ML19351D409
| ML19351D409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/08/1980 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Mccormack M HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351D410 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010100081 | |
| Download: ML19351D409 (15) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _.
i N
UNITEb a e ATES
.,(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
wasnimorow.o.c.aoses September 8, 1980
=
The Honorable Mike McCormack
. Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
.Research and Droduction-United State nouse of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed are our responses to the questions on high-level waste management contained in your letter to me dated July 24, 1980.. Thank 2
you for this opportunity to express our views on these areas. We will be pleased to provide any additional information you require.
l Sincerely,
\\
l l
' John. Davi, Deputy Director 4
Office of Nuclear Material 4
Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions 8010100 Mbs#
1.
With regard to your recommendation that H.R. 7418 include a requirement.
~
for a Site Characterization Plan (SCP), please clarify the followingP Question 1 (ak The d[ tailed requirements for a SCP must be fomulated and announced sufficiently in advance of the December 31, i
1980 deadline in H.R. 7418 for the announcement of the first two repository locations.
Is this practicable?
The infomation follows:
If site characterization plans are to confom to the requirements of m
site characterization reports in our-proposed 10CFR60 procedural rule for the licensing of high-level waste (HLW) repositories, there is no need for any site characterization reports prior to selection of a site for more the-U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) posed rules, in fact, anticipate that detailed characterization.
Our pro will have screened several sites for more detailed investigation as part of its planning for site characterization to be described in its report on any particular site or sites. Thus, DOE would not need to know the detailed requirements for submission of a site characterizction report in order to select a site for detailed investigation.-
g In any case, NRC expects to have enough guidance available by the end of 1980 to enable the Department to prepare such a report.
The essential
. licensing ~ procedures rule (10CFR60.ll[ port are spelled out in our proposed contents of a site characterization re
~
a]). To avoid delays, DOE could i
use this proposed rule, together with the draft technical criteria contained in the Advanced Notice of Rulemaking published last May, to guide the Department's selection of sites in order to meet the December 3,;1980~---
=~
deadline in H.R. 7418.
In addition, our draft FomatVd Content Guide for site characterization reports will be published for comment in September 1980, and this should help provide more detailed guidance for the site. selection process.
Should the Department need any further technical guidance,-NRC would be happy to provide it on request.
t
,..-C
(
s (f$ ^'
4 4
?
t
~
~
.~.-
a - -. ; ;.;---
u-. w --
+:.-
.=_:.. =
g g... -
gc
?
u o
5 Question 1 (b):- If a SCkis required, a definite time for completion of action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may also be specified. What is the minimum EC review period that'may be necessary't The inforination follows:
a For budget _ projection purposes as a planning goal, NRC staff's best estimate:
of the period required' for an NRC review of a site characterization report' pursuant to our proposed 10CFR60 licensing rules-is seven~ months. -
=
^
Since no such review has ever been conducted, it is not known what the i
minimum review period may be.
It assumes that all inputs from the' states and other interested._ parties are made on schedule, and that neither the
~
report nor its review becomes entangled in litigation.- Our estimate also 1
j assines that NRC will:have sufficient resources to prepare a written.
P opinion on the report; solicit and evaluate the comments of state and local a
governments, other federal agencies, and interested mentie'rs of.the and incorporate these cements into its opinion in a tirrely, manner.public; l
j
\\
s
- --- - - - - - - '~ - ' - - -' - - - ' = - - ' -
_=;_--
w-
'l 4
_, _ = = = ~ = = = = = = = - * = = = - = = = = = = =
s
)
O h
\\
t h
r k
5
)
i
. -w
-.. s.
gm.=_ - =
g _.r w
r._
=_=.
R'
'. d A
.pk s.'
L
- Question 1 -(c):. For R&D facilities other than reactors (whether repositories, solidification facilities, or others), is there any precedence for requiring a SCP (or its-equivalent)?
t s
~
The information follows:
x s.
While!there are precedents for NRC reviews of proposed-facilities-prior to
~
their construction (e.g..10CFR70.23), there is no precedent for a site '
' characterization report as such. However, under Public Law 95-601, the 5ecretary.of Energy is to provide the Commission early notice of the commencement of the Departmerit's plans to-site -a=particular. facility.= -=
Moreover,+considering that geologic repositories will,have to provide--
- - s
= "
sufficient containment of-radionuclides for many centuries,.and that the cost,of failure could be extremely 3high even if remedial measures were feasible, such unprecedented. performance requirenents warrant the unprecedented proc'edural requirerents for 'an= earlier and more thorough understanding of site characteristics;in' order to assure adequate safety -
and" protection of public health.fGiven' the time and expense needed for-
+
^ ' test work to establish the, adequacy (or lack of it) of a particular site, ir sthpre xuld'be considerable disruption if NRC were to conclude that before i, J
\\ itt cpdd' authorize = construction, =some or all of the testing-had to be
. redone.i uFor this reason, -it would be unwise to permit the extensive job of
~'
s,!
asit;e bhtracterization to go unreviewed until the construction autho.*ization we '" ')
- stage.
IRC maintains that' there should be a reasonable degree of' consensus g
,'on the nature and) scope of the developmental work toward a repository before tpekrkcommences.
(
i0
/
+
c s
n s
k i
4 Y
t i
Iw t.
(
N '
W s
,1 b
!k y
'c
~
n l
,a I
y.
~ -. -..:~.=--.---
(
(
q, Question T (d):
H.R. 7418 and its, report require careful and thomugh coordination between the Department of Energy and the a;
Nuclear Regulatory Consission.
Is this coordination s
requit@,er.t necessary? Please explain.
In whst ways would a femal' requirement of a SCP either advance the i
pecject or aid the; DOE in performing its responsibilities?
~
i
(
The information foUg1 w
Yes.a requirement for " careful and thorough! coordination" between DOE and RC is necessary, and the Bill should asseelit.
In its present foun, the
~
Bill is silent on RC-DOE coordination, arid the Connittee report notes only j
that the Consnittee " encourages" it.
W.C' staff considers this coortlination necessary so that the DepartmentM chsrtcterization and pilot testing 4ctivities do not ruin the site'for subsequent expansion into a full-scale
(. repository, which the Bill reqnres the Department to contemplate in its
' original selection of a denonstration facility site.
Assuming that such a t
full-scale; facility is Abe licensed - as,it would have to be under existing law - NRC staff b. also concerned that the data being gathered i
during site characterization and-testing be of the type and quality to support a license application.
It would be unfortunate indeed if DOE were j
to proceed with site-rpecific testing involving a number of years of effort only to find later that (there is no casensus on the adequacy of the infomation needed to eable the Conairsion to make a licensing decision.
A fomal requirenent for DOE coord(natbn with NRC at the outset of site characterization activitirs wedd tius' rehce the risk of a serious mis-e calculation that could preclude use of the site for a full-scale repository and set back for several ints Cdetemination of the site's suitability.
In addition to providing fer de early review of. th'e Department's site characterization and site select'on programs, the submission of a site characterization plan assures an ' arly opportunity for other federal and e
state egencies and the public to become involved in the' decision-making p 'ocess with respect to these programs. Such early involvement would facilitate the identification and resolution of issues far enough in advance of mejor licensing decisions to help reduce the number and likelihood of lawsuits and other costly delays. With respect to the question as to ways in which a fomal requirement of a SCP would " aid the DOE," the views of DOE would appear to be most relevant.
0 f __
(,
- ' ~
~
l3
~ u L
i 4
e y
e
_g f
f
,e
- 9. x p.
7 1
{
e ft 4
e
h
,y Question 2: The enclosed report on H.R. 7418 details the step-by-step plan for coordination with the NRC and other agencies in the prepara-i tion of technology-demonstration repositories. What other coordination requirements should be provided for, if any?
6 The information follows:
Sile we believe our existing statutory authority does support thel requirement 1
that DOE submit site characterization plans, it would be useful to' have clarifying language in the Bill to help' avert the problems mentioned in the To the extent necessary to identify and assess response to question 1(d).
issues that may become relevant for the establishment of a facility described in Section 202(3) or (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act at a site proposed for a demonstration facility, it would be especially)c'onstructive (notwith-of the E standing the existing provisions of Section 205(c)(3 Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5845) to have an amendment enabling the Commission to
.I require the Department:
(1) to provide full and current information regrfing proposed and ongoing site characterization activities at any location being considered as a site for the disposal of any quantity of high-level radioactive j
wastes, for denonstration purposes or otherwise; and (2) to permit the Commission to make visits to and observations of these activities.
For the reasons cited in the Statement of Considerations of our2 proposed procedural rule, however, such an amendment might also specify that the 9;=
Commission shall not require a hearing on the record with respect to
'% site characterization reviews, although we believe that construction m
activities should be preceded by a formal licensing review. Should the 4
Connittee so desire, NRC staff would be happy to provide draft amendment 1anguage in. request.
k_s ry
.=.=: =
t i
I I
[ '.
l Please provide the following additional information about licensing.
3.
Do the repositories required by H.R. 7418 fulfill the Question 3 (a):_
criterion of "small research and development" facilities Z
that you said could be unlicensed? Is there some i
measure of "small. research and development" repositories other than the number _of canisters it contains compared s
to the number for a full-size repository?
The information follows:
No, the repositories required under this Bill do not fulfill the criterion The requirement for a minimum of for "small, research and development."
40 canisters of HLW would leave the definition of such facilities open-ended, to the unsupportable and doubtlessly unintended extreme of including full-scale Just as important, it appears to us that the entire emphasis facilities.
of the Bill as a whole, and Section 3 in particular, is on detaloping demonstration facilities to gain operating experience, not to conduct detailed studies to assess the performance suitability of particular s -geologies and engineered barriers.
Yes, there are measures of "small research and development" repositories other than the number of canisters they would contain compared to the To account for these measures in the number ir, a full-sized facility.
referenced NRC testimony before the House Science and Technology Comittee, the phrase "small research and-development facilities" was intentionally It was intended to convey the Commission's belief that left unquantified.
any unlicensed DOE research and development facility should be limited to the minimum size technically necessary for the conduct of the research or This " size" may vary with the research or development to be development.
undertaken, and the NRC believes it is unnecessary and perhaps unwise to specify any quantitative value generally applicable to such facilities.
\\
This view is consistent with that of the Interagency Review Group on 4* Nuclear Waste Management (IRG), which conceived of quantities where no more than some: tens of spent fuel assemblies or waste'esnisters would be emplaced for a limited test period and then removed.""The NRC believes that the " smallness" of the activity should demonstrate, ontits face, that the purpose of the facility is research and development.
'N w
'kx
- M
_d P
. = ~;..
~.=.
._.=.
...=___a
=. -
Question 3 (b): What, if any, additional reviewing and inspecting requirements are necessary from those specified in the report?
The information follows:
The Comission believes that DOE procedures to establish a drunstration facility should comport with the procedures for early Commimen notice, state and public review, and adequate evaluation of alternative sites as set forth in the discussion of site characterization in the procedural portion of our repository licensing rule,10CFR60.
In other words, the Department should proceed' through the demonstration phase as if it were intending to license a full-scale facility, since this is precisely what H.R. 7418 requires DOE to keep in mind from the outset of its siting activities.
It would be unfortunate indeed if a promising site-for a full-scale repository were to be delayed or rendered unlicensable by a miscalculated measure that DOE could have avoided had it had the benefit of NRC views, and there is no reasonable assurance that this problem can be avoided unless NRC has authority to conduct reviews and inspections during site characterization and throughout facility construction and operation.
m NL L.
~
=
..:-,..===.-
=--
r Question 3 (c): The coordination procedures outlined in the report were specified to guard, to the maximum extent practicable, against any actions that might compromise the possibility of i
later licensing. Are furt'.er coonfination directives necessary?
i my does your criterion for licensing differ from that provided in the law (Energy Reorganization Act)?
The information follows:
l Yes, further coordination directives are indeed necessary. As we have pointed out earlier, to exempt DOE from any of the coordination measures contemplated in our proposed licensing rules at any stage in the process j
for siting any facility larger than for small-scale research and development 1
4 is to incur an unnecessary risk of major expense and program disruption, j
since the considerable time and resources required for assessing the pecformance of the site and engineered barriers may be misspent.
The consequences of misspending them range from having to apply more time and resources to having to scrap an otherwise suitable site altogether. We conclude i
that the Department's characterization activities should be brought within the infomal framework of the site characterization review procedures set fortn in j
10CFR60 prior to submission of an application for NRC authorization to construct a repository. Again, except in the case of small research and development j
facilities, coordination through the characterization stage should take place in 1
the context of NRC's proposed licensing procedures.
l To respond to the final part of this question, we see no inconsistency between i
our proposed licensing criteria for geologic repositories and the criteria provided under existing law. The Energy Reorganization Act does not itself
[" "
provide such criteria, but simply extends the Commission's licensing and related regulatory authority pursuant to Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to the following facilities of the U.S.
4 Department of Energy, as successor to the Energy Research and Development Administration:
1.
Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act.
2.
Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized 3
for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.
The Chapters of the Atomic Energy Act relevant to waste facilities are Chapter 6 on Special Nuclear Material, Chapter 7 on Source Material, and Chapter 8 on Byproduct Material, all' of which are constituents of the HLW or spent fuel to be emplaced in a repository. Chapters 6: and 7 direct the Commission to establish, by rule, minimum criteria for the issuance of licenses for the distribution of special nuclear and source material depending on the degree of P -, *- --
-m.-
. g. _
q Quest'on 3 (c) Cont'd importance to the common defense and securiry or the health and safety of the public of the physical characteristics, quantities, and intended use of the material. Under Chapter 8, the Commission is directed not to permit the distribution of any byproduct material to any licenset who, among other things, is not equipped to observe or who fails to observe such safety standards to protect health as may be established by the Commission.
In addition, among the general authorities provided under Chapter 14, the Commission is authorized to:
b.
Establish by rule, regulation, or order, such standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect health or minimize danger to life or property.
1.
Prescribe such regulations or orders as it may deem necessary...
(3) to govern any authority authorized pursuant to this Act, including standards and restrictions governing the design, location, and operation of facilities used in the conduct of such activity, in order to protect health and te minimize danger to life or property.
p.
Make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
-Thus, keeping in mind that Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act brings the described HLW management facilities within the ambit of the licensing and regulatory provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, NRC considers the criteria contained in its proposed 10CFR60 repository licensing regulations to be well within the broad scope of rulemaking discretion affonfed the Commission under its long-standing authorities.
0
li -
t l.
As noted in the attached report and the Report 96-967 on the Question 4:
DOE authorization Bill H.R. 6627, DOE already has many geologic l
Do studies and several deep-core drillings at various sites.
1 these investigations at various locations suffice for the desired alternate locations that you cite in your testimony as needed to comply with NEPA?
'The information follows:
IRC staff does not now have sufficient information to deterghe whether DOE investigations at various locations suffice for the review o'f alternative The sites needed to comply with the National Envirornental Policy Act.
Commission will need enough data to enable it to ascertain that alterna-tive sites were carefully selected and evaluated, a process which we expect j to include the sinking of an exploratory shaft, the excavation of drifts, Among other things, it is to obtain this comparative and in-situ testing.
infomation that our proposed 10CFR60 calls for a process by which alternative sites can be screened, selected for further investigation, and characterized under infomal NRC and public review.
v
.n
.~
d Question 5: The description of " consultation and coordination" in the enclosed report was specifically made very broad to fit what the administration said was necessary. The description was intentionally clarified, however, to avoid the misconception that a state veto power over DOE decisions was intendedt Please state exactly what additional requirements are desirable.
l The information follcas:
4 The Commission has no position on the question of state veto over an unlicensed HLW facility. Subsequent to receipt of a license application from DOE, however, the Commission's views as stated in NUREG-0539, " Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing, and Development of Federal Nuclear Waste Facilities," are that a state should not be allowed to object.until the Commission had decided to authorize facility construction.
This would allos the NRC licensing review for a full-scale repository to run its course in an orderly manner so that a fully developed factual record would be available for use in the resolution of any differences between state and Federal views. Although states should not be allowed to impose a flat prohibition on HLW disposal before the characteristics of a site can be ascertained, if a state continued to object after careful examination of the record on health. safety, and environmental considerations, after consultation with DOE and after participation in NRC licensing proceedings, a strong argument can be made for the siting process to be suspended pending review of the record either by Congress, the President, or both.
It is important that the Federal Government have tsans to carry out an orderly and unobstructed review.
Our proposed licansing procedures provide for extensive state participation even before receipt of a license application.
Beginning with DOE's submission of a site characterization report, states would have an opportunity to bring their concerns to the Commission's attention, and our proposed rules provide this opportunity in hopes that the early identification of state issues weald be more conducive to their resolution during the licensing process.
A state objection that cannot Fa resolved during our proceeding, however, should not be allowed to preve"A its completion.
The question should simply be deferred for Congressic.31 or Presidential action if and when the Commission decided to authorize construction of the facility.
l u
4 e
I, l
b
.i L
Please provide more specific scientific information about the time at 6.
b i
which reprocessed wastes and spent fuel reach safety levels of uranium r
i ore (in terms of the report).
i Is it not true that the authoritative analyses show that s
~Ouestion 6 (a):
reprocessed wastes (after first-time-through in recycling) become as safe. as the uranium ore after 350-500 years?
4 Question 6 (b): What, if any, extra requirements is the NRC imposing by i
4 d
the 1000 year reference in your testimony? Please provide analytical references to substantiate this 1000-year period.
The information follows-We presume that by the phrase " safety levels of uranium ore" is meant of the waste becomes equal to that of that the untreated dilution index The treated dilution index (UDI) is defined as the volume of uranium ore.
water required to dilute a quantity of radionuclides to the concentrations
,j specified under the Standards for Protection Against Radiation in non-A number occupational exposure,10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table II, Column 2.
of authors have used the UDI or some closely related quantity to compare the hazards of nuclear wastes to that of uranium ore with the same general results. The UDI provides a useful basis for comparing the potential doses due to ingestion of radioactive materials, but does not take into account l
the many pathways of exposure to humans that can occur once radioactive Al so, the UDI does materials are released to the accessible environment.
nct take into account the fact that the wastes contain different chemical species from uranium ore that can travel through the geologic enviroment Further, the UDI does not take into account the elevated I
at faster rates.
temperatures that would be present in a repository due to radiotactive decay heat that would not be present in an ore body. These elevated temperatures persist for several thousand years and provide a driving fort:e for accelerated Therefore, migration from a repository that does not exist for an ore body.
while we consider the UDI to be useful for comparisons of potential exposures due to ingestion, it does not ensure that materials with the same UDI are equally safe when disposed of in a reoository.
Calculations of the UDI for several light water reactor fuel cycles are contained in the report published by the Environmental Protection Agency entitled " Technical Support of Standards for High-Level Radioactive Waste 520/4-79-007A).
Management, Volume A, Source Tem Characterization," (EPA Figure A-12 of this report indicates that the UDI of reprocessed wastes from a uranium fueled light water reactor (LWR) becomes equ:1 to that of
'i uranita ore at approximately 450 years, aad Figure A-19 shows that the UDI of reprocessed waste from a mixed-oxide fuel LWR becomes equal to that of uranium ore at approximately 1,500 years. Since mixed-oxide fuel may be approved for use in LWR's in the future, we consider it prudent for the criteria for high-level waste disposal to accommodate both of these wastes, and have, therefore, based our draft criteria on a containment time of A containment time of 1,000 years is also sufficient in o
1,000 years.
both cases for the temperatures in the repository to have passed their peak and to be decreasing.
i I
^12:.. :..
. ~ - -
c I
4 l
i i
Question 6 (c):
Is it not true that the authoritative analyses show that spent fuel reaches this level of safety after about 10,000 j
years?
The information follows:
Figure A-6 of the above mentioned EPA report gives the UDI for spent LWR fuel 1
as a function of time. The figure shows that after 1,000 years, the UDI for spent fuel has decreased by a factor of 1,000 due to radioactive decay and is approximately three times that of uranium ore. Approximately 9,000 years 4
are required for the UDI of spent fuel to become equal to that of uranium j
ore.
l I
s 4
l I
1 4
4 D
(
, ' 'y "U
i.ii s
t P
Are there any scientific analyses that indicate that this F
Question 6 (d):
time for spent fuel is similar to the time for reprocessed wastes?
it The information follows:
y
=
We are aware of no such. analyses.
i r
e C
a f
- -