 approach.
One of the proposals in this particular piece of
=
a g
14 paper is that we send a letter to licensees informing them of 2
15 this change.
Reactor licensees, up to now, when they have wm y
16 dealt with this particular issue, have dealt with it under
-A d
17 l the belief they were doing it under Part 50.
So we are 5
h 18 somewhat changing that.
We intend to inform them of this new n
h 19 l approach if it"s approved by the' Commission and, of course, with 5
20 that information they are on notice that they should file with 21 us nine months before they begin construction.
l 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me get back to -- my 23 question is would.the license to receive material be issued 24 while the hearing was in progress.
25,
MR. ROUSE:
And I say no.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
V
24 1
-MR.
DAVIS: Not from a policy standpoint, no.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
If it were not, I would think any 3
lleensee would be foolish not to file far in advance of nino 4
months, wouldn't they?
e 5
MR. DAVIS:
Exactly.
And, of course, the purpose of A9 6
this R
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then why the nine months?
A f,
8 MR. DAVIS: It's in the regulation.
Nine months is dd 9
in the regulation.
2o 10 MR. DIRCKS:
I think the nine months the impact 3
j 11 statement process takes nine months.
B y
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But certainly the hearing process c,
5* 13 would take a lot longer.
=
m I4 MR. SHAPAR:
The rule, of course, is to get as close 2
15 to a two-step procedure that we have in the 5
, facility license 16 j
process for which there is no explicit sanction in the act W
p 17 for the material licenses.
But this gets pretty close to it 5w l
3 18 without having a separate document called construction permits P
h 19 l and operating licenses which is not provided for in the act.
n 20,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Basically, though, the l
22 approach, if I understand it, rests on the licensee's sense of 23 prudence; that is, if in fact there is to be an application i
24 notice and a hearing, before the facility is complete, it will 25 be because of the licensee's sense of prudence, rather than i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _
25 l
1 because it's required?
i 2
MR. ROUSE:
There is a Part 30 and 40 and 70 3
following along with that requirement submitting an application 4
nine months before certain things.
Or if we'made a determina-e 5
tion finding that if the applicant should proceed with 6
construction until we have completed this environmental R
7 review, that that may be grounds for denial of the license.
Nl 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why?
d C
9 MR. SHAPAR:
To make him come in, to provide a 3
10 sanction.
j 11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But I think you had explained 3
y 12
.th i s is an above this is a facility, it's on his ground, so 3
y 13 I'm a little puzzled by what the -- what is the h'azard that you m
ag 14 see, that you're concerned about?
I 2
15 MR. ROUSE:
I think those were generic provisions.
w i
i M
y 16 MR. CASE:
It was not a safety provision.
It's an M
d 17 I environmental provision.
w 3
18 MR. ROUSE:
It's an environmental provision, and it's C
(
19 as Howard said --
M 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And it's an environmental provision 21 because you think the building he might be building would be 22 an environmental hazard?
23 MR. ROUSE:
If in this -- Ed?
24 MR. CASE:
It's conceivable that the building as a 25l building would have significant environmental impact, i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you give me an example?
2 MR. ROUSE:
Let me give you an example.
Can I 3
stretch this a little bit?
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I just want it referred right a
5 here.
I think we've got an issue here.
O
{
6 MR. ROUSE:
It is my view, and I think Lake is R
7 going to back me up here, it's my view that if we are talxing E
8 about this interim storage facilities, that we are not I
G 9
cannot conceive of a significant environmental impact from those 3
10 incrementally over the environmental impact of the reactor.
I E
j 11 think that an environmental inpact appraisal will show that 3
12 there is no signi'ficant environmental impact connected with the b
hYY
=
13 proposed construction and use of five-year storage capacity $
f hff'b o
5 14 F
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm not prepared to go to the use/.
/
u 5
15 But it's the construction I am puzzled by.
g
=
j 16 MR. SHAPAR:
Of course, it's a generic provision and A
g 17,
applies to other facilities, where there could be substantial
$Cm 18 impact.
For example, the plutonium production f,acility, which Ch I9 l is a pretty big facility, and this is a generic provision, and g
M 20 you decide on the basis of an individual appraisal in each case.
21 So you may have an impact or not.
If there's no impact, then 22 it's not involved.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And it's the generic provision in 24 f Part 30 that would fall into place here?
l 25 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27 1 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
l
\\
l 2
MR. BICKWIT:
Excuse me.
May I clarify a matter?
3 Is there going to be notice issued of an opportunity for 1
4 hearing in connection with the issuance of these licenses?
i e
5 MR. ROUS E :
Yes.
N4g 6
One other aspect that I did want to mention,.that G
7 under the rules, we would --
~
l 8
MR. CASE:
May I Len, was your question with dd 9
respect to the 2og 10 MR. BICKWIT:
No, with respect to the intermediate Z
11 contingency 7,,&,
[ 12 MR. CASE:
Yes.
3" 5 '13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the notice for the hearing and mg 14 the process, how do you intend, or have you thought through 2
15 how you intend to address what I would imagine would be the g
16 most significant issue that would be raised, which is back here A
b' 17 i on your first point of your issues raised?
Are you creating a
6
=
5 18 hhee de facto disposal site?
E 19 l MR. ROUSE:
With the limitation of the five years, I 1
A 20 think that the assessment that we would make 21 (Slide.)
22 on these involves, as I indicated before, 23 assuring that we aren't foreclosing the alternative.
24f CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me restate my question.
You I
25 are goin'g to have a hearing.
The hearing will have issues.
How t
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
28 fofthe hearing, cover what I I
are you going to, in the notice i
2 imagine would be the most significant issue that people would 3
really want to raise namely, are you creating a long-term 4
disposal site?
g 5
MR. DIRCKS:
well, I think in the remarks that Lee 6
6 made,'and I guess some of us made, is that the answer to that 7l E
8 question is no, we are not creating section sites.
s j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I know what yo r answer is.
My r) m_ed c
9 question is, how are you going to cover it in the hearing?
2 A
Cg 10 MR. DIRCKS:
These are aboveground facilities with 3
h 11 fully retrievable capabilities, so they are not designed to be 3
N I2 long-term disposal sites, and the rationale for the whole thing 3
J 13 is that to deal with this problem of the uncertainty built into 5=
m 5
I4 this long-term disposal site process in the. country.
{
15 So I think that's the line, and now I'll leave it up z
y 16 to Lee to provide all the analysis to support that.
But that's W
N l7 the point of view, and that's why we have divided this thing
$w 3
18 into the three-tiered approach.
It's the third tier where we e
G I9 g
run into that question.
5 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You run inco the question 2I everywhere, but I wanted to directly address it.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
We run into it when we allow any 23 facility to store waste at any point in time.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Okay, 25 (Slide.)
i-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
29 MR. ROUSE:
One other point that I wanted to cover 2
term storage that we proceed with respect to intermediate 3
under; there is an approach where we would be issuing 4
separate Part 30 licenses.
If this were in an agreement state, c
5 g
I think our som&eue, the NRC would retain licensing jurisdiction.
9 4
3 6
e CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's not a disposal site, so R
R 7
7 why is there a question /
s*
8 N
MR. ROUSE:
It's a separate license, it's part 150 d
6 9
j says that operation of reactors certainly is held back and CP 10 g
ope ra tio n of a reactor is deemed to include storage and handling E
11 of waste from onsite-generated waste.
And that would be the B
d 12 Z
cause that we would use to retain jurisdiction.
By issuing a 9:
13 g
separate Part 30 license, i't's conceivable someone could argue, 2
14 d
well, you have determined it is not part c' the reactor u
-0 15 E
operation.
We think the link is clearly V re.
16 3
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Where do the lawyers come 4m on it?
'A I
A 6
17 l MR. BICKWIT:
It weakens the link to go with the Part 2
6z 18 30 as opposed to the Part 50, but I don't think it weakens it w
I 19 so much as to create a problem.
g 20 MR. SHAPAR:
Obviously webhave to sign an agreement 21 with the states that we 4rs turning over byproduct licensing 22 ng, et cetera.
And why you are and source material !
23 retaining jurisdiction when yes; sign the agreement?
The answer 24 !
l is when we split our jurisdiction with the state, pursuant to 25 2.74 agreement, the regulations of the 42mmission state that the t
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
0 30 I
storage of this waste at a reactor site fro'm the reactor is 2
daemed to be part of the operation of the facility.
So even 3
though we call it a Part 30 license, since it is considered 4
by regulations to part of reactor operation, we retain jurisdic-e 5
tion.
e4 j
6 An argument could be made we think we have a better
\\
i 7'
part of it.
5 k
8 By the way, I would mention that the Northern States Q
W
=
9 Power case Ja preemption specifically held that these wastes --
2
^
O 3
10 discharge of waste is part of reactor operation.
z d
j 11 MR. THORNBURG:
There is some small pre edent for 3
WW f or g( f.g, g
12 that.
Most reactors have Part 30 licenses for calibration g
=
p 13 !
their instrumentation and for some use in their laboratories, b
I m
14 and the practice has been that we expect these Part 30 licenses Mk r
15 be -m-tic,:f ;; t t '.- r:2ctor operation.
Q A
A
[
16 MR. ROUSE:
One other point that I wanted to mention i
E 17 [
with the approach with the separate Part 30 license, that w
=
u i
w 18 !
the Price-Anderson indemnification of this storage, as I under-I
?
r 19 I g
stand, would not be available for the five-year storage, unless E
I j
20 l the commission would exercise its discretionary authority.
i lbu2 21 That point is going to be viewed, I suppose, by 22 some of the utilities as an aspect that they are losing with 23 this approach.
1 24 In other words, if it were covered in the operating 25,
license, the Price-Anderson coverdge is there.
We, from the
- I l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31 I
technical standpoint, feel it is very, very unlikely that we 2
could perceive of an accident where you could get sufficient 3
release from this type of storage to justify it on a technical 4
matter.
e 5
Th.ere are o th e r aspects, however.
We are talking
$$6 about waste that's on the same site that may tend to at times R
S 7
bounce back and forth.
We have stored waste.
If they E
j 8
introduce volume reduction, that perhaps is covered under the d
d 9
z, operating license th a t s stuck in up there.
So there are some c
10 aspects of the indemnification that would have to be considered.
3 k
II MR. SHAPAR:
If the Commission wants to extend it, 3
N I2 depending on how it comes out in balancing these, it does, of O
13 g
course, have the authority to do so.
The usual rule of thumb m
6 I4 has been that private insurance would cover the hazard.
{
15 Private insurance is $160 million, and that's one of the things m
y 16 you look at when you decide whether or not you want to extend A
N I7 I discretionary into Price-Anderson.
Can we go to the next slide, then.
P" 19 g
(Slide.)
i m
20 Basically now we begin to look at life-of-the-plant 21 storage ee the longer term storage.
I'think we really basically 4
22 considered the points here, and the licensing would be similar 23 except that we are now recommending that we at least delay i
24 any action on such applications until we would do a 25 programmatic EIS to look at some of these policy issues, or at ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
32 1
least provide a basis for policy for the Commission on whether or 2
not to license the long term.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
By long term, do you mean only 4,
life of plant, or do you really mean beyond life of plant?
1 MR. ROUSE:
I think the programmatic environmental g
i j
6L impact statement has to look at the very high potential that R
7 life-of-plant storage could end up into being something longer N
h 8
than that.
dd 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you mean permanent?
i O
10 na. ROUSE:
I think it wo.uld have to look at that, E
11 j
yes, sir.
E f
I2 MR. SHAPAR:
I think it's an obvioon option which nc ^ge?^;; a a
N l e-we have to look at alternatives for doing a bonafide 5
x j
I4 statement. It's one of the things for consideration.
2 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would think so. It seemed to be x=
l g
16 sneaking up.
1 A
d 17 MR. DIRCKS:
That's why we recommended strongly that l
w
=
w j
[
18 we go to the programmatic impact statement to take a look at l
C 1
8 I9 g
this.
M 20 (Commissioner Gilinsky entered the meeting
\\
2I room at 2:25 p.m.)
l 22 MR. ROUSE:
Okay, let's go to slide 7.
l l
23 (Slide.)
i 24 And again I think we perhaps have talked mostly here j
25f about that.
Our objective with the programmatic statement then i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 33 1
is to provide the basis for Commission policy on this longer 2
term life-of-plant storage.
I say it is CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Including permanent.
4 MR. ROUSE:
As an alternative, certainly.
If one 5
g looks at it from a decommissioning standpoint.
4 E'
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
It ought to be that, as R
an alternative.
5 8
8 N
MR.. ROUSE:
One of the aspects to be looked at,
- then, d
]".
9 is in the life of these, but there would be several potential 0F 10 g
rulemaking things that would have to be looked at.
m E
11 Thus we end up today, I guess, recommending,that B
d 12 Z
the Commission approve our three-tier approach, approve the C
13 g
preparation of the programmatic EIS --
E 14 W
(Slide.)
9 15 g
-- and approve a transmittal letter to the utilities, 16 B
informing them or advising them of the three-tier approach.
m C
17 d
We have also indicated in the proposed letter that
=
5 18 we think each reactor ought to look carefully and examine the
=H" 19 3
cost-benefit standpoint, the volume reduction techniques, n
i 20 l incineration.
21 CHA~IRMAN AHEARNE:
John, you were sending up a paper 22 on volume reduction.
23 '
MR. DAVIS:
A policy statement on volume reduction.
I 24 It came back from the EDO, and we are re-massaging it.
Hopefully 25 !
we'll go over that hurdle in the next version.
I.
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
34
~.
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
So, encouraging here, it's 2
not clear what we are encouraging.
3 MR. DAVIS:
No, that paper,should make it clear.
W 4
MR. DIRCKS:
The principle / discussed.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
I see.
6 And you would expect some time --
R 7
MR. DIRCKS:
Very shortly.
E j
8 CHAIRMAN AE'.RNE:
All right.
a m;
9 MR. ROUSE:
That's all that I have, then, Mr.
2 O
g 10 Chairman.
_E k
II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic? Peter?
f I2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask, what was the 5
s > > n )(a processing}$5e licensf pplication?
13 concurrent delay in m
I4 MR. ROUSE:
Well, we started off with a TVA application w&j 15 for life of plant.
They since have modified their application
=
g 16
'to request only five years and have advised us in the future, W
g 17 however, they are coming back to us for life of the plant.
m=
h IO That provision there delaying, if we have an application filed P"
19,
with us for life of the plant, we are going to say it's going l
g l
M l
20 us a little while to get at that, and we are going to do the 2I programmatic EIS first.
That's the delay, delay in processing 22 a specific application for life of the plant, until we complete 23 [
the programmatic statement.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And how big a job is that?
25 l MR. ROUSE:
The programmatic statement, I think, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 1
clearly does involve major health and safety aspects, and 2
environmental impacts, and really involves some of these 3
policy considerations of khat is going on out there with respect 4
to the planning for low-level waste disposal, and how does this s
5 fit into it?
What are some of the options?
O j
6 So it's going to involve, I feel, a great deal of R
7 contact with the states and with DOE.
What is DOE doing with, 5
y 8
you know, its national plan?
How is this fitting in?
d d
9 I think there is a lot of legwork on it.
I don't t
O I
g 10 th ink it's somewhat more of a conventional --
_E j
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would hope that you wouldn't, B
c' 12 though, if we endorse that approach, believe that in order to O
13 i finish your 94e, all the states and DOE are going to have had mg 14 to reach specific, definite' conclusions; because that really 9m E
15 would be a long delay.
d J
16 MR. ROUSE:
No, sir.
i g
17 MR. DIRCKS:
The way I'd like to approach the w
I
=
l 18 programmatic impact statement is, we can propose what we think l
P
(
19 might go into it, the points to be analyzed.
The Commission, t
M t
20 I hope, would give us guidance on what they think, and then 21 give us a time line in which to meet that th ing.
22,
As you know, programmatic statements can go on for-t 23 '
ever, because we are never quite sure what the closing point is.
24 If we got some guidance on what you would consider important 25,
bounds to it, we would do the job within the time you say we'll l
t ALDERSON REPORTING CO~MPANY INC.
36 1
I do it.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If yob've covered this before 4
I came in, don't do it again. I'll read the transcript.
But e
5 could you give me a little bit of a feel for what's involved
?
6 in the facilities themselves?
That is, in going from the R
R 7
category of an intermediate storage facility to a life-of-reactor s
j 8
facility, what are the differences?
Is it just a matter of size, d
9 or are you talking about a --
3 10 MR. DIRCKS:
It's a matter of size and their E
II interconnection with the existing power plant.
That's why we b
N I2 divided it in three.
We thought the one to two-year approach 5
g 13 is almost what's going on now.
There's a flexibility there
=
m 5
I4 inherent in the existing operation.
g 15 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
But how about the next
=
l g
16 evo7
'A N
l7 l MR. DIRCKS:
The next one is a break b etween the w=
IO short-term and the intermediate.
There is a break in facility l
E l
19 l
g size and handling requirements.
That's why we made the break.
n 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And then how about going from 2I intermediate to 22 MR. DIRCKS:
That's a significant step that involves 23 a major policy consideration.
I 24 l COMMIS SIONER B RADFORD :
Technically, what does it l
25 involve if the utility is building for intermediate or five-year l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
l 3
37 A
I capacity?
MR. DIRCKS:
Steps from five years up to 40 years.
Are you talking about a 4
4 facility much bigger, but in what other ways is it different?
[w MR. ROUSE:
Well, two things, I think, come into
?
I 6
play, Commissioner:
9*D 7
Number one, it's bigger.
More of the same, let's As-8 M
say.
The modular concept at TVA, more modules.
- However, d
d 9
~.
introduced into this, then, because so many modules would handle z
E 10 g
wasta as generated, if in the interim now or some time in the
=
k future you introduce the volume reduction, let's say incineration, 5
d 12 z
then you may have -- and then treat that waste processed,that
=d 13 D
waste fo.r the same capacity, you would put as-generated waste, E
14 g
it may serve for 40 or 50 years for the incinerated waste.
5 15 I
Volume reduction of, I think, ten is what TVA expects m
16 t
B overall.
From the safety standpoint, I think it's just a W
d 17 heightened concern, or at least interest on the container 2=
l 18 integrity retrievability of those wa s,t e s.
C WM 19 8
I If indeed the pla ham to re t ri e. ve and ultimately n
4 20 ship, the demonstration that the containers can either last 21 that long or some program to check them, I think, becomes 22 of increased interest, as you go from five years on to 40 y e,a rs.
i I
23 '
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's say -- but if you were 24 building for five years pf capacity, and expecting to use that 25 l facility through 40 years, I should think its integrity --
1 I
t' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 38 I
concern about its integrity would be about the same, whether you 2
planned to empty it out once in a while or whether --
3 MR. ROUSE:
I agree.
I do agree with what you are 4
saying.
I keep going back to TVA's concept.
They are designing 5
T.3 g
for the life of the plant.
They are well-designed, substantive 9
3 6
e concrete structures.
R
- E 7
On the other hand, we might ask Lake -- do you want N
S 8
M to say anything about a couple o f cthers, Lake, that you are d"
9
~
familiar with?
2 OH 10 g
MR. BARRETT:
I have a slide of Browns Ferry, if
=
I you'd like to see the arrangement of it.
d 12 z
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Go ahead.
3a 3
I think it's the last slide 4 of the m
3 14 U
Connecticut Yankee slides.
It's the last one.
C 15 h
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
While you' re looking for that, x
?
16 3
how does the activity from th is low-level waste compare --
M G
17 accumulated for 40 years, compare with say the activit of the jd-M
{
jg reactor materials that you have to -- th e
- --il.y f t: -
j, g
l 9
A 19 9
decommissionang?
=
20 I (Slide.)
l l
21 l
MR. ROUSE:
I'm not sure -- I can't answer that 1
~
question.
I could talk a little bit in terms of volume.
I'm e
23 '
not sure of that activity.
I haven't looked at that, 24 l Commissioner.
In terms of volume 6
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Maybe Lake can.
Lake, would you?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
l
39 3
c' I
Mr. Gilinsky asked can you contrast the activity 2
levels of this 40-year storage of the low-level waste, for 3
example, with the activity levels present in a plant when you 4
go to decommissioning?
5 MR. BARRETT:
Normally they are saying there wouldn't 0
j 6
be a lot of difference.
Generally certain things like R
S 7
decommissioning -- forget about the reactor vessel itself.
N 8
0 and the irradiated components of it normally would be the same.
d
[
9 What would be stored here, the biggest volume would be trash 2
C g
10 that they don't incinerate. It would be rags and that sort of E
h Il th ing, which is very low level.
There would be resins from the N
I2 normal radwaste systems.
That would be the higher level activity 3
13 in the storage.
=
I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what about the total
{
15 activity?
=
h Ib MR. BARRETT:
Total curies, I think, nominally ab o u t M
I j
the same.
t
=
They are estimating after a year, since CF I9 g
most all of your new plants are short-lived, except for n
20 cesium and strontium and cobalt, that you will have a factor of 2I decay of about 10 after a year, about 50 after these five years, 22 and about 100 over the life-of-plant storage.
That's what their 23 '
estimates are.
C444,,4,4, W 24 MR. BARRETT:4 seAe about the same. I think.
This 25 comes out to be about the same as the decommissioning waste if you f
1 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
o 40 I
leave out the drums.
4 2
To put TVA a little bit in perspective this is the 3
kind -- this is out of their submittal -- these are the three 4
reactor buildings and the three turbine buildings put in 5
g perspective.
This is the storage module on the same scale.
4 E'
6 This is not.
This is just a smaller scale.
R
- S 7
What they have done at TVA is they have built the E
j 8
first four of the modules, or are building.
I don't believe they d
9
~
are gnite complete yet.
This is 100 feet long, 30 foot by 30 z
OH 10 g
foot concrete modules. That concrete shields reinforced
=
k II concrete two and a half to three feet thick, with a drain 3
d 12 E
system to collect any leakage.
You can see the relative size.
E I
It's quite large.
It's a'most as large as the reactor itself.
m I4 This is the original design for life of plant, for m
0 15 g
40-year storage.
This is a different scale of the same thing, m
E Ib to see how it kind of looks.
But they built the first four, M
I which is a nominal fita year storage we are talking about.
=
5 18 Other people, Northeast Utilities, like Millstone, 6
g are proposing to build a similar type of storage module.
n 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did you indicate -- if you did, I'm sorry, I missed it, what the average volume per year i
23 '
of low-level waste that a reactor discharges is?
24 i j
MR. BARRETT:
It varies from plant to plant.
A
.=
25 '
boiling water reactor is something like 40 -- 20 to 40,000 cubic l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 41 I
feet per year per reactor.
So at TVA, nominally 40, 50, 60,000 2
cubic feet per year, with three reactors.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And a PWR7 4
MR. BARRETT:
A PWR, less than half than that.
5 g
Yankee Rowe is just a few thousand cubic feet a year, and 9
h 0
others that have secondary treatment systems run larger, you R
- S 7
know, to 20,000 cubic feet per year.
When they do things like E*
8 M
replace steam generators, they have a large amount of contamina-d 9
~
tion, like rags, and they can get up to a total of 100,000 cubic zCH 10 g
feet per year in a major maintenance operation.
=
k II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now again, if you covered 3
d 12 z
this before I came in, don't go back over it, but what would 9
I be the disadvantages of taking -- continuin g to t.take all of these mhI matters under 50.59 instead of going to Part 307 e
C 15 g
MR. ROUSE:
I think we did cover that, but m
?
16 3
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
Okay.
d l
(Laughter.)
ew 18 If you want to cover it in more depth than you did E"
19 2
before, go ahead; but don't make everybody go back through the n
20 same thing.
I'll just read it.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Other questions, Peter?
22 Okay, let me ask one question:
23 '
l There was a report by the GAO that existing'nuclea'r 24 sites can be used for new power plants and nuclear waste storage, 25 !
and one of their recommendations was that before permitting I
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
42 utilities to store low-level waste at nuclear power plant sites, the NRC should require the utilities to provide specific 2
P anS f r eventually disposing of this waste, including assurances l
3 that funds will be available for disposal costs, and the GAO 4
mmented that they added that recommendation because NRC 5
N ffi ials said that we intend to require tiie utility to state 6
e i
l n
E how it ultimately will dispose of the waste before we would grant 7
permission to store 211 of our waste at power plant sites.
g d
And so, therefore, I was wondering.how you intended g
9 i
h t
f ld that in.
10 c
3 MR. DI;CKS:
I'll turn that to Ed.
g jj B
d 12 (Laughter.)
3 MR. CASE:
I don't remember it, and I doubt it was 13,
D=
our Comments.
g 4
d 15 (Laughter.)
wm CHAIRMAN AHEARNEi Wait.
I'm not trying to find out 16 3
i d
t h'
17 I who made the comment.
I'm trying to find out who made the i
O_
y jg comment.
I'm trying to find out what is --
=
w{
j9 MR. DIRCKS:
How do we intend to address the issue?
5 t
n C' AIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
Yes.
H 20 21 MR. DIRC KS :
I guess we will address the issue.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you.
I'll be interested 22 l
23 l in y ur addressal.
Thank you.
24 (Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m.,
the meeting was 25 "di "r"*d-)
e b
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
w NUCISAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
-w NRC Commission in the matter of: Briefing on SECY-80-511 - Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites Date of Proceeding:
Dec. 10, 1980 Docket Number:
~-
Place of Proceeding:
w m 3 n.,,,,,, n.,,.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Coemisstsn.,
ANN RILEY Official Reporter (Typed)
, ~.
7
/
l.ls,.
D s' of Official Reporter (Signature) 4
. D mm)D
)0 3 I
w e j\\\\ w Jb
.A
=
l w.
i
..