ML20209B817
| ML20209B817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Rusche B ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209A941 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704280521 | |
| Download: ML20209B817 (4) | |
Text
f $ kp, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T. ;
E*. [ W ASHINGTON, D. c. 20555
%. 4Y CHAIRMAN Apfil 7, 1987 Mr.-Ben Rusche, Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Mr. Rusche:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the Draft Mission Plan Amendment issued by the Department of Energy in January 1987.
The NRC review has identified a number of comments that the DOE should evaluate in revising the draft Amendment. The NRC recognizes the necessarily broad nature of the document and anticipates that details of plans and related bases will be contained in documents still to be published (e.g.,
Site Characterization Plans and supporting documents) rather than in'the revised draft Amendment. Review of those documents should provide the NRC staff with the opportunity for more detailed review and comment-on items only generally addressed in the draft Amendment. Comments resulting from the staff's review of the draft Amendment are enclosed for your consideration.-
The DOE has made a significant commitment in the draft Amendment by.specifying six activities to make maximum-use of the near-term extension and to increase confidence that the Commission's review of the license application can be completed within the 36 months allotted for that review.
The NRC staff stands ready to cooperate with the DOE in implementing these items, and considers that continuous and close interaction between the NRC and the DOE will lead to successful implementation. Accordingly, I would appreciate your addressing this topic in your future briefings to the Commission. Also, I have requested the staff to inform me on a quarterly basis about progress made by the DOE and NRC staffs in their implementation.
The Draft Mission Plan Amendment includes language linking the schedule for receipt of spent fuel at the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility to the NRC's issuance of ,
a construction authorization for the repository. The basis ;
for the NRC's review of the license appiication for the l repository and the awarding of a construction authorization
)
1 l
e704280521 870422 ;
PDR COMMS NRCC -l CORRESPONDENCE PDR I
.e
.9 will be public' health and safety and will not include '
censiderations related to the MRS schedule for receipt-of.
spent fuel.
If you have any questions _concerning this' letter or the enclosu,re, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, b 4.
Lando W. Z h,.
Y.
t
Enclosure:
As stated 4
1 t
t
']
i
<, , - . -, ,c y- -
i Y
General Comments
- 1. The draft Amendment does not address the status of th'e Project Decision Schedule (PDS) developed under Section 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The status of the current PDS in light of the draft Amendment should be indicated, as well as when the PDS will be revised to conform to the final Amendment.
- 2. Surface-based testing and drilling should be specific' ally recognized as a major part of the 002's site characterization program. Certain of those activities may need to be completed prior to construction of the shafts because (a) shaft construction may render some testing impossible or useless; and (b) such testing may reveal information about site suitability important to know before major resources are committed for shaft construction. The importance of pre-shaft hydrology testing was aptly recognized in the case of BWIP (Amendment, p. 33) but should also be recognized in other parts of the document (Table B-1, Major phases of the.
repository program; p. 33, "The major milestones for site characterizatio,n are as follows:...").
- 3. The use of a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility will have an impact on certain design features and assumptions concerning the repository waste package and other systems. For example, spent fuel may be stored at the MRS in canisters which form an integral part of the final wasta package at the repository. If irreversible decisions are to be made in advance of the license submittal for the repository, those matters should be identified and resolv.ed at an early stage with the Commission.
Specific Comments
- 1. P. 7: The statement that the license-application designs will be based on data collected during in situ testing in the exploratory shaft facility is modified on pp. 34-35 to " preliminary in-situ data"'(emphasis added) for all three sites. Depending upon the nature and limitations of the ;
" preliminary" data, it is not clear that the license-application designs '
would be adequately supported.
- 2. P. 9: The nature and role of the "Ifcensing topical reports" need to be clarified. It is unclear how they will achieve the stated goal to i
" greatly reduce the volume of material to be included in the application". 1 Also unclear is the role of such reports in implementing the issue i resolution strategies inasmuch as the site characterization progress reports are intended to document the " rationale for future changes to the l
I issue-resolution strategies..." (draft Amendment', p. 26). Of special interest to the NRC is which.of.the above reports are intendad'to address conservatism in the _ treatment of uncertainty relative to issues ~being W
resolved.
- 3. P. 22: The DOE issue-resolution strategy is a positive step, but the-00E-should note that the ultimate resolution of issues can only occur througn the Commission's rulemaking or adjudicatory process.
- 4. P. 22: The quality assurance aspects of the issue resolution strategy is unclear and needs to be-made explicit. Step 11 on Figure A-2 (p.23) is entitled " Document Resolution"; however, DOE should make explicit that each step in the process by which a particular issue is resolved'will-be completely documented.
- 5. P. 24: The draft Amendment states that the performance allocation concept was documented in a written agreement (emphasis added) between the DOE and
, the Commission (emphasis added). In order to prevent any confusion on the nature of this agreement, it should be noted that the " written agreement" was in the form of summaries of the meetings that took place between'the DOE and the NRC staff on the issue of performance allocation. These summaries documented the discussions between 00E and NRC staff on the'need for the DOE to develop a performance allocation program and do not constitute a formal agreement by the Commission.
- 6. P. 26: The draft Amendment notes that "Before proceeding to sink shafts at.any site, the DOE must submit, for_ review and comment, a.
site-characterization plan (SCP) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss 4 a.'..".
Furthermore, it is stated that "The sinking of shafts will start after
[00E] public hearings have been held in the vicinity of the site." These statements should be modified to recognize the requirement in 10 CFR Part 60.16 that "00E shall defer the sinking of such shafts until-such time as there has been an opportunity for Commission comments thereon to have been solicited and considered by DOE".
- 7. P. 36: A milestone should be added to those listed to indicate that a license amendment to receive and possess additional amounts of waste.will be required between phase 2 construction and phase 2 operations.
-_ .