ML19340E177
| ML19340E177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340E175 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-CA, TASK-SE SECY-80-511, NUDOCS 8101060596 | |
| Download: ML19340E177 (21) | |
Text
O November 18, 1980 SECY-80-511 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Comissioners From:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES AT POWER REACTOR SITES Purcose:
To secure Comission approval of the staff's plans for review of applications proposing additional storage capacity for low-level radioactive wastes at power reactor sites and for preparing a programatic environmental impact statement on long-term, retrievable storage of low-level wastes at reactor sites.
Discussion:
Background -
By memorandum dated June 2,1980, Comissioner Bradford requested information about low-level waste management plans. announced by TVA for its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP).
The Director, NRR responded in a memorandum to the Comission dated July 23,1980 (Attachment "A") in which he described TVA's plans, requests for public l
hearings, requirements for NRC approval and NRC actions taken up to that time.
He also stated that a paper was being prepared by NMSS, NRR, and ELD that would outline the staff's plans for the licensing of additional low-level waste storage facilities and discuss the implications of long-term storage of low-level wastes at reactor sites.
I Recent Events -
l In accordance with its announced plans (see enclosure to Attachment "A"), TVA submitted a request to NRR dated July 31,1980 for amendment of its three BFNP reactor facility operating licenses to authorize onsite, life-of-plant storage of low-level radioactive wastes generated from operation of the Browns Ferry reactors.
IVA conducted an environental review of its proposed storage plan and concluded that there is no significant environental
Contact:
Peter Loysen, NMSS 42-74205 83 010 6 0 SC (o l
4, The Commissioners impact. TVA already has a reactor facility license amendment providing for a maximum of two years of such storage. This storage capacity was provided for in i
existing facilities.
A meeting was held on Novemoer 7, 1980 between TVA and the staff to discuss the TVA applica-tion in the context of the staff plans described in this paper.
As a result of this meeting, TVA may amend its application to request storage for up to five years. TVA was infomed that an FR notice of receipt of application and opportunity for public hearing would be published regarding its proposal.
The TVA application is the-first that the Commission has received for onsite, life-of-the-plant storage of low-level radioactive waste.
IE has canvassed other operating reactors to determine their plans. Results of the IE survey, combined with infomation acquired by NRR, shows that a few licensees have already provided for some limited additional storage capacity and several have projects underway or have specific plans to add capacity ranging up to five years accumulation of waste onsite.
Overall, about two-thirds of the operating reactor sites have reported that they are considering additional storage capacity for wastes generated onsite. While noae has reported plans as extensive as those announced by TVA, several licensees indicated that the mattet of storage is under study to detemine the best way to proceed. A summary of the responses to the IE survey is included as i
Attachment "B."
The staff believes that current uncertainties about th'e availability of offsite disposal of low-level radioactive wastes will lead c'.ilities to plan for long-tem storage of wastes onsite. The implications of such actions, as related to questions of eventual disposition and to the planning of States in this area, need to be examined to provide a basis for Commission decision regarding licensing of long-tem or life-of-plant storage.
Reactor licensees have previously shipped their low-level wastes to commercial disposal sites.
Onsite storage capac:ty is usually sized to contend with vicissitudes of waste transportation and disposal operations.
l
, _ ~ -,
~
s' The Commissioners Staff Licensing Position The staff now proposes to institute a three-tiered approach for licensing additional storage of low-level reactor wastes generated at reactor sites.
1.
Short-Term On-Site Contingency Storage Capacity -
This is additional storage capability provided through modifications and additions that are closely related to existing handling and storage provisions for reactor operations; the added capacity would typically extend storage to accommodate one to two years of accumulated waste and would provide for temporary interruptions in ability to ship waste offsite for disposal. The safety of such added capacity will be evaluated by the licensee under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
If no reactor facility license amendment is needed and the licensee finds no unreviewed safety question, specific NRC approval would not be required.
If an amendment of the reactor facility license is needed or the licensee finds that an unreviewed safety question does exist, NRR will review the proposal for possible licensing by amendment of the reactor facility operating license. NMSS will assist NRR as appropriate.
In general, this. type of storage is that which already has been undertaRen at several reactor sites under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, 2.
Intermediate Onsite Contingency Storage Facilities -
These are generally separate facilities onsite that are proposed by a utility to provide several years of low-level waste storage capacity. Such facilities would allow utilities to store waste while the staff completes the studies necessary to reach a decision about life-of-plant storage (see item 3 below).
It could also provide storage capacity while advanced volume reduction processes are designed and installed at reactor sites or while new disposal capacity is being developed.
Use of such facilities would involve unreviewed safety questions and would reqLia prior specific approval. Application for use must iw accompanied by a showing that the storage provisions will not foreclose alternatives for disposal of the wastes nor impact on the safety of reactor operations. The application would be submitted to NMSS pursuant to 10 CFR 30, accompanied by an evaluation of environmental impacts.
. ~....
s.
1 The Commissioners It is for the administrative convenience of the Coamissicn that NMSS will review applications with separate Part 30 licensing rather than treating them as reactor facility license amendment applications.
If an environmenta.1 impact statenent is considered necessary for a sp;cific proposal, the restrictions of 10 CFR 30.32(f) anu 10 CFR 30.33(a)(5) will apply.
In all cases, the staff will insure that no significant impacts are overlooked.
Any license issued will be for the conventional five-year term for a material license.
It could be renewed if continued need is demonstrated, disposal alternatives are not foreclosed and contirred safety is assured.
The staff has concluded that 10 CFR 50.59 procedures are inappropriate for storage in excess of two years.
The two-year period (Tier-1) reasonably falls within the envelope of NRC review prior to issuance of a reactor facility operating license and 10 CFR 50.59 procedures are appropriate.
Beyond two years, however, it is a new activity whose health, safety and environ-mental implications have not yet been completely reviewed.
For example, considerations of waste form, containers, and surveillance for packaging integrity need to be made.
NRC licensing jurisdiction will be retained in Agreenent States in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) for storage of low-level waste generated on site.
Financial liability protection will not be required and indemnity coverage will not be given unless the Commission should choose to exercise its discretionary authority to do so.
In the view of the staff, for reasons similar to these expressed in SECY 80-467, indemnity coverage is not warranted.
If it is determined that the storage provisions could impact on the safety of reactor operations, NRR will provide input to NMSS on this issue.
Conditioning of the reactor facility license nay be necessary, but the storage facility would be licensed under Part 30.
' I, I
The Comissioners TVA is the first licensee to construct such contingency stora ge.
License review of their contingency storage units under the plans described in this paper will proceed according to the following tentative schedule:
Receipt of Amended Application 12/01/80 NRC Site Visit 12/15/80 Request for Additional Information 02/01/81 Receipt of Additional Information 03/15/81 SER and EIA Issued 06/30/81 3.
Life-of-Plant Onsite Storage Facilities - Major separate facilities are exeglified by the TVA Browns Ferry proposal.
Licensing would be handled as described for the Intermediate Onsite Contingency Storage Facilities; however, utilities would be advised by a letter similar to Attachment "C" that the NRC will examine through a programatic environmental impact statement the waste management. implications of long-term storage.
In the interim, licensing action on life-of-plant storage proposals will be held in abeyance pending completion of the programmatic statement and develop-ment of an NRC licensing position.
Although licensing of life-of-plar;t storage could proceed during the preparation of the programatic statement through application of judicially-developed standards (e.g., the "five factors" as was done for spent fuel storage and handling) t'ic high potential for adversely affecting desirable near-term alternatives being considered by several States for storage and disposal has led the staff to conclude that it is unlikely that affirmative findings could be made with regard to these standards before the programatic statement is completed.
l
1 The Commissioners Table 1 outlines the key elements of this licensing position.(Attached)
As noted in Item 2 above, NRC licensing jurisdiction will be retained in Agreement States in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) even though intermediate onsite contingency storage facilities will normally be authorized through issuance of Part 30 licenses separate ~
from the reactor facility operating licenses.
(Because TV.\\ is a Federal agency, NRC licensing authority is a?plicable in any event.) This position is not intended co preclude Agreement State licensing of other activities proposed on the site of a nuclear reactor that are unrelated to reactor operation and that are activities conventionally licensed under Agreement State authority.
For example, Public Service Company of Colorado has advised the staff that it is considering the operation of a small thorium processing plant on the site of its Fort St. Vrain reactor site.
We have concluded that the source material license required for this activity should be subject to the review and licensing of Colorado, an Agreement State.
It is clear, of course, the utility continues to have the responsibility under its facility operating license to determine that such activities will not impact on the safety of reactor operation. These evaluations are subject to NRC review.
With respect to the licensing of long-tem low level l
waste storage on reactor sites as described by Item 3 above, the aspect of Agreement State licensing will be examined in the programmatic EIS with the potential for modification of the provisions of 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1).
A number of utilities have indicated that they are considering the installation of waste volume reduction (V-R) l capability, including in some cases the use of incineration.
For example, TVA's overall planning for BFNP includes I
such volume reduction with incineration to achieve
INTERIM POSITION FOR LOW LEVEL WASTE STORAGE AT OPERATING REACTOR SITES Short Term Contingency Storage Intermediate Contingency Stocage Life-of-Plant Storagn "
urpose Permits continued reactor Permits continued reactor op2 ration Allows conplete independence, operation where offsite and storage of waste while the staff from external factors.
disposal is temporarily completes studies on life-of-plant interrupted.
storage or if further processing to enhance waste form is anticipated acility Generally:
Generally:
Generally:
escription 1-Inside protected area, 1-Outside protected area, 1-Outside Protected area, 2-Interconnected to existing 2-Not connected to existing reactor 2-Not connected to existing reactor facility,
- facility, reactor facility, 3-Capacity less than 1-2 years 3-Capacity less than 5 years of 3-Capacity greater than 5 of waste volume.
4-Storage for less than 2 years.
4-Waste stored for less than 5 years.
4-Waste stored for life-of-plant.
ourcs of Waste Onsite generation only.
Onsite generation only.
Onsite generation unless modi-fled by progranmatic EIS.
lpportunity for Hone None required but would be offered.
None Required but would be offered.
'ublic litarings
.icansing Under reactor facility license Separate Part 30 license (5-year term).
Separate Part 30 license.
'rocedu re byproduct material authorization.
Need to consider Agreement State issue.
safety Reviews Licensee 50.59 evaluation or NMSS 30.33 evaluation with NRR NMSS 30.33 evaluation with NRR SER.
conclusion no reactor safety issue.
NRR conclusion no reactor safety issue.
4 EPA Assessment None, if licensee 50.59 evalua-NMSS EI A per 10 CFR 51.
NMSS progranaatic environ-tion. If NRR approval necessary mental inpact statement and governed by procedures in Part NMSS EI A per 10 CFR 51.
51 (probably EI A in most cases) tactor Safety Established criteria.
Complete separation to assure no Complete separation.to hvicw Criteria reactor safety issue.
assure no reactor safety issue.
Radiological NRR licensing position for HMSSto3evelopbasedonNRR NMSS to develop based on NRR lazard Safety temporary storage.
licensing position for tenporary licensing position for storage.
temporary storage.
Pricc-Anderson Covered.
Not covered unless Conmission Not covered unless Conmission Ind:mnity discretionary authority exercised.
discretionary authority exe rci sed.
The Commissioners capability for life-of-plant storage in the modular storage facilities described in its recent application.
TVA estimates that such equipment will reduce the volume of waste for disposal by a factor of ten.
Utilities will be encouraged to exannne the costs and benefits of utilizing processing methods, including incineration, to reduce the volume of waste for disposal.
However, the implementa-tion of volune reduction processing methods does not eliminate the concerns about onsite long-term or life-of-plant storage of waste.
The interoffice licensing responsibilities for V-R facilities will depend on the V-R interaction witn the reactor and purpose.
V-R facilities located on the reactor facility site but separate from the reactor facility (e.g., generally outside the protected area) designed for processing onsite generated waste for intermediate or long-term storage would be licensed by NMSS under a separate Part 30 license.
V-R facilities that are interconnected to existing reactor facilities (e.g., an extension of the existing auxiliary building inside the protected area) designed for processing waste from the existing reactor radwaste systens would be licensed by NRR under the reactor facility license byproduct material authorization.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement As indicated previously, the implications of cnsite, long-term storage of wastes need to be examined to provide a basis for Commission policy on licensing of such storage.
A programmatic environmental impact statement will be l
initiated under the direction of the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety with assistance from the Division of Waste Management and NRR as appropriate.
The staff estimates that completion of the statement will take two to tivee years.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has indicated that, while the preparation of a progra'amatic statement is probably not legally mandated under the circumstances described here, its preparation is advisable (See Attachnent "D").
It should also be re-enphasized that, although TVA is the only licensee that has proposed life-of-plant storage, the staff believes that othere 3y propose it in the future.
The scope of the statemenc will l
l
. ~......., _ _. _.
I i
The Commissioners i be limited to long-term, retrievable storage of low-level radioactive wastes at reactor sites including volume reduction practices, and the pros and cons of such actions as related to policies, decisions, and implementation plans for final disposition of such wastes.
The programmatic statenent is considered to be appropriate because the uncertainty of low-level waste disposal capability is creating what might be considered a new step in the fuel cycle, i.e., life-of-plant storage, and its impacts have not yet been assessed.
While the health and safety aspects may not be incrementally significant, long-term storage of low-level wastes at reactor sites must be considered in relation to development and implementa-tion of disposal plans on a regional or state-by-state basis.
The States can also be expected to be concerned with long-term storage of low-level wastes and NRC should not take deliberate action that would interfere with the establishment by States of additional permanent disposal capacity.
The National Governors' Association, the State.
Planning Council and the National Council of State Legislators have taken positions that the States should accept primary responsibility for the safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Resource Recuirements Licensing - The Offices of NRR, NMSS, and IE will be affected by the changes in licensing applicability and office responsibility.
Based on the projected licensee submittals for which NRR will have the lead l
responsibility as well as technical assistance to NMSS i
and IE, one to two staff-years of NRR resources will be required annually.
On those submittals for which NMSS will have the lead responsibility plus assistance l
to NRR, about two staff-years and $75K of NMSS resources will be required annually.
IE resources will be one to two staff-years annually. Most of the Offices' resources for licensing onsite storage can be absorbed by internal reprogramming of existing resources.
~~
- ~~,,c-.-,n,,,,.,..c.,,,
The Comissioners Procramatic Environmental Impact Statement - NMSS resources for preparation of the programmatic statement are one staff-year annually for two years and an estimated total of $450,000 fcr contractor technical assistance, beginning in FY 81. NRR resources to support the programatic statement preparation should not exceed 0.25 staff-years.
The staff resources will be provided by internal reprogramming.
The need for program support funds for the programmatic EIS was not anticipated in budget requests.
Accordingly, we plan to work with the Office of the Controller to determine the availability of funds for reprogramming.
Recommendation:
1.
Approve the staff's plan for review of applications proposing additional storage capacity for low-level radioactive wastes at power reactor sites as described in this paper including the conclusion that discretionary extension of Price-Anderson indemnification is not warranted.
2.
Approve the staff's plan to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement on long-term, retrievable storage of low-level wastes at reactor sites.
3.
Approve the transmitting of a letter similar to that in Attachment "C" informing licensees of the Comission's plans.
4.
Approve the transmittal of the staff's plan for addressing short term storage capacity, intermediate storage capacity, and preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement on long term retrievable storage at reactor sites to the States (both Agreement and non-Agreement) at the time of Commission action on this paper.
/
/ -
Will
. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Harold Denton Memorandum dated July 23, 1980 (Attachment "A")
2.
Summary of IE Survey (Attachment "B")
3.
Proposed Letter to Utilities (Attachment "C")
4.
Memorandum on LLW Storage at Power Reactor Sites dtd Oct. 27,1980 (Attachment "D")
e Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Thursday, December 4, 1980.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT November 26, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional t.ime for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS Secretariat t
i i
l l
i
J he ENCLOSURE 1
~
l D * *lD
?D
~ Tl A g a j\\\\ 6-) J. J l
m e
s
-e e.
9 5
0 Attachment A
$E LHm2.
JUL 2 31980 n. a
- '!l a.-
ce
- i..
ME!OWDUM,FOR':gthafirari Ahearne "J7b vIff
',r' .2 tomissiorier.3111psky
+.-4'p
. r.
S e.miss'ioner, Hendri6 (Signe:DIYikh h Direbi ejf.. i ' "-'Coedis'sTcKii5%idford a-.-. _ _ ::
.q
.THRU:
William J. Dircks Acting Executive Director fcr Operations FROM:
Harc1d R. Denton, Directer, Office.of Nuclear -
~
Reactor RegJiation
- . f-
SUBJECT:
LOW-LEVEL WASTE WMEMENT AI P.ROWNS FERRY x
- . L..
This is in response to Cc:ctissioner Bradford's memorandum of Junec2,, G -l 1980 on the above subject. This necorandum requested informatien'.ori: 7
/.
.~
TYA's plans to build a low-level waste s'torage facility at Br:sny'
,7.
j, 1
Ferry.
a.
- 2., Whe'ther NRC approval is required for this facility,'whether public.
hearings have been requested and what actions NRC. has taken 5*
concerning TVA's plans.
~
.-n
. p;
' ~ -
TVA's Plans Briefly, TVA plans to const-uct ~two separate low-level waste facilif.ies onsite; One facility would consist of.14,large, concrete cubieles.for l.
the sole purpose.cf storing low-level ' waste ensite for the life of,'.the.
plant. The facility would be located on th: Erowns Ferry site out, side the existing security fence and would hav its own security cont'rol-i ',
and fire prctectien syster.There wculd be no treatment or processing cf icw-level waste in this facility.
TVA recently started constrtictirn
~
of the first four cubic 1,es.
The recond f acility - the Raddaste Voluce'Re6stion Building - would be an addition to - and tied into - the existing radwaste building.
Space would be provided in this "ilding for an iricinerator as well as improved processing, solidif
. ion and druming equipmant. 'TVA's f 1984 schedule ~ calls for cc::pletion c and to have an incinerator ope DUPLICATE DOCUMENT
[
A more detailed description of l
Entire document previously
_____.m
(
entered into system under:
hb 5DDh ANO No. of pages:
(
l
-~mw -, -
~
y-
-.,.,p.,,,,y.
y,,
m y
y.
,-...,.y-
- l 8
ENCLOSURE 2 A
e 9
l 3
w L
l I
4 1
L
..e.
I Attachment B LLW STORAGE SURVEY CONCLUSI0t45 Of the 51 facilities surveyed:
a.
19 (or 37%) have expanded the icw-level waste storage facilities beyond that described in the FSAR.
b.
36 (or 71%) are planning or considering increasing their waste storage capa-city.
14 of these have already expanded it once (see item a above).
c.
27 (or 53%) feel that their current solid waste processing equipment can meet the January 1981 burial criteria (regarding water content only).
of the remaining 24, 14 (or 58%) plan to go with mobile solid systems.
d.
28 (or 55%) use or are considering using cement as a binding agent.
12 (or 24%) use or are considering using 00W as a binding agent.
8 (or 16%) use or are considering using UF as a binding agent.
28 (or 55%) feel that the waste presently in storage will meet the January e.
1981 burial criteria.
(tiote that 5 facilities did not have any waste presently in storage.)
f.
37 (or 72%) are considering or planning to install volume reduction equipment, although 10 of these are looking only at compactors.
g '.
tio storage' facility with capacity in excess of 5 years of waste generation is planned. All but two new storage facilities will be located inside the security fence. Only two plants will request prior fiRC approval for the new storage facility; others believe their.50.59 review will conclude no prior flRC ^ approval is necessary.
/i
I SUt1%RY OF RESPONSES 10 QUESTI0fiS No. 1 No. 2 ho. 3 11 0. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7_
No. 8 Fresent capability of atg 1/01 What binder will Does waste in Expanded Criteria of 0.5%
If llo to No. 3, be used; UF, storage meet If not, how do Any future plans past F5aR
% full free H2O or How do you plan cement Dow, 1/01 burial they plan on for increasing Yes or tio now 1 gal /contain.
to meet?
asphalt 7 criterta7 disposing?
_ waste storage Yes Arkansas No 75 No Mobile Cement No*, Yes Beaver Valley Yes 25 Yes NA Cement Yes M
Yes Big Rock Point No 65 Yes NA 7
Yes NA No 7 Browns Ferry Yes 70 Yes M
NA Yes NA Yes Yes Brunswick Yes*
O No Hoblie 7
Yes NA q
(
Yes Calhoun No 20 Yes NA Cement Yes IIA I
Calvert Cilf fs No NA No*
7 Cement 7 M
NA Yes Conn Yankee No_
20 Yes*7 Mobile Cement, Dow?
Yes*7 NA FM Yes Cooper No 0
Yes NA Cement Yes NA No Crystal River No 15 No Mobile Cement No Ship
@G Yes to i
Davls-Besse Yes*
70 Yes NA UF Yes M
g D. C. Cook Yes 25 Yes NA Cement No Ship tio Diablo Canyon No 0
Yes M
Cement fiA ffA 6
)
No Dresden Yes 10 Yes NA Cement, Dow Yes NA No l
Duane Arnold No 75 Yes NA*
7 Yes M
Yes N
i Yes i
Farley No 0
No Mobile UF, Cement NA NA p
g Yes i
Fitzpartick No 75 No New System Cement Dow No Ship Ft. St. Vrain No*
55*
Yes NA NA Yes NA
(
i)
No Glnna Yes*
O No 7
Cement, 7 No*
Ship 7
Hatch No 0
Yes NA Cement Yes NA Yes Ilumboldt Bay No 80 No Mobile 7 Dow No Reprocess 7
Indian Point 2 Yes*
Yes*7 Moblie UF M
llA Yese Indian Point 3 No 50 Yes*
NA UF Yes IIA Yes Kewaunee No 50 Yes M
Cement Yes NA Ho i
LACBWR Yes*
20 Yes Moblie/Dow Dow 1 Yes M
Ves*
- Hore information on form l
7 - Under study NA - Not appilcable l
e
I l
I f
No. 9a No. 9b No. 9c rio. 9d No. 9e lio. 9f flo. 10 No. 11 flo. 12 If yes g
Any Plans What type 7 i
Location Licensee for incinerator Schedule Type of Review Volume c mpactor for Vol.
Size Type waste stored Facl11ty Facility Process Schedule Reduction asphalt Reduction Q
7 7
7 7
7 7
Yes 7 Inc.
3 3100 f t all Concrete new, inside fence 7
7 Yes Comp.
7 1
NA NA NA NA NA NA No NA NA 7d l
7 dry, dew.res.
Concrete new, outside rence 50.59 7
Yes Inc.
1985 3
85,000 ft aII frame new, outside fence 50.59 09/80-01/01 7
7 1985 y e
7 all Concrete new, inside fence 50.59 05/81-10/81 tio NA NA 3
13,000 ft dry, dew.res.
Concrete new, inside fence 7
01/81-03/81 7
NA NA 1100 ft3 dew.res., sol.res.
Concrete new, inside fence 50.59' 02/81-08/01 No NA NA G
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA No NA NA
)
l 7
all 7
7 7
7 Yes 7
7 t
3 t
50,000 f t dry, sol.res., sol.evap.bott.
7 new, outside fence 7
7 No NA NA l
NA NA ^
NA NA NA NA No NA NA h
)
t NA NA NA NA NA NA Yes Comp./Inc.
NA
(-]
'i NA NA NA NA NA NA No NA NA i
7 7
7 7
7 7
Yes 7
7 b
7 aH 7
7 7
7 Yes Asp /Muld Bed Wyer 1984 3
100,000 ft dry, sol.res., sol.evap.bott.
Concrete new, inside fence 7
81-82 No?
HA NA
,I NA NA NA NA NA I4A Yes Comp.
1982 NA NA NA NA NA NA Yes Comp.
7 i
3 40,000 ft dry Metal Frame new, inside fence 50.59 01/81-05/81 Yes Comp.
1980 2
l NA NA NA NA NA NA flof Comp.
!!A 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
5 yr. acctn.
dry, dew.res., sol.res.
Conc / steel new, inside fence 50.59 by 82 Ito IIA flA MA NA NA NA NA NA flo IIA IIA
^
7 all Concrete ext, of exist, b1dg.
50.59
- 81 flo flA NA 4
e I
e i
e I
SUMMARY
OF RESPONSES 10 QUESTIC23 Ilo. I fio. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 Present Capability of mig 1/01 Yhat binder wl11 Does waste in Expanded Criterla of 0.5%
If No to No. 3, be used; UF, storage meet if not, how do Any future plans past F5aR
% full free H O or How do you plan cement, Dow, 1/01 burial they plan on for increasing 2
Yes or fio now 1 gal /contain.
to meet 7 asphalt?
critertaf disposin L waste storage Haine Yankee Yes 70 7
Mobile UF 7
No plans Yes McGuire No 0
Yes NA Dow Yes NA Yes H111 stone-Yes 20 No New System Dow Yes NA Yes Monticello Yes*
10 No*
Hobile 7
Yes NA Yes*
'Nine Mlle Point No 75 No New System Dow No Reprocess
'l Yes t
N. Anna No 100 No Hobile Cement No Reprocess / Ship Yes i
Oconee Yes 0
No Modification UF No Reprocess 7 d Yes Oyster Creek No 50 7
Hodify UF/Dow?
7 7
i 7 Palisades Yes 25 Yes NA Asphalt Ho*
Shlg/ Reprocess y Yes*
Peach Bottom No 90 7
New System Cement 7
eprocess
, Yes Pilgrim No
- 40 Yes fM Cement 7 No Reprocess N7 i
Point Deach Yes 0
Yes FM Cement Yes NA No Prairie Island No*
15 Yes 7 Hobile Cement NA 7 NA 7 No Quad Cities Yes 50 Yes NA Cement Yes FM No Rancho Seco No 30 Yes NA UF Yes FM Q Yes
+
Robinson No 20 Yes NA Cement Yes NA O Yes Salem No 0
Yes 7 Hodify Cement No Reprocess
] Yes San Onofre No 20 No*
Hoblie Dow Yes NA Yes Sequoyah Yes 0
Yes im UF Yes FM k Yes St. Lucie No 10 Yes NA None Yes in Yes Surry No 0
No Hoblie Cement fM IM Yes Trojan Yes 20 No 7
Dow Yes NA fio i
Turkey Pt.
Yes 15 Yes NA Cement Yes IM Yes Vermont Yankee No 25 Yes NA 7 Dow/ Cement Yes* 7 IM
!!o Yankee Rowe No 15*
Yes Hodification 7 Cement Yes in tio Zion Yes*
O Yes*
fM Cement Yes IM flo *
- thre information on form
.7 - Under study NA - Not appilcable a.*
. ~ -..... _ - -
- ' ~ ~ ~ - - - -
l i
l
\\
No. 9a No. 9b No. 9C No. 9d No. 9e No. 9f No. 10 No. 11 No. 12 If yes Any plans What type?
t.ocation Licensee fbr incinerator Schedule Type of Review Volume compactor for Vol.
Size Type waste stored
@llity Fac111ty Process. -
Schedule Reduc tion asphalt Reduction f]
CM 1 yr. accum, all Conc / bunker new, inside fence 50.59 7
7 Inc.
NA 7
dew.res., sol.res.
Concrete new, inside fence lic, amend.
08/80-04/81 Yes 7
7 105,000 ft dew.res. sol.res., sol.evap.bott. Concrete new, new fence 50.59 7
7 NA 0
3 7
7 7
7 7
7 Yes 7
7 90,000 ft dry, sol.res., sol.evap.bott.
Concrete new, inside fence 50.59 05/B0-03/82 Yes Inc/Evap.
7 f3 3
fl 50,000 ft all Concrete new, inside fence 7
7 Yes Inc.
7 y
3 i
7 all 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
NA NA NA M
NA NA No NA 6
3 100,000 ft all frame new, outside fence 7
7 Yes Asphalt 1981 3
2 yrs, accum, sol.res.
Conc / frame new, inside fence 50.59 03/81-06/01 Yes Asphalt 1983 NA NA NA NA NA IfA Yes Comp.
7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7
NA NA b
NA NA NA NA NA NA tio NA NA
[f NA NA NA NA NA NA 7
Asphalt
!!A ii.
?
dry frame (open, pad) new, inside fence 7
7 Yes*
Comp.
1981 20,000 ft evap.bott.
Concrete new, inside fence 7
06/81-09/81 Yes Comp /Evap.
1981 1
3 l
1000 drms!,50 LSA bxs all Concrete new, inside fence 50.59 81-82 Yes Inc.
7
,7 7
7 7
7 7
Yes Comp.
1980 90,000 ft all Concrete new, inside fence lic, amend.
03/80-12/80 Yes Comp.
IIA 3
120,000 ft dry Butler b1dg.
new, inside fence 7
12/80-03/81 Yes Comp.
1981 e
3 100,000 fL dry frame new, outside fence 50.59 08/80-11/80 Yes Inc/ Comp.
1:A 3
NA NA NA NA NA NA tio NA NA 20,000 ft dry frame new bldg.
7 01/81-06/81 flo NA ItA 3
6 NA NA NA NA NA flA Yes*7 Inc.
1982 NA NA NA NA NA NA Yes*
Inc.(exist.)
IIA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yes Osmosts/Evap.
1982 e
i
- 7.
7 h
't i
i i.
t h
ENdLOSURE3 DT*D
"]D TYM 6oJ v M
. S
..\\ lfia 5
e e
Attachment C
Dear Licensee:
As a result of a reduction in waste disposal capacity in the United States, many nuclear power. reactor licensees are taking or are planning to take steps to provide for additional on-site storage of low-level radioactive wastes generated onsite.
These steps range from storing packaged wastes in unused space to construction of new facilities for volume reduction and life-of-plant storage.
Review and approval of this range of solutions varies from licensee review under the the previsions of 10 CFR 50.59 to NRC authorization by a separate license.
The NRC is concerned about the variety of plans and how thby should be reviewed and approved, particularly those plans for long-term storage, for they are.the ones that may influence the development and implementation of final disposal plans by states acting individually or on a regional basis.
For ycur benefit as well as that of the NRC staff, the Comission has approved a licensing plan for the review and approval of all proposals.for increases in low-level waste storage at power reactor sites.
1.
Short-Term Onsite Contingency Capacity - Additional storage capability provided though nodifications and additions that are closely related to existing handling and storage provisions for reactor operations; the added capacity would typically extend storage to accomodate one to two years of wastes on site.
l Licensee The safety of such capacity will be evaluated by the licensee under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
If no reactor facility license amendment is needed and the licensee finds no unreviewed safety question, prior NRC approval would not be required.
If an amendnent of the reactor facility license is needed or the licensee finds that an unreviewed safety question does exist, the licensee nust submit an appropriate application to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for modification of the reactor facility license.
2.
Intermediate Onsite Contingency Storage Facilities - These are generally separate facilities onsite that are proposed by a utility to provide several years of low-level waste storage capacity if offsite disposal services are interrupted or limited.
We have determined that the ~use of such facilities would involve unreviewed sa'fety questions and would require prior specific approval.
Application for use must be accompanied by a showing that the storage provisions will not impact on the safety of reactor operations.
Authority for use should be requested through application to the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) pursuant to 10 CFR 30, accompanied by an environmental ir: pact report that considers the incremental inpacts as related to reactor operations.
Any license issued will be for the conventional
. - - - ~ - - +,.
. ~
Licensee five-year term, renewable if continued need is demonstrated and if safety of continued storage is established.
NRC licensing jurisdictior will be retained in Agreement States in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) for storage of low-level waste generated on site.
Financial liability protection will not be required and indemnity coverage will not be provided.
If it is determined that the storage provisions could impact on the safety of reactor operations, conditianing of the reactor facility license may be necessary.
3.
Life-of-Plant Onsite Storage Facilities - Major separate facilities designed to accommodate all of the low-level waste generated on site for 'the planned plant lifetime.
Licensing would be handled as described for the Contingency Storage Facilities; however, licensing action on life-of-plant storage proposals will not be taken pending preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement in which the waste management implications of long term storage will be exarnned and an NRC licensing position developed.
l 1
i l
L
Licensee,
A number of licensees are considering the installation of major volure reduction processes, such as incineration, to substantially reduce the volume of waste for disposal.
You are encouraged to examine the costs and benefits of such processes for your operations.
However, the use of such methods does not eliminate the concerns generated by considerations for long-term onsite storage of wastes as discussed below.
The scope of the programmatic environmental impact statement mentioned earlier will be limited to long-term, retrievable storage of low-level radioactive wastes at reactor sites and the pros and cons of such actions as related to policies, decisions and implementation plans for final disposition of such wastes. The programmatic statement is considered to be necessary because the uncertainty of low-level waste disposal capability is creating what might be considered a new step in the fuel cycle, i.e.,
' life-of-plant storage, and its impacts have not yet been assessed.
While the health and safety aspects may not be incrementally significant, long-term storage of low-level wastes at reactor sites must be considered with regard to its influence on the development and implementation of disposal plans on a regional or state-by-state basis.
The states can also be concerned with long-term storage of low-level wastes, and NRC should not take deliberate action that would interfere with the establishment by States of additional permanent disposal capacity.
i J
~
5-Licensees c
If you would like additional information about details of the staff licensing position for low-level waste storage, please contact your NRC reactor licensing project manager.
Sincerely, Milliam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations 1
S l
' - - - - -.. _.. - - ~. _ _,, _... _. _
v
~'
ENCLOSURE 4 4
h b
4
Attachment D
~
"'[
\\
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- [
WASHINGTON,D.C 20555 m
s.,.....j OCT 2 7 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director FROM:
Guy H. Cunningham, III
SUBJECT:
LLW STORAGE AT POWER REACTOR SITES Subsequent to the October 1 meeting in Mr. Dirck's office you asked me to review the question of whether there is a strict legal requirement for a programmatic EIS in the present circumstances. The answer is, as a strict legal requirement - no, unless the Commission deliberately decides that it will pursue now a program of licensing long tenn storage of LLW at reactor sites as one solution to the present problems of LLW disposal.
TVA has announced its intention to store low level radioactive waste (LLW) from power plant operations at the Brown's Ferry operating reactor site.
The operators of the Haddam Neck and Millstone units are also proposing similar storage facilities. We do not know if the TVA, Haddam Neck, and Millstone activities mark the beginning of a general movement among power reactor operators to previde long term storage of LLW at reactor sites, such y
storage to be licensed by NRC, or if the number of such proposals will remain relatively few.
The proposed NRC revision of 10 CFR Part 51 does not include any criteria for the preparation of a programmatic EIS, so denominated.
Presumably, the criteria to be applied for programmatic statements are the same as for indi-vidual project statements, viz, is the launching of a specialized licensing program a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, or has the Commission in its discretion detennined that one should be prepared [see proposed 10 CFR 51.20(a)].
The CEQ rules suggest that programmatic EIS's be prepared to coincide with meaningful points in agency planning and decisionmaking when there are a number of actions having relevant similarities, such as common timing, impacts, alternatives, methods of implementation, media, or subject matter [40 CFR 1502.4(c)(2l].
Thus, a forecast of the scale of activity anticipated is probably the most important piece of information needed for a sound decision on a progracmatic EIS.
Judicial precedents hew very close to the line that an EIS need not be prepared until a clearly identifiable proposal for action is presented by the Agency.
Kleppe v. Sierra Club 427 U.S. 390 (1976).
In X1 epee the Court had before it the question of tne need to prepare a programmatic statement,
'as well as its timing. On the need issue it tied its decision to the literal language of NEPA 5102(2)(C) that before an EIS is needed there mest be a proposal for action.
427 U.S. at 399-402.
On the timing issue, the Court I
L 8 llLDTO L l
Howard K. Shapar
- ruled that an EIS need only be timed to coincide with a fomal recommenda-tion or report on a proposal, and expressly rejected a " balancing" test applied by the Court of Appeals that would require an early preparation of an EIS. 427 U.S. at 403-406.
The 4 part " balancing" test rejected by Kleooe appears to ;1 ave been the timing test developed by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Scir.ntists Institute for Public Infomation v. AEC (SIPI) 481 F.2d 1079 (1973), consisting of the following elements:
Is the technology commercially feasible.
Is meaningful information presently available.
Are irretrievable commitments being made and options precluded.
If the program is feasible how severe will the environ-mental impacts be.
While rejecting the timing criteria of SIPI, the Court in Klecoe did not reject the holding of SIPI that programs involving the application of tech-nological innovations, or new applications of state-of-the-art technology, could require programmatic statements. Thus, while there is considerable latitude allowed the agency as to the timing of a statement, it appears clearly established that a program permitting a general application of technology with potentially significant environmental consequences requires a NEPA analysis.
In discussing the application of regulations and decided cases to LLW storage at reactors, it is evident that the assumptions made regarding the " program" will drive the conclusions.
If the assuniption is that only a few reactor operators will chose onsite storage as the solution to their LLW waste handling problems, then clearly no programmatic statement is needed.
Indi-vidual assessments, or supplements to the specific reactor EIS may be suffi-cient. On the other hand, if one envisions widespread adoption in the near future of onsite storage for the long term, involving dozens of sites, then a programmatic statement is probably required under the logic of SIPI.
In the latter case, timing becomes a problem since NRC, in theory, does not institute programs, but responds to applications made to it that are motivated by the private concerns of the applicants rather than by official policy of the agency. Thus, the NRC must forecast the probable course of events in the private Nctor, and on the basis of that forecast make a decision on the timing of a statement.
If examination of the relevant infomation on LLW storage and disposal alternatives leads to the conclusion that significant numbers of reactor operators will apply for onsite storage in the near future with potentially significant environmental impacts in the aggregate, then a programmatic EIS is advisable.
In summary I conclude:
1.
No programmatic EIS is needed if long tem storage of LLW at reactor sites remains limited in scope.
^
Howard K. Shapar
- 2.
A programmatic EIS is advisable but not strictly necessary if it appears that a large number of licensees will appb in the near future for licenses for long tenn storage of LLW.'d 3.
A programmatic EIS is probably necessary if the Commission adopts a deliberate policy of action for long tenn LLW storage at reactor sites as one means of coping with the current LLW disposal problem.
.7
^/
/
yH.Cunpfgham,III l
1/
This conclusion is in line with the reasons stated by the Commission in 40 FR 42801 for its decision to prepare a " generic" EIS on spent fuel storage and handling.
In that case the Commission acted in its discre-tion in opting to prepare a GEIS, although stating that a case-by-case enviromental review would be adequate since the Commission had not, at that time, found it necessary to develop any overall program of action..
i l
.