ML20154P432
| ML20154P432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1981 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810220323 | |
| Download: ML20154P432 (7) | |
Text
_ _ . __ __ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___.
c .
?
l '
l 4 0.3.3/RDM/06/10/81/0 410.3'. JUN 17 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: Leonard Bickwit' General Counsel FROM: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON S. 2189 Pursuant to the request of Mr. Sheldon Trubatch, we have reviewed the
,0 proposed letter to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) on S.2189.
We suggest that item 3 in the proposed letter be deleted and substituted with the following:
- 3. The licensee of a low-level waste disposal site should be required to provide financial surety for care of the site during the post closure 'nstitutional control period.
As your letter suggests, the recent announcement by DOE that it would no longer pursue Congressional authorization to provide federal away-from-reactor storage facilities (AFR's) has left industry to provide for resolution of storage needs. To date, the industry has not had time to react, and there is substantial uncertainty as to what plans utilities will formulate.
The staff generally agrees with DOE's latest estimate on AFR spent fuel
-storage needs. To maintain full core reserve (FCR), DOE estimates a need ;
\ for AFR storage rising from about 100 tons in 1986 to about 1800 tons in i 1990 and more than 5000 tons by 1995. These estimates are based on the
. assumption of maximum compaction in reactor basins. Maximum compaction is !
defined as full utilization of poison racks but does not include pin '
compaction (fuel disassembly), since this has not yet been approved by NRC. To achieve maximum compaction, DOE assumes that: (a) all
-applications now filed with NRC are approved; and (b) that reactor plans not'yet made known to NRC receive approval. For operating reactors, these actions are assumed to take place by 1984. Some reactors will lose FCR J for a period of' time until the projected expansion takes place. DOE does DIST: TICKET NO:
l OFC : : : : : : :
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE :06/10/81 : : : : : :
9810220323 810617 PDR ORG NOMA '
4 PDR .
9 e
410.3.3/RDM/06/10/81/0 not assume any significant transshipment of spent fuel from a reactor site.
Based on the staff's review of DOE projections and other information available, it appears that the following reactors, having achieved maximum compaction with poison racks, are the ones most likely to lose FCR in the 1986-1987 time frame unless other actions are taken, such as pin compaction, transshipment, or the construction of new pools or dry storage capacity: Robinson 2; Palisades; St. Lucie 1; Surry 1&2; Oyster Creek; and Turkey Point 3&4. By 1990, it appears that a total of about 20 operating sites would be in this circumstance.
(Signed) John G. Davis
- I John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards DISTRIBUTION
- ED0 10545 WMPI s/f NMSS r/f WM r/f WMPI r/f RDMacDougall JJSurmeier J0 Bunting LCRouse JBMartin JGDavis REBrowning
(-)
~
WJDircks KCornell TRehm HShapar ED0 10545 EDO r/f ED0 ABentley JRitcher SECY (3)
DIST: TICKET NO: 1-345
- See Previous Concurrence A f
$_ _ _ ! _ _WM_P_I_ _ , _*_ _ _ ! . W,M_P I_ _*,_,___{FB.S_______[___________
_ _ _ _ ! WMP I (_ _ _ l
.._ l _.R_D_M_a_c_D991a_1_)_J_Syrmp_iSt ;; _)_0hp_t_21_l MB9M9.___l _bBM ___lM a_____ __________-
DATE :06/10/81 :
6/11/81 6/11/81 hf)
/
1 I
I
,4 410.3.3/RDM/06/10/81/0 not assume any significant transshipment of spent fuel from a re tor site.
Based on the staff's review of DOE projections and other inf rmation available, it appo v+ 4. t the following reactors, having chieved maximum compacti n wth ison racks, are the ones most 1 ely to lose FCR l in the 1986-1987 rame unless other actions are t en, such as pin l compaction, transshipment, or the construction of new ools or dry storage capacity: Robinson 2; Palisades; St. Lucie , Surry 1&2; Oyster Creek; and Turkey Point 3&4. By 1990, it appears t at a total of about 20 operating sites would be in this circumstance.
^'\ Joh G. Davis, Director (O Of ice of Nuclear Material Safety l and Safeguards Distribution: ED0 10545 WMPI s/f NMSS r/f WM r/f WMPI r/f RDMacDougall JJSurmeier J0 Bunting LCRouse JBMartin JGDavis n REBrowning V WJDircks KCornell TRchm HShapar ED0 1054 ED0 r/f ED0 ABentley JRichter SECY(3)
DIST: TICKET N0: / 05 %~~
OFC : WMPI : WMPIL. : WMPI : FCAF : WM : NMSS :
:------- --- :------ .---:------------:-------- u :----------- :------------:-----------
NAME :RDMacDougall:JJSu ier : J0 Bunting : LCRouse : JBMartin : JGDavis :
DATE$06/10/81 ;6////81 : 6/ / 81 l 6/ ///81 : 6/ /81 : 6/ / 81 :
. . - . . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . - . . - . ~ . . - . . . . . . - . _ - . - - - . - - . . - . - .
r -
r j =
- 3
- 3. The licensee of a low-level waste disposal site:should be required to l 1.s provide financial re;; 11*I' yA for care of the site during the post-closure i institutional control per od. '
f s T44m q)
,a i
t-
/ .
-y <
Jg I v
e
's' y- ,
f
),
, j&, >
-'p, a
y#,
( l l
l- !
4 .
I y ..!
l i l "
j-.
)
.e, ,. -,,s , , , , , , , - - -
y 9j7..
SPENT FUEL STORAGE - AFR r-T2/ES g f/(
}
Diwussion NRC has est a sound regul base for lice g of AF ' -
publica of 10 CFR Part 7 November 1980 owed ulator es the ave been publish r are nearing c ion. phasis i being en to guidance ry storage conce .
Until recently, utilities generally assumed that Federal storage capacity for spent fuel would become available. The recent announcement by DOE that it would no longer pursue congressional approval to provide for Federal AFR's through acquisition of the AGNS Barnwell -spent fuel pool and/or the GE-Morris Operation has left the industry to provide for resolution of -
storage needs. To date, the industry has not had time to react and, thus, there is substantial uncertainty as to what plans utilities will formulate, d 1 '..+;;t tM: r; in; m, JE i kenQ. . - . _ .
i The staff general.ly agrees with the latest estimate of DOE on AFR spent 3 fuel storage needs. To maintain full core reserve (FCR), DOE estimates a (V need for AFR storage rising from about 100 tons 4n 1986 to about 1800 tons !
in 1990 and more than 5000 tons by 1995. These estimates are based on the assumption of a maximum c.ompaction in reactor basins. Maximum compaction is defined as full utilization of poison racks but does not include pin >
compaction (. fuel disassembly) since this has not yet been approved by NRC. I To achieve maximum compaction, DOE assumes (a) all applications now filed with NRC are approved and (.b) that reactor plans not yet made known to _ 1 1
NRC receive approval. For operating reactors these actions are assumed to take place by 1984. Some reactors will loss DOE FCR for a period of time:
does not assume any signifi-until the projected expansion takes place.
cant transsh'pinent of spent fuel from a reactor site.
Based on the staff's review of the DOE projections combined with other '
information available, it appears that the following reactors, having achieved maximum compaction with poison racks, are the ones most likely to lose FCR in the 1986-1987 time frame unless other actions are taken O" (pin compaction, new pools, dry storage, transshipment): Robinson 2; Palisades; St. Lucie 1; Surry 1&2, Oyster Creek; and Tuikey Point 3&4 By 1990, it appears that a total of about 20 operating sites would be in ,
l this circumstance.
I
7 ..
e* *
. g*
"%g
~
i' UNITED STATES l
. fg
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION )
l g ..
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l l < S
, .g ,e i a}
f l
. I l
- MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas A. Rehm, ELD l FROM: D Sheldon L. Trubatch, OGC 1
1
SUBJECT:
hb S. 2189 1
'I l
Some time ago OMB requested NRC's views on DOE's report on this l bill. A copy of the proposed reply is attached. It has not been sent because Commissioner Ahearne has requested NMSS's comments on whether the new Administration AFR position is likely to cause O eriou erod1e== at ear reector -
from NMSS and NRR on this matter as soon as possible.
wou a evereciete a ree1r Attachment as stated s
.s ol!
,g O
L I .-
(
-l L l
- A@fi UNITED STATES
.$3.E ' ak*1, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
w AsamaToN, D.C.20666 i
43.sa ' .
he e
Y. / 3l y o,u a esAiw AN il
}
1 Ronald K. Peterson Assistant Director for Legislative Reference Office of Management and Budget '
Washington, D.C. 20503 . n I. wen &&
Dear Mr. Peterson:
r' ory Commission's views This is in response to.your request for the Nuclear Reg , the " Nuclear Waste Policy ,
on the Department of Energy's proposed report on S. 21 For the most part, DOE's 8 Q Act " as passed by the Senate during the 96th Congress. f 9
bcomm,ents are consistent with the Commission's position on ,
Specifically; tie Commission l recommends that:
tion would be desirable.
- 1) Agreement States,should be required to meet at least minimum federal standards.for the disposal of low-level waste; NRC should be explicitly authorized to enter into agreements with states 2) solely for the purpose of their regulation of low-level waste; and ,
( '
the licensee of a low-level waste disposal site, upon its closure, should l 3) be required to transfer title to that site to the state, i
Pro osed 1,egislation implementing these recomendations is being prepared by the Q Than you for this opportunit'y to comment.
Sincerely,
' . Joseph N. Hendrie W J
}/y V# ,
~
L .
,