ML20055B201

Forwards Testimony in Facility Proceeding on Contention 6 Re Environ Impact of Fuel Cycle,Per 820623 Request

ML20055B201
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	07/02/1982
From:	Boyle R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Lowenberg H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
REF-WM-1 3112, NUDOCS 8207200504
Download: ML20055B201 (6)

Text

-_ ______-_ ___ _ _ -

cuwt-I P0fL pc)><rh UJOL 6v -2 3112/RRB/82/07/01/1 Distribution:

.A11HL file HSpiro WMHL r/f PCol ton JUL 0 21932 WM r/f TClark NMSS r/f TJohnson WMHL: 3112 JBMartin REBrowning MJBell MEMORANDUM FOR: Homer Lowenberg, Chief Engineer RRBoyle & r/f Office of Nuclear Material Safety HJMiller and Safeguards J0 Bunting PDR FROM: Regis R. Boyle High-Level Waste Licensing Management Branch Division of Waste Management

SUBJECT:

WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR CRBR In your June 23, 1982 letter to me, you requested that I provide written testimony on Contention No. 6 in the CRBR proceeding. Attached is the written testimony you requested. I believe that it is in the format that you desired.

ORIGI::n ;f ens:a ag Regis R. Boyle High-level Waste Licensing Management Branch Division of Waste Management

Enclosure:

As stated FC : WMH  : WMHL, WM  :  :  :  :

AME :RRBoyle:lmc : MJdel :, _REBro!M _ _ : _n_ : _ _ _ _ _ a_: ,;____________:____________:____________:

ATE :82/07/01  :  :  :  :  :  :

7/ / /82 7/7/82 8207200504 820702 PDR WASTE WM-1 PDR

3112/RRB/82/07/01/0 Contention 6(b)(3)

The ER and FES do not include an adequate analysis of the environmental impact of the fuel cycle associated with the CRBR for the following reasons:

a) ...

b) The impacts of the actual fuel cycle associated with CRBR will differ from the model LMFBR and fuel cycle analyzed in the LMFBR Program Environmental Statement and Supplement. The analysis of the fuel cycle impacts must be done for.the particular circumstances applicable to the CRBR. The analyses of fuel cycle impacts in the ER and FES are inadequate since:

(1) ...

-(2)

(3) The impact of disposal of wastes from the CRBR spent fuel.is not included, or is inadequately; assessed; (4) ...

3112/RRB/82/07/01/0-Response to Contention 6(b)(3)

Question: Did the staff evaluate the environmental impacts of the i

disposal of wastes from the CRBR spent fuel?

Answer: Yes. Section D.2.2. (Waste Management Impacts) of the FES presents an assessment of the environmental effects resulting from the disposal of radioactive wastes produced by the CRBR fuel cycle.

This assessment considered radioactive wastes produced in each step of the CRBR fuel cycle (i.e., the blanket fuel fabrication plant,-

the-core fuel fabrication facility, the reactor plant, and the fuel reprocessing plant). ,

The radioactive wastes from CRBR spent fuel are identified in Section D.2.2.1.4 of the FES and are summarized in the table below:

W

3112/RRB/82/07/01/0 Table 1. Radioactive Waste From CRBR Spent Fuel.

Volume -

Activity 3

Type of Waste (Cubicmeters) Co'ntainers (Ci/m )

4 i

Low-Level 750 3,600 10 10 -10 6 3

TRU 300 1,5001 -

[- Metal Scrap (TRU) 420 - 3,060 4 x 10 5, a

1.5 x 10 7 High-Level 100 '180 ,

6 Kr-85 0.3 1-2 3.4.x 10 1.4 x-10 2 I-129 0.3 1-2

-i

)

, (a)- Includes volume of overpack i

l r

i 4

}

7 4

s

~,e -%.. y,--..- --,, , , , ,,,,-c - , . y-, ,,_,,,w_,. ,--yw*- ~r-*+-,>w-v -v.* ----ewr w ew ov-r sem--w*,m---'e w r - e w ~w -wr -- +

wr ***=-r---* v'vw - ~~w ~ r ave e *' -=vv-

3112/RRB/82/07/01/0 Question: How did the staff perform its review and assessment of waste disposal facilities and functions?

Response: In performing its environmental assessment, the staff initially identified each facility of the nuclear fuel cycle that would produce radioactive wastes. These facilities were identified to be (1) the blanket fuel fabrication plant, (2) the core fuel fabrication plant, (3) the reactor plant, and (4) the fuel reprocessing plant. (See Section 0.2.2.1 of the FES). For each of these facilities, the staff estimated the quantity and types of radioactive waste that are likely to be generated over the life of the CRBR. These radioactiave wastes were categorized as low-level, high-level, and TRU wastes. Small amounts of Kr-85 and I-129 will also be generated over the life of the CRBR.

It was assumed that low-level waste would be disposed of in a commercial shallow-land burial ground. The TRU waste was assumed to be stored for a period of time and then transferred to a Federal repository. The high-level waste was assumed to be transported to a Federal repository for disposal. The Kr-85 and I-129 was assumed to be disposed of at a Federal repository.

The staff then estimated that portion of a typical disposal facility that would be required for the disposition of these wastes from the CRBR. The staff calculated the enviromental impacts from the disposal of CRBR wastes as a percentage of all the environmental impacts that would result from the disposal facility.

3112/RRB/82/07/01/0 l

Question: Why does the staff believe that its review and assessment l coristitutes an adequate evaluation of such future planned l

activities?

The staff review and assessment of the environmental impacts from the disposal of CRBR wastes was based on elaborate and extensive studies that estimated environmental impacts of.similar activities.

In addition to being quite extensive and detailed, some of these

- studies have gone completely through the NEPA process (i.e., draft EIS, public comment, final EIS, and record of decision).

Fur these reasons, the staff believes that.the review and assessment s reflect an accurate assessment and evaluation of the impacts of these future planned activities.

i

, . . - - , . -, , .-. - - . . - ..- . - - - - - . ~ - ,- , - - . - . . - .

.--- - . -