NUREG-1168, Responds to Re Need for DOE Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility as Contained in Provisions of Nuclear Waste Policy Act.Mrs Not Essential for Safety
| ML20207A470 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gore A, Sasser J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207A475 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1168 NUDOCS 8705200369 | |
| Download: ML20207A470 (6) | |
Text
f 6
v aro4'o UNITED STATES T 8 h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 k . . . . . ,o# April 27, 1987 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Jim Sasser United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Sasser:
I am responding to the March 31, 1987 letter from you and Senator Gore concerning the need for the Department of Energy's (DOE) MonitoredofRetrievable in the provisions the NuclearStorage Waste Policy (MRS)Act facility (as contained NWPA). As your letter states, the NWPA requires DOE to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and to submit NRC comments on the MRS proposal to the Congress at the time the DOE proposal is submitted. However, as we understand the NWPA, the Congress left it for NRC to decide which particular aspects of a DOE MRS proposal warrant NRC comment. In examining the DOE proposal, NRC decided that its most useful role would be to focus its comments on subjects falling within its later licensing responsibility.
In preparing our comments, we regarded the matter of need as primarily a business decision within the overall waste management system by which DOE intends to implement the NWPA. We did not view the MRS as needed for protection of the public health and safety.
The proposal was therefore examined from the perspective of the licensability of the facility if authorized by Congress, specifically from the standpoint of its design adequacy to protect the public health and safety. The NRC reviewed the DOE evaluation of need for the MRS but, in keeping with the focus of its comments, assumed a neutral posture.
With respect to your question on need, we believe there are attractive benefits, both operational and regulatory, to be gained by providing an MRS as part of an integrated high-level waste disposal system. These benefits are worthy of serious consideration even if an MRS is not essential for the protection of the public health and safety. Examples of operational benefits derived from an MRS integrated into the high-level waste disposal system include:
o flexibility for the DOE waste management system by decoupling the repository from the reactors and reactor sites; B705200369 870511 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR N
i o simplification of the surface facility operations- at j the repository;
[
o a firmer base for utilities to plan for their fuel j storage requirements; l +
t o early planning and focus for the DOE transportation j system.
j In addition to the operational benefits MRS presents certain regulatory benefits. particularly with respect to. resource
! expenditures. . Utilities are taking steps to handle and store more spent fuel at one or more of their. reactor' sites. Two
] utilities, which own multiple reactor sites, already have been
- licensed to use dry storage of spent fuel. .These are in j effect small local MRS facilities. A DOE MRS .as-proposed,
- would permit
1 j o fewer designs for handling and storage to be '
] reviewed, licensed and constructed; j o fewer sites and methods for spent fuel rod l consolidation and packaging; I
- o
' fewer surveillance demands and more focused inspection; i
l o a greater degree of. quality assurance with'this j simplicity; .
i j The staff also examined alternatives'to the MRS considered by j DOE which seem to.have neither the operational nor regulatory i advantages of the MRS as presently contemplated. For-example,
{ the use of the MRS as a backup or near-term alternative.to a repository would accrue fewer of the benefits and most of the costs when-compared with the MRS as an integrated' step in the
! system for high-level waste disposal. Should MRS not be authorized, all packaging.and storage operations.would then he carried out at reactor sites and the repository. While it is i
technically feasible to safely store all fuel at reactor sites until a repository is ready under its current schedule, j
additional regulatory and' operational benefits identified in j the previous paragraphs would not be realized.
t j
You expressed concern that the Department of Energy is
! pursuing a course that will ultimately result in a de facto j final repository in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We do not agree i-
}
i i
--. . = .- -- _ - . ... . _ - . _. -
1 1 .
i
- 4
" that DOE's proposal for an MRS is premised on an' assumed probability that a final repository will never be completed.
We believe that DOE is actively pursuing a proaram aimed.at siting and developing a deep geologic repository for disposal of high-level waste.
In conclusion, while there are operational and regulatory benefits to be gained from an MRS as part of an integrated system for high-level waste disposal, they are not essential-for safety. An MRS holds. potential for providing management flexibility for addressing and responding to the institutional l complexities of the waste management system.
The Commission believes the question of need mainly reduces to economic considerations and the role the MRS might eventually play in reaching a final solution to the problem of high-level waste disposal. Although we recognize the regulatory benefits-associated with an MRS, these policy issues are best addressed.
by DOE and elected officials who provide the impetus to the program :rather than the NRC.
Commissioner participate in this response.
Asselstine is on official travel and did not Sincerely.
l
% w.
Lando W. Zec
/L.
i Jr. (
f i
i i
w
UNITED STATES
'O j
N g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
k / April 27, 1987 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gore:
I am responding to the March 31, 1987 letter from you and Senator Sasser concerning the need for the Department of Energy's as contained (00E) MonitoredofRetrievable in the provisions Storage the Nuclear Waste. (MRS)
Policy Actfacility (NWPA)
. As your letter states, the NWPA requires DOE to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and to submit NRC comments on the MRS proposal to the Congress at the time the DOE proposal is submitted. However, as we understand the NWPA, the Congress left it for NRC to decide which particular asoects of a DOE MRS proposal warrant NRC comment. In examining the DOE proposal, NRC decided that its most useful role would be to focus its comments on subjects falling within its later licensing responsibility.
In preparing our comments, we regarded the matter of need as primarily a business decision within the overall waste management system by which DOE intends to implement the NWPA. We did not view the MRS as needed for protection of the public health and safety.
The proposal was therefore examined from the perspective of the licensability of the facility if authorized by Congress, specifically from the standpoint of its design adequacy to protect the public health and safety. The NRC reviewed the DOE evaluation of need for the MRS but, in keeping with the focus of 1
its comments, assumed a neutral posture.
With respect to your question on need, we believe there are attractive benefits, both operational and regulatory, to be gained by providing an MRS .s pa rt of an integrated high-level waste disposal system. These benefits are worthy of serious consideration even if an MRS is not essential for the protection of the public health and safety. Examples of operational I benefits derived fron an MRS integrated into the high-level waste l disposal system include:
o flexibility for the DOE waste management system by decoupling the repository f rom the reactors and reactor I sites; l
l
"4 i
2 4
o simplification of the surface facility operations at the repository; ,
o_ a firmer base'for utilities to. plan for'their fuel I storage requirements; o early: planning and focus. for- the DOE transportation system.
In addition to the operational benefits MRS presents certain regulatory benefits, particularly with' respect to resource expenditures. . Utilities are taking steps to handle and store
- more spent fuel at-one or moreEof their' reactor sites. Two utilities, which own multiple reactor sites, already'have been i licensed to use. dry storage of spent fuel. These are in effect small local MRS facilities. A DOE MRS, as proposed, would permit:
o fewer designs for handling and storage to be reviewed, licensed and-constructed; 1
o fewer sites and methods for spent fuel rod consolidation ~and packaging; '
o fewer-surveillance demands and more focused inspection;-
o a greater degree of quality assurance with this-simplicity; The staff also examined alternatives to the MRS-considered by DOE which seem to have neither the operational nor regulatory advantages'of the MRS as presently. contemplated.- For example, the use of'the MRS as a. backup'or near-term alternative to a repository would accrue fewer of'the benefits and most of the -!
t-costs when compared with the MRS_as an integrated step in the
' system for high-level' waste disposal. Should MRS.not be.
- authorized, all packaging-and storage operations would'then be carried out at reactor sites and~the repository. While it'is
. technically feasible to safely store'all fuel at reactor sites i until a repository is ready under its current schedule, additional regulatory and. operational benefits identified ^in the previous paragraphs would not be realized.
You expressed concern 1that the Department of Energy is pursuing a course that will ultimately result in a de facto final repository in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We do not agree l
1
that DOE's proposal for an MRS is premised on an assumed probability that a final repository will never be completed.
We believe that DOE is actively pursuing a proaram aimed at siting and developing a deep geologic repository.for disposal of high-level waste.
In conclusion, while there are operational and regulatory benefits to be gained-from an MRS as part of an integrated
. system for high-level waste disposal, they are not essential for safety. An MRS holds potential for providing management flexibility for addressing and responding to the institutional complexities of the waste management system.
The Commission believes the question of need mainly reduces to economic considerations and the role the MRS might eventually play in reaching a final solution to the problem of high-level waste disposal. Although we recognize the regulatory benefits associated with an MRS, these policy issues are best addressed by DOE and elected officials who provide the impetus to the program rather than the ?!RC.
Commissioner Asselstine is on official travel and did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, 4
Lando W. Zec h.
Jr. (
---..---e e