ML20211D269
| ML20211D269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/16/1999 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Cayetano B HAWAII, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211D274 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908260237 | |
| Download: ML20211D269 (4) | |
Text
_
fl
.r
& ~ The Honortble Benjrmin J. Csyttino 5
- Govsmor of Hawrii -
' E Chairman, Westem Governors' Association-60017* Street
! Suite 1705 South Tower -
. Denver, Colorado 80202-5452
Dear Govemor Cayetano:
I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of Govemor Kempthorne's and your July 2,1999 letter to former Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. Your letter forwarded copies of two recently adopted Westem Govemors' Association (WGA) policy resolutions of specialinterest. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates your keeping us informed of issues of interest to the
^
LWestem Govemors.
The WGA policy resolutions principally address issues concerning the transportation and
. disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste and the U.S. Department of.
Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.- The NRC notes that the WGA supports the national.
policy for permanent, safe, geologic disposal as an appropriate means of managing and finally.
disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. The Commission continues to believe that deep geologic disposal is a sound and technically feasible disposition of spent -
nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste. We also note that the WGA supports efforts by the Federal government to examine alternative waste acceptance options, including but not limited to, providing funds to utilities for expanded on site storage and taking title to spent nuclear fuel at individual reactor sites. 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 Congress. These issues are discussed in further detail in
. the enclosed March 30,1999 letter from the Commission to Congressman Joe Barton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Commerce.
I hope you will find this information helpful. The NRC looks forward to working with the WGA and other State organizations in addressing these important issues.
L Sincerely, Signed By:
H.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Director.
Office of State Programs t
Enclosure:
' As stated
/
cc:
The Honorable Dirk Kempthorne
)
l Govemor of Idaho
_ Distribution:
i-DlR RF (G19990350)~
DCD (SP03) l l EDO RF1 260020 eDR (YeSe>
l : SECY (CRC-99-0631) -
< WGA File LDOCUMENT NAME: g:\\SCD\\wga.wpd n/
- See previous concurrence.
ru
. ew or mm encum.nt. inee = m m.==: -c = c WAui nchm.nv.nenne r copy we amenm.nu.ncio.= w wo copy n,M OFFICE Q OSP l
OE/I:E Q?
NMSS-l OGC l
l 00 ( $l( l NAME SCDroggitis:gd FComth _ ~ "
CPaperiello SATreby lPHLohlut I/
j y DATE 07/22/99 07FA99 08/o2 /99
- 08/10/99
- l 08/lb/99 9908260237 990816-g
. OSP FILE CODE: SP-W-3 PDR STPRO E80HI-t aseeseeen L
~
The Honor:ble Benj: min J. Cry;tano Governor of Hawaii Chairman, Westem Governors' Association.
600178" Street Suite 1705 South Tower Denver, Colorado 80202-5452
Dear Govemor Cayetano:
I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of Govemor Kemptho e's and your July 2,1999 letter to former Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. Your letter forwarde copies of two recently adopted Westem Govemors' Association (WGA) policy resolutions specialinterest. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates your keeping u informed of issues of interest to the Westem Governors.
The WGA policy resolutions principally address issues co eming the transportation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive w ste and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Waste isolation Pilot Plant. The NRC note that the WGA supports the national policy for permanent, safe, geologic disposal as an appr riate means of managing and finally disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. The Commission continues to believe that deep geologic disposalis a sound and tech cally feasible disposition of spent nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste. We Iso note that the WGA supports efforts by the Federal govemment to examine attemative wast acceptance options, including but not limited to, providing funds to utilities for expanded on si storage and taking title to spent nuclear fuel at individual reactor sites. From a safety rspective, the Commission does not object to the concept of the DOE taking title to spent I at commercial power reactor facilities.
However, the concept does raise a number of legislatife, legal and resource issues that would need to be addressed specifically by Congress. Thes issues are discussed in further detailin the enclosed March 30,1999 letter from the Commis ion to Congressman Joe Barton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Powe of the House Committee on Commerce.
I hope you will find this information helpful. The NR looks forward to working with the WGA and other State organizations in addressing these i portant issues.
Sincer !
ly, Paul. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
The Honorable Dirk Kempthome Governor of Idaho Distributign:
DIR RF (G19990350)
DCD P03)
SECY (CRC-99-0631)
/h hfr~
WGA File 7
DOCUMENT NAME: g:tSCDtwga.wpd K0 lf T t receive a copy of thne document, Ind6cate in the bor: "C" = C ut atta t/ enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N" a No copy OFFICE d)OSP l
05f:tQ?
NMSS OGCgy]
OSP:D NAME SCDroggitis:gd FComth _ * ' ' ' j CPaperiello SATreby U'
PHLohaus DATE 07/2)/99 07899
/
07/ /99 0%f //99 07/ /99 4
i
~
' The H:nor:ble Benj: min J. Cryst;no GovImor of H;w;ii
- Chairman, Westem Govemors' Association 60017^ Street Suite 1705 South Tower Denver, Colorado 80202-5452
Dear Govemor.Cayetano:
4 i am pleased to acknowledge receipt of Govsmor Kemptho e's and your July 2,1999 letter to former Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. Your letter forward copies of two recently adopted Westem Govemors' Association (WGA) policy resolutions c specialinterest. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates your keeping u L informed of issues of interest to the Westem Govemors.
The WGA policy resolutions principally address issues co ming the transportation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive wi ste and the U.S. Department of
'{
Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The NRC notep that the WGA supports the national policy for permanent, safe, geologic disposal as an approbriate means of managing and finally disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactivepaste. The Commission continues to believe that deep geologic disposalis a sound and techn lly feasible disposition of spent nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste. We iso note that the WGA supports efforts by the Federal goveinment to examine altemative waste acceptance options, including but not
. limited to, providing funds to utilities for expanded on sit storage and taking title to spent nuclear fuel at individual reactor sites. From a safety pective, the Commission does not object to the concept of the DOE taking title to spent fut I at commercial power reactor facilities.
However, the concept does raise a number of legislativ i, legal and resource issues that would i
' need to be addressed specifically by Congress. Thes issues are discussed in further detail in the enclosed March 30,1999 letter from the Commissii n to Congressman Joe Barton,
_ Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power af the House Committee on Commerce.
I hope you will find this information helpful. The NRC ooks forward to working with the WGA and other State organizations in addressing these im riant issues.
Sincerel,
Paul H.
ohaus, Director Office e' State Programs f
Enhlosure:
f As stated cc:
The Honorable Dirk Kempthome Govemor ofIdaho Distnbution.
DIR RF (G19990350)
DCD (S 03)
SECY (CRC-99-0631).
WGA File DOCUMENT NAME: g:\\SCDtwga.wpd mp /
n
.e.r om.
iuneem in no.c c fcMdui mischm..
ur. r cm.in mi.enm.nv.neio.un, v wo copy OFFICE Q OSP l
O$f;lQ?
/ NMSS g ',
OGC l-OSP:D l
NAME SCDroggitis:gd FCom8s Cffaperiellol' f SATreby PHLohaus DATE-07/2]/99 07[7/499
/- Ef/ /99 07/ /99 07/ /99 fy OSP FILE CODE: SP-W-3
I j
p h
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
(,%, /
August 16, 1999 The Honorable Benjamin J. Cayetano Govemor of Hawaii Chairman, Westem Govemors' Association 60017* Street Suite 1705 South Tower Denver, Colorado 80202-5452
Dear Govemor Cayetano:
I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of Govemor Kempthome's and your July 2,1999 letter to i
former Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. Your letter forwarded copies of two recently adopted Western Govemors' Association (WGA) policy resolutions of special interest. The U.S. Nuclear 1
Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates your keeping us informed of issues of interest to the Westem Governors.
The WGA policy resolutions principally address issues conceming the transportation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The NRC notes that the WGA supports the national policy for permanent, safe, geologic disposal as an appropriate means of managing and finally disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. The Commission continues to believe that deep geologic disposal is a sound and technically feasible disposition of spent nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste. We also note that the WGA supports efforts by the Federal govemment to examine alternative waste acceptance options, including but not limited to, providing funds to utilities for expanded on site storage and taking title to spent nuclear fuel at individual reactor sites. 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 Congress. These issues are discussed in further detailin the enclosed March 30,1999 letter from the Commission to Congressman Joe Barton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Commerce.
I hope you will find this information helpful. The NRC looks forward to working with the WGA and other State organizations in addressing these important issues.
I Si
- rely, f
m hv Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
The Honorable Dirk Kempthome Govemor of Idaho
r
=
~'[
j#
- 4 8
e UNITED STATES p
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsMNGTON. D.C. 30BEH001
,.1 j March 30, 1999 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energyand Power l
Committee on Commerce l
United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-6115 l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
in a letter dated March 1,1999, you requested the U.S. Nuclear Regad :ory Commission (NRC) views on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposal to "take titic u the spent nuclear fuel temporarily stored at the various utilities around the country. You also requested our views on l
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 attemative 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 i
concept does raise a number of legislative, legal, and resource issues that would need to be i
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.
l First, there is the issue of plant safety. The NRC would need to review carefully the interface
~
l 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 astarance 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 hearingt at existing ISFSis have raised important issues, including concems of state and tribal govemments, that needed to be resolved before taking a site-specific licensing action.
In addition, depending on the details of any legislation, if the DOE were to take title to the waste and were to manage it at the reactor sites (or elsewhere, if it is already stored off of the reactor site), the potential would exist for mettiple regulatory schemes at the sites. Also, all the spent LbhOh kd
, '..d'.
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 altomative legislation would apparently rule out oost-effective attematives 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 material. However, current law does not subject DOE-owned material to NRC transportation safety or the physical security requirements, thus creating a patchwork of regulatory requirements. Therefore, this issue should be addressed explicitly for the NRC to have a clear role in regulating the safe transport or physical security of casks containing DOE titled spent fuel. Public confidence may be enhanced if such shipments are subject to independent regulatory oversight by NRC consistent with other apent fuel shipments.
Fourth, there is the issue of stakeholder concems. For example, the public has come to expect a degree of external regulation and monitoring of ISFSis which may not occur if the DOE has sole operational and regulatory responsibility for the sites. The Commission also notes that DOE taking title to the spent tuel 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 and Vermont, have indicated at the highest levels, their opposition to additional dry spent fue!
storage capacity at reactor sites. Therefore, the proposed legislation, would need to address this issue to prevent the premature shutdown of the affected reactors. In addition, the legislation should address the issue of whether DOE also would have to take title to the land on I
which the dry cask storage facility resides in order to take title 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 the above are resolved, there is the potential for significant expenditures of Nuclear Waste Fund (or ger,eral fund) resources for these purposes. The diversion of resources from the
. repository program could be as large under the altamative 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 attemative clearly does not support.
In addition, the description of the proposed attomative legislation states that a radiation standard for the permanent repository would be set either administratively or legislatively. NRC is supportive of setting a realistic radiation standard for the permanent geologic repository, as discussed in the attomative bill. In this respect, the attomative could be consistent with previous high level waste legislation. Either H.R. 45, or S.104 as passed by the Senate in the last Congress, would permit NRC to establish an all-pathways standard that the Commission
~
3 believes would be protective of public health and safety. Both bi!!s are generally consistent with NRC's proposed 10 CFR Part 63, published for public comment in the February 22,1999, Federal Recister. The Commission has generally been supportive of the radiation standard provisions in these bills.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistanos.
sincerely, Originalsignedby ShirieyAnnJackson Shiriey Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
Question and Answer Response cc: Representative Ralph M. Hall j
e t
e
, ~v e
e
m 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?
&gggr.
NRC involvement in a regulatory scheme 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. Altematively, the legislation could provide for any of the following:
(1)
The utility to manage the DOE-titled spent fuel in an existing independent spent i
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 ISFSt.
j (2)
DOE ltself 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 ISFSis, and the licensing of such sites could be effectuated by NRC issuance of a generallicense. An NRC license would be obtained to construct and operate any newISFSI.
(3)
DOE liself 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 built) 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 attomative 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 altamatives 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 generallicense. 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 attemative 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 out 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
2 i
the NRC with the authority to collect 10 CFR Part 170 fees from DOE to cover NRC implementing activities.
Backaround/ Additional Information it is the position of the NRC that it agrees with the fundamental approach in H.R. 45, e
which includes centralinterim storage, and the agency has noted the benefits and resource efficiencies of a DOE centralinterim storage facility. The proposed attemative clearly does not support centralinterim storage.
Regardless of the licensing track chosen, the staff does not think there are any new e
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 be significant and may require six full time equivalents for each of three years.
Question 2:
What difference would it make, if any, from an NRC regulatory perspective who managed the storage effort after a DOE takeover (DOE, the utility, or a third party)?
Answer if the ISFSI would remain an NRC-licensed facility, the NRC's operator qualifications e
standards would apply to the facility licensee, whoever the licensee is.
if DOE or its third party contractor were to operate the ISFSI under DOE'S own e
authority, this would introduce a license exempt facility, material, and activities on each reactor licensee site. This would mean that NRC would have to address 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 this case, the NRC would not be involved with DOE operation of the ISFSt.
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 leDislation and resources provided, the e
concept could have a range of impacts on the NRC's ability to review and license a
I 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 fac!!!iates an efficient 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 j
staff review of a centralinterim storage facility.
The concept, if enacted, should have minimalimpact on NRC's ability to review and e
licante 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 altomative.
l 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.
e 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 attemative legislation.
Backoround/ Additional Information Dry cask storage is an interim spent fuel management technique used to expand on-site e
storage capacity. Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 permit licensing of an independent spent fuel storage installation for up to 20 years. The regulations also allow for renewal of these licenses upon demonstration that the facility can continue to operate safely.
When coupled with pool storage, dry cask storage provides storage for at least 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).
9
, ((u ~{!
qg i,
. +.
d'I O E j U:] d:
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FIKH(t DUE:
/
/
EDO CONTROL: Gl9990350 DOC DT: 07/02/99 FINAL REPLY:
Gov:rnor. Benjamin J. Cayetano
,H waii G vgrnor Dirk Kempthorne Id;hs
- TOs Chairman FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN- **
CRC NO: 99-0631 DESCt ROUTING:
NRC'S' POSITION ON THE 1999 ANNUAL MEETING POLICY Travers RESOLUTIONS " TRANSPORTATION OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Knapp AND'HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Miraglia Norry Blaha Burns DATEi 07/12/99 Paperiello,NMSS ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
_ S P _,
,Lohaus SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
.Fcr Appropriate Action, eup c-
{~
C3 en z.
"O 3
6..
(A w.
P:-;
' OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET i
PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-99-0631 LOGGING DATE: Jul 10 99 l
L ACTION OFFICE:
EDO.
AUTHOR:
B CAYETANO & D KEMPTHOREN
--AFFILIATION:
HAWAII
. ADDRESSEE:
SHIRLEY JACKSON
. LETTER DATE:
.Jul 2 99 FILE' CODE:
SUBJECT:
PROVIDES COPIES OF POLICY RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT THE 1999 ANNUAL-MEETING.....
ACTION:
Information'
' DISTRIBUTION:
-RF'
.SPECIAL HANDLING:-NONE' CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:-
OCM #3793---GOV OF HAWAII AND IDAHO DATE DUE:
SIGNATUREi DATE SIGNED:
' AFFILIATION:
l i
EDO --Gl9990350
-