ML19099A464

Questions & Comments Received on 5th Cycle U.S. National Report for the Joint Convention and Answers Current as of April 2015, Dated 4/10/2015

ML19099A464
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/10/2015
From:	Melanie Wong Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs
To:
M WONG DUWP
References
Download: ML19099A464 (28)

Text

Questions & Comments Received on 5th Cycle U.S. National Report for the Joint Convention and Answers Current as of April 2015 Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article 1 Article 12 A.4.2:p.10 In section B.2.3.3, it is said that: "Sources of 226Ra, other naturally naturally The term lowactivity waste (LAW) does not have a statutory or regulatory definition, but

/ occurring radioactive materials (NORM) of similar hazard, and accelerator generally means wastes that contain some residual radioactivity, including naturally occurring B.2.3.3:p.2 produced radioactive material designated as 11e.(3) and 11e.(4) are not radionuclides, which can be safely disposed of in hazardous or municipal solid waste landfills.

2 / H.1.3: defined to be waste, as such; it can be disposed of in either a licensed Such waste is invariably a fraction of the limits for Class A lowlevel waste (LLW) contained in p.108 radioactive waste or a permitted nonradioactive waste disposal facility". May Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61, and is often below concentrations this type of waste be classified as LAW, even if there is no official legal that are considered safe for unrestricted release under international standards. Although definition of LAW in place in the U.S? There are no indications in section A.4.2 these materials could be disposed of in a LLW disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR part 61, if about disposal of this type of waste. a licensee so chooses, disposal at another type of facility, such as a hazardous waste facility, It is said in section H.1.3 that hazardous waste facilities and municipal or can be authorized under 10 CFR 20.2002.

industrial solid waste landfills are now used by the U.S. generators for some This is a provision in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) regulations that allows for LAW disposal. Are these landfills different from the facilities mentioned in other disposal methods, different from those already defined in the regulations, provided that section D.2.2? doses are maintained as low as (is) reasonably achievable and within the regulatory dose limits in 10 CFR part 20. The disposal of LAW in hazardous or solid waste landfills is permitted, provided that the regulatory dose limits are met including the waste acceptance criteria at the receiving disposal facilities.

2 Article 12 A.4.5, 13 It is stated that by statute, DOE must apply every five years to EPA for As described in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 194.15, the primary focus of recertification of the facility. In 2010, WIPP was recertified by EPA. the Compliance Recertification Application (CRA) is to update previous applications by What kind of documents should be required to apply for recertification? Do describing changes that have taken place that could affect the longterm performance of the these documents include technical updates of safety assessment and/or disposal system. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects the CRA to environmental impact assessment for the facility operation? address changes related to topics such as the design of the facility, waste inventory, physical How does EPA issue recertification for WIPP operation? Does it include or chemical parameter values (e.g., solubility), and the probability and significance of features, technical review of documentation submitted? events, and processes (FEPs) (e.g., drilling rates). The CRA also includes updated performance assessments that incorporate these changes. EPA reviews the CRA to ensure that it provides thorough documentation to support these changes, such as experimental data or new modeling approaches, and meets quality assurance specifications. Experimental data can be derived from research conducted globally, not just at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) or by the Department of Energy (DOE). Previous recertification reviews have required interaction with DOE to answer questions or provide additional information. EPA announces its recertification decision in the Federal Register (see 75 FR 70584, November 18, 2010 at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR20101118/pdf/201028806.pdf for the 2010 recertification decision). More information on recertification, including documentation supporting previous reviews, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp.

3 Article 12 B.4.1 What is the USA practice to dispose the depleted uranium generated as a Currently, if depleted uranium is considered to be waste, it would fall under the definition of result of commercial enrichment activities? lowlevel waste (LLW) in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.

However, the current rule did not anticipate disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium in LLW disposal sites. In 2009, NRC pursued a limited rulemaking to specify a requirement for a sitespecific analysis and associated technical requirements for unique waste streams including, but not limited to, the disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium. This requirement along with other revisions to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61, are currently under development. The revisions to 10 CFR part 61 would require site specific analyses to demonstrate the performance objectives are met for disposal of LLW, including depleted uranium if the disposal site plans on accepting this material. Once the proposed rule changes are approved by the Commission and published in the Federal Register, the proposed rule and corresponding guidance document would be available for review and public comment. NRC would consider and address any public comments on the proposed rule before a final rule is issued.

pg. 1

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article 4 Article 12 H, 108 It is stated that NRC is currently working to revise certain portions of 10 CFR The revisions are necessary because the current rule and its supporting environmental Part 61. evaluation did not anticipate disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium in lowlevel Could you provide the detailed contents of 10 CFR Part 61 to be revised in waste disposal sites. The revisions to Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61 addition to K.6 item 2, and explain the background of revision? would require sitespecific analyses to demonstrate that performance objectives are met.

These revisions (1) would include an update to requirements for an adequate performance assessment, (2) would include new requirements to conduct an inadvertent intruder assessment and demonstrate that defenseindepth protections are provided, and (3) would maintain existing requirements for protection during operations and an analysis of longterm stability. The proposed revisions would also allow disposal facilities to determine sitespecific waste acceptance criteria from the results of the sitespecific technical analyses. The specific proposed rule changes would be available after the Commission publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register. NRC would consider and address the comments received before a final rule is proposed.

5 Article 12 H.1, 108 It is stated that LLW disposal occurs at commercially operated LLW disposal All commercial lowlevel waste (LLW) disposal in the U.S. is licensed by individual Agreement facilities and could be licensed by either NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 61 or States in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61, as adopted Agreement States pursuant to their regulations which are compatible with 10 by the State. States must maintain a specified level of compatibility with each part of 10 CFR CFR Part 61, and all currently operating sites are licensed by Agreement part 61. In some cases, state regulations must be essentially identical to the Nuclear States. Regulatory Commissions (NRCs). In other cases, states have the flexibility to be more or less How would be regulatory consistency of license review or inspection strict, while maintaining an overall equivalent standard for protection of health, safety and the achieved for each disposal facility among Agreement States? environment. Periodically, state regulatory programs are evaluated by NRC personnel and In this case, what are the main roles of NRC for LLW disposal? their peers from other states during an Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review. Departures, if any, from standards of program adequacy and compatibility are noted and raised to senior state officials. NRCs main role in LLW disposal is promulgation of the overall regulatory framework and related guidance, program review and oversight, and provision of technical assistance upon request.

6 Article 12 H.1.3: COMMENT: Section H.1.3: "The CERCLA program administered by EPA has a Thank you for your interest. The U.S. will consider addressing the topic of institutional p.109 / long history of permitting residual materials to remain on site provided a controls in more detail in the next U.S 6th National Report.

H.2.5: reliable sytem of institutional controls is established. CERCLA requires a p.114 / K.6 review every five years to ensure the controls are continuing to function".

Section H.2.5: "Most radioactive waste disposal sites will not meet DOE criteria for unrestricted release at any ime in the foreseable future...DOE anticipates many of its facilities may never be released from active institutional control... DOE will use active institutional controls for at least 100 years following closure".

Potential issues associated to institutional control without any possibity of release of sites at any time could be considered more indepth in the text.

NRC rulemaking activities related to this subject, if any, should be mentioned in section K, for example.

7 Article 12 p. 108 Disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste The LowLevel Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA) established the legal and regulatory (Section framework governing the disposal of lowlevel waste (LLW) in the U.S. The 1980 LLRWPA H.1.1) Figure H1 (page 110) shows the U.S. regional compacts for lowlevel waste authorized a system of interstate compacts (under which states formed compacts to provide disposal. The Texas Compact comprises Texas and Vermont which is for the regional disposal of LLW in new LLW disposal facilities). The LLRWPA did not have a remarkable given the large distance between these two states. Could you requirement that compacts be comprised of contiguous states. Hence, there are several other please provide an explanation for this buildup? compacts made up of noncontiguous states the Southwest, the Rocky Mountain, and the Atlantic Compacts. Less than a year after the 1980 passage of the LLRWPA, many states had grouped themselves into regions and were moving toward obtaining Congressional approval of their compacts. In response to the LLRWPA, the Texas legislature established the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority in 1981, which was responsible for identifying potential disposal sites in Texas and for determining the viability of each site. In 1993, the pg. 2

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article authority drafted an agreement to form a compact between Maine, Vermont, and Texas, making Texas the disposal site for the LLW generated by those three states. In 2004, Maine having decommissioned its nuclear plant withdrew from the Compact. For more information, see: http://www.tllrwdcc.org/ and http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/archive/c580/pdf/LLRWreport.pdf .

8 Article 13 B.3.2.2 NRC is to continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process until Congress As of September 30, 2014, the current balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund is approximately authoritatively says otherwise or there are no appropriated funds remaining $32.9 billion. These funds continue to earn interest while the fee is suspended. When the (section B.3.2.2); however, payment into the Nuclear Waste Fund is currently Secretary is again able to conduct a legally adequate fee assessment, then fee payments will suspended (F2.3.2). What challenges does this pose for the funding of any resume, assuming that some future determination concludes that further fees are necessary future geological disposal facility? to ensure full cost recovery.

9 Article 13 K3, 130 What are the overall process and timeline for development of GTCC LLW The major milestones to be accomplished to establish a disposal capability for Greaterthan repository? Class C (GTCC) Lowlevel waste (LLW) include: publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCClike waste; submission of a Report to Congress that includes the disposal alternatives evaluated (in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005), Congressional action, and a Record of Decision. The Final GTCC EIS publication is anticipated in calendar year 2015. The exact dates of availability of a GTCC LLW disposal capability are not known at this time. Site characterization and facility construction for various disposal alternatives are analyzed in the Draft GTCC EIS and a final EIS will be issued including responses to public comments.

10 Article 15 H.2.4, 113 It is stated that safety is ensured through specific waste management controls Certain Department of Energy (DOE) waste management facilities (such as repositories for the (waste acceptance criteria and waste certification programs), and based on geologic disposal of spent fuel and highlevel waste (HLW), and storage facilities for spent fuel regulatory requirements. and HLW) are required to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). DOEs Who decides waste acceptance criteria and waste certification programs for approval of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for disposal of defense TRU waste is each DOE facility? certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Construction or operation of facilities and is there any process to review the suitability or adequacy of those WAC for disposal of LLW are approved by DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Site Restoration and and WCPs by regulators? Waste Management in the Office of Environmental Management (EM) following review by the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Federal Review Group, composed of experts from across the DOE complex. Other spent fuel and radioactive waste storage and treatment facilities are approved by the responsible senior DOE official. The Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS) advises the Secretary of Energy on the status of compliance with regulatory requirements. As the DOEs environment, health, safety and security advocate, the organization supports DOE by identifying the risks in these areas that could jeopardize DOEs mission. In addition, EHSS works closely with DOE line management which is ultimately responsible for ensuring that DOEs work is managed and performed in a manner that protects workers and the public as well as the DOEs material and information assets. (The Former Office of Health, Safety and Security was divided into two separate organizations on May 4, 2014: The Office of Enterprise Assessment and the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security).

11 Article 16 F, p. 99 What is the procedure and practice for inspection and compliance of waste The integrity of spent fuel storage systems during the initial licensing period (up to 40 years) is packages stored in waste storage facilities regarding degradation and integrity addressed by a combination of design and inspection requirements set forth in Title 10 of the of various waste packagings? Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 72.122 and 72.236, Overall requirements and Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication, respectively. For example, the design of reinforced concrete structures are evaluated against American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349, Code Requirements for Nuclear SafetyRelated Concrete Structures, to ensure that specific degradation modes are mitigated during service.

Also, the design and fabrication of confinement systems are evaluated against the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, Division 1. The level of testing, inspection, and documentation provided during construction and maintenance is in accordance with the pg. 3

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article quality assurance requirements as defined in 10 CFR part 72, subpart G or 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B. Storage systems are required to be monitored using inspections, tests, or other means to demonstrate that safe storage conditions are maintained. To meet this requirement, maintenance programs include monitoring activities (such as radiation, pressure, and temperature monitoring); visual inspections every 5 years per ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Article IWA2210 VT3 standards after the initial 20 years of operation to the extent allowed by the inspection equipment and accessible surfaces for defects that could reduce confinement effectiveness; periodic visual inspections of air flow vents for blockages that could reduce thermal performance; and other testing, as applicable, to verify that the radiation shielding, thermal, and confinement capabilities of the storage system are maintained. See NUREG1536, Revision 1, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc collections/nuregs/staff/sr1536) and NUREG1567, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1567) for more information.

12 Article 17 H.2.5, 114 It is stated that DOE will use active institutional controls for at least 100 years U.S. regulations for land disposal of commercial radioactive waste are specified at Title 10 of following closure. the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61. The regulations require the land owner or Is this the minimum requirement for an active institutional control period of custodial agency to carry out an institutional control program to physically control access to 100 years, and is this stipulated on DOE Policy? the disposal site following transfer of control of the disposal site from the disposal site Have the institutional control periods been decided for commercial disposal operator. Further, the regulations specify that the period of institutional control is determined facilities like WCS in Texas? If not, when would institutional controls usually by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but may not be relied upon for more than 100 be determined for those commercial repository? years following transfer of control of the disposal site to the owner. Agreement States, which concerning institutional controls, is there any relation between DOE policy regulate commercial lowlevel waste (LLW) disposal sites such as Waste Control Specialists and 10CFR61 referred to 'Institutional control of access to the site is required (WCS) in Texas, are required to adopt these regulations. Department of Energys (DOEs) for up to 100 years.'? requirements for institutional control are specified in DOE Order 435.1. DOE M 435.11 specifies that institutional control measures shall be integrated into land use and stewardship plans and programs, and shall continue until the facility can be released. DOE M 435.11 also specifies that for purposes of establishing limits on the concentration of radionuclides that may be disposed of nearsurface, the performance assessment shall include an assessment of impacts calculated for a hypothetical person assumed to inadvertently intrude for a temporary period into the lowlevel waste disposal facility. For intruder analyses, institutional controls shall be assumed to be effective in deterring intrusion for at least 100 years following closure.

13 Article 19 A.4.2.3 Please clarify basic provisions of the riskoriented approach to disposal which The proposed revisions for Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61 would are planned to be included into 10CFR part 61 in the course of its revision? require sitespecific analyses to demonstrate the performance objectives are met. These revisions (1) would include an update to requirements for an adequate performance assessment, (2) would include new requirements to conduct an inadvertent intruder assessment and demonstrate that defenseindepth protections are provided, and (3) would maintain existing requirements for protection during operations and an analysis of longterm stability. The proposed revisions would also allow disposal facilities to determine sitespecific waste acceptance criteria from the results of the sitespecific technical analyses. The proposed rule was published on March 26th, 2015 and can be found in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML14289A152.

14 Article 19 NRC The IVth Report provided that due to inadequacy of capacities needed for The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed its guidance related to interim storage of rulemakin LLW disposal, NRC had been updating its guidance related to extended lowlevel waste (LLW) in regulatory issue summary (RIS) 1109, Available Resources g activities interim storage of LLW. What is the progress on these documents revision? Associated with Extended Storage of LowLevel Radioactive Waste, and concluded that its guidance was adequate. The RIS and other relevant resources can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/llwdisposal/publicoutreach/llwextendedstorage information.html pg. 4

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article 15 Article 19 NRC The IVth Report provided that due to lack of capacities needed for LLW The proposed revisions for Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61 would rulemakin disposal, NRC was performing revision of RAW classification to dispose of the require that sitespecific analyses to demonstrate the performance objectives are met for g activities depleted uranium. What is the situation on RAW classification revision? disposal of low level waste, including depleted uranium if the disposal site will be accepting depleted uranium. These revisions (1) would include an update to requirements for performance assessments, (2) would include new requirements to conduct an inadvertent intruder assessment and demonstrate that defenseindepth protections are provided, and (3) would maintain existing requirements for protection during operations and an analysis of long term stability. The proposed revisions would also allow disposal facilities to determine site specific waste acceptance criteria from the results of sitespecific technical analyses. Once this rulemaking has been completed and implemented, the staff will evaluate the need for a low level waste classification revision.

16 Article 19 NRC Whether any acceptance criteria for GTCC and HLW acceptance are under Waste acceptance criteria for disposal facilities for GreaterthanClass C (GTCC) Lowlevel rulemakin development? waste (LLW) and for highlevel waste (HLW) are not under development at this time. The g activities Department of Energy (DOE) is analyzing alternatives for the disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC like waste and continues to work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the disposal of such waste. It would be premature to develop waste acceptance criteria for disposal of GTCC LLW or for HLW in the absence of the selection of specific disposal sites to provide the necessary design and performance requirements.

17 Article 19 p. 51 NRC and DOE have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to clarify their The 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed to specify roles and roles and responsibilities, (e.g., to minimize or eliminate duplication of effort responsibilities of the parties Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Department of Energy between the two agencies). Has the efficiency of this cooperation been (DOE)) in the federally funded program for remedial actions at abandoned uranium mills under evaluated? Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). The 1990 MOU has since been superseded by a formal licensing process. Under UMTRCA, and in NRCs regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40.27, DOE is generally licensed for the Title I sites. The license becomes effective when NRC accepts the Longterm Surveillance Plan for the site and agrees with the DOEs determination that the site remediation is complete. All remedial actions associated with the land surface have been completed and the general license is in effect at all but one of the sites, the Grand Junction site, which remains open under DOE control in order to accept small volumes of milling waste generated by current DOE activities. The actions that remain today at the sites are largely the longterm surveillance and/or groundwater remediation/monitoring. The roles and responsibilities for the longterm surveillance and groundwater remediation/monitoring are included in the MOU; however, as the sites are now under the general license the roles and responsibilities for those activities are well defined and duplication of effort is not anticipated.

18 Article 20 p. 5758 Remediating radiologically contaminated sites listed on the CERCLA National The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL includes sites licensed by NRC or Agreement have exchanged consultation letters under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 17 States, as well as DOE sites. EPA and NRC entered into a MOU in October NRC decommissioning sites. EPA has responded to each consultation request from NRC with a 2002, to avoid future confusion about the potential for dual regulation at letter expressing its views on actions that NRC should consider that address the sitespecific decommissioned sites. This MOU defines conditions where the two agencies matter that triggered consultation. Over the course of consultations on 17 sites, there have would consult on the decommissioning of NRClicensed facilities. What are been some reoccurring themes to EPAs views. Primarily, these are EPA recommendations to the experiences so far on the practical implementation of the MOU? NRC to consider: (1) selecting institutional controls to ensure that some of NRCs assumptions about future human exposure at the site are not exceeded; (2) using more sitespecific information when conducting dose assessment modeling; (3) a flexible approach to groundwater protection that still ensures the public is not exposed to contamination levels over drinking water limits; and (4) an approach similar to how EPA implements supplemental standards under uranium mill tailings regulatory standards at Superfund sites when the soil standard of 5 pCi/g (0.185 bq/g) is not being met.

As part of the consultation process, NRC has considered EPAs views on these actions.

Through the implementation of the MOU, NRC and EPA staff have continued to work together pg. 5

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article in recognition of each Agencys authority and commitment to protect the public health and safety.

The letters from NRC and EPA for each of these consultations may be found at the following website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/mouletters.htm More information about the MOU, including the letter transmitting it from EPA Headquarters to the field offices with information about rationale behind the MOU may be found at this website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/mou.htm 19 Article 20 p. 62 NRC can relinquish regulatory authority to individual states as Agreement The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is authorized under federal legislation (the Atomic State. How is it performed? Does the Agreement give the same power (e.g. Energy Act of 1954, as amended) to relinquish certain licensing authority to a State provided enforcement) to the state authorities as NRC has? that the State has a radiation protection program that is at least as protective as NRCs (adequate to protect public health and safety) and is compatible with NRC regulations and requirements. The State will adopt compatible legislation and regulations in accordance with their legal system. The State will also develop a program that includes procedures, fee recovery, and enforcement, and maintain sufficient staff for radiation protection programs for agreement materials (byproduct, source and special nuclear material of less than a certain, small amount). Once NRC is satisfied that the State has a program in place to allow a seamless transition from NRC to the State (no gaps in legal oversight and same level of protection to the workers and public), NRC will approve the Agreement. Once a State has developed a compatible program, it will have similar authority as NRC for the safety regulation of certain materials and facilities within that State, while NRC retains overall program review authority.

20 Article 20 p. 62 It is mentioned that some base requirements must be adopted by states, When a state seeks initial authorization for its hazardous waste program, it must adopt all while states may choose not to adopt other rules. Why only some base requirements identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as necessary for such requirements must be adopted by states, who decides about that? authorization. Once the state has been authorized to implement the base program, new federal requirements which are more stringent than the states existing hazardous waste program must be adopted, while states may choose not to adopt other rules which are considered less stringent. The example given in the report, which allows a conditional exemption from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) requirements for mixed waste for certain types of management in accordance with a radioactive materials license (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 266, subpart N), provides for a less stringent method of managing these wastes. Therefore, states are not required to adopt this rule, and it would not become effective unless the state adopts and is authorized for it.

21 Article 21 p. 65 In which cases do licensees or operators of commercial disposal facility Under applicable U.S. requirements, licensees of commercial disposal facilities eventually transfer their control of the site to Federal or governmental agencies? transfer title and control of those facilities to government agencies for longterm stewardship before their licenses can be terminated. There are two different cases, one for low level waste (LLW) disposal (Title 10 of the Code of Regulations (CFR) part 61) and the other for uranium mill tailings disposal (10 CFR part 40). The regulations (contained in 10 CFR part 61) require that all commercial licensees that are authorized for LLW disposal under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, must transfer ownership of the site or the portion of land on which the waste is disposed to a governmental agency before the license is terminated. After the sites are closed, the licenses would be transferred to the government and terminated at the end of the institutional control period (of up to 100 years after closure). However, one of the four commercial LLW disposal facilities in the U.S. received an exemption from this government ownership requirement, based on information submitted to the State regulatory agency. In addition, there are commercial sites for the disposal of uranium mill tailings and related materials from uranium milling sites. Conventional milling sites (i.e., ore is brought to the surface for processing at the mill) will have the ownership of the land with the tailings pile transferred to the governmental agency. Milling sites that recover uranium in situ (i.e.,

pg. 6

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article solution mining) do not have wastes permanently stored on site; however, the licensees will have to demonstrate at license termination that the property can be released.

22 Article 22 F The USA has given a good description of the steps taken to ensure that The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has various financial assistance programs in place in human resources working across the industry are suitably qualified and the form of grants and cooperative agreements. Grants are awarded to U.S. educational experienced (section F), but what steps are being taken to ensure that an institutions in the areas of Curriculum Development, Faculty Development, Scholarships and adequate supply of such resource remains available for the future? Fellowships (4year institutions), and Trade School/Community College Scholarships (2year institutions). The agency also has grant/cooperative agreement programs specifically for nuclearrelated research, as well as Minority Serving Institutions that may focus more broadly on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. These nuclear education grant programs help ensure that the U.S. maintains a highly trained and educated workforce in nuclear science, technology, and engineering fields from which to draw. Within NRC, we have established multiple programs as a means of hiring, developing, deploying, and retaining a high quality, diverse workforce with the skills necessary to carry out NRCs mission.

Two examples are, the Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program (NSPDP) and Graduate Fellowship Program (GFP). The NSPDP is our entry level program for recent graduates. They receive extensive onthejob training, formal classroom training, individual study, and rotational assignments. The GFP targets individuals who wish to gain highly specialized technical knowledge by undertaking researchintensive fulltime graduate work in a discipline identified as meeting NRC's current and future critical skill needs.

23 Article 22 F.2.3.1, It is mentioned in F.2.3.1 that the commercial LLW management facilities Subpart E of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61 breaks financial Para 3, license applicant should ensure that its finance source is enough to cover the assurance requirements into three parts: licensed operations, closure, and institutional p68 estimated costs of conducting all licensed activities over the planned control. The licensee must have necessary funds (or reasonable assurance of obtaining them) operating life of the project, including costs of construction and disposal. necessary to carry out licensed activities during the operating life of the site under 10 CFR Is the related cost of after closure of a disposal facility covered in the finance 61.61 (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/cfr/part061/part0610061.html). The source? licensee must provide assurance that funds will be available to carry our closure and And please introduce the proportion of the cost of the institutional control in stabilization in the initial license application under 10 CFR 61.62 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading the total cost. rm/doccollections/cfr/part061/part0610062.html).

Prior to licensing, the applicant must provide for Commission review a copy of a binding arrangement with the site owner that demonstrates availability of sufficient funds to carry out institutional control activities under 10 CFR 61.63, see: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc collections/cfr/part061/part0610063.html. The proportion of the cost of institutional control to total cost will be a site specific determination based on the number and frequency of monitoring and site maintenance activities stipulated during the institutional control period.

24 Article 22 p. 66 Human resources are listed for NRC as the budget numbers for 2015. The Yes, resources were sufficient for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to meet its regulatory Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2013 is given as mission.

reference. No summary on the sufficiency of resources during the reporting period is given. Were the resources sufficient?

25 Article 22.2 Section What was the reasoning behind the November 2013 court ruling? Is it true The court reasoned that the Department of Energy (DOE) could not do a legally adequate fee F.2.3.2, that the Nuclear Waste Fund is no longer replenished from this source? assessment as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act until either the Yucca Mountain pp. 6869 project is revived or until Congress enacts an alternative waste management plan. The current COMMENT: The Report says that The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 fee for nuclear power generated and sold is zero. As of September 30, 2014, the balance in (NWPA) requires utilities having a contract with DOE for the disposal of spent the Nuclear Waste Fund was $32.9 billion. Interest will continue to accrue annually on the fuel or highlevel waste (HLW) to pay fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund balance in the Fund.

sufficient to cover the costs associated with disposal activities for spent fuel and HLW. Following a November 2013 court ruling, the fee has been suspended. This fee, evaluated annually for sufficiency, previously was $0.001 per kilowatthour of nuclear power generated and sold.

26 Article 23 F.3.1, Para It is mentioned in F.3.1 that the applicant should establish and operate a QA The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations cover all commercial licensees and 2, system according to the NRC guidance; however, it is mentioned in F.3.2 that some Department of Energy (DOE) facilities; DOE activities that are not subject to regulation pg. 7

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article p71£>>F.3. the DOE activities are subject to QA requirement of 10CFR 830.120. Actually, by NRC are covered by DOE regulations, Orders and contract requirements. Both agencies 2, Para 3, the structure and key points of these two are some different. criteria aim to achieve adequate protection of the workers, the public and the environment, p72 What is the relation of the two QA systems? taking into account the work to be performed and its hazards, while they remain distinct and Should both of the two QA systems be met by the same facility? separate.

27 Article 24 F.4, 74 What is the process to derive the transfer coefficients and bioaccumulation The process used to derive the transfer coefficients and bioaccumulation factors used in the factors used in the radiological environmental impact assessment? radiological environmental impact assessment can be found in a Department of Energy (DOE)

What are the transfer coefficient and the bioaccumulation factor applied to Standard, DOESTD11532002, A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic each radionuclide? and Terrestrial Biota, at http://energy.gov/ehss/downloads/doestd11532002 The derivation process for the bioaccumulation factors is described in the Standard on page M34750 in Module 3 Part 2. A primary reference is John Till and H. R. Meyer (1983)

Radiological Assessment: A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis. NUREG/CR3332, ORNL 5968. The references in tables 4.1 and 4.2 on these pages are described in the Front Matter section of DOESTD11532002. The transfer coefficients and the bioaccumulation factor applied to each radionuclide can be found in Module 1 of DOE STD11532002, on page M141 in Table 6.5. The references for this table are found at the bottom of the table.

28 Article 24 F.4, 80 In Limitations for decommissioning described in Table F3 of the national The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal report is as follows; °Restricted Use : If institutional controls fail, not to Regulations (CFR) 20.1403 describe the criteria for license termination under restricted exceed 1 mSv/a or 5 mSv/a+/-. conditions. One of the requirements for restricted use, as noted in 10 CFR 20.1403(e), is that What is the reason that those two standards, 1 mSv/a and 5 mSv/a, have residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if the institutional controls were no been defined? Could you explain the difference between those two values? longer in effect, there is reasonable assurance that the Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) from residual radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of the critical group (the group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances) is as low as (is) reasonably achievable and would not exceed either 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year or 500 mrem (5 mSv) per year. In order to utilize the 500 mrem/y (5 mSv) value, licensees must: (i) Demonstrate that further reductions in residual radioactivity necessary to comply with the 100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y) value of paragraph (e)(1) of 10 CFR 20.1403 are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively expensive, or would result in net public or environmental harm; (ii) Make provisions for durable institutional controls; (iii) Provide sufficient financial assurance to enable a responsible government entity or independent third party, including a governmental custodian of a site, both to carry out periodic rechecks of the site no less frequently than every 5 years to assure that the institutional controls remain in place as necessary to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 20.1403(b) and to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of those controls. Acceptable financial assurance mechanisms are those in 10 CFR 20.1403(c).

29 Article 24 F.4, p.78 In the national report under Table F.3 "Major Radiation Protection Standards" Department of Energy (DOE) Order 458.1 limits the equivalent dose to the lens of the eye to 81 it is not specified whether there is a dose limit in place for the lens of the eyes 15 mSv (1500 mrem) in a year and the equivalent dose to the skin or extremities to 50 mSv and skin (and/or extremities) of exposed members of the public. Could you (5000 mrem) in a year for members of the public. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) please provide us with some clarifications on that matter? does not specify a dose to the lens of the eye or skin for members of the public because significant localized exposure limits cannot be exceeded without exceeding the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public of 1 mSv (See Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 20.1301(a)(1)).

30 Article 25 F.5.1.5, COMMENT: It is mentioned in F.5.5 that NRC is evaluating the effect of The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff did not find safety concerns associated with Para 2, Fukushima Accident to the NPP reactors. the designs of spent fuel storage systems. The NRCs staff assessment can be found in a white p87 Please introduce the effect of Fukushima Accident to the emergency paper on the lessons learned from Fukushima for facilities other than power reactors. The preparedness of ISFSI, and please introduce the emergency planning for ISFSI. paper is publicly available and can be found in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML15042A367. Therefore, there was no effect of the Fukushima accident on Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs). The requirements of for an emergency plan for an ISFSI would depend on its location relative to an pg. 8

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article operating nuclear power reactor (contents of an emergency plan for spent fuel storage facilities are included in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 72.32). The majority of the ISFSIs are collocated with an operating nuclear power plant; therefore, the same emergency plan applies. If an ISFSI is located at a site without an operating nuclear power reactor, an emergency plan is required for that facility. NRC has not received an application for a new facility with the purpose of managing spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste, since the Fukushima event.

31 Article 25 F5, page Please report on progress on transition from the emergency phase to In the U.S. as part of the National Response Framework (NRF), there are three phases to a 83 decommissioning phase following an accident. response to a radiological incident. These are the Early Phase, Intermediate Phase and the Late Phase (see http://www.remm.nlm.gov/response_phases.htm) The Early and Intermediate Phases are equivalent to Australias Emergency Phase. The Late Phase would be equivalent to Australias Decommissioning Phase. The transition from the Intermediate Phase to the Late Phase begins sometime after the commencement of the intermediate phase and proceeds independently of intermediate phase protective action activities. The transition is characterized by a change in approach, from strategies predominantly driven by urgency, to strategies aimed at both reducing longerterm exposures and improving living conditions. . The Late Phase uses an optimization process which considers many factors such as anticipated levels of exposure, future land use, radiological impacts, and nonradiological impacts, while ensuring that all doses are as low as (is) reasonably achievable (ALARA) . Consistent with the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAG) Manual, which was revised in 2013 as "Draft for Interim Use," the optimization decisionmaking would consider current Federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines. Experience from existing programs, such as the EPAs Superfund program, the NRCs process for decommissioning and decontamination to terminate a nuclear facility license and other national recommendations may be useful for designing cleanup and recovery efforts that could apply to a radiological incident. Based on the incident, these cleanup levels may not be achieved immediately, and so the process of cleanup should be flexible in order to come to the final cleanup level goals in order to achieve normalcy and reoccupancy back to the affected community to the extent possible. Additional information on the Draft PAG Manual can be found at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/pags.html 32 Article 25 K.2: p.130 COMMENT: The U.S. efforts to deal with the legacy of the accident will be The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently issued a draft white paper on the more explicitly addressed within the context of the Convention on Nuclear applicability of Fukushima lessons learned to facilities other than power reactors. The paper is Safety" The U.S. is also examining how to address those (Fukushima) lessons publicly available and can be found in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management learned relevant to radioactive waste storage and management".This last System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML15042A367. For dry cask spent fuel storage systems, item is not addressed in the current fifth report. Mentioning some NRC performed a qualitative assessment considering the lessons learned at the Fukushima orientations, even preliminary, would nevertheless be helpful. incident and common design characteristics (e.g., horizontal versus vertical systems) of spent fuel storage systems approved for use in the U.S. NRC did not find safety concerns associated with the designs of spent fuel storage systems. For lowlevel waste (LLW), the draft white paper discusses the four commercial disposal facilities that have been licensed to accept LLW in the U.S. NRCs analysis notes that these facilities are sited to avoid disruptive events through the licensing process, which includes: restrictions on the waste characteristics (e.g.,

limits to radiological concentrations and hazardous characteristics), siting characteristics (e.g.,

the four facilities are in low to moderate seismic zones, and 3 of the 4 are in a dry part of the country), waste classification (requiring higher concentrated waste to be buried deeper), and system design.

33 Article 26 F.6.1.1, 89 Section F.6.1.1 states on public meeting for PSDAR and LTP. The public meeting on the Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activity Report (PSDAR) is for the What is the main topic in public meeting? Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to present the information that is in the PSDAR and to What are the regulations on feedback after public meeting? describe NRCs decommissioning regulatory process to the public. The public then has the opportunity to provide comments on the content of the PSDAR and the decommissioning pg. 9

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article regulatory process to NRC at the meeting and/or in writing. NRC answers the questions in the meeting and addresses the comments in the documentation of NRCs review of the PSDAR.

The public meeting on the License Termination Plan (LTP) is held by NRC to describe the content of the LTP and for NRC to describe the regulatory process for reviewing the LTP, amending the license, and the process for terminating the license once the requirements of the LTP have been satisfied. The public has an opportunity to provide comments to NRC whenever a licensee submits a PSDAR or a LTP. While there is not a requirement in the regulations for NRC to provide responses to public feedback received on the PSDAR or LTP, NRC endeavors to answer the questions asked in the public meetings and respond to summarized comments made on the content of these documents, and on NRCs regulatory processes, when NRC documents its licensing review.

34 Article 26 F.6.1.1, 89 As stated on the page 89, NRC will make PostShutdown Decommissioning For nuclear power plants, the PostShutdown Decommissioning Activity Report (PSDAR) is a Activity Report (PSDAR) publicly available. Is the PSDAR report going to be description of planned decommissioning activities, a schedule of those activities, a discussion available for the public in a full range or will it contain some confidential of environmental impacts relative to previously issued environmental impact statements or parts? Is the safety analysis report part of the PSDAR? environmental reports, and a decommissioning cost estimate. The PSDAR is not a licensing document in the sense of needing approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Therefore, the PSDAR is not considered, nor does it contain, a safety analysis report. The licensee does submit a safety analysis report for changing the operating license to a defueled license. This is a license amendment request that requires approval by NRC, but is not part of the PSDAR. The PSDAR is publicly available in full once submitted to NRC by the licensee and processed into NRCs public document system.

35 Article 26 F.6.1.2, 91 Page 91 states that NRC inspects the facility during decommissioning Facilities undergoing decommissioning are inspected using the applicable portions of the operations to ensure compliance with the DP. Please specify what relevant Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Manual. Inspection Manual Chapters (IMCs) criteria are implemented in order to demonstrate the compliance with the relevant to decommissioning include IMC 2561 Decommissioning Power Reactor Inspection DP? Does NRS have any requirements to update the DP regularly during Program, and IMC 2602 Decommissioning Oversight and Inspection Program for Fuel Cycle decommissioning to reflect the possible changes at the facility? Facilities and Materials Licensees. Additionally, the Decommissioning Plan (DP) is reviewed by NRC and must be approved through the licensing process. As such, inspections are completed to ensure compliance with the approved DP. It is understood that changes to the facility could occur during decommissioning and that the DP would need to be updated. Often, licensees will include certain items in their DP that could be changed during decommissioning without additional NRC approval. These would represent categories of minor changes that do not change the original intent of the DP or create additional safety concerns. These changes must be documented and made available for inspection by NRC, if initially approved in the DP.

Licensees licensed under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50 may be able to make limited changes to the DP using processes outlined in 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, tests and experiments). Records of changes per 10 CFR 50.59 must be retained and made available for NRC inspection. Modifications to the DP that are outside the scope of these minor allowable changes would require an amendment to the DP, which must be approved through NRC licensing process.

36 Article 27 p. 119 Department of Energy (DOE) has independent authority for imports and The Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors conduct imports, and some exports, of certain exports under the AEA. Thus, DOE imports and certain exports are not radioactive material pursuant to DOEs authority in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as subject to NRC export/import licensing regulations. For example, amended, and in accordance with DOE requirements, including those in DOE Order 462.1, NRC’s regulatory authority does not apply to DOE import of recovered Import and Export of Category 1 and 2 Radioactive Sources and Aggregated Quantities.

disused sealed sources. Who controls import/export of radioactive material Certain DOE exports (e.g., exports of special nuclear material and source material as provided owning by DOE? Does DOE control its own? in section 111 of the AEA) are subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission export licensing requirements. This order does not apply to sources within military or defense programs or Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulated sources and materials.

37 Article 28 K.7, 134 What are the main issues or challenges on the significant commercial sealed Disposal of commercial sealed sources continues to be a challenge for two main reasons. First, source disposal in detail? there are limitations on what the existing commercially available disposal sites in the U.S. will pg. 10

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article accept based on radioactive inventory, isotopic content, and geographic origin. Although a new disposal facility has opened and NRC has updated its Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation, which increased the recommended constraints for disposal of certain high activity sources (such as high activity cobalt60 and cesium137) many commercial actinide sources (such as americium241) still have no disposal pathway.

Second, transportation of higher activity sources that require Department of Transportation Type B containers is expensive and large volume containers capable of transporting high activity sources are limited in availability. The Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is working with NRC and Agreement States to investigate financial assurances to ensure funding is set aside to manage sources once they reach the end of their working life. DOE NNSA has also been designing two Type B containers; one was recently certified by NRC, while the second design will be submitted to NRC for certification in 2016.

38 Article 28 p. 125 Disused sealed sources The sources and devices referred to in the regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal (Section Regulations (CFR) parts 30, 31, and 32 are what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

J.1) The reports states that the regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 allow for refers to as exempt products. The initial distributor must apply for and receive a license that use of equipment requiring registration but not requiring a licence for use, allows for the distribution of these products to individuals that are generally exempt from and for sources and devices requiring neither registration nor licensing if they licensing. Examples of these types of products include watches and gun sights containing meet certain requirements. tritium, and smoke detectors containing americium. The initial distributors must apply for an Could you please specify these certain requirements in more detail? NRC license. In its review of that application, NRC will perform a safety evaluation of the products to ensure that the products meet the safety criteria in the regulations (examples are 10 CFR 32.23 and 10 CFR 32.27).

39 Article 32 A.4.1.4: In support of the Administration's Strategy, DOE is performing R&D that will The Administrations Strategy is to construct a pilot consolidated interim storage facility by p.8 / address critical scientific and technical issues associated with the longterm 2021 and then a larger consolidated interim storage facility by 2025. Conceptual designs of B.3.2.1: management of spent fuel, including storage, transportation and disposal. such facilities have been prepared. These designs reflect the research and development (R&D) p.25 K.1: Is there any attempt in this R&D program to propose a reference temporay results and operational experience from dry storage of spent fuel. R&D is being performed on p.129 storage concept, including storage of damaged fuel assemblies, in line with the internal portions of storage casks and fuel assemblies inside the casks. The U.S. has the planned operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021? longstanding experience storing spent fuel in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is prepared to review any applications it receives for an interim consolidated storage facility. Although it has not been built, NRC has licensed an ISFSI (Private Fuel Storage) away from the reactor site.

40 Article 32 A.4.2.1: COMMENT: The term "concentration averaging" is averaging of the U.S. regulations, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 61.55(a)(8), allow averaging p.10 / radionuclide activities in waste over its volume or over its mass. In addition to radionuclide concentrations in waste in determining waste classification. The regulations do B.2.3.2: using mathematical averaging, licenses may physically mix some types of not specify specific limitations in concentration averaging. The U.S. developed guidance in a p.21 LLW". branch technical position on concentration averaging and encapsulation (CA BTP), which was Additional information could be added in order to better define these types recently updated. The updated document is available in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions of LLW and evaluate the allowable operating range of this "blending" method. (NRCs) Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. The CA BTP has two volumes, ML12254B065 and ML12326A611. The document provides guidance on appropriate volumes and masses to use in calculating average concentrations. NRC also recognizes that lowlevel waste (LLW), such as ion exchange resins, may be blended resulting in an essentially homogeneous mixture, where the average concentration of the final mixture is used for waste classification purposes. The CA BTP provides guidance for when waste may be blended and how and when to demonstrate that waste is adequately blended. The CA BTP also recommends constraints for discrete items based on their size and the amount or concentration of radioactivity they contain. The size, amount of radioactivity and/or concentration helps define the hazard to an inadvertent intruder who might directly handle the discrete item. More detailed information on LLW blending can also be found in the CA BTP.

pg. 11

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article 41 Article 32 A.4.2.2: Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) proposed operating a new laser enrichment In July 2013, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a request for offers (RFO) for its p.11 / facility that could provide compensation to DOE for its DU hexafluoride remaining inventories of highassay depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6). The RFO specified B.4.1: p.30 inventories. What is the anticipated schedule for this operation and the ratio the natural uranium created from the DUF6 could not enter the market before 2019 and of DOE's DU that would escape from the DOE inventories ? Would GLE then would be limited to 2,000 metric tons natural uranium equivalent per year. The proposed be directly in charge of the management of the ultimate DU produced after Laser Enrichment Facility would reenrich the DUF6, creating natural uranium in the form of enrichment, as a commercially generated waste? UF6 that would then be sold into the uranium market. Commercial negotiations were originally expected to be concluded in early 2014, but they are still ongoing. No announcements have been made concerning when an agreement might be reached.

42 Article 32 A.4.2.3: There are currently four operational LLW disposal sites in the U.S, including The Federal Waste Facility is one component of the disposal facility operated by Waste Control p.11 / the new Federal Waste Disposal Facility (FWF) in Texas. It is said that for this Specialists, LLC (WCS) near Andrews, Texas. For a description of all WCS facilities please see D.2.2: p.39 disposal site, "all hazardous and radioactive waste is encapsulated in a robust http://www.wcstexas.com/facilities/. The facility benefits from favorable site characteristics liner and cover system, faturing a sevenfoot thick liner system, which such as significant depth to groundwater, arid climate, sparse population, and robust, includes a onefoot thick layer of reinforced concrete and a RCRA compliant engineering. While there is significant variability in the site characteristics of the four geosynthetic layer". commercial sites, site performance of each is evaluated on the individual characteristics and Are there in this FWF site significant differences with regard to the three engineered characteristics of each. Any decision to allow disposal of out of standard waste other mentioned operational sites? Would it allow disposal of out of standard packages would have to be based on a site specific safety assessment and approved by the waste packages that could not be accepted in the other sites? applicable regulatory authority. In the case of WCS, this is the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). More specific information regarding the WCS FWF may also be requested from TCEQ at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us.

43 Article 32 B.3, 23 "It's stated that spent nuclear fuels are being stored on the site of NPPs that There is, on occasion, some local opposition to storage of spent fuel in an Independent Spent are already decommissioned. Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the site of a decommissioned nuclear power plant from Is there any opposition of local communities? some public interest groups and individual citizens. The public can provide input on its If there is opposition, how does US cope with it?" positions during the hearing process for an ISFSI license and the rulemaking process for certification of a dry cask storage design. In addition, at any time during licensing/certification, construction, or operation of an ISFSI or dry storage cask, any member of the public may report safety concerns to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) through various means (e.g., speaking with NRC staff, calling the NRC Safety Hotline, submitting a concern in writing, submitting a concern via the NRC public web site). NRC will evaluate the concern and respond back to the concerned individual or organization.

44 Article 32 B.3.1, p.24 Are there safety significant problems identified during commissioning and Since the first dry spent fuel storage facility went into operation in the 1980s, there have not operation of dry SF storage facilities? been any significant safety problems identified during licensing or operation of dry spent fuel storage facilities.

45 Article 32 B.3.1, p23 Currently, most of spent fuels in US nuclear power plants are stored in the Per the Administrations Strategy on the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and spent fuel pool inside plants or in the dry storage facilities close to the plants. Highlevel Radioactive Waste (2013), the Administration currently plans to implement a What is the US governments plan to gradually transport spent fuel in wet program over the next 10 years that: sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins pool or dry storage facility to the centralized facilities? What are the related operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used policy and progress? nuclear fuel from shutdown reactor sites; advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger What are the main factors that need to be considered when chosen spent interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide fuel storage option in different alternatives e.g. in wet pool or in dry storage flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear facility, decentralized in each NPP or in centralized facility? fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and makes demonstrable progress on the siting What are the specific regulatory requirements to the different spent fuel and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by storage options? 2048. Full implementation of this Strategy will require legislation to enable timely implementation of the program elements described above. To lay the foundation for implementation of the Strategy, the Department of Energy has begun planning for large scale transportation of spent fuel. Ongoing activities include development of a transportation route planning tool; and development of a rail cask for transport of fuel from the reactor sites to a consolidate storage facility. Several cask designs currently exist for the transport of canistered fuel.

pg. 12

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article In the U.S., ISFSIs are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) separately from a nuclear power plant under either a sitespecific or a general license. Spent fuel pool storage colocated at a nuclear power plant is promulgated in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities and dry storage safety regulations are in 10 CFR part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste. The licensing and technical requirements for an ISFSI, whether centralized or decentralized, are the same but the licensing process is different. The regulations for ISFSIs can be found in 10 CFR part 72. NRC review criteria for a dry storage cask for use with a general license and site specific license can be found in NUREG1536, Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1536/) and NUREG1567, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities (http://www.nrc.gov/reading rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1567/), respectively. At a highlevel, the ISFSI must be designed to ensure that, during normal operations and after any potential accident or natural phenomena: offsite doses do not exceed the limits in NRC regulations (10 CFR 72.104 and 72.106, Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or

[Monitored Retrievable Storage] MRS and Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS, respectively)), the ISFSI remains subcritical, and the temperatures if ISFSI components, including the spent fuel remain below material temperature limits, unless those components are not considered in evaluating offsite doses or criticality safety. The regulations for a wet storage facility that is not colocated at a nuclear power plant is the same as a dry storage facility not colocated at a nuclear power plant and would have to meet the requirements in 10 CFR part 72.

46 Article 32 B.3.1, p23 It is mentioned in B.3.1 that the ISFSI is used decades. The technical requirements for storage of commercial spent fuel in an independent spent fuel p24 Please introduce the technical requirements of US NRC to spent fuel that storage installation are set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These requirements stored in ISFSI. are located in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 72, Licensing How to assess the integrity of spent fuel during its storage period? What kind Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, HighLevel Radioactive of monitoring measures is needed during the storage period£¿ Waste, and ReactorRelated Greater than Class C Waste. Application of these requirements Who is the owner of the ISFSI, the licensee or the facility operator? by NRC are discussed in the standard review plans that NRC uses to evaluate applications for spent fuel storage, NUREG1536, Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems see:

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1536/ and NUREG1567, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities see: http://www.nrc.gov/reading rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1567/ These requirements include 10 CFR 72.122(h) which requires protection of fuel cladding against gross rupture, unless the spent fuel is otherwise confined such that degradation of the fuel during storage will not pose operational safety problems with respect to its removal from storage. Additionally, 10 CFR 72.122(l) requires ready retrieval of spent fuel. Finally, 10 CFR 72.236, Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication contains subparts which require specific characteristics of the fuel that is to be stored, such as the burnup. NRC regulations contain requirements for fuel subcriticality and that the cask must be designed to store spent fuel safely for the term proposed, as well as permit maintenance as required. NRC has relied on results from the Idaho cask demonstration (NUREGCR/6831, Examination of Spent PWR Fuel Rods After 15 Years in Dry Storage, NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML032731021) and the NRCs Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 11, Revision 3, Cladding Considerations for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Fuel, (see www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/isg/isg11R3.pdf) to license the dry storage of low burnup spent fuel for both an initial license term as well as for renewal terms. NRC has also issued guidance for its reviews, provided in ISG 11, Revision 3, to review the expected behavior of high burnup spent fuel (assembly average burnup exceeding 45 GWD/MTU) for up pg. 13

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article to 20 years in dry storage in the same manner as low burnup spent fuel. NRC is expecting to obtain confirmation of high burnup spent fuel cladding behavior for storage periods beyond 20 years through a demonstration cask discussed further in ISG - 24, The Use of a Demonstration Program as a Surveillance Tool for Confirmation of Integrity for Continued Storage of High Burnup Fuel beyond 20 Years (see ADAMS Accession No. ML14058B166).

Additionally, applicants can perform lead system examinations that would provide data on the cask and its internals after the initial storage period. These would indirectly confirm the condition of the fuel while it was in storage. During its initial licensing period dry cask storage systems have at least one monitoring system (e.g., pressure, temperature, or dose). The license holder must demonstrate how such systems will be used to provide information regarding possible offnormal events, and what surveillance actions may be necessary to ensure these systems function properly. Detailed maintenance and inspection procedures for these monitoring systems are developed and implemented by the license holder. In addition, the license holder conducts periodic visual surface and weld inspections on readily accessible surfaces. NUREG1536, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility, provides additional information on dry cask maintenance and inspection programs. NRC may renew an independent spent fuel storage installation license or dry cask storage certificate of compliance for a term not to exceed 40 years as specified in 10 CFR 72.42 and 72.240, Duration of license; renewal, and Conditions for spent fuel storage cask renewal, respectively. The requirements for renewal include demonstration that degradation will be addressed by either (1) analyses or calculations to show that aging effects will not result in a loss of intended function of an importanttosafety system, or (2) implementation of aging management programs (AMPs) that will manage issues associated with aging of these systems. AMPs consist of condition monitoring, performance monitoring, mitigation or other prevention activities for each importanttosafety system, upon consideration of its material of construction and service environment. Therefore, the inspection and monitoring requirements, including method or technique, frequency of inspections, and acceptance criteria are determined by the specific aging mechanism causing the degradation, as well as accessibility and occupational dose constraints for the system. NUREG1927, Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance, see: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1927/

provides guidance on the essential elements of an AMP; however, it does not identify specific inspection frequencies or methods. These AMP details are proposed by applicants and evaluated by NRC on a casebycase basis. For instance, NRC has evaluated AMPs for reinforced concrete structures against the requirements of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) standard 349.3R. The standard requires visual inspections of accessible abovegrade areas of the concrete structure at a minimum interval of 5 years, and belowgrade areas at a minimum of 10 years. Additional requirements include the monitoring of groundwater near the storage installation for the presence of aggressive chemicals. Welded stainless steel canisters have been required to be inspected on 5 year intervals for corrosion products that may be indicators of localized corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. The inspection may involve the use of visual testing per requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section V, followed by surface and/or volumetric inspection techniques consistent with the requirements of ASME Section XI. The licensee is the owner of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). In the event the licensee has contracted operation of the ISFSI, the licensee is still responsible for its safe operation.

47 Article 32 B.3.1, p23; COMMENT: It is not mentioned the status of MOX fuel (spent fuel) in the US The fuel and clad examination results conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) of B.3.2, p24 National Report. Please give more information about the MOX fuel, such as the postirradiation examination (PIE) work of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel rods were the MOX fuel in Catawba 1. documented in the MOX PIE Fuel and Clad Examination Final Report dated September 30, pg. 14

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article The Postirradiation Examination (PIE) for the irradiated MOX fuel from 2013. The report is not publically available. The purpose of the PIE was to verify the Catawba 1 was conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Please give performance of the fuel rods contained in the MOX Lead Test Assembly and to produce data more information about the progress and results of the MOX fuel that can be used for fuel qualification.

examination.

48 Article 32 B.3.2.1, It is mentioned in B.3.2.1 that one of BRCs£¨Blue ribbon The Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas Nuclear Futures reference to eventual largescale Para 2, Commission£©suggestions is to prompt effort to prepare for the eventual transport refers to future shipping campaigns to remove spent nuclear fuel from onsite p25 largescale transport of spent nuclear fuel and HLW to consolidated storage storage at more than 70 nuclear power plant sites to a pilot interim storage facility, a and disposal facilities when such facilities become available. consolidated interim storage facility, or to a geologic repository. Special requirements for What is the meaning of the eventual largescale transport? And what special eventual largescale transport include: training and technical assistance to states and Native requirements for the eventual largescale transport should be met? American Tribes through whose jurisdictions spent nuclear fuel will be transported; specialized equipment that will need to be designed, fabricated and tested, including a railcar compliant with the Association of American Railroads S2043 standard; and transportation casks with certificates of compliance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

49 Article 32 B.3.3, 27 It is stated: the final generic EIS and rule will be published on September The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) identifies the environmental impacts 2014. Some addition information on the content and main features of the EIS from continued storage of spent nuclear fuel for three time periods - 60 years beyond the and rule would be welcomed during the national presentation. operating life of a reactor, 160 years beyond the operating life and indefinite storage in the case where there would be no geologic repository for disposition. Environmental impacts are identified for both atreactor and awayfrom reactor centralized storage. The final rule notes that the environmental impacts of continued storage can be generically determined and, therefore, those impacts do not need to be determined on a sitespecific basis. The U.S. will elaborate more on this during the National Country Presentation.

50 Article 32 B.3.4, p.27 Does the USA consider restart of the commercial treatment of SF or in near The current U.S. practice is a once through fuel cycle meaning that all fuel rods are stored future will conduct only scientific research, related to treatment? either in pool or dry cask storage which is planned to be followed by disposal in a deep geologic repository. However, this does not impede the Department of Energy (DOE) from pursuing active Research and Development (R&D) on used nuclear fuel recycling because it may offer improvements to the current fuel cycle. There are many different ways fuel rods may be recycled and the costs depend on a number of factors. Such information is available in a Study (https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/nuclear_science_and_technology/337/f uel_cycle_evaluation_and_screening_overview) recently sponsored by DOE to conduct a systematic evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles, including those which may recycle used nuclear fuel. The Study takes into account multiple criteria including economics and costs associated with different fuel cycle options. The benefits and challenges associated with these options are being examined to better prioritize and guide longterm nuclear fuel cycle R&D efforts. As part of this activity, DOE has been investigating different potential fuel cycle strategies as discussed in the Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap Report to Congress, accessible from DOEs website at http://energy.gov/ne/mission.

51 Article 32 B.4, Para COMMENT: It is mentioned in B.4 that a Draft Environmental Impact DOE continues to work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of GTCC 6, p28 Statement for GTCC LLW has been published by DOE. LLW and GTCClike waste. The Department of Energy anticipates publication of this Please introduce the technical route for GTCC LLW disposal in USA. Environmental Impact Statement in calendar year 2015. As required by Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct05), DOE will submit a report to the U.S. Congress and await Congressional action before making a final decision on a disposal option(s) for GTCC LLW.

52 Article 32 D.2, 36 Section D.2 describes the radioactive waste management facilities. There is no requirement in the U.S. for radioactive waste incineration for volume reduction.

What is the status, including features and so on, of radioactive waste Incinerators are uncommon. Their emissions are regulated under strict environmental laws for incineration facilities currently operated in U.S.? pollutants making them costly facilities to construct when there is little market demand.

Waste generators may opt to so incinerate waste if there are overall cost savings, but it is usually not economical. Incineration is one of several thermal technologies employed by a few U.S. companies for some lowlevel radioactive waste streams that require treatment to destroy hazardous chemicals in the waste (mixed waste). The Department of Energy has no pg. 15

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article incinerators for radioactive waste and utilizes these commercial firms. EnergySolutions Inc.

operates an incinerator at its Bear Creek Processing facility in Oakridge, Tennessee. Their website is: http://www.energysolutions.com/wastemanagement/facilities/

In addition, EnergySolutions Erwin Resin Solutions Facility in Tennessee (formerly Studsvik) utilizes a Thermal Organic Reduction (THOR) process for dewatering resins (not incineration).

Their website is: http://www.energysolutions.com/wastemanagement/facilities/. PermaFix Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (DSSI) in Kingston, Tennessee has a thermal (boiler not incinerator) for liquid radioactive waste. Their website is:http://www.perma fix.com/facilities/pf_nuclear_kingston/default.aspx. Finally, the PermaFix Northwest facility in Richland, Washington operates a thermal treatment facility for mixed waste. Their website is:

http://www.permafix.com/facilities/pf_nuclear_richland/.

53 Article 32 p. 21 It was mentioned that if ownership of radioactive waste is transferred from Yes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requirements, set forth in Title 10 of the DOE to a commercial entity licensed by NRC, the waste is then subject to NRC Code of Federal Regulations 61.55, concerning classification of lowlevel waste (LLW) as Class regulation (and classification). Does it mean that DOE and NRC have different A, B or C LLW, for disposal in facilities licensed by Agreement States (or potentially NRC). Such classification of waste? licensed LLW disposal facilities primarily dispose of LLW generated by commercial entities, although certain facilities also accept waste from the Department of Energy (DOE) if the waste meets the applicable classification and waste acceptance criteria for the licensed disposal facility. DOE manages and disposes of most of the LLW for which it is responsible in existing DOE LLW disposal facilities. In accordance with DOE Order 435.1, Manual 435.11 and related guidance, DOE performs site specific performance assessments taking into account specific site characteristics to determine what waste can be safely disposed of at a DOE site. DOE LLW disposal requirements and performance objectives are comparable to those of NRC, although DOE does not use NRCs (Class A, B, or C) LLW classification approach.

54 Article 32 p. 25 In January 2013, the Administration released its Strategy for the Management The Secretary of Energy has determined that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option for a and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste. One of geologic repository due to lack of public acceptability. Any repository for spent nuclear fuel the main assumption of the Strategy is to make demonstrable progress on the and highlevel waste must be based not only on sound science but also on achieving public siting and characterization of repository sites to provide for the availability of acceptance at the local, state and tribal levels.

a geologic repository by 2048. Is there any possibility that Yucca Mountain will be that repository as referred in the Strategy?

55 Article 32 Sub About the "Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel" to be implemented by The 2014 revision of Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.23 codifies the sections the revision of 10 CFR 51.23. Could the US explains a little more the meaning Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) generic determination regarding the environmental B.3.3 of this rule, its interfase with the licensing process and license renewal and impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed life for (page 26 safety requirements sets by 10 CFR 72 for ISFSF facilities? operation and prior to ultimate disposal. NRC prepared a final generic environmental impact and 27) statement (EIS) (NUREG2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel see: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc collections/nuregs/staff/sr2157 for a detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor.

NRC concluded that elements of this evaluation were applicable generically to all sites. NRCs findings were incorporated by final rule in 10 CFR 51.23. The final rule also clarifies that the generic determination applies to license renewal for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), reactor construction permits, and early site permits. The final rule clarifies how the generic determination will be used in future NRC environmental reviews, and makes changes to improve clarity. Finally, the final rule makes conforming changes to the determinations on the environmental effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant to address issues related to the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal. NRC's licensing proceedings for nuclear reactors and ISFSIs have historically relied upon the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23 to satisfy the agency's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to the narrow area of the environmental impacts pg. 16

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article of continued storage. Environmental reviews for future reactor and spent fuel storage facility licensing actions will not separately analyze the basis for the environmental impacts of continued storage and, as discussed in 10 CFR 51.23, the impact determinations from the generic environmental impact statement are considered incorporated into these EISs.

56 Article p. 16 National policy for spent fuel management The Administrations "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and 32.1.1 (Section HighLevel Radioactive Waste" (2013) endorsed the Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas A.4.9 In January 2013, the Administration released its Strategy for the Nuclear Futures recommendation to pursue a consentbased siting process for nuclear Table A4) Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive storage and disposal facilities. The Strategy acknowledges that One of the consequences of a Waste. According to this document, the Administration plans to develop a consentbased siting process could be the need to have more than one storage facility and/or pilot interim storage facility by 2021, a consolidated (centralized) storage repository, but also states that a consolidated storage facility could be colocated with the facility by 2025, and a geological repository by 2048. pilot facility or the eventual geologic repository.

Are there any interdependencies to be taken into account during siting of these facilities, e.g. in order to minimise future spent fuel transportation all across the country?

57 Article p. 21 National policy for spent fuel management The terms used fuel and spent nuclear fuel are used interchangeably. The current U.S.

32.1.1 (Section practice is a oncethrough fuel cycle, meaning that all fuel rods are stored either in pool or dry B.2.3.1) The United States declared a moratorium on domestic spent fuel reprocessing cask storage which is planned to be followed by disposal in a deep geologic repository. Even if in 1977. The moratorium was rescinded in 1981, but commercial reprocessing a closed fuel cycle were to be adopted in the future, permanent geologic disposal will still be never resumed. Within the last few years, the Department of Energy (DOE) required for residual highlevel radioactive waste. Cost, nonproliferation, national security, has begun using the term used fuel to acknowledge that, in the future, the environmental issues, and technology limitations are some of the concerns that would need to material may have residual value through recycling, although U.S. law uses be addressed before any future decision to close the U.S. fuel cycle through the use of the term spent nuclear fuel. recycling would be made. These factors reinforce the likelihood that the oncethrough fuel Is the usage of the term used fuel in compliance with, or a consequence of, cycle will continue at least for the next few decades. This does not impede the Department of the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), e.g. in order to Energy (DOE) from pursuing actively Research and Development (R&D) on used nuclear fuel retain the future option of a closed fuel cycle? Is optional reprocessing to be recycling. There are many different ways fuel rods may be recycled and the costs depend on a seen in the light of consolidated (centralised) storage of spent fuel? number of factors. Such information is available in a study recently sponsored by DOE to conduct a systematic evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles, including those which may recycle used nuclear fuel.

58 Article p. 2526 National policy for spent fuel management Demonstrable progress is not a defined term, but the Department of Energy (DOE) is 32.1.1 (Section confident that it will be able to move forward in its initial siting approach to allow for an B.3.2.1) In January 2013, the Administration released its Strategy for the interim storage facility to take the waste from the shutdown reactors in the U.S. Subsequent Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive to that, the schedule calls for a larger consolidated storage facility to open several years later.

Waste. The document outlines a plan that makes demonstrable progress on The Administration supports an approach to system design that integrates consentbased the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability siting principles and makes progress in demonstrating the federal commitment to addressing of a geologic repository by 2048. used nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal. The terms used fuel and spent nuclear How is the term demonstrable progress defined and evaluated in practice, fuel are sometimes used interchangeably. The objective is to implement a flexible waste who has defined it, and are there any legal consequences in case of non management system incrementally in order to ensure safe and secure operations, gain trust compliance? among stakeholders, and adapt operations based on lessons learned. The Strategy is to proceed, after the enactment of new legislation, with a stepwise, adaptable consentbased process resulting in characterizing, siting, licensing and constructing a repository by 2048. A consentbased process to be effective needs to be flexible and adaptive rather than forced by rigid deadlines.

59 Article p. 89 National policy for spent fuel management Advanced and innovative recycling of used nuclear fuel is being investigated by the 32.1.1 (Section Department of Energy (DOE), and has been recognized as a topic in which DOE has an A.4.1.4) In several sections, the National Report refers to the Department of Energy important leadership role. It involves scientists, engineers, professors and students from (DOE) research and development (R&D) activities, for example: national laboratories and university partners. DOE recognizes the importance of maintaining

- on pages 89: The principal focus of DOEs R&D activities is to develop a the U.S. knowledge and expertise accumulated over the past 50 years in reprocessing suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make informed technologies. In addition, Research and Development (R&D) in advanced recycling choices about how best to manage the spent fuel from reactors. An additional pg. 17

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article objective is the demonstration of technologies necessary to allow commercial technologies promotes students education to build worldclass nuclear energy and workforce deployment of solutions for the sustainable management of spent fuel that is capability.

safe, economic, and secure.

- on pages 2728: DOE recognizes that research and development (R&D) of sustainable fuel cycles and waste management activities are important to support the expansion of nuclear energy. DOE is conducting R&D in nuclear fuel and waste management technologies that will enable a safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The longterm R&D strategy is to investigate the technical challenges in developing sustainable systems that reduce waste while improving resource utilization and safety.

- on page 106: DOE has developed and is executing a research and development (R&D) program that will address critical scientific and technical issues associated with the longterm management of used nuclear fuel. DOE is identifying alternatives and conducting scientific research and technology development to enable longterm storage, transportation, and geologic disposal of used nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes generated by existing and future nuclear fuel cycles. The research focuses on sustainable fuel cycle options and technologies that minimize waste generation, improve safety, and complement institutional measures in limiting proliferation risk. The main objective in this R&D is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. This R&D will be performed on functions in storage, transportation, and disposal in a variety of geologic environments, as well as work to better understand the potential degradation mechanisms involved in longterm dry cask storage.

Are the R&D activities solely directed to storage and disposal options, or is reprocessing also in the focus of DOE?

60 Article p. 2324 Storage of spent fuel In the event a licensee determined a canister was leaking, the method of repair would be 32.1.2 (Section determined by the licensee. The method of repair would depend on the severity of the leak B.3.1) In the most commonly used designs for dry storage, spent fuel is loaded in and consider potential doses to workers repairing the leak. The selected method of repair canisters that are subsequently placed in storage casks or vaults/bunkers. must comply with applicable safety requirements, even if costly repairs are required. Hot cells What is the repair concept for a leaking cask? Are there hot cells e.g. for cask are not required at nuclear power plants after permanent shutdown or after decommissioning repair operations available onsite after NPP permanent shutdown and during of the decommissioning of the reactor facility.

the entire storage period until transfer to a consolidated (centralised) storage facility?

61 Article p. 108 Classification of radioactive waste Lowactivity waste (LAW) does not have a statutory or regulatory definition, but generally 32.1.5 (Section means wastes that contain some residual radioactivity, including naturally occurring H.1.3) The National Report states: Although the U.S. does not have an official legal radionuclides, which can be safely disposed of in hazardous or municipal solid waste landfills.

definition in place for the low activity waste (LAW) term, licensees do have Such waste is invariably a fraction of the limits for Class A lowlevel waste (LLW) contained in the ability to manage and dispose of materials that fall into that category of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61, and is often below concentrations waste. LAW is also a term frequently used by other nations and organizations that are considered safe for unrestricted release under international standards. Although involved in radioactive waste management. One of the primary reasons LAW these materials could be disposed of in a LLW disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR part 61, if has become a focus of attention is the unusually large volumes to be a licensee so chose, disposal at another type of facility, such as a hazardous waste facility, can managed in comparison to conventional LLW from the ongoing operations of be authorized under 10 CFR 20.2002. This provision in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions nuclear facilities. Decommissioning or cleanup of contaminated sites in (NRC) regulations allows for other disposal methods, different from those already defined in particular can generate large volumes of LAW. the regulations, provided that doses are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable and What are the differences between LAW and LLW from the U.S. point of view? within the regulatory dose limits in 10 CFR part 20.

DOE has provisions for case and site specific considerations of LLW. If a case and site specific pg. 18

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article prospective dose assessment demonstrates that it would be protective, LLW maybe approved as for disposal in a hazardous or municipal landfills which have a waste acceptance criteria (WAC) permitting such disposal.

The disposal of LLW in hazardous or solid waste landfills is permitted, provided that the regulatory dose limits are met including the waste acceptance criteria at the receiving disposal facilities.

Mill tailings from extraction and concentration from uranium thorium are disposed of under a separate set of regulations.

62 Article p. 38 Processing of defence highlevel waste The schedule for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is currently the subject 32.2.3 (Section of a lawsuit in Federal court.

D.2.1) The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently building the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford site to manage defence high level waste that has been stored for decades in 177 large underground tanks.

The WTP will separate radioactive liquid waste and turn it into a stable glass form suitable for disposal. The liquid waste will be vitrified and poured into stainless steel canisters. The plant is designed to operate for 40 years. In addition to this, the Fourth National Report of the United States announced:

Design of the plant will be complete by 2013; construction is scheduled to be completed just three years later, in 2016, and startup of plant systems will begin. In 2019, all facilities and systems will be fully operational and begin the process of vitrifying tank waste.

This information has been removed from the Fifth National Report. Does that mean that there are any delays in the original time schedule? If so, what are the reasons for them? Could you please provide an updated time schedule for the different milestones mentioned in the Fourth National Report?

63 Article p. 40 Disposal The closed sites are in Agreement States and subject to those states regulatory programs.

32.2.3 (Section Postclosure activities at the four closed sites are performed in accordance with site specific D.2.2.2) It is mentioned that 4 commercial LLW disposal sites (Beatty, Maxey Flats, closure plans required by the state regulatory authorities. These typically include periodic Sheffield, and West Valley) are now closed. Could you please provide monitoring of groundwater, air, vegetation, and fauna as well as direct radiation information about the monitoring strategy/programme (or longterm measurements. If measurements were to exceed prescribed action levels, the licensee or surveillance) and the existing experiences? custodial organization would be required to take appropriate mitigating action. Postclosure activities also include periodic site maintenance and maintenance of physical access controls.

Site specific information can be obtained by contacting state regulatory authorities. Beatty, NV Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance, Radiation Control Program, http://health.nv.gov/HCQC_Radiological.htm Maxey Flats, KY Cabinet for health and Family Services, Radiation Health Programs, http://www.chfs.ky.gov/dph/radiation.htm Sheffield. Il Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Division of Nuclear Safety http://www.iema.illinois.gov West Valley, NY New York State Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Investigations http://www.nyhealth.gov/radiation.

64 Article 4 A.4.2.3 What is the situation to ensure adequate capacities for LLW disposal? With the opening of the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facility in 2012, and the willingness of Whether creation of new LLW RAW disposal facilities (A.4.2.3) resolves the the Texas LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission to accept outof problem concerned with capacities lack for LLW disposal that has been compact waste (the Texas Compact includes the states of Texas and Vermont), the availability discussed in the IVth Report? of disposal capacity for waste generators throughout all of the U.S. has improved considerably.

However, such availability is always subject to change based on circumstances within the states that control access. There are no new sites anticipated in the foreseeable future.

pg. 19

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article 65 Article 4 F.7.2, 94 Section F.7.2 describes that although some operators of a LLW incinerator The regulation for incineration is under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) acquires NRC's license, most of incinerations are performed by small number 20.1302(c) and 10 CFR 20.2002. The licensee is authorized to dispose of licensed material by of commercial incinerators. incineration, provided the gaseous effluent from incineration does not exceed the limits Then, what is the regulatory requirements on the waste acceptance criteria specified for air in Appendix B, Table II, 10 CFR part 20. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002, the of these radioactive waste incineration facilities? license may dispose of incinerator ash containing hydrogen3 and carbon14 as ordinary waste Especially, if there is a nuclide specific limit, please explain it. in a landfill, provided the concentrations of the isotopes, expressed in microcuries per gram of ash, at the time of disposal, do not exceed 10 percent of the values listed in Table II, Column 2, 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B. If more than one radionuclide is present in the ash, then the sum of fractions rule applies (10 CFR 20.2003).

66 Article 4 F.7.2, p93 The waste minimization of USA is introduced in F.7.2. The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) May 2012 policy statement on lowlevel waste Is there a suggested quantitative value for waste minimization for the US (LLW) management and waste volume reduction can be found at NPP? (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/commission/policy/). It reiterates the Please introduce LLW disposal price charged by the operator of the desirability of such reduction to conserve disposal capacity and to reduce the overall cost of commercial disposal facility and the influence of waste disposal price to waste disposal. However, there is no quantitative value for such reduction suggested. In the U.S., the minimization of the US NPP. rising unit cost of disposal has had some impact on overall volume reduction. Unit disposal costs for various classes of LLW vary from site to site. Costs are based on complex formulae that account for package weight, volume, overall radioactivity, waste classification, and surface contamination, difficulty in handling as well as various state and local surcharges.

Because of LLW compact constraints, waste generators often have no choice of disposal site regardless of cost if the state in which the generator is located is a member of a regional compact that has a disposal facility. This is a major reason that generators try to minimize the amount of radioactive waste that requires disposal.

67 Article 4 G, 103 What are the expected radiological impacts from operation of spent fuel dry There are no expected radiological impacts from operation of an independent spent fuel storage facilities? What is the dose constraint for the public during operation storage installation. The dose limits for operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage of dry storage facilities? Installations (ISFSIs) are in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and ReactorRelated Greater than Class C Waste. The dose limits for normal operation and anticipated occurrences (in 10 CFR 72.104, Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS) limit the annual dose equivalent to any individual who is located beyond the controlled area to 0.25 mSv to the whole body, 0.75 mSv to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to: (1) Planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its decay products excepted, to the general environment, (2) Direct radiation from ISFSI or Monitored Retrievable Storage(MRS) operations, and (3) Any other radiation from uranium fuel cycle operations within the region.

The dose limits in 10 CFR 72.106, Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS state that a person at or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv, or the sum of the deepdose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv. The lens dose equivalent may not exceed 0.15 Sv and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or any extremity may not exceed 0.5 Sv.

68 Article 4 G.1, p103 It is mentioned that no new specific licenses for ISFSIs have been issued in the The difference between a general and specific license is in who can obtain each type of license.

past three years; however, there are nine general licensees authorized for Nuclear power reactor licensees can pursue either a sitespecific or general license for an storing spent fuel in dry casks at current or former NPPsites in B.3.1 and that independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). ISFSIs not located at a nuclear power plant a general license to store spent fuel at an ISFSI is automatically granted to any must be approved via sitespecific licensing. The technical requirements for the two types of nuclear power plant licensee that has a license in G.1, ISFSIs are the same but the licensing process is different. The regulations for the two types of What is the difference between a specific license and a general license for ISFSIs can be found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 72, Licensing ISFSI? Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, HighLevel Radioactive What are the specific technical requirements and licensing procedures of the Waste, and ReactorRelated Greater than Class C Waste. NRCs review criteria for a general two kinds of licenses? license and site specific license can be found in NUREG1536, Standard Review Plan for Dry pg. 20

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article Should the safety analyses report for ISFSI be submitted when the Cask Storage Systems see: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc construction license of NPP is applied? collections/nuregs/staff/sr1536/ and NUREG1567, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities, see: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1567/

respectively. At a very highlevel, the ISFSI must be designed to ensure that, during normal operations and after any potential accident or natural phenomena: offsite doses (due to direct dose and effluents) do not exceed the limits in NRC regulations (10 CFR 72.104 and 72.106, Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or

[Monitored Retrievable Storage] MRS and Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS, respectively);

the spent fuel remains subcritical; and the temperatures of ISFSI components, including the spent fuel remain below material temperature limits, unless those components are not considered in evaluating offsite doses or criticality safety. An applicant for a sitespecific ISFSI license must describe in detail all aspects of the planned ISFSI, the site description, the storage system design and operations, and the ongoing controls and programs that will be in place to assure safe operations. An opportunity for a public hearing is part of the licensing process for sitespecific licenses. When NRC issues a sitespecific license, that license includes conditions and technical specifications that identify specific requirements for the design and operation of that ISFSI. A general license to construct and operate an ISFSI is automatically conveyed to all holders of an NRC power reactor license. This general license allows a plant to use a currently certified dry cask storage system listed in 10 CFR 72.214, List of approved spent fuel storage casks without submitting another application to NRC. The reactor licensee must perform and document evaluations to confirm that their site, fuel characteristics, and programs are all bounded by the analyses approved by NRC for the certified dry cask storage system it has chosen to use. A public hearing is not part of the general license process, however, the public is able to comment through the rulemaking process which considers approving new or amended dry cask storage system, and therefore adding them to the list of approved spent fuel storage cask systems in 10 CFR 72.214. The Safety Analysis Report for the ISFSI should not be submitted at the same time as the construction license, since dry storage technology continues to evolve over time and dry storage is not needed until many years after the reactor has been operating.

69 Article 5 G.2 What are the requirements established for monitoring and inspection of SNF Monitoring and inspection requirements for spent fuel in longterm dry storage facilities is stored in longterm dry storage facilities (schedule, its methods and tools established and implemented through the licensees aging management plan (AMP) that is provided)? developed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during the license renewal process. NRC may renew an independent spent fuel storage installation license or dry cask storage certificate of compliance for a term not to exceed 40 years as specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 72.42, 72.240, Duration of license; renewal, and Conditions for spent fuel storage cask renewal, respectively. The requirements for renewal include demonstration that degradation will be addressed by either (1) analyses or calculations to show that aging effects will not result in a loss of intended function of an importantto safety system, or (2) implementation of aging management programs (AMPs) that will manage issues associated with aging of these systems. AMPs consist of condition monitoring, performance monitoring, mitigation or other prevention activities for each importanttosafety system, upon consideration of its material of construction and service environment.

Therefore, the inspection and monitoring requirements, including method or technique, frequency of inspections, and acceptance criteria are determined by the specific aging mechanism causing the degradation, as well as accessibility and occupational dose constraints for the system. NUREG1927, Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance, (http://www.nrc.gov/reading rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1927/) provides guidance on the essential elements of an AMP; however, it does not identify specific inspection frequencies, methods, etc. These AMP pg. 21

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article details are proposed by applicants and evaluated by NRC on a casebycase basis. For instance, NRC has evaluated AMPs for reinforced concrete structures against the requirements of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) standard 349.3R. The standard requires visual inspections of accessible abovegrade areas of the concrete structure at a minimum interval of 5 years, and belowgrade areas at a minimum of 10 years. Additional requirements include the monitoring of groundwater near the storage installation for the presence of aggressive chemicals. Welded stainless steel canisters have been required to be inspected on 5 year intervals for corrosion products that may be indicators of localized corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. The inspection may involve the use of visual testing per requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section V, followed by surface and/or volumetric inspection techniques consistent with the requirements of ASME B&PV Code Section XI. A storage installation may also perform periodic radiation monitoring at the controlled area of the installation to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements for direct radiation and radioactive materials in effluents.

70 Article 6 F9.3, page What is the status of the Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently laying the groundwork for implementing interim 97 Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste and the progress through storage, including associated transportation, per the Administrations Strategy for the Congress? Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste. The intent is to make progress on this important national issue within existing legislative and budgetary authorizations. The objectives are to develop and begin implementation of an integrated plan to (1) implement interim storage; (2) improve the overall integration of storage as a planned part of the waste management system; (3) prepare for the largescale transportation of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel radioactive waste, with an initial focus on removing spent fuel from the shutdown reactor sites; and (4) develop foundational information, resources, and capabilities needed to support these objectives and future implementation decisions and actions. Full implementation of the Strategy will require legislation.

71 Article 6 Section Could you please elaborate in what way this can change the existing Currently, the Department of Energy (DOE) is laying the groundwork for implementing interim F9.3, page procedure of public and stakeholder involvement? At which stages storage of spent fuel, including associated transportation, per the Administrations Strategy 97 throughout the implementation of storage facilities and repository projects for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste.

consultations with local public and public hearings will be held and whether DOE is working to engage stakeholders in the early planning stages. To be successful, a the local communities will have the veto right? consent based process should not be prescriptive but rather adaptive. The process should result in an informed deliberation leading to consent by affected State, Tribes and the local COMMENT: The Report says that: The Administrations Strategy for the community to hosting a storage or disposal facility. The Administration has committed to work Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive closely with Congress to develop a path forward that maximizes the likelihood of success.

Waste embraced the core findings of the BRC and affirmed that any workable solution for the final disposition of used fuel and nuclear waste must be based not only on sound science, but also on achieving public acceptance at the local, state and Tribal levels.

72 Article 7 p. 98 Design of facilities The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has recently issued a draft white paper on the (Section applicability of Fukushima lessons learned to facilities other than power reactors. (These F.10) Could the United States please provide information which lessons learned lessons learned are summarized in 12 recommendations, which included consideration of from the Fukushima accident have been considered in the design of new beyond design basis events). The paper is publicly available and can be found in NRCs facilities for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, e.g. with Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No.

respect to beyond design basis accidents? ML15042A367. NRC staff did not find safety concerns associated with the designs of spent fuel storage systems.

73 General 54 When is EPAs next five year review of WIPP? How are the 2014 incidents at The Department of Energy (DOE) submitted its third Compliance Recertification Application WIPP expected to affect that review of compliance, if at all? (CRA) in March 2014, shortly after the two incidents in February. The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) initial review of the CRA for completeness was delayed by the February incidents. EPA has indicated its expectation that DOE will provide additional pg. 22

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article information describing how it plans to address the February 2014 incidents in order to reopen the facility (e.g., through facility modifications). Once the application is deemed to be complete, EPA has six months to approve or deny the application. EPA is reviewing technical aspects of the CRA that are not expected to be affected by the incidents, and has already communicated with DOE on some of these issues. More information on EPAs CRA review can be found at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp 74 General A.3.4, 6 NRC is also evaluating the applicability of lessons learned from the Fukushima The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently issued a draft white paper on the and Article event. These lessons will be reflected in such areas as emergency applicability of Fukushima lessons learned to facilities other than power reactors, including 25 F.5.3, preparedness and response. Does this evaluation comprises also safety Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs). These lessons learned are summarized in 87 aspects of ISFS (e. g. consideration of new / updated external hazards)? 12 recommendations, which include consideration of beyond design basis events. The paper is publicly available and can be found in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML15042A367. NRC found that the existing regulatory framework ensures safe and secure storage designs for radioactive material licensed by NRC.

Further, NRC determined that no regulatory action was necessary. The NRCs regulations require evaluating natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes and tornadoes) as part of an application.

75 General A.4.1.2, About Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Program, after the decision by United The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff completed its safety evaluation report of the Para.1, p8 States District Court in August 2013, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Energys (DOEs) Yucca Mountain application in January 2015. The safety (NRC) decided to complete the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the evaluation report (SER) represents the technical review of the information provided by DOE, application submitted in November 2013. NRC is currently conducting the and NRCs staff determination as to whether the NRCs regulations for a geologic repository safety assessment on the application and preparation the necessary safety have been met. The report also includes the recommendation that NRC should not authorize assessment report. construction of the repository because DOE has not met certain land and water rights Does it mean that it is possible for the Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Program requirements identified in Volume 4 of the SER, published in December 2014, and because a license application to pass the NRC's review in the near future? Would the supplement to DOEs environmental impact statement has not yet been completed. The full Yucca Mountain project be pushed forwards once again? And would the safety evaluation report is available as NUREG1949, Safety Evaluation Report Related to related activities continue? Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Volumes 15, on NRC website, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/. Completion of the safety evaluation report does not represent NRCs decision on whether to authorize construction. A final licensing decision, should funds beyond those currently available be appropriated, could come only after completion of a supplement to the DOEs environmental impact statement, hearings on contentions in the adjudication, and NRCs review. In a March 12, 2015 Federal Register Notice, NRC staff provided notice of its intent to complete a supplement to DOEs environmental impact statement. The Administration has determined that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option as a geologic repository.

76 General A.4.1.4, COMMENT: It is mentioned in A.4.1.4 that DOE is searching the technical gaps The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates storage of spent fuel in dry storage p8p9 related to extended storage of spent fuel. systems under both sitespecific and general licenses, at a facility referred to as an Please introduce the main viewpoints and considerations of US NRC on the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Under a sitespecific license, the ISFSI extended storage of spent fuel. design and operation must meet regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Please introduce the requirements of US NRC to the long term storage of (CFR) part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, spent fuel. HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and ReactorRelated Greater than Class C Waste. The licenses are for terms of up to 40 years, and can be renewed for additional terms. A general license for an ISFSI allows a nuclear power plant licensee to operate an ISFSI using casks certified under 10 CFR part 72. The cask certificates of compliance are issued for terms of up to 40 years, and can be renewed. At present, dry storage ISFSIs in the U.S. are operating under their initial term or first renewal. NRC is currently evaluating what potential changes, if any, are needed to its regulations to address more extended periods of storage. As part of this evaluation, NRC issued a report in May, 2014, entitled Identification and Prioritization of the Technical Information Needs Affecting Potential Regulation of Extended Storage and Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel (available in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management pg. 23

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML14043A423). This report identified several areas for further investigation, including potential stress corrosion cracking), pitting, and crevice corrosion of stainless steel canister body and welds, and possible swelling of fuel pellets and fuel rod pressurization. In addition, the report prioritized additional study of more realistic thermal calculation methods, effects of residual moisture after drying, and inservice monitoring methods for storage systems and components. The U.S. has been storing spent nuclear fuel longer than originally envisioned, and as time has gone by, higher burn up fuels has also increased. In an effort to provide insights on some technical considerations of storage of these high burnup fuels, DOE has performed technical gap analyses to evaluate any issues with the cask and fuel systems storing the fuel. The DOE Gap Analysis, Gap Analysis To Support Extended Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel (http://energy.gov/ne/downloads/gap analysissupportextendedstorageusednuclearfuel0) In addition to the work performed by DOE to evaluate technical information gaps, other organizations such as NRC, Electric Power Research Institute, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and Extended Storage Collaboration Project have performed evaluations of the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuels.

DOE analyzed these other documents to evaluate the similarities and differences as they relate to the DOE Gap Analysis, Review of Used Nuclear Fuel Storage And Transportation Technical Gap Analysis (http://energy.gov/ne/downloads/reviewusednuclearfuelstorageand transportationtechnicalgapanalysis) 77 General A.4.2.1, It is mentioned in A.4.2.1 that US NRC had required disposal facilities to The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing revisions to Title 10 of the Code of Para 6, conduct a sitespecific performance assessment for disposal of LLW. Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61. The proposed rule was published on March 26th, 2015, and p10 Please introduce how to conduct this assessment, what the results of this can be found in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at assessment are and how to establish a connection between the results of this Accession No. ML14289A152. The regulation, if approved, would specify the requirements for assessment and the licencing of the disposal facility. an acceptable sitespecific performance assessment (PA). NRC is also proposing guidance with the rule that, when combined with existing guidance, would provide acceptable methods for demonstrating that the PA requirements in the revised rule are met. The results of the site specific PA would need to provide reasonable assurance that the performance objectives are met in order to support issuance of a license. Under the revised provisions, a disposal facility licensee, with NRC, or NRC Agreement State approval, could develop sitespecific waste acceptance criteria from the results of the sitespecific PA.

78 General A3.4 The USA has reported on improvements required to be made to the storage No, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not identified improvements to dry storage of spent fuel in ponds following analysis of the Fukushima accident (section facilities of spent fuel. In 2015, NRC determined that the current regulatory framework A.3.4). Has the USA made any recommendations regarding the dry storage of ensures that the designs for storing radioactive material licensed by NRC are safe and secure.

spent fuel? The NRC staffs assessment can be found in a white paper on the lessons learned from Fukushima for facilities other than power reactors. The paper is publicly available and can be found in NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML15042A367 (http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/view?AccessionNumber=ML15042A367).

79 General A4.1.4/ K.5 What kinds of ageing phenomena are considered in keeping spent fuels The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 11, Revision 3, Cladding p8 (particularly high burnup fuel) in interim storage, and how are such Considerations for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Fuel, (see www.nrc.gov/reading p9/p131 phenomena controlled? In this connection, are restrictive temperatures, etc. rm/doccollections/isg/isg11R3.pdf) discusses the expected effects of creep and radial prescribed for contained spent fuels, and if so, how have such limits been hydrides as aging phenomena for both high and low burnup fuel in interim storage. ISG 11, established? Revision 3 also provides guidance to the staff on maximum cladding temperatures and stresses that result in acceptable operational considerations when loading spent fuel into storage casks and transportation packages. ISG 11, Revision 3 provides that for all fuel burnups (low and high), the maximum calculated fuel cladding temperature should not exceed 400°C (752°F) for normal conditions of storage and shortterm loading operations (e.g., drying, backfilling with inert gas, and transfer of the cask to the storage pad). For offnormal and accident conditions, the maximum cladding temperature should not exceed 570°C (1058°F). ISG 11, Revision 3, pg. 24

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article identified creep deformation as the most likely mechanism for cladding breach in storage and hydride reorientation as potentially having a significant effect on cladding behavior during accidents. The temperature and stress provisions in ISG 11, Revision 3, were also found to limit creep. Based on the data available at that time, it was also determined that these temperatures and stresses would prevent hydride reorientation from occurring. However, subsequent research has shown that hydrides may still reorient radially even if the temperatures and stresses indicated in ISG 11, Revision 3, are not exceeded. Radial hydrides can represent an additional embrittlement mechanism if the cladding temperature decreases below a ductiletobrittle transition temperature and the rods are subjected to significant stresses. Mechanical properties that account for the extent of radial hydride precipitation and the ductiletobrittle transition temperature are important for the evaluation of cladding performance.

80 General A4.5, page What is the current status of WIPP? The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) suspended operations on February 5, 2014, following a 12 fire involving an underground vehicle. Nine days later, on February 14, 2014, a radiological event occurred underground, contaminating a portion of the mine primarily along the ventilation path from the location of the incident, releasing a small amount of contamination into the environment. The Department of Energy (DOE) appointed an Accident Investigation Board (AIB), which conducted and completed an investigation of the underground fire. AIB published their report on March 13, 2014. Similarly, DOE appointed a second AIB to determine the cause of the February 14 radiological release and to develop recommendations for corrective actions. This second AIB is using a twophased approach. Phase 1 focused on the response to the radioactive material release, including related exposure to aboveground workers and the response actions. The Phase 1 Report was issued on April 24, 2014. The Report is available at http://www.wipp.energy.gov/Special/AIB_Final_WIPP_Rad_Release_Phase1_04_22_2014.pdf.

Phase 2 of the investigation is focused on the root and contributing causes of the radiological release. The AIB will provide its findings when the investigation is complete. In addition, DOE created a Technical Assessment Team (TAT), which is an independent team made up of technical experts from national laboratories, to evaluate the mechanisms and chemical reactions contributing to the failure of a waste drum at WIPP. In its report, the TAT concluded that one drum, Drum 68660, was the source of radioactive contamination released during the February 14, 2014, radiological event at WIPP. The TAT Report was issued on March 17, 2015.

The Report is available at: http://energy.gov/em/wasteisolationpilotplantwipprecovery.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Recovery Plan outlines the proposed strategy, key activities, and management approach to safely return WIPP to its Congressionallymandated mission of defensegenerated transuranic waste disposal operations. Ongoing and future actions include:

decontamination activities; implementation of recovery corrective actions; safety management program improvements; Documented Safety Analysis Revision; underground stabilization activities; interim closure of the affected emplacement panels; continuing radiological surveys; cleaning, maintenance and upgrading of underground equipment and infrastructure; ventilation upgrades, and activities to ensure protection to the environment.

81 General B4, 28 The registration and review completed as part of REACH classifies Boric Acid In the U.S. hazardous materials are required to be treated to reduce the hazard prior to (CAS 10043353/11113501) as H360FD (May damage fertility. May damage disposal. If the waste is being disposed in a lowlevel waste (LLW) disposal facility, any the unborn child.) contaminated boric acid would need to be properly treated "...to reduce to the maximum How is this fact reflected in Radioactive Waste Management Practices? extent practicable the potential hazard from the nonradiological materials." (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 61.56(a)(8)). The same part of the regulations requires limiting the liquid or gaseous form of the waste.

82 General F7.1 p92 Is the concept of Gdcredit taken into account in criticality analyses in USA? To date, no applicants have requested gadolinium (Gd) credit in its criticality analyses. The U.S. has not provided any guidance for Gd credit in criticality analyses for the storage of spent pg. 25

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation. If any applicants wanted to claim credit for Gd in its criticality analyses NRC would review the request on a casebycase basis.

83 General General Can the USA describe any measures it has taken to integrate safety and In the U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spent fuel regulations for the safety of security in spent fuel management, as per the Presidents report from the spent fuel pool storage at commercial nuclear power plants are contained in Title 10 of the previous review? Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) part 50 (Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities), and safety requirements for dry spent fuel storage and spent fuel pool storage not colocated at a nuclear power plant are in 10 CFR part 72 (Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and Reactor Related Greater than Class C Waste). Security regulations for these facilities are in 10 CFR part 73 (Physical Protection of Plants and Materials). These regulations work in an integrated fashion to ensure the safety and security of spent fuel management.

84 General p. 13 Section A.4.5 reports incidents in WIPP which have taken place in 2014. Were Two offnormal incidents at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) were investigated by the there any incidents during the reporting period of 20112013? Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as described below. On December 7, 2011, EPA received a report that waste had been received at WIPP with external surface contamination on the payload inside the shipping container. Further investigation and laboratory analysis supported the hypothesis that the contamination resulted from the decay of radon progeny, and that no loss of containment had occurred. The payload was cleared by WIPP Radiation Control. On June 20, 2012, EPA was notified that a drum had been punctured by a forklift in the underground on the previous day (Panel 6, Room 5). The drum was a 100gallon container holding supercompacted pucks from the Idaho National Lab at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project. The incident was immediately reported, the facility shifted into filtration mode, and no release was detected.

WIPP provided a written summary to EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department on June 21, 2012 (see http://www.epa.gov/radiation/news/wippnews.html#punc_drum2 for a description of the incident).

85 General Page 7 / As explained in the report, recently the USA is following the approach of The U.S. Administrations "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel A.4.1.1 Continued Storage of SF and its direct disposal at a HighLevel Waste Disposal and HighLevel Radioactive Waste" endorses many of the recommendations of the Blue Facility. We would appreciate very much any additional information on the Ribbon Commission (BRC) on Americas Nuclear Future including a consent based approach to reasons to select such a strategy and its advantages in comparison with the siting future nuclear waste management facilities, and prompt efforts to develop one or more reprocessing option. consolidated storage facilities while making progress on a geologic disposal facility. Full implementation of this Strategy will require legislation. The Department of Energy (DOE) is undertaking activities within existing Congressional authorization to plan for the eventual transportation, storage, and disposal of used nuclear fuel.

As noted in the Strategy, the BRC concluded that it is premature at this point for the U.S. to commit irreversibly to any particular fuel cycle as a matter of government policy and pointed out that it is very likely that disposal will be needed to safely manage at least some portion of the existing commercial [used nuclear fuel] inventory. Even if a closed fuel cycle were to be adopted in the future, permanent geologic disposal will still be required for residual highlevel radioactive waste. Cost, nonproliferation, national security, environmental concerns, and technology limitations are some of the concerns that would need to be addressed before any future decision to close the U.S. fuel cycle through the use of recycling would be made. These factors reinforce the likelihood that the oncethrough fuel cycle will continue at least for the next few decades. Nevertheless, consistent with past practice and the BRCs recommendations, DOE will continue to conduct research on advanced fuel cycles to inform decisions on new technologies that may contribute to meeting the USs future energy demands while supporting nonproliferation and used nuclear fuel and highlevel radioactive waste management objectives.

pg. 26

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article The 2014 revision of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.23 codifies the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) generic determination regarding the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed life for operation and prior to ultimate disposal. NRC prepared a final generic environmental impact statement (EIS) (NUREG2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc collections/nuregs/staff/sr2157/) which provides a detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor, the conclusions of which were incorporated in this final rule. The Commission found that this evaluation was applicable generically. The final rule also clarifies that the generic determination applies to license renewal for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), reactor construction permits, and early site permits. The final rule clarifies how the generic determination will be used in future, specific NRC environmental reviews, and makes changes to improve clarity. Finally, the final rule makes conforming amendments to the determinations on the environmental effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant to address issues related to the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal. NRC's licensing proceedings for nuclear reactors and ISFSIs have historically relied upon the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23 to satisfy the agency's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to the narrow area of the environmental impacts of continued storage based upon the NRCs generic determination of those impacts. EISs for future reactor and spentfuelstorage facility licensing actions will not separately analyze the basis for the environmental impacts of continued storage, and as discussed in 10 CFR 51.23, the impact determinations from the generic environmental impact statement are incorporated into these specific EISs or other environmental evaluations.

86 General Page 8 / A The report states that of DOEs R&D activities is to develop a suite of options The Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a preliminary analysis in 2014 of options to 4.1.4 that will enable future decision makers to make informed choices about how disposition U.S. surplus, weapongrade plutonium, which documented that the current Mixed best to manage the spent fuel from reactors. An additional objective is the Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication approach is significantly more expensive than anticipated. An demonstration of technologies necessary to allow commercial deployment of independent assessment of DOE's preliminary analysis is ongoing.

solutions for the sustainable management of spent fuel that is safe, economic, and secure. Could USA provide some information about achievements and challenges on the recent developments of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility project.

87 General Section According to your estimates when the waste emplacement operations can be The Department of Energy's goal is for initial waste emplacement operations to resume early A4.5, page resumed? in calendar year 2016. Full return to normal operations is expected to take several years.

13 COMMENT: The Report indicates that two events occurred in February 2014 temporarily impacting the ability to dispose of TRU wastes at WIPP.

88 General Section What progress has been made towards the implementation of this The Administrations Strategy envisions a new waste management and disposal organization K.1, page recommendation? (MDO) to provide stability, focus, and credibility to build public trust and confidence. The MDO 129 would be charged with the management and disposal of commercial used nuclear fuel and the COMMENT: The Report states that: The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on associated interface with possessors and operators. Pending enactment of new legislation to Americas Nuclear Future provided recommendations for developing a safe, establish the MDO, DOE has responsibility for implementing the Strategy within existing longterm solution to managing the Nation's used nuclear fuel and nuclear authorizations. DOE will take necessary steps to advance the program while taking every waste. The BRCs final report of January 2012 contained a recommendation precaution to avoid compromising the later ability of the newlyestablished MDO to succeed.

concerning the establishment of a new organization dedicated solely to At this time, no legislation has been enacted to create such an organization.

implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.

pg. 27

Id IAEA Reference Question/Comment Answer Article 89 General Section What are the key points to be included in such legislation and has some Action by U.S. Congress in the form of new authorizing legislation and appropriations is K.1, page progress been made already in developing the new legislation? necessary to fully implement the Administrations Strategy. As stated in the Strategy, critical 129 elements for successful implementation include the establishment of a consentbased siting COMMENT: The Report states that: The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on process, a new organization to execute the waste management mission and implementation Americas Nuclear Future provided recommendations for developing a safe, of a process for longterm stable funding. A bipartisan Senate bill introduced in 2014 was not longterm solution to managing the Nation's used nuclear fuel and nuclear enacted.

waste. Legislation is needed for full implementation of the Administrations strategy.

90 Planned 25 and Please provide a status update on the siting process for the pilot interim used The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently laying the groundwork for implementing interim Activities 129 fuel storage facility. Specifically: storage, including associated transportation, per the Administrations Strategy for the How many sites are being considered? Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste. There are What investigations have been conducted (geological and other wise)? currently no active site investigations being conducted. DOE is conducting generic planning Have any permitting or licensing processes begun? with program stakeholders, but has not identified any specific sites for consideration.

91 Planned 38 As referenced to in section D.2.1 of the 5th national report (NR), the fourth The schedule for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant is currently the subject of a Activities NR provides additional information the on the Hanford liquid waste lawsuit in Federal court.

treatment plant; specifically, the schedule indicated that the design and construction of the Hanford liquid waste treatment plant would be complete by 2013 and 2016 respectively. Please provide a status update on the design and construction.

92 Planned p. 136, There are the same licensee and regulator (e.g. DOE) in some installations. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) each have Activities 145, 146 How is it possible? responsibilities to regulate nuclear materials under U.S. law. NRC generally has licensing and regulatory authority over commercial licensees, but NRC generally does not have licensing authority over DOE facilities and activities, except as specifically provided in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (e.g., for a DOE Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation). DOE exercises regulatory authority over DOE activities not subject to licensing by NRC in accordance with DOE regulations, Orders and guidance, in a manner which is protective of human health, safety, and the environment.

93 Planned Subsection Item K.1 refers the Administration plans for the spent fuel management The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently laying the groundwork for implementing interim Activities K.1 page which include the licensing, construction and operation of a pilot interin storage, including associated transportation, per the Administrations "Strategy for the 129 storage facility by 2021, a lager interim storage to be available by 2015, Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste." Full beside the process on siting and characterisation of sites to facilitate the implementation of the Strategy will require legislation.

availability of a geologic repository by 2049. Could the US provide information on the on going specific developments for the implementation of each of the mentioned solutions in particular of those regarding the storage facilities?

pg. 28