ML20205H805
| ML20205H805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | J. J. Barton HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205H810 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904090080 | |
| Download: ML20205H805 (6) | |
Text
l NL.
UNITED STATE 3 j>
p t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ~4 Oh '
40-g j
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 l'
\\,.g /
March 30, 1999 CHAMMAN G
The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-6115
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In a letter dated March 1,1999, you requested the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) views on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposal to "take title" to the spent nuclear fuel temporarily stored at the various utilities around the country. You also requested our views on how this option would affect the current regulatory framework.
I have enclosed a question and-answer format response to your request. In addition, I would like to offer the following observations related to the alternative that the Administration has recently proposed. From a safety perspective, the Commission does not object to the concept
//
of the DOE taking title to spent fuel at commercial power reactor facilities. However, the
/
concept does raise a number of legislative, legal, and resource issues that would need to be addressed specifically by the Congress. If this were to occur, the Commission firmly believes that the NRC should retain regulatory responsibility for independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) facilities for the following reasons.
1 First, there is the issue of plant safety. The NRC would need to review carefully the interface between each power reactor, in the operation of its spent fuel storage pool, and the DOE facilities, particularly in the area of emergency planning responsibilities. Price Anderson liability,
' financial assurance for decommissioning, storage of greater than Class C waste, and other issues also would need to be addressed.
Second, there is the issue of consistency in regulation, not only for those sites planning to develop an ISFSI, but also for those sites which already have constructed one. For example, the NRC process of licensing an ISFSI offers an opportunity for a public hearing. Licensing hearings at existing ISFSis have raised important issues, including concerns of state and tribal governments, that needed to be resolved before taking a site-specific licensing action.
l In addition, depending on the details of any legislation, if the DOE were to take title to the waste and weie to manage it at the reactor sites (or elsewhere, if it is already stored off of the reactor site), th'.e potential would exist for multiple regulatory schemes at the sites. Also, all the spent 9904090080 990330
'P ER COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR i
I
_3
E..
1 2
)
fuel to which the DOE is scheduled to take title is not currently in dry storage at reactor sites.
. Building new dry cask storage facilities simply to distinguish the DOE spent fuel from the licensee spent fuel not yet scheduled for pick up by the DOE under contract may not be the most prudent and cost-effective approach, if spent fuel pool capacity is adequate at the site.
Sites where an ISFSI has been licensed by the NRC could be at an economic disadvantage in
. relation to future sites which let the DOE be responsible for the development and management of the ISFSt.' Finally, the afternative legislation would apparently rule out cost-effective
- altamatives for management of spent fuel site-wide, such as re-racking a spent fuel pool, by having DOE focus solely on spent fuel that is in dry storage.
Third, there is the issue of transportation. Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the DOE is required to use NRC-certified casks for its mate ial. However, current law does not subject DOE-owned material to NRC transportation safety or the physical security requirernents, thus creating a patchwork of regulatory requirements. Tnerefore, this issue should be addressed explicitly for the NRC to have a clear role in regulatir:g the safe transport or physical security of casks containing DOE-titled spent fuel. Public conficence may be enhanced if such shipments cre subject to independent regulatory oversight by NHC consistent with other spent fuel shipments.
i Fourth, there is the issue of stakeholder concerns. For example, the public has come to expect e degree of external regulation and monitoring of ISFSin which may not occur if the DOE has sole operational and regulatory responsibility for the site 3. The Commission also notes that DOE taking title to the spent fuel at reactor sites on the contracted schedule may not satisfy the desire of local stakeholders and public utility commissions that reactor sites not become de facto permanent high level waste repositories. Several states, such as Minnesota, Wisconsin i
and Vermont, have indicated at the highest levels, their opposition to additional dry spent fuel storage capacity at reactor sites. Therefore, the proposed fegislation, would need to address i
this issue to prevent the premature shutdown of the affectett reactors. In addition, the legislation should address the issue of whether DOE also would have to take title to the land on which the dry cask storage facility resides in order to take titki to the spent fuel.
Last, there is the potential for diversion of Nuclear Waste Fund resources away from the primary mission of developing a permanent geologic repository and supporting facilities.
Depending on the financial arrangements provided for in the legislation and how issues such as i
the above are resolved, there is the potential for significant expenditures of Nuclear Waste Fund (or general fund) resources for these purposes. The diversion of resources from the 4
. repository program could be as large under the alternative bill as the diversion of resources under H.R. 45, but without the benefits and resource efficiencies of a central interim spent fuel storage facility which the proposed alternative clearly does not support.
i l
In e dition, the description of the proposed alternative legislation states that a radiation standard for the permanent repository would be set either administrative!y or legislatively. NRC is supportive of setting a realistic radiation standard for the permanent geologic repository, as discussed in the alternative bill, in this respect, the alternative could be consistent with previous high level waste legislation. Either H.R. 45, or S.104 as passed by the Senate in the last C7ngress, would permit NRC to establish an all-pathways standard that the Commission L
n 1
i 3
l i,
believes would be protective of public health and safety. Both bills are generally consistent with NRC's proposed 10 CFR Part 63, put'lished for public comment in the February 22,1999, i
Federal Reaister. The Commission has generally been supportive of the radiation standard
{
provisions in these bills.
Please contact me if I can be of furthec assistance.
Sincerely.
p i
Enclosure:
Question and Answer Respc nse cc: Representative Ralph M. Hall i
l l
I l
l i
I QUESTION AND ANSWER RESPONSE Question 1:
What regulatory concerns would be raised within the NRC if DOE
~
were to take title to and manage utilities' at-reactor dry cask storage, including the building of such storage where necessary?
Answer NRC involvement in a regulatory schems under which the DOE took title to spent e
nuclear fuel possessed by utilities and managed the dry cask storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites would be dictated by how the legislation is drafted. Alternatively, the i
legislation could provide for any of the following:
(1)
The utility to manage the DOE titled spent fuel in an existing independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) under the utility's existing NRC license authority.
The utility would obtain an NRC license to construct and operate any new ISFSI.
(2)
DOE itself or a third party DOE contractor to manage the DOE-titled spent fuel under NRC license. In this case, DOE or the contractor, or both, would be NRC licensee, but (as indicated below) the legislation could provide that neither further reviews by the NRC or public hearings would be required with respect to transfer of existing ISFS!s, and the licensing of such sites could be effectuated by NRC issuance of a generallicense. An NRC license would be obtsined to construct and operate any new ISFSt.
(3)
DOE itself or a third party DOE contractor to manage the DOE-titled spent fuel onsite under DOE's own authority, without any licensing of the facility (whether existing or newly buiit) by the NRC. (If this approach is adopted by legislation, the interaction of section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act with the legislation should be addressed.) This alternative would introduce a license exempt facility, material, and activities on each reactor licensee site. While possible, the NRC would have to address the 10 CFR Part 50 license overlap and interface issues (which may be complicated) from a regulatory perspective.
if one of the first two alternatives listed above is adopted, since the NRC has already e
performed safety reviews at existing individual storage sites, with respect to such storage the legislation could provide that neither further reviews by the NRC or public hearings would be required with respect to such sites. The licensing of such sites could then be effectuated by NRC issuance of a general license. The issue of approval of license transfers to DOE would, however, also need to be addressed in the legislation.
The NRC would prefer a legislative system with licensing by NRC under alternative 2 to eliminate confusion over NRC's regulatory authority over the operations of the ISFSI and to eliminate the possibility of gaps in the regulatory control of the DOE portions of the site.
To the extent that the NRC would have a role in carrying cat the legislation, the agency e
would need an appropriation to cover the cost of resources expended. To avoid having our current licensees pay for the required NRC activities, the legislation should provide Enclosure
D.
the NRC with the authonty to collect 10 CFR Part 170 fees from DOE to cove, NRC implementing activities.
Backaround/ Additional Information e
it is the position of the NRC that it agrees with the fundamental approach in H.R. 45, which includes central interim storage, and the agency has noted the benefits and resource efficiencies of a DOE centralinterim storage facility. The proposed alternative clearly does not support central interim storage.
Regardless of the licensing track chosen, the staff does not think there are any new safety issues associated with DOE taking title to the spent fuel and storing it at each reactor site, Hearing opportunities are provided for each site-soecific 10 CFR Part 72 license e
application in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46. For license transfers, notice is given in accordance with 10 CFR 72.50(c). In the case of the Fort St. Vrain ISFSI proposed license transfer to DOE, an opportunity for hearing was provided. Hearing support may b. significant and may require six full time equivalents for.ach of three years.
Question 2:
What difference would it make,if any, from an NRC regulatory
]
perspective who managed the storage effort after a POE takeover (DOE, the utility, or a third party)?
1 Answer e
if the ISFSI would remain an NRC-licensed facility, the NRC's operator qualifications standards would apply to the facility licensee, whoever the licensee is.
)
e if DOE or its third party contractor were to operate the ISFSI under DOE'S own authority. this would introduce a license exempt facility, mate activities on each reactor licensee site. This would mean that NRC would have,
adress the 10 CFR Part 50 license overlap and interface issues from a regulatory perspective. Also, DOE or its contractor would be responsible for all aspects of the ISFSI facility and would rely upon its own infrastructure for ISFSI activities. In thir, case, the NR'? would not be involved with DOE operation of the ISFSI.
Question 3:
What impacts might the concept, if enacted, have on NRC review and approval of a DOE application for a license to construct and operate a permanent geologic repository or centralized interim storage facility?
Answer if enacted, depending upon the form of the legislation and resources provided, the e
concept could have a range of impacts on the NRC's ability to review and license a
1 t
3 proposed DOE centralinterim storage facility. Since the form of the proposed legislation has not been finalized, determining the impacts with certainty is not yet possible. If adequate resources are provided and the legislation facilitates an efficient 1
review and hearing process, the impact could be none to very minimal. If adequate resources are not provided and the legislation does not facilitate an efficient review and hearing process, the hearing opportunities at each site could impact significantly the staff review of a centralinterim storage facility.
1 The concept, if enacted, should have minimalimpact on NRC's ability to review and e
license the proposed permanent repository, except to the extent that resources may need to be reprogrammed from the repository work to support implementation of the proposed alternative.
Question 4:
What implications might the concept, if enacted, have for NRC's waste confidence decision?
Answer The concept, if enacted, would not impact the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision.
NRC's Waste Confidence Decision was based, in part, on a finding that spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts in ISFSIs, and this finding is not impacted by the proposed alternative legislation.
i Backaround/ Additional Information o
Dry cask storage is an interim spent fuel management technique used to expand on-site storage capacity. Cunent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part ~/2 permit licensing of an independent spent fuel storage installation for up to 20 ye ars. The regulations also allow for renewal of these licenses upon demonstration that the fccility can continue to operate safely.
e When coupled w!th pool storage, dry cask storage provides storage for at Isast 90 years from initial reactor license issuance. In 1990, NRC revised Finding 4 of its Waste Confidence Decision, stating that spent fuel can be stored safely for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life of reactor operations (40 year initial license + 20 year license renewal + 30 years beyond licensed life = 90 years).
l l
[