ML20135C383
| ML20135C383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1997 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Michael Scott AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9703040007 | |
| Download: ML20135C383 (14) | |
Text
--
5B-ass /sr7 L
UNITED STATES
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
t u
3 3
l wAswiwoTow, p.c. mususot
-February 27, 1997 l
l t
Ms. Maude Scott 13713 Post Oak Road Spotsylvania, VA 22553
Dear Ms. Scott:
1 1 am responding to your. letter of December 26, 1996, addressed to Delegate Bobby Orrock of the Virginia House of Delegates.
In your letter you expressed concern that'the number of spent nuclear fuel rods has increased at North Anna since the 1970s and you asked about the status of the Federal government's
)
efforts to establish a high-level radioactive waste facility.
The enclosure to this letter outlines the nation's policies governing the disposition of spent nuclear fuel elements (and High Level Waste.or HLW) including those stored at the North Anna site. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982-(NWPA) and its amendment of 1987 (NWPAA) provide that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for disposition of spent fuel elements, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing appropriate standards for disposal, and.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for licensing the disposal and long-term storage.
By way of update of the enclosure with respect to recent legislative developments, in-1995 and 1996, legislation was introduced in both the House i
and Senate which,-if passed, would have directed DOE to establish centralized interim spent nuclear fuel and'HLW storage facilities at the earliest practicable date.
In 1996 the Senate approved its bill, S. 1936; however, final Congressional action was not taken. This~ legislation was reintroduced i
on January 21, 1997, as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 (S.104). The legislation contains the fundamental elements of an integrated national spent nuclear fuel and HLW management' plan. The elements included interim on-site storage, centralized interim storage, and deep geological disposal, together i
with a-transportation mechanism to tie the elements together.
Some of the specific provisions that the bill provides are that (1) DOE shall proceed forthwith and without further delay with all activities necessary to begin storing spent nuclear fuel and HLW at an interim storage facility b November 30, 1999, subject to some restrictions; (2) DOE will take necessary. and appropriate actions to ensure safe transportation of spent nuclear fuel and HLW no later than November 30, 1999; and (3) DOE shall apply to the NRC for an t.uthorization to construct a repository no later than February 1, 2002.
You also asked which states presently use spent fuel dry casks. The States in which the'NRC licensees have stored spent fuel in dry casks are: Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
l I
NRC HLE CENTER COPY gol
(
oaoo48 9703040007 970227 PDR ADOCK 05000338 H
PDR I
[
M. Scott I would note that Surry in Virginia is authorized to store spent fuel onsite in dry casks. North Anna is not currently licensed for dry cask storage.
However, in May 1995, the North Anna licensee applied for an NRC license to store spent fuel onsite in dry casks. NRC is presently reviewing the licensee's application.
I would like to assure you that spent fuel presently stored in the North Anna spent fuel pool facility does not pose undue risk to public health and safety, and the environment.
l I trust that this letter addresses your concerns regarding the accumulation of spent nuclear fuel rods at the North Anna site and the status of the Federal 1
government's activities related to disposition of tiie nation's radioactive high level waste.
Sincerely, (Original Signed By) Director Samuel J. Collins, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Delegate Bobby Orrock Virginia House of Delegates J
DISTRIBUTION Docket File (50-338/339 original incoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
ED0#
CPaperiello HThompson MReinhart JBlaha OCA FMiraglia/SCollins SECY # CRC-97-0052 RZimmerman NRR Mail Room (EDO #970030 OPA w/ incoming)
BSheron KBohrer RMartin N01 son WTravers RNorsworthy PDII-1 Reading (w/ incoming)
EJordan SVarga PNorry MThadani (w/ incoming)
MBoyle (e-mail MLB4)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFFICE PDII-3/PM*
PDII-3/LA NMSS/SFP0 _ DRPE/D ADP NAME MThadani:rb BClayton*
CHaughney*
SVarga*
RZimmerman*
DATE 1 27 97 01/27/97 0FFICE NRR/DActing EDO OCH NR
(
h ns NAME FMiraglia*
HThompson SJackson DATE 01/27/97
/ /97
/ /97 02/h/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME:
GT970030.LTR
i 1
t BP14 (10/96) l HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE l
S.gekoround High-level radioactive waste (HLW) includes (1) irradiated (spent) reactor fuel; (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel; and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted. HLW is primarily in the form of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants; it also includes some reprocessed HLW from defense activities and a small quantity of reprocessed commercial HLW.
Hiah-level Radioactive Waste This country's policies governing the permanent disposal of HLW are defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) of 1987. Under these acts, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for disposing of HLW, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing appropriate environmental standards for HLW, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the licensing authority for the disposal and long-term storage of HLW.
To provide the long-term permanent isolation required, the NWPA specifies that HLW will be placed in one or more deep-underground geologic repositories to be built and operated by DOE. To this end, DOE is developing a waste management system consisting, in part, of a geologic repository in which HLW can be permanently isolated deep beneath the surface of the earth.
Previous DOE plans for management of HLW called for the development of a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility by 1998, and a permanent HLW repository deep beneath the surface of the earth by the year 2010. These i
plans called for the MRS facility to be an integral "rt of the waste i
management system being proposed by DOE for achieving timely acceptance of spent fuel. NWPAA allows a dual approach to MRS facility siting:
(1) siting by DOE, through a process of survey and evaluation; and (2) siting through the efforts of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. The Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator was established by the NWPAA to find a state or Indian Tribe willing to host a repository or MRS facility at a technically qualified site.
However, the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator was abolished by Congress t on January 23, 1995, with no MRS host identified. Also, as discussed later in this paper, DOE concluded on May 3, 1995, that it had no authority under the NWPA to provide interim storage for HLW. However, on July 23, 1996, the U.S.
l Court of Appeals held that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act creates an obligation l
in DOE to start disposing of spent nuclear fuel no later than January 31, i
l 1998. Congress is currently considering legislation to resolve this issue.
DOE was also pursuing the development of a multi-purpose canister (MPC). The MPC would have different overpacks for storage, transport, and disposal. The MPC could be used for interim storage at an independent spent fuel storage j
installation (ISFSI) at a reactor site, an away-from-reactor ISFSI, an MR5 l
ENCLOSURE l
P I
BP14 (10/96) i facility, or the repository pending ultimate disposal. Due to funding restrictions,.MPC development is not currently being pursued by DOE. However, l
MPC development may be pursued by private industry.
l Through the NWPAA,-Congress designated the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as the single candidate site for. characterization as a potential geologic j
' repository. The Yucca Mountain site has not been selected for a repository; rather, it has been chosen as the only site to be thoroughly examined at this time. This. examination is referred to as. site characterization and involves exploration and research, both in the laboratory and in the field, undertaken i
to establish the geologic conditions and the ranges of those conditions at a i
particular site.
Site characterization includes boring, surface excavations, excavation of exploratory shafts or ramps, subsurface lateral excavations and boring, and.in situ testing at depth to determine the suitability of a site for a geologic repository.
l (See BP 15 for.a discussion of industry storage of spent fuel in pools, dry casks, and ISFSIs.)
l Baggiations i
EPA regulations for the disposal of HLW in a geologic repository (40 CFR Part
~
191) establish generally applicable environmental standards for the management and disposal of HLW. NRC is responsible for ensuring the implementation of these standards.-
NRC regulations governing the storage of HLW in an MRS facility (10 CFR Part
- 72) establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, transfer, and possess power reactor spent fuel, solid
' HLW, and other radioactive material. associated with spent fuel storage, j
The NRC's role in licensing a HLW repository is to ensure that DOE his achieved the EPA standards and that reasonable assurrance exists that the public health and safety has been adequately protected. NRC regulations for disposal of HLW in a geologic repository (10.CFR Part 60) govern pre-licensing activities, authorization for DOE to begin construction of the facility, a license for DOE to receive and place HLW in the facility, and a license for DOE to close the facility (license termination).
Site Characterization
)
The HLW repository program is currently focused on site characterization activities.
In this phase, one of NRC's primary responsibilities is to review l
DOE's site characterization plan and associated activities and to identify to DOE any specific concerns related to licensing the facility.
In addition, the NRC staff observes'various site characterization activities in the field (such as drilling and tunneling) and also observes DOE quality assurance audits.
]
All consultation activities are open to participation by the state of Nevada, affected Indian Tribes, and affected units of local governments.
i DOE completed its site characterization plan for the Yucca Mountain site in i
December 1988. The NRC completed its review of that document in July 1989 and 1
i 1
[
1 BP14 (10/96) _
concluded-that, overall, it was a usable plan for site characterization.
Originally, the staff identified two objections to DOE starting site l
characterization. One objection concerned the DOE quality assurance program,
)
and the other was related to the design process for the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF). Additionally,196 other concerns in the form of comments and questions were raised. To date, both objections and a number of the other l
concerns have been closed.
]
In 1991, the State of Nevada granted DOE the permits necessary for DOE to'
.l proceed with surface-based site characterization activities. These activities include the excavation of test pits and trenches, borehole drilling, and hydrologic monitoring to address technical issues related to volcanism, radionuclide transport, seismicity, and faulting. Site characterization is not complete, and' completion will be delayed further due to current budget restrictions on DOE discussed later in this paper.
In September 1994, the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) began tunneling at the north portal of the ESF. The initial tunnel design called for a continuous tunnel, 7.6 meters (25 feet) in diameter, with three distinct components:
(1) the north portal approximately 2000 meters (6560 feet) long ending in a'90 degree turn into (2) the main drift approximately 3000-meters (8800 feet) long ending in a 90 degree turn into (3) the south portal approximately 1300 meters (4265 feet) long. Additional tunnels from this tunnel were planned for later.
By July 17, 1996, with~ distance measured from the north portal entrance, the TBM had tunneled approximately 6025 meters (19,767 feet), into the second of the two 90 degree turns. The TBM has gone through a series of geologic features-including a feature known as the Bow Ridge. Fault. DOE is t
investigating the hydrologic and hydrochemical properties of the geologic features.
"Punchout" (completion of the loop and exit from the underground portion of the Exploratory Studies Facility) is expected as early as December 1
1996 but not later than March 1997. DOE plans to use the data obtained from testing in the tunnel as input for a viability assessment (discussed'later).
In Spring 1995, DOE implemented its new Program Approach for streamlining the process of site characterization, including the preparation and issuance of-topical reports for pre-licensing interactions with the NRC. However, FY-96 (beginning October 1,1995) has. budget allocations less than the amount required for the Program Approach. Therefore, DOE changed its planning from the Program Approach to a Viability Assessment Program whose mission is to (1) completo the repository design sufficient for the evaluation of performance and development and (2) define the projected cost and schedule to (a) complete activities for the submittal of a license application, (b) complete the environmental impact statement and (c) construct and operate a HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE plans to publish the results of its_ Viability.
Assessment in 1999. The NRC staff is conducting a series of independent
" vertical slice" evaluations of DOE's work on selected key technical issues to assess the sufficiency of the DOE program to adequately address licensing concerns.
In keeping with its responsibilities, the EPA issued generally applicable i
environmental standards for a HLW repository in 1985. These standards were
[
remanded in 1987 by a federal appeals court due to inconsistencies with other
i l
BP14 (10/96)
EPA standards with respect to individual dose and ground-water protection.
Since that_ time, EPA has been working on revising its standards. However, in late 1992,' Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of-1992 which required EPA to t'
contract the National-Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on specific aspects of these standards and issue findings and recommendations. NRC provided NAS information it requested during the preparation of its report; and NAS released its completed report, titled " Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," on August 1, 1995.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires EPA to promulgate its final standards within one year after the NAS report was issued and NRC to conform its i
technical criteria in 10 CFR Part 60 to the new EPA standards applicable to Yucca Mountain within one year of their promulgation. NRC has initiated a technical review of selected aspects of the NAS recommendations. The L
technical review will support ongoing NRC interactions with EPA and others during the EPA development of environmental standards and the NRC conforming i
rulemaking.
Nine groups had expressed interest in evaluating the feasibility of hosting an l
MRS facility. However, the process for selecting an MRS site-encountered some.
i difficulties, and Congress abolished the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator on January 23, 1995.
?
-On May 19,1994, DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) published a. notice in the Federal-Reaister to elicit the views of.affected parties on (1) the Department's preliminary view that it does not have a statutory obligation to accept spent fuel in 1998 in the absence of an operational repository'or other facility constructed under the Act; (2) the need for an. interim, away-from-reactor storage facility prior to repository operations; and (3) options for offsetting, through_the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund, a portion of the financial ~ burden -that may be incurred by i
utilities in continuing to store spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites beyond j
1998.
In February 1995, DOE published a summary report of the 1100 comments j
received.
On May 3,1995, DOE published its " Final Interpretation of Nuclear Waste j'
Acceptance Issues" in the Federal Reaister. The Final Interpretation responds to the comments received and sets forth DOE's conclusions concerning the legal issues raised. DOE concluded that it has no legal obligation to begin accepting HLW and spent nuclear fuel in 1998, in the absence of a repository-or other facility constructed under the NWPA. DOE also concluded that it has no authority under the NWPA to provide interim storage. However, on July'23, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a case brought by Indiana Michigan Power Company and other utilities against DOE, held that the Nuclear Waste Policy
- Act creates an obligation in DOE to start disposing of spent nuclear fuel no later than January 31, 1998. The court did not speculate as to a possible remedy, but remanded the matter to the Secretary of Energy for further proceedings.
In 1995, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate which, if passed, would direct DOE to establish centralized interim HLW storage
. facilities at the earliest practicable date. Although the Senate has approved
i i.
BP14 (10/96) its bill, final congressional action has not yet been taken.
However, DOE's FY-96 Appropriations Bill did set aside funds to be used for development of l
centralized interim HLW storage facilities.
CONTACT:
John H. Austin, Chief Performance Assessment and HLW Integration Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-7208.
i l
+
a
1-q BP14;(10/96) 4 HIGHLIGHTS NWPA (1982) and NWPAA (1987) describe a national program for disposal of j
+
HLW in a deep geologic repository and possible interim storage in an MRS 4
facility-
]
NWPAA designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for' characterization as a
. potential. repository site
.i 1
.NRC requirements for the disposal of HLW are contained in 10 CFR Part
=
60, which is being revised I
EPA standards for the disposal of HLW are contained in 40 CFR Part 191,
=
which is being revised NAS conducted a study on specific aspects'of the HLW environuental standards and made recommendations on an appropriate technical basis for Yucca Mountain standards - NAS report issued August 1, 1995 EPA revising its standards based upon, and consistent with, the NAS findings and recommendations NRC revising its requirements to conform to the revised EPA standard
'to'
-}
=-
l be issued within one year of-issuance of the revised EPA standards NRC is currently involved in review of DOE HLW repository site characterization activities e' - All consultation activities are open to participation by the Str.te of Nevada, affected' Indian Tribes, and units of affected local govern,ments 4
l
4
]
EDO Principal Correspondence Control E' ROM s DUE: 01/29/97 EDO CONTROL: G970030 DOC DT: 01/09/97 FINAL REPLY:
Bobby Orrock Virginia' House of Delegates PO:
Ch irman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF :
ENCL. LETTER FROM MAUDE W.
SCOTT RE WASTE AT Thompson NORTH ANNA Jordan Norry Blaha Paperiello DATE: 01/16/97 f'A-k ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
W NRR Miraglia f97
- YA I ][b SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
7(
R;cpond direct to Maude Scott and fax a copy of rcply to Bobby Orrock's office (804-786-6310).
Put EDO and Chairman on for concurrence.
Chairman's Office to review response prior to dicp2tch.
jRRRECEIVED:
JANUARY 16, 1997
~
- RR ACTION
DRPE:VARGA ACTj0'd
)RR ROUTING:
MIRAGLIA ZIMMERMAN
' b'E TO' 'RR DIRECT 0n,,gs O!:!:iar THADANI ut
$0i" b Q M cl$ ) 'l - \\
TRAVERS B0HRER l
. _. _ ~ _..... _
=
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-97-0052~
LOGGING DATE: Jan 15 97
- ACTION OFFICE:
EDO j
4 AUTHOR:
BOBBY ORROCK
~ AFFILIATION:
j ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON-LETTER DATE:
Jan 9 97 FILE CODE: M-20 i-
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ~
ACTION:
Direct Reply l
DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN
'I'
!~
SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK h-CONSTITUENT:
i 4
8
?
NOTES:
OCM #6769--CHAYRMAN SHOULD REVIEW RESPONSE PRIOR TO i
{
DISPATCH I
l^
DATE DUE:
Jan 30 97 l
\\
SIGNATURE:,
DATE SIGNED:
j.
AFFILIATION:-
?
g i
3 i
M I
4 J
1 4
4 4
EDO -- G970030
,/1/0,9/97 THU 16:17 FAI
@ 001 qd p
g ww 9
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES FAX COVER SHEET January 9, 1997 b[rkeN bnn Y QtkScrvv/
To:
N RC Organization: _
FAX Number: (30l )_ NIT' Ib 71 P!vneNumber (
)__
3 X
Number of Pages includmg this cover sheet:
Local
- LongDatance ID l.
To hh)r Orect<'
From:
RoomNumben 7I 3 -
Telephone Number: ( 804 )__78d - 7/O /
b N o h tl 0 h
h0GOOJ JtHDOno U
Commmts:
/
N/
00Y~lSb-63/6 '
k~ Shb & G % &
uadA) JtebTrn@ a Il l JJ V
l FSlasi> behp b, of 40 Doh, Orrock', RM YI3)
If you have any problems with this transmission, please call the House Fax Center at: (604) 786 7248 Our Fax Numberis (804)786-6310
0,1/09,/97 THU 16:18 FAI
@ 002
,, )
n
/8,7/3 thrBdd4 / Qed
+rup#auwa, u-
/A(!ws$td4d,Iffd
.b w h$t g< - % u r e p. u s k d%sug -
x a % M?f 34L,M,Q 26 }f,Gucaw%4ynsflau dee ypu
/juaed-edd fat (- dise JJ.a.w.,4s v fl<a.624azt, hues arb9 Jaaanp 9 4z6/rxLA u Ls mp pcasa
& o, y u-
%A
- Adei s - szfev AAAcm W -
15 bwe Wwd.Anedo Jh/
b a u a ulu s m s a c p y,ca r
Ousu bp>u C l y F&t6 SL atf?vaasiaA ee Mw 4>lb Aau wkesi> & Aaab
.seeat
,bg, 4 '9Lo d ( y G 19 9%
a w&v
$W k
s ifw, &e <s (f y sa%e-dub m'
a-y. g.
p k, yfuit l-se p 4 L c. u s u us
.soa ac 9L G n./w w in / yar
0.1/Q9/97 THU 16:18 FAI
@ 003
~sy,**
L
'*y.
- f. b N'
&{h, JfYl/J;h.f O'
[h acs ad%O %'u GaMus sht a c w p) b a. de u s 7) W [,
f pity %4 a,ustsauk to s u s. < ~
y l1fW-L Afaa a' '
ad g w' SAnu
..bGJ'
' kg dL n
?
c3.
2 tu 6 A 4
/
4bs/hd,Od&
$waay%2W !.Awp 0,asad
-h,aus.gweas 6%e s& ae, a22i&L o%r
.Appdai2%/>>A AWuv,.
fwfi&
Osama& w s
f Y
M Ly/ aatu -
b T
7$as kv&qss ate w f}t:ud/hy%yUuk%r ubcQ ha M,% 2% % -
,f b%w&
J