ML20034C473
| ML20034C473 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1990 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0022, NACNUCLE-T-22, NUDOCS 9005030365 | |
| Download: ML20034C473 (57) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _
O OFFICIALTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS l
l t
i 1
I E
I I
l geng.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
Title:
19th ACNW Heeting l
i i
Docket No.
4o l
LOCATION:
Bethesda, Maryland i
dam Friday, April 27, 1990 PAGEs:
1 - 54 DNW6FFl0E COPYI RETAIN FOR-
~~
l
.THE LIFE OF THE COMMITTEE 1
1 I
(O ANN RIEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
/
1612 K St. N.W, Suite 300 u,c,5c, c, u -
c,c>.; ; 7 F DF,,.)bQC M N.d.N; it;U..1E W D.C. 20006
~
y i mm.
(202) 293-3950
1
)
2 3
l 4
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE I
i 5
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S i
6 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 7
8 DATEt April 27, 1990 9
10 11 12
()
13 The contents of this transcript of the i
14 proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission's Advisory Committee on-Nuclear Waste, 16 (date)
April 27, 1990 l
17 as reported herein, are a record of the discussions recorded at 18 the meeting held on the above date, i
19 This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected 20 or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.-
[
21 22 23
[^)
(_f 25 i
1
1 1
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
3 4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 5
6 19th ACNW Meeting 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
7920 Norfolk Avenue 10 Room p-110 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 Friday, April 27, 1990
()
13 14 15 The above-entitled meeting convened at 8:30 a.m.,
16 pursuant to notice, the Honorable Dade W. Moeller, Chairman, 17 presiding.
l 18 BEFORE:
19 Dade W. Moeller, Chairman, ACNW 20 William J.
Hinze, ACNW Member 21 Designated Federal Official:
1 22 Charlotte Abrams 23 25 j
2 1
1 PROCEEDINGS c
2 MR. MOELLER:
The meeting will now come to order.
I 3
This is the second day of the 19th meeting of the 4
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
I am Dade Moeller, S
Committee Chairman.
With me is William J. Hinze.
Dr. Hinze 6
is also a member of the Committee.
7 During today's meeting the Committee will review 8
results of the Waste Confidence Review Group.
Depending 9
upon what the Staff desires, we will probably write a letter 10 offering our comments on this subject.
11 The meeting is being conducted in accordance with 12 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the
( ),/
l' 13 Government in the Sunshine Act.
14 Today's sessions are entirely open to the public.
15 We should finish this first session between 10:00 and 10:30.
16 Then the Committee will deliberate on what we want to say 17 about it.
The overall meeting should be completed by noon.
18 Charlotte Abrams is the Designation Federal 19 Official for the initial portion of this meeting.
20 The rules for participation in the meeting were 21 announced as part of the notice that was published in the 22 Federal Register.
We have received no written statements or 23 requests to make oral statements from members of the public
()
24 regarding today's session.
Let me point out that all of the 25 written comments relative to the subject of the waste i
i
1 3
)
l 1
confidence review were provided to us.
So they are in a
{
2 sense available as comments from the public regarding 3
today's session.
l 4
A transcript of portions of the meeting is being i
5 kept and it is requested that each speaker use one of the i
6 microphones, clearly identify herself or himself, and speak 7
with sufficient clarity and volume so that she or he can be 8
readily heard.
9 There were a couple of announcements.of recent 10 developments that I will simply enumerate.
11 1.
DOE has asked the U.S. Claims Court for 12 another extension for filing an appeal of a ruling handed 13 down last August that voided DOE's decision to award a 10-
[
14 year, $1 billion contract to Bechtel National Inc. to manage 15 the department's high-level nuclear waste program.
In l
16 striking down the Bechtel award, the court barred DOE from 17 issuing the contract, as written, to any company other than 18 TRW.
The requested extension until May 2 is needed so that 19 parties may continue to explore a settlement of this appeal.
l 20 2.
Dr. John Bartlett has been appointed the 21 Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 22 Management at DOE.
Since 1978, Dr. Bartlett has served as 23 Manager of Nuclear Technology at the Analytic Sciences 24 Corporation, Reading, Massachusetts.
He was confirmed on u-25 April 5, 1990.
4 1
3.
William Coons will retire as the first 2
Executive Director of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 3
Board on April 27, 1990.
In fact, he is retiring effective 4
today.
Dr. William Barnard will become the Acting Executive 5
Director of the NWTRB for four to six months while the board 6
searches for a permanent Executive Director.
Dr. Barnard is 7
presently detailed to the board from the Congressional 8
office of Technology Assessment.
9 We will move ahead with our meeting now and 10 interact with the NRC staff on the review results on the 11 Waste Confidence Review Group's conclusions and 12 recommendations.
We have two presenters, S. A. Treby, OQ 13 office of General Counsel, NRC.
His group is chairing this 14 review.
Then we also have Ms. Julia Corrado from the 15 Division of High-Level Waste Management.
16 Mr. Treby, I believe you are to lead off.
17 MR. TREBY:
Thank you, Dr. Moeller.
18 My name is Stuart A. Treby.
I am Assistant 19 General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle.
I am 20 appearing here today in my capacity as Chairman of the Waste 21 Confidence Review Group.
22 Also participating in the presentation this 23 morning are Kathryn Winsberg, to my right, Julia Corrado, to-24 my left, and to her left Mr. John Roberts.
Ms. Corrado and 25 Mr. Roberts are from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety
i 5
1 and Safeguards.
Ms. Winsberg is in the Office of the 2
General Counsel.
3 By way of background, I would remind you that the i
4 Final Waste Confidence Decision Review is the product of the 5
Waste Confidence Review Group, a group established by the 6
Commission by memorandum dated August 23, 1988, to review 7
the finding in the waste confidence decision of August 1984.
8 The Commission's memorandum directed that the 9
group be chaired by a senior manager in the Office of the 10 General Counsel and include senior managers from the Offices 11 of NMSS, NRR and Research.
12 The initial chairman of the group was Martin 13 Walsh, the Deputy General Counsel.
When he assumed his i
14 duties as Acting Inspector General, I assumed the position j
15 of chairman of this group.
The senior managers from the i
16 other offices are Robert M.
Bernero, Director of the Office 17 of NMSS, Frank P. Gilespie, Director, Program Management 18 Policy Development and Analysis staff, Office of NRR, and 19 Denwood F. Ross, who was the Deputy Director for Research, 20 Office of Research and recently has become the Deputy 21 Director at AEOD.
22 The Waste Review Group received great assistance 23 from other members of each of these offices, especially Ms.
O 24 Winsberg, Ms. Corrado and Mr. Roberts, who are with me here i
25 today.
6 1
The group met several times to consider and reach O,
2 agreement on the proposed 1989 waste confidence decision, 3
which was considered by this Committee at its 9th meeting on 4
April 26, 1989.
After the proposed waste confidence 5
decision was published for comments and comments received, 6
the group again met several times to consider the comments 7
and the responses contained in the final decision which is 8
being considered at this meeting.
I 9
The purpose of reviewing these activities of the 10 group is to indicate that this decision is a collegial 11 effort from the various Commission offices which I have 12 identified and the report you are considering today is one 13 from the Waste Confidence Review Group and is not from any 14 individual office.
15 I would also note that there was unanimous 16 agreement among the group for the report that we presented 17 to you.
18 Also by way of background, I will briefly 19 summarize the history of the commission's consideration of 20 what we have been calling the waste confidence finding.
In 21 October 1979 the Commission initiated a generic rulemaking 22 to assess the degree of assurance that radioactive waste can 23 be safely disposed of, to determine when such disposal or 24 offsite storage will become available, and to determine L
l 25 whether radioactive waste can be safely stored on site past l
7 i
1 the expiration of existing facility licenses until offsite
\\
2 storage or disposal is available.
3 The Commission issued five findings in its final 4
waste confidence decision on August 31, 1984.
In issuing 5
the findings, the Commission noted that the decision was a r
6 prediction and committed to review its conclusions on waste 7
confidence whenever significant or pertinent events occurred 8
or at least every five years until a repository for high-9 level waste and spent fuel is available.
10 As I indicated earlier, in August of 1989 the 11 Commission established the Waste Confidence Review Group to 12 review the waste confidence findings and report back to the
's,/
13 Commission.
14 The five findings are:
15 Disposal in a repository is feasible.
This 16 finding has been reviewed by the group and remains unchanged 17 in both the draft and the final decision which is before 18 you.
19 The second finding was that at least one 20 repository will be available by the years 2007 to 2009 and 21 that significant repository capability will be available 22 within 30 years to dispose of all spent fuel and high-level 23 waste generated.
This finding was reviewed by our group and
(~
24 was modified in the draft to indicate that the time period
's-25 would be within the first quarter of the 21st century.-
\\
l i
l 1
A little background.
The dates 2007 and 2009 were l (g
(
i V
2 the dates when Vermont Yankeo and Prairie Island, which were 3
the cases which started this whole proceeding, were due to 4
expire.
By using those dates, it gave the illusion of 7
5 having some precision as to these particular dates.
It is 6
not quite the case that that was pure circumstances and we 7
think it is probably more appropriate to talk in terms of 8
the first quarter of the 21st century.
This would give 9
sufficient time for activities which are under way to be 10 completed at Yucca Mountain, and in the event that Yucca 11 Mountain was not found acceptable, still gives sufficient I
12 time for a second repository to be looked at.
13 These various matters were all discussed in the 14 draft and with this Committee at the April 1989 meeting.
15 The third finding that was made in the 1984 waste 16 confidence decision was that spent fuel and high-level waste 17 will be safely managed.
This finding was reviewed and it l
18 remains unchanged in both the draft and the final report of 19 this group.
20 The fourth finding was that spent fuel can be 21 safely stored for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of 22 a reactor's operating license.
This finding was reviewed 23 and was modified in the draft to. reflect the term of a O
24 revised license, which was assumed to be another 30 years.
U 25 That would be a renewed license.
The Commission is
9 I
3 g-~
currently considering a proposed rule for renewal of and j
1
\\_/
2 extension of existing license.
This modification extended 3
the expected duration of safe and environmentally acceptable
[
4 storage from at least 70 years to at least 100 years.
5 The only modification which has been made to this 6
finding was to clarify the term " revised license" to say l
7 Hrevised or renewed license" to more explicitly indicate f
8 that it is expected that this additional period of time, 30 l
9 years, is going to be as a result of the license being 10 renewed.
[
11 The fifth finding was that significant onsite or 12 offsite storage capability will be made available, if 13 needed.
This finding was reviewed and remains unchanged in 14 both the draft and the final report.
15 The commission received 11 comments from various l
16 organizations and individuals representing a federal agency, l
17 the public interest sector, the nuclear industry, and one 18 state.
19 The majority of the commenters were supportive of 20 the Commission's proposed decision and rule.
These comments 21 have been consolidated into a total of 21 issues to be i
22 addressed.
Further, these issues have been grouped under 23 the findings to which they relate.
I would note that there A()
are two general issues which are treated under the heading i
24 25 of "Other Relevant Issues."
10 1
I would now like to turn the discussion over to p
2 Ms. Corrado, who will start addressing the various comments 3
which we have received on the draft report.
4 MR. MOELLER:
We have a comment or a question.
5 MR. HINZE:
Who do you envision that the waste 6
confidence decision is directed towards?
Who are you 7
speaking to?
8 MR. TREBY:
It is in response to a court's 9
decision.
10 MR. HINZE:
I understand that.
11 MR. TREBY:
The Commission issued its findings on 12 waste confidence in response to that decision.
Also, I bt/
13 guess it is speaking to the various intervenors in the 14 proceedings, because as a result of making a finding of 15 waste confidence, that the Commission has confidence that 16 the wr:.ste can be safely taken care of, it has made two 17 modifications to its regulations.
I 18 First, there is a modification to Part 51 of the l
19 regulations, which indicates that as a result of this 20 generic finding on waste confidence there will not be 21 considerations of the issue of whether waste can be safely.
22 stored in individual proceedings because there has been this 23 generic finding.
24 Second, I guess there is a provision in Part 50 25 which provides that five years before the termination of the
(
11 i
1 license specific provisions need to be made with regard to s
2 taking care of the spent fuel.
3 MR. HINZEt I cannot help but feel you have a i
4 valuable document here.
It would seem to me that there 5
would be a number of possible areas of interest in this, 6
utilities and the general public.
As you wrote this, who 7
were you looking for in terms of your audience?
8 There is a great deal of detail in your findings 9
and in the decision.
Those go to some of the details af the 10 repository, the time schedule, et cetera.
Thase aren't 11 necessarily very easy to follow unless you can flip back and 12 forth.
If you are really looking for having a readership
(~~
13 that understands what you are presenting, it might be l
14 helpful to have some illustrative materials.
For example, l
15 cross sections of the Yucca Mountain repository showing the 16 formations which are named in the document.
Perhaps this 17 may be more detail than you want to specify but it might be 18 useful to show some kind of a time line chart so that l
19 someone could easily look at this and put together a lot of 20 the disparate parts of the decision.
21 Has that been given any consideration?
22 MR. TREBYt I guess we have not considered those 23 specific things you have mentioned.
We certainly will give 24 consideration to your suggestion.
A time lino might be 25 helpful.
I am less sanguine about talking specifically
12 1
about Yucca Mountain, because that is only one proposal for 7-s
(
2 a repository.
3 MR. HINZE But a great deal of time has been 4
spent on that.
5 MR. TREBY Right.
And we haven't prejudged 6
whether that is going to be found acceptable or what site 7
characterization will find, for that matter.
The time line 8
does sound appropriate.
9 The waste confidence initial decision, as I have 10 indicated, is in response to the court decision.
2 think 11 the industry is generally familiar with that finding.
As to 12 whether this is being written to educate the general public, r
l 13 I am not sure that that is really the case.
I think it is 14 just to confirm the confidence that the Commission has 15 previously indicated that the waste will ultimately be able 16 to be taken care of.
17 I agree with you that there was a lot of detail in 18 this report.
The group did go back and carefully review all 19 of the findings that had been made and the basis for those 20 findings.
21 One of the other things that we discussed with the 22 Commission was that in doing so the group expended a very 23 large amount of effort and in view of the different time
,O; l
24 periods that we are now talking about made the suggestion
'A--
l 25 that perhaps instead of reviewing it-every five years that i
l
I 13 m
1 this waste confidence decision be reviewed every ten years i j g
2 unless there was some new information that would warrant the
~'
3 use of the resources that worst into this report that is t
4 before you today.
5 MR. HINZE:
Mr. Treby, part of my questions are 6
derived from the fact that I think you have a very valuable 7
document here and it would be very useful to many different 8
parts of our society.
I think you should take advantage of 9
that with assisting the reader as much as possible by 10 putting them in the proper context.
11 MR. TREBY:
We appreciate that comment.
We will 12 re-look at the document and see what we can do.
13 MR. MOELLER:
I would like to offer a couple 14 comments to support Dr. Hinze.
He has pointed out to you 15 and you have pointed to us that here you have a document 16 that wec fibt prepared by just one small group within the 17 NRC; it represents the collective opinions of essentially i
18 the entire agency.
We hear time and time again and it is 19 thrown at us daily that no one knows what to do with these 20 radioactive wastes.
I think Dr. Hinze has a very good 21 point.
That wasn't your primary purpose in preparing this.
22 It is not for public education but it might well be that it 23 could be a very valuable document for educating the public.
24 I have one other question.
If you are going to 25 cover it later, fine.
Each of your findings is worded i
14 1
roughly in the same manner where they relate to one another, g) 2 and that is that the Commission finds reasonable assurance i
3 that such and such will be available or so forth within a 4
certain time frame.
In finding 4 you do that same thing.
5 You find the reasonable assurance that if necessary the i
6 spent fuel can be stored safely.
That has already been l
7 demonstrated.
It is not that you are projecting into the a
8 future.
We have independent spent fuel storage 9
installations existing on site.
If I read this again as a 10 member of the public and didn't know anything about it, I 11 would say, well, they have got some designs that they think 12 are going to work; they have reasonable assurance that they
)
13 are going to work.
14 MR. ROBERTS:
If I may respond.
Your point is l
15 well taken, but I think we are dealing with the history of l
l 16 development here.
In the Commission's first decision back 17 in 1984 the independent spent fuel storage installations had 18 not yet been licensed.
There have now been three licensed, 19 and progress was projected.
As.you say, we have now seen 20 things in action.
i 21 However, this finding extends through and is 22 addressing a time line.
The time line here is 40 years of 23 reactor operation plus possibly an additional 30 years of
()
24 reactor operation and 30 years beyond that.
25 So in the context of the extension of what we are e
~
15
,e 3 1
projecting here, we are still projecting towards the future U
2 within reasonable assurance.
As we point out in the 3
decision document, there has been a great deal of progress 4
since 1984.
5 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
6 MS. CORRADO:
My name is Julia Corrado.
I am in 7
the Division of High-Level Waste.
I am going to be 8
addressing the issues that are related to findings 1 and 2 9
that are relevant to the repository and then John Rcberts 10 will talk about issues relating to findings 3, 4 and 5.
11 On the handout that we provided this morning there 12 is a list of the commenters.
So as I go through I won't 13 specifically be identifying the particular commenter, but 14 you have this for your reference.
15 Finding 1, which was set in 1984 and which we did 16 not change, states that "The Commission finds reasonable 17 assurance that safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste 18 and spent fuel in a mined geologic repository is technically 19 feasible."
20 The first issue that I want to address under that 21 finding went directly to the question of technical 22 feasibility.
The commenter felt that we have been saying 23 this for a long time but that we have not demonstrated i
[ )
24 complete or absolute assurance that disposal is feasible.
U 25 The commenter also noted a couple of historical reports from
I 16 1
the late 1970s and early 1980s that identified a number of 2
uncertainties.
They pointed out that there were going to 3
have to be a lot of questions resolved, and the commenter 4
felt that this was relevant today.
In our response we have 5
stated that we have addressed the issue of feasibility at 6
length in both of these reviews.
7 We take the commenter's point to heart.
It is our 8
view that the comments relate more to the sufficiency of 9
data for licensing a particular site.
We do not feel that i
the data are now sufficient to license any site.
11 Specifically, we are focusing on Yucca Mountain.
12 We think that the purpose of site characterization is to 13 amass the necessary data but that this does not undermine a 14 finding of technical feasibility overall.
We continue to 15 have reasonable assurance geologic disposal somewhere is 16 feasible and that no technical breakthroughs are needed.
17 I would note here that this is not the only 18 country that has undertaken an exercise such as this.
The 19 Swiss did a review that they called Project Gewahr in which 20 they said that no technical breakthroughs for safe disposal 21 of radioactive waste were needed.
i 22 In summary, nothing has occurred since 1984 to 23 diminish our confidence that this is the case.
We get into O
24 N) more difficult questions when we address the timing of 25 repository availability under finding 2.
17 t
1 The next issue that I want to talk about has to do 7-s 2
with the difficulty in predicting repository performance j
3 over long time periods.
We think that long-term performance l
4 assessment is a key problem, a key area where we are going P
5 to have to make some progress but that we have indeed come a 6
long way in the last few years.
7 Although we are not saying we can do validation of 8
performance assessment models in an absolute sense, we 9
believe that even existing models can potentially provide a 10 basis for decisions on repository safety, with two very 11 important qualifiers.
Those qualifiers have to do with 12 addressing uncertainties and with obtaining data from (O
,/
13 particular sites.
We are going to have to have data; we are 14 going to have to be doing iterative performance assessments 15 as we amass that data with the models that we have.
16 Nevertheless, this is not a question of the technical 17 feasibility of geologic disposal.
It is a problem that we 18 are going to have to take care of and that we have made 19 progress in to date.
f 20 One of the commenters pointed out that in trying 21 to develop the waste isolation pilot project in Carlsbad for 22 defense transuranic waste there have been some unexpected or 23 unplanned occurrences of brine.
The commenter made a very f~ )
24 interesting point, that this shows that performance v
25 assessment not only hasn't been demonstrated over a long
18 l
1 time period, but over the short time periods for which we b
2 have been looking at this site.
3 In response to that, our feeling is that we fully 4
expect the unexpected during site characterization.
We have 5
told DOE repeatedly that they should provide for l
6 contingencies, that their schedules have been overly 7
ambitious, that they have not allotted for the unexpected, 8
and we are sure that site characterization is going to bring 9
surprises.
If Yucca Mountain is found to be unsuitable 10 based on some of this experience, based on, say, surface 11 based testing or at-depth testing, it is not going to prove 12 that geologic disposal isn't feasible; it is going to say
)
13 that we are going to have to look for a better site.
So we 14 don't feel that this issue significantly changes our i
15 reasonable assurance that geologic disposal is feasible, but 16 it is a good point.
It just demonstrates and highlights the 17 need for contingency planning in this program.
18 The next issue has to do with the recent BEIR V 19 report, the biological effects of ionizing radiation.
One 1
20 of the commenters felt that we should hold up our findings 21 until a complete evaluation of the impact of that report on 22 waste confidence could be completed.
1 23 First of all, we sort of had to step back and i
f)
24 decide where could this report potentially affect our waste v
25 confidence decision.
The closest that we could come in our
t 19
)
1 assessment was that it might affect the finding of 2
feasibility if indeed it were to impact the EPA standard and l
3 the standards for safe doses were changed and we felt that I
4 we just wouldn't be able to meet them.
However, although 5
there is ongoing evaluation of the EPA standard, our i
l 6
concerns relative to the EPA standard have not had to do r
l 7
with numerical criteria or safe doses.
They have had to do 8
with showing compliance with the probabilistic standard.
I 9
believe you have met with the Staff in the past day or so on 10 that subject.
11 The BEIR V report contained, admittedly, a lot of r
12 uncertainties.
The author said there were a lot of l
Oh 13 uncertainties in the report.
It also addressed risk more 14 than dose limits.
Not to say that these aren't related.
We i
15 feel that that report per se doesn't throw a monkey wrench 16 into our findings on feasibility.
17 I will have to defer to Dan Fehringer and the 18 Staff on this point if you have questions, but it is our 19 understanding that EPA has been dealing with risk estimates 20 that were a coefficient of three to four times greater than 21 what others had been using.
So it is our view that at this 22 point even if the BEIR V report were to have an impact it 23 would not significantly change the EPA standard because they 24 were already operating'under the assumption that the risk 25 coefficient was several times greater.
20 1
In summary, we don't see any basis to change our O
2 proposed reaffirmation of finding 1.
3 MR. MOELLER:
Do you have any comments?
4 MR. HINZE No.
5 MS. CORRADO:
I would like to proceed now with the 6
issues relating to finding 2, which goes to the timing of 7
repository availability.
8 We have proposed a revision to the Commission's 9
original finding 2 to find reasonable assurance of the 10 availability of at least one repository by approximately the 11 first quarter of the next century.
12 In view of DOE's November 1989 reassessment report 13 in the high-level waste program in which they announced-a 14 delay in the schedule for the repository at Yucca Mountain, 15 a couple of commenters felt that we could no longer justify 16 our finding that we should have a repository by 17 approximately the first quarter of the next century.
18 In response, we would say very strongly that we 19 anticipated a slip in DOE's schedule.
This is not a 20 curprise to us.
That is one of the main reasons that we 21 adjusted our finding.
We still believe that it is 22 reasonable to expect that if the Yucca Mountain site is 23 found suitable it can be ready well in advance of the first 24 quarter of the next century.
There is the possibility that 25 if that site were found to be unsuitable sometime after the
)
i 21
+
g-~
1 turn of the century and DOE had to turn its efforts to j
(
2 another site, that could impact the availability of that i
3 site by the end of the first quarter of the century.
We are r
4 approximating.
We can't say precisely what year we are 5
going to have a repository.
We still think it is reasonable 6
to expect that even if the Yucca Mountain site were found to 7
be unsuitable that we could have another site in that time 8
frame, by approximately 2025.
9 I would point out that it would be helpful if a 10 determination on Yucca Mountain could be made within the 11 next decade regarding this finding.
We expect that surface 12 based testing should be able to start approximately on i
13 schedule, early next year.
We recognize that there are l
l 14 issues out of our control that n.ight affect that schedule.
1 15 Nevertheless, we would just encourage DOE, when they do get 16 started on site characterization, to focus on issues that 17 could have an impact on the suitability of the site.
18 MR. HINZE:
Is there any reason to believe that 19 the work that has been done in the salt repository, the WIP 20 repository might-enable the 25-year period that you are 21 assuming to be cut down at all?
Experience is going to be 22 of some assistance.
Was that taken into-account?
23 MS. CORRADO:
The 25 years came out of DOE's June
()
24 1988 draft mission plan amendment in which they said it 25 would take approximately 25 years from start to finish to
22 1
identify a potential site for a second repository.
They.
-s 2
felt that the 25 years didn't account for lessons learned 3
and experience gained in the first repository.
So I would 4
answer that the 25 years is considered to be a conservative
[
k 5
estimate.
6 Furthermore, given DOE's schedule at WIP, I think 7
the commercial program will benefit from that experience, in 8
particular in the area of showing compliance with the EPA 9
standard, because they will do an exercise precisely 10 identical to what we will be doing with the commercial 11 repository.
So, yes, I think there are certainly grounds to 12 believe that it may not take 25 years if we go to another O)
(
13 site.
DOE should benefit from experience in siting a 14 repository.
For example, I think they would be very careful 15 the next time around so that they can hopefully get going 16 sooner rather than later.
l 17 I would also point out that the timing of l
18 repository availability may not be directly a health and 19 safety issue at this time given our findings on safe 20 storage.
21 Let me also add one last thing.
We are scheduled 22 to take another look at these findings ten years from now.
23 That will be by the turn of the century and we will still be f' '
24 within that 25-year window.
>~
25 MR. HINZE:
Thank you.
i
9 l
l 23 1
MS. CORRADO:
Issue 6 was a point that was raised s
(-)
2 by one the commenters.
They requested a clarification of 3
NRC's role in the licensing support system.
We made that 4
change, so I won't belabor that.
5 Issue 7 had to do with uncertainty related to l
6 spent fuel transshipment.
We had identified the possibility 7
of transshipment as a way of getting spent fuel from the 8
site of a reactor that had been shut down for 30 years in 9
case a repository was not available at the end of that 30-10 year period of storage post OL.
The commenter wanted us to 11 consider making changes to our rules to reduce licensing 12 uncertainty related to transshipment and to predetermine
)
13 that spent fuel densifications don't raise any significant 14 hazards considerations.
15 We are responding that we will continue to make 4
16 these determinations on a case-by-case basis.
17 MR. MOELLER:
Excuse me.
This is where the fuel 18 is in a spent fuel pool at a plant whose operating license 19 has expired?
20 MS, CORRADO:
That's correct.
Specifically, we 21 envision a plant whose originally licensed 40-year OL has l
22 expired and the 30 years post-OL has also' elapsed.
We have 23 found that it is safe to store the spent fuel in the pools
(}
24 for that length of time, but in case a repository were not 25 available, we have said there are number of options in that
24 f
I case.
There are relatively few plants who would come under s
2 that category.
For example, I believe Dresden 1 was l
\\'
3 licensed in 1959.
The original 40-year OL would take it to f
4 1999 although that plant hasn't been operating for a while.
5 Thirty years after 1999 would take us to 2029.
We were 6
trying to consider all the outlier cases.
We really tried i
7 to bend over backwards to think what could happen.
If for 8
some reason a repository were not available by that time, we 9
identified the possibility of transshipping spent fuel to 10 other reactors under the same licensee.
11 MR. MOELLER:
Or an MRS?
12 MS. CORRADO:
Or an MRS.
There are a lot of
+
(D
's,/
13 possibilities.
We tried to consider what is the worst case.
14 We still get out beyond 2025 and even at that time there are 15 a number of options for dealing with the situation.
This 16 commentor wanted us to make a finding that further re-17 racking or spent fuel pool densification wouldn't raise any 18 hazards considerations.
All we are saying is we are going 19 to look at them case by case and that at least in this forum 20 we are not going to make a generic finding on that.
21 MR. MOELLER:
In the 100 years you have 40 years 22 plus 30 plus 30.
23 MS. CORRADO:
That's correct.
[T 24 MR. MOELLER:
Where in this do we fit in the
<.,)
25 concept of the thoughts that I have received.that many of i
25 l
i 1
the better operated nuclear power plants will operate beyond
()
r 2
40 years?
Or perhaps will?
3 MS. CORRADO:
The 40 is the original 40-year OL.
i 4
The 30 years after that is the extended.
That is that 5
period.
6 MR. MOELLER:
So it is in there.
7 MS. CORRADO:
That's correct.
8 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
9 MR. HINZE While we are on this topic, I don't 10 know that I have all of the numbers straight with the 11 various power plants.
It is not extremely easy to follow, 12 or at least I didn't find it that way.
()
13 As I read your document, one of the things that 14 came to my mind that caused some concern was there might be 15 a real backup.
One can envision that there might be a-16 backup in trying to get material into_the repository about 17 2028 or something like that'if everything goes well.
What 18 occurred to me is whether there are-the shipping facilities.
19 Frankly, I have heard nothing about the facility in Midway 20 Valley and how much that can handle on an annual basis and 21 what is the capacity of the facility for putting the waste 22 into the canisters and getting it into the repository.
How 23 much thinking has gone into this as you have made these
}
24 statements?
25 MS. CORRADO:
On my part, I have considered data
26
.f,)-
1 that DOE has provided on the rate of acceptance at a
('"
2 repository.
Estimates as recent as the last couple of years 3
say that they think that they would be able to start 4
accepting 300 to 400 anetric tons per year in the first few 5
years of operation; then they would be going up to 3,000 and 6
4,000.
7 MR. HINZE:
I assume that someone has put this in 8
some kind of a chart to make certain that there are going to 9
be railroad cars available for bringing,this to the 10 facility, that we'are not going to get a logjam, if you 11 will.
12 MS. CORRADO:
I will be very honest.
We didn't O)
'q 13 specifically address transportation-issues per se.
We more 14 or less focused on the original court remand, the l
15 Commission's sort of broadened mandate, and the five 16 findings.
Although I am aware of and took on-face value 17 DOE's estimates of rates of spent fuel acceptance at a l
18 repository, I have not looked into transportation issues per 1
19 se.
Maybe John Roberts would like to add to that.
l 20 MR. ROBERTS:
DOE is proceeding with development
'I l
21 of cask designs, a truck cask and a rail barge cask.
They 22 plan to submit those designs for compliance certifications j
i 23 in about two years to the Transportation Branch.
24 Let me put this'in context.
I happened to be at 25 the High-Level Waste Conference a couple of weeks ago.
One l
27.
1 of the papers that was presented in the same session I was
,s 2
in was by a fellow from BNFL referring to the shipments.of i
t 3
fuel at.Selafield.
We are talking 900 cask shipments a 4
year.
We are probably on the level of what we are talking 5
about for the full repository. operation and it is already in 6
place.
So I don't think it's a question that it can't be 7
done.
In fact, a lot of the shipments coming into Britain 8
are coming in by ship.
There is a complex web of 9
transportation of spent fuel which we can see already in 10 place in the international arena.
I don't think it is' 11 beyond the technology or'the planning ability to do it here.
12 MR. HINZE:
I am sure that's true.
I-have read 13 some of these documents and heard some'of these' talks.
It 14 just seemed to be an item that wasn't touched upon here-or.
15 wasn't given the confidence that I really think we.can 16 impart.to the document in that area.
17 MR. ROBERTS:
If I may further expand.
DOE has 18 been looking at this.
They have been looking at
+
19 capabilities at reactors for the transportation interface.
20 I am not sure if a final report is out on this, but I 21 believe Bill Lee of the Nuclear Assurance Corporation was 22 doing such a report for DOE in the context of 23 transportation.
I think they also submitted some n
( j' 24 information touching on'this to the MRS Review Commission 25 for their final version of the dry cask storage study.
i 28 1
MR. TREBY:
I might also add that this is an area l
7-4 2
where the Commission has limited jurisdiction.
We are 3
concarned about certifying the casks which will be used for 4
shipping the stuff, but with regard to making sure that l
i <
5 thirs are the necessary railroad cars or the trucks or what 6
routes they follow, those are not really matters that this 7
Commission gets involved in but are rather matters that are 8
looked at by the Department of Transportation and also.the 9
Department of Energy.
10 MR. MOELLER:
Could you refresh me on the capacity l
11 of the proposed repository-at-Yucca Mountain?
It will 12 handle all waste up until when?
?
13 MS. CORRADO:
The NWPA puts a cap on the capacity i
14 in the first repository of 70,000 metric tons.
15 MR. MOELLER:
What year would it be filled?
It 16 would certainly operate 25 years.
Can you ballpark.it?
17 MS. CORRADO:, I am trying:to ballpark it.
I think 18 we estimated that.any. hypothetical repository with a 70,000 19 metric tons capacity would probably receive waste for about 20 two decades.
If there are 3,000 to 4,000 metric tons year, 21 we are talking about 20 years.-
But we also noted that under 22 the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act DOE has to identify l
23 for Congress the need for a second repository in the 2007-f I\\
24 2010 time frame, which would mean that if Congress l
l
-25 authorized a second repository and it took 25 years, then in I
-Q 29 1
approximately 2035 or so they might have a second repository 1
g-s 2
operating, in which case and depending-on the location it 3
might have an impact on the rate of acceptance.
So you 4
might stretch out that time period.
5 MR. HINZE:
Along that line, on page 85 of your 6
document you discuss the fact that the repository will not 7
provide adequate capacity-for the total amount of spent fuel 8
that is available in the operating reactors.
i 9
MS. CORRADO:
That's correct.
10 MR. HINZE:
The third paragraph of that page,-the 11 last line says "The Commission believes that Congress will 12 continue to provide institutionalfsupport for adequate
)
13 repository capacity."
I believe there is some other place 14 where you say that you believe Congress will.
That's a leap 15 of faith that is based upon what evidence?-
16 MS. CORRADO:
Congress has set a-70,000 metric ton 17 cap on the first repository.
We can't change that.
They 18 are the only ones who can change it.
19 MR. HINZE:
I understand that.
20 MS. CORRADO:
Given the current DOE estimates, we 21 are looking at about 90,000 metric tons by the year 2020.
22 Congress has provided for DOE to inform it of the need.for_a 23 second repository.
It is obvious that Congress is aware.
}
24 They have set a cap.
They will provide, if necessary, for a 25 second repository.
Based on current estimates, we are going
~,
30 L
1 to need the second repository.
We think the best we can do
(
2 is have Congress know what the situation is..They are 3
perfectly aware of it and we are. confident that if DOE 4
identifies the need for a second repository in a certain i
5 time frame that they will address it in some way.
t 6
MR. HINZE:
This is faith.
7 MS. CORRADO:
It's law.
8 MR. HINZE:
It has to be law.
9 While we are talking _about the amount of waste, in 10 what way have you taken into consideration the present-11 conversations that are going on regarding greater than class 12 C waste and the amount of materials that will be going into j
,/-
13 the high-level repository, et cetera?
14 MS. CORRADO:.That is a very significant issue.
15 We have considered it.
It is our understanding that the 16 amount of greater than Class C waste, because it can be i
17 concentrated more than spent fuel, will not have a major 18 impact on our capacity requirements.
When'I'say a major 19 impact, I mean it is not going to require a third'
+
20 repository.
We have reason to think we are going to need 21 two repositories.
The greater than Class C waste that we-22 are aware of at this time, the estimates that I saw were f
4 23 2,000 to 4,000 metric tons, although the volume of that i
[
24 greater than Class C waste might be greater than an 25 equivalent weight of spent fuel.
I will have to defer to t
31-1 Dan Fehringer on this, but it is our view that because of
-- 7s
(~
2 the relatively diminished spacing requirements that it will 3
not have a significant impact on the repository capacity.
4 MR. HINZE:
So the magnitude of the greater than 5
Class C waste problem has been scoped out?
6 MS. CORRADO:
Yes, it has.
I think there may be 7
one place where it is addressed but not at great length.
8 MR. HINZE:
I have run across a comment here and.
9 there but I didn't realize that the magnitude of the problem 10 had really been closed out.
11 MR. FEHRINGER:.My name is Dan Fehringer.
I am 12 also with the NRC Staff.
()
13 The effect of greater than Class C waste on 3
14 repository volume should be quite small provided than 15 greater than Class C waste does not generate very much heat.
16 We think that will be the case.
Spent fuel needs to be-L
[
l 17 spaced out quite widely to permit the heat to be dissipated.
18 If you can place greater than Class C waste to use i
19 repository volume more efficiently, it shouldn't occupy more 20 than approximately one percent of the mined volume of a i
21 repository.
The caveat, of course, is if you have to space 22 it out to permit heat dissipation.
Then it will take up a 23 greater percentage of repository volume.
1
"'T 24 MR. HINZE:
Dan, is there going to be_a report on (V
25 this, or is there a report on this?
i 32
'EHRINGER:
The Congressional Office of 1
MR.
F 7s 2
Technology Assessment put out a report with exactly that 3
estimate, that the volume of greater than Class C waste is 4
in fact only about one percent of the-inined out volume of a
?
5 repository.
6 MR. BROWNING:
Bob Browning, Division of High-7 Level Waste Management.
I might add that there is one level
-8 of uncertainty with regard to that and it flows out of the 9
session where Mr. Duffy from DOE came and briefed the 10 Commission recently.
He indicated that.they had-information 11 that was leading him to be concerned that if above class C 12 waste had to be disposed of in deep geologic disposal that
(
(,,/
13 it might require a second repository just for that.-
14 We don't understand that.
All the information we 15 have available thus far, including'the latest Oak Ridge 16 reports that lay out the volume of commercial low-level 17 waste, confirm our previous estimates that'it is a very i
18 small percentage of the low-level waste volume, which led us 19 to conclude that probably you couldLdispose of the volume of i
20 the waste in some of the caverns that are built just to get 21 the high-level waste in and it wouldn't require any extra 22 capacity.
We are still waiting for the information that the 23 Chairman asked DOE to provide to elucidate that.
It may be
)
24 coming from something in the DOE sphere.
25 To the best of my knowledge, our criteria would'
{
33 1
only apply to the commercial sector.
If there is room for
- f S _
U 2
uncertainty, it may be the difference between the volume in 3
the commercial sector versus the volume that would be coming 4
out of the DOE cleanup efforts.
That's conjecture on my 5
part.
We have not yet been'able to get anything out of DOE 6
with regard'to where that concern on Mr. Duffy's part came s
7 from.
O MR. HINZE:
I was at a meeting several_ weeks ago 9
in which Carl Gertz in some informal comments stated that.
10 NRC and DOE were getting together on.this problem in trying 11 to come to some kind of resolution.
Has that taken place?
12 MR. BROWNING:
We have not had a meeting.
The have e-(_/
13 written several letters to them indicating we would.like to 14 get the technical information on which that concern was 15 based and we haven't received anything yet.
So we are 16 waiting for the information.
17 I might add one other thing.
I noticed in 18 Nucleonics Weekly or one of the trade articles that the DOE 19 budget for looking at low-level waste was-going up.
One of 20 the things that caught my attention was that they were doing 21 studies under the DOE low-level waste program to come up 22 with proposals for how to deal with it.
We are not 23 requiring it go in the repository.
We are just saying it.
t
)
24 would be acceptable to go to the high-level waste 25 repository.
If DOE concluded they wanted to do something i
I
34 f,
1 else with it, that is perfectly within the realm of their 2
flexibility for dealing with the situation.
It would 3
require an NRC license.
If you had a separate facility, you l
4 would have to get a separate NRC license for it.
5 We are still waiting for the information database 6
that leads to the concerns so we can see what the practical i
7 implications of it are.
I think that effort is. coming out 8
of the DOE low-level waste program under the EG&G people in 9
10 MR. HINZE:
I'would hope that you and your staff 11 would keep us informed as you learn about this.
We are
~
+
l
(
12 interested and it-impacts upon this decision.
Thank you.
!O
(_/
13 MR. MOELLER:
Go ahead, Ms. Corrado.
14 MS. CORRADO: 'The next issue I wanted to talk' 15 about has to do with the Nuclear Waste Fund monies.
One of 16 the commenters felt that we had-overstepped our rightful 17 position by implying or assuming that if utilities were to 18 go bankrupt that DOE would continue to accept waste, and 19 more importantly, use Nuclear Waste Fund monies to pay'for 20 disposal of that waste.
=!
21 We see a couple of related issues here, one of 22 which is, is DOE barred from accepted spent fuel from a 23 utility that has gone bankrupt and has not made all of its-f~d N
)
24 payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund?
The other issue is, A
25 who will pay for disposal of spent fuel from-a bankrupt l
35 1
utility?
f.
- ('
2 There are lot of issues here.
Our financial 3
surety expert was not able to be here this morning but we 4
have talked about it at length.-
4 5
First of all, the NWPA doesn't preclude DOE from-6 taking spent fuel from a utility that has not met its 7
obligation under the Nuclear Waste Fund.
That.is about as 8
much as you can say there.
They are not prevented by law, 9
at least from our reading of it.
10 We would also point out that utilities haveLto be 11 more or less up to date in their payments to the Nuclear I
12 Waste Fund as they generate spent fuel.
Putting aside for
)
13 now issues of their assets, et cetera, were a utility to.go l
L 14 bankrupt, they would still be pretty much up to date on 15 their payments.
16 There is one possible loophole.
When.the NWPA was i
17 enacted it provided-for utilities to make a.one-time payment 18 for spent fuel generated prior to April 1983.
Most of the i
19 utilities elected to pay that money up front.
They were 20 offered the option,.though, of deferring payment, paying in 21 increments or paying in a lump sum at the time the fuel was.
22 transferred to DOE.
There is no basis now for.saying that 23 it is likely one of those utilities would go bankrupt, f'} -
24 although there is a DOE Inspector General report that I will-
%./
25 talk about later that raises the possibility that this could
36 L
1 happen.
We are just talking about the spent fuel that was-2 generated prior to April 1983 for a relatively small number l-3 of utilities.
We don't think the magnitude of the problem 4
is significant enough to affect our confidence.
However, we 5
did concede that perhaps we should not.have assumed that the 6
money would come out of the Nuclear Waste Fund.
So we are 7
deleting those excerpts from the paper.
8 The next issue has to do with costs incurred due 9
to delayed acceptance of spent fuel at a repository.
10 one of the commenters felt.that NRC should l
11 explicitly address the issue of who would be responsible for 12 those incremental costs after 1998.
Our feeling is that O
}
U 13 this is not a waste confidence issue and that'because of the 14 contractual relationship between DOE and licensees that it l
15 would be inappropriate for NRC to interject-itself in this i
16 and make some kind of statement-or recommendation regarding 17 how those incremental costs should be handled.
18 Again, for our purposes here,'it is not a.
j I
19 confidence issue.
It doesn't affect-the-feasibility or 20 timing or safety of storage of spent fuel.
21 The last issue that I'will be talking about is.a 22 very detailed comment on our discussion of the period of'
'i 23 safe storage of spent fuel at Dresden 1.
The commenter felt 24 that a number of different dates could be derived from our 25 discussion.
Our response is that our generic finding,.as t
[
i
37 l'
expressing in Finding 4, is that spent fuel can be safely (O
2 stored at a reactor for 30 years following OL expiration,
-l 3
including the term of a revised license.
For Dresden l'that 4
takes us to the year 2029, which covers the original 40-5 year OL plus 30 years of safe storage.
6 If you don't have any-questions, John Roberts will 7
talk about issues related to findings 3, 4 and 5.
8 MR. MOELLER:
I have one question, which refers l
9 back to what I was saying earlier.
Jumping ahead to finding _
10 5,
finding 2 and finding 5 use the same wording.
That is my-4 11 point.
Finding 5 says that "The Commission finds reasonable 7
12 assurance that safe onsite spent fuel storage or offsite r
13 spent fuel storage will be made available.
John has 14 already responded that this was written before that occurred 15 and so you say it in that way.
Maybe that answers my 16 question.
4 17 MR. ROBERTS:
In addition, this is an ongoing i
l 18 process.
As you stated, there is now action.
1 19 MR. MOELLER:
But then finding 2, which is.what we.
20 have just covered, says the Commission finds reasonable 21 assurance that at least one mined geologic repository "will" 22 be available."
It doesn't say "can" be available.
There is.
l 23 no equivocation at all.
To me "will" is a very firm
~
['rs}
24 statement.
I presume you considered saying something softer.
25 than "will."
However, your " reasonable assurance" is your l
l u
l 38-1 qualification, I. guess.
7g k~ s,) --
2 MS. CORRADO:
That's correct.
3 MR. MOELLER:
That's a point.
4 MS. CORRADO:
In finding 2 we are talking about 5
the repository itself as opposed to findings 3, 4 and 5, 6
which don't talk about the repository; they just talk abouti 7
storage.
8 MP. MOELLER:
As I say, my thought was whether you 9
should have said "will be available" or "can be available."
t 10 However, when I read the entire statement where you say you 11 find reasonable assurance that it will be, then-that has a.
12
~ qualification in it.
)
13 MS. CORRADO:
Yes.
14 MR. MOELLER:
I think that satisfies my: question.
15 Bill, does it take care of you?
16 MR. HINZE:
Yes.
c 17 MR. MOELLER:
Go ahead, John.
18 MR. ROBERTS:
Finding 3 discusses the' Commission's 19 reasonable assurance that high-level radioactive. waste and 20 spent fuel will be managed in a safe manner until sufficient 21 repository capacity is available to assure safe disposal of 22 all radioactive waste and spent fuel.
23 As we have just touched on, spent fuel storage is
/ ')
24 really the means to the end here, the end being the disposal'
\\.J 25 of the' fuel.
These findings basically support that bridge
I 39 i
1 of time that Dr. Hinze has referred to.
i i
/
i l
2 These comments actually are somewhat peripheral to 3
this finding.
They don't really take it on in the sense j
4 that issue 11 was a situation where we did make a comment in-5 passing on the contractual conflict, which was immediately 6
misinterpreted.
Probably we shouldn't have'made it in the 7
first place.
Since I was one of those in favor of noting 8
this, I can say that.
The fact is that we_have withdrawn 9
the wording to the effect that it would be nice if the 10 utilities and DOE got together in an amicable settlement, 11 because the result wasn't very amicable after we made this 12 remark.
In truth, the commenter was right,.
We stated this O
!,_s/
13 was not germane to our confidence; it was just'something 14 that we noted.
So we have withdrawn that.
The point has.
15 been made, I think.
16 The NRC responsibility to identify a requirement 17 for utilities to provide interim storage.
This comment, to 18 use a vernacular expression, is somewhat behind the power i
19 curve.
I doubt there are any utilities that are not aware 20 that they are in the process of having to store fuel. The' 21 1982 Act explicitly says so.
The contractual issue is not 22 germane to that.
The Congress certainly is well aware of 23 what is going on.
Congress amended the Waste Policy Act in-()
24 1987.
So I think it is really not incumbent upon the 25 Commission to go out and say this, and in fact the
40 1
Commission probably has said it indirectly or directly in a 7-i 2
number of actions.
The utilities know that they cannot 3
abrogate their responsibility in either Part 50 or 72 to.
4 store fuel until such time as DOE is capable of accepting 5
that fuel.
So I think that's basically the resolution of l
6 those two issues.
7 As I say, they really_were somewhat peripheral to 8
the finding.
9 Finding 4 has a number of other issues.
Finding 4 10 is where we have somewhat extended the original finding of
(
11 the original waste policy decision to talk about reasonable
~
12 assurance that spent fuel generated in any reactor'can be b) y, 13 stored safely and without environmental impact for at least f
14 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation.
That 15 includes the original 40 years plus 30 years for a potential 16 renewed license either in the reactor spent fuel basin or 17 either on site or off site at independent spent fuel storage 18 installations.
19 MR. HINZE:
Have you got a defense for that 30 20 years instead of 28 or 20?
21 MR. ROBERTS:
For the reactor life extension?
22 MR. HINZE:
Yes.
23 MR. ROBERTS:
There is work ongoing at NRR in
/T 24 looking at reactor aging.
I think this is basically an V
25 upper bound figure for the renewal of a license.
It could
i l
41 1
possibly be 20 years.
But for purposes of our looking at u, g 2
the' scope of this, we have taken a conservative figure 3
because that is really the point of this whole exercise.
1 4
MR. HINZE:
How about the'30-year storage?
5 MR. ROBERTS:
The present Part 72 is for 20 years.
6 The present-MRS licensing period in Part 72 is for 40 years.
7 Thirty years lies in between those.
But.this gets us to the 8
at least 100-year period that should overlap reasonable 9
assurance on the repository.
The 30 years was based 10 originally in part that a reactor may cease operating, but 11 as you referred to earlier, the capacity of receipt at the 12 repository doesn't mean that all reactors are going to ring
)
13 up DOE and say come and take it all.
It is going to be a 14 progressive thing.
DOE has looked at this and continues to j
l 15 look at it in their annual capacity review report to chart 7
16 out schedules or proposed schedules for receipt of fuel from i
17 the various utilities.
18 This first comment actua' sly comes from DOE, j
19 cumulative impacts on NEPA documentation for license 20 renewals.
This was the reactor license renewal and the i
l 21 issue of generating more spent fuel.
The comment was in 22 concert with what the commission had said in its-findings,
.i L
23 that we are looking at the overall impacts and we are not l
-24 counting up individually.
There obviously will be 25 individual license renewals.
This comment really wasn't in I
L
42
[
1 opposition, if you will; it was merely a clarification that O
2 DOE was aware and that they hope the Commission was aware 3
that more spent fuel will be generated if you renew the 4
reactor licenses.
In reality, if you look at the 5
projactions, we can go back to our original proposed 6
decision.- At that time we were projecting by year 2000 7
58,000 metric tons of fuel.
Now that is down to about 8
40,200.
So we are not really seeing a growth; we are seeing 9
a decline in the total amount of spent fuel.
So I think the 10 issue is well in hand.
7 11 Issue 14 was the need for NRC to facilitate ISFSI 12 license extensions to reflect the revised-fourth finding.
/~S
!, ).
13 This was from a utility which has an ISFSI.
I'think the' 14 point at hand here is that the 20-year license period is 15 renewable.
In this case it was Virginia Power and their l
16 present license will carry them to 2006.
If-they renew it l
l 17 once, they are at 2026, well within the time frame of the-i 18 repository being on line.
l-19 MR. MOELLER:
So the ISFSI license is for 20 20 years?
21 MR. ROBERTS:
Yes, and it is renewable.
So there 22 is no problem there and we don't see any~need to change 1
23 that.
)
Issue 15, insufficient assurance on duration of-24 25 safe storage and risk of fire at a spent fuel pool.
This l
l'
43 1
was a series of comments that basically took on the question 2
of safety in the spent fuel storage pools at the reactor, 3
citing some operational incidents where'there had been some 4
water loss in the pools, and so forth.
5 These are operational events.
They have been 6
looked at.
.There has been action taken to preclude this 7
sort of thing, but there was no significant impact from any 8
of these.
9 In our proposed decision we cited a several years 10 long study the Office of Research contracted out on this 11 risk of fire and cited some of the terminating reports on l
12 that study.
This comment cited an earlier report and
()
13 basically the fact of the matter was this issue was already j
I 14 addressed.
15 Issue 16, need for NRC requirement for dry storage l
16 instead of storage in spent fuel pools.
This is the same-17 commenter arguing that the bias should be towards dry 18 storage and that fuel should be taken out of the pools and-i 19 put in dry storage for confidence.
The Commission feels 20 that its regulations under Part 50.for spent fuel storage in 21 pools and the decades long experience of successful pool 22 storage do not require.that this be done.
23 Issue 17, proposal to revise fourth finding'to
[V')
24 find that spent fuel can be safely stored in dry storage 25 casks for 100 years.
Again there is an emphasis on dry i
i 44 1
storage.
This goes back to the original comment I made.
2 Storage in thiw instance is a means to an end, the end being 3'
disposal.
We do not lay undue emphasis on storage.
It is a 4
necessary means, but the Commission has numerous times over 5
the years indicated and indeed expanded this original 6
proceeding to focus on that the ultimate disposal of spent j
7 fuel and high-level waste is the objective, and safe 8
storage, environmentally sound storage,-is a means to that 9
end.
We don't dispute the comment, but we don't see any i
10 need to lay undue emphasis on extending dry storage.
11 Maintenance of institutional controls'for 100 12 years.
I think this comment basically falls of its own f(,)
13 weight.
The AEC-NRC is a few decades old.
The. entire 14 United States is ev6r 200_ years old.
The EPA standard is in 15 the context of 100 years.
There really is no basis for 16 arguing that at least 100 years is a viable time frame 17 institutionally.
18 Finding 5, reasonable assurance that safe onsite I
i 19 spent fuel storage or offsite spent fuel storage will be
]
i 20 made available if such storage capacity is needed.
I will
[
j 21 just address that for a minute, because the comment is 22 really not even germane to that.
23 As Dr. Moeller-has noted, thre has been a great
(~T 24 deal of progress in the last few years since the original
\\-)
i 25 proceeding findings.
We have three licensed dry storage
e 45 3
1 facilities.
Reactor pools have continued to re-rack.
We 73 have three applications in right now for other reactor sites 2
3 and more'are expected.
DOE is trying to move aggressively E
4 on the MRS, as Dr. Bartlett indicated in his speech a couple 5
weeks ago at the High-Level Waste Conference.
So there is 6
really a lot more today to support that the work is being 7
done and will be done than we had before.
So it just 8-reinforces the original finding, which has remained 9
unchanged.
10 With respect to the comment, this was a comment-by 11 one utility on the generation of low-level waste and its 12 disposal.
It is really not germane to the finding, because O
(_j -
13 low-level waste has been separately taken_ care of.
Congress 14 passed the Low-Level Waste Act.
There are compacts-forming.
15 In addition, as was discussed earlier under finding 2, the 16 Commission has modified Part 61 so that greater than class C 17 waste can be disposed of in the repository if need be.
18 So I think this issue is a parallel issue that 19 really is not germane to this proceeding,_but in fact it has t
20 been taken care of in other forums.
21 That is basically all I have to'say.
22 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you, John.
23 MS. CORRADO:
We issued our proposed waste
()
24 confidence decision review last fall.
It had been drafted ~
25 actually in the spring and the summer.
There was a delay _in
- ~.
1 1
46 1
actually publishing it.
As Stu Treby mentioned, there were 2'
two utilities who had requested license amendment to re-3 rack.
Those were Vermont Yankee and Prairie Island.
Their l
l 4
OL's were due to expire'in approximately 2007-2009.
l l
5 When we went out with our proposed decision l
l 6
review, we noted that Prairie Island's OL-had been extended l
l 7
for that license recapture period.
The NRC adopted a 1
8 practice of granting utilities permission to operate for a 9
full 40 years calculated from the date-of the OL being 10 granted instead of from the-date of the construction permit.
11 So there were between three and five years. involved.
12 Prairie Island had already been granted an extension.
/~
\\,)/
I 13 Vermont Yankee was eligible for its license to be extended-14 for this license recapture period.
15 Just in an effort to do our homework and-close the 16
' loop on those two plants, we noted that given that Prairie 17 Island had already gotten the extension and Vermont Yankee.
18 was eligible and we expected it to request the extension, if 19 the court were issuing its initial. remand'it might focus on 20 the years 2012-2014 instead.
We sort of got our wrist 21 slapped on that one.
When Vermont Yankee made its. request, 22 I believe the State of Vermont intervened.
Currently it has k
23 not been decided how that will work itself out.
I believe
(' T 24 that one contention that the state requested be admitted was.
g 25 admitted.
47
-)
1 It is very uncertain as to whether or not they 7,(j u
2 will get the extension.
Even in our proposed decision those
\\
l t
3 states didn't have an impact on our finding of 2025, or 4
approximately the end of the quarter-century.
Again we just 5
tried to close the loop on that and regretted it.
We 6
deleted that discussion from the final.
7 MR. MOELLER:
Who was it in Vermont?
You say the l
8 State of Vermont challenged it?
9 MS. CORRADO:- I believe that's correct.
i 10 MS. WINSBERG:
Yes.
i 11 MR. MOELLER:
Is this the governor?
12 MS. WINSBERG:
I believe the. State of Vermont has O(_,
j 13 intervened as a party.-
j 14 MR. MOELLER:
It is not important.
\\
l 35 MS. CORRADO:
We could get you information on l
16 that.
17 MR. MOELLER:
That's all right.
I was just 18 curious.
19 MR. TREBY:
I would just add for the-record that 20 there is a memorandum and order ruling on the petition for 21 leave to intervene filed by the State of Vermont which 22 granted the intervention and admitted one contention.
That 23 was done on January 26, 1990, and it is Licensing Board
- f^)i 24 Proceeding 90-6.
\\_
25 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
48 1
MS. CORRADO:
The last thing we were going to O
2 cover was an issue that has arisen apart from the public 3
comments we received on our draft.
Our division was made 4
aware last October of the fact that between 13 and 17 5
utilities elected to defer payment into the Nuclear Waste 6
Fund of the one-time fee for spent fuel generated pricr to 7
April 1983.
A number of those utilities have been audited.
8 I think there have been questions regarding the audits by 9
the financial auditors.
The issue is whether or~not 10 additional financial surety for the Nuclear Waste Fund is 11 called for here.
12 We have met with DOE to discuss the issue.
I
)
13 believe that in the last couple of weeks it has received 14 some very high level attention at DOE.
143 don't feel it is 15 proper for NRC to try-to resolve this.
DOE executed 16 contracts with utilities for disposal of spent fuel in 17 exchange for payment into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
18 There are a number of options, including taking 19 another look or possibly reopening their contracts, 20 attempting to negotiate some kind of a settlement with 21 utilities using the state regulatory utility commissions, 22 and/or legislation.
23 We feel that because the amount of money-we are o
l
}
talking about is relatively small, that there certainly is a I
24 25 small minority of utilities that are involved, and that we-
49 1
.are.only talking about the pre-1983 spent fuel and funds, it 2
does not affect our confidence.
3
-I believe OGC is prepared now to tell you about 4
the amendment to Part 51 that is a part of this proceeding.
5 MR. HINZE:
Before we do that', I would like to 6
raise a question about redoing this document every decade.
7 I would like to restate what I said at the beginning of our 8
discussion, and that is that I think you have a document 9
which will be useful to many different parties.
Of course 10 one of the reasons it.is so'useful is that it is up to date 11 and it considers the reassessment by DOE.
It really touches 12 upon the results of the MRS' Commission.
So it is apparent-
-i 13 that there are. reasons why it might be useful to bring this 14 up to date at periodic intervals.
The question is whether 15 the 10-year period is the proper period.
I 16 What I failed to find in your document were any l
17 criteria upon which you made a decision.to redo the document 18 at less than a decade period.
I believe you state in the i
19 document that the document will be redone, the decision will j
20 be reviewed prior to 2000.
I think that is great.
I am 21 just wondering.
Whose decision is that going to be?
What
)
22 kind of criteria are going to be used?
Is this going to be 1
23 a decision by a number of groups within the NRC?
Just how 24 does one trigger this?
25 MR. TREBY:
I think the short answer to your
50 1
question is the-decision will be the Commission's.
The 10-
)
2 year period is the next time that the Commission is
~'
3 committed to doing a review of this finding.
However, the l-4 Commission was very clear to state that should any new 5
information become available or should'it seem prudent that 6
it be reviewed, then it can be done earlier =than ten years.
i 7
I indicated earlier this'is sort.of predictive.
1 8
The Commission had previously made this commitment that it 9
was going to do one of these formal reviews ever five years.
I 10 The Commission thought it was-helpful and useful that we did 11 this formal review since the 5-year period was up, but it 12 also noted that it appeared to be very resource intensive
(~
13 and very detailed, and'to the extent that no new information 14 would be coming up, to repeat that exercise in another five l_
15 years just because there was a commitment.toado it every 16 five years did not make sense.
So they thought certainly it 17 should be renewed-every ten years but'that they wanted to 18 have the flexibility to require such an extensive. review j
l 19 earlier than that only if circumstances warranted, such as l
20 new information.
21 MR. HINZE:
Mr. Treby, I am very sympathetic to 22 that point of view, but I really believe that it would be 23 useful to the reader to have some feeling about what are
(~'i 24 these new findings, or some criteria, some statement in L.)
25 there about what would trigger a review prior to a decade.
I 51 1
I think that would be most useful to us.
1 2
MR. TREBY:
Thank you for that comment.
We will 3
consider it.
As I understand it, what you would like is 4
some sort of elaboration as to what we mean by new 5
information, how we would measure that by the criteria that i
6 we would look to.
7 MR. HINZE:
Where the Commission has asked DOE to 8
move towards the study of those characteristics of the site r
P 9
at Yucca Mountain that might prove it to be not licensable.
10 We are focusing in on those kinds of critical items and 11 asking DOE to.
Perhaps it would be useful in this document 12 to point out in a very general way what are-the criteria.
(_,/
13 MR. TREBY:
Thank you.
I think we understand that 14 comment.
15 The last thing that we need to discuss is the 16 amendment to Part 51.
I alluded earlier to the fact that 17 the Commission when it issued its initial waste confidence 18 findings in 1984 also codified in Part 51, specifically at 19 10 CFR 51.23, provisions providing that the environmental 20 impacts about reactor storage after termination of a-reactor.
'I 21 operating license did not need to be considered in 22 Commission proceedings related to issuance or amendment of a 23 reactor operating license or to fuel storage installations
)
24 licensed under Part 72.
This is i generic finding by the 25 Commission and that precludes that as an issue or a
52 ul 1
contention in the proceeding.
2 Section 51.23 of Part 51 specifically sets out the
)
i 3
five findings that the Commission made in its waste 4
confidence decision.
Since we have modified findings 2 and
-j 5
4, it is necessary to amend that section in Part 51 so that 6
it is consistent with the findings that are now being made 7
in this document.
That is really the extent of the 8
amendment to Part 51 that is taking place here.
It is 9
merely one of conforming the' findings to the ones that we 10 are making here.
L 11 I believe that concludes our presentation to you 12 this morning.
()
13 In summary, I would say that the final' decision'is-14 quite similar to the draft decision which you-previously I
15 looked at.
There were relatively few comments.
There were 16 11 commenters, which broke down to the 21 issues that we i
17 have discussed with you today.
We don't believe that there l
18 is a need to make any substantial changes to the findings 19 that we provided in draft form to you.
In fact, I.think we 20 have noted those minor changes that were made in response to 21 the comments and we would expect to go to the Commission and 22 indicate to them that with those minor changes we recommend 23 that they issue the final decision.
I guess we would hope fD 24 that you would provide a letter to them indicating your y
25 review and that you concur in this Staff recommendation.
a 53
(
1 MR. MOELLER:
That is what I was going to ask.
l 2
You would like to have a letter from us summarizing that we-3 have met with you and reviewed the documents, and if indeed 4
this is our finding, that we concur in the revision of the 5
five findings.
Or what?
Or.in your conclusions as 6
expressed to us?
7-MR. TREBY:
I guess in our conclusions as 8
expressed.
Finding 4 is the only finding in'which we have.
)
9 made any revision at all since the' draft stage.
Previously 10 we had said which may include the. term of a " revised 11 license."
Now it is " revised or renewed license."
12 MR. MOELLER:
I think personally, commenting to C()\\
13 Dr. Hinze on it, that it would be my opinion that we would l-14 have no problem making such a statement.
I also believe 15 your point about adding to the document wherever appropriate l
16 some guidance or some statement relative to the criteria j
17 that will be used-to judge when a new look is required would l
i 18 be very helpful.
19 MR. HINZE:
I think it would be.
20 MR. TREBY:
That will be fine with the Staff.
We l
21 believe that would be helpful.
22 MR. MOELLER:
I think our comments about using it i
23 as a public educational tool is just on the record.
It is i
24 not part of our letter.
25 Do you have any more comments, Bill?
l
54 i
1 MR. HINZE I wish you would give some thought to
( ;)
2 some visuals to try to help us.
We have read the document 3
and tried to stay with it through many readings.
If we have 4
some problems, other people are going to have a problem or a 5
few people will have problems.
I think a few visuals may be 6
very useful.
7 MR. TREBY Thank you.
8 MR. MOELLER:
With that, we can bring this portion 9
of our meeting to a close.
For members of the public who 10 may be present as we13 as members of the Staff, let me say 11 that the committee will take a break and then go into 12 executive session, still cpen to the public, in which we
()
13 will attempt to prepare a letter offering our comments-on 14 this subject.
That portion of our meeting will not be 15 recorded, so this terminates the portion of the meeting to 16 be recorded.
l 17 Let me thank the Staff for their presentation this 18 morning.
I found it very helpful.
You were responsive to 19 our questions.
Mr. Treby, Ms. Corrado, Ms. Winsberg, and 20 Mr. Roberts, thank you very much.
21 With that, I declare that the formal portion of 22 the 19th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste-l l
23 is adjourned.
Thank you.
(}
(Whereupon at 10:07 a.m. the meeting was 24 25 adjourned.]
t 1
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceed-f ings before the United States Nuclear i
Regulatory Commission i
i n the matter oft l
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
19th ACNW Meeting i
DOCKET NUMBER:
[
PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
Bethesda, Maryland 5
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true l
and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
h I
i
_i O( t /r titt kLtbfM!#-
Michael Paulus Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd, D
l l
L s
l D'
t
-