ML20204C102
| ML20204C102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1978 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811290110 | |
| Download: ML20204C102 (13) | |
Text
,-
af,,;3 DOCAT' p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSItiG PROCEDURES F0R GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES Proposed General Statement of Policy
/
AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Proposed General Statement of Policy
SUMMARY
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (URC) has under con-sideration the following proposed policy statement regarding establishment of procedures for licensing geologic high-level waste repositories to be constructed and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This NRC policy statement is intended to inform DOE, interested States and
'.meinbers of the public of the procedures with which DOE will be required to comply to receive a license to construct and operate a repository.
The policy, as finally adopted, may be codified as part of the Commission's regulations.
DATE:
Commerits are due on or before January 16, 1979 ADDRESSES:
Send comments and suggestions to:
Secretary of the Commissio~n, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of comments may be examined in the:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Hashington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. italaro, Chief, High-Level and Transuranic Waste Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safetv U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555.
7 811290 //d
- 2; ~ - -
SUPPLEf1EitTAL IllFORMATION:
The Commission is considering the proced0res to be used in the licensing of high-level waste repositories, and believes that it would be useful to solicit the views of interested persons prior to making any final decision.
Accordingly, the Commission is publishing for comment the Proposed General Statement of Policy on high-level radioactive waste repository licensing procedures set forth below.
The_ Proposed General Statement of Policy could alsolbe used by DOE for interin planning purposes pending a final Commission decision on repository licensing procedures.
Under present statute, it is not cl' ear whether f1RC would have licensing authority over DOE's planned Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) proposed to be located at Carlsbad, New Mexico.
However, if the WIPP facility is subject to NRC licensing, NRC expects to apply these procedures in the licensing review.
IIRC licensing authority over DOE waste management activities is derived from Section 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
These sections confine NRC licensing authority over DOE waste management activities to certain DOE facilities for receipt and storage of high level radioactive waste.
If WIPP is to be used exclusively for disposal of trans-uranic wastes from the defense program and 1,000 commercial spent fuel rod assemblies, then WIPP might not be licenseabl'e.
While the 1,000 commercial i
^
L su--__:___________
spe'nt fuel rod assea'alies would be "high level radioactive waste,"* the transuranic wastes would not be, and the facility would not be "primarily" for receipt and storage of "high level radioactive wastes" (Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act).
If WIPP is to be used for disposal of ifefense program high level wastes, then it would be licenseable under -
~
~
~~
Section.202(4) of the Act provided it was not "used for, or...part of, research and development activities."
It is possible that, depending
~
upon the' exact program proposed by DOE, WIPP could be regarded as a 1
research and development facility exempt from licensing.
z.
- Even though spent fuel which is to be disposed of in a geologic repository may have some resource value, it contains radioactive waste.
Thus, it is clearly a "high level" radioactive waste because it contains all the toxic and long-lived radionuclides contained in the liquid wastes from reprocessing that have traditionally been regarded as a form of high level radioactive waste.
V*
w 4
Proposed General Statement of Policy--
l.icensing Prcicedures for Geologic Repositories For High-level Radioactive llaste Introduction cr" /'The'U'.5. Muclear R gulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") is vested, ;.,,
?'
with licensing authority over certain DOE high-level radioactive waste repositories by Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
These sections refer to:
(3)
Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act (Atomic Energy Act).
(4)
Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level.'r[dioactive waste generated by the Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.
Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, anf the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a.s amended, such repositories would not be licensed.
as " production" or " utilization" facilities.
Rather, they would be licensed under those provisions of the Atomic Energy Act deal.ing 'with receipt and posses: ion of " byproduct" and "special nuclear" materials.
However, the Commission has authority under the Atomic Energy Act to fashion procedures for licensing of byproduct and special nuclear material that are tailored to the kinds of activities being authorized and the
~
~~
potential hazards involved.
For example, although a license for posses.sion and use of plutonium in a sealed calibration source and r license for possession and use of plutonium for purposes of processing and fuel fabrication ar'e both special nuclear materials licenses, the former license may be issued after a single review (and indeed may even be generally licensed without the need for filing and review of a ' specific license application--see 10 CFR ! 70.19), while the latter license may only be issued after a review ' process resembling in many respects the two-step licensing review provided in the Atomic Energy Act for production and utilization facilities (see 10 CFR)i70.22[f] and 70.23[b]).
' In fashioning the procedures which follow, several unique features of geologic high-level waste repositories were carefully considered.
For such a repository, the suitabilitfof the site becomes crucial, for the integrity of the site itself is essential to assure containment of the radioactive materials.
Thus, sound policy suggests that the Commission be afforded the opportunity to participate in DOE's site selection process, though--considering the tentative character of the activities involved--
only in an informal advisory capacity.
Also, for such an application, construction of a repository shaft would constitute the first major pen-etration of the geologic containment.
If improperly constructed or sealed, it could impair the ability of the geologic containment to isolate wastes over long periods of time.
At the same time, construction of this shaft is expected to dispell some of the uncertainties in th'e accuracy of data necessary for design of the underground repository.
Thus, while a
1 l
-6 safety review prior to sinking of a. shaft would be appropriate, the scope of review and the findings required need to take into account g
the possibility that only limited data may be available.
Further,.*
there should be a formal safety review of the main repository design i
features before substantial commitments are made and' alterations become impracticable to implement.
Finally, the Commission believes that it should examine the methods of construction and any new information that may have been developed during construction before formally authorizing receipt and storage of radioactive materials at the repository.
-4
'.Ifea repository is subject to the fiRC licensing authority, the entire re.pository 'will b~e subjectet to licensina review, includino those activities whicf1 by themselves.miaht not.be within the Aco_o.e of fiRC responsibility.
This comprehensive review will be necessary because loss 'of integrity.in any part of a rep 6sitory could imperil the integrity of 'the entire repository.
The Commission believes it should prepare an environmental inpact statement ' pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the flational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("t1 EPA") prior to authorizing construction of the main repository shaft.
This statement could be updated priore to receipt and storage of radioactive materials at the repository should E
new information warrant.
Early Notification to States and Other Interested Parties In order to provide opportunity for early input from States and other interested parties, the Commission, would, upon receipt of a DOE license application or request for an informal early site review, (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice of such receipt (2) make a copy of the application or request available at the Public Document Room, and (3) transmit copies of such request to the Governor of the State.and to the Chief Executive of the municipality in which the
~
repository is tentatively planned to be located and to the Governors i
of any contiguous States.
Also, the staff would offer to meet with State and local officials to provide them with information about the Commission's review and to explore the possibilities of State and local participation in the Commission licensing process.
Licensing Procedures The proposed repository licensing proceaures are divided into four i.
parts :
review of DOE site selection, review of repository development, repository licensing, and repository closure.
1.
Review of DOE Site Selection There would be informal NRC staff comments to DOE on site suitability matters after DOE's site selection.
Such informal consultation, which might take the form of written NRC staff comments supplemented by one er more open meetings between the two ager:y staffs, would enable the NRC staff to point out those aspects of a location which in its judgement might require special attention or present special problems, 4
and would help to define the kinds of infcmation that might be needed for the Commission to make licensing decisions.
As indicated, the interaction between flRC staff and DOE at this early stage would be consultive in nature.
That is, tiRC staff may provide comments and advice, but the Commission will neither make formal findings nor take other formal action.
DOE would remain at liberty to come forward later with any license application that it believed would conform to Commission equirements, and the Commission would be free, as the evidence might warrant, to formally approve or disapprove the application.
2.
Review of Repository Development The formal Commission licensing review process would begin with the filing of an application for a license by DOE prior to commencement of construction of a repository shaft.
The application would be docketed for review after a preliminary review for completeness, notice of the application woul'd be published in the Federal Register offering an opportunity for interested persons to intervene and request a hearing, and a public announcement would be issued.
The application would include information on site suitability and repository design features important to safety.
An environmental report prepared by DOE addressing the matters set forth iri Section 102(2)(C) of fiEPA would be submitted with or prior to the application.
w
-g.
It is probable that some information necessary to make a defini-I tive finding of the repository's safety will not then be available.
flevertheless, the Commission
- could authorize construction of the repository upon completion of a review of all flEPA, safety, and common defense and. security issues, and upon finding.(1) after u :.
.-:...r.:.t.,
. considering reasonable alternatives that the benefits of the proposal exceed the costs under flEPA, and (2) that there is reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of wastes described in the application can be stored in a repository of the design proposed without unreasonable risk to the. health and safety of the public or being inimical to the common defense and security.
Construction would commence with the sinking of the main repository In the altprnative, 'wYere insufficient information is avail-shaft.
able prior to shaft sinking to permit the Commission to make the complete findings set forth above, on request by DOE or on the Commission's own initiative, the Commission could allow the safety review to be conducted in two phases.
Construction of the shaft could commence upon finding (1) after considering reasonable alter-natives, that the benefits of the proposal exceed the costs under ilEPA, and (2) that there is reasonable assurance that:
(a) the site
- For hearings granted on an application, the Comm'ission expects, as in a nuclear power reactor licensing proceeding, to designate an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hear. and initially decide the contested As in any licensing case, it would be possible f,ar the Board to issues.
render pt.rtial decisions on several discrete issues, such as NEPA issues.
is suitable for a repository within which high-level wastes of the kinds and quantities described in the application can be stored without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the i -
public or being inimical to the common defense and security, and
~
(b) the plans for construction of the main shaf t and related i
structures can be implemented in a manner compatible with the use of the site for a repository.
The full findings set forth pre-viously would, then, have to be made before the start of construction of surface and underground structures.
Safety issues that could not
~
be resolved based upon the available information might be deferred-until the repository operating license review provided that:
(1) an adequate program has been developed to resolve the issue prior to that time, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the issue can be resolved in a favo~rable manner at the later date.
The Commission requests public comments on this p,ossible course of action.
The NEPA environmental review would address, to the extent possible based on available information, environmental impacts and alternatives
, associated directly or indirectly with siting, construction, and operation of the repository.
Any hearing held upon request of an interested person would be conducted in accordance with 4
subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2.
l The applicant will be required to report to the NRC, during the course of construction, any site characterization data obtained which are not s
within the predicted limits upon which the repository design was based.
Also, it would ~be required to report deficiencies in design
'and construction which, if uncorrec'ted, could have a significant adverse effect upon the safety of the repository at any future time.
3a.
Repository Licensing c '
Prior to receipt of any radioactive material at the repository,
-o DOE will need to file an updated license application with the Commission.
The license authorizing actual receipt and storage of radioactive materials would be issued after the Commission has conducted a ' final review of health and safety and common defense and security issues in the light of (1) any additional geologic, hydrologic, and other data obtained during construction; (2) conformance of construction of repository structures, systems, and components with the earlier re'ceived design; (3) results of research programs carried out to resolve questions identified during prior reviews; (4) plans for start up and routine operations; and (5) plans for identifying and responding to any unanticipated l
releases of radioactive material from the repository.
Issuance i
of a license will require a definitive finding under the Atomic
. Energy Act that the receipt, possession, and use of the special j
i nuclear and byproduct materials at the repository will not con-stitute unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public or be inimical to the common defense and security.
If warranted by new information which the staff judges could naterially alter the NEPA cost-benefit balence, the earlier environmental impact
112-
. statement will be updated.
Also, if requested by a person whose interest may be affected, a hearing in accordan:e with subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2 would be held prior tb license issuance.
3b.
License Amendment (As Needed)
If special restrictions such as retrievability or a limit on
" amounts or types of wastes have been imposed in the license, an amendment will be required prior to committing waste to irretrievable disposal or prior to the receipt of additional waste.
It is antici-pated that the required review procedures and findings will be similar to those, described above for initial licensing, taking into account additional information obtained during the retrievable storage phase or during operation with limited inventory.
DOE will be required to conduct and monitor its operations, to keep records, and to submit routine and special reports, in accordance
. u.
with Commission regulations and orders., All operations will be subject to such continuing NRC inspection activities as may be found to be appropriate.
4.
Review of Repository Closure After the repository has been developed and filled to maximum
' capacity but prior to final closure of the underground excavations and shafts and the decommissioning of surface facilities, an NRC review and approval will be required of the licensee's proposed program for compliance with regulations governing sealing of the
, y.;
.. underground repository, decomissioning of surface facilities, storage of permanent records, and long-term monitoring.
Following completion of the review, a change in license status may be wa rran ted.
FOR THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION John ~C'. HWle Actin ecretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D. C.
'i.
this 14th day of November,1978
- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
_ _ _ _ _ _. - - - - - -