ML040480031

Comment (83) of E. J. Mroczka on Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste

ML040480031
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck, WM-00011  File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	07/02/1987
From:	Mroczka E Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co (NNECO)
To:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
References
+sunsi/sispmjr=200602, -RFPFR, 52FR5992 00083, B12580, PR-60 NUDOCS 8707100290
Download: ML040480031 (5)

Text

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR A

( D (gg b~e.3-qvz NORTHEAST UTLITfIES General Offices

• Seldt . .4 reel.Berlin, Connecticut 1

~~~~

~~Wcg'Im.VASAC..fl(TIS LELC~hCCOMPMNI P.O. BOX 270

."VL0O1 NATPa00o10 CO'g9AW.

.O4h4

-AS? W-I7,I.FSHfVta Cow#AN, HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270

- 4~~~~0?Y4ASI AUCLIR IftEAGIcOMPA.N (2 V 'RS6j2OO.-7 ' p :22 July 2, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50423 B12580 Mr. Samuel 3. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power'Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Comments on Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Definition of High-Level Radioactive Wastes On February 27, 1987,(1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) which would modify the definition of high-level radioactive waste in order to follow more closely the statutory definition in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) respectfully submit the following comments on the ANPR.

Our comments pertain to the "Activated Metals" section of the Appendix to the ANPR, in which it is stated:

'1_j

1. "Other than perhaps a few isolated casesi all of the spent fuel assemblies

_ 1 are being stored by licensees with the hardware still attached."

11N.

1-.4 2. "Disposal responsibility Eof the activated hardware] becomes less clear 1 %1 if licensees, seeking more efficient on-site storage, consolidated fuel themselves."

'1 NNECO and CYAPCO do not believe that It Is appropriate for the NRC to speculate in rulemaking proceedings related to the definition of a technical term either on: (a) statutory/contractual matters concerning implementation of the (0)52 Federal Register 5992, February 27, 1987

_4_QL__gjQ07 - _

8707100290 970702 i:,J!, . '.

. .. 7 .-:... __

9W

, , -rr Vrwr

? 11_

1\0 PDR PR 60 52FR5992 PDR D

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk B12580/Page 2 3uly 2, 1987 NWPA or (b) the degree of success that a given technology will enjoy.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the pertinent paragraphs containing the above quotations be deleted or revised to reflect the discussion below.

The cited Appendix contains information that would suggest the antithesis of item (2) above. Specifically, the Appendix states that consolidation of fuel "enables more economical storage and easier handling for transport and disposal." Indeed the potential benefits of reduced fuel shipments resulting from a national at-reactor consolidation program can be substantial. There would also be positive benefits for state traffic considerations, cask manufacturing costs and capacity requirements as well as system transportation and operation costs.

Accordingly, the volume of activated materials resulting from spent fuel consolidation activities may come from more than a "few Isolated cases."

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has anticipated performing consolidation activities at a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility to achieve shipping and handling benefits relative to transportation to and disposal in a repository. These benefits are of a similar nature to those which would also accrue for at-reactor consolidation prior to shipment to an MRS or a repository.

The Federal Government is responsible for disposal of the scrap derived from utilities' fuel that would be consolidated at an MRS or a repository, and must be similarly responsible for disposal of fuel hardware derived from at-reactor consolidation programs.

Finally, the DOE, itself, has sought to clarify that it Intends to accept consolidated fuel assemblies, including the non-fuel components removed during consolidation for disposal (letter from R. H. Bauer, DOE, to 3. B. Hall, Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group, dated September 13, 1985, attached). The NRC's rulemaking should be consistent with the DOE's stated intention.

We trust that these comments will be useful In finalization of the proposed rule.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY SEn'.,iceroczka g Senior Vice President

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk B12580/Page 3 3uly 2, 1987 cc: W. TP Russell, Region I Administrator M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone -Unit No. I D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 R. L. Ferguson, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 F. M. Akstulewicz, NRC Project Manger, Haddam Neck Plant T. Rebelowski, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1 and 2

3. T. Shedlosky, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 3 P. D. Swetland, Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant B. C. Rushe, Director, DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Department of Energy Washington. DC 2DSS SEP1 James B. Hall, Director Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group 11 l2th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Hall:

This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1985 to Mr. Rusche, which requested clarification of two aspects of the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste.

With regard to "other than standard fuel" - it is the Department's intent that all currently designed nuclear fuel, includirg that falling outside the maximum physical dimensions specifiled in Appendix E, will be subject to the same scheduling procedures. It is also the Department's intent that consolidated fuel assemblies, including the non-fuel components removed during consolidation (control spiders, thimble plugs, neutron sources,-

etc.), may be delivered for disposal in accordance with the Standard Contract subject to the same scheduling procedures as f~r otherv TueT. murther, such consolidated fuel-assemblies and associated non- fuel cmDDnenlts canned in a container provided by or approvea by the Department, will be treated as the equivalent of one fuel assembly for acceptance priority allocation purposes provided that this does not reduce the acceptance rate of other contract holGer."' Failed fuel canned in a container provided by or approved by the tepartment also will be subject to the same scheduling procedures as other spent fuel.

With regard to proof of ownership - the following two statements supplied with Appendices C and D respectively will meet the proof of ownership requirements of the Standard Contract:

Purchaser hereby certifies that the Spent Nuclear Fuel to be delivered pursuant to this Delivery Commitment Schedule has been discharged from a Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor covered by Purchaser's contract No. and that Purchaser has the legal right to deliver such Spent Nuclear Fuel to DOE for disposal.

Purchaser hereby certifies that the Spent Nuclear Fuel to be delivered pursuant to this Final Delivery Schedule has been discharged from a Civilian Nuclear Power Reactor covered by Purchaser's contract No. and that Purchaser has the legal right to deliver such Spent Nuclear Fuel to DOE for disposal.

jI.

If I can be of further assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Rert H. Sauer A sociate Director for Resource Management Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 9.

%.4..

. Jr U