ML23151A604
| ML23151A604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/03/1983 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-050, PR-051, 48FR50746 | |
| Download: ML23151A604 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 11/03/1983 PR-050,051 - 48FR50746 - REOPENING OF COMMENT PERIOD ON LIMITED PROPOSED RULE PR-050,051 48FR50746 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF PROPOSED RULE:
PR-050,051 RULE NAME:
REOPENING OF COMMENT PERIOD ON LIMITED PROPOSED RU LE PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE":
48FR50746 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
11/03/83 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS:
I I
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:
FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
NOTES ON: VOLUME 1 (11/23/83 - 12/27/83).
TATUS
- FILE LOCATED IN P-1 F ROLE:
PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT 14 1
I I
PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY --OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050,051 RULE TITLE:
REOPENING OF COMMENT PERIOD ON LIMITED PROPOSED RU LE DATE PROPOSED RULE
~ROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:
PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
I I
SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
10/31/83 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:
CONTACT!:
CONTACT2:
DATE FINAL RULE FINAL RULE SRM DATE:
I I
SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE MAIL STOP:
MAIL STOP:
PHONE:
PHONE:
PRESS PAGEUP TO SEE STATUS OF RULEMAKING PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL ROLES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY I
I
DOCKET NO. PR-050,051 (48FR50746}
In the Matter of REOPENING OF COMMENT PERIOD ON LIMITED PROPOSED RU LE DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 11/23/83 COMMENT OF STATE OF NEW YORK (EZRA I. BIALIK, ASST. ATTY GENERAL} (
1~}
11/21/83 11/23/83 11/17/83 COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS (
2}
12/05/83 12/05/83 COMMENT OF SIERRA CLUB RADIOACTIVE WASTE CAMPAIGN (SIERRA CLUB} (
3}
12/05/83 12/02/83 COMMENT OF SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY (MIRO TODOROVICH} (
4}
12/06/83 12/03/83 COMMENT OF SAFE HAVEN, LTD (MRS. W.W. SCHAEFER} (
5}
12/06/83 12/06/83 12/06/83 12/07/83 12/07/83 12/01/83 COMMENT OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS (J.A. BUCKHAM} (
6}
12/06/83 COMMENT OF ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM, INC.
(JOSEPH B. KNOTTS, JR.} (
7}
12/06/83 COMMENT OF UTILITY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP (MAURICE AXELRAD & MICHAEL SAUSER} (
8}
12/06/83 COMMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (BARBARA A. FINAMORE, ESQ.} (
9}
12/05/83 COMMENT OF STATE OF WISCONSIN (CARL A. SINDERBRAND} (
10}
12/07/83 12/06/83 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (L. DOW DAVIS, IV, ESQ.} (
11}
12/07/83 12/07/83 COMMENT OF AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY (ANS}
12/08/83 12/12/83 (LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ} (
12}
12/05/83 COMMENT OF STATE OF MINNESOTA (JOCELYN F. OLSON} (
13}
12/08/83 LTR FROM LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ TO CORRECT PAGE OF COMMENT NO. 12
DOCKET NO. PR-O5O,O51 (48FR5O746)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 12/27/83 12/23/83 COMMENT OF TLG ENGINEERING, INC.
(THOMAS S. LAGUARDIA, PE) (
- 14)
~
---**-c.- -i Do:: ke~
-~-...., 1...
, ~c.
Date 01*~.
l 0/31 /83.
02 l 1;'23/83 03 11/23/83 04 12/05/83 12/05/83 06 12/06/83 07 12/06/83 08 12/06/83 09 12/06/ITT lo" 12/07/83 Jl 12/07/83 l_~-
12/07 /83
- 13 12/07 /83
- 14 12/08/83 15 12/12/83
- -15 12/2?/83 J
vccr.e: ::o.
PR-50, 51 E48 -rn 50146) l n the !-~at t er of REOPENING OF COMMENT PERIOD ON LIMITED PROPOSED RULE Da i.e of Document l_ 0/31 /83 11/21/83 11 /17 /83 12/05/83 12/02/83-12/03/83 12/01/83 12/06/83 12/06/83 12/'0{5/83 12/05/~3 12/06/83 12/07/83 12/05/83 12/08/83 12/23/83 Ti i: i e or Descrip:1on of Docu~ent FRN '- Reopening of Comment Period (48 FR 50746 pub. 11/3/8 Comments State,.:of New York (Ezra I. Bialik)
(1)
Comments Marvin I. Lewis (2)
Comments.Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Campaign (3).
Comments Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
(Miro Todorovich) t4)
Comments Safe Haven, Ltd. (W. W. Schaefer)
(5)
Comments American Institute of Chemical Engineer~
(J. A. Buckham)
(6)
Comments DeBevoise and Liberman (Joseph Knotts)
(7)
Comments UNWMG-EEI (Maurice Axelrad)
(8)
Comments Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
(Barbara Finamore)
(9)
Comments The State of Wisconsin (Carl Sinderbrand)
(10)
Comments Department of Energy (L. Dow Davis)
(1'1)
Comments Pacific Legal Foundation (Lucinda L. SNartz) (12)
- corrments Minnesota Attorney Genera) (Olson) (13J Ltr Pacific Legal Foundation (Swartz) (see Comment No. 12)
Corrments TLG Engineering, Inc. (LaGuardia) (14)
J
- ocm Nm! PR-5b5\\@
,)c 04i ;~-*501'4c!)
Office of the Secretary u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch OOCKETrn December 23, 1983 USNRC Nll-25-GC-01
- a3 DEC 27 Pf 2 :42
Subject:
Comments on the USNRC Waste Confidence Decision
Dear Mr. Secretary:
One area not addressed in the Waste Confidence Decision is the issue of the responsibility for assurance of funds to properly provide environmental, safety and security surveillance of the fuel stored on-site beyond the licensee expiration date.
Under the Waste Policy Act of 1982, utilities are currently paying for the US DOE to dispose of spent fuel safely by 1998.
The utilities, in turn, have been accounting for these ultimate disposal costs through their cost of fuel charges to the ratepayers.
However, no provision is being made to set aside funds to retain this fuel on-site in an environmentally safe manner if the DOE does not meet the 1998 deadline.
This delay could conceivably be as long as 30 years, as suggested in the Waste Confidence Decision.
Most utilities are currently planning to decommission their reactors by the prompt removal of radioactivity and dismantling alternative (DECON), and have been collecting from current ratepayers to establish a fund for this alternative.
No provision is being made to allow for delayed dismantling mandated by the government if a fuel repository is not available on schedule.
Numerous studies have shown the cost to utilities for on-site maintenance and surveillance staff, equipment, insurance, taxes, etc., are quite significant and costly to utilities if delays approach 30 years.
Off-site storage is not now, nor likely to be, a viable alternative because of the difficulty in identifying host states willing to accept this responsibility.
On-site storage in casks is an expensive option ($750,000 per cask) and many local communities are adamently vocal against such options.
The utilities are therefore likely to seek in-pool options at their respective reactors with the superior environmental and safety controls.
Acknowledged by card.. l.~~1~3... vnd~
640 FEDERAL ROAD
- BROOKFIELD, CT 06804
- (203) 775-8200
Du t,
I 1aj ~1,-3__=
_RIDS, ~ -
. ~
5Tn.t~f.ch,&~
The costs for this potential extended fuel storage have not been set aside by utilities.
If any fund is to be generated, it must be collected from current ratepayers who are getting the benefit of the power produced, not future ratepayers.
Clearly, some direction needs to be provided by the NRC/DOE.
Suggested possible guidance may include:
- 1.
Federally mandated direction to utilities and state public service commissions to establish an escrow fund to finance utilities forced into delayed decommissioning.
Unused funds to be applied to decommissioning.
- 2.
A portion of current fuel disposal costs paid by each utility be held in escrow by the DOE and refunded to utilities if the 1998 repository date is not met by the DOE.
The balance of costs to the DOE to complete the repository to be taken from other energy related budget items such as solar energy research, strategic fuels reserve, etc.
This will provide the necessary "incentive" to the DOE to meet the original 1998 repository date.
- 3.
Retain all funds collected from each utility in an escrow account, and permit each utility the option of obtaining a refund from the DOE to seek reprocessing of the fuel by foreign nations without violating the Non-Proliferation Act.
The forthcoming NRC regulations on decommissioning power reactors will recommend promp decommissioning as the preferred alternative.
The waste Confidence Decision allows delayed dismantling without addressing the issue of who ' s to pay.
The utilities need some relief from this legal/technological visel Very truly yours,
~
s !-}1:::::
President afard:
TLG Engineering, Inc.
TSL:kc
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION DOCKETED USNRC 883 DEC 12 Pl :35 December 8, 1983 Off ICE OF SH,Rt::T/:-
OOCKETIHG & SERVI I BRANCH Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N. W.
Room 1121 Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
om ET NUMR!:R
~
/J ~/
O OSED RtJU ___ ~
C~F£~-7ij)
Enclosed please find a corrected page to be inserted in the comments filed yesterday by the American Nuclear Society in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking Proceeding.
The correction made is on Page No. 4 of those comments, in the first full paragraph.
The first sentence in that paragraph now reads as follows.
"Scientific and engineering analyses and studies on the safety and the environmental effects of storing spent fuel for extended periods of time (years) have shown the primary environmental effects to be rad i ation and the heat, of relatively short-term importance, resulting from radioactive decay." (Correction underscored.)
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Enclosure cc:
All Participants (w/encl. )
Sincerely,
LUCI NDA LOW SWARTZ Attorney for the American Nuclear Society 1990 M Street, NW., Suite 550
- Washington, D.C. 20036 * (202) 466-2686 California Office: 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-0154 Seattle Liaison Office: 1200 One Union Square Seattle, WA 98101 * (206) 447-7264 Alaska Liaison Office: 444 W. 7th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 278-1731
t.-, t
~
-0
~
- u
~
!,/1
{)
'\\
'j C, z 0 C
,1 2...,
()
n
~
non-radiological environmental consequences which result from or could result from the storage of spent fuel for 30 years beyond the expiration of an operating license.
Therefore, NRC's proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (1982) (~ 48 Fed. Reg.
22,730 (May 30, 1983)), which states that the safety and environmental implications of the long-terITl. storage of spent fuel need not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings, is appropriate.
Scientific and engineering analyses and studies on the safety and the environmental effects of storing spent fuel for extended periods of time (years) have shown the primary environmental effects to be radiation and the heat, of relatively short-term importance, resulting from radioactive decay. 2 Based upon these analyses and studies and upon the experience of long-term storage of spent fuel, professional judgment and technical consensus concludes that other non-radiological effects are insignificant in comparison.
IV CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, ANS believes that NRC's environmental finding on the storage of spent fuel is appropriate 2
These analyses and studies include: "Final Environmental Impact Statement: United States Spent Fuel Policy," OOE/EIS/0015, May, 1980, 5 volumes: "Final Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Wastes,"
DOE/EIS/0046: "Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Storage System Components in Dry Interim Storage," PNL-4189, Revision 1, February, 1983: "Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle: A Task Force Report," NUREG-0116, October, 1976: and "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement:
Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel,"
NUREG-0575, August, 1979, 3 volumes.
4 -
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, lll ATTORNEY GENERAL Secretary I w STATE OF MINNESOTA DOCKETED OFFICE OF THE.A'l"l'l*R~EY GB~ERAJ.
USN RC ADDRESS REPL y TO:
ST. PAUL 55155 December 5, 1983 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION DEC. 8 l~f,.W~~ COUNTY ROAD 8-2 lf'5'l!i'~!); E,MN55113 TELEPH NE: (612) 296-7342 CF~:cr~oF SECflETMl't OOCl<E 11NG & S ER /r:f BRANCH JUCKET Nut.mm PR-C7l ~/
PROPOSED RULE ___
.J
_ vf.::)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l ~¥ !=£, n?#:}
Re:
Waste Confidence Proceeding, PR-50, 51 (44 FR 61372)
Dear Sir:
In response t o the Commission's noti ce dated November 3, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 50746), reopening the comment period in the above-entitled matter, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General and its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, hereby submit its comments.
The Commission's notice reopened the comment period for the limited purpose of receiving comments on the Commission's fourth finding in the Waste Confidence decision, which provides:
The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite or offs i te independent spent fuel storage installations.
Minnesota wishes to enter into the reco~d of this proceeding facts relating to a spent fuel storage incident at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant located near Red Wing, Minnesota, and operated by Northern States Power Company (NSP).
In December, 1981, NSP reported to the Commission that during fuel transfer operations, the top nozzle assembly separated from the remainder of a fuel assembly.
The separation occurred at the bulged joint where the 304 stainless steel outer tube is joined to the zircaloy guide thimble.
In May, 1982, NSP reported that the fuel vendor's analysis attributed the separation to stress corrosion cracking which occurred subsequent to discharge of the fuel assembly from the reactor core.
The assembly had been placed in the spent fuel pool in April, 1978, and the failure occurred 44 months later.
A.;/mo*.-;kdgcd J:,y c2~c' AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
22
c !1**, JJ~*a 1c!,od5
., i.F'PV
.. _..:'))
J ',J *c,'. )d J,ciVU~),S :..,.l :k. L,:,.. O l--l:1D3S DiA<-,; 'u ::.....s,l})UO0 No1-::.
,) '.,
.,, 1 :i\\l~,JnN *s*n
- The search for the stress corrosion cracking did not reveal anomalies that explained the incident.
Water chemistry analysis history for both primary reactor water and the spent fuel pool water showed that NSP maintained these fluid systems within the chemistry specifications recommended by the fuel vendor.
Fuel fabrication history and comparison with assemblies fabricated from the same material lots did not reveal the reason for the assembly failure.
The fact that stress corrosion cracking occurred in the relatively benign environment of the spent fuel pool within such a short time period calls into question the assurance that the Commission should have that spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses or at independent spent fuel storage installations.
The failure of the assembly to retain its integrity makes safe handling and eventual transportation of spent fuel assemblies much more difficult and expensive.
Minnesota urges the Commission to examine its files relating to failures of fuel assemblies at Prairie Island and other nuclear power plants and to take this information into account as it re-examines its finding of assurance as to the safe long-term storage of spent fuel pools.
JFO:mh Very truly yours, C})cl~':f.~
aCELN F. OLSON Special Assistant Attorney General
DOCKET NU MBER PR _
~A - -1. @
P.ROPOSED RULE ___
.._/CJ
_,.s PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
{-#Pl!-s,'7~)
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Room 1121 Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
December 7, 1983 DOCKETED U:,~RC Uot. {
Enclosed for filing in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking Proceeding are comments of the American Nuclear Society (ANS).
These comments are being filed pursuant to the November 3, 1983 Federal Register notice.
Copies of this submittal have been served on all part t cipants in this proceeding, as indicated on the attached certificate of service.
Although every effort was made to file these comments on December 6, 1983, the review and approval process used by ANS necessitated an extra expenditure of time.
Despite the delay of one day, ANS hopes that the Commission will be able to consider its comments.
Thank you for your assistance.
cc:
All Participants (w/ encl.)
Enclosure 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 550
- Washington, D.C. 20036 * (202) 466-2686 Sincerely, LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ Attorney for the American Nuclear Society California Office: 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600
- Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-0154
~~(d-2 ~,\\
Seattle Liaison Office: 1200 One Union Square* Seattle, WA 98101 * (206) 447-7264 A k 1
/4 ""'(/.!fl rv Alaska Liaison Office: 444 W. 7th Avenue
- Anchorage, AK 99501. (907) 278-1731 C nc*,. *~:.:;i::d ;.,J v-* d * * * * * *** * **.-..-.-'.cl(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '83 DEC -7 P4 :31 BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE (Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
)
)
)
)
)
c1tr:cc o;- ::* 1::';:TA:;y GOC:-k i 1i*G ;, 5[~\\IILf.
- ?.uJ1CH PR-50,51 (44 FR 61371)
December 7, 1983
______________________ )
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF SPENT FUEL STORAGE RONALD A. ZUMBRUN SAM KAZMAN LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 550 Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
( 202) 466-2686 Attorneys for the American Nuclear Society
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF SPENT FUEL STORAGE I
INTRODUCTION On November 3, 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stated that it was reopening the comment period in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking proceeding.
48 Fed. Reg. 50,746 (November 3, 1983).
NRC solicited further comments only on the finding in its May 16, 1983 Decision that spent nuclear fuel can be stored without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses.
As a participant in this Waste Confidence proceeding, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) offers the following comments.
In this generic rulemaking proceeding, NRC has studied, among other things, the safety of the storage and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste.
In addressing safety, however, NRC has also addressed the radiological environmental impacts associated with both storage and disposal.
The conclusion that spent fuel can be stored safely, i.e., without significant radiological hazards, is fully supported hy the record.
What may be left to determine is the extent of any non-radiological environmental impacts.
ANS submits that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts which 1 -
result from the storage of spent fuel, either at the reactor or away from the reactor, for 30 years beyond the expiration of the reactor operating license.
II THE RECORD SUPPORTS NRC'S FINDING ON RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In its July 3, 1980 Statement of Position, ANS, in addressing the safety of the storage and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste, provided evidence on the current practice of on-site spent fuel storage.
This evidence demonstrates that there are no radiological hazards associated with spent fuel storage.
Specifically, ANS explained that "the most conclusive proof that radioactive wastes can be safely stored is the undisputed fact that they have been so stored for decades.h ANS Statement of Position at 29.
Spent fuel from nuclear power reactors in the United States, stored in water basins at plant sites, has presented no significant hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Id. at 30.
Experiences in Sweden, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United Kingdom have also demonstrated the absence of any radiological hazards resulting from the storage of spent fuel.
See ANS Statement of Position at 30-33 and references cited therein.
In a generic environmental impact statement on the handling and storage of spent fuel, NRC itself found that spent 2 -
fuel in water pools has an insignificant impact on the environment.
See ANS Statement of Position at 33 and the references cited therein.
ANS concluded in its statement that
"[s]pent fuel can be stored safely either at reactor or away-from-reactor storage sites in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Such storage can be accomplished over time periods which will allow for provision of a geological or other suitable repository."
Id. at 34.
ANS reiterated these conclusions and provided additional documentation on the safety of spent fuel storage in later filings.
See Cross-Statement of Position of the American Nuclear Society at 9-13, dated September 5, 1980.
Based on the information provided by ANS and other groups in this proceeding, NRC's finding that spent fuel can be stored safely, without any significant radiological consequences, for 30 years beyond expiration of a reactor operating license is entirely justified.
III THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SPENT FUEL STORAGE Although a finding on the matter is not necessary or required in this generic rulemaking proceeding, 1 NRC is also justified in concluding that there are no significant 1
The purpose of the Waste Confidence Rulemaking proceeding was "solely to assess generically the degree of assurance now available that radioactive waste can be safely disposed of ***
and to determine whether radioactive wastes can be safely stored on-site past the expiration of existing facility licenses until off-site disposal or storage is available."
44 Fed. Reg. 61,372, 61,373 col. 2 (1979).
A decision regarding the non-radiological environmental impacts of spent fuel storage is not required in order to find that nuclear wastes can be stored or disposed of safely.
3 -
non-radiological environmental consequences which result from or could result from the storage of spent fuel for 30 years beyond the expiration of an operating license.
Therefore, NRC's proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (1982) (see 48 Fed. Reg.
22,730 (May 30, 1983) ), which states that the safety and environmental implications of the long-term storage of spent fuel need not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings, is appropriate.
Scientific and engineering analyses and studies on the safety and the environmental effects of storing spent fuel for extended periods of time (years) have shown the primary environmental effects to be radiation and the heat, of relatively short-term importance, resulting from such storage. 2 Based upon these analyses and studies and upon the experience of long-term storage of spent fuel, professional judgment and technical consensus concludes that other non-radiological effects are insignificant in comparison
- IV CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, ANS believes that NRC's environmental finding on the storage of spent fuel is appropriate 2
These analyses and studies include: "Final Environmental Impact Statement: United States Spent Fuel Policy," DOE/EIS/0015, May, 1980, 5 volumes; "Final Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Wastes,"
DOE/EIS/0046; "Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Storage System Components in Dry Interim Storage," PNL-4189, Revision 1, February, 1983; "Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle: A Task Force Report," NUREG-0116, October, 1976; and "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement:
Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel,"
NUREG-0575, August, 1979, 3 volumes.
4 -
and correct.
To the extent that environmental impacts could preclude the development of spent fuel storage facilities, these impacts have been addressed in this proceeding in terms of the availability of adequate storage facilities.
To the extent that environmental consequences would adversely affect the public health and safety, they have been addressed in this proceeding in terms of safety.
Thus, the record amply supports the conclusion that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the storage of spent fuel for 30 years beyond the expiration of an operating license.
In addition, material referenced in this submittal supports NRC's stated conclusion that there are no significant non-radiological consequences which would result from such storage.
NRC's environmental finding in its Decision is fully supportable, and the agency should take final action on this matter at the earliest opportunity.
DATED:
December 7, 1983.
Respectfully submitted, RONALD A. ZUMBRUN SAM KAZMAN
~~
LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 550 Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
(202) 466-2686 By~@{~
LUCINDA'iowsRTz Attorneys for the American Nuclear Society 5 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of PR-50-51 DOC.:KETEO U'JMRC
~83 DEC -7 P 4 :3 r PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
)
)
)
)
)_
)
)
(44 Fed. Reg. 61,372)
(Waste Confidence Rulemaking CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true copies of the foregoing Comments of the American Nuclear Society on the Environmental Aspects of Spent Fuel Storage were mailed this 7th day of December, 1983, first class, postage prepaid to the following:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 David Santee Miller, Esq.
213 Morgan Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 Leo Slaggie, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Eugene N. Cramer Neighbors for the Environment l 7lf6 Ridgepark Hacienda Heights, California 91745 Sheldon Trubatch, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 1 -
Frank w. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of Oregon 500 Pacific BHilding 520 s. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Karen Cyr, Esq.
Rulemaking and Enforcement Division Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Harmon and Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Mr. Regis R. Boyle Division of Waste Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Mr. Marvin Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Dr. Terry Lash Natural Resources Defense Council 25 Kearny Street San Francisco, California 94108 Dr. Judith Johnsrud 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 L. Dow Davis, IV, Esq.
u.s. Department of Energy GC-23, Room 6-H-087 1000 Independence Avenue, s.w.
Washington, D.c.
20585 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Environmental Protection Bureau State of New York Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Division of Public Interest Advocacy State of New Jersey P.O. Box 141 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mr. Michael H. Raudenbush T.S.M. Stoller Corporation 1919 14th Street, Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Mrs. w. M. Schaefer 3741 Koehler Drive Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 Dr. William A. Lochstet 119 E. Aaron Drive State Col1ege, Pennsylvania 16801 2 -
Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolina P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Mr. John J. Kearney Senior Vice President Edison Electric Institute 1111 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Elliot Andalman, Esq.
Andalman, Adelman and Steiner 224 Seconrl Avenue Hattisburg, Mississippi 39401 E. Dennis Muchnicki, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Law Section State of Ohio 30 East Broad Street 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Harveys. Price, Esq.
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
7101 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D.C.
20014 Stephen Lewis, Esq.
California Energy Commission 1111 Howe Avenue, Room 626 Sacramento, California 95825 Jocelyn F. Olson, Esq.
Marlene E. Senechal, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorneys General State of Minnesota 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville, Mtnnesota 55113
E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division State of New Hampshire Office of Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Dr. James A. Buckham P.O. Box 847 Barnwell, South Carolina 29812 Carl Valore, Jr., Esq.
Valore, McAllister, Aron and Westermoreland Mainland Professional Plaza 535 Tilton Road Northfield, New Jersey 08225 Ricahrd w. Lowerre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division State of Texas P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Phillip Warburg State of Connecticut 444 North Capitol Street Suite 317 Washington, D.C.
20001 Mr. James Richards Capital Legal Foundation 1101 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. David Berick Environmental Policy Institute 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C.
20003 3 -
Dr. Betram Wolfe Vice President and General Manager General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Ken Kramer Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 1931 Austin, Taxas 78767 R. Leonard Vance, Esq.
Anthony J. Gambardella Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Commonwealth of Virginia 715 Madison Building 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 George Freeman, Jr., Rsq
- Hunton and Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Michael J. Scibinico, II, Esq.
Department of Natural Resources State of Maryland Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Richard F. Engel, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Harry Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Ms. Lorna Salzman Friends of the Earth 72 Jane Street New York, New York 10014 June D. McArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General State of Delaware Tatnall Building P.O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19901 James F. Berger, Esq.
Donald R. Bustion, II, Esq.
Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the General Counsel 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20560 Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Stanley R. Tupper, Esq.
Tupper and Bradley 102 Townsend Avenue Boothbay Harbor, Maine 04538 William Griffin, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 4 -
Carl A. Sinderbrand, Wisconsin Department State of Wisconsin 123 West Washington Madison, Wisconsin Esq.
of Justice Avenue 53702 R. Leonard Vance, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia Supreme Court Building 1101 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664 Mr. Ashton J. O'Donnell Bechtel National, Inc.
P.O. Box 3965 San Francisco, California 94119 Mr. Ralph Stein Office of Nuclear Waste Management Mail Stop Bl0,7 U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20545 Mr. M.A. Glora Site Oualification and Licensing Department Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation U.S. Department of Energy 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 Dr. Newell J. Trask U.S. Geological Survey National Center Mail Stop 959 Reston, Virginia 22092
Mr. Ben c. Rusche Executive Director South Carolina Energy Research Institute First National Bank Building Suite 670 Maine at Washington Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Michael L. Bardrick, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State of Oklahoma 112 State Capitol Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Robert M. Lindholm, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Richard Troy, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice State of Louisiana 234 Loyola Building 79th Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Mary Jo Murray, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of Illinois 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Maxine I. Lipeles, Esq.
Assistqnt Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02018 Laurence K. Lau, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Hawaii State Capitol Room 405 415 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 5 -
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Debevoise and Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Kathleen M. Falk, Esq.
General Counsel Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc.
302 East Washington Avenue Sutie 205 Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Mr. Brian H. Sway Deputy Director California Department of Conservation 1416 Ninth Street, Room Sacramento, California 1320 95814
(LIMITED PARTICIPANTS)
Thomas M. Lemberg, Esq.
Leva, Hawes, Symington, Martin and Oppenheimer 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20008 Wayne McDanal, Esq.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission North Building, Room 3408 Washington, D.C.
20426 Mr. Ray K. Robinson Exxon Muclear Company, Inc.
777 106th Avenue, N.E
- Bellevue, Washington 98009 Mr. Orville Hill 2315 Camas Avenue Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Dennis McMahon Mayer, Brown & Platt 231 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illnois 60604 6 -
OOGI\\Et NUMBEI<
([])
PROPOSED R LE PR-5o,s-r I.
{~F/lsj7~
DOCK TEO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U:, 1RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION vJ IN THE MATTER OF RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE (Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
}
}
)
} PR-50, 51 {44 Fed. Reg. 61372}
)
)
_________________ )
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESPONSE TO COMMISSION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS OF EXTENDED SPENT FUEL STORAGE December 6, 1983 JOSEPH DiSTEFANO Assistant General Counsel L. DOW DAVIS IV Trial Attorney Counsel for the United States Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20585 (202) 252-8334
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC BEFORE THE COMMISSION
- s3 OED - 7 P 4 :02 IN THE MATTER OF ROLEMAKING ON THE STORAGE
)
).
)
)
OFFIC[ or SECrErARY OOCK!:. flf-!G &. SERVICf.
BRANCH AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE l PR-50, 51 (44 Fed. Reg. 613721
}
(Waste Confidence Rulemakingl
)
________________ )
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESPONSE TO COMMISSION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Introduction and Background On May 16, 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lNRC or Commission) found, inter alia, reasonable assurance that it is technically feasible to dispose of high-level radio-*
active waste and spent fuel in a mined geologic repository.
It also found that one or more mined geologic repositories will be available for commercial spent tuel by the years 2007-09.
It noted that sufficient repository capacity will be available within thirty years of expiration of any reactor operating license to dispose of radioactive waste generated by any nuclear reactor up to that time.
Rulemak.ing On the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Waste Confidence Rulemaking}, CLI-83-_, _
NRC __ (slip op. dated May 16, 1983, Findings 1 and 2 at page 5 to 6) (hereafter, the Waste Confidence Decisionl.
The Commission considered the safety and environmental impact of such extended storage in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking.
After analyzing the matter at length, it found reasonable assurance that in the interim, if necessary, "spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects for at least thirty years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either on-site or off-site inde-pendent spent fuel storage installations."
Waste Confidence Decision Finding 4, slip op. at 6.
The Commission noticed for public comment in the Federal Register a proposed rule which would amend 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51 and which provided that the environmental and safety implications of spent fuel storage for thirty years after termination of the reactor license applied for need not be considered in Commission proceedings.
Because the same safety and environmental considerations applied to independent spent fuel storage installations as reactor spent fuel storage basins, the rule was also made applicable to proceedings for licensing spent fuel storage in indepen-dent fuel storage installations under 10 C.F.R. Part 72.
48 Fed. Reg. 22730 (May 20, 1983}.
The Commission stressed, however, that while this proposed rule would not require consideration of the safety and environmental impacts of spent fuel storage beyond expiration of the license applied for, the NRC would continue to require consideration of all reasonably foreseeable safety and environmental impacts of 2
spent fuel storage for the period of the license applied for under the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA}.
In response to publi~ comments,_.!/ the Commission decided to reopen the comment period in the Waste Confidence Proceeding concerning its Fourth Finding as to the environ-mental effect of the interim storage of spent fuel following expiration of operating licenses. It sought comments on the significance of the environmental aspects of its Fourth Finding that, if necessary, spent fuel could be stored safely and without significant environmental effect on an interim basis for at least thirty years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses in spent fuel storage basins or off-site or on-site independent spent fuel storage installa-tions.
In addition, it solicited comments on its det~rmination that there would be no significant non-radiological consequences which would adversely affect the environment if spent fuel were to be stored for thirty-years past the expiration of operating licenses.
The Commission also asked for comments on the effect that any such impact:s would have on its proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
Since the safety matters contained in the Commission's decision had already been commented on by the parties, they were asked to
_.!/
DOE believes that the parties had more than adeq~ate notice of pendancy of this generic environmental assessment.
See Waste Confidence Decision at 2 and attached Proposed Rul"e; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 44 Fed. Rig. 61372, 61373-74 (Oct. 25, 1979}.
However, even--:issum ng, ar6
- uendo, that such notice was insufficient, it has been curedy this comment period.
3
address only the environmental aspects of extended fuel storage. 2/ 48 Fed. Reg. 50746 <.Nov. 3, 1983}.
The United States Department of Energy (DOE or the Department} hereby respectfully files its comments in response to the Commission's invitation.
For the reasons listed below, DOE submits that the record in this proceeding reveals that the Commission has before it all reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts of either on-site or off-site storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond expira-tion of reactor operating licenses. Accordingly, the Depart-ment submits that the record is adequate as to the environ-mental consequences or impacts associated with the extended storage of spent fuels and that there has been an adequate generic assessment of all relevant environmental impacts and factors.
For that reason, DOE submits that the record in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking is sufficient to support the tinding that spent fuel can be safely stored on an interim basis for thirty years without significant environmental effect.
Therefore, the Commission may, within the bounds of reasoned decisionmaking and in the exercise of its admitted expertise in the area, amend Part 51 to provide that these*
_y The Commission noted in its Rationale supporting its Waste Confidence Decision that the Fourth Finding is based on the record of this proceeding which indicates that "signi-ficant releases of radioactivity from spent fuel under licensed storage conditions are highly unlikely" and is supported by the Commission's experience in conducting llK)re than 80 individual safety evaluations of storage facilities.
Rationale at 56.
4
well-known and adequately documented environmental impacts need not be addressed in Commission proceedings.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. NRDC, U.S.
, 103 S. Ct. 2246, 2 2 5 3, 7 6 L. Ed
- 4 3 7, 4 5 2 (June,6, 19 8 3 l.
Discussion The Department ot Energy notes at the outset that the record in this four-year long proceeding is extensive. _l/
For that reason, this Response will not address every environmental effect in the record.
Instead, for the sake of brevity, it will comment only on those major documents in the record which are distillations of representative literature in the area.
When taken together with the Commission's two decades of experience in more than eighty individual safety and environmental evaluations conducted in storage licensing proceed-ings, it is abundantly clear that an adequate record of the 3/ For example, the Department of Energy has submitted a hlbliography of over 11,922 citation references and abstracts of scholarly and scientific publications and papers dealing with the problem of waste disposal and made these available in the Commission's Public Document Room and ten DOE Regional Offices.
In addition, DOE and the NRC identified 130 often-cited documents which are listed in the NRC's Information Sheet on the "Databank" on Wa!!te Disposal, docketed January 31, 1980.
Other documents c~ted in the Databank include the three-volume ORNL/EIS-162/VI (1980). and the several volume TID 3311 (1958-19801, which contains 19,000 references from the ORNL TIC and which was published as NUREG-0643 and 0644 (January 19 8 0 l.
In addition, other c;16cuments such as DOE' s FEIS on U.S. Spent Fuel Policy, DOE/EIS-0015 (May 1980),
were furnished on the record to the parties to the proceed-ing.
See DOE letter dated June 10, 1980.
5
environmental impacts ?f storage past expiration o~ reactor operating licenses exists in this proceeding. ~
- 1.
The Record In the Waste Confidence Proceeding Is Adequate to Assess the Environmental Impact of Storage of Spent Fuel for Thirty Years ~eyond the Expiration of Reactor Operating Licenses A.
THE DOE GEIS One of the documents in this proceeding which gives an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of storing spent fuel for thirty years beyond expiration of reactor operating licenses is the Department of Energy's three-volume Final Environmental Impact Statement On Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, OOE/EIS-0046F (October 1980} (hereafter, OOE GEIS}.2_1 That document assesses the regional and worldwide environmental effect of proposed geological disposal program scenarios, from the year 1990 and extending to the year 2040.
This time period conservatively encompasses storage of spent fuel beyond expiration of reactor operating licenses and therefore is relevant. to the environmental effects referenced in the Commission's Fourth Finding.
The DOE GEIS also analyzes 4/ See,~, Public Service Electric and Gas Com~an!,
1salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-65,4 NRC 43 (July 17, 19811: Public Service Electric and Gas Compan!
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 11, 8 NRC 557 (Apr 1 30, 1979); Public Service Electric and Gas Co,any, (Trojan Nuclear Plant}, LBP-78-32, 8 NRC 413 (October
, 1978}.
5/ The draft EIS of this document is in the databank.
The FEIS has been served on the parties under cover letter dated Novembe~ 28, 1980 from o. Brown.
6
the "no-action" alternative which assesses the regional and worldwide environmental effects of taking no action on the permanent disposal spent fuel or radioactive wastes._§_/
This "no permanent disposal" scenario conservatively but unrealistically upper bounds the environ-mental effects of the Commission's Fourth Finding.
The DOE GEIS systematically considers environmental effects such as radiological impacts in the form of whole body doses and health effects if permanent disposal is started anywhere between 1990 and 2040, with or without reprocessing.
GEIS at 1.26 to 1.27.
The GEIS analysis also considers the environmental effect of different volumes of waste disposal by cross-referencing five scenarios of electrical generation which would result in disposal of various quantities of spent fuel inventory.
GEIS at 1.26 and 3.12 to 3.14.
These inventories range from a 1980
_!/ In regard to the no-action alternative, the OOE/GEIS, contains the caveat that under this alternative "existing storage is known to be temporary and no consideration has been given to the need for additional temporary storage when facilities in use have exceeded their design lifetime."
GEIS at 1.21.
However, it is clear from the caption of that page and the discussion therein that this statement relates to the no-action alternative wherein nuclear waste would continue to be stored in temporary storage situations for what could be eternity.
GEIS at 1.21.
Thus, this statement has no bearing on assessment of the environmental impacts of retention of nuclear waste for thirty years after the expira-tion of reactor operating licenses, which, as noted above, would'be encompassed by the 2010 to 2040 time frame.
Of course, the protections of 10 C.F.R. Part 72 will guarantee that the design bases of interim storage facilities are not exceeded.
7
inventory...1/ of approximately 10,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTBM) of spent fuel for 50 GWe of light water reactor capacity, to an upper bound analysis of possible environmental impacts which postulates an inventory of 427,000 MTHM for 500 GWe capacity in the year 2040.
GEIS at 3.13 - 3.14. _!I In addition to the environmental effects described above, the GEIS also describes non-radiological impacts of extended storage such as the commitment of resources in terms of land and water requirements, material requirements, energy conswnption, and manpower requirements for construc-tion, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear waste faci-lities.
The GEIS considers these impacts in terms of the five generation scenarios of up to 500 gigawatts electric by the year 2040 and the 1990 to 2040 time-frames for reposi-tory opening alternatives described above.
GEIS at 7.1 - 7.5.
In terms of material requirements, the GEIS makes a comparison of-the number of waste containers needed for interim waste storage under the three 1990 to 2040 reposi-tory time scenarios at 7.17 -
7.21 for both the reprocessing and once-through cycles.
Thus estimates of commitments for 7/ The present projected cumulative storage requirement through the year 2000 for the maximum ~t-reactor capacity, current capacity and maximum capacity with transhipment cases through the year 2000 are listed in Table 3 at page 16 of Spent Fuel Stora1 e Requirements, DOE/RL-83-1 (January 1983}.
This document snot in the record.
_!/ Current nuclear growth projections are contained in Spent Fuel Storage Requirements, Table 2 at page 13 and are estimated to be 131.5 GWe in the year 2000.
8
major resources which would be necessary to construct and operate the entire waste management system for each of the nuclear growth and inventory assumptions based on nuclear waste geological repository disposal startup as late as 2040 were computed in addition to the no-action alternative.
GEISS 7.5 at 7.42 to 7.45.
The specific resources con-sidered included steel, cement, diesel fuel, gasoline, propane, electricity and manpower for a once-through cycle repository and a reprocessing cycle.
In addition, system costs were computed and compared under the three proposed time scenarios for the inventory scenarios of up to a 500 GWe capacity by the year 2040.
GEIS at 7.46 -
7.51.
These ultra conservative estimates include the time period 2010 to 2040, which conservatively encompasses the thirty years retention period beyond reactor operating license termina-tion under the Commission's Fourth Finding.
From this data, the DOE GEIS concludes that resource commitments would increase with the size of the nuclear system inventory, i.e., the amount of spent fuel which would have to be stored.
Assuming a once-through cycle, the delay until 2010 - 2040 scenario would result in higher resource requirements for interim storage than would the reprocessing or no-action scenarios.
However, the DOE GEIS listed no unacceptable environmental effect from delay until 2040 since the resource requirements for that scenario would be a small fraction of current United States consumption.
See GEIS at 7.52 to 7.53.
Accordingly, based on the environ-mental impacts evaluated in the GEIS, DOE concludes that 9
11 the consequences of delaying implementation of a specific disposal technology should not result in any appreciable change in the near-term environmental affects."
GEIS at 1.31.
The DOE GEIS also adequately considers several NEPA alternatives in assessing the environmental effect of delay of nuclear waste repositories and interim storage effects under the three time scenarios described above, including the scenario under which permanent repository construction and operation would be delayed until the year 2010 -
2040.
As noted above, among the other NEPA alternatives considered in the GEIS are variations in inventory based on projected GWe. system capacities, d~fferences based on once-thro~gh and reprocessing assumptions, and the regional and worldwide environmental impacts of the no-action alternative.
The no-action alternative is essentially the scenario under which spent fuel would be left at the sites where they are generated or possibly at other surface or near-surface storage facilities, for an indefinite time.
See GEIS, passim, and page l.21~
After considering all of these alternatives, the DOE GEIS listed no unacceptable environmental effects from delaying the opening of the permanent repository for thirty years.
The DOE GEIS also defines the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and 1 the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
For instance, 10
based on the environmental impacts listed in the DOE GEIS, the environmental effects of the three program timing alternatives were found to be similar.
Accordingly, the GEIS concluded that the consequences of delaying implemen-tation of a specific disposal technology should not result in any appreciable change in the near-tern\\ environmental affects. GEIS at 1.31.
The DOE GEIS also assesses irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
As noted above, the GEIS concludes that resource commitments increase with the size of the nuclear system, with resource requirements for the alte*rna-tive program exceeding that of the.proposed program.
The GEIS estimated resource commitments for a repository under the once-through and reprocessing scenarios in terms of steel, cement, diesel fuel, gasoline, propane, electricity and manpower in four different geologic media.
It then listed a comparison of the relative resource com-mitments for the three time-dependent program alternatives using a once-through fuel cycle in Table 7.5.2 of the DOE GEIS at 7.44.
The DOE GEIS concluded that the resource commitment requirements for the no-action alternative would be about the same as the 2010 -
2040 alte~native program for steel, cement, gasoline, propane, and manpower, but that diesel and elctricity consumption would be much lower for the no-action alternative.
In any event, the GEIS concludes that tor all cases, including the 2010 -
2040 thirty-year delay scenario, "resource require-ments are a small fraction of current U.S. consumption rates".
11
GEIS at 7.52.
Thus, the DOE GEIS makes it clear that there would not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources should it be necessary to continue to store waste for thirty years following the expiration of any reactor operating license.
B.
FEIS ON U.S. SPENT FUEL POLICY An environmental impact assessment similar to that done in the DOE GEIS was performed by the Department of Energy in its five-volume Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Spent Fuel Policy, Storage of U.S. Spent'Power Reactor Fuel, OOE/EIS-0015 (May 19801 (hereafter, DOE FEIS). _1/
That document also evaluated the environmental effects of a series of alternative assumptions concerning the timing of the opening of a central repository.
Volume 2 at I-2.
One of the alternatives considered which is germane to the environmental effects of extended storage consists of the accumulation of spent fuel at reactor basins with a disposal facility assumed to be available in the year 2010 and with new independent spent fuel storage (.ISFS) facilities to be built in the interim as may be required by private industry.
FEIS at I-9.
A second alternative assumes that these ISFS facilities will be privately constructed at existing reactor sites for storage of spent fuel discharged from nearby reactors until a final repository is available.
FEIS at I-9.
This scenario also assumes availability of a permanent repository in the year 2010.
FEIS at I-3.
_!/ The draft of this document is in the Databank and copies of the FEIS were filed with the Commission and served on the parties by DOE in a letter dated June 10, 1980.
12
Like the DOE GEIS, the DOE FEIS analyzes world popu-lation doses and health effects under the delay scenario and alternatives.
DOE FEIS Vol. 2 at I-13,Section III, Table V-1.
It also assesses environmental risks from accidents and safeguards and concludes that these are not unaccept-able.
DOE FEIS at I-15 to -17.
Unavoidable adverse environ-mental effects are contained in Chapter V of the FEIS.
Land use for basin facilities for interim storage was considered to be an unavoidable impact but its overall effect was found to be minor because there would be no permanent commitment of land resources since sites could be returned to unrestricted use after decommissioning of the facilities.
FEIS Vol. 2 at V-1.
Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources were thought to consist of the manpower needed for construc-tion, operation, and decommissioning of storage facilities.
Other environmental considerations discussed included trans-portation equipment affected, materials such as fuels and chemicals consumed, and the use of construction materials that were not recyclable.
A list of resource commitments for interim storage and transportation up to the year 2000 are listed on page VI-2 of Vol. 2 of the FEIS.
Local short-term uses related to long-term productivity consisted of construction effects and the effects of opera-tion of the facilities needed to provide interim storage for spent fuel.
The long-term effects were considered to be those that extend past the interim storage period and into the indefinite future.
The short-term effects, consisting of 13
land use and radiological impact on the environment, were trade-offs with the long-term effects having to do with conservation of resources and diversity of land use.
FEIS Vol. 2 at VII-1.
The FEIS concluded that the differences in short-term and long-term uses under the delay scenarios were small and would not foreclose any future options, except to the extent that resources were actually consumed.
The environmental effect of this consumpti~n was thought to be negligible since a very small part of the resources available in the United States would be consumed.
See FEIS Vol. II at VII-1.
The environmental effects of interim fuel storage facilities are described extensively in Appendix B to Volume 2 of the FEIS.
They include construction activities, effects upon land use, effects upon water use, effects on the ecology and the effects on surrounding communities in terms of air pollution, traffic noise, population displacement, aesthetics and socio-economic matters.
Appendix Bat 1-30.
While the main body of the report considers these effects only up until 1995, a supplement describing the environmental effects of delayed implementation of a permanent disposal facility until the year 2010 was added.
Vol. 2 at Appendix E.
The analysis of delay of opening the ultimate geological repository until the year 2010 shows that impacts from all alternatives considered would be small.
FEIS Vol. 2, ~ppen-dix Eat E-12.
14
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF COMMERCIAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT Another document whicn analyzes the environmental effects of continued on-site or off-site interim storage up to the year 2000 is the OOE's three-volume Environmental Aspects 'of Commercial Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/ET-0029 (May 1979).
This document considers the.environmental effects associated with a once-through option and two fuel reprocessing options involving recycle of uranium and/or plutonium.
Vol. 1 at 2.1.
While the reprocessing alterna-tive has not yet presently been implemented, it is relevant to the scope of alternatives considered under NEPA.
Among the environmental effects considered in this environmental documentation by DOE are land use, water use, materials, energy consumption, non-radiological effluents, radiation doses, health effects, and non-radiological acci-dents under the various delay scenarios, including repository startup in the year 2000.
These effects are summarized in detail at pages 2.2 - 2.9 of the publication, which assumes
)
a light water power reactor generation of 10,000 GWe-year through the year 2050.
No irreversible or unacceptable environmental effects from interim storage under the once-through or reprocessing options were found.
See DOE/ET-0029, passim.
15
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY OF THE REP~OCESSING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PORTIONS OF THE LWR FUEL CYCLE Another approach to the assessment of the environmental impact of interim waste management, both with and without reprocessing, is contained in the NRC's Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116, Supp. 1 to WASH-1248, (October 1976}.
This document takes a different tack from the other documents described above, in that it summarizes the environ-mental impacts of the management of nuclear waste during all operations and presents these impacts in a per reference reactor year (RRY} format.
In summarizing the environmental impacts of reprocessing of uranium and/or plutonium, the Environmental Survey evaluates the impacts of the total waste management program, both with and without recycle.
Under these scenarios, the Environmental survey assesses the effects of the use natural resources such as land, water, and fossil fuel.
It also considers the environmental effects of chemical, radiological, and thermal effluents
- See Environmental Survey at 2-21 to 2-36.
E.
NRC FINAL GEIS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's three-volume Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, NUREG-0575 (August 19791 {hereafter the NRC GEISl, examines the environmental effects of the generation of up to 91,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHMl of spent fuel that will have been discharged 16
by the year 2000.
Although the environmental effects listed in the NRC GEIS are by their own terms concluded by the year 2000 (GEIS at 7-1), the Department of Energy believes that it is not a fatal flaw.
First, the DOE GEIS covers the environmental effects of delay until the year 2040.
See discussion supra at pages 6-12 of this brief.
In addition, DOE believes that the data cited in the NRC GEIS are not time-dependent.
By this we mean that the well-documented and commonly known incremental environmental effects recorded on a yearly basis in the GEIS, absent extraordinary circum-stances, could be extrapolated to cover the period of time from year 2000, the last date considered by the NRC in that document, to the year 2009 or beyond.
Thus it would be possible, by examination of the NRC GEIS, to assess the environmental impact of storage of spent nuclear fuel for the full thirty-year term under consideration in the Commission's Finding Number 4 in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking proceeding.
Using an estimate of 82,000 MTHM as having been dis-charged by the year 2000 and a total at-reactor storage capacity in the year 2000 of 91,000 MTHM. if full core reserve is not maintained (77,000 MTHM if full core reserve is maintained}, the COmmission considered four alternatives which were deemed to be bounding for this study.
These in-clude utilizing existing storage technologies to increase at-reactor storage capacity, transhipment of spent fuel freely from facilities with full spent fuel pools to those other pools with available storage capacity and complete and 17
free interchange of storage space regardless of ownership or geographical location.
GEIS at 7-1.
The "no-action" alternative considered cessation of generating of spent fuel by shutting down reactors *as individual reactor storage area capacity is exhausted.
GEIS at 1-3.
The NRC GEIS makes it clear that while additional storage for thirty years past the expiration of operating licenses would have some unavoidable environmental impact in each of the four scenarios assessed by that document, those impacts would be negligible.
For instance, increased storage of aged fuel, either at or away-from-reactor, has little safeguards significance.
In the reference case for of compact storage, the GEIS concluded that increasing the number of assemblies stored in existing nuclear powerplant
.fuel pools or expansion of interim at-reactor spent fuel capacity (and therefore the heat emittedt would not cause any new measurable environmental impacts.
Likewise, while the construction of new wet storage facilities would result in a minor conunitment of land, water and materials for construction, these environmental impacts were thought to be either of relatively limited importance or capable of being reduced at reasonable cost by mitigation measures.
GEIS at 4-2; 7-6 to 7-7; ES-8.
The GEIS concluded that while expansion of spent fuel storage facilities would be more economical and require less trans-poration of fuel than would independent away-from reactor spent fuel storage installations, the environmental differences between the two storage methods were negligible.
18
Examples of the environmental effects of dry storage of nuclear waste are listed in the GEIS as loss of acreage, construction effects due to excavation and replacement of soil, occasional dust and soil erosion, and increased heat.
GEIS at 7-1.
However, these ecological impacts were also thought to be small and rnitigable.
GEIS at 4-3. _.!i./
The NRC Staff concluded in the GEIS that the interim storage of spent fuel in water poofs is a well-established technology.
It found that this technology results in negli-gible environmental impact and low environmental risks to the safety of the public, whether the fuel was stored at a nuclear powerplant or an independent away-from reactor facility or in wet or dry storage modes.
See GEIS at ES-1 to 12, 8-1 to 8-2.
Thus, the short-term environment impacts of nuclear powerplants and interim storage would foreclose no options concerning the future storage and possible ultimate disposal of spent fuel.
Therefore, the short-term envi~onmental impacts of nuclear powerplants and interim storage were considered to be small and acceptable when compared to their long~term production of energy.
See also A.B. Johnson, Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel Interim Stora e, PNL-cument snot n the record.
19
Conclusion For the reasons listed above, the Department of Energy believes that the extensive environmental record in this proceeding adequately demonstrates, under the numerous repository delay time-frames, nuclear waste inventories and electrical production capacities, recycle assumptions and interim disposal scenarios postulated that interim storage of waste for thirty years will have a negligible effect on the environment.
OOE submits that based on these reliable studies, which are essentially in accord on the variety of environmental effects studied, the Commission may validly specify by rule that the~e well-known and well-documented environmental effects need not be considered in NRC licensing proceedings.
Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH DiSTEFANO Assistant General Counsel
- COnw~cW\\-9 L. DOW DAVISI Trial Attorney..
U.S. Department of Energy GC-23, Room 6-H-087 1000 Independence Avenue, s.w.
Washington, D.C.
20585 Telephone:
(202L 252-8700 Dated this sixth day of December, 1983.
IN THE MATTER OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE
)
)
)
)
DOCKETED USNRC "83 DEC -7 P 4 :03 AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
) PR-50, 51 (44'FR 61372)
)
(Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that one copy, except where noted differently, of the foregoing Department of Energy Response to Commission Request for Comments was served by mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of December 1983, to the enti-ties listed in the attached service list.
L. DOW DAVIS IV Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Energy GC-23, Room 6-H-087 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20585 Telephone:
( 202) 252-8700
NRC WASTE CCNFIDEN:E mx:EED:m3 SERVICE LIST 5aim.le1 L. Chilk Secretary of the Conmission
- u. s. Nuclear Pegulatory Corrmission Wa.shin;ton, D.C.
20555 Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C.
20555 E. Leo Slaggie, Esq.
Sheldon Trubatch, Esq.
Office of the General Colmsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ctmnission Washington, D.C.
20555 D:>cketir.¥3' and SeJ:vice Branch U. s. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Washir.gton, D.C.
20555 Karen D. Cyr, Esq.
Rulara.k.irq and Enforce:rent Division Office of the Executive Iegal Director MNBB 9604 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washin;Jton, o.c.
20555 Executive I.egal. Director u.s. Nuclear Regula.tory Ccmni.ssion Washin;Jton, o.c.
20555 Mr. Regis R. Ebyle Di vision of Waste Mana.gerent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnissian Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. F.dward p. ~
Mail Stop 906-SS
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory o:mnission washington, o.c.
2oss5 Davi(;} santee Miller, Esq.
213 M:>rgan Street, N.W.
Washir:gt:on, o.c.
20001 Mr. Eugene N. cramer Neighl:x)rs for the Enviramnent 17146 Ridgepark Hacierm Heights, Califontla 91745
(.2 copies)
(original + 2 copies}
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 500 Pacific Buildirq 520 s.w. Yan'hill l?ortland, Oregon 97204 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Hamon and Weiss Suite 506 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Dr. Judith Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on NUclear Power 433 Orland:> Avenue 2
State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocacy Division of Public Interest Advocacy P.o. B:>x 141 Trenton, New Jersey 08635 Mrs. W. W. Schaefer safe Haven, Ltd.
3741 Keehler Drive Sheboygan, Wisoonsin 53081 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Michael Ba.user, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newlan, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
washington, D.C.
20036 E. Dennis Muchnick:i, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Enviromental Iaw Section 30 Fast Broad Street, 17th Floor Col\\lrbus, alio 43215 Jocelyn F. Olson, Eaq.
Special Assistant Attorney General 1935 West County It>ad B2 R::>seville, Minnesota 55113 E. '1\\lpper Kinder, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General EnViromental P:rotection Division State Ik)use Annex 25 Capitol Street Concx:ard, New Hampshire 03301 Dr. James A. Buckham P.O. B:>x 847 Barnwell, south C'.arolina 29812 (2 copies)
lbnald J. Wilson, Esq.
810 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Ezra I. Bailik, Esq.
Assistant Attomey General Envirormental Protection Bureau Two W:>rld Trade Center New York, New York 1004 7 Mr. Michael H. Raudenbush
'llle S. M. Stoller COqorati.on 1919 14th Street, SUite 500 Boulder, COloracb 80302 Dr. William A. I.ochstet 119 E. Aaron Drive State COllege, Pennsylvania 16801 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 200 Bull Street COlUIIbia, South carolina 29201 Elliott Andalrran, Esq.
Andalnan, AndaJ.mm & Steiner, P.A.
224 Second Avenue Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 F.dward Wiggin, Esq.
Executive Vice President Lirm Hodge, Esq.
General counsel Atanic Industrial Forum, loo.
7101 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D.C.
20814 Mr. Creg Darby Hanford conversion Project 1817 N.E. 17th Portla:rxl, Oregon 97212 Cm:ole currin, Esq.
Pacific Iegal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W.
washirqt:on, D.C.
20036 Janes R. Richards, Esq.
capitol Iega1 Foundation 1101 17th Street, N. W. SUite 810 Wash:i.rqton, D. C.
20036 Mr. Orville Hill 2315 Camas Avenue Richland, wash.iD;Jton 99352 3
Mr. David Berik.
Environmental Policy Institute 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C.
20003 Dian Grueneich, Esq.
California Energy o::m:n:Lssion llll Hc7we Avenue, M.S. 27 Sacrammto, California 95825 Dr. Bertram W::>lf e Vice President ani General Manager General Electric Corrpan;y 175 CUrtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Ken Krani9r Ione Star Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 1931 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. !bbert Halstead Department of Administration State of WiSCX>nsin 1 ~
Wilson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53702 R. Leonard Vance, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Supre:ne Coi.n::t Buildil'YJ 1101 Fast Broad Street Ricbrrond, Virginia 23219 Michael Gersick, Esq
- Deputy Dil:ector, Department of Conservation State of california 1416 Ninth Street, 1'b::rn 1320 5acramento, California 95814 earl Val.ore, Jr., F.sq.
V$re, McAllister, Amn and Weste:rn:creland Mainland Professional Plaza 535 Tilton It:>ad tbrthfield, New Jersey 08225 Richard w. I.Dwerre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental P.t0tection Division P.O. Box 12548, capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 4
Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
I.eEbeuf, Lam.::>, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Ha.IlpShi.re Avenue, N. W.
Wash.in;ton, n.c.
20036 Profess::,r Miro M. 'lbdomvich Executive Sec:retacy Scientists and Erqineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
Suite 1007 570 Se'\\leilth Avenue New York, New York 10018 George c. Freatan, Jr., Esq.
Hunton & Willians P.O. Ibx 1535 707 Main Street Richrn::md, Virginia 23212 Michael J. Scibiniro, II, :Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Departmant of Natural Res:>urces
'!'awes Stat.e Office Buildin:J Annap:>lis, Maryland 21401 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincx:)ln & Beale 1120 Connecticut A"V'eill.le, N.W.
Suite 325 Wa.shi.rql:on, D.C.
20036 Jurua D. Mac::Artor, Esq.
Deputy Atto:rney General Tatnall Buildin; P.O. Ibx 1401 I'.k)Ve:r, Delaware 19901 Mr. Ray K. IobineDn Elca:Jrl NUclear Conpany, Inc.
600 108th Avenue, N.W.
C-00777 Bellevue, Washirqton 98009 William Griffin, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Atto:mey General 109 State Street Montpelier, Vei:m::mt 05602 earl A. Sinderbrand, ~.
Assistant Attorney Geneml.
Wisconsin Deparbnent of J'Ustic 123 West Washington Street Madison, Wiso:::msin 53702 5
Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664
.Mr. Ashton J. O'D:)nnell Bechtel National, Inc:.
P.O. lbx 3965 San Francisa:i, califo:rnia 94119 Mr. Wayne McDana1 Federal Energy Comnission N:>rth Buildirr;J, PJ:::lan 3408 washin;rt:on, D.c.
20406 Richard M. Hluchan, F.sq.
Deputy Attorney General 36 West State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 James F. Burger, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Tennessee Valley Autb::>ri ty 400 Com:nerce Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Francis S. Wright, F.sq.
Assistant Attomey General Environnental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Robert M. Lindholm, F.sq.
Assistant Attorney GeneJ:al Jefferson City, Miss::>uri 65102 Richard Troy, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environnental Protection Division Departnent of Justice 234 I.cyola Building, 79th Floor New Orleans, I..ouisiana 70112 Ms. Ma:cy Jo Murray Assistant Attorney General 188 West Farla:>lph Street SUite 2315 Chicago, lllinois 60601 Thctcas M. LeIIbel:g, Esq.
Ieva, Hawes, Symington, Martin & Oppenheimer 815 COnnecticut Avenue, N.W.
'Wash.in;Jton, o.c.
20006 6
Dr. Newell J. Trask Ga:,logical Survey National center, Mail Stop 959
- u. S. Depa.rt:m:mt of Interior Reston, Virginia 22092 Iawrence K. Lau, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General State Capitol
- Eboolulu, Hawaii 96813 Joseph B. :Knotts, F.sq.
Debevoise & LibeJ:nan 1200 17th Street, N.W.
wasbington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Pobert H. Neill Director Envimmental Evaluation Group Beal th & Environmanta1 Department 320 E. Marcy Street P.O. B:>x 968 5anta Fe, New Mexia:)
87503 Stanley R. 'lufper, F.sq.
Tup:per & Bradley 102'Ibwnsen:1Avenue Boothbay Harbor, Main 04538 I:boorable William Ruckelsha.us Administrator, A-100 U.S. Environioontal Protection AqeDC'J Washington, o.c.
20460 Frank Jablonski, Esq
- 7 Wisconsin's Envi:ronrrental Decade, Inc.
114 N. carrou street Suite 208 Madi SK>n, Wisaxurln 53703
- w. Mack Caneron, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General
&lx 220 Jackson, MississiQ?i 39205 Mr. John J. Kearney Senior Vice President Russ Stanford, Fsq.
- ai.ieK>n Electric Institute 1111 19th Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
J.,
'lbanas J. lrarrelly, Esq.
I.aw Depart::m=nt, R:x:rn 1807 Consolidated Ed+/-s:m a:xtpa;ny of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Dr. Cla:r::k Ice Executive Director South carolina Energy Research
, Institute - Suite 670 First National Bank Building Main at Washington Cblunbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. NJ:rmm R. Tilford 8
Olail::n:an, Nuclear Energy camrl.ttee EbasCD Services Incx)i:p:>rated 2211 West Meadcwview !bad Greenboro, 1:brth carolina 27407 Michael L. Bardrick, Esq.
Office of the Attomey General State of Oklah:::ma 112 State Capitol Ok.lahana. City, OklaJDrra 73105 Janes P. Mc:Granecy, Jr., F.sq.
LeBoeuf, Iamb, I.eiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
Washington, o.c.* 20036 L. DCM DA.vIS XV Trial Atto:r:ney Office 01! General Cbunsel (GC-23)
Fo.rrestal :ei,1 l ding, lban 6-H-087 1000 Irilependence Avenue, s.w.
Washirgton, D.C.
20585 Dated this 6th day of Deoellt:>er, 1983
Carl A. Sinderbrand Assistant Attorney General (608) 268-3936 123 West Washington Avenue Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. NRC ffl~e ~tate of ~isconsin
~eparhnmt of alustire DOCKETED USNRC
- a3 OEC -7 P 4 :ooBronson C. La Follette Attorney General OFf t.
l OOC * 'I tR\\
Ed Garvey 8 R i,. ~ 1,;H Deputy Attorney General December 5, 1983 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Enclosed please find the comments of the State of Wisconsin on the Environmental Impacts of extended storage of spent fuel at waste storage basins.
CAS:kkl Enclosure Sincerely,
~Q..S~vCL-cJL Carl A. Sinderbrand
\\CL.
Assistant Attorney General
U S, ~.I' l~' r
~ ~
~*! (Q I ' JSSJON C'~. "'.
" c-~,.,.. TION
. **.* Y
. *.1 A
r,'1 Speci,! D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC In the Matter of PR9POSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE (Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
- a3 DEC - 7 p 4 :oo ooFoFc,*t
- ~
t iA
,c.11 G ~ c.*.,,,,,1 3~ u,.., f'
- I,
- ,t;H PR 50, 51 (44 Fed. Reg. 61372)
___________________ )
COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EXTENDED STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL AT WASTE STORAGE BASINS On May 16, 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued its decision in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking.
In its fourth finding, the NRC found that spent fuel could be stored on-site at existing reactors for at least thirty years beyond the expiration of operating licenses without significant environ-mental effects.
At the same t i me and based on this generic finding, the NRC proposed amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51 which would preclude environmental inquiry into the effects of long-term on-site storage in future licensing proceedings.
48 Fed. Reg. 22730 (May 20, 1983).
On October 31, 1983, the NRC determined to reexamine this fourth finding and solicited comments from interested persons.
48 Fed. Reg. 50746 (November 3, 1983).
The State of Wisconsin hereby submits its comments on t he fourth finding, and respect-
fully urges the NRC to delete that finding and abandon the proposed amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51.
- 1.
Environmental impacts of extended on-site storage of spent fuel are not properly within the scope of the Waste Confidence Rulemaking and were not directly addressed therein.
The Waste Conficence Rulemaking was initiated in response to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
The focus of the remand in that case was to determine whether there is reasonable assurance that off-site storage will be available at the time of expiration of reactor operating licenses or that spent fuel can be safely stored on-site beyond that time.
Id. at 418.
This characterization of the focus of NRC's attention was reiterated in the NRC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 44 Fed.
Reg. at 61373.
The scope of the NRC's inquiry, therefore, was expressly limited to the availability of off-site storage or disposal and the safety of extended on-site storage
- Because of this stated
- purpose, comments by interested members of the public and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) were restricted to issues of availability and safety.
While comments did focus on the ability of various technologies to contain the waste, they did not address the environmental consequences of either the development, implementation or use of such technologies.
Little, if any, attention was paid to the kind of environmental impacts which would have to be addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42 u.s.c.
2 -
sec. 4321 et g_g_., such as transportation, cost, human health, competing uses of resources, and socio-economic and secondary impacts.
The absence of any environmental inquiry is well illustrated in the Report of the Working Group, Part 2, dated January 29, 1981.
Of the twenty-six issues identified by the working group, only two issues even touched upon environmental concerns.
Issue 3.3 identified an institutional issue, whether the then-existing DOE program provided for adequate consideration of socio-economic impacts in its implementation.
Issue 4.1 asked whether spent fuel can be safely stored "for extended periods without significant safety, health, and environmental effects Id.
at 82.
However, the DOE position on this issue focused solely on the structural integrity and containment capabilities of pool storage.
Accordingly, there is simply nothing in the record which would warrant a comprehensive, preemptive finding of no significant impact *
- 2.
Environmental impacts of extended storage are not susceptible to generic determination.
The proposed finding and administrative code amendment are broad, generic conclusions as to environmental impacts which would preclude any further environmental impacts.
Since the technical inquiry of the Waste Confidence Rulemaking was limited to the safety of available or potentially available technologies, it is arguably possible to make generic determinations as to the integrity of those technologies.
However, each reactor site has 3 -
its own unique features which may either enhance or detract from the protections provided by those containment technologies.
These would include, inter alia, proximity to population centers,
- highways, geologic faults,
- dams, flood plains or shorelines affected by erosion.
These features will be revealed and must be addressed in the management plan.
Accordingly, the State of Wisconsin believes that any rule adopted by the NRC should not preclude, but rather should specifically require application of NEPA to the review and action on management plans *
- 3.
The intended applications of the fourth finding have not been adequately identified.
In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 44 Fed. reg. 61372, NRC indicated that in the event it finds reasonable assurance of available, safe off-site
- storage, it would adopt a
rule precluding consideration of environmental impacts of on-site storage in individual licensing proceedings: and that if extended on-site storage were deemed necessary or appropriate, it would promulgate a rule providing for consideration of environmental impacts of extended on-site storage.
Confidence Rulemaking at 5 (May 16, 1983).
See Decision in Waste In its findings, the NRC found reasonable assurance that off-site facilities would be available, but also recognized that extended on-site storage may be needed.
In proposing amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51, however, the NRC appears to broadly preclude any further consideration of environmental impacts of on-site storage, even if on-site storage is needed.
This 4 -
'\\
proposal therefore seems to be inconsistent with the NRC's prior representations.
In light of the NRC' s findings in Waste Confidence which rely upon the availability of both off-site and on-site storage, the propriety and intended scope of the proposed rule changes are unclear.
Throughout the proceeding, the NRC had represented that any rule precluding environmental review of on-site storage would flow from a finding that off-site storage would be available, i.e., that on-site storage would not be needed.
The proposed finding and
- rule, however, preclude consideration of the environmental impacts of on-site storage even though its use is expressly contemplated.
Moreover, the proposed rule suggests, without expressly
- stating, that environmental review is permanently foreclosed, without exception, even in the review of site-specific management plans.
When any agency determines, by rule, to circumvent the mandate of NEPA, it should at least clarify the scope and application of its evasion
- 5 -
For the reasons stated herein, the State of Wisconsin respectfully requests the NRC to delete its fourth finding in the waste Confidence Rulemaking and abandon the proposed amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51.
Dated this 5th day of December, 1983.
Department of Justice Post Office Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 (608) 266-3936 Respectfully submitted, BRONSON C. LA FOLLETTE Attorney General Cw Gt. 6kDc~1"-.b~
CARLA:'"'SINDERBRAND Assistant Attorney General 6 -
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
New York Office 12 2 EAST 42ND STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10168 212 949-0049 Secretary 1725 I ST R EET, N.W.
SUITE 600 WASHINGTO
, D.C. 20006 202 223-8210 December 6, 1983 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch DOCKETED US C
- s3 DEC - 7 A 9 : 16 Re:
Reopening of Comment Period on Limited Proposed Rule, 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 (48 Federal Register 50746, November 3, 1983)
Dear Secretary:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission apparently concedes the position taken by NRDC, in our June 30, 1983 response to the proposed Waste Confidence decision, that there is no support in the record for the Commission's finding of reasonable assurance that spent fuel can be stored without significant environmental effects for at least 30 days beyond the expiration of reactor operator licenses.
Yet the Commimssion's attempt to remedy this defect by reopening the comment period at the last minute cannot bring this finding into compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
It is our position that the environmental effects of extended spent fuel storage are strongly site-specific, and should be considered on a case-by-case basis during the licensing proceedings for nuclear reactors, reactor-site storage facilities, and off-site storage installations.
As the Commission acknowledged, the environmental effects of site New England Office: 16 PRESCOTT STREET. WELLESLEY HILLS, MA. 02181. 617 237-0472 100% Recycled Paper Public Lands Institute: 1720 RACE STREET
- DENVER, co. 80206
- 303 377-9740 '")"'0rc,~
'i))\\
C 1"'1.,, I d j
1-,
C
- L /A 7, l}..:J f'J,I
~
l
I Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 6, 1983 Page Two preparation and construction of these faci_lities are considered individually, based on detailed site studies developed in ac~ordance with NEPA.
These detailed environm~ntal impact statements should also form the basis for a consideration of the environmental impacts of extended fuel storage, using the same geologic, hydrologic, seismic, and other ecological factors, as well as the individual proposal for spent fuel management and storage.
There is no reason why the Commission should completely cut off consideration of this site-specific issue, other than the apparent wish to tidy up these licensing proceedings by excluding any discussion of impacts beyond the date of operating license expiration.
Since the Commission now acknowledges that spent fuel will probably be stored onsite for 30 years or*more after that date, the need for this cut-off point for discussion seems arbitrary indeed.
As we noted earlier, the extensive Waste Confidence record does not address this issue, nor has it been considered in any generic environmental impact statements or licensing proceedings to date.
It is our position that the appropriate course is to add~ess this issue fully on a site specific basis during individual licensing proceedings, rather than to scramble to inject this issue into an already concluded
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 6, 1983 Page Three_
proce~ding which was designed to address entirely different issues. -See NRDC JU;Ile 30, 1983 Comments at 8010.
Should the Commission decide to address these environment~l -
I issues generical*l.y, 'it must do so in a manner,'c::onsi.stent with NEPA.
AB we stated in o~r earlier comments, NEPA requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impac-t accompanied by an environmental assessment.
)
The burden 1s upon the NRC staff to evaluate these impacts fully, and ba~k up their conclusions in a document subject to public and judicia'l review., The staff may not base its generic,NEPA decisions solely on public cornnt'ent responses, without independent review and analysis.
The notice and comment procedure chosen by the Commission is doubly inadequate in that, unlike the remainder of the Waste Confidence J:>roceed.ings,, the parties are unable to review and respond to each other **s positions.
The factual underpinnings for a generic environmental finding in this instance is thus -even more subject to doubt.
In-conclusion, we note that the Commission originally
,anticipated that_it would precluc:ie consideration of the environmental effects of extinded fuel* storage if __,.it found that such extended storage would not occur.
The,Commission still seems determin~d to preclude such consideration.
Yet now
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory December 6, 1983 Page Four Commission that the Commission has opened its eyes to the reality of
\\
- extended storage, it must give the issue of environmental effect.a the full consideration it deserves.
A last minute request'- for public comment is simply insufficient.
(
Respectfully submitted,
/4~~_,,4 ~
.. a,v-__ _
'Cara A. Finamore Attorney for NRDC
,;ui.: £1 Nu.mm
-~
PROPOSED RJLE
-5at5/ LY
(#t=fl, $4?4t;}
OQC.'KETEO USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- a3 DEC -6 P 4 : 1 0 BEFORE THE COMMISSION c-F r- *-:
~
In the Matter of
.1 PR-50, 51 PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE)
AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
)
)
(44 Fed. Reg. 61,372)
(Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
Requirements for Licensee Actions
)
Regarding the Disposition of Spent)
(48 Fed. Reg. 22,730)
Fuel Upon Expiration of the
)
Reactors' Operating Licenses
)
UNWMG-EEI RESPONSE TO REOPENING OF THE COMMENT PERIOD ON THE DRAFT WASTE CONFIDENCE DECISION AND ASSOCIATED PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 51 INTRODUCTION On May 16, 1983 the Commission issued a proposed decision in its Waste Confidence proceeding.
In that decision the Commission made five findings on the feasibility of disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel, the timeliness of availability of disposal capacity and the safety and environmental impacts of the storage of spent fuel for up to thirty years after the expiration of reactor operating licenses.
The Commission requested comments by participants with respect to two issues:
(1) implications of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub. L. No.97-425) for the Commission's decision, and (2) the Commission's
........... *~
2 -
discussion of the safety of _dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.
In a companion action, on May 20, 1983, the Commission proposed an amendment to its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in 10* CFR Part 51 regp.rding the consideration of environmental impacts of the extended storage of spent fuel beyond the licensed operating period of a nuclear power reactor or independent spent fuel storage installation.
48 Fed. Reg. 22,730 (1983).
The Commission found that extended storage for up to thirty years after the expiration of op~rating licenses at nuc~ear power plants or at independent spent fuel storage installations will result in no significant safety or environmental impacts.
This finding was based on the record of the Waste Confidence proceeding and the NRC's experience with more than eighty individual safety and environmental evaluations conducted in storage related licensing proceedings.
48 Fed. Reg. at 22,731
- By a notice published November 3, 1983, the Commission announced that it had decided t6 reopen the comment period on its fourth finding in the Waste Confidence decision, and on the associated proposed amendment to 10 CFR Parts 50 and
- 51.
Specifically, the Commission stated that it had decided to provide the public an opportunity to comment on:
(1) The environmental aspects of its fourth finding - that it has reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored without signifi-cant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins,
\\..
3 -
or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations;. (2) the determination that there are no significant non-radiological consequences which could adversely affect the environ-ment if spent fuel is stored beyond the expiration of operating licenses either at reactors or at independent spent fuel storage installations; and (3) implications of comments on items (1} and (2) above for the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 51.
48 Fed. Reg. 50,746 (1983).
These comments are filed on behalf of the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group - Edison Electric Institute (UNWMG-EEI) in response to that notice.~/
At the outset, UNWMG-EEI wish to note that it has always been clear in this proceeding that the Commission intended to develop such environmental regulations as would be appropriate to its determination of the matters under consideration.
In Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (n:c.
Cir. 1979), which was a direct precursor of the Waste Confidence proceeding, the court found a need for the NRC to consider both the safety and environmental implications of extended spent fuel storage -- particularly on-site storage should off-site disposal capability or storage not be available -- and approved the generic consideration thereof.
602 F.2d at 416-19.
Although the notice refers initially to the proposed amendment of both Parts 50 and 51, the specific request for comments concerns only "the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 51."
Accordingly, these comments are directed only to Part 51 implications.
In any event, UNWMG-EEI have nothing to add to their comments on Part 50 amend-ments submitted on July 5, 1983.
4 -
The Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Waste Confidence proceeding explicitly stated the Commission's intent to deal with both the health and safety and environmental aspects of spent fuel storage, as appropriate.
Not only is the proceeding docketed under both Parts 50 and 51 of the Commission's rules (containing its reactor licensing health and safety and reactor licensing NEPA regulations, respectively), but the notice specifically stated:
If the Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe, off-site disposal for radioactive wastes from licensed facilities will be available prior to expiration of the facilities' licenses, it will promulgate a final rule providing that the environmental and safety implica-tions of continued on-s storage after the termination of licenses need not be considered in individual licensing pro-ceedings.
In the event the Commission determines that on-site storage after license expiration may be necessary or appropriate, it will issue a proposed rule providing how that question will be addressed.
Based on the material received in this proceeding and on any other relevant information properly available to it, the Commission will publish a proposed or final rule in the Federal Register.
Any such final rule will be effective thirty days after publication.
44 Fed. Reg. 61,372, 61,373-74 (1979).
That participants understood -- or have understood --
the pertinence of the envir0nmental aspects of spent fuel storage to this proceeding is reflected in a number of
5 -
filings submitted even before they presented their cases in initial statements of position and subsequent lings.y In addition, the Commission specifically noted that the proceeding would "draw upon the record compiled..* in
[the] rulemaking on the environmental impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle," which contains considerable information on the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage.
See 45 Fed.
Reg. 3056 (1980).
Further, the NRC Data Bank, especially established and maintained by the Commission as a resource for use by participants in the Waste Confidence proceeding, is replete with references to, and sources of, informatio~
on the environmental impact of spent fuel storage.
Most significantly, considerable information pertaining directly to the environmental aspects of spent fuel storage was contained in participants' statements.
See, e.g.,
UNWMG-EEI PS Doc. 4, July 7, 1980, pp. 17-31; AIF PS, July 7, 1980, pp. 20-25; NRDC PS, July 7, 1980, pp. 88-93; DOE CS, April 15, 1980, pp. I-25 to I-31.
The Commission utilized See, e.g., Notice of Intent by the New Jersey Public Advocate to Participate as a Full Participant in the Rulemaking Proceeding, p.2, Nov. 7, 1979 (expression of tentative position that spent fuel would likely be maintained on-site after reactor operation had ceased and that additional study of the environmental conse-quences of such storage is required); Response of United States Department of Energy to Notice of Pre-hearing Conference, Attachment I, p. 3, Jan. 21, 1980 (DOE's statement of issues appropriate for considera-tion in the proceeding, including whether there is a basis "for a conclusion that spent fuel in principle can be stored in a safe and environmentally accept-able manner on-site or off-site until disposal facilities are available").
6 -
this information as a basis for its fourth finding con-cerning the environmental impact of extended spent fuel storage.
See Draft Decision Appendix, pp. 57-65 (May 17, 19 83)
- Moreover, not only the participants to this proceeding, but also the general public, were provided a separate opportunity to comment on the environmental aspects of spent fuel storage when the Commission proposed its rule estab-lishing requirements for licensing actions rega~ding the disposition of spent fuel upon the expiration of licenses.
48 Fed. Reg. 22,730 (1983).
Nevertheless, the following discussion and analysis are offered by UNWMG-EEI in response to the Commission's opportunity to provide additional comments concerning:
(1) the fourth finding in the Waste Confidence proceeding; (2) the determination that there are no significant non-radiological consequences that could adversely affect the environment if spent fuel is stored beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses; and (3) the implications of conclusions regarding (1) and (2) above,,
on the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 51.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS There is a large body of information concerning the environmental effects of spent fuel storage in addition to that specifically cited in support of the Commission's fourth finding.
The results of extensive environmental evaluations, including those performed by the NRC, support the Commission's conclusion that spent fuel can be stored without significant environmental effects for at least thirty
7 -
years beyond the expiration of reactor operating censes at reactor spent fuel storage basins or at either on-site or off-site independent spent fuel storage installations.
For example, the NRC's Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0575), Aug. 1979, [hereinafter referred to as NRC Spent Fuel FEIS]*/ contains a detailed discussion of the environmental impact of spent fuel storage.
The NRC Spent Fuel FEIS contains a detailed analysis, including consideration of radiological impacts, economics, commitments of resources, relationships between the local short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity, sabotage and accidents.
It concludes, primarily because of the form of the material as sintered ceramic oxide fuel pellets hermeti-cally sealed in Zircaloy cladding, that the storage of spent fuel in water pools has an insignificant impact on the environ-ment, whether at reactor, or away from reactor, sites. It also notes that the use of alternative, dry passive storage tech-niques for fuel appears to be equally acceptable from an environmental standpoint.
NRC Spent Fuel FEIS, p. ES-10.
With specific regard to non-radiological impacts, the NRC Spent Fuel FEIS notes that increasing the number of assemblies stored at existing nuclear power plant fuel pools This reference is listed in the NRC bibliography on Radioactive Waste Processing and Disposal (NUREG-0644),
Jan. 1980, in the Data Bank.
8 -
would create only a small additional amount of waste heat, resulting in no measurable increase in impact upon the environment.
Similarly, heat resulting from away from reactor facilities would be limited.
Id. pp. 4-1 to 4-2.
The creation of independent spent fuel storage facilities and expansion of on-site capacity could involve some dedica-tion of additional land for an indefinite period of time.y New facility construction would also involve construction activity resulting in the loss of both biological resources in the vicinity and the use of construction material.
These costs, however, would be small.
Id., pp. 7-1 to 7-11.
The DOE Final Environmental Impact Statement on U.S.
Spent Fuel Policy (DOE/EIS-0015), May 1980, [hereinafter referred to as DOE Spent Fuel FEIS]**/ also contains an extensive analysis of the environmental impact of spent fuel storage, and reaches conclusions consistent with those of the NRC Spent Fuel FEIS.
Specifically, the DOE Spent Fuel FEIS finds the environmental impact.of spent fuel storage to be It should be noted that, in reactor licensing proceedings, no future availability of the site land -- for other than power plant uses -- is assumed.
Thus, expansion of on-site storage should not, in general, result in additional land use impacts.
This reference is listed in the NRC bibliography on Radioactive Waste Processing and Disposal (NUREG-0644),
Jan. 1980, in the NRC Data Bank but, because of the date of issuance of the final statement, is listed as a draft EIS.
9 -
small; fuel cladding is expected to remain intact and radio-logical impacts involve only an insignificant fraction of the exposure health effects associated with natural radiation sources.
Vol. 1, pp. 22, 46; Vol. 2, p. III-3.
In addition, the risk of major accidents or sabotage resulting in off-site consequences is small.
Id., Vol. 2, pp. IV-1 to IV-7, B-1 to B-64.
The DOE Spent Fuel FEIS also considers non-radiological short-term and long-term effects on the environment from spent fuel storage.
Short-term uses of the environment include construction of facilities and support services such as roads.
These are expected to be limited and involve a very small fraction of available resources.
With respect to long-term effects, which are considered to be those that extend into the indefinite future, the DOE Spent Fuel FEIS notes that land use commitment would not be permanent, and that all land can be made available for other uses upon decommissioning of spent fuel storage facilities.
Vol. 2, pp. VII-1 to VII-2.
The Commission's rulemaking record on the environmental impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle also contains considerable information concerning spent fuel storage.
In particular, with respect to the storage of spent fuel in storage pools the Commission noted that the technology for such storage is well established.
Radioactive releases to the environment have, in actual practice, been extremely small and may be expected to remain small even pool storage is protracted by delays in establishing disposal facilities.
See 44 Fed.
10 -
Reg. 45,362, 45,367-68 (1979); see also Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle (NUREG-0116), Oct. 1976.y In addition, with respect to the implications of extended spent fuel storage on-site beyond the period of reactor operation, the Commission has considered similar maintenance activities and land use implications in its analysis of decommissioning using the "SAFSTOR" alternative.
This analysis indicates that the non-radiological impacts associated with extended site utilization are insignificant.
See Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586),
pp. 4-3 to 4-12.
The DOE Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste (DOE/EIS-0046F), Oct. 1980, [hereinafter referred to as DOE Waste Management FEIS]**/ ~lso considered extended spent fuel storage.
Periods of up to 100 years were examined.
The DOE concluded that extended storage resulting from delays in the implementation of disposal technology should not result in any appreciable change in environmental effects.
DOE Waste Y
This reference is listed in the NRC bibliography on Radioactive Waste Processing and Disposal (NUREG-0644)
Jan. 1980, in the NRC Data Bank.
- / This reference is listed in the NRC bibliography on Radioactive Waste Processing and Disposal (NUREG-0644),
Jan. 1980 in the Data Bank but, because of the date of issuance of the final statement, is listed as a draft EIS.
I 11 -
Management FEIS, pp. 1.31, 4.51.
Both water basin and dry storage were considered.
No significant environmental impacts were identified.
See, e.g., id., pp. 4.51 to 4.54.
With respect to non-radiological impacts associated with extended storage -- particularly the construction and opera-tion of away-from-reactor facilities -- DOE noted that, while impacts from construction would be experienced, and land use affected during the operational life of a facility, significant ecological effects would not occur.
See, id.,
pp. 4.76 to 4.80.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the Commission's proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 is soundly based in providing that no significant environmental impacts will result from the storage of spent fuel for up to thirty years or more beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses in on-site reactor storage facility pools or independent spent fuel storage installations located either at reactor or away-from-reactor sites, and that the environ-mental consequences of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installations for the period following expiration of the license applied for need not be addressed in any environmental report, impact statement, impact assessment, safety analysis report, or other analysis.
As the Commission has found, the storage of spent fuel for thirty years beyond the license expiration would not result in a significant impact to the environment
- or an adverse effect on the public health and safety.
This conclusion is supported by the sources cited in the Commis-sion's draft decision, including the record material in the Waste Confidence proceeding, and the discussion presented above.
Significant releases of radioactivity from spent fuel under licensed storage conditions are highly unlikely.
In addition, the possibility of a major accident or sabotage with off-site radiological consequence at a spent fuel storage.facility is small.
Moreover, there are no signifi-cant additional non-radiological consequences which could adversely effect the environment if spent fuel is stored beyond the expiration of the license.
Impacts such as site preparation and the construction of storage facilities are small, and considered by the Commission at the time applica-tions are filed for such facilities.
Accordingly, except for specific problems identified in the UNWMG-EEI comments, filed July 5, 1983, the amendment to 10 CFR Part 51, noticed on May 20, 1983, should be adopted as proposed.
December 6, 1983 Respectfully submitted, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad, P.C.
Suite 1214 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 862-8400
oor.;KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of OfflC[ o::- ScCJtTr,ff OOCKl fl NG & ';)fflVICI BR/iNCH PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE)
AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
)
)
PR-50, 51 (44 Fed. Reg. 61,372)
(Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding the Disposition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of the Reactors' Operating Licenses (48 Fed. Reg. 22,730)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the "UNWMG-EEI Response To Reopening Of The Comment Period On The Draft Waste Confi-dence Decision And Associated Proposed Amendment To 10 CFR Parts 50 And 51," dated December 6, 1983, has been served on each of the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 6th day of December 1983:
Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Sheldon Trubatch, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Karen Cyr, Esq.
Rulemaking and Enforcement Div.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Regis R. Boyle Division of Waste Hanagement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Presiding Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary 2 -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
Docketing & Service Branch Leo Slaggie, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Lee L. Bishop, Esq.
Harmon and Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Mr. Marvin Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 Dr. Judith Johnsrud 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Environmental Protection Bureau State of New York Two World Trade Center New York, NY 10047 Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Division of Public Interest Advocacy State of New Jersey P.O. Box 141 Trenton, NJ 08625 Mrs. w. M. Schaefer 3741 Koehler Drive Sheboygan, WI 53081 Ronald J. Wilson, Esq.
810 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 L. Dow Davis, IV, Esq.
Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Energy GC-23, Room 6-H-087 1000 Independence Ave., s.w.
Washington, D.C.
20585 Frederick C. Williams, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Hr. A. S. West Rohm and Haas Company Independence Mall West Philadelphia~ PA 19105 Mr. Michael H. Raudenbush T. S. M. Stoller Corporation 1919 14th Street, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80302 Dr. William A. Lochstet 119 E. Aaron Drive State College, PA 16801 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General P. 0. Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211 Elliot Andalman, Esq.
Andalman, Adelman and Steiner 224 Second Avenue Hattisburg, MS 39401 Mr. Carl Walske, President Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
7101 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D.C.
20014 Mr. Creg Darby Hanford Conversion Project 1817 N.E. 17th Portland, OR 97212
3 -
E. Dennis Muchnicki, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Law Section State of Ohio 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Jocelyn F. Olson, Esq.
Marlene E. Senechal, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorneys General State of Minnesota 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville,.UN 55113 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div.
State of New Hampshire Office of Attorney General State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Richard W. Lowerre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div.
State of Texas P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Mr. Phillip Warburg State of Connecticut 444 North Capitol Street Suite 317 Washington, D.C.
20001 E. Carole Currin, Esq.
Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W.
Suite 550 Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. James Richards Capital Legal Foundation 1101 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. David Berwick Environmental Policy Institute 317 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.
Washington, D.C.
20003 Dian Grueneich, Esq.
Staff Counsel California Energy Commission 1111 Howe Avenue, MS 27 Sacramento, CA 95825 Carl Valore, Jr.
Valore, McAllister, Aron and Westmoreland liainland Professional Plaza 535 Tilton Road Northfield, NJ 08225 Joseph Caggiano Rockwell Hanford Operations P.O. Box 800 Richland, WA 99352 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael Miller, Esq.
Peter Thornton, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60603 James P. UcGranery, Jr., Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and HacRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 George Freeman, Jr., Esq.
Hunton and Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 Hain Street Richmond, VA 23212 Michael J. Scibinico, II, Esq.
Department of Natural Resources State of Maryland Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, Im 214 01 Richard F. Engel, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General CN 112 Trenton, NJ 08625
4 -
Dr. Bertram Wolfe Vice President and General Manager General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Ken Kramer Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club P. O. Box 1931 Austin, TX 78767 Mr. Robert Halstead Department of Administration State of Wisconsin 1 West Wilson Street Madison, WI 53702 R. Leonard Vance, Esq.
Anthonty J. Gambardella, Jr.,
Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Commonwealth of Virginia 715 Madison Building 109 Governor Street Richmond, VA 23219 Mr. Bryan L. Baker Mockingbird Alliance 900 Lovett Boulevard Houston, TX 77006 Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20460 Mr. John D. O'Toole Vice President Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place, Room 1402 New York, NY 10003 Stanley R. Tupper, Esq.
Tupper and Bradley 102 Townsend Avenue Boothbay Harbor, ME 04538 Harry Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and ~\\1acRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 June D. McArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General State of Delaware Tatnall Building P. o. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19901 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, TN 37902 Mr. M.A. Glora Site Qualifications and Licensing Department Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation U.S. Department of Energy 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 Dr. Newell J. Trask U.S. Geological Survey National Center, Mail Stop 959 Reston, VA 22092 Executive Director South Carolina Energy Research Institute Suite 670 First National Bank Building Maine at Washington Columbia, SC 29201 Honorable Robert 1'1. Lindholm Assistant Attorney General Jefferson City, MO 65102 Honorable Richard Troy Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice State of Louisiana 234 Loyola Building, 79th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112
5 -
William Griffin, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Carl A. Sinderbrand, Esq.
Wisconsin Department of Justice 123 West Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53702 R. Leonard Vance, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia Supreme Court Building 1101 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 l1aple City, MI 49664 Mr. Ashton J. O'Donnell Bechtel National, Inc.
P. o. Box 3965 San Francisco, CA 94119 Mr. Ralph Stein Office of Nuclear Waste ~anagement Mail Stop Bl07 U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20545 Lawrence K. Lau, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General State Capital State of Hawaii Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Robert H. Neill Director, Environmental Evaluation Group 320 E. Marcy Street P.O. Box 968 Santa Fe, NM 87503 Joyce P. Davis, Esq.
Law Department Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Honorable Susan N. Sekuler Honorable Dean Hansell Assistant Attorneys General State of Illinois 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, IL 60601 Honorable Francis S. Wright Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice State of Oregon 500 Pacific Building 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Michael L. Bardrick, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State of Oklahoma 112 State Capitol Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Brian H. Sway Deputy Director California Department of Conservation 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Sacramento, CA 95814 Joseph Knotts, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Professor Miro M. Todorovich Executive Secretary Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
Suite 1007 570 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
6 -
James F. Burger, Esq.
W. Walter LaRoche, Esq.
Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the General Counsel 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, TN 37902 David Santee Miller, Esq.
213 I~rgan Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 Mr. Eugene N. Cramer Neighbors of the Environment 17146 Ridgepark Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
~
~
Maurice Axerad" Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Axelrad, P.C.
Suite 1214 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
" C T H'l,I l.R C
I t 'JPOSfD ilU'
-.._,J(1 s-, (j)
( 4/'FR. !J~-'l°1/4,J t
LAW O FF IC E S OF DE B EVO I S E & LIBERMAN 00.C,KETEO USNRC 26 BROAD W A Y 1200 SE V ENTEEN T H ST RE ET, N. W.
N E W YORK, N EW YO R K 10004 WA S HING T ON, D. C. 20036 (2021 8S7-980 0
-S3 OEC -6 p 1 :5ii(2 ) 2 4 B - 6900 (8 EL M S T R EE T ff iC...: C s,..-[..,-~ ; S TOCK, VERMONT 0509 1 December 6 O s<ajl~'G
..'),Nh.
BRANCH 18021 4 57 - 3000 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Subj:
Reopening of Comment Period on Limited Proposed Rule:
48 Fed. Reg. 50746 (November 3, 1983)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On November 3, 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("Commission") published in the Federal Register a notice that it was reopening the comment period on a portion of its Waste Confidence Decision, issued May 16, 1983, and an associated proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51, initially noticed on May 20, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 22730).
Specifically, the Commission requested additional comments on its determination that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with extended spent fuel storage.
This finding is embodied in the fourth finding of its Waste Confidence Decision1, and is the basis for certain aspects of its proposed amendments.
The Commission indicated that some persons commenting on the Waste Confidence Decision and the proposed rule claimed not to have been given adequate notice of the Commi ssion's intent to make that finding and also not to have been given an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for the proposed rule.
The Commission has requested that comments on its proposed rule be submitted no later than December 6, 1983.
Accordingly, on behalf of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., we submit the following comments.
1 The fourth finding of the Commission's Decision is, as follows:
"The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations."
Postm*r' r.. /"r, s
~
Ac; 'l C ci..l D OF T.
- I
2 -
The Atomic Industrial Forum has been involved as a full Participant in the Waste Confidence rulemaking since its inception, providing the Commission with both a Statement and Cross-Statement of Position in that proceeding.
Further, as a member of consolidated Group 4, we submitted comments on the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision on July 1, 1983.
We also filed, on July 5, 1983, separate comments on the proposed amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51.
In response to the instant notice, we join in the comments being filed today by the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group -
Edison Electric Institute, to which we add only the following brief recapitulation of our prior comments in this regard.
I.
ADEQUACY OF NOTICE The Commission indicates that some participants in the Waste Confidence proceeding and persons commenting on the proposed rule contended, respectively, that they had been given inadequate notice of the Commission's intent to make the fourth finding or to comment on the basis of the proposed rule.
Although we do not subscribe to these arguments, we submit that by affording this additional comment period on both the Waste Confidence Decision and the proposed rule, the Commission clearly has adequately responded to the notice argument.
Further, we believe that there is ample basis for the rule in the record and in other materials of public record, reliance on which was disclosed and would be proper.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the UNWMG/EEI comments, as well as those set forth below, we perceive no obstacle to the Commission issuing both a final Waste Confidence Decision and amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51, and urge the Commission to do so promptly
- II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SPENT FUEL STORAGE The Commission requested comments on both the environmental aspects of its fourth finding in the Waste Confidence Decision and its determination that there are no significant non-radiological consequences of spent fuel storage which could adversely affect the environment, whether or not such storage is maintained at reactor sites or at independent spent fuel storage installations.
As we previously commented, the Commission correctly relies on the record in the Waste Confidence proceeding and its experience in individual evaluations conducted in storage licensing proceedings to support both its findings with respect to radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts.
Accordingly, we find no reason for the Commission to modify its conclusions on those questions.
Further, as we suggested in our previous comments, the Commission may also properly reference certain additional information developed in related Commission proceedings to provide additional support for its conclusions.
In particular,
3 -
we recommend that in the statement of considerations accompanying the final rule, and in a supplement or addendum to the Waste Confidence decision, the Commission refer to certain information developed in the Decommissioning rulemaking.
Such information includes the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning,2 which addresses the non-radiological consequences of continued maintenance of nuclear facilities at reactor sites beyond the term of the operating license, which consequences are analogous to those associated with continued on-site storage of spent fuel.
We refer the Commission to our comments of July 5, 1983, at 3-4, for a more detailed discussion of this matter.
With respect to the radiological impacts of extended storage, we previously suggested that the Commission reference applicable portions of the record in the Table S-3 proceeding concerning the environmental impacts of pool storage to provide additional support for its determinations.
Again, we addressed this suggestion in greater detail in our previous comments and refer the Commission to the discussion therein at pages 4-5.
We note that reliance on this information is particularly appropriate in that the Commission indicated in its initial notice of the Waste Confidence rulemaking (44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373 (October 25, 1979)) that it intended to draw on information from the Table S-3 rulemaking to support its determinations in this proceeding.
In sum, we believe that the Commission's conclusion that the environmental impacts of extended spent fuel pool storage are insignificant is correct, and that consideration of certain additional information in these proceedings is appropriate and confirms the Commission's findings.
Thus, we urge the Commission to affirm its previous determinations regarding those impacts and proceed to issue both a final Waste Confidence Decision and a final rule amending 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51.
B. Knotts, Jr.
2 "Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,"
NUREG-0586 (January 1981).
JOCKU hUM8tR p R PR0f,DaD RULE
-$~S"/ If'\\
lfJ:(;f 521?%) ~
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS U5NRC
'83 IEG-6 All :3~
Secretary US Nucl ear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 OFF/CE OF SE I ;.;t DOCKETING & SERVI r BRANCH December 1, 1983 Attent ion:
Docketing and Service Branch Re:
Environmental Impacts of Extended Spent Fuel Storage related to the Commission's findings in its Waste Confidence Proceedings As a member of Group Number 4, the AIChE endorsed that Group's comments last June on the Commission's draft decision in the Waste Confidence Proceedings.
Our review at that time included the finding that there are no adverse environmental effects of extended storage of spent fuel.
In response to the notice in the Federal Register Vol. 48 No. 214 of November 3, 1983 requesting limited comments on this specific point, we reiterate that we believe spent fuel can be stored safely in spent fuel storage basins and without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses.
The location of the storage basins would not affect our conclusions
- Thus, we endorse the Commission's findings in this matter and recommend that they remain as stated.
JAB/ag Very truly yours, a~c~
Nucl ear Waste Task Force Government Programs Steering Committee
U. S. NUCLEAR r.~r," 1..
DOCKff -~,,
--.*: COM/Al ~5!0N C ", '-L I
... " :'.TIOt-~
OF T.':
- *
- {
Postr.1-x',
Copies r:i:..
Add' I c_,
Special D. r,... r.
/,t/sfr3 I
JOCKET NllMBEH p R -5j S'I 110POS£D RULE I
(_ 4~ ~
5&1'-1-to)
DOCKETED USNRC Saje :ff Mm, J.f.d.
P.O. BOX 117, SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN 53081 133 DEC -6 AlO :27 December 3, 1983 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Services Branch
Dear Secretary:
Reopening of Conment Period on Limited Proposed Rule on 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51 Orf/CO.: OF StL" 11, DOCKE. Tl G & s VI(
BRANCH Safe Haven, Ltd. believes that the Conmission should withdraw its fourth finding in the Waste Confidence Rulemaking decision which states:
"The Conmission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environ-mental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations."
This finding cannot be substantiated in the record of this proceeding which is obviously the reason for reopening the comment period. Moreover, the Conmission must not abrogate its responsibility to assure public health and safety by issuing a generic rule which would in any way preclude a thorough investigation of the environmental and safety aspects of extended storage on a plant-by-plant basis.
The individuality of each plant and its's environ-mental surroundings necessitate separate evaluations before any determina-tion can be made pertaining to impacts of extended storage. The Conmission cannot simply lump all plants together as though they were produced on an assembly line, placed in the same physical setting, and spent fuel managed exactly alike. The burden is clearly on the Conmission to conduct a detailed study of each plant prior to any finding regarding environmental and safety impacts of extended storage.
A detailed study of each plant should be performed when the utilities sub-mit a management plan prior to the expiration of the operating license wherein permission for extended storage is sought.
The Commission has pro-posed that a spent fuel management plan must be submitted five years before the operating license expires (Federal Register, May 20, 1983) but has not delineated that an environmental impact statement and safety analysis will have to be prepared.
In follow-up discussions with vari'ous members of the Conmission 's staff, discrepancies and uncertainties have surfaced reqardinq
"... TO CREATE A BALANCE BETWEEN OUR NEED FOR ENERGY AND, OUR NEED FOR A CLEAN, SAFE ENVIRONMENT."
I...
. (
U.S. NUCLEA". r~,,,,,,.-r-., i"<Y:\\MISSION DOC'(;~::; r,. ;,
~
- -r10N o: I '-C ( ~ '
'(
OF T,0 ':
- ;/~
['*
Postmar': 0 '.* 1~/,g,/r-3 Ccpit:s R,:,*
/
Add' I Cc::* *,
- Speed Dis r '*.,,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51 December 3, 1983 Page 2 the requirements of the management plan.
The Commission should specify at this time that an environmental impact statement and safety analysis must be prepared for public review when a utility requests permission for extended spent fuel storage within its management plan five years prior to expiration of its operating license. All environmental and safety aspects pertaining to extended onsite storage (including erosion rates and flood plain conditions where appropriate as well as conditions of the spent fuel storage pool com-ponents) must be addressed in detail.
Planned spent fuel storage management practices must be clearly explained by the utilities and reviewed by the Commission to assure that high-level management is provided as the nature of the facility changes from electricity generation to storage. Safe Haven is essentially urging the Commission to make a commitment now to full environ-mental and safety review of the proposed plans for extended storage at each plant so these factors will not be casually dismissed at some future date by referencing the (inadequate) record of the Waste Confidence Rulemaking proceeding or any other smokescreen.
Furthermore, Safe Haven endorses Commissioner Gilinski's proposal that the Commission should not put off addressing the practical aspects of extended storage at existing plants for what may be decades when a management plan will have to be submitted.
The Commission should require each utility which operates a nuclear plant to show within the next few years that there will be no impediment to storing onsite the spent fuel which will be generated during the plant's operating lifetime for a reasonable period of time (perhaps 30 years) after the license expires.
Showing no impediment should also be required during a proceeding to address a request for permission to store additional quantities of spent fuel through compaction in the plant storage pool or other means.
Safe Haven continues to believe that the Commission would be unwise to initiate any proceedings to license new nuclear power plants because of the uncertainties pertaining to the availability of a radioactive waste disposal facility.
Though the Commission has used the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as the pivotal reason for finding 11confidence 11 in this proceeding, the Commission must be aware of the significant Department of Energy slippages in meeting the legislated deadline for issuing siting guideiines, in carrying out plans to characterize sites under consideration for a first repository, and in sub-mitting reports pertaining to potential second repository sites. Problems exist at all sites being considered for a first repository, and study of rock units which may serve as a second repository is at an infant stage.
To continue to license new plants will only irresponsibly exacerbate the cur-rently unresolved spent fuel disposition dilemma.
In conclusion, Safe Haven urges the following:
I. The Commission should withdraw its finding that spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects beyond the expiration of operating licenses because this finding cannot be determined generically but should be ascertained on a plant-by-plant basis.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 C.f.R. Parts 50 and 51 December 3, 1983 Page 3 II. If a utility requests permission to store spent fuel onsite after its operating license expires, the Commission should require that the management plan submitted by the utility five years before license expiration must include discus-sion of the environmental and safety aspects of extended spent fuel storage as well as detailed plans for managing the spent fuel and that an environmental impact statement and safety analysis must be prepared by the Commission and publicly reviewed prior to decision-making.
III. The Commission should require each utility which operates a nuclear power plant to show within the next few years that there will be no impediment to store onsite the spent fuel anticipated to be generated during the plant's life-time for a reasonable period beyond the expiration of the operating license.
IV.
The Commission should not initiate any proceedings to license new nuclear plants for construction until a dis-posal facility for spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste is available and operating.
The resolution of these issues are so very important to Safe Haven because of the profound implications for future generations.
The Commission must make a commitment now to cautious, thorough and timely study before any decisions are made.
Respectfully submitted, Director of Intervention SAFE HAVEN, LTD.
3741 Koehler Drive Sheboygan, WI 53081 414/458-9274
SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, !NC.
570 Seventh Avenue... Suite 1007 New York, New York 10018 (212) S4o -6595 DO(KETED LSNFC Miro M. Todorovich, Executive Director 113 DEC -fii l EXECUTIVE COMIIITTEE Frederick Seitz, Chairman Rockefeller University Erich I saac, Vice Chairman City Univ. of N r, Ci ty college Robert K. Adair, Vice Chairman Yale University Miro M. Todorovich, Exec. Dir.
City Univ. of,V Y, Bronx Commmity MEMBERS (partial listing ) :
Luis W. Alvarez Univ. of Calitorn.ta, Berkeley Henry H. Bar scball University of Wisconsin
- Hans A. Bethe CornE'll University Felix Bloch Stanford University David Bodaneky University ot lt'ashington Norris E. Bradbur y Los Alamo.s National Lab.
D. Al l an Broml ey Yale University
- R. Creighton Buck Univec.$ity of Wisconsin Bernard L. Cohen University of Pittsburgh
- Karl Cohen Consultant Thomas J. Connol l y Stanford Uni. versi t y John C. Courtney L01.1i.si,1na State Univ.
Dwight R. Damon univ. of Connecticut, Storrs R. H. Dicke Princeton University
- Albert Gold Desert Research Institute William W. Havens Columbia Univer sit!J
- Robert He:xter Uni vc.*r~i ty of Hinnesota Robert Hofstadter Stanford University Behram Kursunoglu University of Miami Robert Lee
&PRI Leona Libby Univ. of California, LA
- John McCarthy Stanford Universi t y John P. Madison Robert S. Mulliken University of Chicago L. Wanning Munt zing American Nuclear Societ!/
Thomas Pigford Univ. of California, Berkeley Ernest C. Pollard Pennsylvania Stc1te university
- James Rainwater Columbia Universi ty Norman C. Rasmussen Hass. Institute of Technology Dixy Lee Ray Energy Consultant Glenn Seaborg Univ. o f Cali fornia, Berkeley Malcolm J. Sherman state univ. of N Y, Alban!J
- Edward Teller Stanford University James A. Van Allen University o f Iowa
- Alexander von Graevenitz Universit:y of Zurich Alvin M. Weinberg Oak Ridge Associated Universities
- Eugene P. Wigner Princeton Universitl}
Richard Wilson Harvard Universitl}
Werner Wolf Yale Universitl}
- Member, Steering Convnittee Affiliatior, for identification onllJ December 2 1983 FFiCL :.,:- ::>
,., L i.'1*'.
OOCl~c. 'Ti NG SERV1u.
Mr. Samuel J. Ch ilk mcrtu N ' ~R ~
A -,
Secretary to the Commission PJWPO.SED RULE I""
-....;u.S I
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (.ur7 !=/l ~/J4~\\@
1717 H Street, N.W.
'TO
~
Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir:
RE: 10 CFR Parts 50 & 51 - Reopening of Comment Period on Limited Proposed Rule The following comments are submitted on behalf of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
(SE2), a New York non-profit corporation, regarding the reopening of the comment period on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' s fourth finding in its Waste Confidence decision and on its associated proposed amendments to Parts 50 and 51.
(November 3, 1983).
48 Fed. Reg. 50746 SE2 is a nationwide organization with a mem-bership consisting of over 1,000 distinguished scien-tists and engineers.
One of its principal purposes is to correct public misunderstanding of fundamental Acknowlcdccd by c,rd -f,j'f / ~' "f )?...
R. Leslie Dugan, Western Representa.ti.ve
- 2155 Ce.nttio EM~
- Tibwwn, CA 94920* (415) 435-7799 Patricia Coyle Ross, Washington Liaison
- 2011 Eye st. NW, Suite 40 1° Washington, DC 20006 * (2o2) 223... 5381
U. S. NUClr " ~-,...
DOCK Tl
~
n C '
Posll"I ;.
- Cop*
C
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk December 2, 1983 Page 2 scientific and technological issues permeating the national energy debate.
In pursuing this objective, the organization is committed to offering its views based on the considerable knowledge and expertise of its members to the public and to the various govern-mental agencies with responsibility for the development of a proper legal framework for the resolution of these issues
- SE2 has reviewed available information concerning this issue and is in full agreement with and supports the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' s previous finding which states:
"The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite of offsite independent spent fuel storage installations."
It is our considered opinion that there is no significant non-radiological consequences which could adversely affect the environ-ment if spent fuel is stored beyond the expiration of operating licenses either at reactors or at independent spent fuel storage installations, and that it is in the best interest of the public and its safety that the fourth finding stand as proposed.
Sincerely,
~L ~~1-0~9 Miro M. Todorovich
)
Executive Director MMT : jr
I t
- JCKET NUMBER PR. ~1 V'OP.(lS£D RULE
-~ tJ, :J j a'\\
l-¥?1=~
~,
~
River ~oad, 1.,olumbia, NJ 0783" (201)0~1-9529 SD?#,~/
00(,~tri USNRc D Cor.unents of the Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Campaign c9J 0£C~5 on the Fourth Finding of the Waste Confidence Decision All :15 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51, 48 FR 50746 8Ef"fc::- a-December 5, 1983 Cff£~-,";G Sc t "
8RAN1 s Rvlr:*
On.~ovember 3, 1983, ~he Nuclear Regulatory ColllTlission requested colTITI nts on the fourth fir.ding of its waste confidence decision (48 FR 50746) which states:
- 1he Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at react-or spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite or offsite independent sp~1t fuel storage installations.
Contrary to this finding, an event at the Prairie Island reactor fuel pool December 16, 1981 indicates that irradi ated fuel assemblies are degrading rap-idly with time.
In that event, a top nozzle of a l~estinghouse fuel assembly broke off from the assembly.
While the NRC staff has concluded that the event due to stress corrosion cracking of t~e top nozzle while the assembly was in the fuel pool is an isolated incident, we are of the opinion that it is generic to Westinghouse fuel. Since the Prairie Island fuel had been out of the react-or for ten years or less, there is no assurance that fuel could remain in fuel pools for up to 60 years with serious degradation leading to an accident and the release of radioactivity. Thus, the Corrvnission's fourth finding is without foundation.
Background
On December 16, 1981, v,i th both Prairie Island units operating at power, irradiated fuel was being moved in the fuel pool.
The top nozzle separated from the remainoer of the fuel assembly at the bulged joint where the 304 stain-sierra club radl==:sl~cknow'.ed *cd by,_, I. /lh/(1.-.l!
C 9 lJ.S. NUCLl:A~ t.':"'f: At'. : 11 ro.\\M;ISSION DOCl<ETl iG 0,
-- :'CTION D' \\ !
.. i C, -
'.* i,:s Postmar': C* ** 11-,j,,/rg (r(Jl0 ';
R..-,r 1
/
Ac',/! C..,;-,.*
Sp cial f)
Sierra Club Page Two less steel outer tube is joined to the zircaloy guide thimble.
The fuel vendor, Westinghouse, ~oncluded that the failure was due to stress corrosion cracking (SCC} whi le the assembly was in the fuel pool, though the water chemistry was maintained within the vendor's specifications (1). Visual examination of 26 additional assemblies showed corrosion on the bulge joints of 13 of them, thOugh the top nozzle did not separate on any others. Except for this one instance, no top nozzle has separated in any of the 5,uOO Westinghouse assemblies previous-ly handled.
'iV examinations of fuel at Zion and fuel with similar design at Trojan, Kewaunee and Point Beach showed no stress corrosion cracking (1). Bas-ed on this experience, ;me Branch #3 Licensing staff believed that this sec prob-lem was localized to Prairie Island.
i-iowever, the potential corrodant was never identified in the NRC safety evaluation (1).
A report by the Reactor Operations Analysis Branch (ROAB)(2} attempted to identify the contaminant which contributed to the SCC and its source. Poss-ible contaminants were sulfates from either a contaminated batch of boric acid or resin intrusion. Apparently sulfates were not monitored at Prairie Island and are not part of the vendor's specifications. If sulfates are the cause of the contamination, then this is a generic problem common to all PWRs.
Accord-ing to Mr. C:. drown, lead engineer, ROAB, "the suspected source of contaminants at the Prairie Island site are common to all PWRs.
Therefore, the event app-ears symptomatic of a potential generic issue." This opinion, that the incid-ent is a generic issue, was essentially ignored by Branch #3, who concluded that the event was isolated.
They required that the licensee monitor for sul-fates.
Another contributor to sec is the stainless steel employed.
In a February 23, 1983 meeting of the licensee, vendors and NRC staff (3), the vendor stated that
.,, I I; I I (,I I., l :..!J Page Three a design change from 304 stainless steel to 304 stainless steel with low carbon content was being considered. This identification of 304 SS as a contributor was acknowledged in an earlier Oak Ridge report (4) not referenced by staff.
Since 304 SS is employed in all Westinghouse fuel assemblies, and perhaps all PWR fuel assemblies, this is also a generic issue, not confined to Prairie Island.
Discussion The staff has identified the cause of the separation of the top nozzle at Prairie Island as due to sec of the st~inless steel top nozzle.
The cause has not been exactly determined, out could be either contaminants such as sulfates, ur the type of stainless steel employed by Westinghouse, perhaps both. Either of these caus es is generic and would occur at other reactors using Westinghouse fuel.
However, the fact that sec was not detected by tv examination at other reactors and that no similar incident has occurred with 5,000 movements of West-
- nghouse irradiated fuel has led rmc staff to conclude that the Prairie Isl and incident was isolated.
While it is reassuring that no similar events have yet occurred, indicating that sec has not proceeded to the failure point, we are less confident of the tv examination approach.
SCC can appear in the fonn of hairline cracks which are not visible to the naked eye, and certainly less visible to a tv camera.
Thus, sec may indeed be occurring at other fuel pools containing Westinghouse fuel.
Further, earlier reports (4), ignored by NRC staff, indicate that 304SS is prone to sec in a moist environment in the presence of a radiation field.
An Oak Ridge report (4) concludes, "storage of sensitized, irradiated type 304 stainless steel in a high humidity environment or underwater may lead to ext-ensive intergranular corrosion." Thus, 304SS, even without the presence of sul-fate contaminants, could lead to sec. This then is a generic problem for all
Sierra Club Page Four reactors with irradiated Westinghouse fuel stored underwater in a fuel pool.
Apparently,,me staff did not do a literature search of the issue.
uegradation of the stainless steel components and separation of the top nozzle could lead to a great incidence of dropped and damaged fuel assemblies.
Damaged cladding could lead to the release of radioactivity in the fuel pool, contaminating the auxiliary building and leading to increased occupational exp-osures and environmental releases. With high density racking, it may become very difficult to remove fuel assemblies from racks.
Tolerances are thin and withuut a top no1zle it may be very difficult to grasp the fuel assembly.
Fur-
~her, if degraded fuel is re-inserted in the reactor core, loose parts may re-sult in a serious accident.
The staff has not researched the environmental anci safety problems caused by serious degradation of Westinghouse irradiated fuel assemblies.
Conclusion The Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Campaign concludes, based on events at Prairie Island, that fuel, aged as little as 10 years after irradiation, is degrading due to stress corrosion cracking of the top nozzle.
While the cause has not been absolutely identified, this degradation appears to be due to the use of 304SS in the presence of moisture and a radiation field, exactly fuel pool conditions.
The use of 304L stainless steel would be preferable and is being considered by Westinghouse for future fuel assemblies.
This degradation, which increases with time, can lead to radiation release. Therefore, there is no assurance that irradiated fuel can remain safely stored in a fuel pool for up to 30 years after reactor shutdown, or up to 60 years after irradiation. The fourth finding of the Waste Confidence decision is without foundation.
Sierra Club Page Five References (1)
NRC, "Spent Fuel Assembly Degradation, December, 1981, Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation", i~orthern States Power Comp-any, Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, uockets No. o0-282 and 50-306, July 11, 1983.
(2)
NRC, Memo for Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief, Reactor Operations Analysis Branch, from Earl J. Brown, Lead Engineer, ROAB, uockets No. 50-282 and 50-306, June 15, 1983.
(3)
( 4}
NRC, Meeting Minutes by D.C. Dilanni, Project Manager, Operating Reactors Branch #3, Dockets No. 50-282 and 50-306, March 4, 1983.
Long, i.L., Jr. and C. Michelson, Some Observations of the Intergranular Corrosion of Irradiated T e 304 Stainless Steel, ORNl-3684, Oak Ridge, enn., Nove er
I *
.r
~J-:;.c.1-;'fT/ll:'J' L-::;r-- 7/rE C...c.-/??,..-n1.ss/ of)
U~S IV 17C I ti/I,~;JI l'I & TcJ /V I P C 2 o-5>-:S:5""'
/1"/h.)? h ~ N :
Vo C' KE-":°T/N~7
._De-c< r ;:,,e-L*
C_../2, /4 1 I 'IE /J:3f--
,4([E',r)7
-r-/1/
L £,7TER fiS OO(;KEJjO USNRC NOV 23
/'l1~~h4/
, ~e?4V/ S
~of-,Aa;?~
~/la /?#-/f 1¥f
//- /7-s.3 p4:33 JCKEf NU 8£.R co --t1rnePT TS C}.,U t It'
/- c, ::,{-I' n W)}~,.Te"
/V Fl.Oi!'A/C[, P,t _J/.5/C.lA.,I, p ~-C'/:/:,/L),11/.
-I
,,1
-=,,,f,~/T/~ / ?A,,uT
/..-V I//F BfEA/
/""1 T/
/1£,,,f,,('/;J/,5~,
I
,h,a.1 e a,r7?eec.rec/
.T
/I 7'H£ 77-7"1..S I?/},,(' Tl C /.F>AA.I T; yF/'9/25'.
BvT JIIF
_l://1.),C,/,Uf
'TI-/A-T
~~.PE~'7 Ft,1 1.ft c:A,,u &E
$T0~£0 t,V/7h"e?t/7 A.
F.
T/.1/5 70 I~ Yr-:."c J,,Hv.R /C-1T7 c,,C-
-i?/A--.,</11<-Loy VF
(./.$£'
I~
t/Nl',/Llv,V,v Tl-/~
/='IIZ £.c
,V -STD/2 E,f.)
rt.. CL.
II IL' 1..:,t,, K NO t.'-',{/.
Tl/E I /I, I r-1
,70
,v t.., E. R t,-U A IE/<
Fe /.!
3 u o /4' t 1/l'/.,..CEc: e- /.7F,u TE/)
/,1/s T1Ttl1n.J/l,,',4L rHE
,1:-~1Fs
,110T L.,
.-:,c,R.£ YEl"/RS e;;t,(A.R-"'A./ TE S,
,4 -r T.'J--1£ C'J u
L iquna I,, ds
) I PPV I
~ d.,
J/rnjll r a ',J LujSOcj
,o
)
A'"
,. 0 tJO,lJ.
,..,0C v5SIWv\\\\..,,,
I c; f
(
These notes on zircalloy pyrophoricity are included in m)l comments on the proposed storage of spent ftml to show the danger from storing spent fuel that is not looked at in the proposed rule.
University of Pittsburgh SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Rradford Terr.
Philadelphia, PA 19149
Dear Mr. Lewis:
September 28, 1983 I have your letter of September 13, 1983.
I think you have made some very strong points in your letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Connnission (.NRC).
One would normally assume that the NRC is aware of the many hazards associated with removing the reactor head of the damaged reactor.
I would like to make a few comments on the facts developed in your letter.
First, under A, zirconium is normally protected as is zirconium hydride by a surface film of Zr02.
This is certainly not true of the Zi.rcaloy which had gone through the temperature, stress and reaction conditions during the accident. It is very hard to predict what the present condition of the remainiuj Zircaloy and zirconium hydride is in the reactor.
Finely divided zirconium hydride may have spalled off of the cladding and is still present as hydride in the bottom of the reactor.
In a finely divided state it could be very pyrophoric.
The reactor core must be kept under water at all times until it is proven that Zircaloy and zirconium hydride are not present.
Second, under B, no data is av&ilable to decide whether zirconium hydride, zirconium oxide or a mixture would form in the cladding under the accident condition at TMI #2.
We must assume the worst possible condition to avoid further dangerous events on exposing the core to air.
Third, under C, inert constituents in the Zircaloy may seriously increase the pyrophoric properties.
Thus, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen makes the Zircaloy very brittle and lead to fragmentation of the cladding and to increased pyrophoricity.
I am enclosing a short survey on the effects of oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen on the mechanical properties of zirconium.
I hope you will find it of interest.
848 BENEDUM HALL, PITTSBURGH, PA. 15261
Mr. Marvin I * )lewis Page 2 September 28, 1983 In conclusion it is essential to keep all operations on the damaged reactor under water at all t imes to avoid possible serious reactions of air with unreacted Zircaloy and zirconium hydride.
I was glad to receive your letter and to hear that you are concerned about possible future catastrophic events at TMI #2.
EAG:sj Enclosure Very truly yours, Earl A. Gulbransen Research Professor
~tl-*wuabington, D.C. 20.5.5.5 Dear Mr Seeretarty f Please c~nsider the following letter as a petition to stop any headlif t far the TMI#2 reactor. Several parts of the Rules and Regulation of the NRC and several sections ot the Atoaic Energy Act allow the public to petition the NRC tar apecUlc actions to provide safety for the general public.
The hea.dli:f't of the TM1#2 reactor is a dangerous maneuver.
Thia head] 1ft 1s a part rJl the clunup plan for the TMI#2 accident. The head.lift will be scheduled in the near tutute according to correspondence between the NRC and the GPUNC.
Sewral questions were raised in the correspondence between the NRC and GFtmC regarding pyroplOricity.
Also comments were received from the public on the dangers at ~pharicity. (tatter Gulbr&nsen, U of p to Snyder, NRC, dated Aug.27,1980) I aent a letter to Mr Barrt'lt, NRc, dated July 2.5,1983.
Mr Barrett nrr kindly aent
- an extensive reply which I have researched extensively. Altmugh I coaend the researchers on their dellgence in seeking out the facts, I also take the reaearchen to task in that the conclusions.
--*- --- disagree with the very facta that they report.
Buis rJl the request to atop head.lift of TM1#2 reactors The ppopboricity 1* ot the zirc&lloy present in the TMI#2 reactor is still a
- tter *ar conjeotm:e. The resea:h has not determined tte full extent ot the pyrophoricity preeent in the #2 react()J" *.
The concluaions c4 the Evaluation of the Pyrophoric Issues ~elated ~o Tm.2 tbierhead Characterisation and Core Sallpllng by the NRC Chemical Fngineering Branch contradict the very facts upon wlich the cnnclusions are baaeds A.
-JNlk zirconiua etal or zirconiwa hydride is normally protected froa reaction with air, water or hydrogen by a tight apervious surface fil.JI ot Zr02.
- Thia ia not true,not proven at least,for zircalloy that has gone thru the teperature, ti* &Dd hydrodyaaaic stress hiatory ot. a. Tt1l'#2 accident. This NRC evaluation auat not bear...
weight in this headu,t open.tion.
B. *At hi&b teaperatures, zirconium. hydrides react with 11Ste&11 to fora ziconiua oxide and hydrogen pa.*
Thia 1s not neces~~ily tJ'ue if there is an exces of hydrogen gas driving the reaction toward, lly'd:cide production: An excess of h1drogen would exist 1n the TMI#2 reactor during the accident if hydrogen gas was being continually introduced during the accident. There is evidence that hydrogen was being continua.lly' i.,troduced during the accidlmt.
l). There waa an hydrogen bubble that was stable for several days.
- 2. ) There was an hydrogen *spike * "
J.) The hydrogen aantioned in the Hartlle~ allegations could and probably was allowed to remain on providing a source of hydrogen during the accident.
C.
"The inert dlluenta would help to dissap&te reaction heat and prevent the develolMJlt ot pyrophoric conditions."
This stateent of the lfflC CEB contradicts ~
4 at the Accident and Fire Prevention Inf oration WAEC Issue 4.S August 7,198), which atatea,"The evidenee suggests that trace conta*1nante in zirconiwa rtq contribute to increased pyrophoricity."
"nMtre are an, w-.Imeae in the MRC developaent af the danger at pyro~oricity in tba TMI#2 reactor. The above are only a few of tbe aoet obrioua.
I reepecttully..__...,.
request that the headllft be postponed until a full public review at this issue can proceed*
1
- "' ~ ~,
Very truly yours, n~~ ~;.1 19/1. :- V.
o./ ~'
t:
ROBERT ABRAMS Attorney General MARCIA J. CLEVELAND Assistant Attorney General in Charge Environmental Protection Bureau STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LAW Two WoRw TRADE CENTER NEwYoruc, NY 10047 J 1C ET N J',HJEF<
~h)
.,Eu PlfL[ PR -5<1, ~
/
(~?Pll ~?~}-
ooc:KETEo USNRC 13 tlJV 23 A10 :21 OF0fiCE,-OF Sf.CRt.ilAI (212) 488-7565 0 ef<t-f tNG* &.S£Rtlr BR-ANCH
(})
November 21, 1983 Secre tary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir:
Re:
Rulemaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Waste Confidence Rulemaking);
PR-50, 51 (44 FR 61372)
These comments are submitted in response to the Commission's notice dated November 4, 1983 in the above matter.
It is our position that this proceeding, from its very inception, was conducted outside the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 u.s.c. § 4321, et seq., and the thousands of pages constituting the record of the proceeding were submitted without consideration of NEPA.
The Commission simply cannot, at the eleventh hour, retroactively transform a non-NEPA pro-ceeding into a NEPA proceeding.
From the beginning of this Waste Confidence proceeding, NEPA was excluded.
The Presiding Officer appointed by the Commission ruled as follows:
This rulemaking proceeding does not in-volve a major federal action having a significant impact on the environment, and consequently an environmental im-pact statement is not required by NEPA.**
First Prehearing Conference Order, dated February 1, 1980, at 10 (footnote omitted).
Ac.lmow!cd~ed by card 11-/z/f3.... ?.J?..
i ',
U. S. t: '
ocr*,
. r C
A I I' Speci;, D, r
- *.,.0 '-.TISSION r~ ~T'::)l'l 11/2.t/i-3 I
-:'.. {
I
While NEPA would have required the preparation by NRC staff of an environmental impact statement, or at minimum an environmental assessment, to consider the environmental impacts of spent-fuel storage onsite beyond expiration of a reactor license, no such report has been prepared By staff.
To the contrary, staff did not even take a position in the proceeding.
Even now no environ-mental study has been performed by NRC staff.
The Commission, evidently, is attempting to satisfy NEPA by receiving comments from the public, but clearly that is no substitute for an environmental study by NRC staff.
The duty to perform the study and analysis rests on staff, not on those who volunteer to comment.
Accordingly, the questions posed by the Commission cannot bring this proceeding, or any findings made therein, within the scope of NEPA.
Very truly yours, EIB:fc EZM~
Assistant Attorney General
- DOCKETED USNRC
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -SJ OCT Jl p) :S6 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51 Reopening of Comment Period on Limited Proposed Rule flFfl(;.: OF S:LKt ft-,
i10CK E. TING & SE:11\\fl, BRANCH AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory CoITTTiission.
ACTION:
Reopening of comment period.
SUMMARY
In response to public comments, the CoITTTiission has decided to reopen the comment period on its fourth finding in its Waste Confidence decision and on an associated proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Parts SO
- and 51.
The fourth finding states:
11The CoITTTiission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environ-mental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations."
This finding was b'ased in part on the Corrmission 1s determination that there are no significant non-radiological consequences which could adversely affect the environment if spent fuel is stored beyond the expiration of operating power reactor licenses. Radiological conse-quences were addressed more specifically in other findings.
Comments are to be limited to 20 pages and are to address only the significance of environmental impacts of extended spent fuel storage, since safety matters in the Commission 1s decision have already been commented on by participants in this proceeding.
DATES:
Corrments should be filed with the Corrmission 1s Secretary not 1 ater than DEC 6 1983 Corm,ents received after this
2
[7590-01]
considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Send comments to:
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch Hand-deliver comments to:
Room 1121 1717 H Street, NW.
Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Examine comments received at:
The NRC Public Document Room 1717 H Street, NW.
Washington, DC FOR FURTHER INFORMATtON CONTACT:
Dennis Rathbun or Clyde Jupiter Office of Policy Evaluation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (202) 634-3295 Sheldon L. Trubatch Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC (202} 634-3224 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Since October 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (
11 NRC 11 or 11 Co11111ission 11
) has been conducting a generic rule-making proceeding known as the "Waste Confidence proceeding (44 FR 61372, October 25, 1979).
On May 16, 1983 the Commission issued a proposed decision in that proceeding.
The Commission made five findings on the feasibility of disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent
3
[7590-01]
fuel, the timeliness of availability of disposal capacity and the safety and environmental impacts of the storage of spent fuel for up to thirty years after the expiration of reactor operating licenses. The Commis-sion's request for comments by participants was limited to two issues:
(1) implications of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for the Corrnnis-sion's decision, and (2) the Commission's discussion of the safety of dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.
In a companion action, on May 20, 1983 the Commission proposed an amendment to its NEPA rules in the 10 C.F.R. Part 51 rule regarding the consideration of environmental impacts of the extended storage of spent fuel beyond the licensed operating period of a nuclear power reactor or independent spent fuel storage installation. The Commission found that extended storage for up to thirty years after the expiration of operat-ing licenses at n?1clear power plants or at independent spent fuel storage installations will result in no significant safety or environ-mental impacts.
This finding was based on the record of the Waste Confidence proceeding and the NRC's experience with more than eighty individual safety and environmental evaluations conducted in storage licensing proceedings.
In particular, the Commission found that significant release of radioactivity from spent fuel under licensed storage conditions is highly unlikely because of the resistance of spent fuel cladding to corrosive mechanisms, the benign character of the storage system, the ease of maintenance and the absence of conditions that would provide a drivi ng force for dispersal of radioactive material. The Commission
4
[7590-01]
also found that the non-radiological environmental impacts from spent fuel storage are insignificant. With the possible exception of impacts associated with the site preparation and storage facility construction there are no other significant non-radiological consequences which could adversely affect the environme~t as a result of storage past the expira-tion of operating licenses at reactors or at independent spent fuel storage installations.
Some participants in the Waste Confidence proceeding commented that there had been no notice of the Corrrnission's intent to make this environmental finding.
Because that finding supports the proposed amendment to Part 51 of the Corrrnission 1s rules, some of those who commented on the proposed rule contended that they had an inadequate opportunity to comment on the basis of the proposed rule.
The Commission has decided to provide the public an opportunity to comment on:
(1) the environmental aspects of its fourth finding -- that it has reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel can be stored without significant environmental effects for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses at reactor spent fuel storage basins, or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations; (2) the determination that there are no signifi-cant non-radiological consequences which could adversely affect the environment if spent fuel is stored beyond the expiration of operating licenses either at reactors or at independent spent fuel storage instal-lations; and (3) implications of corrrnents on items (1) and (2) above for the proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
5
[7590-01]
Comments on the Commission's finding and supporting determination should include a detailed discussion of any environmental impacts associated with the extended storage of spent fuel and should explain how, in the commenter's view, consideration of those impacts should modify the Commission's decision.
Dated at Washington, DC, this --3(<:'rday ofDc\\o\\~ 1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Secretary o