ML20034C541
| ML20034C541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/11/1990 |
| From: | Roberts J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Haughney C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005040102 | |
| Download: ML20034C541 (4) | |
Text
e-
' ' p2 Riog
' ![*
30,,
UNITED STATES
'.- n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' i-I WASHING TON, O. C. 20555
/
APR 1 1 #
1 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Charles J. Haughney, Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial end Medical Nucira W ety FROM:
John P. Roberts, Section Leader irradiated Fuel Section Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical _ Nuclear Safety
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) i DATE/ TIME:
April'4, 1990; 10:00-a m.
LOCATION:
Room 10B-13, One White Flint North Building, Rockville, MD ATTENDEES:
GAO NRC M ice 35berts KVan Vlack DHurt CMacDonald RChappell PURPOSE:
GA0 has been requested by the Senate Committee on Commerce, S:ience, and Transportation to perform a study comparing storage of spent fuel.at reactors i
versus storage at a monitored retrievable stcrage (MRS) facility.
GA0 wished to question NRC staff.
SUMMARY
The GA0 study is to be similar to that performed by the MRS Review Commission (i.e., Nuclear Waste:
Is There A Need For Federal interim Storage?), but is not
-to be as comprehensive. GA0 sta## are now determir,ing the scope of the study.
There was general acknowledgement during the meeting that,.while the analysis ir the MRS' Review Commission report was well foundec, the: conclusions reached were a
not necessarily reflective of this.
GAO-questioned NRC staff on the availability of dry storage as-an option for utilities and potential problems with licensing and public utility commissions (PUCs).
NRC staff _ saw no problems with the general availability of dry storage given the variety of designs available.
For example, if heavy storage-casks of about 100 tons-weight exceed crane capacity, other designs'are available.-
yo y
NRC HLE CENTER COPY fA i
y 90050401029g41b6pgg j
PDR ORG E
a i
Charles J. Haughney
-?-
To date, ficensing has not encountered problems. While the State of Maryland has petitioned to intervene, Maryland has made clear that it does not seek a hearing, but seeks to participate in the licensing process regarding'the Calvert Cliffs dry storage application.
This is similar to South Carolina 9 request-in the H. B. Robinson-2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation liSFSI) case.
where the state was and continues to be kept apprised of any licensing actions.
Regarding pvcs, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 198? (NWPA), utilities are responsible for interim spent fuel storage until the Department of Energy (DOE) takes receipt of the fuel.
Under NRC regulations, the utilities cannot i
abrogate their licensed responsibility for spent fuel in their possession.
While questions of DOE contractual obligations'are questions of equity between DOE and the utilities, they do not involve NRC or the continued safety of spent fuel storage.
I There was a question on the impact of continued fuel on site on decnmmissioning.
Reactors cannot fully decommission if spent fuel remains in their spent fuel pools. A " possession only" license under 10 CFR Part 50 remains in effect.
However, in the-case of the Fort St. Vrain plant a. license application is expected this summer for an ISFSI which would become a separate installation on its own site, with all fuel removed from the reactor.
The nuclear power plant could proceed to a fully decommissioned state with its part 50 operating license terminated. The plant may subsequently be converted to a fossil fuel plant.
Two other plant sites, Rancho Seco and Shoreham, may seek this option to fully decommission also.
In response to a question on costs NRC staff responded that storage cost comparisons are not an area of concern to NRC staff.
DOE has done studies comparing storage option costs.
In general, cost comparisons and impact comparisons for MRS and non-NRS options are neutral, i
Some organizational efficiencies might arise frem an integrated MRS as-part of I
the disposal system.
However, the present legislative linkages restricting MRS facility siting, construction, and operation with respect to progress on the repository effectively eliminate any usefulness on its part.
Transportation activities were discussed.
NRC staff explained the process of shipping cask certification under 10 CFR Part 71.
DOE casks. designs for its transportation fleet are expected to be submitted in about 2 years.-
Certification of the ? designs submitted for a truck cask and a rail / barge shipping
)
cask would take about 2 years.
Continuing NRC staff work with vendors and DOE to pursue transportation / storage-compatibility was' discussed.
Efforts by vendors including the expected submittal of a dual purpose cask design this summer were discussed.
s k
.i.
APR 1 1-1990 Charles J. Haughnoy GA0 raised the question of the effects of higher burnup spent fuel. This is I
an operational issue.
Higher burnup spent fuel may require longer cooling prior to shipment, dry storage, or disposal in a repository.
Higher burnup fuel will have higher initial enrichment.
DOE is addressing through resecrch the i
criticality design issues for. shipping designs proposing to take credit for burnup.
Both calculational methodology-research and development of measurement systems are part of DOE's effort.
GA0 inquired about the status of the Commission's proposed rulemaking for a general license for reactor operating licensees to store spent fuel in pre-approved dry spent fuel storage casks at reactor sites.
NRC staff responded that NRC staff has prepared a draft final rule to be sent to the Commission through the Executive Director for Operations'this month.
The meeting ended, a Mg ilohn P. Roberts, Section Letder-i irradiated Fuel Section Fuel Cycle Sefety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety l
l
. i 5
I
\\
.+-
6 APR 11 1990
' Charles J. Haughney 3-GA0 raised the question of the effects of higher burnup spent fuel. This is an operational-issue.
Higher burnup spent fuel may require longer cooling prior to shipment, dry storage, or disposal in a repository. Higher burnup fuel will have higher initial enrichment,, DOE is addressing through rese6rch.the-criticality design issues for shipping designs proposing to take credit for burnup.
Both calculational methodology research and development of measurement systems are part of DOE's effort.
GA0 inquired about the status of the Commission's preposed rulemaking for a generrl license for reactor operating licensees to store spent fuel in pre approved dry spent fuel, storage casks at reactor sites.' NRC staff responded that NRC staff has prepared a draft final rule to be sent to the.
Commission through the Executive Director for Operations this month.
The meeting ended.
@ Signed by
~S{in (CANdh iohnP. Roberts,Sectionlehder Irradiated Fuel Section Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Distribution:
DISTRIBUTION NRC File Center PDR NMSS R/F INSB R/F IMIF R/F CHaughney i
JRoberts JSwift FBrown Beveridge/ Cornell 1 23 (JR/HTG WITH GAO)
'0FC :IMIF
- IM F-c....:....
%AME :Jno ert :jc (FBrown 0____:....______..:U.._________: ___........: _______.__.:__________..:..__...____.:..____....
l
- 4/ i/90 DATE :4/// /90 OFFICIAL-RECORD COPY