ML20154Q472
| ML20154Q472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230250 | |
| Download: ML20154Q472 (8) | |
Text
j, i
~
4 A T -
i i
l, JUN 2 61980 l j
MEMORANDUM FOR: Leonard Bickwit General Council FROM: William J. Dircks 1 Acting Executive Director ;
.for Operations
~~~~
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON DRAFT AMENDMENT TO H.R. 6390 i
-l The amendments to the high-level waste management portion of this Bill j (H.R._6390) set up a process fully consistent with the repository licensing !
7 procedures in NRC's proposed 10CFR60. The amended Bill would. for example, require the U.S. Department 'of Energy (DOE) to identify at least four.
. potential repository sites located to the maximisn extent practicable in
... -four different' media, and continue to conduct screening of other locations
-(.
~
while characterizing the four selected sites. DOE would be required to consult the Commission "on a continual basis" throughout the characterization process, and submit .a characterization plan containing all the infonnation required by the NRC under its licensing procedures. If DOE decided to j
recommend a site to the President for preparation of a license ' application, j the recommendation would have to include the Commission's preliminary j commenta on the extent to which the at-depth site characterization analysis would be sufficient for inclusion in the application. As a whole, the Bill merits our strong support. 1 The' amended Bill diverges fr xn past Commission policy, however, in providing l for consideration of La potential host state's objection to a proposed j repository before submission of a license application to the Commission. j Current Commission policy calls for a process under which a directly :
affected state could exercise its right of non-concurrence and have i its objections-addressed by a third party after NRC had decided to authorize construction of the repository. In this way, the state's objections could
,- be weighed on the basis of an extensive factual record developed during i the Commission's consideration of the application to construct. While the staff of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) supports'the current policy, we also appreciate the arguments for the approach in H.R. 6390, as amended. The Commission may wish to point out i this variance with its policy in its letter to the House Committee of l
. Interior and Insular Affairs. I I
l l
l 7 l
9810230250 800626 NE E PDR ORG OFFICE h .. ..... ...... . . . . , .. . , . .. . .
SURNAME .'. . ........ . ... .. .. . . . . .* . .
Om> .. ..... . . . . . . ... ... . .. .
~
. .w rvRM 318 (946) NRCM 0240 U U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF ICE: 1979 2B9-369
p r
~
Implementation'of this non-concurrence process could be improved, however.
The approval of the proposed site by the President, and the wording of the Congressional resolution affirming the site over state objections, may too easily be construed as an indication that NRC should approve the application for a license. Assuming that the purpose of these findings is not to pre-empt the Commission but to determine whether there is any reason to forestall the licensing process, perhaps the Bill should be amended to ,
state this explicitiy. The basis for the decision to uphold the Secretary's siting recommendation over state objections should not be that construction and operation of a repository at that site is in the national interest, but '
simply that a careful review of the record has revealed no sufficient t reason to withhold the recommendation from further consideration by the :
Commission in a licensing proceeding. !
A final issue deserving mention here is the limits on high-level waste (HLW) canisters and spent fuel assemblies for purposes of site characterization .
under Section 202(c)(2). Forty canisters of HLW, or the alternative l 180 spent fuel assemblies, are likely to be far more than necessary for an adequate site characterization and could divert attention from the main purpose of site characterization.
The costs of the characterization program permitted under this Bill would i be considerable, although the staff has not yet completed sufficiently i detailed estimates. Past NRC cost projections have not assumed the use of j radioactive materials for characterization, and the additional investments in special handling equipment, ventilating systems, safeguards, and worker safety improvements would undoubtedly boost these figures substantially at each site, whatever the geology. .
t' From informal contacts with DOE staff, NRC understands that the estimated cost of emplacing eleven spent fuel assemblies for tests at the Nevada Test Site is more than $500,000 per assembly, a figure that does not include facility excavation costs. Even allowing for some economies of scale, the probable cost of emplacing 180 spent fuel assemblies would far outstrip .
the preliminary NRC estimate of $20 to $30 million to characterize each site.
i' Since the cost of site characterization is also a function of time, the long periods needed for tests with radioactive materials may make the operating expenses of the characterization program envisioned in this Bill even more significant than the initial capital outlays. In each geologic ,
l medium, the period required for characterization with radioactive materials [
l will probably be far longer than for characterization with electric heaters, j which can reach much higher temperatures. In granite, for example, DOE has :
calculated that it would take about 35 years for spent fuel avtraging .55 l kilowatts of heat per assembly to bring the host rock to peak temperature. J Using electric heaters capable of 20 kilowatts, scientists at Stripa, Sweden, brought granite host rock to peak temperatures in 103 days.
OFF4CE k. . . . .
SURNAMEk... . .
j DATEk.
NAOPOTTM 318 (9 76) NRCM O240 D U.S. GOVE RNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289 369
~ -
- 3-More important, NRC staff calculations show that in the quantities contemplated in the amended Bill, neither spent fuel no" HLW by itself could produce the heat needed to bring the host rock to i peak temperature approximating repository conditions. Electric heaters would still be needed to simulate the thermal effect of the ambient heat from large quantities of waste interacting with the heat from the spent fuel or HLW being used for the tests. Thus, in addition to the excavation necessary to emplace up to 180 spent fuel assemblies or 40 canisters of HLW, DOE would have to mine enough rock volume to permit the installation of heaters. This can only escalate the cost of site characterization still further.
In summary, while the staff has no major objections to demonstrating l emplacement of waste during site characterization if Congress feels it is
. desirable, the demonstration should not be allowed to dominate the site characterization effort. Accordingly, to minimize costs and avoid diverting attention from the main purpose of site characterization, the numerical limits for the pre-licensed use of spent fuel and HLW could be reduced to conform to the definition of research and development activities proposed in H.R. 6116, also sponsored by Chairman Udall . This definition would limit such facilities to an amount of nuclear waste less than one kilograa of transuranic waste or the curie equivalent of ten metric tons of spent fuel. Such limits should be sufficient to provide for any demonstration yet not run the cost up too much or divert attention from the main task of site i characterization. j
?
Comments on other specifics of the Bill follow below: ,
Section 202(c)(1): consultation should be according to NRC licensing l procedures, j Section 202 (d)(1)(B): the Secretary should also be authorized '
to submit an amended recommendation for the same time. l Section 203(a): the January 31, 1981, deadline for promulgation of NRC I licensing requirements should be amended to January 31, 1982. ;
Section 203(a)(2): Environmental Protection Agency standards "of general
~
application" should be explicitly confined to EPA statutory jurisdiction for public health and safety. ,
Section 204(a)(C): the Secretary of Energy should not be allowed to determine the eligibility of a state review panel to review and make '
recommendations on DOE plans and activities. (
Section 206(a): Congressional review and disapproval of sites proposed for characterization could invite political interference in the evaluation :
of alternatives required under the National Environmental Policy Act '
and proposed NRC licensing procedures. This subsection should be deleted.
l y OFFICE h . ..
l SURNAME .
- DATEk. #
RM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 D U.S. GOVE RNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289 369
. . ~ .
f
)i i
Section206(b): the President should be authorized to act on the Secretary's ,
recaxnendation only if the state panel submits a petition for disapproval. l Besides approving or disapproving, the President should also be authorized l
to modify DOE reconnendations as he deans necessary to resolve state
! objections.
Section206(c)(1): the wording of the Congressional resolution should be atended as' follows: "The Congress approves the designation of the site i at for the preparation of an application to the Nuclear ,
Regulatory Couaission for applicable licensing proceedings pursuant to j the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended." !
l l l l l
'(Signe6)T. A.Rehm j
{
liiam J. Dircks i kting Executive Director -
! I for Operations :
- J
! DISTRIBUTION l WMPI r/f
- Subject File
- . Bills K @I
- WM r/f NMSS r/f J0 Bunting ,
i l
l I /
ff l
/)Y&e L.-
6/23/80 *See previous yellow for concurrences.
MM M S.S EU N
( OrriCE ).MM .
!- SURNAMEk.. . E 1. I bI.h. .J0B.un. ting . .JBMa r.ti n. . . J. . HJni rc.ks. . winf rcks- !
DATEk, 6/A /80,, 6/&3/.80. .6/.680... 6N/80- 6/ /80- 6/26T80-
"~
'C FORM 318 (916) NRCM 0240 D U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 269 369
w ,
.. -A n
r o I
l Section 204(a)(C): the Secretary of Energy should not be al wed to i
determine the eligibility of a state review panel to rev w and make recommendations on DOE plans and activities. ,.
Section 206(a): Congressional review and disapproval sites ' proposed for characterization could invite political interf ence in the evaluation of alternatives required under the National Envir nmental Policy Act and proposed NRC licensing procedures. This su ection should be deleted.
Section206(b): the President should be author ed to act on the Secretary's recommendation only if the state panel submi s a petition for disapproval.
- Besides approving or disapproving, the Pre dent should also be authorized
- to modify DOE recommendations as he deems necessary to resolve state obj ections.
Section 206(c)(1): the wording of the C ngressional resolution should be amended as follows: "The Congress a roves' the designation of the site at for the preparation an application to the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission for~ applicab e licensing proceedings pursuant to l-the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a amended."
l l
- William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
t l
l DISTRIBUTION WMPI r/f Subject File: Bills WM r/f NMSS r/f J0 Bunting REBrownin l
JBMartin/
WJDircips FCom Vs'oa A
/
l l
6/19/80 n M, OFFICE h .. . ..
.f . -
SURNAME)...RDMacDougal: nr h .- nt 1y -
[- .1navis. .WJDircks.. . . .
DATEk.. 6fj{/gg. , . 6. j h80. . . 6 k / 80 ,.. . 6/. . . /.80. . . 6/../80 ., .,
NfM>@OOM 318 (9 76) NRCM O240 ' DU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289-369
^
~
~ --
i i
i MEMORANDUM FOR: Leonard Bickwit <
General Council '
FROM: William J. Dircks, Director >
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 6 0 The amendments to the high-level waste management rtion of this Bill (H.R. 6390) set up a process fully consistent wit the repository licensing procedures in NRC's proposed 10CFR60. The amen d Bill would, for example, require the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dentify at least four potential repository sites located to the ma mum extent practicable in ,
four different media, and continue to condu screening of other locations while characterizing the four selected sit s. DOE would be required l to consult the Commission "on a continual basis" throughout the characterization .
process, and submit a characterization an containing all the information required by the NRC under its licensin procedures. If DOE decided to recommend a site to the President for preparation of a license application, the recommendation would have to in ude the Commission's preliminary ,
comments on the extent to which th at-depth site characterization analysis would be sufficient for inclusion in the application. As a whole, the Bill merits our strong support.
The amended Bill diverges fr past Commission policy, however, in providing for consideration of a poten+ al host state's objectives to a proposed repository before submissio of a license application to the Commission.
Current Commission policy allis for a process'under which a directly ;
affected state could exer ise its right of non-concurrence and have its objections addresse by a third party after NRC had decided to authorize construction of the re sitory. In this way, the state's objections could be weighed on the bas's of an extensive factual record developed during the Commission's co ideration of the application to construct. While the staff of the Offic of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) ,
supports the curr nt policy and believes a state non-concurrence point should be avail e at this juncture in the licensing process, we also appreciate the rguments for the approach in H.R. 6390, as amended.
N I
Or r.CE ) . ..... .. . .
suRN MC> . . .
DATEk .. ,, . . .. .
'QC FOCM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 - DU.S. GOVE RNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289-369
{
=~~~~~ ~
l Implementation of this non-concurrence process could be impr ved, however.
The approval of the proposed site by the President, and th wording of the Congressional resolution affirming the site over stat objections, may too easily be construed as an indication that NRC should approve the application for a license. Assuming that the purpose these findings is not to pre-empt the Commission but to determine wheth there is any reason to forestall the licensing process, perhaps the Bill hould be amended to state this explicitly. The basis for the decision o uphold the Secretary's siting recommendation over state objections shoul not be that construction and operation of a repository at that site is in he national interest, but simply that a careful review of the record has vealed no sufficient reason to withhold the recommendation from fur er consideration by the Cormiission in a licensing proceeding.
A final issue deserving mention here is the limits on high-level waste (HLW) canisters and spent fuel assemblies or purposes of site characterization under Section 202(c)(2). Forty canisters of HLW, or the alternative 180 spent fuel assemblies, are likely t be far more than necessary for an adequate site characterization and coul divert attention from the main purpose of site characterization.
The costs of the characterization p gram permitted under this Bill would be considerable, although the staf has not yet completed sufficiently detailed estimates. Past NRC cos projections have not assumed the use of radioactive materials for charac rization, and the additional investments in special handling equipment, v ntilating systems, safeguards, and worker safety improvements would undo tedly boost these figures substantially at each site, whatever the geolog .
From informal contacts with E staff, NRC understands that the estimated cost of emplacing eleven sp t fuel assemblies for tests at the Nevada Test Site is more than $500,000 er assembly, a figure that does not include facility excavation costs. Even allowing for some economies of scale, the probable cost of empl cing 180 spent fuel assemblies would far outstrip the already outdated pre iminary NRC estimate of $20 to $30 million to characterize each site.
Since the cost of sit characterization is also a function of time, the long periods needed f r tests with radioactive materials may make the operating expenses o the characterization program envisioned in this Bill even more significa t than the initial capital outlays. In each geologic l medium, the period required for characterization with radioactive materials l
will probably be far longer than for characterization with electric heaters, which can reach much higher temperatures. In granite, for example, DOE has calculated that it would take about 35 years for spent fuel averaging .55 kilowatts of heat per assembly to bring the host rock to peak temperature.
Using electric heaters capable of 20 kilowatts, scientists at Stripa, I
OFFICE h. .
SURNAMEk.
DATEk .. .
~"
i[C ORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 D U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
m; , , - ~ .
s e* &
Sweden, brought granite host rock to peak temperatures in 103 days.
Moreover, the DOE calculation for spent fuel assumed that it would be backfilled after mplacement, / ' hough the need for retrievability ring characterization may make backN 'ing unfeasible, and the c60 ling ffect of exposure to air would further deiuf attainment of peak temperat e. If high-level waste (which is not as hot as spent fuel) were used instead, additional delays would acrue from the need to validate the tegrity of the waste form and package before emplacement.
More important, NRC staff calculations show that in the uantities contemplated in the amended Bill, neither spent fuel nor HLW by its f could produce
_the heat needed to bring the host rock to a peak temp ature approximating repository conditions. Electric heaters would still be needed to simulate the thermal effect of the ambient heat from large antities of waste interacting with the heat from the spent fuel or W being used for the tests. Thus, in addition to the excavation nec sary to emplace up to 180 spent fuel assemblies or 40 canisters of HLW, E would have to mine enough rock volume to permit the installation of hea ers. This can only escalate the cost of site characterization still fur er.
In summary, while the staff has no major jections to demonstrating emplacement of waste during site charact rization if Congress feels it is desirable, the demonstration should no be allowed to dominate the site characterization effort. Accordingly to minimize costs and avoid diverting attention frc., the main purpose of s te characterization, the numerical limits for the pre-licensed use of pent fuel and HLW could be reduced to conform to the definition of rese rch and development activities proposed in H.R. 6116, also sponsored by airman Udall . This definition would limit such facilities to an amo nt of nuclear waste less than one kilogram of transuranic waste or the c ie equivalent of ten metric tons of spent fuel. Such limits should be fficient to provide for any demonstration yet not run the cost up too muc or divert attention from the main task of site characterization.
Comments on other specif c of the Bill follow below:
l Section 202(c)(1); c sultation should be according to NRC licensing i procedures.
l Section 202 (d)(1)( : the Secretary should also be authorized to submit an ame ded recommendation for the same time.
l Section 203(a): he January 31, 1981, deadline for promulgation of NRC licensing re 1rements should be amended to January 31, 1982.
Section 203(a) 2): Environmental Protection Agency standards "of general applicatio should be explicitly confined to EPA statutory jurisdiction for publi health and safety.
Orrice). . . . .
SURNAMEk. . . . .
DATEk, qf ORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 N U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979 289 369 - -