ML20206H730
| ML20206H730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/08/1986 |
| From: | Roberts J, Sturz F NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206H509 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606260275 | |
| Download: ML20206H730 (18) | |
Text
i f, Third International Spent Fuel Storage Technology Symposium / Workshop, 4/8-10/86, Seattle, WA PROGRESS IN DRY SPENT FUEL STORAGE LICENSING AND RULEMAKING .
J. P. Roberts and F. C. Sturz Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC, 20555 U.S.A.
Spent fuel storage outside of reactor pools, which is licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Part 72 is now dominated by developments in modular dry storage designs for both interim and long-term storage. In response to provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, NRC is developing amendments to 10 CFR Part 72: 1) to accommodate licensing of monitored retrievable storage, should it be authorized by Congress; and 2) to develop a site independent or " generic" rule for dry spent storage in metal casks.
8606260275 860619 PDR MISC 8606260147 PDR
I e
. . i INTRODUCTION All of you present are familiar with t.he Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19821 (the Act) and its mandates regarding the Department of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responsibilities concerning the geologic repository and mcctrored retrievable storage (MRS). You also know that interim storage n spent fuel was established as a responsibility of those possessing that 1 . , i.e. , generally speaking utilities. So I shall confine my discussion to updating NRC progress with respect to dry storage licensing, including topical reports for dry cask and modular designs, and dry storage rulemaking including the MRS and the nonsite-specific or
" generic" rule.
Since a paper by my co-author and me was presented recently on the subjects mentioned above at the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Spent Fuel Storage Seminar in January of this year,2 what I have to say is an update of that. Fortunately, however, a fair amount of progress has occurred in these last few months. So there is new information to report to you.
TOPICAL REPORT REVIEWS Several Topical Report (TR) designs submitted by vendors are being reviewed by the NRC. In a few cases letters of approval for TRs have been issued, but subsequent events, have caused problems in one case. I shall discuss this later in this paper. Additional TR submittals are expected.
The TRs first submitted included dry cask designs by General Nuclear Systems, Inc., (GNSI) (a partnership between Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.,
and Gesellschaft fur Nuklear-Service mbH) for the CASTOR Ic and V/21 casks (docketed under Project Nos. M-34 and M-37, respectively) and by Ridihalgh, Eggers and Associates for the REA 2023 pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) spent fuel storage cask designs (docketed under Project Nos. M-33 and M-36, respectively).
The GNSI casks are of thick-walled nodular cast iron, the CASTOR Ic having a capacity of 16 BWR assemblies and the CASTOR V/21'having a capacity of 21 PWR assemblies. The REA casks are fabricated of stainless steel and lead with liquid neutron shields, with the PWR cask having a capacity of 24 assemblies and the BWR cask having a capacity of 52 assemblies.
Since 1984 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Limited (MHI) has purchased the rights to the REA cask designs; and the REA Topical Report submittals have been assumed by MHI. MHI is initially pursuing approval of the PWR cask design Topical Report.8 Substantial design changes have been made to the cask basket and the neutron shield portion of the cask, which has been renamed the MSF IV.
2
_ s
Other Topical Reports which were expected to be submitted in 1984, have been. NUTECH, Inc. submitted their concrete module storage design, which contains a stainless steel canister wi.th a capacity of 7 PWR assemblies (TR docketed under Project M-39). Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NAC) has submitted a TR for the NAC Storage / Transport (S/T) cask, which is a stainless steel and lead cask with a liquid shield and which has a capacity of 31 PWR assemblies (TR docketed under Project No. M-40).
The Westinghouse Electric Corporation (W) and Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) have also submitted dry cask design TRs for thick-walled steel casks, the MC-10 and TN-24 respectively, with solid neutron shields. These TRs were received and docketed in 1985. Each cask has a capacity of 24 PWR assemblies. (The W and TN reports are docketed under Project Nos. M-41 and M-42 respectively).
The most r~ e cent TR submitted in December 1985 is that by Combustion Engineering (CE) for their Dry-Cap-P24 and Dry-Cap-860 dry cask designs.
These are thick-walled steel casks with solid external neutron shields.
The cask, which differs only in fuel basket designs, can either hold 24 PWR or 60 BWR assemblies. (The CE report is docketed under Project M-43). A TR, which is expected to be submitted by Foster-Wheeler Company (FW) with General Electric Company (GEC) of the United Kingdom this year, will be for a modular concrete vault design.
In summary, to date, with the exceptions of the NUTECH design, all TR designs submitted have been for metal dry storage casks. The Foster Wheeler TR would be another exception.
PROGRESS OF TOPICAL REPORT REVIEWS Two TRs for the GNSI CASTOR Ic and V/21 designs received letters of approval in 1985.4'S Each of these letters included a Safety Evaluation Report and limiting conditions for the use of these casks. Reviews of these two nodular cast iron casks considered use of these casks under normal, off-normal and accident conditions including cask drop and tipover, fire and explosion and for extreme natural phenomena including earthquake, tornado winds, and missile impact, lightening strike, and flood, thermal, shielding, criticality, radiological, and mechanical evaluations were made. In some instances, vendor analyses were evaluated; and in other instances, independent analyses under codes including KEN 0 V for criticality and MORSE for shielding were used.
Additional independent thermal and mechanical stress calculations were
~
performed. Specific concerns included the characterization of nodular cast iron as an acceptable material for dry storage cask use, the maximum spent fuel cladding temperature seen for fuel in the cask, and the ability of fuel to be dry stored under cask conditions for at least i
20 years without undergoing any significant deterioration.
i 3
l l
I 1 _ - -
l i .
4 In the case-of the CASTOR V/21, its letter of approval was issued on
- September 30, 1985. Since then, an occurrence, during an unlicensed demonstration conducted at the Idaho N.ational Engineering Laboratory, has been reported.8 This occurrence involved cracks in welds in the rask
, basket which is fabricated largely of borated stainless steel. GNSI and i Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) were requested to supply NRC with information on this occurrence.7,s GNSI has provided NRC i nfo rmation,8 '1 and VEPC0 and GNSI have met with NRC staff. We are
- reviewing this material and assessing any implications of this occurrence 3
for CASTOR V/21-use at the proposed VEPC0 Surry Power Station site dry cask independent spent fuel storage installation. Competent authorities
), in the Federal Republic of Germany are also awaiting a report on this
- occurrence prior to completion of their review of the CASTOR V/21 cask.11' i
In addition, GNSI has submitted information regarding use of an all stainless steel (without added boron) basket to store low initial enrichment fuel.12 We are reviewing this and have found no problems with 1
this proposal which would preclude approving it. VEPCO. expressed this l proposal originally at a meeting with GNSI and NRC staff.18 VEPCO has low initial enrichment fuel, i.e. , spent fuel, in its Surry Power Station i
pool. Thus, resolution of the CASTOR V/21 basket question using this alternative could provide some near-term storage capacity relief at Surry while the borated stainless steel basket would continue to be reviewed.
f With respect to other TRs submitted, initial comments were submitted to
! NUTECH, Inc. , for its concrete module design (docketed under Project t
No. M-39). Meetings were held to discuss comments, involving
! criticality, shielding _and thermal analyses and other matters, and a revised TR was submitted in November 1985. . We have completed our review j and a letter of approval with a safety evaluation report was issued on March 28, 1986. Initial comments were also sent to NAC on its TR' (docketed under Project No. M-40) in October 1985, and initial comments have also been sent to W regarding its TR (docketed under Project
- No. M-41) in December 1985.
, Our reviews of the TN design and the CE design (docketed under Project
, Nos. M-42 and M-43, respectively) are just beginning. A new TR for the j Mitsubishi MSF IV cask design is expected this_ year.
s j LICENSE APPLICATIONS i
j We have received two license applications for dry storage. The first i
from VEPC0 for dry cask storage at its Surry Power Station has been l
i reviewed, and a Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment (EA) have been issued.14 The Finding of-No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Register.ts The safety review for the VEPCO application is nearing completion. We expect Commission review later this spring. The second dry storage license application (docketed i February 12, 1985, under Docket No. 72-3) is from Carolina Power and 4
l l 4
Light Company (CP&L) and is for dry concrete module storage on the site of its H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. R (HBR2). The safety analysis report submitted by CP&L references the NUTECH module design TR.
At a meeting with NRC staff on May 30, 1985, CP&L indicated significant design changes from the NUTECH TR design. These changes were subsequently incorporated by CP&L with NUTECH assistance in the design for use at HBR2. Following NRC staff comments, CP&L also submitted a separate Environmental Report (ER) (docketed July 19, 1985, under Docket 72-3). Safety and environmental reviews of the application are completed. Our environmental assessment for the HBR ISFSI was issued on March 31, 1986 and will be followed by issuance of our safety evaluation report later in April. We expect Commission review later this spring.
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT Section 141(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19821 requires that a monitored retrievable storage facility (MRS) be subject to NRC licensing.
Assuming that the Congress authorizes a MRS a regulation for licensing 00E to store spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be needed.
A proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 to accomplish this objective has been drafted and is being considered by the Commission (SECY-85-374). A final rule would not be issued until and unless the Congress authorizes DOE to proceed with an MRS.
Essentially, the staff believes that the technical and procedural requirements of the 10 CFR Part 72 are applicable to the licensing of a MRS. The proposed rule to amend Part 72 would explicitly include the MRS and storage of solid high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in a MRS. Other than the incorporation of the terms " monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS)" and "high-level radioactive waste (HLW)," the substance of the proposed revisions are:
o Wording changes to clarify the requirement that spent fuel cladding be protected against degradation leading to gross rupture or to otherwise confine the fuel such that degradation of the fuel will not pose operational safety problems when removed from storage, o Addition of a requirement to consider tornado missiles on the design of the ISFSI and MRS.
o Addition of the requirement that MRS be designed to permit monitoring, management and maintenance of the spent fuel and HLW for the foreseeable future, o Addition of the requirement for retrievability of spent fuel and HLW.
5
o Addition of specific quality assurance (QA) requirements appropriate for an ISFSI or MRS. Thus, Part 72 will no longer simply reference 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. However, for at-reactor site applications, an existing approved Appendix B program applied to an ISFSI remains acceptable.
o Addition of a 40 year license term for a MRS. The license term for an ISFSI will remain 20 years.
o Modifications of appropriate sections regarding records management and procedures as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
Further revision of Part 72 is contemplated in response to the NWPA provision for the Commission to develop, by rule, approvals for the use of dry storage casks without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals. After gaining experience on the initial dry cask license applications and related topical reports, combined with information developed by DOE dry storage development and demonstration programs, we plan on developing the technical basis for cask certification and general licenses. This would then be developed into a new rule. The development and issuance of such a rule about 1988 would facilitate licensing of dry storage for additional capacity that may be needed in the 1990's, pending the availability of a repository or an MRS.
MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE FACILITY The NWPA specifies that the DOE, in formulating its MRS proposal shall consult with the Commission. To date, the NRC has played a consultative role in the development of the MRS proposal, advising DOE on regulatory aspects. So far the DOE /NRC interactions have been informal, as contrasted to the more formal interactions for the repository project.
This has been principally due to the fact that the MRS proposal must be approved by Congress before NRC has a formal licensing role. The NRC staff has reviewed the DOE MRS proposal and prepared information for the Commission. NRC comments were sent to the DOE in early February,1986.
These have been published. "
CONCLUSION NRC staff have completed safety reviews of three topical safety analysis I repot ts for dry spent fuel storage casks and a concrete module. New cask ;
and module designs continue to be submitted for review. A second dry 1 storage license application was received from CP&L, and our review of.it is completed. Review of the VEPC0 dry cask application is near completion, but the recent reports',' to us about the cracks in welds observed in the CASTOR V/21 cask basket are being evaluated and any issues which may affect the use of the CASTOR V/21 with a borated 6
._ - ._- -. . .~ - . . _
4 stainless steel basket at Surry have yet to be resolved. However, a revised basket design using stainless steel and restricting initial fuel i enrichment has been proposed to allow use of the CASTOR V/21 cask." For this design we expect to be able to complete our VEPCO license review >
l this spring allowing for subsequent resolution of borated steel basket
? concerns.
Based on data from the DOE dry storage development and demonstration program and NRC staff TR and license application reviews, we are
- beginning to move towards daveloping regulations to permit storage cask '
certification and general licenses. This would facilitate the licensing >
- of spent fuel storage in dry casks at reactors without additional site-specific approvals.
The NRC has advised the 00E on regulatory aspects in the development of the MRS proposal and has submitted comments to the DOE on that proposal.
- A proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 has been drafted to accommodate licensing of DOE to store spent fuel at an MRS. Assuming Congress authorizes an MRS, NRC will take on a more expanded and formal licensing role in the development of an MRS.
In conclusion, dry storage licensing continues to develop as a spent fuel storage option. -
t i
i ,
i 9
4
- 7 1
/.
REFERENCES
- 1. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97'-425, January 7, 1983.
- 2. Sturz, F. and Roberts, J. P.1986. " Licensing of Dry Spent Fuel Storage Installations and Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility" In Proceedings of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Spent Fuel Storage Seminar, Washington, DC, USA, January 22-24, 1986.
- 3. Memorandum from J. P. Roberts to L. C. Rouse, dated September 20, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project No. M-36.
- 4. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to Victor J. Barnhart, Program Manager, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., dated May 14, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, j docketed under Project No. M-34.
- 5. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel
, Licensing Branch, to USNRC, Victor J. Barnhart, Vice President, i
General Nuclear Systems, Inc., dated September 30, 1985. Available
- from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC,
] USA, docketed under Project No. M-37.
- 6. Letter from Kevin R. Kinsley, Senior Licensing Engineer, General Nuclear System, Inc. to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated October 10, 1985.
Available at the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, docketed on October 17, 1985 under Project No. M-37.
- 7. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to Victor J. Barnhart, Program Manager, General Nuclear Systems, Inc. , dated October 14, 1985. Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Docket 72-2 and Project No. M-37.
- 8. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to W. L. Stewart Vice President, Nuclear Operations, Virginia Electric and Power Company, dated October 15, ,
1985. Available from USNR Public Document Room 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, under Docket 72-2.
- 9. Letter from Kevin R. Kingsley, Senior Licensing Engineer, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated November 27, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washigton, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
8
10 Letter from Kevin R. Kingsley, Senior Licensing Engineer, General Nuclear Systems, Inc. , to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated February 3,1986.
Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
- 11. Memorandum from J. P. Roberts to L. C. Rouse, dated October 18, 1985. Available from the USNRC, Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Praject No. M-37.
- 12. Letter from Robert T. Anderson, Director, Cask and Transportation Systems, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated February 28, 1986. Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
- 13. Memorandum from J. P. Roberts to L. C. Rouse, dated February 27, 1986. Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
- 14. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to W. L. Stewart, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, Virginia Electric and Power Company, dated April 12, 1985. Available from the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, under Docket 72-2.
- 15. Federal Register, Docket No. 72-2 (50-280 and -281), " Virginia Electric and Power Co.; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at the Surry Power Station,"
Vol. 50, No. 75, pp 15517-15518, April 18, 1985.
- 16. Staff Evaluation of U.S. Department of Energy Proposal to the Con gress on Monitored Retrievable Storage. NUREG-1168, March 1986.
USNRC, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC, USA.
9
J - + - -
Third International Spent Fuel Storage Technology Symposium / Workshop, 4/8-10/86, Seattle, WA PROGRESS IN DRY SPENT FUEL STORAGE LICENSING AND RULEMAKING ,
J. P. Roberts and F. C. Sturz Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC, 20555 U.S.A.
Spent fuel storage outside of reactor pools, which is licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Part 72 is now dominated by developments in modular dry storage designs for both interim and long-term storage. In response to provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, NRC is developing amendments to 10 CFR Part 72: 1) to accommodate licensing of monitored retrievable storage, should it be authorized by Congress; and 2) to develop a site independent or " generic" rule for dry spent storage in metal casks.
i i
I l
i I
s 7 - - e -
l l
~
INTRODUCTION All of you present are familiar with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19821 (the Act) and its mandates regarding the Department of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responsibilities concerning the geologic repository and monitored retrievable storage (MRS). You also j know that interim storage of spent fuel was established as a responsibility i
of those possessing that fuel, i.e., generally speaking utilities. So I
, shall confine my discussion to updating NRC progress with respect to dry storage licensing, including. topical reports for dry cask and modular designs, I and dry storage rulemaking including the MRS and the nonsite-specific or i " generic" rule.
Since a paper by my co-author and me was presented recently on the
(
subjects mentioned above at the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management l Spent Fuel Storage Seminar in January of this year,2 what I have to say is an update of that. Fortunately, however, a fair amount of progress 4
has occurred in these last few months. So there is new information to report to you.
TOPICAL REPORT REVIEWS Several Topical Report (TR) designs submitted by vendors are being
] reviewed by the NRC. In a few cases letters of approval for TRs have 4 been issued, but subsequent events, have caused problems in one case. I q shall discuss this later in this paper. Additional TR submittals are expected.
The TRs first submitted included dry cask designs by General Nuclear l Systems, Inc., (GNSI) (a partnership between Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.,
and Gesellschaft fur Nuklear-Service mbH) for the CASTOR Ic and V/21
- casks (docketed under Project Nos. M-34 and M-37, respectively) and by 1 Ridihalgh, Eggers and Associates for the REA 2023 pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) spent fuel storage cask designs (docketed under-Project Nos. M-33'and M-36, respectively).
i The GNSI casks are of thick-walled nodular cast iron, the CASTOR Ic having a capacity of 16 BWR as,semblies and the CASTOR V/21 having a capacity of 21 PWR assemblies. The REA casks are fabricated of stainless
- steel and lead with liquid neutron shields, with the PWR cask having a capacity of 24 assemblies and the BWR cask having a capacity of 52 4
assemblies.
Since 1984 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Limited (MHI) has purchased the
- rights to the REA cask designs; and the REA Topical Report submittals i have been assumed by MHI. ;MHI is initially pursuing approval of the PWR cask design Topical Report.3 Substantial design changes have been made-to the cask' basket and the neutron shield portion of the cask,.which has
, been renamed the MSF IV.
4 2 ,
, - e .- ..d.-. . . . , , _. ,. , - h_. -., ,.r. , . . - . . ~ , . . . , -
i i
J Other Topical Reports which were expected to be submitted in 1984, have been. NUTECH, Inc. submitted their concrete modul6 storage design, which j contains a stainless steel canister wi.th a capacity of 7 PWR assemblies
! (TR docketed under Project M-39). Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NAC) j has submitted a TR for the NAC Storage / Transport (S/T) cask, which is a
- stainless steel and lead cask with a liquid shield and which has a j capacity of 31 PWR assemblies (TR docketed under Project No. M-40).
I i
The Westinghouse Electric Corporation (W) and Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) l have also submitted dry cask design TRs for thick-walled steel casks, the l MC-10 and TN-24 respectively, with solid neutron shields. These TRs were received and docketed in 1985. Each cask has a capacity of 24 PWR assemblies. (The W and TN reports are docketed under Project Nos. M-41 and M-42 respectively).
The most recent TR submitted in December 1985 is that by Combustion.
I Engineering (CE) for their Dry-Cap-P24 and Dry-Cap-B60 dry cask designs.
These are thick-walled steel casks with solid external neutron shields.
The cask, which differs only in fuel basket designs, can either hold 24 PWR or 60 BWR assemblies. (The CE report is docketed under Project M-43). A TR, which is expected-to be submitted by Foster-Wheeler Company (FW) with General Electric Company-(GEC) of the United Kingdom this year,
- will be for a modular concrete vault design.
In summary, to date, with the exceptions of the NUTECH design, all TR designs submitted have been for metal dry storage casks. The Foster Wheeler TR would be another exception.
PROGRESS OF TOPICAL REPORT REVIEWS Two TRs for the GNSI CASTOR Ic and V/21 designs. received letters of approval in 1985.4'5 Each of these letters included a Safety Evaluation Report and limiting conditions for the use of'these casks. Reviews of i these two nodular cast iron casks considered use of these casks under
' normal, off-normal and accident conditions including cask drop and tipover, fire and explosion and for extreme natural phenomena including l earthquake, tornado winds, and missile impact, lightening strike, and.
3 flood, thermal, shielding, criticality, radiological, and mechanical
- evaluations were made. In some instances, vendor analyses were-i evaluated; and in other-instances, independent analyses under codes including KENO V for criticality and MORSE for shielding were used.
Additional independent thermal and mechanical stress calculations were performed. Specific concerns included the characterization of nodular cast iron as an acceptable material for dry storage cask use, the maximum spent fuel cladding temperature seen for fuel in the' cask, and the ability of fuel to be dry stored under cask conditions for at least
- 20 years without undergoing any significant deterioration.
l 3
l l
t _
l l
In the case of the CASTOR V/21, its letter of approval was issued on September 30, 1985. Since then, an occurrence, during an unlicensed 1 demonstration conducted at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, has been reported.6 This occurrence involved cracks in welds in the cask basket which is fabt-icated largely of borated stainless steel. GNSI and Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) were requested to supply NRC with information on this occurrence.7'8 GNSI has provided NRC information,9'10 and VEPC0 and GNSI have met with NRC staff. We are reviewing this material and assessing any implications of this occurrence for CASTOR V/21 use at the proposed VEPC0 Surry Power Station site dry cask independent spent fuel storage installation. Competent authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany are also awaiting a report on this occurrence prior to completion of their review of the CASTOR V/21 cask.11 In addition, GNSI has submitted information regarding use of an all stainless steel (without added boron) basket to store low initial enrichment fuel.12 We are reviewing this and have found no problems with this proposal which would preclude approving it. VEPC0 expressed this proposal originally at a meeting with GNSI and NRC staff.13 VEPC0 has low initial enrichment fuel, i.e. , spent fuel, in its Surry Power Station pool. Thus, resolution of the CASTOR V/21 basket question using this alternative could provide some near-term storage capacity relief at Surry while the borated stainless steel basket would continue to be reviewed.
With respect to other TRs submitted, initial comments were submitted to NUTECH, Inc., for its concrete module design (docketed under Project No. M-39). Meetings were held to discuss comments, involving criticality, shielding and thermal analyses and other matters, and a revised TR was submitted in November 1985. We have completed our review and a letter of approval with a safety evaluation report was issued on March 28, 1986. Initial comments were also sent to NAC on its TR (docketed under Project No. M-40) in October 1985, and initial comments have also been sent to W regarding its TR (docketed under Project No. M-41) in December 1985.
Our reviews of the TN design and the CE design (docketed under Project Nos. M-42 and M-43, respectively) are just beginning. A new TR for the Mitsubishi MSF IV cask design is expected this year.
LICENSE APPLICATIONS We have received two license applications for dry storage. The first from VEPC0 for .iry cask storage at its Surry Power Stat 10n has been reviewed, and a Finding of No Significant Impact and Ev,ironmental Assessment (EA) have been issued.14 The Finding of No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Register.15 The safety review for the VEPC0 application is nearing completion. We expect Commission review later this spring. The second dry storage license application (docketed February 12, 1985, under Docket No. 72-3) is from Carolina Fawer and 4
Light Company (CP&L) and is for dry concrete module storage on the site of its H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 (HBR2). The safety analysis report submitted by CP&L references the NUTECH module design TR.
At a meeting with NRC staff on May 30, 1985, CP&L Indicated significant design changes from the NUTECH TR design. These changes were subsequently incorporated by CP&L with NUTECH assistance in the design for use at HBR2. Following NRC staff comments, CP&L also submitted a separate Environmental Report (ER) (docketed July 19, 1985, under Docket 72-3). Safety and environmental reviews of the application are completed. Our environmental assessment for the HBR ISFSI was issued on March 31, 1986 and will be followed by issuance of our safety evaluation report later in April. We expect Commission review later this spring.
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT Section 141(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19821 requires that a monitored retrievable storage facility (MRS) be subject to NRC licensing.
Assuming that the Congress authorizes a MRS a regulation for licensing DOE to store spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be needed.
A proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 to accomplish this objective has been drafted and is being considered by the Commission (SECY-85-374). A final rule would not be issued until and unless the Congress authorizes DOE to proceed with an MRS.
Essentially, the staff believes that the technical and procedural requirements of the 10 CFR Part 72 are applicable to the licensing of a MRS. The proposed rule to amend Part 72 would explicitly include the MRS and storage of solid high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in a MRS. Other than the incorporation of the terms " monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS)" and "high-level radioactive waste (HLW)," the substance of the proposed revisions are:
o Wording changes to clarify the requirement that spent fuel cladding be protected against degradation leading to gross rupture or to otherwise confine the fuel such that degradation of the fuel will not pose operational safety problems when removed from storage.
o Addition of a requirement to consider tornado missiles on the design of the ISFSI and MRS.
o Addition of the requirement that MRS be designed to permit monitoring, management and maintenance of the spent fuel and HLW for the foreseeable future.
o Addition of the requirement for retrievability of spent fuel and HLW.
5
i
~
o Addition of specific quality assurance (QA) requirements appropriate for an ISFSI or MRS. Thus, Part 72 will no longer-simply reference 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. However, for at-reactor site applications,'an existing approved Appendix B program applied to an ISFSI remains acceptable.
4 o Addition of a 40 year license term for a MRS. The license term for an ISFSI will remain 20 years.
l o Modifications of appropriate sections regarding records management and procedures as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
I Further revision of Part 72 is contemplated in response to the NWPA provision for the Commission to develop, by rule, approvals for the use of dry storage casks without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals. After gaining experience on the initial dry cask license applications and related topical reports, combined with information developed by DOE dry storage development and
- demonstration programs, we plan on developing the technical basis for cask certification and general licenses. This would then be developed into a new rule. The development and issuance of such a rule about 1988.
would facilitate licensing of dry storage for additional capacity that may be needed in the 1990's, pending the availability of a repository or an MRS.
l HONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE FACILITY I
The NWPA specifies that the DOE, in formulating its MRS proposal shall consult with the Commission. To date, the NRC has played a consultative role in the development of the MRS proposal, advising DOE on regulatory
- aspects. So-far the DOE /NRC interactions have been informal, as l contrasted to the more formal interactions for the repository project.
This has been principally due to the fact that the MRS proposal must be approved by Congress before NRC has a formal licensing role. The NRC staff has reviewed the DOE MRS proposal and prepared information for the Commission. NRC comments were sent to the DOE in early February,1986.
These have been published.25 CONCLUSION NRC staff have completed safety reviews of three topical safety analysis reports- for dry spent fuel storage casks and a concrete module. New cask and module designs continue to be submitted for review. A second dry storage license application was received from CP&L, and our review of. it
~
-is completed. Review of the VEPCO. dry cask application is near completion, but the recent reports',to us about the cracks.in welds observed in the CASTOR V/21 cask basket are being evaluated and any l issues which may affect the use of the CASTOR V/21 with a borated 6
,,. ,, -, - . ,__ ;_.- a-.~. , , , - . .
stainless steel basket at Surry have yet to be resolved. However, a revised basket design using stainless steel and restricting initial fuel enrichment has been preposed to allow use of the CASTOR V/21 cask." For this design we expect to be able to complete our VEPC0 license review this spring allowing for subsequent resolution of borated steel basket concerns.
Based on data from the DOE dry storage development and demonstration program and NRC staff TR and license application reviews, we are beginning to move towards developing regulations to permit storage cask certification and general licenses. This would facilitate the licensing of spent fuel storage in dry casks at reactors without additional site-specific approvals.
The NRC has advised the DOE on regulatory aspects in the development of the MRS proposal and has submitted comments to the DOE on that proposal.
A proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 has been drafted to accommodate licensing of DOE to store spent fuel at an MRS. Assuming Congress authorizes an MRS, NRC will take on a more expanded and formal licensing role in the development of an MRS.
In conclu;fon, dry storage licensing continues to develop as a spent fuel ~
storage option.
7 d
REFERENCES
- 1. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, January 7, 1983.
- 2. Sturz, F. and Roberts, J. P.1986. " Licensing of Dry Spent Fuel Storage Installations and Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility" In Proceedings of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Spent Fuel Storage Seminar, Washington, DC, USA, January 22-24, 1986.
- 3. Memorandum from J. P. Roberts to L. C. Rouse, dated September 20, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project No. M-36.
- 4. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to Victor J. Barnhart, Program Manager, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., dated May 14, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project No. M-34.
- 5. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, to USNRC, Victor J. Barnhart, Vice President, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., dated September 30, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project No. M-37.
- 6. Letter from Kevin R. Kinsley, Senior Licensing. Engineer, General Nuclear System, Inc. to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated October 10, 1985.
Available at the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, docketed on October 17, 1985 under Project No. M-37.
- 7. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to Victor J. Barnhart, Program Manager, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., dated October 14, 1985. Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Docket 72-2 and Project No. M-37.
- 8. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to W. L. Stewart Vice President, Nuclear Operations, Virginia Electric and Power Company, dated October 15, 1985. Available from USNR Public Document Room 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, under Docket 72-2.
- 9. Letter from Kevin R. Kingsley, Senior Licensing Engineer, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated November 27, 1985. Available from USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washigton, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
8
+
10 Letter from Kevin R. Kingsley, Senior Licensing Engineer, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated February 3,1986.
Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
- 11. Memorandum from J. P. Roberts to L. C. Rouse, dated October 18, 1985. Available from the USNRC, Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project No M-37.
- 12. Letter from Robert T. Anderson, Director, Cask and Transportation Systems, General Nuclear Systems, Inc., to John P. Roberts, Project Manager, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, dated February 28, 1986. Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
- 13. Memorandum from J. P. Roberts to L. C. Rouse, dated February 27, 1986. Available from the USNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, docketed under Project M-37.
- 14. Letter from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, USNRC, to W. L. Stewart, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, Virginia Electric and Power Company, dated April 12, 1985. Available from the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, USA, under Docket 72-2.
- 15. Federal Register, Docket No. 72-2 (50-280 and -281), " Virginia Electric and Power Co.; 1ssuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at the Surry Power Station,"
Vol. 50, No. 75, pp 15517-15518, April 18, 1985.
- 16. Staff Evaluation of U.S. Department of Energy Proposal to the Con gress on Monitored Retrievable Storage. NUREG-1168, March 1986.
USNRC, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC, USA.
l 9
i