ML20039A673

Forwards Responses to Addl Questions for Record of 811006 Hearing on Proposed High Level Waste Legislation

ML20039A673
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/23/1981
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Hart G SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
NUDOCS 8112210110
Download: ML20039A673 (29)

Text

p reg.

j?,3, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%.....)

NOV 2 31981 The Honorable Gary Hart Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Hart:

s We are pleased to submit responses to additional questions for the record from the October 6,1981 hearing on proposed high-level wasce legislation.

I hope you will find these responses adequate for your purposes, but if you need additional information or clarification, please let me know.

Sincerely,

./

g

<W C Car ton Ka. erer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Responses to Questions on Proposed high-level waste legislation cc: Sen. Alan Simpson

+

L.

u,,,

_. _,7m i

QUESTION 1.

Please provide the Commission's most recent inventory of the location and quantities of the various types of waste generated by both civilian and defense nuclear activities.

ANSWER.

The Comission does not inventory either civilian or defense waste.

The Commission does have approximate civilian waste amounts based on information provided by the Agreement State licensees and NRC licensees.

DOE waste amounts are not tracked by the NRC, altnough the NRC does keep up with DOE publications.

The attached tables represent the Commission's most recent information per-taining to inventories for high-level reprocessing wastes in storage, trans-uranic wastes materials (uran (ium-235) and low-level wastes bur reported as plutonium) buried or in storage, special nuclear burial sites and stored spent fuel.

figures on defense low-level inventories.The Commission does not have up-to-date l

k u

{':..

[:1 s

E

?y bti n

IEn Y.

E2 c

..x O

A TRANSURANIC WASTES BURIED AND STORED AT DOE SITES Location:

Stored (kilograms)

Buried (kilograms)

-4 Idaho 362.94 ~

~

375.5 Hanford 178.59 381.8 3

2,638 m Savannah River 56.68 Los Alamos 73.12 5.0 Oak Ridge 12.07 O.13 3

';7.48 m Nevada Test Site.

1.52 Pantex 0

2.4 3

3 0.198 m 2.826 m Sandia Paducah 0.277 0

Argonne National Lab 0.055 0

Source: Draf t report, Brookhaven National Laboratory, " Inventory of High-level and Transuranic Wastes in the United States,"

BNL-NUREC-27817R, February 1981, pp. 116, 117.

.F

~,

O Am w

4 J

r HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE REPROCESSING WASTE INVEh"IORY Location:

Existing Volumes (1978)

Projected Volumes (1990)

(miilions of gallons)

(millions of gallons)

Hanford 50 53.9 Savannah River 22 23.6 Idaho 2.4-2.6 1.2 West Valley 0.61 0.61 i

Source:

Adapted from a draf t report, prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory entitled, " Inventory of High-level and Transuranic Wastes in 1

the United States," BNL-NUREG-27817R, (February, 1981), pp. 80,82.

i J

l l

4 4

1 i

+

i

}

}

J i

I s

l %

.a ' -

+

4+

r m

yq--

,gg g.

g 4

RADIOACTIVE WASTE INVENTORIES A*2 COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL BURIAL SITES Location:

Low-level Wastes Transuranics Spec'ial Nuclear Total Volume (Plutonium)

Materials (U-235)

(millions"of cubic feet)

(kilograms)

(kilograms)

Beatty, NV 3.18 14.29 217.50 Maxey Flats, KY 4.77 63.76 431.62 Richland, WA 2.18 36.525 121.43 13.41 55.9 Sheffield, IL 3.196 West Valley, NY 2.36 4.00 56.00 Barnwell, SC 11.425 0

1120.79 Source: NRC internal information.

5 b -

W N

m L,

• Y"

.l SPENT FUEL INVENTORY DOE /EIA flid Case Projection (July 1980)

Year (GWe) 1979 51.9 1980 56.5 1981 61.4 1982 75.7 1983 91.5 1984 104.1 1985 125.0 1986 136.0 1987 148.5 1988 154.8 1989 159.9 1990 167.4 1991 172.4 1992 174.8 1993 177.2 1994 178.5 1995 178.5 1996 178.5 1997 178.5 1998 178.5 1999 178.5 2000 180.0 i

Yearly Discharges and Spent Fuel Accumulation, MTU (From OR0-778)

Calendar BWR PWR Total year Annual Cumul ative Annual Cumul ative.

Annual Cumulative i

1979 2.545 3,385 5,930 1980 625 3.170 905 '3 4,290 1,530 7,460

~

1981 625 3,795 1,020 5,310 1,645 9,105 1982 730 4,525 1,070 6,380 1,800 10,905 1983 910 5,435 1,290 7,670 2,200 13,105 1984 1,020 6,455 1,620 9,290 2,640 15,745 1985-1,175 7,630 1,810 11,100 2,985 18,730 1990 1,820 16,010 2,710 23,360 4,530 39,370 1995 1,925 25,565 3,095 38,335 5,020 63,900 2000 1,925 35,190 3,095 53,810 5,020 89,000 Source: BNL-NUREG-27817R u

.n

QUESTION 2.

What is the status of the Comission's review of -

technologies for the dry storage of spent reactor fuel? How soon does the Commission expect such technologies to become licensable? What further

~~

development, if any, is necessary before subh' technologies can become licensable?

ANSWER.

In response to Comission direction, the NRC staff completed a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage

~~

of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0575) which was published in August 1979. Both wet and dry storage technologies were considered in this study.

The study supported specific rufemaking for storage of spent fuel in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI). The Commission has now issued a final rule,10 CFR Part 72," Licensing Require-ments for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an ' Independent Spent Fuel Storage Instal ation" (45 FR 74693, November 12,1980)'

Part 72 covers both wet and dry storage of spent fuel in ISFSIs, which may be located either at reactor or other facility sites or at separate sites.

Consequently, designs employing dry storage technologies which meet the requirements of Part 72 are now licensable.

The NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is prepared to review license applications received for dry storage.

To facilitate such licensing for applicants, NRC has prepared and is continuing to prepare licensing guidance in the form of regulatory guides.

For exampfe, a guide on the format and content of applicant safety analysis reports for dry stwage technologies has been issued for comment and is nearing completion.

Such quides, while of assistance to applicants, are not necessary before licen:,ing reviews can be per-formed since licensing requirements are established in 10 CFR Part 72.

While no applications for dry storage licenses have been received as yet, NMSS expects to receive two Topical Reports for standardized dry storage cask designs this calendar year.

Designs submitted will under-go a safety review.

If found acceptable, the Topical Reports submitted may be referenced in future site specific license application Safety Analysis Reports.

In addition, NRC staff has discussed with TVA its plans for demonstration testing of dry storage casks.

DOE has offered technical assistance to TVA in this area %ased on its research and de-velopment :tudies and experience at the Nevada Test Site.

License application for such demonstration testing is expected this fiscal year.

Reviews of the Topical Reports and the TVA demonstration application will provide a basis of licensing experience for both the NRC staff and the industry.

~

~

QUESTION 3.

What is the status of the Commission's nuclear waste confi-dence proceeding? When will the Commission render a decision on the record generated by the proceeding?

ANSWER.

The Commission has received statements and cross-statements from participants

'n the Waste Confidence Proceeding.

These were summarized by a Working Group which identified ' issues in controversy.

The Commission has recently decided that the next step for the proceeding should be oral presentations to the Commission by the participants. After the oral presentations, the Commission will consider whether the record is adequate for a decision.

If no information is needed to supplement the record, the Commission could draft a decision in early 1982 which would lead to a final decision in late 1982 or 1983.

On the other hand, should substantial supple-mentation of the record be necessary, additional time could be required.

s lf i

e

_.b',

2 l'

l

)

QUESTION 4 Please provide the Comission's most recent estimates of when specific nuclear powerplants will need additional capacity to store spent reac'torffuel. Do these estimates assume that a utility can provide additional storage capacity at the powerplant site, either by building a new storage pool or using dry storage technologies?.If not, why not?

ANSWER.

The attached table prWMes estimates of_.when_ specific nuclear powerplants _

will need additional capacity to store spent reactor fuel.

It is based

_. _.j on information. furnished by utilities and published. in the " Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report" (NUREG-0020), July 1981; recent Department of Energy information from " Spent Fuel Storage Requirements" (D0E/SR-0007), March 1981; discussions with NRC reactor project managers; and recent data furnished by utilities to NRC -staff.

The table covers those reactors projected to lose full core reserve (FCR) by 1990.

The fill dates shown in the attached table are for present authorized capac-ities of reactor pools.

Additional years of capacity to be gained from pending licensing applications for reactor basin storage capacity increases are shown in the last colt;mn on the right. Actions which are resulting or might result in increases in storage capacity are detailed in the next to last column on the right.

As indicated above, these estimates of when specific nuclear powerplants will need additional capacity do not consider either new spent fuel storage pools or dry storage capacity at powerplant sites.

With the following exceptions no utilities have identified to NRC plans for the construction of additional on-site storage capacity outside the reactor basins.

NRC has received informa-tion from the Virginia Electric and Power Company tSat an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). is being considered for its Surry powerplant site.

(Whether it will be a pool or dry storage installation is not known tous.) The Tennessee Valley Authority is also considering on-site ISFSIs for its Browns Ferry, Sequoyah and Watts Bar powerplant sites. Another option contemplated by the Duke Power Company is a plan involving intrautility transshipment from multiple reactor sites to a new powerplant.

Off-si te storage of Oconee and McGuire reactor spent fuel at the Duke Power Company's Catawba plant (now under construction) would be provided after its receipt of an operating license.

r i

I (La..

J

ACTIONS TO ALLEVIATE THE SHORTAGE OF SPENT FUEL FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR REACTORS PROJECTED -

TO LOSE FULL CORE RESERVE BY 1990 Date will fill to capacity (a)

(b)

Years of Capacg Reactor Type w/FCR w/o FCR Action to be Gained Big Rock Point 1 BWR w/o FCR 1983

-- Application to increase storage 12 pending with NRR San Onofre 1 PWR w/o FCR 1983

-- Planned to ship 37 MTU to GE Morris--

7 will t.se space in Unit 2 pool when OL is issued (expected in early 1982)

Indian Point 2 PWR 1981 1984

-- Application to increase storage 8

pending with NRR

,Drssden 2&3 BWR 1982 1984

-- Application to increase storage 13 pending with NRR (Temporary increase in capacity (about 235 spaces) sufficient to allow off-loading of Dresden 3 core in 12/81 authorized.)

Quad Cities 182 BWR 1982 1985

-- Applicati6n to increase storage 15 pending with NRR Robinson 2 PWR 1983 1985

-- Application to increase storage 7

pending with NRR Brunswick 182 BWR 1983 1986

-- Application to increase storage 5

pending with NRR

~

Maine Yankee PWR 1985 1987

-- Application to increase storage -

17 pending with NRR

ACTIONS TO ALLEVIATE THE SHORTAGE OF SPENT FUEL FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR REACTORS PROJECTED TO LOSE FULL CORE RESERVE BY 1990 Date will fill to capacity (a)

(b)

YearsofCapacitfc)

Reactor Type w/FCR w/o FC2 Action to be Gained Oyster Creek i BWR 1983 1987

-- Have discussed building a new pool with the NRC staff in past.

(DOE reports current utility plans exist to rerack the reactor basin to gain 4 years additional capaci ty.

There has been no discussion of this with NRC staff.)

killstone 2 PWR 1984 1987

-- No indication of future actions.

(DOE shows onsite transfer to Millstone-3 basin planned; OL expected in 12/85.)

lancho Seco PWR 1984 1987

-- Licensee has discussed increasing capacity--application not received to date (DOE assumes unit basin can be reracked with poison racks to enable v

FCR maintenance until 1995.)

Tort Calhoun PWR 1984 1987

-- Licensee has discussed increasing capacity -- application not received to date.

(DOE refers to plans by utility for further reracking that would enable FCR maintenance until 1988.)

surry.182 PWR 1985 1987

-- Will apply for independent spent' fuel storage.

Burkey Point 384 PWR 1986 1988

-- No indication of future actions (DOE assumes unit basin can be reracked with poison racks to enable FCR maintenance until 1988.)

-ACTIONS TO ALLEVIATE Tile SHORTAGE OF SPENT FUEL FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR REACTORS PROJECTED TO LOSE FULL CORE RESERVE BY 1990 Date will fill to capacity (a)

(b)

YearsofCapaci[f)

Reactor Type w/FCR w/o FCR Action to be Gained Palisades PWR 1985 1988

-- No indication of future actions.

Arkansas 1,2 PWR 1987 1989

-- No indication of future actions.

(DOE reports current utility plans to rerack the reactor basins to gain 3 years additional capacity for both units.)

" Yankee Rowe PWR 1986 1989

-- Application to increase storage 14 pending with NRR.

Nina Mile Point 1 BWR 1986 1990

-- Application to increase storage 10 pending with NRR.

Pilgrim 1 BWR 1987 1990

-- No indica, tion of future actions.

iTrojan PWR 1987 1990

-- Has discussed pin compaction in unit basin with NRC staff.

St. Lucie 1 PWR 1986 1990

-- No indication of future actions.

Calvert Cliffs 1,2 PWR 1989 1991

-- No indication of future actions.

Peach, Bottom 2,3 BWR 1987 1991

-- No indication of future actions.

Dorth Anna 1,2 PWR 1989 1991

-- Will use space in Unit 3 pool when OL is issued (expected in 8/89).

3-ACTIONS TO ALLEVIATE THE SHORTAGE OF r

SPENT FUEL FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR REACTORS PROJECTED TO LOSE FULL CORE RESERVE BY 1990 Date will fill to capacity (a)

(b)

YearsofCapacig)

Reactor Type w/FCR w/o FCR Action to be Gained 0 conn 1,2,3 PWR 1990 1991

-- Will use space in Catawba storage pool when OL is issued (expected in 2/85).

Millstone 1 BWR 1987 1991

-- No indication of future actions.

(DOE shows onsite transfer to Millstone 3 basin planned; OL expected in 12/85.)

Monticello BWR 1987 1991

-- No indication of future actions.

lGinna PWR 1989 1992

-- No indication of future actions.

Vermont Yankee BWR 1988 1992

-- No indication of future actions.

-Indian Point 3 PWR 1988 1993

-- No indication of future actions.

Davis Besse 1 Pb 1990 1993

-- No indication of future actions.

(a)

Dates for maintaining a full core reserve (FCR) were derived with the assumptions (1) one FCR is maintained at multi-unit sites, and (2) a PWR and BWR discharge annually 1/3 and 1/4 of a core, respectively.

(b) Dates used for filling capacity w/o full core reserve (FCR) were obtained from NUREG-0020,

" Operating Units Status Report," July 1981, and other utility furnished data.

(c)

Years indicated are for reactors with an application pending with the NRC. All applications pending for reracking reactor basins involve poison racks (containing Boron-10) except for Big Rock Point where stainless steel racks are planned. The application for Robinson 2 involves structural reenforcement of the basin and for Maine Yankee involves pin compaction to a limited extent as well as use of poison racks.

[

QUESTION 4.

(a) Does the' Commission arrive at these estimates-by independently evaluating the ability and needs of specific utilities to provide additional storage capacity (i.e.,not rely on a utility's stated plans for providing additional storage capacity)?

If not, why not?

~

ANSWER.

The Comission relies primarily on the information reported to it by utilities and published, as noted above, in NUREG-0020.

However, the Comission does attempt to critically examine this infonnation by com-parison with other information surveys such as those conducted by the Department of Energy.

QUESTION 4.

(b) What, if any, technological barriers or public health and safety considerations would prevent a utility from providing additional storage capacity for spent reactor fuel at the power-plant site, either by building an additional storage pool or by using dry storage technologies?

Please explain.

ANSWER.

As a general statement, we know of no technological barriers or public health and safety considerations which would prevent a utility from providing additional storage capacity at the powerplant site, either by additional pool or dry storage ISFSI.

However, each case must be subject to specific licensing review.

.P 9

w

.y

%~

7 y

y i

p_- ' ~

~

- :/, __, ; y P

1. A

/

QUESTION 5.

It has been suggested that theE ederal Governmer.t F

could obtain a license to obtain and op'erate an away-from-reactor (AFR) storage facility more easily-than could one or several private-finns. Do_you agree with this suggestion? Please explain.

ANSWER.

~

- Z The Commission has taken no position as to whether federal or private means should be used to provide needed additional spent fuel storage capaci ty. The Conunission's rule,10 CFR Part 72, " Licensing Require-ments for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage

~

Installation" applies to both.

g for the F d Congressional legislation which would be necessarY Energy (DhEfral.

government, through, presumably,ke the process of licensing easier the Department o to ac-quire or construct AFRs could ma than' for private firms.

For ex' ample, Congressional direction that DOE acquire or construct AFRs might readily resolve any questions of need raised under the National Environmental Policy Act. Additionally, de-pending on how specific Congressional direction was with respect to the locations or the facilities involved for AFRs, other aspects of licen-sing review might also be resolved.

However, to the extent these ques-tions were..ct resolved in legislation by Congress, the licensing of federal AFRs to meet national needs might be more difficult than the licensing of private AFRs to meet the needs of specific utilities because of the wider range of potential issues involving need, location of AFRs, and transportation of spent fuel.

p 9

3

~

-

.s O'

d

/

v-

~

a l

s p [

l p, s

y

.y~

g3,

'I

~

QUESTION 6.

(a) What is the Commission's current estimated cost for constructing and operating either a new centralized AFR facility or new regional AFR facilities? Please translate these estimates into dollars per kilogram of spent reactor fuel and into mills per' kilowatt-hour

L for those utilities that may seek to use'these facilities.

ANSWER.

The Commission does~not generate nor adopt cost estimate 3 from other sources associated with a proposed action during the prelicensing phase.

However, if the licensing of the proposed action ~ involves a major action by the Comission that significantly affects the quality of the human environment the Commission will prepare an environmental impact state-ment [10 CFR 51.5 (a) (10)] in accordance with section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L.91-190, 83 stat. 852 at 853, 42 U.S.C. 4332.) This statement will include a cost

~~

benefit analysis that addresses the costs of the proposed action and its alternatives.

Estimates for the spent fuel storage alternatives identified in questions

~..

t -

1 6 (a),

(b), (c) and (d) have been made by sources other than the Commission,

,C) 1.e., Department of Energy, General Accounting Office (GA0) and industry.

These estimates are utilized below in response to question 6 (a) and to questions 6 (b), (c), and (d) as well.

DOE's " Final Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Spent Fuel Policy" DOE /EIS-0015, May 1980,provides cost figures for AFR facilities.

The

, capital costs for a 2,800 metric. ton AFR facility (pool type) range from 35 to 70 dollars per kilogram of spent fuel.

The operations and main-

~

tenance cost range from 4 to 8 million dollars per year. A direct con-version from $/kg of spent fuel to mills /kw-hr is not possible without knoying the specific fuel loading and duty cycle of the reactor fuel.

f, j However it can be approximated by multiplying $/kg of spent fuel by about 6 x 10-3 x

s,

[ f.

/

QUESTION 6.

(b) What is the Comission's current estimated cost for

.q 3'

acquiring and modifying the storage facilities at Morris, Ill., Barnwell, S.C., and West Valley, N.Y.,

for Federal AFR facilities? Please translate these

~'

-f

//

s 1

~3stimates into dollars per kilogram of spent reactor V

s'

' fuel and into mills'*per kilowatt-hour for those

' ynp utilities that may seek to use these facilities.

v

~'

ANSWER.

g, _ ~

~

GA0 in it's report to Congress, " Federal Facilities for Storing Spent 1

Nuclear Fuel - - Are They Needed?", June 27, 1979 EMD-79-82 discusses g~,,

tQ

~

9. 1 s

r p

- e' L

ANSWER 6 (b) con't).

the costs of utilizing the existing facilities at Morris, Ill., Barnwell, S.C., and West Valley, N.Y.

r.c The estimated costs to acquire and expand the capacity of the GE Morris Operation an additional 1,100 MTU is $54 million.

The cost for storage s

at an expanded Morris, Ill, site would be $37/kgU.

Allied General Nuclear Services, Inc. Barnwell, S.C. facility could be expanded to 5,000 MTV for $110 million. AGNS has suggested a purchase price of $362 million for the facility. The cost would be $92/kgU.

Nuclear Fuel Services West Valley Facility could possibly be expanded to accommodate 1300 MTU for 10-20 million dollars as reported in DOE /SR/10007-1 " Spent Fuel Program Preliminary Technical Assessment of Existing Facilities for AFR Storage Capability".

There is no estimated cost for the a:quisition of this facility.

(The Army Corps of Engineers is completing an appraisal report on the ~

'~

three facilities for the Department of Energy.

Preliminary appraised values for them are:

s, GE Morris Operation, $36,000,000; AGNS Barnwell Facility, $300,000,000; and NFS West Valley Facility (spent fuel pool area only), $7,000,000.)

QdESTION L.

(c) What is the Commission's current estimated cost for constructing and operating an additional pool at the powerplant site for storing spent reactor fuel?

Please translate this estimate into dollars per kilo-gram of spent reactor fuel, and into mills per kilo-watt-hour for those utilities that may need to con-struct additional on-site pools, c

ANSWER.

DOE's " Spent LWR Fuel Storage Costs Reracking, AR Basins and AFk Basins,"

00E/SR-SF-2002 Rev.1 provides capital cost estimates for at-reactor water basins ranging from 23 to 60 million dollars (depending on specific designs) for a 1400 MTU capacity pool. The cost.in $/kgU ranges from 16 dollars to 43 dollars.

y

-1 Ns l

-?

s_

QUESTICN 6.

(d) What is the Commission's current estimated cost for constructing and operating at a powerplant site a facility for dry storage of spent reactor fuel?

Please translate this estimate into dollars per kilo-gram of spent reactor fuel and into mills per kilo-watt hour for those utilities that may need to use dry storage facilities.

~

ANSWER.

Principal interest in dry storage methods to date has centered on cask storage. The cost of such storage consists, essentially, of the costs of the casks.themselves.

Recent cost estimates ascribed to the Nuclear _

Assurance Corporation ( a possible dry cask vendor) are: for a simple storage only cask, $25/kg; for a cask that can use an overpack to pro-tect it during transportation, $65/kg; and for a cask that can be used for both transportation and storage, $130/kg.

l 9

QUESTION 7.

Please provide specific estimates of:

(a) The quantities of spent reactor fuel that would be shipped to one or several Federal AFR storage faci-lities, for each year during the useful life of such facilities, given various reasonable estimates of demand for Federal AFR storage capacity; ANSWER.

The quantities of spent fuel that might be shipped to Federal AFRs is dependent on the size of the federal program and the conditions under which storage capacity is effered. Most recent estimates of AFR storage capacity needed have been published by the Department of Energy in

" Spent Fuel Storage Requirements" (D0E/SR-0007) in March 1981 and are included in the attached Table 2, " Spent Fuel Storage Requirements" from

~

.this_ rep _ ort _._The_D0E. assumptions for the 'three cases shown in_the_ table are also attached.

QUESTION.

~ (b) The distances that the quantities of spent reactor

~

fuel estimated under a. would.be shipped; and ANSWER.

The estimated shipping distance for spent fuel to regional AFRs in the

" Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" (NUREG-0575) was 1000 miles.

QUESTION.

(c) The highways along which the quantities of spent reactor fuel estimated under a. would be shipped.

ANSWER.

Approved existing highway routes for spent fuel shipments are given in "Public Information Circular for Shipments of Irradiated Reactor Fuel" (NUREG-0725). A copy of this report is attached.

It is updated at six month intervals. AFRs at new locations not covered by existing routes would require NRC approval.

.F I

i u.

L

a Table 2 Spent Fuel Storage Requirenents 1981 - 2000 (Cumulative MTU)

~

Flannizig Year Upper Bound Base Lower Bound K

1981 0

0 0

1982 0

0 0

1983 0

0 0

1984 0

0 0

1985 50 0

0 1986 340 120 0

~

1987 820 3 93 100 1988 1,230 620 2 93 t

1989 2,0%

1,240 600 1993 2,900 1,800 860 1991 3,710 2,300' 1,270 1992 5,000 3,1 m 1,880 1993 6,4 93 4,110 2,593 1994 7, 910 5,0 60 3,330 1995 10,030 6,480 4,440 1996 12,170 8,000 5,730 1997 14,220 9,540 7,250 1998 16,690 11,490 9,180

' 1999 19,340 13,810 11,400 2000 21,860 16,010 13,640 Source: " Spent Fuel Storage Requirements" (DOE /SR-0007' Department of Energy, March 1981.

r-9

-C l

g.

- _m

,,, w _.,., y -..

P1nnning 3m Tha planning base was developed using the assu=ptions of conditions which exist or are judged most likely to occur.

in addition to those discuesed above:

The following assunptions apply 1.

Utilities vill increase their fuel storage pool capacities to the marinum extent possible using currently licensed technology.

This vill take place by 1984 for operating reactors and by ec:mercial operation date for new reactors, whichever is later.

3..

2.

Offsite transshipnent of spent fuel between reactor pools will not take place, beyond that currently licensed by the NRC.

Onsite transfers occur as planned, or if necessary at a reactor site if those transfers have taken place in the past.

_ Upper Bound The upper bound approxinates the carinum anount of fuel requiring addition-al storage.

Assumptions for this case are the sane as the planning base case with one exception:

utilities will increase their pool capacities only to the extent they currently plan, not to the e:stimated carinum capacity.

Lower Bound The lower bound storage requirenents 'also retain the sane assumptions as the planning base with one exception:

transship =ent of spent fuel within a utility systen vould take place.

Reactors requiring additional storage would ship fuel to any reactor of the or boiling water reactor) before additional storage would be needed.(pressurized sane type i

[

i f

r r

s L:.

3l C

(

bn

-t e

r ni P

QUESTION 8.

Section 302(a) of the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

.1982 (S. 1662) would authorize the Secretary of Energy to detennine which powerplants "cannot reasonably provide adequate spent fuel storage capacity at the powerplant site,"

thus becoming eligible to use Federal AFR storage capacity.

1 Can-the Commission make this determination as' easily as the Secretary of Energy? Please explain why, or why not.

ANSWER.

Our response to this question reflects our view that the principles of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 should serve as a guideline to the allo-cation of functions between DOE and NRC.

From this perspective, the ~

determination described is an appropriate function of D0E. The~

regulatory interests of NRC - primarily, protection of the health and safety of the public - are not significant1y involved in such a de-termination.

s

" ~

ws

)

t LJ.3

'*t

_ '-~_

J

- QUESTION 9.

Please summarize the requirements an applicant for a license to construct and operate a spent fuel reprocessing plant must meet before the Commission will grant a license.

In particular, please describe the various facilities a

. potential licensee must construct to comply with the Com-mission's regulations for operating a comercial spent 4

fuel reprocessing plant. What rulemaking or other legis-lative proceedings must the Comission conduct before it i

can license operation of a comercial spent fuel repro-cessing plant? What steps must the owners of the repro-cessing plant at Barnwell, S.C., take to comply with Comission requirements for a license to opente the plant?

i ANSWER.

An applicant for licenses to construct and operate a spent fuel repro-cessing complex is subject to the same prdcedural requirements as an applicant for licenses-to construct and operate a nuclear power reactor,

+

i.e., those contained in 10 CFR Part 50 - Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities 'and 10 CFR Part 2 - Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings, as well as applicable portions of other parts of the Comission's safety, safeguards and environmental Protection regulations.

Some of the technical requirements that an applicant must meet are different in recognition of the differences between spent fuel j

reprocessing plants and nuclear power reactors.

In general, the common 1=

standards that must be met by applicants are:

1 (a) The processes to be performed, the operating procedures, the facility and equipment, the use of the facility, and j

other technical specifications, or the proposals, in regard-to' any of the foregoing collectively provide reasonable J

assurance that the applicant will comply with the regulations j

in Part 50, includi'g the regulations in Part 20, and that i

the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.

(b) The applicant is technically and financially qualified to i

engage in the proposed activities in accordance with the j

regulations in this chapter.

i j

(c) The issuance of a license to the applicant will not, in i

the opinion of the Commission, be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the+ health and safety of the public.

i (d) Any applicable environmental requirements of Part 51 have been satisfied.

i l

The various facilities or components of a contemporarily-designed, com-mercial spent fuel reprocessing complex that a potential licensee would 4

p have to construct to comply with the Comission's existing regulations j

include the following:

8 9

..__l

,y y

. (a) Separations - The heart of the reprocessing complex in which spent fuel is dissolved and plutonium and unused uranium are separated from waste products. The separations facility includes capability for spent fuel receiving and s,torage.

(b) High-LevelWasteSolidification-Afacilitytocoberthigh-level liquid radioactive wastes to a solid fonn and inter-mediate storage (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F requires that liquid high-level wastes be limited to that produced in the prior five years and that solidified wastes be transferred to a federal repository no later than ten years following separation).

(c) Plutonium Conversion - A facility to convert plutonium nitrate to a solid fonr. plutonium oxide (10 CFR Part 71.42 requires that plutonium in excess of 20 curies per package be shipped as a solid). As a temporary alternative, larger capacity for plutonium nitrate storage could 'be provided.

In addition, but not for NRC regulatory requirements, an applicant would probably need to construct a uranium conversion facility to convert uranyl nitrate to uranium he~xafluoride, which is the normal form for reintroduction to DOE's uranium enrichment plants.

~

Before the operation of a commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant involved

~

in the wide-scale use of mixed oxide fuel in light water-cooled reactors could be licensed, the relevant issues that were being considered in the Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water-Cooled Reactors (GESMO) would need to be addressed.

These issues could be handled by (a) reactivation of GESMO in the manner previously contemplated; (b) in a notice and comment mode as is the practice with most Commission regulations or, (c) in an individual licensing proceeding on the reprocessing plant application. However, if widescale recycle of mixed oxide fuels in LUR's is not involved, GESMO issues appear unnecessary.

For example, if the plutonium recovered from the reprocessing plant is acquired by DOE, it may be appropriate for DOE to evaluate the environmental issues (other than plant specific issues) related to such activities. Additionally, a ruleuaking action on safeguards systems requirements, particularly in the area of material control and accounting, is anticipated before NRC could license operation of a commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant.

There are many steps the owners of the reprocessing plant at Barnwell, S.C. must take to comply with current Comission requirements for a license to operate the plant.

The princ* pal steps are to design and construct facilities to solidify high-level liquid radioactive wastes and to convert plutonium nitrate to plutonium oxide and/or to store additional plutonium nitrate on site.

The bases for these steps were indicated pre-viously.

Effluent-treatment recovery systems for krypton-85, iodine-129 and perhaps other radionuclides would have to be added to meet the require-l

~

i

i ment of EPA's 40 CFR 190 that limits the discharge of these gases to the environment.

Decommissioning plans with provisions for financial assurance would have to be provided. Backfitting of safeguards systems in the existing plant and incorporation of systems in new facilities

- would be required to incorporate new safeguards ~ developments.; A

_ l l

significant step for the owners,' in conjunction with the NRC staff and any intervenors, is to prepare for and participate in the evidentiary hearings on the application for licenses. To license Barnwell, an esti-mated three years time would be required, including one year for hearings on a combined OL and amended CP, following receipt of applications to cover the modifications.

v A

QUESTION 10.

Please discuss in detail the relationship, if any, between the Department of Energy and the Commission in the development, siting, and construction of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Has the Department con-sulted with the Commission about its activities at WIPP?

If not, why not?

ANSWER.

NRC has no formal relationship with DOE in the development, siting, and construction of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. NRC has been prohibited, most recently by Section 210 of the DOE National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1981, Pub. L.96-540, from using any funds for any purpose related to licensing of any DOE

" defense activity or facility." WIPP is intended as a research and develop-ment facility to demonstrate the disposal of waste resulting from defense activities and programs. Thus, WIPP appears to fall under the prohibition in Section 210.

NRC is nonetheless interested in the activities of the Department at WIPP insofar as these activities can provide us with data or insights that would assist us to develop our own regulatory program. To that end, we have engaged in informal discussion and exchange of technical information with DOE's WIPP Program Manager. We have attended briefings, followed reports on the program and requested information pertaining to NRC activities regarding site characterization for high-level waste repositories in salt.

Further, the restrictions on licensing of WIPP do not affect NRC responsi-bilities under NEPA. We have therefore provided comments upon the WIPP draf t EIS and expect to do so again on other appropriate occasions during the course of the project.

4 a

I

QUESTION 11.

Should the Department of Energy build its proposed Test and Evaluation Facility at the WIPP? Please discuss the arguments for and against such a proposal.

ANSWER.

Argument for the proposal:

Since repository activities are most advanced at the WIPP, it is the facility at which the T&E could be constructed at the earliest date. The DOE would therefore be more likely to have the opportunity to utilize

-information generated by activities conducted at a WIPP T&E facility in preparing its license application for the first full scale repository.

Argument against the proposal:

We anticipate that the design of the engineered aspects of the repository and the emplacement and handling techniques to be evaluated at the T&E will be highly dependent on the site specific media in which the repository is located.

The information and technology generated at a WIPP T&E, therefore, would have somewhat limited application to the commercial repository development effort compared with that of a T&E facility located in the candidate site unless the candidate site is very similar to the WIPP site.

,?

iL.

,C'

QUESTION 12.

On page two of your testimony, you state that two Commissioners disagree with the Commission position that the hybrid procedure provided in S.1662 for licensing additional on-site storage capacity for spent reactor fuel "will not lower the protection to the public health and safety or the environment." Please provide the reasons of these two Commissioners for their disagreement.

ANSWER.

Commissioner Gilinsky's Response Section 312 in S.1662 authorizes the Commission to issue a license or license amendment to expand a spent fuel pool or transship spent fuel on an interim basis prior to the conduct or completion of any required hearing. This provision should be modified to make it clear that interim licenses should be issued only in those cases where the conduct or completion of a hearing prior to issuance of the license would force the reactor to shut down.

I am concerned that the provisions of Section 313 in S.1662, which prescribes the procedures to be followed in hearings on spent fuel pool expansions and spent fuel transshipments, are overly prescriptive. The details of hearing procedures are usually specified in the agency's regulations rather than in a statute.

The Commission has not had any experience in conducting hearings pursuant to the procedures specified by Section 313. While these procedures may result in efficient hearings, they may, for one reason or another, prove to be unworkable.

If the Congress wishes the Commission to conduct the type of hearing described in Section 313, it should give the Commission authority to do so, perhaps specifying the minimum procedural safeguards to be applied.

It would then be possible for the Commission to adjust the procedures in the light of experience without having to seek a statutory amendment.

Commissioner Bradford's Response I agree with the views of Commissioner Gilinsky.

Also, there is no need for interim licensing or expedited hearing procedures because hearings on spent fuel pool modifications have not historically had any effect on reactor operation.

Finally, I do not favor modified hearing procedures which would require that genuine factual and legal issues meet extraordinarily narrow criteria before they may be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing.

Adjudicatory hearings, which the NRC currently uses for all contested power plant licensing issues, are a better way to get an accurate assessment of complex factual issues.

If they are run effectively, they will not take significantly longer than informal hearings, but they will be a much more reliable decisionmaking tool. They are more reliable because they permit direct confrontation between the views of different parties under circumstances that allow each party a maximum of opportunity to probe the assumptions and the weaknesses of the other's position.

Informal hearings, by contrast, allow the parties to make statements that contain untested allegations and u

o assumptions and that need not face cross-examination.

Within limits, this favors the witnesses who are most careless with the truth.

In any clash

{

of statements the chances of the fallacious ones prevailing, especially 1

if they are sufficiently financed to be repeated by several witnesses, improve in direct proportion to the informality of the proceeding. As one of the officials who must pass judgment based on the records that will be built at these hearings, I ask you in the strongest terms not to change the current adjudicatory format.

s 4

F J

s e