ML20234F165
| ML20234F165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/14/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709230046 | |
| Download: ML20234F165 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s UNITED STATES 8"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
s
(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
\\,.
/
b CHAIRMAN 1
The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chairman l
Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the June 18, 1987 hearing on the U.S. Department of Energy's proposal for authorization of a monitored retrievable storage facility (MRS) for spent nuclear fuel, you requested
)
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to supplement our testimony with comments on portions of three pending bills, S.839, S.1141 and S.1266.
Subsequently, your staff has requested the Commission to provide comments on S.1668, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments Act of 1987, in lieu of the above three bills.
The enclosed comments are in response to that request.
I trust this information is responsive to your needs.
If my office can be of further help, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, ls.
I,*
Lando W. Zech Jr.
/
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson 8709230046 870914 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
.' t ~
ENCLOSURE NRC COMMENTS ON " NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1987" Section 402:
First Repository Site Characterization Under section 402(a)(1), the Department of Energy ("D0E") must select a preferred site for the first repository on or before January 1,1989. That will be the only site that undergoes at-depth site characterization, assuming the site is ultimately licensed.
During the period before DOE selects its preferred site, there would be no requirement that it conduct surface-based testing at the three current candidate sites. This would be left to DOE's discretion. The Commission believes.that DOE should be required to conduct additional surface-based testing at the three current candidate sites during this period in order to obtain further information as a basis for the selection of the preferred site for at depth characterization as a repository. As the NRC staff testified in hearings on April 28, 1987 and June 28, 1987 before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the existing data base for the three current candidate sites is limited.
The Commission does not oppose legislation which would require that only one site undergo at-depth characterization.
However, it must be recognized that under such an approach there may be a greater potential for delay of ultimate operation of a repository than there is under the current regime where three sites will undergo at-depth characterization before a site is selected.
If DOE were to find its chosen site to be inadequate, or if it could not demonstrate in a licensing proceeding that the site satisfied NRC regulatory requirements, there could be a considerable delay while characterization is started and carried out at another site. Also substantial
(
i b
]
2
- l. $
delays in repository licensing would require the Counission to reevaluate its Waste Confidence Decision of 1984.1 The Commission believes that because of this uncertainty, it may be prudent and in the national interest to require DOE to continue surface-based testing both at the preferred site and at other candidate sites after selection of a preferred site. Such testiing could provide additional information useful to DOE in evaluating the suitability of the remaining sites should the first site prove inadequate for licensing. This testing would likely provide sufficient geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data to evaluate potential disqualifying factors and develop a basic understanding of each site's characteristics so that more informed judgments could be made on the selection of a site for shaft sinking.
DOE's surface characterization plans for all sites should be made available to the NRC and other interested parties.
The approach we are proposing should provide sufficient information about the two sites not selected for characterization, so that if the initial site selected turns out to be unsuitable for licensing, there would be less delay in selecting a second site. Minimization of potential delays is important, particularly if the licensing of construction of the repository and operation I
Over the years in licensing the operation of commercial power reactors, the Commission has been confident that from a public health and safety and environmental protection perspective, safe waste storage and disposal would be available when needed.
In its Waste Confidence Decision, the Commission addressed this issue at great length. The Commission concluded that, if necessary, spent fuel could be safely stored either at the reactor where it was generated or in an independent spent fuel storage installation for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of a facility's operating license. The Commission also found that it had reasonable assurance that one or more mined (Footnote Continued)
4 3
L of the monitored retrievable' storage facility _("MRS") are linked, as DOE has proposed to Congress.
(TheNRCstafftestifiedbeforeyourSubcommitteeon June 18, 1987, that the Commission opposes such linkage.)
To provide greater assurance that the chosen site would eventually be ilcensable, we also recommend that the legislation require that NRC and other concerned persons be given an opportunity to review and comment on the site which DOE chooses for characterization before sinking of an exploratory shaft, and on the DOE plan for at-depth site characterization.
Our last comment with respect to this section relates to Section 40?(f)(3).
That section requires that 00E preserve all documents relating to selection of a preferred site and completion of the environmental evaluation for two years after the selection of the preferred site.
The NRC is conce ned that it could be inferred that these records may be destroyed aftur the reqLired period of retention.
Some of this material may be relevant juring the 1 censing process and its absence could complicate our licensing proceeding.
DCE and NRC are currently working on an information management system, known as the licensing support system to manage and provide ready access to all relevant licensing information and to be used as the sole information base during the discovery stage of the licensing proceeding. Any records related to the selection of the preferred site should be a part of the licensing support system and should be available throughout the licensing process. We would therefore recommend that the 2-year limit in this provision be deleted.
(Footnote Continued) geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel would be available by the years 2007-2009. Based on these findings the Commission (Footnote Continued)
4 s
Section 403:
Siting of Monitored Retrievable Storaae Facilities The Commission takes no position regarding whether there is a need for an MRS. As the NRC staff testified in hearings before your Subcommittee on
~ June 18, 1987, the matter of need is regarded as primarily a business decision within the overall waste management system. Notwithstanding this view, the Commission understands that there may be operational and regulatory benefits to be gained by providing an.MRS as part of an integrated high level waste disposal system.
l We note that under Section 141(b)(3) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the 1
Commission was afforded an opportunity to comment on DOE's initial proposal l
for an MRS facility.
In this proposed legislation, there is no provision for l
the NRC to comment on the DOE MRS proposal. We believe that the legislation should provide for such comment because it would ensure early identification of potential MRS licensing issues and provide some assurance that the site selected by DOE can meet NRC licensing requirements.
Section 403(f)(1) requires DOE to conduct a study of the need for and feasibility of multiple MRS facilities.
From a regulatory perspective we see no basis for more than a single MRS facility, however, we have no objection to such a study.
(FootnoteContinued) concludcJ that it had reasonable assurance that a disposal facility would be available when needed.
4.
5
- .t Section 403(j)(1) requires DOE to submit to Congress a report evaluating the benefits of storing spent nuclear fuel for at least 50 years before it is placed in a repository.
The Commission believes that while there may be some benefit to repository design resulting from lower heat generation. rates in spent fuel after long term storage, the technical basis for requiring spent 1
fuel storage for 50 years has not been established.
We believe that spent fuel storage should not be relied upon indefinitely as a
)
substitute for eventual disposal. We have a concern that a requirement for a 50-year storage ' period may be interpreted as suggesting a lack of national resolve to develop a geologic repository for waste disposal.
Section 404:
Benefits Agreements The Commission takes no position on the issues raised by this section, as the l
presence or absence of financial incentives is not directly related to NRC's health, safety, and environmental responsibilities or to our repository or MRS licensing process.
Section 406:
Review Panel This section establishes an advisory panel to review DOE's activities relating
- to the waste repository and the MRS. Because it would not be subject to the l
Federal Advisory Committee Act, its meetings would not have to be open to the public.
The Commission is concerned that this arrangement could lead to instances where the Review Panel raises significant issues relating to the
)
-6 J
i i
licensability of the repository or the MRS, but the NRC does not learn of these concerns in a timely fashion. We believe this provision should be revised to
. ensure that pertinent concerns of the Review Panel are promptly transmitted to
]
the NRC.
I Section 410: Authorization of Appropriations This section would, among other things, add a section 126 to the NPWA relating to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
The Commission has no objection to section 126(a), which would require that all spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste be transported in packages certified by the Commission. DOE has long been committed to such an approach.
We have concerns, however, with Section 126(d) which provides that the Commission shall require actual tests on a sample full-scale package as part of the certification process. The NRC staff considers actual full-scale package tests to be unnecessary from a technical perspective.
It believes that DOE could demonstrate that its transportation packages meet NRC requirements using computer simulations and/or scale model tests. We further note that the l
section as currently drafted is ambiguous.
It is unclear whether the NRC is to require an actual full-scale test for each package design or whether such a test would be required only for a sample cask of a single representative design. Also, if Congress requires actual full-scale testing, the extent of 1
this testing should be clarified.
--_.--_m___.-
0 7
i Finally, we note that Section 126(e) requires the NRC to conduct a survey of packages for transportation or disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste used or intended to be used by other nations and report its findings to Congress.
In its report the NRC would be required to comment on whether the designs evaluated meet or exceeded applicable Commission regulations for such transportation, storage, or disposal.
The Commission requests that Section 126(e) be deleted.
The NRC does not have the authority or a mechanism to require the owners of foreign designs to provide the extensive technical information that would be needed. Moreover, such an NRC evaluation could adversely impact U.S. relations with affected countries. Any finding by the NRC that a specific design that had been approved by a foreign government did not meet NRC safety requirements, could be regarding as questioning the effectiveness of foreign regulatory authority. We further note that such an evaluation would require extensive funding and technical resources and the end result would seem to be of limited regulatory value.
Finally, we note that if Congress desires to retain this provision in some form, the responsibility for conducting the survey and performing the evaluation should be assigned to DOE rather than to the NRC.
DOE is the agency responsible for repository technology development.
l l
l IL____-____