ML20247A152
| ML20247A152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A062 | List: |
| References | |
| OWENS-880512, NUDOCS 8903290053 | |
| Download: ML20247A152 (4) | |
Text
,
I*
y Rep. Owens 1
1 QUESTION _4:
Licenses for spent fuel dry storage'are issued under 10 CFR Part 72 of NRC's regulations.
Please describe the process for, licensing dry I
i storage casks and/or MRS facilities?
How many H
such casks and/or facilities have already received a license for use?
I ANSWER 1 Licensing of dry spent fuel storage under 10 CFR Part 72 includes storage of spent fuel in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI), which may be located at reactor sites or on separate sites.
Part 72 provides for: (1) one step licensing of spent fuel storage outside of reactor basins, and (2) the issuance of a materials license.
Spent fuel to be stored must have decayed at least one year af ter discharge from I
a reactor core to eliminate short-lived volatile radioisotopes. -
Storage is licensed under specified requirements for up to 20 years with opportunit'y.for license renewal.
Monitored retrievable storage (MRS) is proposed to be covered under an amendment to 10 CFR N et 72 (51 Fed. Reg. 19106, May 27, 1986).
The Commission has ict final rulemaking proposal under consideration.
8903290053 880701 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR
\\
c Rep. Owens OUESTION,,4.
(Continued) l Topical Reports (TRs) for dry storage technologies designs are being submitted by vendors for safety reviews by NRC staff.
TRs, when approved, may be referenced in site-specific license applications.
To date, five designs have been approved; three for dry storage cask designs, one for a modular concrete and stainless canister system design, and one for a modular concrete vault design.
Two licenses for dry spent fuel storage have been issued by the NRC.
The first was issued in July 1986 to Virginia Electric and Power Company for a site at its Surry Power Station in Surry County, Virginia.
The second license was issued in August 1986 to Carolina Power and Light Company for a site at its H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Power Plant, Unit 2, in Darlington County, South Carolina.
Mr. Owens
~
Q.UREt.lans i t LE2 Nuclear Regulatory Cpmmission 1.
Please describe the NRC certification process for Type B shipping containers.
What opportunities exist for public involvement in the NRC certification process?
Are f ull-scale cask tests required as part of the NRC cask certification process?
2.
What is the status of NRC certification of the WIPP shipping container, TRUPACT II? Has DOE provided NRC with any TRUPACT II engineering analyses or mathematical models confirming that the,
components meet NRC certification requirements?
When does NRC expect to complete the certification process?
3.
Please comment on the safety problems associated with gas generation within TRU waste shipping containers and the potential for explosions.
- 4. Licenses for spent f uel dry storage are issued under 10 CPR Part 72 of NRC's regulations.
P'le describe the process for licensing dry storage casks and/or acilities?
How many such casks and/or facilities have already received a license for use?
5.
On May 27, 1986 NRC issued a proposed rule for comment which would modify the licensing requirements for the storage of nuclear waste.
Please summarize the changes contemplated in this
/
proposed rule change.
What is the status of the p;oposed rule change?
6.
Under current law DOE must abide by NRC regulations regarding advance notification of state and local governments prior to repository and/or MRS shipments.
Please describe NRC requirements for advance notification.
7.
How many NRC inspectors devote their full time to the -
inspection of nuclear waste shipments?
When are such inspections conducted, les before or after shipments, etc. ?
Y 4
QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD J.
MARKEY FOR THE HEARING ON NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORTATION BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS ON THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1988 Questions for the first panel
- 1. Messrs. Charles Kay, Thomas Hindman, Hugh Thompson and Alan
~~
Roberts, in the past there have been problems over notification of and consultation with States through which class C or route-controlled quantities of nuclear material have been transported.
Will any of these transportation bills pending before the Committee strengthen these requirements, and, if so, why should we think you will do a better job of notification and consultation in the future?
- 2. Messrs. Kay and Hindman, the damaged TMI-2 core, which is being /b b shipped to Idaho on routes which take it through large cities, is being called nuclear research material not subject to normal licensing procedures.
Under these bills before us today would the TMI nuclear material be considered type C, route-controlled quantities which require the same licensing, handling and transportation regulations as any other high-level nuclear waste?
What kind of consultation with the States occurred before shipment of TMI waste?
( Please submit documentation.)
- 3. Messrs. Kay, Hindman and Thompson, does the NRC certify the 0'
containers used to transport the damaged TMI core materials?
Would this certification be required under these bills?
- 4. Messrs. Kay, Hindman, Thompson and Roberts, it seems to me that there is a preference to ship nuclear waste by train rather than by truck.
Shouldn't we have definitive studies of the general problem of the comparative risks and studies for each specific route before determining the best transportation mode?
If there is a lower likelihood of accident, would that be offset in any way by the greater volume involved?
Y
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __