ML22157A060
| ML22157A060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/2022 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Ryan Whited, 301-415-1154 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML22157A060 (79) | |
Text
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 1 A.3.1.1, p. 8 In the introductory paragraph, it is In 2021, Congress appropriated funds to the Department of Energy (DOE) for interim declared that The Presidents storage activities. Congress has recommended that DOE move forward under existing Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget authority to identify potential sites for Federal interim storage facilities using a consent-requests appropriations from the based siting process.
Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), which would prioritize the development and implementation of an interim storage program for nuclear waste. Are you expecting any significant changes in development of nuclear waste management programs under new president's administration?
2 F.5 In light of the pandemic situation Licensees are required to conduct a full-scale emergency preparedness exercise of both what measures have been taken the onsite and offsite emergency response plans once every two calendar years to assure emergency exercises? (biennial) per Appendix E.IV.F.2 of Title 10 CFR Part 50. If a licensee is unable to conduct Where these exercises postponed the onsite or offsite portions of an exercise, or both, due to the public health emergency, or other arrangements have been then it would need to submit a request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for taken by the licensee and approval of a temporary exemption to either conduct the exercise(s) in the following approved by the competent year, or to temporarily not perform the exercise(s). In 2006, NRC issued RIS-2006-03 authorities? (The document can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS], under ML053390039.), which provides guidance on how to request an exemption from the biennial emergency preparedness exercise requirements.
On March 27, 2020, NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a joint memorandum (which can be found at NRCs ADAMS, under ML20085F705), which provides guidance to NRC and FEMA Regional staff on exercise postponement. On May 14, 2020, NRC issued a letter to industry (which can be found at NRCs ADAMS, under ML20120A003), which provides guidance for licensees to request exemptions from the biennial emergency plan exercise requirements, due to the Coronavirus-2019 pandemic, on an expedited basis. Since September 2020, NRC has issued 28 exemptions for power reactor licensees, 2 exemptions for research and test reactor licensees, and 5 exemptions for fuel cycle licensees for deferral of biennial emergency plan exercises. Additionally, NRC issued four license amendments to fuel Page 1 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer cycle licensees for deferral of emergency plan requirements (e.g., training drill frequencies, surveillances).
3 F.4.2, p. 79 Are exposed workers/radiation No, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations classify workers in nuclear workers in your country facilities according to the type of NRC-licensed facility where they work, rather than on categorized based on expected the "expected" dose or dose limits. The regulations at 10 CFR 20.2206 identify seven effective/equivalent doses? categories of licenses for which the reporting of annual occupational doses for workers is required. These categories are: (1) commercial nuclear power reactors and test reactor facilities; (2) industrial radiographers; (3) fuel processors (including uranium enrichment facilities), fabricators, and reprocessors; (4) facilities manufacturing and/or distributing byproduct material; (5) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations; (6) facilities for land disposal of low-level waste; and (7) geologic repositories for high-level waste. At this time, there are four low-level waste disposal facilities licensed in the U.S. by Agreement States. These facilities are subject to similar requirements that would be imposed if they had been licensed by NRC. NRC has not currently licensed any low-level waste disposal facilities or geologic repositories for high-level waste.
4 F.4.2, p. 79 What is the criterion for As discussed in the Answer to Question 3, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) categorization or classification of regulations classify workers in nuclear facilities according to the type of NRC-licensed workers? facility where they work, rather than by the "expected" dose or NRC's dose limits.
Workers are categorized by certain licensee types for reporting of annual occupational doses per 10 CFR 20.2206.
5 F.4.2, p. 79 What is the dose limit for The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at 10 CFR 20.1208, Dose pregnant and breastfeeding equivalent to an embryo/fetus, provide the dose limit of 5.0 mSv for declared pregnant female exposed workers/radiation workers during the gestation period. There is no specific dose limit for breastfeeding workers? females.
6 F.4.2, p. 79 Is there a database of exposed Yes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires reporting of annual occupational workers and their doses (national doses for the seven categories of NRC's licensees identified in the Answer to Question 3.
register of doses)? The reported information is compiled in NRC's Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System which can be found at: http://www.reirs.com and provides additional information.
7 A.3.1.1, p. 8 What is timetable of prolonged For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy study of deep central spend fuel for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory repository? Could be obtained Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory knowledge of Yucca Mountain proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. Site applied on any other locality? characterization data for Yucca Mountain are site specific. While some of the methods, processes, and scientific practices might be applied to other sites, many of them would Page 2 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer not be applicable to other proposed sites at another location because of differences in the local geology and environmental features.
8 A.3.7.3, p. If we understand this correctly, it In the temporary license transfer model, the licensee that operated the reactor retains 17 is not necessary to transfer land in ownership of the land. However, in those cases, the decommissioning company is the case of model No 3 (the responsible for such things as decontaminating the land and controlling access to the temporary license transfer to a land until the license is transferred back to the licensee that operated the reactor. In the decommissioning company), as in case of permanent license transfer, the ownership of the land and other assets are the case of model No 4 (the transferred to the decommissioning company, which completes decommissioning and permanent license transfer)? Does ultimately requests license termination. Additional information on the Nuclear this mean that the associated land Regulatory Commission's requirements for license transfers and mergers can be found is not part of the transfer for at: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/license-transfers-mergers.html.
decommissioning purposes? In the case of model No 4, is the transfer of ownership of the land permanent?
9 F.6.1, p. 96 Could you explain to us the main In this context, the words "non-routine" and "complex" refer to materials sites in which differences between routine the complexity of the decommissioning process will require more than minimal technical decommissioning sites and non- and administrative support. Decommissioning of materials licenses, such as academic, routine decommissioning sites? medical, and industrial licenses, usually require minimal technical and administrative support and are routine. As described in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's)
Status of the Decommissioning Program 2020 Annual Report, it is expected that complex materials sites will require more than a year to complete the decommissioning process.
Examples of complex materials sites include sites with groundwater contamination, sites containing significant soil contamination, sites in which the owners are in bankruptcy, any site where a decommissioning plan is required, all fuel cycle facilities undergoing decommissioning, and sites where either the public or a government body has expressed significant interest. The Status of the Decommissioning Program 2020 Annual Report is available at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under ML20259A507.
10 D.2.1, p. 40 What types of methods for Treatment of waste concentrates depends on the specific waste stream. Waste from treatment of radioactive liquid nuclear power plant water conditioning is very different from the Department of Energy concentrates are currently used? (DOE) legacy waste in tanks, that is managed as high-level waste. Depending on the waste stream, treatment of the latter has involved large chemical processing facilities.
For example, at DOEs Savannah River Site, the Salt Waste Processing Facility for tank waste separates and concentrates cesium, strontium, actinides, and waste slurry from Page 3 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer the less radioactive salt solution. The concentrated solution is sent to the Defense Waste Processing Facility, a vitrification facility, where it is turned into glass and poured into canisters for eventual disposal.
11 D.2.1, p. 40 One of measures for minimization [company name] is a U.S. company providing expertise in water treatment services to a of RAW in the [Contracting Party] variety of clients worldwide. The U.S. government does not have feedback from is to improve the system for RAW applications at nuclear power plant licensees as requested, but that might be available treatment at NPP [facility name], from the vendor. Notwithstanding, [company name] has developed technology that was which will allow significant recently deployed to begin early treatment of tank waste at the Department of Energy volume reduction of liquid RAW (DOE) Hanford Site in the State of Washington. The Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) produced so far. Treatment of system will remove radioactive cesium, other radionuclides, and undissolved solids from radioactive liquid concentrates by low activity tank waste as part of the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste Program, which is
[company name] achieves an approach that sends certain low-activity waste from the tank farms to the Waste separation of dissolved salts from Treatment and Immobilization Plants Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facility for radioactive nuclides, their vitrification. TSCR is based on the SARRY System deployed at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear crystallization and then released Power Plant in kuma, Fukushima, Japan, following the plants disaster caused by the into the environment as 2011 Thoku earthquake and tsunami.
hazardous waste (not as RAW).
This technology was installed as a A system like Hanford TSCR is the Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) currently in use prototype facility at the WWER at the DOEs Savannah River Site in South Carolina. TCCR is a mobile system that can be type of reactor in [facility name]. positioned at or near a specific tank to selectively remove the cesium component of the Such technology is according to tank waste via ion exchange. TCCR began operations in January 2019. TCCR was
[company name] so far used only designed, built, tested, and delivered by Westinghouse Electric Company and Columbia at PWR and BWR types of reactors Energy and Environment Services.
in the U.S. and also abroad. Is used this or a similar technology for treatment liquid radioactive concentrates today? If yes, what is your operational experience feedback?
12 K.2.3, p. Was grout strengthening applied Both Tunnel 1 and Tunnel 2 of the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility (PUREX) at the 149 only on a damaged section or on Hanford Site were filled with grout material to assure their structural integrity.
the whole tunnel at Hanford site? Meanwhile, a permanent solution will be developed to remediate both tunnels, as well How long this will postpone the as disposition the stored equipment and waste.
radioactive material store final solution?
Page 4 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 13 G.6, p. 111 In regard to NUREG/CR-6831 Yes. The Idaho cask demonstration presented in NUREG-CR/6831, Examination of Spent study, Examination of Spent PWR PWR Fuel Rods After 15 Years in Dry Storage, (which is available at Nuclear Regulatory Fuel Rods after 15 Years in Dry Commission's (NRCs) Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under Storage, are there any similar ML032731021) and other research, including NUREG/CR-6745, Dry Cask Storage long-term studies ongoing, or Characterization ProjectPhase 1; CASTOR V/21 Cask Opening and Examination, (Bare planned? et al., 2001), demonstrated that low burnup fuel (assembly average burnup less than 45 gigawatts per metric ton of uranium [GWD/MTU]) cladding and other cask internals had no deleterious effects after 15 years of storage. These research results suggest that degradation of low burnup fuel cladding and assembly hardware should not occur during long-term storage, provided that the cask or canister internal environment is maintained.
The U.S. is undertaking a similar demonstration program to provide confirmatory data on high burnup fuel (assembly average burnup exceeding 45 GWD/MTU) that can be used to assess cladding performance during long-term storage. This program is the HBU Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project (HDRP), which is being conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy (see HBU Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project, Final Test Plan at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1133392). The HDRP began in 2017 with the loading of several types of high burnup fuel cladding in a dry storage cask. At that time, data was collected on the temperatures and gas composition of the internal cask environment. In parallel, the HDRP has been performing laboratory testing and examinations on high burnup fuel cladding (sister rods, similar to those stored in the demonstration cask) to provide additional information to understand cladding performance after cask drying operations.
Short-term testing (i.e., laboratory-scale testing up to a few months) and scientific analyses examining the performance of high burnup fuel have been relied on to develop the technical basis that long-term storage of high burnup fuel may be performed safely and in compliance with regulations. However, given the reliance on relatively short-term testing to predict long-term cladding behavior, the HDRP is expected to provide confirmatory data to provide additional assurance of safe fuel storage for extended storage terms.
14 p. 72 Besides technical qualifications The U.S. Sixth National Report (which can be found at:
and personnel training programs https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2017/12/f46/10 Page 5 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer for employees; what are the 17%206th_%20US_National_Report%20%28Final%29.pdf) provides a detailed discussion methods used to assure in Section F.2., Human and Financial Resources, of the Federal Governments efforts to knowledge transmission from one capture institutional knowledge. The National Report indicated that [t]o address generation to the other? growing concerns about the potential loss of a significant portion of the Federal Government staff and their institutional knowledge, it is increasingly incumbent upon agencies to institute practices and programs to encourage effective succession planning and knowledge management.
Knowledge management remains a top priority to ensure Federal agencies capture and preserve knowledge to assist with employee development and performance. Many agencies use continuously evolving knowledge management tools such as creating communities of practice to enable employees who perform the same job function to share relevant knowledge and critical skills, capture operating experience, and discuss new information. The communities of practice often collaborate to consider safety and security issues, review knowledge gained from inspection, research, and other activities related to regulatory guidance. The method has helped document relevant critical knowledge from employees departing the agencies and from former employees where possible.
The U.S. Government uses the website Regulations.gov for maintaining and sharing information about its activities. The website helps remove the logistical barriers that made it difficult for a citizen to participate in the regulatory process. Through this website, the public can participate and impact Federal rules and regulations. The complete administrative record related to the decision-making process can also be accessed by all including the Federal agencies and the public for knowledge management.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) current tools also include a Wikipedia-like site called Nuclepedia, which is NRCs internal knowledge resource created to capture and share information across organizations and to serve as a repository of knowledge that all employees can access, contribute to, and learn from. NRC also maintains a Knowledge Management video library and a NUREG/Knowledge Management Series (a series of publications established to preserve knowledge of documents and events that shaped the regulatory process or a technical topic that benefits future generations of NRC professionals and the public).
Page 6 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer The Department of Energy (DOE) is dedicated to recruiting, engaging, developing, retaining, and advancing a diverse workforce of talent. DOE provides employees and supervisors with a wide range of resources, including talent sourcing, professional development, leadership training, and educational opportunities to cultivate individual and organizational excellence.
Mandatory training is implemented for all DOE Federal employees and selected groups of contractor employees who are required to complete initial and recurring training courses, as required by law, directive, DOE Order, etc. The training covers diverse Federal requirements: ethics; employee conduct; human resource guidance; safety; physical, personnel, and information security; and continuity of operations. Heads of Departmental Elements may impose additional requirements to meet specific program or functional needs, and some mandatory training is position-specific (e.g., supervisors, hiring authorities, Senior Executive Services). This mandatory training is essential to our workforce and enhances our work toward the overall DOE mission.
DOE provides access to a collaborative platform - through a central, web-based collection point for corporate operating experience lessons learned and best practices from across the DOE complex. Subscribers could prevent adverse events and improve processes and performance by using the database which can be found at:
https://ww.energy.gov/ehss/lessons-learned-database.
DOE Occurrence Reporting Program provides a system for collecting information about events that could adversely affect the public or DOE worker health and safety, the environment, national security, DOE's safeguards and security interests, functioning of DOE facilities, or the DOE's reputation. DOE analyzes aggregate occurrence information for generic implications and operational improvements. The Occurrence Reporting Program can be accessed by DOE employees.
DOE also uses the following tools:
Lunch and learns- voluntary meetings, training sessions, or presentations that take place during lunch to allow employees to teach other what they are best at, giving them an opportunity to nurture their skills.
Page 7 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer Employee Development/Mentoring Programs- programs tailored to improve our employees existing skills and competencies, while developing newer ones to support the organizations mission and goals.
Community of Practice- focuses on analyzing and improving processes every day and using teams who work in the process, to make these improvements as a part of their daily activities. Over time, we have seen these small changes add up to huge improvements and more developmental opportunities.
15 p. 71 How is the development of the As noted in Section F.2 of the U.S. Seventh National Report, The U.S. understands the market situation assessed with need to retain institutional knowledge and operational experience in fields impacting regard to whether there will spent fuel and radioactive waste managementThe U.S. Sixth National Report at Section continue to be enough interested F.2 discusses in detail the issues of staffing, staff development, reliability of funding, and and qualified personnel on the other human resource areas, as this was a theme for all Contracting Parties to address market in the next 10-20 years, during the Sixth Cycle of the Joint Convention. Additionally, Federal agencies also have who can be recruited for work in access to the Presidential Management Fellows Program which is designed to attract spent fuel and radioactive waste qualified candidates to Federal Government service.
management activities?
The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) and its contractors are working to continue building and sustaining a best-in-class workforce utilizing a diverse assortment of recruitment and hiring flexibilities. These flexibilities include use of a suite of summer intern programs by recruiting diverse students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) areas of study to work on EM projects and leveraging these diverse students for available internship opportunities through programs such as the DOE Scholars Program, the Minority Serving Institutions Partnership Program, the DOE Florida International University Fellows Program, and Federal Pathways Programs. EM also supports veterans and disability programs, through the Federal veterans hiring preferences and contractors participation in the Operation Warfighter Program/Workforce Recruitment Program, which is designed to provide recuperating service members with meaningful activity outside of the hospital environment. Lastly, EM is working to engage early career professionals through a variety of means, such as Federal opportunities through the Pathways programs. EM contractors use regional partnerships to ensure a consistent workforce pipeline. Some specific examples of EMs efforts are outlined below:
Page 8 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer
- At Los Alamos, legacy cleanup contractor Newport News Nuclear BWXT Los Alamos, LLC (N3B) works with Northern New Mexico institutions to run a Nuclear Operators Apprenticeship Program, a Radiological Control Technician Boot Camp, and a Waste Processing Operator Boot Camp.
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory works closely with area colleges like Washington State University to facilitate research internships, including addressing related cleanup challenges at the Hanford site.
- Oak Ridge cleanup contractor URS-CH2M Oak Ridge, LLC (UCOR) invests in local schools for K-12 STEM activities and partners with institutions to form new curricula with nuclear engineering, nuclear decommissioning, and environmental management, and seeks out students in the STEM disciplines for internship opportunities through programs such as the DOE Scholars Program, the Minority Serving Institutions Partnership Program, and the DOE Florida International University Fellows Program.
- DOE also supports grants for the Workforce Opportunities in Regional Careers program and partners with many other universities through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, which funds approximately 20 early career researchers (i.e., PhD students, postdocs, undergraduate students).
16 A,7 US national Report mentions that Recycling is performed by commercial companies under the terms of Nuclear Regulatory the Disused Sealed Sources waste Commission or Agreement State license. In general, these companies have flexibility to is managed through reuse, identify the recycling technologies that are best suited for a particular application, so recycling, disposal, and storage. long as they adhere to the safety and security requirements in their license. For How and what is the recycling example, if the licensee performing recycling plans to remove the source material from technology or the recycling of its encapsulation, this must be permitted per the terms of their license. The following sealed source in the US? methods for recycling sealed sources are typically used in the U.S.:
- A source is reused intact without modifications to the source or contents - also known as re-use.
- A source originally used for one application (e.g., well logging) is used for a different application (e.g., calibration source) without modification - also known as re-purposing.
Page 9 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer
- A source material is extracted and/or the source is re-encapsulated, and a new source(s) is created with a new serial number.
- The source material is extracted and then used as unsealed material - not as a sealed source.
17 A,12 The US national report mentions The National Nuclear Security Administration Off-Site Source Recovery Program does not Depleted Uranium management. recover or manage disused radioactive sources from radiography cameras. These How does The US manage the sources are typically sent back to the manufacturer to be reloaded and the disused disused Depleted Uranium material is then managed by the manufacturer per the terms of their license. The originating from the shielding of radioactive sources used in radiography cameras (i.e., lawrencium-192, selenium-75, and the gamma/radiography camera? cobalt-60) can be commercially disposed of in the U.S. and the depleted uranium can be managed, recycled, or disposed of by commercial brokers at licensed LLW disposal facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also proposing to amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 that govern low-level waste (LLW) land disposal facilities to require new and revised site-specific technical analyses and to permit the development of site-specific criteria for LLW acceptance based on the results of these analyses. The proposed changes would ensure that future LLW streams that differ significantly from those considered during the development of the original regulations, e.g., depleted uranium, can be disposed of safely and meet the performance objectives for land disposal of LLW during the compliance period. See Section K.1.2.1. in the U.S. Seventh National Report.
18 A,14 The US national report mentions The original Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Program the extending of repatriation (Acceptance Program) ended on May 12, 2019. The National Nuclear Security program for US-origin spent fuel. Administration (NNSA) performed a Supplemental Analysis (EIS-0218-SA-08, April 2019, Does this also cover the spent fuel which can be found at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/eis-0218-sa from [Contracting Party]? if so, supplement-analysis-april-2019) under the National Environmental Policy Act to extend what is the procedure for us to the Acceptance Program through May 12, 2029. However, permission to continue to propose this scheme? The US return Acceptance Program material is being severely restricted and exemptions to the national report mentions the May 12, 2019, end date will only be granted where there is clear justification to do so, in waste from the Mo99 production accordance with the Policy on Exemptions to the Acceptance Program (Policy on by the fission process. How does Exemptions) signed by the NNSA Administrator on December 22, 2016. The spent fuel the US manage the irradiated containing U.S.-origin low enriched uranium in [Contracting Party] would not meet the capsule waste and RFW from the requirements of the Policy on Exemptions.
Mo99 production activities?
Page 10 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA) authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a program to evaluate and support projects in the U.S. for the production of molybdenum-99 for medical purposes without the use of highly enriched uranium. Per AMIPA, in 2016, DOE established a Uranium Lease and Take-Back Program (ULTB). Under the ULTB Program, DOE makes low-enriched uranium (LEU) available to commercial entities through lease contracts for production of molybdenum-99. After irradiation, processing, or purification of the leased uranium, DOE retains responsibility for the final disposition of the spent fuel and takes title to and be responsible for the final disposition of radioactive waste. Both the LEU lease and take-back contracts include cost recovery provisions in which the Federal government will be reimbursed for the cost of leasing the LEU and the taking back of the spent fuel.
The molybdenum-99 producer will be responsible for characterizing, packaging, and transporting spent fuel and radioactive waste returned to DOE under the ULTB.
For more information visit: NNSAs Molybdenum-99 Program: Establishing a Reliable Domestic Supply of Molybdenum-99 Produced Without Highly Enriched Uranium at:
,NNSAs%20Molybdenum%2D99%20Program%3A%20Establishing%20a%20Reliable%20 Domestic%20Supply%20of,Produced%20Without%20Highly%20Enriched%20Uranium&t ext=NNSA%20works%20to%20prevent%20the,usable%20nuclear%20or%20radiological
%20material.
19 F,96 Decommissioning program The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) dose limits for adults, stated in 10 CFR Part comprehensively uses the dose 20, Subpart C establish occupational dose limits that apply during operations and approach to regulate the decommissioning. NRC regulations for license termination for unrestricted use located decommissioning activities. What in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E establish an NRC dose limit of 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year is the dose limit used as the total effective dose equivalent above background, which includes residual radioactivity approach for this from groundwater sources of drinking water. In addition, NRC regulations require decommissioning program? Is it residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable the same as the dose limit for (ALARA).
radiation worker for normal condition in the US (50 mSv/year)?
20 F,105 NRC conducts 900 inspections per The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) normally conducts on-site inspections of its year to the licensee of nuclear nuclear material licensees. It is noted however that during the COVID-19 public health Page 11 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer facilities. Is it full on-site emergency, NRC maximized the use of remote inspection techniques due to the inspection or combined with restrictions on travel and to limit close contact. NRC continues to leverage the remote online inspection (document inspection techniques where it is deemed appropriate and is currently augmenting its upload, video streaming, or on-site presence in the conduct of inspections.
others)?
21 Section With regard to waste The Department of Energys facilities continue to operate under the suspension of F.7.2 Page minimization, has the USA clearance and recycling of decommissioning metal waste and have taken on the burden 98 considered smelting of of accumulating valuable clean scrap metals that are in some cases stored in radiological decommissioning metal and then areas. Under the current policy, release of the metals would require permission from clearance and recycling? the Secretary of Energy. Detailed guidance can be found at:
Especially for metal waste from https://www.energy.gov/ehss/articles/moratorium-and-suspension-release-metals-doe-decommissioning. sites.
22 Section "...the limit is 0.05 sievert The Department of Energy (DOE) has occupational dose limits and administrative control F.4.21. (Sv)/yr. Is the NRC limit for levels (ACLs) that are based on dose methodologies from the International Commission Page 80 occupational exposure 50mSv/y on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 recommendations. At DOE, the and not 20 mSv/y? occupational dose limit is 5 rem/year (50 mSv/year) total effective dose, provided in DOE regulations in 10 CFR Part 835. Additionally, the ACL is 2 rem/year (20 mSv/year), which F.4.3.2 DOE says 20 mSv/y. Are requires prior approval to exceed. DOE ACLs are based on historical background, there different limits?" projected radiation exposures, workload, mission, and as low as reasonably achievable requirements. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations are based on ICRP Publication 26 recommendations and the occupational dose limits for adults are provided in NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201, which include, among other limits, an annual total effective dose equivalent limit of 5 rem (50 mSv).
23 F4.2, p. 79 What is in 10 CFR Part 20.1003 the The controlled area refers to the entire area inside the site boundary of a Nuclear difference between controlled Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed facility to which access can be limited by the area and restricted areas as licensee for any reason. The restricted area of a facility refers to the area inside the well as radiation area and high controlled area to which access is limited by the licensee for the purpose of protecting radiation areas resp. airborne individuals (facility workers) from undue risks of exposure to radiation and radioactive radioactivity area? Alternative materials. Restricted area does not generally include areas used as residential quarters, question: Which category but separate rooms in a residential building may be set apart as a restricted area.
(controlled or restricted area) a radiation area (external dose Radiation area and high radiation area are differentiated by radiation level. A radiation rate > 0.05 mSv/h) or an "airborne area is an area within a facility that is accessible to individuals and where radiation levels radioactivity area (activity in air > could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.005 rem (0.05 mSv) in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface that the Page 12 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer DAC, DAC x 2000h = ALI = 50 mSv) radiation penetrates. A high radiation area is an area that is accessible to individuals and has to be appointed to? where radiation levels from radiation sources external to the body could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) from any surface that the radiation penetrates. Both radiation areas and high radiation areas are located within the restricted area of a facility.
24 F.5.3, p. 95 Regarding the training for first The training conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is primarily for responders conducted by EPA: those who have designated roles within the responding organization, e.g., for dose Please elaborate on trainings assessment or advisories on protective actions for public health or food safety. Training foreseen for persons with special for other support personnel such as bus drivers would be conducted by the local responsibilities in an emergency authorities with immediate responsibility for public safety.
who are not part of the designated response organisation, e.g. additional bus drivers for evacuation.
25 Section E How does US ensure the long The national policy for disposing of spent fuel and high-level waste is established by the term political commitment on Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Annually, each Presidential national level for the high level Administration submits a budget request to Congress that includes the funding it deems waste and spent nuclear fuel necessary to comply with the Act. Congress evaluates the request and determines the disposal project? amount of funding to appropriate considering a wide range of factors, including testimony by members of the Executive branch in support of the Presidents budget request.
26 F.2.3.2., pg As the statutory fee has been Disposal remains a Federal government responsibility. The fee required by the Nuclear 73 suspended since 2014, and the Waste Policy Act (NWPA) is intended to cover the costs incurred by the Federal licensees update their own government associated with disposal of commercial spent fuel and high-level waste.
decommissioning funding plans, The ongoing fee was set to zero in 2014 based upon a court decision. However, the how can they exactly assure the court decision provided that the Department of Energy (DOE) could resume collecting financial security to cover the the fee in the future if it pursued a disposal plan that was authorized by Congress. The costs of all the future disposal current balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), which includes past fees collected activities? and accrued interest, exceeds $43 billion. If DOE were to determine in the future that the NWF had insufficient revenues to recover costs incurred by the Federal government for its disposal activities under the NWPA, then DOE would have to evaluate and propose an appropriate adjustment to the fee to ensure full cost recovery.
Page 13 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 27 G.6., pg 113 How is the experience gained Level 2 or higher events on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) pertaining to from events under INES 2 spent fuel management did not occur in the U.S. during the period 2017-2019.
implemented nationally? Additionally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not aware of significant events associated with spent fuel storage that were reported internationally that would be applicable to the storage facilities in the U. S. NRC performs operating experience assessments on reported events. Reported events are included in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards trending studies and can receive increased visibility through inclusion in the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM). One of the criteria for identifying nuclear materials licensees for discussion at the AARM is, in part, a Level 3 or higher INES Report to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since the events reported for spent fuel storage have not met the threshold, discussion in this meeting is not expected. The latest annual report to the Commission on licensee performance in the nuclear materials and waste safety program is for Fiscal Year 2020 (see SECY 0047, which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under ML21075A101).
28 E.2.1.4, p. According to 10 CFR 50.82, power The 60-year criterion only applies to power reactor licensees. If a power reactor licensee 57 reactor licensees are required to chooses to delay decommissioning activities, knowledge management during the 60-complete decommissioning within year period is assured by both substantial recordkeeping requirements that apply to 60 years, which means that two individual licensees and, more broadly, the U.S. experience with decommissioning of generations will be involved in the over thirty light water reactors. This experience is documented in numerous industry project: How do you assure and government technical reports on past decommissioning activities. For example, the knowledge management and Electric Power Research Institute has published a lessons learned report, which can be knowledge transfer over this found at: https://www.epri.com/research/products/1013510. For power reactors timespan? Is the 60-year-criteria undergoing decommissioning, routine oversight under Inspection Manual Chapter 2561 applicable for all kind of nuclear (which can be found at the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Agency-wide Documents facilities (also for FCF and RR)? Access and Management System, under ML17348A400) also includes an assessment of organizational changes to ensure adequacy throughout the decommissioning process. In the U.S., companies specializing in decommissioning also maintain the technical and engineering expertise to perform the decommissioning.
29 E.2.1.4, p. When a facility is about to be The regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 state that when a power reactor licensee has made its 57 permanently shut down before determination to permanently cease operations, the licensee shall, within 30 days, the expiration of its license: has submit a written certification to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In practice, the regulatory body to be licensees often inform NRC before the reactor permanently ceases operation, though informed in advance? this is not required.
Page 14 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 30 E.2.1.4, p Has the final decommissioning For power reactors, a licensee may begin major decommissioning activities without 57 plan to be approved prior to the specific Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval 90 days after NRC receives the start of dismantling activities? licensee's post-shutdown decommissioning activities report. Then, at least two years before the planned termination of the license, the licensee must submit an application for termination of the license and a license termination plan. In the Federal Register, NRC announces receipt of the license termination plan, makes the plan available for public comment, and holds a public meeting on the plan in the vicinity of the facility. If the plan demonstrates that the remainder of decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with NRC regulations, then NRC approves the plan. For other facilities that process byproduct, source, and special nuclear material regulated under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, if a decommissioning plan is required, the licensee may not begin decommissioning until approval of that plan.
31 E.2.1.4, p. Is it possible to conduct certain With respect to power reactors, yes, because, as discussed in response to Question 30, a 57 decommissioning activities prior licensee may begin major decommissioning activities 90 days after the Nuclear to the approval of the final Regulatory Commission (NRC) receives the licensee's post-shutdown decommissioning decommissioning plan? activities report (PSDAR). Regulations do not require NRC approval of the PSDAR to initiate decommissioning; only that the licensee request NRC approval for the license termination plan at least two years before planned termination of the license. With respect to facilities that require an approved decommissioning plan before decommissioning may begin, no, but the licensee may continue previously approved licensed activities not related to decommissioning, such as equipment maintenance, maintenance of access controls, and environmental monitoring and surveillance.
32 F.2.3.4, The NRC estimates costs for As background, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that power reactor F.2.3.5, p. decommissioning a nuclear power applicants and licensees provide adequate assurance that funding will be available for 74-76 plant range from $280-$612 decommissioning with an application under 10 CFR 50.75 and 10 CFR 50.33(k).
million. Are the estimated costs Applicants are to provide financial assurance of the availability of funding based, initially, compared to the actual costs on a minimum formula amount for radiological decommissioning that currently (2020 during and after dollars) ranges from about $445 million for the nations smallest pressurized water decommissioning? If yes, how reactors to close to $700 million for the nations largest boiling water reactors. These accurate were the estimates? amounts do not represent the actual cost to decommission specific reactors but are reference levels established to ensure: (1) that licensees demonstrate adequate financial responsibility for decommissioning; and (2) that the bulk of the funds necessary for safe decommissioning is provided for early in the licensing process. When a power plant approaches the end of its operating life, the licensee: (1) must provide a site-specific cost estimate (SSCE) to provide a more accurate estimate of the expected decommissioning Page 15 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer costs, and (2) must ensure that adequate funding is set aside to address the SSCE.
Licensees are required to annually update their SSCEs and to report to NRC that there is sufficient funding to cover the SSCEs. Therefore, the SSCEs are continually compared to the actual costs during decommissioning to ensure that there are sufficient funds to complete decommissioning. NRC does not compare the ultimate actual cost of decommissioning with the minimum formula amount applicable at the outset of power reactor operations.
33 F.6, p. 96 Is there a requirement for For power and non-power reactors, there is no requirement for a licensee to pursue immediate decommissioning as a immediate decommissioning. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not have strategy? Do you have a preferred a preferred decommissioning strategy. For other facilities that process byproduct, decommissioning strategy source, and special nuclear material regulated under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, unless (immediate, deferred, otherwise approved by NRC, licensees are required to complete decommissioning of entombement)? their facilities within 24 months of initiating decommissioning activities. More information on NRC's decommissioning timeliness rule can be found in RIS 2015-19, Revision 1, at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under ML16008A242.
34 F.6, p. 96- Is there an There are no agreements or memoranda of understanding between the Department of 97 agreement/memorandum of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on decommissioning of DOE-understanding that regulates the owned facilities. In general, DOE manages the decommissioning of its facilities that are responsibilities between NRC and not licensed by NRC. For those facilities for which DOE holds an NRC license (e.g., spent DOE? Who decides/mediates in fuel storage facilities), DOE will be required to decommission the facilities in accordance the case of doubt? with NRC requirements.
35 Section The question refers to the For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy A.2.2, p. 6 paragraph: However, the (DOE) for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory continuing uncertainty in the Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory repository program and the proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. DOE recent premature retirements of continues to work on a disposal research and development program as part of several nuclear power plants developing a path forward for a comprehensive waste management system. In addition, (NPPs) require that current it is anticipated that the consent-based siting approach being developed to site Federal attention is focused on ensuring interim storage facilities could be adapted to site one or more repositories at such time safety in storage. that DOE receives authorization and funding from Congress to pursue development of repositories.
It is comprehensible that the attention is focused on ensuring safety in storage as long as the Page 16 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer geological repository is not defined. However, best praxis according to current knowledge is the disposal of radioactive waste in a geological repository as soon as possible. How does the USA tend to reduce the uncertainties in the repository program?
36 A.3.1.1 p. 8, Coupled with the funding for For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy K2.1 p. 146, spent fuel to support R&D and (DOE) for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory D1.2. p.38 analysis of storage, Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory transportation, and disposal proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. DOE technologies and pathways, the continues to work on a disposal research and development program as part of Presidents request supports the determining a path forward for a comprehensive waste management system. In development of a durable, addition, it is anticipated that the consent-based siting approach being developed to site predictable yet flexible plan that Federal interim storage facilities could be adapted to site one or more repositories at addresses more efficiently storing such time that DOE receives authorization and funding from Congress to pursue waste temporarily in the near development of repositories.
term, followed by permanent disposal.
For example, DOE will support planning for the near-term consolidation and storage of commercial spent fuel until a long-term solution is determined.
The U.S. currently has no facility for spent fuel disposal. In 2008, DOE applied to NRC for authorization to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for spent fuel and HLW disposal. The Page 17 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer adjudication on the application is suspended.
What are the plans for the permanent disposal?
37 A.3.1.4 p. DOE may determine that waste is The performance assessment referred to in the second criterion would be done on the 10 not highly radioactive and is actual alternative disposal facility proposed to receive the reprocessing waste under the therefore not HLW if the waste: high-level-waste interpretation. For example, if the proposed disposal facility is a land disposal facility, performance objectives could include the Nuclear Regulatory
- Does not exceed concentration Commissions performance objectives for commercial low-level waste (LLW) disposal limits for Class C LLW as set out in facilities specified in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives, or the 10 CFR 61.55, and meets the Department of Energys (DOEs) performance objectives and dose limits for DOE LLW performance objectives of a disposal facilities specified in DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management disposal facility; or Manual, as summarized in https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/f63/06-Performance-Objectives-CLEAN-06-07-2019.pdf.
- Does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility as demonstrated through a performance assessment (PA) conducted in accordance with applicable requirements.
Concerning the second bullet point: What is the deep geological repository concept used as basis for the performance assessment?
What are the above-mentioned performance objectives? This information could not be found in the referenced document:
https://www.energy.gov/em/prog ram-scope/high-level-radioactive-waste-hlw-interpretation Page 18 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 38 A.3.7.2 p. To avoid overlapping regulatory The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) believes the Memorandum of Understanding 16, E.2.3.3 oversight at these sites, in 2016 is an adequate vehicle to avoid overlapping regulatory oversight and currently there are
- p. 65. NRC entered into a Memorandum no plans to unify the regulations.
of Understanding (MOU) with DoD under which NRC will All Federal regulatory changes (i.e., rulemakings) involve a public process. Comments monitor the status of cleanup of are commonly received from the public, industry, and Federal, State, local, and Tribal these sites to ensure that these government agencies. In order to avoid lack of oversight or the potential overlap of cleanup efforts also meet NRCs regulations among governmental agencies, agencies are encouraged to comment on site release dose requirements. how the proposed regulatory changes will affect their requirements. NRC will consider any comments related to lack of oversight or overlapping activities before any regulatory In 1988, Congress established the changes are made.
DNFSB as an independent Federal organization within the executive NRC periodically conducts a Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements to branch of the U.S. Government. It identify outdated or duplicative administrative requirements that may be eliminated or is responsible for providing modified. Suggestions are collected from NRC staff, industry, and members of the public recommendations and advice to and evaluated based on a set of five Commission-approved criteria. Suggested changes the President and the Secretary of that meet the criteria and are approved by the Commission are then addressed through Energy, regarding public health NRCs rulemaking process. More information can be found at:
and safety issues at DOE defense https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/retrospective-review-admin-nuclear facilities. reqmnts.html.
In addition to the Memorandum NRC also strives to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in rulemaking activities through of Understanding are there consideration of the Cumulative Effects of Regulation (CER). CER describes the additional plans to unify the challenges that licensees may face when implementing a significant number of new and regulations in order to avoid complex regulatory requirements stemming from multiple regulatory actions, with overlapping of regulatory limited time and available resources. CER can potentially distract licensees from activities or a lack of regulatory executing other duties that ensure safety or security. NRCs rulemaking process oversight? encourages explicit consideration of CER through interactions with stakeholders in order to resolve issues that can lead to implementation challenges; and by soliciting feedback on CER concerns to enable NRC to make better-informed decisions on how to mitigate CER.
39 K1.6 p.144, Acceptable Knowledge is the Detailed information of transuranic (TRU) waste is located in the publicly accessible K2.2. p.148 documentation of all known database created in agreement with the state regulator: Waste Data System information on how a TRU waste (WDS)/WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) stream was created and managed; Page 19 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer that information is then compiled which can be found at: https://wipp.energy.gov/WDSPA/Home.
and documented.
The National TRU Program (NTP) was established by the Department of Energy (DOE)
DOE continues to monitor and Office of Environmental Management to oversee the process of preparing TRU waste track the TRU waste volume from DOE waste generator sites to meet Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) requirements emplaced at the WIPP facility to and provides guidance and requirements for receiving the waste at WIPP. This process ensure compliance with the WIPP involves the characterization and packaging of the waste at the generator sites, followed LWA and takes appropriate action by the transportation of the waste to the WIPP facility. However, DOE committed to to ensure the needs of the DOE transport TRU in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certified Type B containers. DOE complex as related to TRU waste has chosen to have NRC approve these containers, e.g., TRUPACT-II, HalfPACT, RH-72B.
disposition are decided upon in a Additional information may be found at:
timely and appropriate manner. https://www.wipp.energy.gov/fctshts/TRUwastecontainers.pdf.
In which form (database, files, The requirements and associated criteria for acceptance of defense TRU waste at WIPP documents, etc.) is this for disposal are identified in the waste acceptance criteria (WAC). The acceptance information concerning defense criteria of the WAC describes the controlling (i.e., the most restrictive) requirements to related TRU waste provided to the be used by the DOE sites in preparing their waste for transportation to and disposal at regulator? Is NRC responsible for WIPP. The WAC requirements are taken from several source documents from multiple the review of this waste? regulators.
What is the procedure of defining The WAC is publicly available and can be found here:
the WAC? In which form are the https://www.wipp.energy.gov/national-tru-program-documents.asp. The current WAC provided to the regulator version of the WAC (version 10) is dated 8/2020.
and are they publicly available?
40 F.2.3.2 p.73 This Act established the fee at Disposal remains a Federal government responsibility. The fee required by the Nuclear
$0.001 per kilowatt-hour of Waste Policy Act (NWPA) is intended to cover the costs incurred by the Federal electricity generated from nuclear government associated with disposal of commercial spent fuel and high-level waste.
power and required that it be The ongoing fee was set to zero in 2014 based upon a court decision. However, the evaluated annually. The statutory court decision also provided that DOE could resume collecting the fee in the future if it fee remained unchanged until pursued a disposal plan that was authorized by Congress. The current balance of the 2014 when, to comply with a Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), which includes past fees collected and accrued interest, November 2013 court ruling, the exceeds $43 billion. Prior to resuming collection of the fee, the Department of Energy fee was adjusted to zero and the (DOE) would have to evaluate and determine whether the NWF has insufficient or excess payment of fees by utilities was revenues to recover the costs incurred by the Federal government for its disposal suspended. The balance of funds activities under the NWPA and propose an adjustment to the fee, if appropriate, in order Page 20 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer in the NWF continues to earn to ensure full cost recovery. DOE would have to submit any such proposal for fee interest. adjustment to Congress.
Are there plans how the payment The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements in 10 CFR 72.30 are for financial of fees suspended in 2014 will be assurance to decommission storage facilities for spent fuel, high-level waste, and replaced or how the provisions in reactor-related greater-than-Class C low-level waste after such waste has been removed 10 CRF 72.30 are going to be by the Federal government for disposal. These requirements are unrelated to the NWF fulfilled? fee.
41 D.2.1, page The report states that DOE is As originally envisioned, the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to be 41 building the worlds largest built at the Hanford Site would treat high-level and low-activity radioactive waste radioactive waste treatment plant simultaneously. WTP is a processing complex of five main facilities: Pretreatment (PT) at the Hanford Site in Facility, Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vitrification Facility, High-Level Waste (HLW) southeastern Washington State. Vitrification Facility, Analytical Laboratory (LAB), and other supporting facilities The plant is designed to operate collectively referred as Balance of Facilities (BOF). To begin treating waste as soon as for 40 years. This has been a practicable, the Department of Energy (DOE) developed a sequenced approach that challenging and complex project begins to first treat certain low-activity waste using the direct-feed low-activity waste, or due to its size and technical DFLAW, approach. This approach sends certain pretreated low-activity waste from the scope. tank farms to the WTPs LAW Vitrification Facility. Meanwhile, high-level waste will be processed and vitrified later in a separate process, and DOE is in the process of Is there a timetable for when this determining the optimal solution. That solution will consider WTPs HLW Vitrification radioactive waste treatment plant Facility as well as WTPs PT.
will be completed?
42 G7, page The report states that Currently, For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy 113 the U.S. has no spent fuel disposal for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory capability Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. There is Is there a timetable for when a no programmatic timetable for when spent fuel disposal capability will exist.
spent fuel disposal capability will exist?
43 G7, page The report states It is currently As discussed in Section A.2.2 of the U.S. Seventh National Report, nuclear power reactor 113 believed that storing spent fuel operator experience with the actual storage of spent fuel under the Nuclear Regulatory longer than originally anticipated Commission's (NRCs) oversight and regulatory framework, and the continued will not present a risk to safety. application of proven fuel storage methodologies ensures spent fuel will be safely managed until a repository for disposal is available. Continued safe storage of spent fuel What are the elements that relies on a strong regulatory framework, including both licensee compliance and Page 21 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer support the above hypothesis? regulatory oversight. NRCs regulatory framework provides for monitoring and oversight Could you please specify what is to address the potential for evolving issues and uses operational experience and meant by longer. scientific information collected and assessed during licensed operation to ensure the continued safe storage of spent fuel.
As discussed in B.3.1 of the U.S. Seventh National Report, storage systems can be initially licensed for up to 40 years with possible renewals of up to 40 years, with no restriction on the number of renewals. Although there is no formal definition of longer, periods longer than 40 years could be considered longer than anticipated. The 40-year licensing period does not necessarily equate to a design life for the system. Rather, spent fuel storage applicants must demonstrate the safety of the storage system design, including materials performance, for the requested license term. Renewal of licensing periods includes evaluation of degradation mechanisms and aging effects that may cause a reduction in the efficacy of storage system structures, systems, and components (SSCs).
The requirements for spent fuel storage renewal include demonstration that aging and degradation will be addressed by either: (1) time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that the SSCs continue to perform their intended functions for the requested renewal period, or (2) aging management programs to manage issues associated with aging, which could adversely affect SSCs during the requested renewal period.
In addition, industry-led efforts such as the Extended Storage Collaboration Program (ESCP), coordinated by the Electric Power Research Institute, are also focused on the safety of continued storage and subsequent transportation of spent fuel (see Section A.3.1.2 of the U.S. Seventh National Report). Significant work continues both nationally and internationally to enhance the understanding of the degradation of spent fuel and storage systems, as well as the inspection and collection of operating experience. These efforts are consistent with NRCs regulatory approach to enhance understanding of potential degradation mechanisms associated with spent fuel storage. This enhanced understanding assists NRC with identifying potential concerns with the safe storage of the spent fuel, evaluating any such issues identified, and taking necessary actions to ensure the continued safe storage of spent fuel.
44 General We would like to acknowledge Thank you for the complimentary comment on the U.S. Seventh National Report.
and thank USA for the Page 22 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer comprehensive and very informative report.
45 B.2.3.2, Can you please specify at which In the U.S. classification system, licensees classify waste when the waste is ready for p.27 stage of management and to shipment to a licensed disposal site. Averaging volumes is addressed in guidance in the which volume (e.g. volume of Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation (CA BTP). The drum) the concentration CA BTP can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/llw-btp.html.
averaging takes place for the Because averaging volumes is addressed in guidance rather than in regulation, there is classification of LLW (Class A, B, flexibility in the averaging positions that are acceptable to the Nuclear Regulatory C)? Commission. Sections 3.1 through 3.5 of the CA BTP provide generic averaging positions that apply to most waste, and Table 4 in Section 3.5 summarizes recommended averaging volumes and masses by waste type. Section 3.8 of the CA BTP provides general considerations for deviating from the specific values listed in the guidance.
46 F.4.3, p. 83 As it is stated in the report Safety Yes, modeling codes, including the Residual Radiation (RESRAD) Family of codes (which assessment computer models can be found at: https://resrad.evs.anl.gov/) and more specifically RESRAD-Onsite and (e.g., RESidual RADiation RESRAD-Offsite, are used extensively at the Department of Energy (DOE) to perform
[RESRAD]) are used to forecast scenarios examining post closure of low-level waste (LLW) disposal sites and potential exposures, prior to operating a public exposure.
nuclear facility, including spent fuel storage and radioactive waste As part of a Performance Assessment (PA) of a LLW disposal site performed by DOE, two disposal on a predictive basis. main types of scenarios are usually looked at during post-closure. One considers the Are these models and assessment natural and man-made processes that impact possible exposure routes, such as use of used also for post-closure public groundwater, and calculates dose using acceptable methodologies and parameters to a exposure prediction? If yes, could member of the public residing at the edge of the facility boundary. While not expected you please provide some to occur, the second type of analysis relates to hypothetical intrusion scenarios, and information regarding the both acute and chronic evaluations are performed. The acute exposure scenarios for scenarios typically examined for hypothetical inadvertent intrusion considers direct intrusion into the disposal site and LLW disposal and the timeframe exhumation of accessible waste material. The hypothetical inadvertent intruder analysis covered for public exposure considers the natural and man-made processes that impact the possible exposure and prediction? calculates the dose using acceptable methodologies and parameters. The chronic hypothetical inadvertent intrusion scenario considers a resident within the disposal facility boundary who receives dose from exposure pathways, including potentially disturbed waste, over a period of time (evaluated as an annual dose per year).
The exposure pathways for the RESRAD modeling include all relevant ingestion, external exposure, and inhalation pathways for each exposure scenario.
Page 23 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer These exposures typically begin following a period of institutional controls (e.g., 100 years) and are evaluated for timeframes of 1,000 years (compliance period) to 10,000 years (evaluation period) post-closure of LLW site.
If the peak dose for the PA is expected to occur after 1,000 years or even 10,000 years, then calculations should be extended for timeframes sufficient to determine the peak doses to support decisions. Quantitative calculation of impacts for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis must be carried out to address peak impacts that may occur after the compliance period.
Regarding LLW commercial disposal sites in the U.S., only one commercial LLW disposal site has used RESRAD and it has since switched to site-specific modeling developed with GoldSim. RESRAD is currently used in the Tennessee Bulk Survey for Release Program to establish whether a given waste stream will meet the radiological waste acceptance criteria for very low-level waste (VLLW) disposal under the program. This is done for each waste stream, and is the approved modeling code for use at any of the four state-licensed commercial VLLW disposal facilities within the State of Tennessee.
Regarding timeframes for commercial LLW disposal sites, the compliance period has been established by the Agreement State regulators and is site-specific. Values as short as 500 years as well as values exceeding 10,000 years have been used.
47 F.11, p. 104 Can you please provide more The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at 10 CFR 61.23(b) through (e) details (maybe a list if practical) and 61.23 (g) and the equivalent Agreement State regulations for sites regulated by an for the post closure risk insights Agreement State require that the license issued for a waste disposal facility include plans for the facilities for LLW disposal? for disposal site closure and post-closure institutional control. A licensee that is closing How the question "How likely it its disposal facility would amend its license by submitting an application with the is" is typically handled in practice, pertinent information for site closure and post-closure. The list of information that NRC for post closure (Probabilistic requires is at 10 CFR 61.28. This regulation can be found at:
analysis for quantitative https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part061/full-text.html#part061-determination of the probability, 0028.
engineering judgment,...)?
48 G.7, p. 113 As it is stated in the report The In order to prioritize the research and development (R&D) for sustainable fuel cycle research focuses on sustainable options, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy sponsored a Nuclear fuel cycle options and Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening Study, published in October 2014 and can be found Page 24 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer technologies that minimize waste at: https://fuelcycleevaluation.inl.gov/SitePages/Home.aspx. The Study showed that, generation, improve safety, . although a geologic repository will always be required, significant and meaningful waste Can you please provide some reduction and improvement in fuel resource utilization can be achieved in recycle fuel information regarding the cycle systems. Such systems would include recovery and reuse of spent fuel actinides technologies that minimize waste (uranium and transuranic elements) in advanced reactors that operate with a fast generation in relation to spent neutron spectrum (this could be in concert with thermal spectrum reactors). As a result, fuel management and disposal? In DOE has been conducting research to develop advanced technologies for fast spectrum relation to the future disposal reactor systems, for recovery and reuse of used fuel actinides using electrochemical or facilities, are different types of simplified aqueous processes, and for robust and compact waste forms.
facilities (large disposal facilities, deep boreholes, ) examined in the current research?
49 H.1.1, p. Can you please specify for how In accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations at 10 CFR 61.53(d) 116 long the licensee is responsible to and equivalent Agreement State regulations for sites regulated by an Agreement State, maintain a monitoring system after the disposal site is closed, the licensee responsible for post-operational surveillance capable of providing early warning of the disposal site shall maintain a monitoring system based on the site's operating of release after the site is closed history and the closure and stabilization of the disposal site. The monitoring system for LLW disposal? must be capable of providing early warning of releases of radionuclides from the disposal site before they leave the site boundary. The specific requirements of the monitoring system, including the length of time it must be in place, are based on site-specific considerations.
50 J.1, p. 133 Please explain how sources and The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensing requirements for manufacturers and devices (e.g. smoke detectors) distributors of consumer products containing exempt quantities of radioactive material that are used by the general (see 10 CFR Part 32, Subpart A). However, the responsibility for managing these sources public and exempt from both and devices when they become disused falls to the end-user, who must manage them registration and licensing are according to manufacturer instructions and in compliance with applicable state and local managed after their useful requirements. Smoke detectors, for example, may be recycled or disposed of as lifetime. ordinary trash unless prohibited by state or local requirements. In some cases, a manufacturer or distributor may offer to assist with reuse, recycling, or disposal.
Additional information can be found at:
https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/consumer-pdts.html.
51 K.1.2.1, p. Would it possible to summarize The main difference between the current and new proposed regulations in 10 CFR Part 140 some of the main differences of 61, is a requirement for a site-specific analysis for inadvertent intruder protection in the new proposed regulation situations where large quantities of depleted uranium are planned to be disposed at the regarding the technical analysis facility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still in a preliminary phase of the Page 25 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer and criteria for LLW disposal? Is it rulemaking process (at the draft proposed rule stage); therefore, it is not possible to anticipated that these changes predict the final rule wording at this time.
will also be possible to apply to existing LLW disposal facilities or are relevant only to new near surface facilities.
52 K.2.2.3, p. Are there specific additional The draft regulatory basis issued in July 2019 specifies that "GTCC waste must be 147 safety requirements anticipated disposed at a minimum depth of 5 meters below the surface of the earth and with a 500-for engineered barriers or site year intruder barrier in place." Further, it states, "GTCC waste could present an characteristics (e.g. physical- unacceptable hazard to an inadvertent intruder based on an excavation exposure geological barriers) posed by the scenario (e.g., GTCC waste buried within the depth for excavation of a dwelling). In new draft regulatory basis for accordance with 10 CFR 61.52(a)(2), Class C waste must be disposed of so that the top of near surface disposal of GTCC the waste is a minimum of 5 meters below the top surface of the cover or the disposal LLW, issued in July 2019 by NRC unit must include intruder barriers that are designed to prevent access to the waste by staff? an inadvertent intruder for at least 500 years. Because GTCC waste contains radioactive materials in greater concentrations than is present in Class C waste, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considers it reasonable that disposal of GTCC waste must meet both of these Class C requirements. Thus, the NRC staff assumes that GTCC waste would be disposed of at a minimum depth of 5 meters below the surface of the earth and must also be disposed of with a 500-year intruder barrier in place." NRC has not finalized this regulatory basis at this point; therefore, the final requirements for disposal of GTCC waste may change.
53 A.3.1.3 Section A.3.1.3 of the national The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act report describes the progress of (NWPA) for disposition of spent fuel and high-level waste. In 2021, Congress applications for Consolidated appropriated funds to DOE for interim storage activities. Congress has recommended Interim Storage Facilities (CISF) for that DOE move forward under existing authority to identify potential sites for Federal the interim storage of spent fuel interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process. The purpose of one or and reactor-related Greater Than more Federal interim storage facilities would be to receive spent fuel from nuclear Class C (CTCC) Low Level Waste power plant sites, which may include both shutdown and operating sites. Such a facility prior to final disposal in a deep would enable DOE to begin meeting its obligations for disposition of spent fuel as geological disposal facility. required by the NWPA, as amended.
- 1. Could you please provide A consolidated interim storage facility would provide consolidated storage capacity for additional information on the role storage of spent fuel from operating or decommissioned reactors.
of these facilities in the national Page 26 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer waste strategy. Please can you include:
n Are these facilities intended to provide additional storage capacity for these waste types or are they replacing existing facilities?
n Will these facilities take waste from decommissioned stations to facilitate site remediation or from operational sites to maintain capacity at these sites?
54 A.3.1.4 Section A.3.1.4 of the national The Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted an environmental assessment of a report describes how the DOE has second waste stream from the Savannah River Site proposed for disposal at a licensed (in 2019) provided clarification of commercial low-level waste facility under DOEs high-level radioactive waste the definition of High Level Waste interpretation. DOE currently does not have any plans to evaluate other waste streams.
(HLW) and in August 2020 Any decisions about whether and how the interpretation will apply to other wastes at completed an evaluation of the any specific site will be the subject of subsequent actions and following consideration of first waste stream applying this evaluation and characterization of specific reprocessing waste streams in conjunction interpretation. with the waste acceptance criteria and requirements of a specific waste disposal facility;
- 1. Please can you provide further stakeholder input; and compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, information on the forward plan and agreements.
for the management and disposal of wastes which, utilising the 2019 interpretation, do not need to be disposed of in a deep geological disposal. In particular, whether this will allow for the important safety actions referred to in this section to be undertaken?
55 K.2.2.5 The national report states that the Under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA), the total capacity of WIPP is a subject of capacity of WIPP is limited by volume to approximately 1.76E+05 cubic meters (6.2E+06 interest and that a new approach cubic feet) of defense transuranic waste. The Department of Energys (DOEs) Annual has been utilised to more Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR) serves as a current estimate of the accurately count against the WIPP transuranic waste inventory. The transuranic waste inventory estimates in the ATWIR Page 27 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer statutory limit. have inherent uncertainties, and therefore, the inventory estimates change annually (e.g., changes due to waste minimization activities, packaging adjustments, technical and
- 1. Could you please provide planning changes). As of the data collection cutoff date (December 31, 2020) for the additional information on the 2021 ATWIR, approximately 70,100 cubic meters of transuranic waste have been current capacity (in m3) of WIPP disposed of at the WIPP facility (see https://wipp.energy.gov/library/TRUwaste/ATWIR-and the volumes of current and 2021_CBFO_Final.pdf).
future TRU waste streams?
By revising the method for counting defense transuranic waste disposed of at WIPP,
- 2. Please can you describe the which excludes some of the air space found in certain waste packages (e.g., overpacked contingency plan should the containers), DOE has increased the likelihood that WIPP will have sufficient statutory capacity of WIPP not be sufficient. capacity to dispose of the volume of waste estimated in DOEs 2020 ATWIR. In addition, DOEs plans include adding physical space at WIPP to meet future disposal needs without exceeding the statutory capacity. DOE will continue to closely monitor and track the actual transuranic waste volume emplaced at WIPP to ensure compliance with the WIPP LWA and will take action as appropriate, in a timely manner, to ensure the transuranic waste disposal needs of the DOE complex continue to be met.
56 D.2.1 Section 2.1 of the national report The Department of Energy (DOE) continues with the construction of the Waste provides a description of the Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to disposition 56 million gallons of waste that Waste Treatment and are a byproduct of national defense plutonium-production efforts during World War II Immobilization Plant which is and the Cold War Era. This radioactive liquid waste resides in 177 aging underground being built to treat defence waste tanks, ranging in capacity from 55,000 gallons to more than 1,000,000 gallons. The tanks from reprocessing. contain the most complex heterogeneous radioactive waste at any U.S. cleanup site.
Waste is in the form of sludge, salts, and liquids. No two tanks have the same
- 1. Please can you provide an combination of waste. There are over 1,800 different chemicals in the tank waste.
update on the progress of the Waste Treatment and WTP is a processing complex of five main facilities: Pretreatment (PT) Facility, Low-Immobilization Plant which is Activity Waste (LAW) Vitrification Facility, High-Level Waste (HLW) Vitrification Facility, being built at the Hanford Site, Analytical Laboratory (LAB), and other supporting facilities collectively referred to as including when it is currently Balance of Facilities (BOF). To begin treating waste as soon as practicable, DOE expected that this plant will begin developed a sequenced approach to first treat certain low-activity waste using the to treat the waste streams. direct-feed low-activity waste, or DFLAW, approach. This approach sends certain pretreated low-activity waste from the tank farms directly to WTPs LAW Vitrification Facility. Meanwhile, high-level waste will be processed and vitrified later in a separate process, and DOE is in the process of determining the optimal solution. That solution will consider WTPs HLW Vitrification Facility as well as WTPs PT.
Page 28 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 57 Annex D-2A Table D-2A lists a number of The Department of Energy (DOE) Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management, waste disposal facilities. These which complements DOE Order (O) 435.1, requires monitoring performed according to facilities contain a mixture of LLW, the form of radioactive waste. For the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), the MLLW (Mixed Low Level Waste) monitoring requirements below apply for the different waste streams currently located and TRU wastes. However, there in NNSS and any other DOE radioactive waste site as required under DOE O 435.1 and appears to be no information in Manual 435.1-1. The low-level waste (LLW) and mixed LLW monitoring activities this report as to how these include:
facilities are monitored to ensure that the waste is safely and All Waste Facilities: Parameters that shall be sampled or monitored, at a minimum, securely disposed of. include temperature, pressure (for closed systems), radioactivity in ventilation exhaust and liquid effluent streams, and flammable or explosive mixtures of gases. Facility
- 1. Please provide an overview of monitoring programs shall include verification that passive and active control systems the monitoring activities (of both have not failed.
waste and the surrounding land) that are undertaken of the various Liquid Waste Storage Facilities: For facilities storing liquid LLW, the following shall also waste disposal sites listed for the be monitored: liquid level and/or waste volume, and significant waste chemistry Nevada National Security Site that parameters.
are listed in D-2A to ensure that the waste is safely and securely Disposal Facilities: A preliminary monitoring plan for a LLW disposal facility shall be disposed of. prepared and submitted to Headquarters for review with the performance assessment and composite analysis. The monitoring plan shall be updated within one year following issuance of the disposal authorization statement to incorporate and implement conditions specified in the disposal authorization statement. The site-specific performance assessment and composite analysis shall be used to determine the media, locations, radionuclides, and other substances to be monitored.
Environmental Monitoring Program: The environmental monitoring program shall be designed to include measuring and evaluating releases, migration of radionuclides, disposal unit subsidence, and changes in disposal facility and disposal site parameters which may affect long-term performance. Radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities shall meet the environmental monitoring requirements established in DOE O 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and DOE Manual 435.1-1, ensuring dose limits are not exceeded for the representative person of the public or maximally exposed individual (MEI). Environmental Monitoring Programs shall be capable of detecting changing trends in performance to allow Page 29 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer application of any necessary corrective action prior to exceeding the performance objectives for radioactive waste management at DOE sites. For transuranic waste disposal, it follows the same requirements as those for LLW and mixed LLW.
Transuranic Waste: All waste facilities. Parameters that shall be sampled or monitored, at a minimum, include temperature, pressure (for closed systems), radioactivity in ventilation exhaust and liquid effluent streams, and flammable or explosive mixtures of gases. Facility monitoring programs shall include verification that passive and active control systems have not failed.
Stored Wastes: All transuranic wastes in storage shall be monitored, as prescribed by the appropriate facility safety analysis, to ensure the wastes are maintained in safe condition.
58 A.3.6 Section A.3.6 describes new In general, producers of medical isotopes are responsible for disposition of waste isotope production facilities. generated by new isotope production facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission evaluates commercial disposition of radioactive waste for medical isotope facilities
- 1. Please can you describe the consistent with its regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart K, as part of its reviews of plans for ensuring that there are license applications. Under the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012, the appropriate disposal routes for all Secretary of Energy has established a program to make low-enriched uranium available, the radioactive waste streams through lease contracts with the National Nuclear Security Administration, for generated by the new isotope irradiation for the production of molybdenum-99 for medical uses. Concurrent with the production facilities described lease contract, the Department of Energy (DOE) will sign a take-back contract to retain within Section A.3.6. responsibility for the final disposition of spent fuel or certain low-level waste without a commercial disposition pathway. The waste takeback contract will specify the producers payment terms to DOE for transfer, storage, and ultimate disposal.
59 K.1.2 Section K.1.2 of the national The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Department of Energy have periodic report describes the NRC meetings at the management level to discuss all low-level waste activities that would be Transformational Activities to of interest to the other agency. Additionally, all regulatory changes (i.e., rulemakings) enhance the regulatory involve a public process.
framework and separately discusses lessons learned at the Comments are commonly received from the public, industry, and government agencies.
DOE. Other government agencies are encouraged to comment on how the proposed regulatory changes will affect their requirements. NRC will consider and respond to all
- 1. Please can you explain whether significant comments before any regulatory changes are made.
there are any initiatives to ensure Page 30 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer that the improvements from these activities are shared across the USAs regulatory agencies.
60 K.2.3 The national report states that The scope to disposition radioactive liquid tank waste is to retrieve as much of the over the last several years over volume as technologically practical from the tanks and in matter that does not one-third of DOEs annual cleanup unnecessarily generate additional waste streams or create other hazards; treat and resources were spent for render the liquid waste in a solid form that is protective of human health and the radioactive liquid tank waste environment and is compliant with waste disposal regulations and requirements; stabilization and deposition. This package and transport the stabilized waste to an appropriate waste management facility investment is necessary to reduce for permanent disposal; and treat and disposition of secondary waste. The tanks technical uncertainties and risks themselves will undergo a closure process. The disposition of tank waste and the associated with the cleanup work closure of the tanks will require decades to complete.
DOE must accomplish in the next several decades. In general, the process for formulating budgets and planning program activities to accomplish legacy cleanup considers worker safety; public safety; environmental
- 1. Please can you provide more protection; requirements, commitments, and agreements; statutory requirements; details on the radiactive liquid other mission priorities; Departmental capabilities; and the Presidents agenda. Input tank waste stabilization and from Tribal Nations, stakeholders, impacted communities, and the public are actively deposition work, including when it sought and considered throughout the decision-making process, as well as through the is anticipated to be completed. course of cleanup.
- 2. Please can you explain what factors are taken into account in allocating resources from DOE to the various cleanup activities at legacy sites.
61 K.2.4 Section K.2.4 of the national The Department of Energy (DOE) described a number of challenges in Sections K.2.2.1, report describes a number of K.2.2, K.2.2.4, and K.2.2.5 in the U.S. Seventh National Report. DOE also faces the challenges identified for NRC and following challenges which are discussed in the EM Strategic Vision: 2021-2031 (which the activies undertaken to address can be found at: https://www.energy.gov/em/em-strategic-vision-2021-2031):
them.
Initiating tank waste treatment at Hanford, as well as completing significant risk
- 1. Please can you describe what, if reduction activities such as transferring cesium and strontium capsules to dry storage any, challenges have been and placing the last of the former production reactors in interim safe storage; emptying identified at DOE and EPA? and closing 22 of 51 underground waste tanks at the Savannah River Site, and Page 31 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer completing disposal of remaining legacy transuranic waste; completing the new Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation System, utility shaft, and other key infrastructure upgrades at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; and completing disposal of remaining legacy transuranic waste and uranium-233 at Oak Ridge, along with completing construction of the sites new Mercury Treatment Facility.
The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA's) primary challenges over the next several years involve planned changes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant disposal system that would increase the underground area/footprint of waste disposal operations. DOE intends to add at least two new waste panels in the near term in previously unexcavated areas of the repository, and potentially additional panels in subsequent years. DOE will submit information for EPA review and approval prior to mining any new panels. EPA will also be reviewing plans for DOE to dispose of additional volumes of surplus plutonium in the repository. Maintaining expertise with agency staff and contractor staff is an ongoing general challenge.
62 F4.2.1 & The USA national report in section The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not plan to adopt the standard. A Table F3 F4.21 and table F3 states the recent review by NRC found that the occupational dose limit of 50 mSv/year is effective dose limit for workers as adequately protective and through as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) 50 mSv/yr and the equivalent requirements the average dose of our licensees rarely exceeds 20 mSv/year, or 100 mSv dose limit is 150 mSv/yr. These over 10 years (see Enclosure 5: Issue Paper 4 - Individual Protection - ALARA Planning, dose limits are significantly higher which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, than those specified within GSR under ML14084A340). NRC has no current plans to update the radiation protection part 3, Schedule III. limits because the current system with the ALARA requirement adequately protects public health and safety as shown through operational experience.
- 1. Is USA going to adopt this latest standard?
- 2. If so, please can you explain the timescales?
- 3. If not, please can you explain the rationale for this decision?
63 F4.2.3, The USA national report in section The radiological criterion for termination of licenses under unrestricted conditions is a page 81 F4.2.3 refers to 2 final states for total effective dose equivalent to the average member of the critical group of less than Page 32 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer license termination, restricted and 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year and is found at 10 CFR 20.1402. The 10 CFR 20.1403 unrestricted use. radiological criteria for license termination under restricted conditions are: (1) 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year under legally-enforceable institutional controls; or (2) less than 100
- 1. Please could you provide mrem (1 mSv) per year if institutional controls are no longer in effect; or (3) 500 mrem (5 further details on these end mSv) per year if institutional controls are no longer in effect and the licensee states, in terms of the radiological demonstrates that further reductions are not technically feasible, it made provisions for protection criteria used? durable institutional controls, and sufficient financial assurance is provided. The technical basis for establishing the radiological criteria and the regulatory requirements
- 2. Could you explain the basis for is provided in the final rule, Radiological Criteria for License Termination (62 FR 39058, these criteria? July 21, 1997).
64 A.3.2.2, 11 A.3.2 describes the review for Alternative disposal requests are case-by-case reviews to determine the acceptability of alternative disposal requests to disposal in a non-10 CFR Part 61 disposal facility not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory LLW disposal and status of VLLW Commission (NRC) or an Agreement State. Generally, one regulatory review can be used scoping study. for similar alternative disposal requests. Ideally, an applicant would identify the plans
- The alternative disposal requests for multiple disposal campaigns in their application so that only one review and approval is carried out case by case. Is the would be required. Regarding clearance, the concept of clearance was not finalized in same procedure applied when our regulations. However, it was envisioned to be a generic approval process that could application for alternative be used without the need for case-by-case approvals by the regulator (either NRC or an disposal is repeatedly made with Agreement State).
the same method? What is the difference between the alternative disposal requests and concept of clearance?
65 F.2.3.5, 75 Are there regulatory measures For licensees that will not be able to recover decommissioning costs through regulated prepared to employ in cases rates and fees or other mandatory charges, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) where a nuclear facility needs requires up-front assurance in the form of prepayment or some type of surety permanent shutdown and mechanism. As discussed in the Federal Register Notice for the final rule, Financial decommissioning due to safety Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors, this up-front issues based on the regulatory assurance is necessary to ensure that reasonable financial assurance is provided for all body's decision, but the merchant decommissioning obligations (63 FR 50469, Sept. 22, 1998). If a facility is required to plant licensee does not provide permanently cease operations prior to its operating license termination date, and a assurance from the financial funding shortfall is identified, NRC will evaluate any such scenario on a case-by-case perspective? basis. NRC reserves the right to take additional steps, in accordance with NRC regulations, including conducting a review of the rate of accumulation of decommissioning funds, and to take additional actions, either independently or in Page 33 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer cooperation with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the licensees State public utility commission, as appropriate.
66 G.6, 111 As we understand, inspection is The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspects foreign manufacturing facilities of carried out on the manufacturers spent fuel storage cask designers that have a cask design approved in the U.S. NRC of spent fuel storage casks outside inspects the foreign facilities of cask designers that manufacture the cask systems the U.S. Is this inspection done on themselves outside the U.S. or contract out the manufacturing of casks to companies all storage casks or some selected outside the U.S. NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2690 (which can be found at ones? NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under ML20338A192) describes NRC inspection program for spent fuel storage cask design and fabrication, among other related activities. Details on the inspection of cask fabricators and cask components are found in IMC 2690, Appendix A, Inspection Program Guidance for ISFSIs.
Table A-1 of the Manual provides information on the inspection intervals and changes in inspection frequency based on performance. NRC conducts inspections of spent fuel cask fabrication activities at each foreign and domestic manufacturing facility every three years while fabrication activities are ongoing. Therefore, NRC inspections are performed on casks every three years at each facility, rather than on all fabricated storage casks. The inspection program is designed to increase the frequency of inspections when an inspection identifies performance issues at a facility.
67 H.3.1~3.2, H.3.2.1 and 3.2.2 describe the The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not endorsed ANSI/HPS N13.12-2013, 120~122 surface contaminated and Surface and Volume Radioactivity Standards for Clearance. Current NRC guidance on volumetrically contaminated approaches to unrestricted release of materials and equipment with volumetric radioactive material releases. contamination is provided in NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2, Section 15.11. The existing
- US NRC did not adopt ANSI/HPS guidance is that releases of volumetrically contaminated solid material may be N13.2. What is the reason for approved, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002, under an annual dose criterion of a few mrem, this? and are reviewed by NRC on a case-by-case basis.
68 J.2, 134 It is stated in J.2 that licensees In general, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees may store disused sealed possessing disused sealed sources sources indefinitely as there are no regulatory time limits placed on storage. One are responsible for properly exception is the requirement for prompt decommissioning provided in NRCs storing the sources. decommissioning Timeliness Rule (see 10 CFR 30.36(d)). The Timeliness Rule applies to
- Are licensees regulated and situations when: (1) the licensee has decided to permanently cease principal activities at controlled to ensure they do not the entire site; or (2) no principal activities have been conducted for a period of 24 hold disused sealed sources for an months, even if no decision has been made to permanently cease principal activities. If a extended period of time? sealed source licensee has not conducted any principal activities for 24 months, the
- Is this defined as a regulatory Timeliness Rule would apply and the licensee would be required to initiate applicable requirement? decommissioning activities. However, the rule would not apply to situations where Page 34 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer individual sealed sources are in long-term storage, but the licensee is still conducting principal activities.
69 J.2, 135 It is stated in J.2 that under the The radioactive sources collected by the Off-Site Source Recovery Program (OSRP) are OSRP, DOE/NNSA recovers, disused and unwanted. Prior to recovery by OSRP, these sources are licensed by the securely stores, and disposes, as Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement States and managed by the owner/license appropriate, commercially holder (except in the rare instance of an orphan source). Upon recovery, the ownership licensed sealed sources that pose of these sources is transferred to the Department of Energy and managed appropriately a threat to national security until disposal.
and/or public health and safety.
- It seems the sources under OSRP include sources held by a managing organization, not orphan sources. Does OSRP manage those sources even though they are managed by a licensee?
70 K.2.2, 146 It is stated that some problematic Some of the waste may be classified as transuranic waste, low-level waste (LLW) or wastes do not meet the waste Greater than Class C LLW. For those waste streams that do not meet a disposal criteria, acceptance criteria for a additional treatment/conditioning may be required to meet the waste acceptance repositories. criteria. Examples of actions taken may be to sort/segregate components in the waste,
-If wastes, other than calcine remove prohibited items, treat to remove hazardous or other characteristics, treat solids and sodium-bearing waste, sodium or reactive metals, add shielding to limit external exposures, or repackage to fail to meet acceptance criteria, limit the fissile waste loading in a particular container. There are commercial firms in what kinds of wastes are they? the U.S. that have expertise in radioactive waste treatment providing services to find What measures are being unique ways to disposition such waste.
considered to make them meet the disposal criteria?
71 F.7.3, F.7.4 The designer and manufacturer of Transportation and therefore, transportation casks are not within the scope of the Joint the spent fuel shipping containers Convention. Please refer to: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/transportation.html for may differ. At which stage does more information on transportation.
the assessment on the design quality assurance plan and manufacturing quality assurance plan take place, either design assessment stage or fabrication Page 35 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer inspection stage?
- In the case of the design of shipping containers approved by US NRC, if fabrication is made for export, are another partial design changes due to the request of the importing country not allowed without further approval from the US NRC?
72 G In the case of spent nuclear fuel The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart G storage casks, the designer and require that the designer of a spent fuel storage cask establish a quality assurance manufacturer may differ. At which program that includes all activities from development of the spent fuel storage cask stage does the assessment on the design through the eventual termination of the cask design approval. Fabrication design quality assurance plan and activities that occur after the design of the cask are also included. In addition, the manufacturing quality assurance eighteen quality assurance criteria (10 CFR 72.142 - 10 CFR 72.176) require that all plan take place, either design quality assurance programs for cask designers contain quality assurance criteria assessment stage or fabrication applicable to both design and fabrication activities. Therefore, the quality assurance inspection stage? program applicable to both design and manufacturing activities is assessed at the design assessment stage and is required to be approved before commencing fabrication or testing of a spent fuel storage cask. Further, the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) holder of an NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask design is responsible for ensuring manufacturing quality assurance. The CoC holder's responsibilities continue if a separate manufacturing company fabricates the spent fuel storage casks; the CoC holder must perform surveillance during component fabrication. The involvement of general and specific licensees that will use the storage cask is recommended to ensure the casks meet the needs of the end-user and that fabrication is of high quality. The CoC holder reviews and accepts the manufacturers quality assurance program as satisfying the required quality assurance criteria for fabrication.
73 F.7.3 It is stated that the U.S. manages Transportation, and therefore, transportation casks are not within the scope of the Joint the interfaces between various Convention. Please refer to: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/transportation.html for steps, e.g. storage, transportation, more information on transportation.
and disposal. As per the spent nuclear fuel shipping containers, do you have the design life or maximum times of use decided Page 36 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer for them? Or is there a separate procedure to check the integrity of casks such as aging assessment at a certain time or under certain conditions?
74 G When licensing the dry storage As discussed in B.3.1 in the U.S. Seventh National Report, storage systems can be initially facility for spent fuels, is the licensed for up to 40 years with possible renewals of up to 40 years, with no restriction period of permit given based on on the number of renewals. The 40-year licensing period does not necessarily equate to the storage cask design life and is a design life for a specific system. Rather, spent fuel storage applicants can apply for a the licensee required to apply for term of up to 40 years but must demonstrate the safety of the storage system design for the permit for continued the requested license term.
operation? If so, what is the period of permit and when does After the initial license term, the licensee may apply for a renewal of the storage system the licensee have to apply for or facility. As described in Section G.2 in the U.S. Seventh National Report, typical continued operation? Or, is there examinations for spent fuel storage renewals evaluate degradation mechanisms and a separate procedure similar to aging effects that may cause a reduction in the efficacy of storage system structures, continued operation such as systems, and components (SSCs). The requirements for spent fuel storage renewal replacement of casks? include demonstration that aging and degradation will be addressed by either: (1) time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that the SSCs continue to perform their intended functions, or (2) aging management programs to manage issues associated with aging, which could adversely affect SSCs. Aging management programs consist of condition monitoring, performance monitoring, inspections, mitigation, repair, or replacement activities for each SSC, upon consideration of its material of construction, service environment, condition, and any related operating experience.
75 F.7.3, F.7.4 Is there a provision which allows The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations for the storage of spent fuel at 10 an interim storage of spent CFR Part 72 are based on the radiological hazard of the materials, rather than the nuclear fuels that are not declared specific type or name of radioactive material to be stored. The type and location of a as radioactive waste, outside the specific storage facility, the amount of waste to be stored, site-specific hazards (e.g.,
site? flooding, seismicity), and the location of the site boundary require different approaches to ensure safety.
Under NRC regulations, licensees may store spent fuel in dry cask storage systems at independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at a reactor site or away-from-reactor site (see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html).
Page 37 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer A Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) is an ISFSI for purposes of NRC regulations; CISFs are subject to the ISFSI requirements in NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste, (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part072/index.html).
Thus, a CISF could be co-located at a power reactor site, but to date, no applicants have proposed a CISF to be co-located with a power reactor. See the Answer to Question 110 regarding the status of the two CISFs applications NRC received.
76 F.7.4, F.7.5 Does the Department of Energy As a matter of policy, the Department of Energy (DOE) has committed to providing the have its own management same level of protection for spent fuel as comparable commercial entities that are standards for spent nuclear fuels, regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Some DOE spent fuel storage other than the standards for safe facilities are licensed by NRC, and NRC requirements apply. For certain other activities, handling, storage, disposal of such as spent fuel transportation, DOE has developed its own requirements that are spent nuclear fuels provided by comparable to NRC regulations.
the regulator?
77 Pag 10, Being the NRC the regulatory The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed and commented on the A.3.1.4 authority over spent fuel, special Department of Energys (DOEs) Request for Public Comment on the U.S. Department of nuclear material sufficient to form Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive Waste (83 FR 50909, October 10, 2018),
a critical mass, and HLW (from and DOE modified its high-level waste (HLW) interpretation criteria in consideration of E.2), has the NRC had any NRCs comments, as discussed in DOEs Supplemental Notice Concerning U.S.
contribution during the process Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive Waste (84 FR 26835, for the modification of the June 10, 2019). DOE places significant weight on NRCs views of matters relating to the interpretation of HLW definition safe management and disposal of radioactive waste, including the HLW interpretation.
mentioned in A.3.1.4? Could the The HLW interpretation is only applicable to reprocessing waste inventories from atomic new criteria for excluding certain energy defense activities and would not apply to reprocessing waste from the operation waste from being HLW affect of commercial facilities.
other streams different to those foreseen by the DOE as a result of More recently on December 21, 2021, DOE published an affirmation of its DOE HLW the reprocessing of spent fuel (for Interpretation, after additional consideration and dialogue with its stakeholders (86 FR example those generated during 72220). The 2021 criteria are the same as the criteria published in the 2019.
the operation of commercial facilities), affecting tis way the radioactive waste inventories?
Page 38 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 78 Pag 11, Is there any calendar or prediction A schedule for completing this action cannot be made at this time because the staff's A.3.2.2 on when the regulatory scheme recommendations in SECY-20-0098 (which can be found at the Nuclear Regulatory might be updated in order to Commissions Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under accommodate the particularities ML20143A164) are under consideration by the Commission. The timing and content of for the management of VLLW? the Commissioners' response will determine when the regulatory scheme will be updated.
79 Pag 18, The NRC is requested to compile a The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not anticipate issuing a revision to its A.3.7.4 report to the US Congress on best July 2020 report on local community advisory boards. In the report's conclusion, NRC practices for establishing and encourages the formation of community advisory boards and identifies seven best operating local community practices that pertain to when to establish a board, development of a charter, advisory boards, which also makes consideration of local preferences, membership diversity, meeting frequency and topics, reference to lessons learned. Have funding sources, and access to experts and training.
you drawn any especially relevant recommendation from the last report on 2020? Is it foreseen or requested for this report to be issued again in the future?
80 Pag 58, From the US report: As of June Recommendations identified during an Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation E.2.1.5 2020, 39 of the 50 states have Program (IMPEP) review are specific to the Agreement State or Nuclear Regulatory entered into agreements with Commission (NRC) program being reviewed. A recommendation is written in response NRC. These states are called to a programmatic deficiency identified during the IMPEP review. All recommendations Agreement States. NRC and the included in the final report require a response from the agency. The agency will inform Agreement States work together NRC of the corrective action to be taken to correct the programmatic deficiency.
as co-regulators to ensure the Recommendations are subsequently followed up at the next periodic meeting held uniform protection of public midway between IMPEP reviews and the next IMPEP review to determine if the agency's health and safety across the U.S. action was effective in correcting the issue.
from the use of radioactive materials. Collectively, this collaborative effort between NRC and Agreement States is referred to as the National Materials Program.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Page 39 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer Program (IMPEP) offers the opportunity to identify good practices and lessons learned from the assessment of the performance of both Agreement State and NRC Radioactive Material Programs.
How are the recommendations arising from this program implemented or followed up? Are the recommendations consistently applied through the different Agreement States or only applied to the Agreement State subject to the assessment that led to the recomendation?
81 Pag 68, Last paragraph of the section Agreement States are required to have regulations that are compatible with the Nuclear E.2.4.2 (E.2.4.2) contains a good set of Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations to ensure that there are no conflicts, examples on how the NRC assists duplications, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the to states entering into regulation of radioactive materials on a national basis. Agreement State regulations agreements. However, being the required for basic radiation protection standards (such as dose limits), definitions radiation protection program or necessary for a common understanding of radiation protection principles (such as signs, regulation developed by the labels, or terms), and activities that cross jurisdictional boundaries must be essentially Agreement State itself, should identical to those of NRC's regulations. For other regulations, Agreement States have there is any conflict or the flexibility to be more restrictive than NRC. The categorization criteria used to controversy between the general determine the appropriate "compatibility" category for each section of the regulation is NRCs regulation and the specific done during the rulemaking process. As part of the periodic Integrated Materials one for the State, how would it be Performance Evaluation Program review of each Agreement State, NRC evaluates each solved or arbitrated? State to ensure that they maintain regulations that are compatible with NRC.
The regulatory developments by the Agreement States are requested to be more protective/
restrictive than the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions. Isnt this request a source of Page 40 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer uncertainty to potentially have different levels of radiation protection depending on the regulating State?
82 Pag 141, The activities looking forward to While the pandemic presented many challenges, it accelerated the Nuclear Regulatory K.1.4 the transformation of the NRC Commission's (NRCs) transformation efforts. For example, the initial work done with started a few years ago and the technology adoption prior to the pandemic was critical in helping us quickly several initiatives were launched. transition to working remotely during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
However, the pandemic must Employees have been embracing new technologies. Additionally, the Be riskSMART have affected the deployment of Initiative developed a framework to give staff confidence in accepting well-managed these activities (i.e. technology risks in decision-making without compromising NRCs mission. This framework can be adoption, processes used in the legal, corporate, and technical areas. This framework also played an simplification, etc.) and maybe important role during the pandemic to assess licensing actions and emergent safety and some of those will need to be security issues. At this time, NRC has been able to fully integrate six of the seven reconsidered once the health initiatives into its normal business processes, and as we progress on our transformation crisis is over and normal operation journey, we will continue to strengthen our culture of openness to innovation as an can be resumed. Could you please institutional norm.
briefly share how has the NRC transformation effort been particularly impacted/affected by the COVID pandemic?
83 B.3.2 Spent According to the Nuclear Waste For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy Fuel Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (DOE) for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory Disposal Yucca Mountain is still the Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory selected site for spent nuclear fuel proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. In 2021, even though the adjudication on Congress appropriated funds to DOE for interim storage activities. Congress has the application is suspended. Thus recommended that DOE move forward under existing authority to identify potential authorization by Congress, sites for Federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process. In the amendment to the Nuclear Waste near-term, DOE will focus its efforts on siting one or more Federal interim storage Policy Act (i.e. deselecting the facilities.
Yucca Mountain site) seems necessary in order to go forward with other potential spent fuel repository sites. Have there been any indications that any of this Page 41 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer will happen during the present Biden-Harris administration? Or are there any plans to restart the licensing of Yucca Mountain repository?
84 F.7.8 Public The U.S. Sixth National Report In 2021, Congress appropriated funds to the Department of Energy (DOE) for interim and mention (section F.7.8.) that DOE storage activities and recommended that DOE move forward under existing authority to Stakeholder facilitates public and stakeholder identify potential sites for Federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting Involvemen involvement in issues related to process.
t radioactive waste management.
That includes provide financial In December 2021, DOE issued a request for information (RFI) on a consent-based siting support for self-organized process that would be used to identify sites to store the nations spent fuel. The regional and tribal committees. information will be used to develop DOEs consent-based siting process and overall Does that include financial waste management strategy. DOE is committed to a consent-based siting approach that support to non governmental makes communities and people central in the process. This will give the nation its best organizations like environmental chance at success in solving the decades-long stalemate over how to effectively organizations? Regarding a future disposition spent fuel. DOE may issue a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) or site for spent nuclear fuel, will the other solicitation in the future based on or related to the content and responses to the financial support for stakeholder consent-based siting RFI. DOE plans to have any such FOA be open to interested groups involvement continue after one or and communities. Final details, including the anticipated award size, quantity, and several sites have been selected? timing of DOE-funded awards, would be subject to available appropriations.
Will stakeholder support activities at the local level continue during the entire process?
85 D.3.1 After site cleanups, how many With regard to risk, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM)
Departmen sites are concidered as a receives sites from DOE Office of Environmental Management after the cleanups are t potential risk and have been completed; therefore, in terms of absolute risk, the risk profile is very low. Nevertheless, transferred to DOE's office of LM maintains a risk ranking index of relative risk within the LM portfolio. DOE uses the Legacy Managment (LM) for LM risk ranking index to prioritize funding for special projects designed to further reduce continued long term surveillance exposure to risk.
and maintenance? How many more sites can it be antipicated LM is anticipating 52 more sites, resulting in a total of 153 sites to transition by 2070.
that LM will be responsible for in DOE also identified another 3 sites where transition dates cant be estimated.
the future? For how long will this long term surveillance and Long-term surveillance and maintenance are expected to continue in perpetuity into the Page 42 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer maintenance continue, how is it future. LM funding is granted by legislation that the President signs each fiscal year as financed and how much will it part of the budgeting or appropriation process. LM maintains a 75-year baseline of potentially cost? funding requirements to manage its sites.
86 D.3.1 The work done by the Legacy A large part of the Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management (LM) mission Departmen Management (LM) is a very includes stakeholder interaction to gain a better understanding of the communities near t interesting example of how long LM facilities, as well as to accomplish competent, long-term surveillance and term surveillance and maintenance. This includes educating the local public about the respective LM site maintenance after facility closure history through planned engagement activities. LM often partners with local can be done in practice. Is LM also governments to provide information about the LM site and explore opportunities to comitted to educating/informing redevelop LM sites (e.g., into parks, interpretive centers), as appropriate.
the public and stakeholder (local community, decision makers etc.) LM has not decided to end long-term surveillance and maintenance at an LM site.
regarding for instance why post-closure activites are needed as Yes, LM sites are marked. LM maintains existing signage and may augment the signage well as why and when the long effort at a site, if needed, to ensure safety of the site and members of the public. The surveillance and maintenance strategy is different for every site and depends mostly on the proximity to a populated period can be ended? If decisions area and likelihood of trespassers. LM considers signage/marking an important part of have been made to end the long long-term surveillance and maintenance.
surveillance and maintenance at a legacy site, have this caused any Yes, there are controls of the marker/signs. LM sites are inspected annually, at a oposition in the local minimum, which includes ensuring markers/signs are legible and secure. Depending on communites? Are these sites the regulatory framework of a site, site markers/signs are generally consistent in color marked in any way? If so, what and design but may vary to best serve the local community.
kind of marking strategy have been put forward? Are there Some LM sites have been converted to be reused by the public (e.g., visitor centers, regular controlls of the wildlife refuges, walking trails, dog parks). These converted sites are generally viewed as marker/signs understandibility beneficial resources to affected communities. Once established, many visitors make use and is there any marker design of walking trails because they offer opportunities to view wildlife, especially in suburban harmonization between sites? For settings. These types of reuses increase positive public perception of LM sites.
the legacy sites that are reused, what challenges and benefits have LM produces a quarterly newsletter that highlights many of our efforts to preserve been observed when reusing the records and community interactions. LM efforts are generally guided by community legacy sites? It would be desire and LM mission goals. Each site is treated uniquely in terms of preserving the site interesting to know more about history within a community. LM uses many multi-media ways to share the legacy and LM's work to preserve knowledge history of our sites, including, fact sheets, videos, websites, social media, public Page 43 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer and memory of the legacy sites outreach, and others. Additional information on LM can be found at:
that are under long term https://www.energy.gov/lm/office-legacy-management.
surveillance and maintenance and any references describing this would be greatly appreciated.
87 H.2.2 Siting A strategy document from DOE The Department of Energy is committed to the consent-based siting approach that Proposed (2013) titled "Strategy for the makes communities and people central in the process to give the nation its best chance Facilities management and disposal of used at success in solving the nations decades-long stalemate over how to effectively manage nuclear fuel and high-level our spent fuel. Additional summary level information can be found at:
radioactive waste" emphasize the https://www.energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting; need for a consent-based siting https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-restarts-consent-based-siting-program-spent-process. The five criteria stated in nuclear-fuel-requests-input-interim; and the report do not seem to include https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/01/2021-25724/notice-of-societal acceptance as a key factor request-for-information-rfi-on-using-a-consent-based-siting-process-to-identify-federal.
in the site selection process. Can you please clarify whether or not the siting strategy for proposed facilites inlcudes a consent based process.
88 Section F Considering the proposal of the In 2018, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff prepared a draft proposed rule IRRS 2014 follow-up mission for decommissioning of production and utilization facilities and provided it to its saying that NRC should consider Commission for consideration (SECY-18-0055). On November 3, 2021, the Commission developing a consolidated approved publication of the proposed rule subject to certain changes which can be rulemaking and corresponding found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under guidance in order to facilitate the ML21307A046. The proposed rule is currently on track to be published in March 2022.
orderly transition from operation to decommissioning (IAEA-NS-2014/01 report, IRRS Follow-up Mission to the USA), could you provide more detailed information on how this proposal has been implemented?
89 Section K What are the main funding The Congress appropriates funds for the cleanup of Department of Energy non-defense sources for the cleanup of non- legacy sites such as the legacy gaseous diffusion sites which are funded through the defense legacy sites? Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
Page 44 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 90 General INFCIRC/603/Rev7 presents the INFCIRC/603/Rev7 notes that a good practice is a new or revised practice, policy or definition of a Good Practice program that makes a significant contribution to the safety of radioactive waste and stating the criteria of a significant spent fuel management. A Good Practice is one that has been tried and proven by at contribution to the safety as its least one Contracting Party but has not been widely implemented by other Contracting key provision. Please, indicate Parties; and is applicable to other Contracting Parties with similar programs. The U.S.
what criteria of significant does not apply predetermined criteria to define what constitutes a significant contribution to the safety govern contribution to safety, as there is a wide range of possible safety benefits depending on the decision-making on denoting the nature of the activity proposed as a good practice. Safety benefits could be short-some specific program, policy or term (e.g., public or occupational dose reduction), medium-term (e.g., reduced impacts practice as a Good Practice? to the environment), long-term (e.g., reduced risk to future generations), or encompass multiple benefits over time. Discussion among Contracting Parties at the Review Meeting is the best approach to determining whether a proposed best practice satisfies the INFCIRC definition. The U.S. also notes that the process for identifying good practices is the subject of a proposal to be discussed at the upcoming Extraordinary Meeting. This topic could be further explored by the Open-Ended Working Group at the 7th Review Meeting.
91 General Promotion of progress in nuclear The best safety indicator is the safety record that there have been no releases of spent safety is seen as an objective of fuel storage cask contents or other significant safety problems from the dry cask storage the Joint Convention. Based on systems in use today.
which estimated safety indicators you conclude on the progress The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) promotes the continuation of this excellent associated with the safety of safety record by:
storage facilities?
-Maintaining and enhancing regulatory programs, using information gained from domestic and international operating experience, lessons learned, and advances in science and technology.
-Further risk-informing the current regulatory framework in response to advances in science and technology, policy decisions, and other factors, including prioritizing efforts to focus on the most safety-significant issues.
-Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of licensing and certification activities to maintain both quality and timeliness of licensing and certification reviews.
-Maintaining effective and consistent oversight of licensee performance with a focus on Page 45 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer the most safety-significant issues.
-Identifying, assessing, and resolving safety issues.
-Verifying that spent fuel storage facilities are constructed and operated in accordance with permits and licenses and that the environmental and safety regulatory infrastructure is adequate to support the issuance of new licenses.
NRC requires licensees for storage facilities to provide a description of their aging management program in renewed storage facility licenses and renewed certificates of compliance for casks. NRC uses the inspection process to determine whether licensees have adequate processes or procedures planned or in place to implement approved aging management programs consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72. For example, NRC requires that the collection of appropriate information and the implementation of aging management activities are part of license renewals. These include: (1) time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety continue to perform their intended functions; and (2) aging management programs for specific issues known to be associated with aging, which could adversely affect SSCs important to safety.
Information collected for the aging management program is a useful indicator of safety progress.
As discussed in Section A.3.1 of the U.S. Seventh National Report, some specific examples of progress in the safety of spent fuel storage include: the Department of Energy (DOE) research and development activities for spent fuel and high-level waste and NRCs review of two applications for consolidated interim storage facilities.
Additionally, as discussed in Section G.6, NRCs regulations and its licensing and inspection programs address numerous aspects of spent fuel storage activities, including the storage of spent fuel at independent spent fuel storage installations, approval of storage cask designs, and the safe operation of the storage casks and storage facilities.
92 General Is there any practice in place to The Department of Energy (DOE) uses the process outlined in a DOE Directive for rank nuclear facilities according to assigning hazard categories for DOE nuclear facilities (DOE-STD-1027-2018, Hazard their hazard level? If so, what are Categorization of DOE Nuclear Facilities). The categories are assigned based on the its main principles and /or following:
methodology?
Page 46 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer
- Hazard Category 1 has potential for significant offsite consequences,
- Hazard Category 2 has potential for significant onsite consequences beyond localized consequences,
- Hazard Category 3 has potential for only local significant consequences, and
- Below Hazard Category 3 has potential for only consequences less than those that provide a basis for categorization as a Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facility.
93 Section H What were the key changes The design, construction, and operation of nuclear facilities meet the requirements and introduced at the stage of nuclear procedures included in 10 CFR Part 830, DOE Order (O) 420.1C, DOE O 414.1D, DOE facility design development or Policy 450.4A,205, and DOE Acquisition Regulation clauses at 48 CFR 970.5223-1, 48 CFR what changes are going to be 970.5204-2, and 48 CFR 970.1100-1. The U.S. requires that nuclear facilities be designed introduced due to the wide-scale to facilitate decontamination and a proposed decommissioning method must be application of the BIM-approach included in the design.
in design development and construction?
94 Section H Are there any information BIM- The U.S. does not prescribe the use of specific digital models of nuclear facilities for models or comprehensive digital operational stage and decommissioning concept as long as the design, construction, and twins of nuclear facilities involving operation meet the requirements and procedures included in 10 CFR Part 830, DOE digitally simulated NF operation Order (O) 420.1C, DOE O 414.1D, DOE Policy 450.4A,205, and DOE Acquisition processes (model of NF Regulation clauses at 48 CFR 970.5223-1, 48 CFR 970.5204-2, and 48 CFR 970.1100-1.
operational stage) and NF However, the U.S. requires that nuclear facilities be designed to facilitate decommissioning concept decontamination and a proposed decommissioning method must be included in the (decommissioning concept model) design.
in place or are these envisaged to be implemented at the design development and construction stage?
95 Section H Are there any plans on the No, the U.S. is not involved in developing a set of pan-European requirements and rules development of a pan-European for exchanging decommissioning designs.
set of requirements and rules (standardized template) for the exchange of data on nuclear facility decommissioning designs?
Page 47 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 96 G.7, p. 113 The Report says that DOE has The Department of Energy (DOE) conducts research on long-term storage of spent fuel in developed and has been running canisters, including the performance of high-burnup fuel over long periods. This an R&D program on the long-term research includes testing cladding response with hydride reorientation and management of spent nuclear embrittlement; effects of atmospheric corrosion on strong welds; measuring the fuel. Could you please specify the embrittlement of elastomer seals; determining thermomechanical degradation of bolts, contents of this R&D program? welds, seals, and positions; analyzing thermal profiles of stored fuels; determining the What are the preliminary findings stress profiles of fuels and casks; evaluating cask drying processes; laboratory post-of the R&Ds regarding the irradiation examination of fuel; and development of sensors for internal and external behavior of SNF under long-term cask monitoring. Information on some of these projects can be found at the following storage conditions? If its possible, websites: https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/high-burnup-dry-storage-cask-please, provide some references research-and-development-project-final-test-plan; to relevant open sources. https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/high-burnup-spent-fuel-data-project-sister-rod-test-plan-overview; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1568885-high-burnup-demonstration-thermal-modeling-tn-vacuum-drying-isfsi-transients; and https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1498450-analysis-gas-samples-taken-from-high-burnup-demonstration-cask.
In addition, DOE also conducts ongoing research on various disposal geologic media including clay/shale, salt, and crystalline rock. Part of this work includes evaluating the feasibility of directly disposing of dual-purpose spent fuel canisters in mined geologic repositories. Information on this work may be found at the following websites:
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1648777; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1544664-direct-disposal-dual-purpose-canisters-lanl-boral-solubility-fy19; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1616378-preliminary-analysis-postclosure-dpc-criticality-consequences; and https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub151495.pdf.
DOEs research and development activities are also shared with universities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, and international agencies.
97 Section H What exactly are the authorized The authorized limits mentioned in Section H.3.1 in the U.S. Seventh National Report are limits set for waste disposal at established to ensure no special regulatory requirements beyond those already in place solid waste landfills by DOE? for the landfill are necessary. The Department of Energy (DOE) Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, provides performance objectives for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at DOE low-level waste disposal facilities. The Manual states that DOE low-level waste disposal facilities be sited, designed, operated, Page 48 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer maintained, and closed so that a reasonable expectation exists that specific performance objectives and performance measures will be met for waste disposed at DOE facilities.
The specific performance objectives related to authorized limits for waste disposal facilities include: (a) dose to a representative member of the public or maximally exposed individual shall not exceed 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) in a year total effective dose equivalent from all exposure pathways, excluding the dose from radon and its progeny in air; (b) dose to representative members of the public via the air pathway shall not exceed 10 mrem (0.10 mSv) in a year total effective dose equivalent, excluding the dose from radon and its progeny; (c) release of radon shall be less than an average flux of 20 pCi/m²/s (0.74 Bq/m²/s) at the surface of the disposal facility. Alternatively, for radon, a limit of 0.5 pCi/l (0.0185 Bq/l) of air may be applied at the boundary of the facility.
Authorized limits of radionuclides may vary by site based upon exposure pathways but are based upon meeting the above dose constraints or other dose constraints under applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations and agreements.
98 Section A Are there any specific deadlines For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy for the implementation of the (DOE) for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory HLW disposal program? Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. There is no programmatic timetable for when spent fuel disposal capability will exist. In 2021, Congress appropriated funds to DOE for interim storage activities. Congress has recommended that DOE move forward under existing authority to identify potential sites for Federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process.
DOE does not have established deadlines for implementation of its high-level waste disposal program.
99 Section A What is the planned schedule for For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy the construction and for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory commissioning of the Yucca Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory Mountain Repository? proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. There is no programmatic timetable for when spent fuel disposal capability will exist.
100 Section It is mentioned on page 30 in the A signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Energy (DOE) and B.3.2 US NR that each Federal agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) facilitates sharing technical expertise. DOE and makes an independent decision NRC, as well as other Federal agencies, also have access to Max.gov, which provides a with respect to NWPA assigned government-wide suite of advanced collaboration, information sharing, data collection, roles and responsibilities, and Page 49 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer available information; however, publishing, business intelligence, and authentication tools and services used to facilitate the Federal agencies, consistent cross-government collaboration and knowledge management.
with the roles and responsibilities, are allowed to exchange information on the relevant issues to ensure each agencys views and potential concerns are understood.
Could you please briefly describe mechanism for information exchange, its scope and frequency?
101 Section A It is stated on page 1 of the US NR As noted in the guidance document (which can be found at the Nuclear Regulatory that the US has achieved progress Commissions [NRCs] Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System in radioactive waste management, [ADAMS], under ML19295F109), NRC typically considers approval of alternative disposal including issuing guidance and requests (ADRs) for very low-level waste (VLLW) on a case-by-case basis. The term VLLW policy on Very Low-Level Waste does not have a statutory or regulatory definition, but is described in the VLLW Scoping (VLLW) disposal (Section A.3.2). Study (which can be found at NRCs ADAMS, under ML21132A296) as material created Could you outline principal during the conduct of licensed activities, which contains some residual radioactivity, provisions of VLLW disposal including naturally occurring radionuclides, that may be safely disposed of in hazardous guidance and policy? or municipal solid waste landfills. Although these materials could be disposed of in a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR Part 61, the use of alternative disposal procedures under 10 CFR 20.2002 may reduce overall risk (e.g., risk associated with increased transportation distances and associated radiological and non-radiological impacts), and may preserve disposal capacity at LLW disposal facilities for higher risk waste streams, while also providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and protection of the environment. Although 10 CFR 20.2002 does not specify a dose limit, NUREG-1757, Volume 1, references a few mrem per year (i.e., 0.05 mSv per year [5 mrem per year]) as one potential guideline for acceptable alternative disposals.
102 Section Could you give an update on the For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy A.3.1 current status of Yucca Mountain for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory Repository project? Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended.
Page 50 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 103 Section Could you give examples of Examples include relatively minor updates, such as changes in organizational K.1.6. amendments in waste acceptance responsibilities, to more complex technical and procedural changes to ensure criteria for WIPP? transuranic waste is managed in a manner that protects human health and safety and the environment. For example, several new activities and process enhancements were established in the waste acceptance criteria after the 2014 radiological release event, including requirements to conduct an enhanced chemical compatibility evaluation and preparation of a Basis of Knowledge document to specify when waste with oxidizing chemicals is acceptable as is, or when treatment will be required along with the treatment that must be performed. A more recent example is revising the waste acceptance criteria to allow receipt and processing of remote-handled waste when containerized in a shielded container. The current version of the Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant can be found at:
https://wipp.energy.gov/documents-library-by-title.asp. Each revision to the document includes an upfront section summarizing the associated changes to the previous revision.
104 Section A Are there any plans in the US to The U.S. plans to meet its obligation to disposition spent fuel and high-level waste.
construct deep geological repositories for high-level waste?
105 A.3.8, P19, According to the requirements Under its regulations in 10 CFR 61.55, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) para 3 from IAEA No.GSG-1Classification classifies low-level waste (LLW) into three classes, namely Class A, Class B, and Class C, of Radioactive Waste, most of the based on the radiological hazard as determined by the concentration of radionuclides GTCC LLW could be classified as prescribed for each class. Class C is the most hazardous of the three categories, and LLW intermediate-level Radwaste, and streams that contain radionuclide concentrations exceeding the limits for Class C waste recommended to be disposed in a are referred to as "greater-than-Class C" (GTCC) LLW. GTCC LLW may be generated by a intermediate depth.In A.3.8,"In variety of facilities both within and outside of the nuclear fuel cycle. Under NRC's July 2019, NRC issued, for public current regulations, GTCC waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository unless comment, a draft regulatory basis "proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site . . . are approved by the evaluating the suitability of Commission." However, to date, the Commission has not received or approved any such certain categories of GTCC LLW request. Based on our evaluation of the hazards and other considerations, NRC for near-surface disposal", please determined that most of the GTCC waste streams analyzed are potentially suitable for describe the definition of GTCC near-surface disposal.
LLW and how to guarantee the long-term safety of disposal of the GTCC LLW.
Page 51 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 106 A.3.2.2,P11, It's mentioned that in A.3.2.2 In 2018, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated the very low-level waste para 4 "NRC is conducting a scoping (VLLW) scoping study to identify potential options to improve and strengthen the study to address VLLW regulatory framework for VLLW disposal. As part of this study, the staff sought management to identify whether stakeholder input, evaluated lessons learned from prior initiatives to address VLLW, the NRC should take actions to reviewed domestic and international practices, and examined applicable literature and strengthen its regulatory other information developed in the study. In addition, the staff considered VLLW framework for VLLW". Please give initiatives in 2019 and 2020 that also generated relevant stakeholder feedback. Based description on the regulatory on these activities, the staff evaluated NRCs regulation of VLLW and concluded that the requirements and some relevant current regulatory framework is robust, effective, provides adequate protection of management practices in the field public health and safety, and provides sufficient disposal options for waste generators.
of VLLW. The VLLW scoping study was completed in 2021 and is available at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under ML21132A296.
107 D.2.2.2,P44 Refer to 10CFR61, the surveillance In accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations at 10 CFR 61.53,
, para 6 time for near-surface disposal after the disposal site is closed, the licensee responsible for post-operational surveillance facility should be 300 years. From of the disposal site shall maintain a monitoring system based on the site's operating the report, there are four closed history and the stabilization of the disposal site. The monitoring system must be capable commercial LLW sites in the U.S., of providing early warning of releases of radionuclides from the disposal site before they and the longest surveillance time leave the site boundary. The specific requirements of the monitoring system, including has reached almost 40 years. the length of time it must be in place, are based on site-specific considerations. As an Please describe the surveillance example, showing how this is done, the Beatty Low-Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility in and monitoring status of the Nevada ceased the acceptance of LLW in 1992 after 30 years of operation. In 1997, the closed near-surface disposal sites, radioactive material license was transferred to the State of Nevada, and the site entered including the monitoring of the institutional control period. Nevada conducts quarterly radiation surveys and radwaste package, engineering surveillance inspections of the closed facility. Each survey includes radiation barrier, as well as environmental measurements, documentation of erosion, water pooling, fissures and subsidence on monitoring. the cover, and review of precipitation from a local weather station.
108 G.6,P113, Requirements for incident Level 2 or higher events on the International Nuclear Event Scale pertaining to spent fuel para 1 reporting are stipulated in 10 CFR management did not occur in the U.S. during the period 2017-2019.
72.74, 72.75, and 72.80. It is required to report significant events where NRC may need to act to maintain or improve safety or to respond to public concerns.
All events are considered against the International Nuclear Event Page 52 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer Scale (INES). A report should be generated under INES requirements if the event is classified a Level 2 or above.
Section F.12 provides additional information on facility operations.
Events identified as potentially affecting operating experience are reported by licensees quarterly. Is there any Level 2 or above event in the field of spent fuel management happened during this period (2017-2019)? If any, please describe the events briefly.
109 K.2.1, P146, In P146, " Agencies must Federal agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE), routinely engage with para 3 communicate with the public and State, Tribal, and local governments, conducting regular meetings and providing program stakeholders to assure opportunities for comment and input while making every effort to conduct activities in them that subject matter experts an open and transparent manner. Correspondence with DOE and the public, as well as have the experience and inspections, environmental analyses, and other reports, are available in the public record knowledge to safely and securely and published online. In addition, DOE regularly engages with community committees handle the spent fuel and HLW. or advisory organizations to foster communication and information exchange between DOE must provide the public with DOE and the members of the local community and local government officials. Actively background information to help engaging the interested local community and seeking their views and concerns on the familiarize them with the spent management and disposition of spent fuel and high-level waste enables DOE to better fuel program and the safe identify and consider local viewpoints and keep communities informed of such activities.
management of the nuclear See Section F.7.8 in the U.S. Seventh National Report.
material. " Please describe requirements and programmes for selecting the public and stakeholders to be communicated.
110 A.3.1.3 P9 P9: "CISFs are facilities proposed A consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) could be co-located at a power reactor site, para 2 for the interim storage of spent but to date, no applicants have proposed a CISF to be co-located with a power reactor.
fuel and reactor-related GTCC Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, licensees may store spent LLW prior to final disposal in a fuel in dry cask storage systems at independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at Page 53 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer deep geologic disposal facility. The a reactor site or at an away-from-reactor site (see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-CISFs would be similar to existing fuel-storage.html).
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs), providing dry NRC received two applications for CISFs. NRC issued a Materials License to Interim storage of spent fuel with Storage Partners, LLC to construct and operate the WCS CISF in Andrews County, Texas, integrated shielding structures. after NRC completed its safety, environmental, and security reviews in September 2021.
CISFs will be regulated under Title A summary of the WCS CISF licensing actions can be found at NRCs Agency-wide 10 of the Code of Federal Documents Access and Management System, under ML21188A096. The second CISF Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72, and application was submitted in March 2017 by Holtec International for its proposed HI-as proposed, would not be co- STORE CISF in Lea County, New Mexico, and it is still under NRC review. A summary of located with a power the Holtec International CISF licensing actions can be found at:
reactor."Why would CISFs not be https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/holtec-international.html. At this co-located with a power reactor time, neither Interim Storage Partners, LLC nor Holtec International has proposed the co-as proposed? Besides the location, location of a CISF at a specific power reactor site. Therefore, both the WCS CISF and the what are the differences between proposed Holtec CISF are considered away-from-reactor ISFSIs. Additional information the Consolidated Interim Storage on the CISFs can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis.html.
Facility (CISF) and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage CISFs and ISFSIs are subject to NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Installation (ISFSI)? Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste, (which can be found at:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part072/index.html).
111 K.2.3,P149, P149: "DOE is responsible for The remaining 16 legacy sites face a few common challenges such as working with aging para 2 cleaning up 107 sites across the infrastructure, incorporating new project management capabilities and requirements, U.S., most of which resulted from improving assessment and reporting capabilities, and incorporating increased flexibility defense activities. To date, DOE in work locations, while maintaining readiness. Three of the larger sites also have has made substantial progress in challenges related to remediating/closing large underground waste tanks, vitrifying, and nearly every area of nuclear waste disposing residual tank waste, as well as managing and dispositioning spent fuel.
cleanup and completed cleanup at 91 of these sites. " For the last The Department of Energy (DOE) currently estimates the cleanup of the final site to be 16 legacy sites, what are the main complete in 2070-2075 timeframe. Some scheduled milestones may be revised due to difficulties and challenges for the work interruptions caused by COVID-19. DOE will continue to work with regulators to cleanup? What measures will be revise milestones, as needed.
taken? And what is the timetable of the cleanup of the last 16 The DOE Office of Environmental Management Strategic Vision: 2021-2031 discusses legacy sites?
Page 54 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer the challenges at the different sites and can be found at https://www.energy.gov/em/em-strategic-vision-2021-2031.
112 A3.1.2, P8, It is stated that "In November The Extended Storage Collaboration Program (ESCP), sponsored by the Electric Power last Para. 2019, EPRI convened a Research Institute (EPRI), is a group of individuals, government agencies, national workshopassociated with laboratories, and individuals that work with spent fuel. The meetings/conferences are spent fuel dry cask storage held twice a year. A report, Extended Storage Collaboration Program (ESCP):
systems. The topic of discussion Nondestructive Evaluation Subcommittee - Industry Progress Report (October 2017),
was identification of potential can be found at: https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002010617.
concerns associated with extended dry storage of spent Although the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national laboratories participate in the fuel" Please give more details meetings, DOE is not a sponsor and does not provide any funding for any of the ESCP on the workshop, e.g. what are activities. After the meetings, EPRI provides all the presentations that were made at the the potential concerns identified conference to all registrants for the conference for future reference. No document is by the workshop, and what provided by EPRI that tries to summarize or make overall observations about the measures will be taken in the meetings. With the presentations, individual registrants can study the data and future? information presented and make their own conclusions on the data that is presented.
113 B.5, P33, It is stated that "U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has summarized lessons learned from Para. 2 Governmental agencies work decommissioning in Regulatory Guide 4.21, Minimization of Contamination and closely with industry, Radioactive Waste Generation (which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents stakeholders, and members of the Access and Management System under ML080500187). Appendix A of this guide, public to ensure lessons learned Examples of Measures to Control Contamination, describes specific lessons learned from decommissioning are from previous decommissioning activities. NRC anticipates that applicants will rely on appropriately factored into the Regulatory Guide 4.21, or other acceptable approaches, when preparing license next generation of nuclear applications. For example, nuclear facilities generally incorporate leak or spill collection facilities (e.g., NPPs, uranium mill systems to protect against leakage.
facilities, and enrichment facilities)." Please give more details on the lessons learned from decommissioning, e.g. what lessons have been learned from decommissioning? What measurements have been taken to ensure lessons learned from decommissioning are appropriately factored into the Page 55 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer next generation of nuclear facilities? And what specific lessons have been factored into the next generation of nuclear facilities?
114 F.2.3.1,P73, It is stated that "The surety Currently, all disposal facilities are licensed by Agreement States as discussed in Section Para. 1 requirements ensure that D.2.2.2. in the U.S. Seventh National Report. The site closure and stabilization activities sufficient funds are available for of these disposal facilities take as long as necessary to implement the closure design, the site operator to conduct all which is site-specific, but should be as short as practical. Following completion of the required site closure and closure, the licensee shall observe, monitor, and carry out necessary maintenance and stabilization activities and for the repairs at the disposal site until the license is transferred by the Commission. The site owner to establish and licensee generally maintains responsibility for five years to ensure closure and maintain legally durable stabilization were successful, though a shorter or longer period may be approved.
institutional controls after license termination." How long is it for Institutional controls are active or passive barriers or actions to limit access to the the site operator to conduct all disposal site following transfer of control of the disposal site from the disposal site required site closure and operator. The types of active controls generally applied include fencing, electronic stabilization activities usually? surveillance, and active or periodic patrols or inspections. The types of passive controls What are the contents of the include deed restrictions or other management controls to limit inadvertent transfer and institutional controls established use of the site, and placement of warning markers to indicate potential danger from use by the site owner?And how much of the site. The institutional control program can include actions such as carrying out an is the estimated cost for the site environmental monitoring program at the disposal site, periodic surveillance, minor owner to establish and maintain custodial care, other requirements as determined by the Commission, and legally durable institutional administration of funds to cover the costs for these activities. The period of institutional controls after license termination? controls will be determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but institutional controls may not be relied upon for more than 100 years following transfer of control of the disposal site to the owner.
NRC requirements at 10 CFR 61.63 states Prior to the issuance of the license, the applicant shall provide for Commission review and approval a copy of a binding arrangement, such as a lease, between the applicant and the disposal site owner that ensures that sufficient funds will be available to cover the costs of monitoring and any required maintenance during the institutional control period. The binding arrangement will be reviewed periodically by the Commission to ensure that changes in inflation, technology, and disposal facility operations are reflected in the arrangements.
Page 56 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer To date, NRC has never licensed a low-level waste disposal facility because, at this time, these facilities are under Agreement State authority. For this reason, Agreement States, rather than NRC, have approved the binding agreements between a licensee and site owner and the site-specific cost estimates. At the license application phase, a licensee must develop estimates that reflect the site-specific costs of monitoring for releases and performing required maintenance at facilities during the institutional control period.
These site-specific cost estimates and the financial assurance that the funds will be available are provided by the licensee at the license application stage and must be approved and periodically reviewed by the regulator, which may be NRC or an Agreement State (See NUREG-1200, Revision 3, Standard Review Plan for the review of a license application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. These activities include but are not limited to: (1) periodic repair or replacement of fencing, (2) maintenance or replacement of surveillance equipment, and (3) collection of monitoring samples and analysis of the results.
115 J.2,P135,Pa It is stated that the disposal of The sources were not removed from the device (Gammacell 1000), which is a robust ra. 1 two 137Cs source capsules with a device that once met previous Type B container testing requirements. For disposal, the combined activity of 563 Ci (20.8 device was placed into an engineered concrete barrier and secured in place using TBq) was successfully completed concrete. The disposal facility was able to dispose of radioactive waste up to the Nuclear in September 2017. Please give Regulatory Commission's Class C limit as defined by 10 CFR 61.55.
more details on the 137Cs source conditioning process before it was disposed, the specification of the capsules and the acceptance criteria (including the activity limit) for disposal facility.
116 K.2,P145,Pa It is stated that "As a result, For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy ra. 1 continued storage of spent fuel at (DOE) for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory the reactor ISFSIs will be Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory necessary for longer time periods proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. There is than originally expected, due to no definitive schedule for the disposal of spent fuel.
delays in the availability of a repository for permanent Spent fuel will continue to be safely stored until a disposal facility is available. Technical disposal." Will the extension of understanding and experience continue to support the technical feasibility of safe interim storage time lead to an storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools and in dry casks, based on their physical Page 57 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer additional burden to the future integrity over long periods of time. NRC considers the specific fuel characteristics of fuel generation? What is the to be stored in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) (e.g., high burnup consideration of the timetable of fuel) and, when applicable, the operational procedures for handling damaged fuel in the R&D of final disposal option? determining whether its safety requirements are met. NRC regulations for dry cask Please give more details on the storage allow for a licensing period of up to 40 years for both initial and renewed program of the siting, licenses. These storage times are sufficiently short and the degradation rates of spent construction and operation of the fuel sufficiently slow that: (1) significant storage, handling, and transportation issues are repository including milestones not expected to arise during a single license period; and (2) should information collected and time schedule. Please during the license period identify any emerging issues and concerns, there would be introduce the current practice and sufficient time to develop regulatory solutions. NRC requires that the collection of experience of dry storage of high appropriate information and the implementation of aging management activities are burn-up spent fuel and damaged part of license renewals. These include: (1) time-limited aging analyses that spent fuel in the United States. demonstrate the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety How to consider economy of dry continue to perform their intended functions; and (2) aging management programs for storage and the safety on the specific issues known to be associated with aging, which could adversely affect SSCs long-term dry storage of spent important to safety. NRC will continue to provide oversight of safe storage of fuel (more than 40 years). Please commercial spent fuel until a repository is available for final disposal. NRC licensees are introduce considerations on the responsible for meeting NRC's safety requirements for storage of spent fuel and monitoring of performance maintaining safety. Although the costs for continued storage represent a continued indicators and main evaluation cost, the eventual disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste remains the current criteria for the expected life approach in the U.S. DOE is the agency responsible for siting, constructing, and operating extension of dry storage facility a disposal facility in compliance with NRC's regulatory safety requirements. NRC during the design and continues to believe that 25 to 35 years is a reasonable period for repository construction. Please introduce development (i.e., candidate site selection and characterization, final site selection, how to consider the reasonable licensing review, and initial construction for acceptance of waste). However, the time configuration of dry storage and needed to develop a repository site will depend upon a variety of factors, including wet storage facilities when Congressional action and funding. Public acceptance will also influence the time it will planning storage of spent fuel. take to implement geologic disposal.
DOE anticipates that a Federal consolidated interim storage facility would need to operate for at least 60 years. This is based on the time needed to identify a site for a disposal facility through a consent-based siting process, license and construct the disposal facility, and move spent fuel to the disposal facility. However, the timeline for interim storage would need to be negotiated with a potential host community through the consent-based siting process and be agreed to as part of the consent agreement.
Page 58 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 117 E.2.3.5 The Nuclear Waste Technical The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) was established by the Nuclear (P.66) Review Board, is described in Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of E2.3.5, as an organization that activities undertaken by the Department of Energy (DOE) including: (1) site performs an independent and characterization activities; and (2) activities relating to the packaging or transportation integrated technical evaluations. of high-level waste or spent fuel. In the course of the Boards ongoing review of DOE What are their major/recent activities related to managing spent fuel and high-level waste, the Board conducts activities including actual numbers document reviews, holds fact-finding meetings with DOE, holds public meetings, and and outputs? conducts other work necessary to fulfill its mission. During calendar years 2020 and 2021, the Board conducted five public meetings, published four reports that were transmitted to the Secretary of Energy and the Congress, and issued seven letters to DOE. Details about the Boards public meetings, reports, and letters to DOE can be found at https://www.nwtrb.gov/.
118 P.90 US major radiation protection The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at 10 CFR Part 20 establish annual standards for gaseous and liquid discharge limits based primarily on calculated radiation dose to members of the public.
effluent release concentrations NRC does not regulate effluents based on total release quantities of radionuclides. In are indicated in Table F-3. Please addition to the 10 CFR Part 20 regulations, nuclear power plants are required by 10 CFR provide information on the 50.36(a) to include Technical Specifications (TS). The TS establish criteria for the control following: of radioactive effluents operating procedures for the radioactive waste system sufficient
- 1) Are there total annual to keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents and doses at small discharge limits, that are only percentages of the public dose limits. Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 establishes the basis distinguishable between liquid for the design of radwaste systems and is the basis for the operating criteria to meet the and gas in Bq, set for radioactive "As Low as is Reasonably Achievable" criteria of TS.
wastes generated from nuclear facilities, i.e. NPPs, reprocessing Regulatory Guide 1.21, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in facilities, etc.? If there are, do the Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste, provides guidance to licensees on total annual discharge limits for acceptable methods of meeting NRC regulations for radioactive effluent discharges, liquid and gas, consist of nuclides which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, specific or groups of nuclides under ML21139A224.
specific limits? Also, what are, the set limits per nuclides/groups of nuclides especially for tritium, as well as the basis for those set limits? For examples, discharge limits are set based on, expected annual release calculated from Page 59 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer actual discharge amounts of previous years, calculation assuming upper limit of 1mSv over a year for each nuclides, committed effective dose received by the public of 1mSv over 70 years, etc. If there are discharge target values, recommended by a regulatory body for nuclear facilities licensees to be achieved, which are lower than the set limits, please provide the basis for the target values.
119 P.90 2) Are there nuclides specific or Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20, Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air groups of nuclides specific Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure Effluent concentration limits set for each Concentrations Concentrations for Release to Sewerage, establishes annual average gas and liquid discharges into the effluent concentration limits for each radionuclide (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-environment? What are those rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-appb.html). The regulations pertain to the discharge concentration limits and current year of effluent release. Licensees are required by Technical Specifications (TS) the basis for the set concentration to perform cumulative totals based on monthly discharges to ensure the annual limits limits, especially for tritium? For are not exceeded.
examples, discharge concentration limits are set based The concentration values in Column 1 (for air concentrations) and Column 2 (for water on, expected annual release concentrations) of Table 2 in Appendix B are equivalent to a radionuclide concentration calculated from actual discharge which, if inhaled or ingested continuously over the course of a year, would produce a amounts of previous years, total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 rem (50 mrem or 0.5 mSv). The information on calculation assuming upper limit tritium can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-of 1mSv over a year for each collections/cfr/part020/appb/hydrogen-3.html.
nuclides, committed effective dose received by the public of 1mSv over 70 years, etc. If there are discharge target concentration values recommended by a regulatory body for nuclear Page 60 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer facilities licensees to be achieved, which are lower than the set concentration limits, please provide the basis for the target concentration values.
120 P.90 3) Also, please provide the actual The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations at 10 CFR 50.36a require each amounts of each gaseous and nuclear power plant to submit an annual radiological effluent release report. These liquid radioactive wastes released reports can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-or discharged annually into the experience/tritium/plant-info.html. In addition, NRC summarizes the radioactive environment from nuclear effluent release reports and publishes the information in NUREG/CR-2907, Radioactive facilities between 2016 and 2020, Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants, which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide especially, for annual discharge Documents Access and Management System, under ML21266A422. The NRC does not amounts of tritium and other use a tritium reconcentration factor.
nuclides in forms of gas and liquid, per types of nuclear facilities (NPPs with reactor types, reprocessing facilities, others) 4)For an evaluation of exposure dose from tritium, if other than the radiological concentration factor of 1 is used for the evaluation, please provide the used radiological concentration factor and the basis for its use.
121 P.90 Is there a concept of generalized The Nuclear Regulatory Commission does allow the use of a calculated dispersion factor clearance threshold for gas and in air and in liquid effluents to the location of the nearest public receptor. Specifically, liquid waste from nuclear facilities 10 CFR 20.2001(a) provides that licensees may dispose of licensed material by release in
? effluents within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1301.
122 Section U.S. Report indicates that the In 2021, Congress appropriated $20 million to the Department of Energy (DOE) for A.3.1.1. President's Fiscal Year 2021 interim storage activities. Based on Congressional recommendations and budget requests appropriations appropriations, DOE will move forward under existing authority to identify potential from the Nuclear Waste Fund sites for Federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process. Holtec (NWF) that would prioritize the International and Interim Storage Partners, LLC are funding their proposed facilities, with development and implementation no funding from the Federal government.
of an interim storage program for Page 61 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer nuclear waste.
Has the amount needed for an interim storage program development and implementation been evaluated, and would that appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund jeopardise the funding of a future permanent disposal facilty? Will the NWF be used to fund facilities such as the ones under design by Interim Storage Partners and Holtec International?
123 Section U.S. Report indicates DOE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) requirements for quality assurance (QA)
F.3.2 programs must develop their QA programs are different from those of the Department of Energy (DOE) because NRC is programs by applying 10 QA solely a regulator and does not operate any facilities itself. NRCs QA requirements are criteria using a graded approach. summarized in Section F.3.1 in the U.S. Seventh National Report for various types of regulated facilities.
Do activities regulated by NRC also apply the equivalent of the 10 While some of NRCs QA requirements are similar to the QA criteria in DOE Order QA program using a graded 414.1D, Chg 2, Quality Assurance, other NRC requirements are tailored to the type of approach? If so, what are the facility. NRC employs a graded approach to QA using risk information. This allows an related criteria? applicant to justify its QA approach based on the proposed activities, considering the complexity and uniqueness of the facility. NRC reviews and approves the proposed approach if it meets the applicable requirements. As an example, compare the QA requirements for a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility in 10 CFR 61.12(j) with the QA requirements for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR 72.140-144 and 10 CFR 72.174. The requirements for spent fuel storage are much more detailed and prescriptive compared to the requirements for an LLW disposal facility, based on the expected risk characteristics of these facilities.
124 Section U.S. Report indicates the Waste The Department of Energy is currently scheduled to begin processing low activity tank D.2.1 Treatment and Immobilization waste at the Hanford Site in the near future using the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste Plant, that will be used to treat (DFLAW) Program, which is an approach that sends certain pretreated low-activity waste defense waste from reprocessing, from the tank farms directly to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP)
Page 62 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer will be designed to operate for 40 Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vitrification Facility for vitrification.
years.
At Hanford, there are 177 underground tanks storing approximately 56 million gallons of When is the facility scheduled to radioactive liquid. Tanks are continuously monitored to ensure that none are currently operate? Could safety concerns leaking. Monitoring occurs both in-tank, by measuring volume, and in the surrounding associated to the "large soil using moisture and radiation detectors.
underground tanks" storing the reprocessed waste arise if the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant commissioning was delayed?
125 - Does the U.S. have a national In 2021, Congress appropriated funds to the Department of Energy (DOE) for interim strategy to prioritize the storage activities and recommended that DOE move forward under existing authority to management of spent fuel identify potential sites for Federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting storages (in particular wet process. This would support near-term action in managing the nations spent fuel and is storages) and of GTCC-LLW and an important component of an integrated waste management system. In December HLW awaiting to be transfered to 2021, DOE issued a request for information (RFI) on a consent-based siting process that disposal ? would be used to identify sites to store the nations spent fuel, and responses were due by March 4, 2022. The information received from responses to the RFI will be used to develop DOEs consent-based siting process and overall waste management strategy.
DOE is committed to the consent-based siting approach that makes communities and people central in the process to give the nation its best chance at success in solving the nations decades-long stalemate over how to effectively manage its spent fuel. DOE is currently formulating a comprehensive strategy to develop a sustainable, integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of spent fuel and high-level waste from civilian nuclear power generation.
Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, licensees may store spent fuel in dry cask storage systems at independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at a reactor site or away-from-reactor site (see https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html). A Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) is an ISFSI for purposes of NRC regulations. CISFs are subject to the ISFSI requirements in NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste, (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-Page 63 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer collections/cfr/part072/index.html). See the Answer to Question 110 regarding the status of the two CISFs applications the NRC received.
126 Section U.S. Report indicates standards The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, E.2.1.1 need to be met prior to NRCs Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or termination of a license regarding Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores uranium recovery processes. Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content, contains the radiological and chemical standards for decommissioning of uranium recovery facilities. This appendix What are the radiological and establishes technical, financial, ownership, and long-term site surveillance criteria chemical criteria used terminate a relating to the siting, operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of license for uranium recovery mills and tailings or waste systems and sites at where such mills and systems are located.
processes?
127 Section U.S. Report indicates since 1980, The National Priorities List (NPL) is usually updated at least annually to add newly-D.3.4 60 radiologically-contaminated identified sites and to remove sites that have been remediated according to the Record sites have been placed on the of Decision or sites where further investigation has shown that the release poses no National Priorities List (NPL) which significant threat to public health or the environment and remedial action is not currently counts 1335 sites over appropriate. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed the first 406 sites in 1760 listed. 1983. There are currently 51 sites proposed for addition to the NPL. Most recently, EPA added four sites to the NPL (86 FR 50478, September 9, 2021) and proposed to add a Has the National Priorities List further 13 sites, while withdrawing one previously proposed site (86 FR 50515, been updated since 1980? Which September 9, 2021). The public has an opportunity to comment on proposed listings criteria where used to define the before they become final.
NPL and have they been updated?
A site may be listed on the NPL in three ways: (1) the site scores 28.5 or higher on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). HRS is a screening tool that evaluates potential hazards to human health or the environment through groundwater, surface water, soil exposure, subsurface intrusion, and air pathways; (2) each state may designate a site as its top priority for listing on the NPL, without an HRS score; and (3) a site may be listed without an HRS score if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the site; (b) EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health; and (c) EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to respond to the release using its remedial authority rather than its removal authority. More information on the NPL can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl.
Page 64 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 128 - U.S. report does not mention As part of the ongoing decommissioning transition rulemaking, the Nuclear Regulatory entombment strategy. Commission (NRC) staff was asked to evaluate the appropriateness of maintaining entombment as an option. As noted in the Regulatory Basis Document (which can be Is entombment of nuclear found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, under facilities (i.e. in-situ ML17215A010), NRC staff position is that entombment should be used as a last resort decommissioning) still an option for the decommissioning of power reactor facilities, with the expectation that this for some legacy facilities and if method would be selected only under unique decommissioning circumstances. One of any, which nuclear facilities are the Rulemaking Options considered would remove ENTOMB as a decommissioning concerned? strategy in updates of the existing guidance because it is not feasible for U.S. nuclear power reactors and is not consistent with the required timeframe to complete decommissioning. The removal of the ENTOMB option is consistent with previous discussions between NRC, internal and external stakeholders, and members of the international regulatory community. In general, while all these parties recognize entombment, they also recognize that its application is limited to special situations; thus, it may not be appropriate to maintain it as a prescribed strategy within the typical regulatory framework.
129 Section D, The report provides information There are no specific acceptance criteria for the disposal of very low-level waste at Article 12, that VLLW may be disposed of in industrial landfills. Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis using 10 CFR p.120 industrial waste or hazardous 20.2002 and associated guidance. As outlined in NUREG-1757, Volume 1, doses of a few waste landfills, provided that the mrem per year (i.e., commonly interpreted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]
landfills have established criteria as less than 0.05 mSv per year [5 mrem per year]) are used as a starting point but for the acceptability of such waste additional factors, including characteristics of the material, proposed disposal process, and that the established exposure expected exposure pathways, and current and future land use scenarios are also limits are not exceeded. considered. Approval of specific disposal actions may also be subject to other Federal and State regulations (e.g., waste acceptance criteria) associated with the disposal Please specify the established facility that fall outside the regulatory boundaries of NRC.
acceptance criteria for the disposal of VLLW at one of the industrial waste landfills that receive VLLW.
130 Section Please explain Figure F-1 as to Occupational standards in the U.S. are protective of workers; however, the U.S.
F.4.2.2, why both collective and individual continues to evaluate international standards and guidance as they evolve and will p.81 average doses (up to 5-fold) were continue to consider their appropriateness for U.S. programs. For example, the reduced from 1996 to 1997. Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted many concepts from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60 in occupational worker safety Page 65 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer requirements and into its Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment directive, DOE Order 458.1, Chg 4. ICRP 60 recommends an occupational dose limit of 20 mSv per year, averaged over a defined 5-year period. It also states the dose should not exceed 50 mSv for any one year. DOE has not adopted the 5-year averaging requirement. As a result of stringently applied ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) practices at DOE sites, occupational exposures to individuals at DOE sites have been consistently below both the 20 mSv per year average and the 50 mSv per year limit.
Adoption of the 20 mSv per year average would require implementation of new dosimetry tracking systems without increasing worker safety.
131 Sections D, In clauses D.2.2.1, K.1.6 of the The 7E+04 cubic meters estimate is based on the current methodology used to calculate K, Annex D- Report (p. 42 and p. 143, volume of record of defense transuranic (TRU) waste disposed of at the Waste Isolation 2A, p. 42- respectively), it is indicated that as Pilot Plant (WIPP). The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) currently limits the volume of 43, of January 31, 2020, about 7 x 10 TRU waste disposed of at WIPP to approximately 1.76E+05 cubic meters (6.2E+06 cubic 143,174,17 4 m3 of transuranic radioactive feet). In reporting emplaced volumes against the WIPP LWA limit, the Department of 8 waste is placed in WIPP. At the Energy only counts the volume of the inner container against the WIPP LWA limit to same time, according to Table D-3 exclude air space found in certain waste packages (overpacked containers). The (p. 43) and Annex D-2A (p. 174), 9.81E+04 cubic meters (3.6E+04 cubic feet) estimate includes the outer package volume the inventory of transuranic for waste that is placed in an overpack container. This volume is used for tracking waste radioactive waste is 9.81 x 10 4 m emplacement under the WIPP regulatory permit. Both estimates are tracked by DOE,
- 3. Annex D-2A (p.174) states that and updated values can be found at: https://www.wipp.energy.gov/WDSPA.
the inventory of transuranic RW disposed at WIPP is given as of July 7, 2020.
The above information shows that from January 31 to July 7, 2020, 2.81x104 m3 of transuranic RW were received at WIPP.
Please explain whether this is correct and what is the reason for such volumes of transuranic RW accepted for disposal.
Page 66 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 132 Section H Please provide data on the Appendix A of the Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR) contains specific dynamics of the activity of the waste profile activities (https://wipp.energy.gov/library/TRUwaste/ATWIR-generated radioactive waste. 2021_CBFO_Final.pdf). In addition, the Waste Data System (WDS)/WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) is a publicly accessible web site with activity data (https://www.wipp.energy.gov/WDSPA).
133 G3, page Are public hearings held before Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a new specific license for a spent fuel 110 the selection of a site for a new storage facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provides a notice of an dry spent nuclear fuel storage opportunity to request a hearing, or if the Commission determines that a hearing is in facility? Who is responsible for the public interest, a notice of hearing. Hearings are conducted in accordance with the holding them? Rules of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR Part 2 of NRC's regulations (which can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/index.html).
Administrative judges from NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) generally conduct these hearings. On rare occasions, the Commission itself may preside at a licensing hearing. The ASLBP's judges are employees of NRC with technical or legal expertise, although the Administrative Procedure Act and NRC's ethics rules require that judges act independently from NRC staff. The administrative judges reach objective decisions based on the record and are prohibited from having financial or personal interests in the outcome of a proceeding.
As discussed in Section A.3.1.3 of the U.S. Seventh National Report, NRC issued notices of docketing of the applications and informed the public of the opportunity to file a written request for a hearing on the license applications for new consolidated interim storage facilities. NRC received intervention petitions and established Licensing Boards to rule on the hearing requests for both proceedings. In both proceedings, the Licensing Boards heard oral arguments from hearing petitioners and reviewed their petitions to intervene. In both proceedings, the Licensing Boards determined that none of the hearing petitioners proffered an admissible contention and denied their hearing petitions. These Licensing Boards decisions were appealed to the Commission, which ultimately upheld the Licensing Boards initial decisions in both proceedings. Several of the hearing petitioners have appealed the Commission decision to various U.S. Court of Appeals, where they remain pending. Outside of the adjudicatory context, members of the public are afforded multiple opportunities to participate in the licensing process for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility. During the environmental review, members of the public are invited to provide comments to inform NRC's environmental impact Page 67 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer statement. Members of the public may also provide comments during public meetings open to the public regarding NRC 's safety review.
134 A 3.1.1, When is it planned to commission For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy page 8 the Yucca Mountain Repository? (DOE) for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory What kinds of justification Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory documents are needed to be proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. In submitted to the regulatory body January 2015, NRC staff completed its safety evaluation report containing its findings on by the licensee? whether the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain would meets NRC regulations. In May 2016, NRC completed the supplement to DOE's Environmental Impact Statement.
Completion of the safety evaluation report does not represent an agency decision on whether to authorize construction. A final licensing decision, should sufficient funds be appropriated, could come only after adjudicatory hearings on the numerous admitted contentions and the Commissions review.
135 p.29 Storage of spent fuel be initially As described in Section G.2 in the U.S. Seventh National Report, the Nuclear Regulatory licensed for up to 40 years with Commission's (NRC's) typical review of an application for renewal of a spent fuel storage possible renewals of up to 40 system evaluates degradation mechanisms and aging effects that may cause a reduction years, with no restriction on the in the efficacy of storage system structures, systems, and components (SSCs). NRC number of renewals. requirements for spent fuel storage renewal include demonstration that aging and With aged materials the risk of degradation will be addressed by either: (1) time-limited aging analyses that uncertainties will grow. Do you demonstrate that the SSCs continue to perform their intended functions, or (2) aging take it into account in the renewal management programs (AMPs) to manage issues associated with aging, which could process and how? adversely affect SSCs.
The renewal process provides for technical and scientific information and operational data to be considered in the decision of whether to approve the spent fuel storage renewal. The renewal process also provides a framework for integrating feedback from spent fuel storage operating experience, research and development, monitoring, inspections, and technological advances into the management of aging-related degradation for storage facility and system SSCs. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) established the aging management INPO database (AMID) to collect and share operating experience on aging effects on spent fuel storage systems and facilities for use by storage licensees and storage system vendors. NRC's renewal review ensures that AMPs include provisions for licensees to use the AMID and to conduct future periodic reviews of the aggregated operating experience to confirm the effectiveness of the AMPs or update the AMPs as necessary, to address any lessons Page 68 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer learned identified during the review of operating experience. The AMID and the periodic assessments of the aggregated operating experience are considered key elements in ensuring the effectiveness of aging management activities and the continued safe storage of spent fuel during the renewal period.
NRC's current guidance on spent fuel storage renewals is contained in NUREG-1927, Rev.
1, Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (which can be found at:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1927/r1). Additionally, NUREG-2214, Managing Aging Processes in Storage (MAPS) Report (which can be found at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2214/), provides technical guidance on aging mechanisms and AMPs that are considered generically acceptable to address aging effects so that the design bases of storage facilities and systems will be maintained. Also, Regulatory Guide 3.76, Implementation of Aging Management Requirements for Spent Fuel Storage Renewals (which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS], under ML21098A022) provides guidance on the format and content of storage renewal applications and the implementation of AMPs, and endorses, with clarifications, industry guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute NEI 14-03, Revision 2, Format, Content and Implementation Guidance for Dry Cask Storage Operations-Based Aging Management (which can be found at NRCs ADAMS, under ML16356A204).
136 p. 144 The introduction and usage of the In response to the 2014 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Incidents, the Carlsbad Field process Acceptable Knowledge Office (CBFO) established additional checks on waste contents including increased seems to be a powerful tool to oversight both by CBFO staff and indirectly through the Central Characterization Project characterize waste streams. (CCP). DOE established the CCP to standardize and provide efficiencies in the Please provide more information characterization and certification process at DOE transuranic waste generator sites.
about your experiences and problems like information gaps or CBFO maintains frequent communication with generator Field Offices and their uncertainties? Is this method respective facility staff and has established reporting expectations regarding the associated with increased completeness of generator-site information. The primary basis for waste staffing? characterization is a process known as Acceptable Knowledge (AK) - the documentation of all known information on how a transuranic (TRU) waste stream was created and managed, and that information is then compiled and documented. Methods of AK waste characterization may include:
- Radiological characterization using non-destructive assay or dose-to-curie methods.
Page 69 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer
- Visual confirmation of items using real-time radiography or visual examination methods.
- Flammable gas analysis to meet transportation requirements.
AK is subject to CCP quality assurance assessments and potential visibility from the Generator Site Technical Reviews. Even with these checks, completeness and thoroughness of AK relies on generator site reporting. To substantially increase AK assurances, it would require proportional cost and at least some increase in time to do so. Calendar year 2022 finds the National TRU Program Certification Division with ever smaller waste-stream container populations and evermore complex waste-stream histories than ever before: the easier legacy-waste is already in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
By using multiple experts to review documentation from one particular waste-stream AK, the review time may be shortened, but with exponential increases in staff, cost, and inefficiency. The most efficient waste-stream AK reviews are from beginning to end by one person, or, by multiple people each working from beginning to end in parallel. This comprehensive review by an individual is most efficient but takes more time. These are the keys to AK assurances: cost and time.
An enhanced AK process has been implemented to meet new waste acceptance criteria requirements and includes chemical compatibility evaluations and a basis of knowledge document to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent hazard-characteristic wastes such as ignitable waste.
137 General [Contracting Party] would like to Thank you for the complimentary comment on the U.S. Seventh National Report.
commend USA for a most comprehensive and informative report.
138 p. 15 A.3.6 Waste Disposition for The Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Commercial Medical Isotope Office of Environmental Management (EM) have signed the first contracts as part of Production: DOE is responsible DOEs Uranium Lease and Take-back Program (ULTB) with SHINE Technologies, LLC. This for planning and carrying out is a milestone in DOEs effort to increase domestic production of molybdenum-99, a programs for establishing a crucial medical isotope used in over 40,000 medical procedures in the U.S. each day, uranium lease and take-back without the use of highly enriched uranium.
(ULTB) program associated with 99Mo production. As directed by NNSAs lease contract will provide SHINE with the low-enriched uranium necessary to Page 70 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer AMIPA, DOE established the produce molybdenum-99. DOE EMs contract with SHINE details the requirements to 99Mo ULTB program in January return any resulting radioactive waste to DOE that cannot be disposed of commercially 2016. Could USA please once molybdenum-99 production is complete.
elaborate on the success of the Uranium Lease and Take-Back Over the years, other potential producers have reached out to DOE seeking information Program? regarding ULTB arrangement. As these potential producers move forward, DOE will continue to provide necessary support and guidance 139 General How, if at all, do the activities and The U.S. Seventh National Report satisfies the requirements of the Joint Convention for future plans described in the US reporting on U.S. policies and practices used to ensure safety of spent fuel and National Report align with the radioactive waste management. The Joint Convention focuses on the back end of the United Nations 17 Goals on nuclear fuel cycle. On the other hand, the United Nations 17 Goals on Sustainable Sustainable Development? Development is more appropriately linked with nuclear electric power generation or its distribution, which is more aligned with the Convention on Nuclear Safety. In contrast to the Joint Convention, the Goals on Sustainable Development are focused on eliminating hunger, improving health, providing access to affordable and clean energy, generating decent work and economic growth, and mobilizing climate action.
140 D.1.2 (p.38) In section D.1.2, it is stated that For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy the adjudication on the for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory application to construct a Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory geological repository at Yucca proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. A final Mountain is suspended. What are licensing decision, should sufficient funds be appropriated, on whether to authorize the implications of this suspension construction could come only after hearings on the numerous admitted contentions in the planning and schedule for raised in the adjudication. There is no programmatic timetable for when spent fuel the final disposal? disposal capability will exist.
141 A.3.1.3 The report indicates that in March The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the HI-STORE Consolidated Interim (p.9) 2017, Holtec International Storage Facility (CISF) is not yet complete. The details on the construction schedule for submitted an application to NRC the HI-STORE CISF are not yet available. If NRC issues the specific license to construct for a specific license to construct and operate the HI-STORE CISF, the licensee would be authorized to begin construction and operate the HI-STORE CISF, to of the proposed facility as long as it complies with the conditions of the license. The be located in Lea County, New licensee is also responsible for pre-construction activities, including obtaining applicable Mexico. NRC anticipates permits from other Federal and State agencies. Once the licensee has obtained all completing its safety, security, required permits, it may begin construction of the facility. The licensee is responsible for and environmental reviews in the business and logistical decisions that would affect the initiation of construction.
2021. Can you give more details Therefore, the specifics of the construction schedule would be finalized by the licensee, on the construction schedule? if NRC grants a license.
Page 71 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer After a licensee commences construction of the facility, NRC will provide oversight of construction activities to ensure that it meets regulatory requirements and the terms of its license. Upon completion of the construction phase, NRC will provide oversight of operations, including during the loading and unloading of spent fuel.
142 A.3.1.4 The US Department of Energy Under the Department of Energy's (DOE's) high-level waste (HLW) interpretation, certain (p.10) (DOE) has published a new reprocessing waste proposed for disposal as non-HLW must meet the performance interpretation of high-level objectives of the disposal facility, among other requirements, for protection of human radioactive waste (HLW). Can you health and the environment (e.g., 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C; Chapter 4, Paragraph P of provide some more information DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual).
on how this new interpretation is going to impact on the safety Human health and safety risks are evaluated as part of the disposal process for each criteria? individual waste stream. DOE will continue to use the existing framework of guidelines, best practices, regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 61), and other mechanisms to ensure that To which extent have the factors each waste streamwhether from reprocessing or other sourcesis properly related to human health and characterized before it is received by the proposed disposal facility. DOE follows safety risks been evaluated? established practices to characterize and document radioactive waste in sufficient detail to ensure safe management and compliance with the waste acceptance requirements of any facility receiving the waste.
For example, for the first waste stream evaluated under the HLW interpretation (Savannah River Site Recycle Wastewater), the National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and technical evaluation can be found at: https://www.energy.gov/em/downloads/technical-evaluation-non-high-level-radioactive-waste-non-hlw-determination-under-hlw and https://www.energy.gov/nepa/doeea-2115-commercial-disposal-defense-waste-processing-facility-recycle-wastewater-savannah.
143 D.2.2.1 WIPP is a geological repository Under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act, the total capacity of (p.42) used to safely and permanently WIPP is limited by volume to approximately 1.76E+05 cubic meters (6.2E+06 cubic feet) dispose TRU waste generated by of defense transuranic waste.
atomic energy defense activities.
It is stated that over 7.0E+04 m3 TRU waste was emplaced as of January 31, 2020. Can you provide Page 72 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer more information on the maximum capacity of WIPP?
144 F.2 (p.71) Both NRC-regulated and DOE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) continues to support knowledge facilities have requirements to management activities that preserve key information and experience associated with ensure human and financial NRCs regulatory programs. In particular, NRC and its contractor (the Center for Nuclear resources are sustained for spent Waste Regulatory Analyses) have completed a number of knowledge management fuel and radioactive waste reports capturing technical and regulatory topics associated with NRCs repository management activities. It can be program. Such documentation will assist NRC in its support of future activities in the noted that compared with the high-level waste disposal program. The allocation of 0 full-time equivalent for high-level previous reporting, the FTE waste repository activities reflects the status of NRCs licensing process that is currently distribution per activity has suspended.
significantly decreased. 0 FTE has been allocated for 'high level The Department of Energy is actively conducting knowledge management work to waste repository' activities. Could preserve information and experiences from personnel and past projects related to the you elaborate on how US ensures waste management system. These activities include historical summary reports, that experience is preserved for document databases, interviews, and staff workshops.
future activities in this area?
145 Sections How many and which locations As discussed in Section A.3.1.3 of the U.S. Seventh National Report, currently two A.3.1.3, are being considered for locations are being considered for storage of spent fuel and reactor-related greater-F.7.3, K.1.3 consolidation of spent fuel and at than-Class C (GTCC) radioactive waste at a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF).
what point are final decisions See the Answer to Question 110 regarding the status of the two CISF applications the made about possible locations? Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received.
With more than one location, how would decisions of what goes Each applicant for a license to store spent fuel makes its own decision about requesting where be made (e.g., to the a license to build and operate a facility. Thus, each separate license application from closest location)? Also, it appears Interim Storage Partners, LLC and Holtec International requested a specific licensed that consolidation would occur at capacity for spent fuel. The CISFs, when licensed and constructed, could accept spent potential sites with existing waste fuel from any nuclear plant as long as the spent fuel meets the specifications in the CISF facilities, is this correct? licensing basis. Each CISF licensee is responsible for the business and logistical decisions related to movement of spent fuel from the originating nuclear plant site to its CISF site.
NRC would provide licensing and oversight, consistent with its statutory authorities, to ensure the safe and secure transport of spent fuel to a licensed CISF, and the operation of the licensed CISF. These oversight activities would include appropriate inspections during loading and unloading operations, during transportation, as well as periodic inspections of the storage facility. However, NRC has no regulatory role beyond its Page 73 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer safety and security functions in determining the originating location of spent fuel shipments to a CISF.
It is correct that the licensed WCS CISF in Andrews County, Texas, is located near the existing WCS low-level waste disposal facility site. However, the proposed HI-STORE CISF is not co-located with any licensed or existing waste disposal facility.
146 Section It appears that many NPPs are As of September 30, 2021, a total of 10 power reactors were in SAFSTOR, as described in A.3.7.3 following active decommissioning SECY-21-0100, Status of the Decommissioning Program 2021 Annual Report, Enclosure 1 under accelerated schedules. How (which can be found at NRCs Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, many NPPs have selected to be in under ML21280A402).
extended periods of inactivity (i.e., SAFSTOR)?
147 Sections Does DOEs Office of Legacy The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management is often referred to as a D.3.1, Management include the third-party beneficiary in the administration of land-use restrictions. Normally, the land-H.2.5, H.4.5 administration of land use use restrictions are administered by agencies within affected states and tribes.
restrictions (e.g., limiting drilling activities, land use management, The mission of the Office of Legacy Management is to fulfill DOEs post-closure etc.) in addition to the activities responsibilities and ensure the future protection of human health and the environment.
listed in Section D.3.1? Does DOE This includes managing sites formerly cleaned up under Agreement State regulation.
manage all such sites across the Under long-term surveillance and maintenance, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission US, including ones in Agreement provides oversight.
States or EPA Authorized States?
148 Sections With respect to the WIPP event in The local community has remained supportive of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
E.2.2.1, 2014, did the releases associated operations. Rigorous communication strategies were undertaken in the weeks and F.7.8, K.1.6 with the event lead to any issues months that followed the February 2014 event and helped to rebuild public trust and related to public acceptance with confidence. These strategies included weekly town hall meetings and updates; a WIPP the continued operation of the Recovery website; special workshops for community leaders and other stakeholders; site and if there are issues, how and creation of a Nuclear Task Force with community leaders to better understand the are they mitigated? recovery actions and responses being performed at WIPP. These Nuclear Task Force meetings were beneficial to both the community and the Department of Energy (DOE) to better understand concerns and deliver information.
In the seven years since the 2014 event, DOE has continued to maintain open and transparent communications with the public on WIPP operations, including communicating actions taken to prevent recurrence of similar events.
Page 74 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer 149 Sections How do the continued delays in The Department of Energy is actively conducting knowledge management work to E.2.2.2, F.2, disposal of commercial spent fuel preserve information and experiences from personnel and past projects related to the F.7.6, G.7, (i.e., Yucca Mountain) affect the waste management system. These activities include historical summary reports, K.1.1, K.2.1 long-term strategy and the document databases, interviews, and staff workshops.
success for an eventual disposal facility for this type of waste in The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also continues to support knowledge the US, including considerations management activities that preserve key information and experience associated with for knowledge management? And, NRC's regulatory programs. In particular, NRC and its contractor (Center for Nuclear are there any special Waste Regulatory Analyses) have completed a number of knowledge management considerations/impacts related to reports capturing technical and regulatory topics associated with NRC's repository transportation? program. Such documentation will assist NRC in its support of future activities in the high-level waste disposal program.
Transportation is not within the scope of the Joint Convention.
150 Section Did the event noted in Section The Department of Energy has extensive communications with the public, stakeholders, K.2.3 K.2.3 (re tunnel roof collapse) and Tribal Nations regarding the cleanup of the Hanford Site. While we have not noted create public concerns with legacy any lingering concerns resulting from the incident, we have assessed lessons learned and wastes at the Hanford site? identified best practices on communicating with the public in such instances.
151 A.3.2.1/ Provide details of Alternative The details of alternative disposal requests can be found in our guidance document p.11 Disposal Request. Why generic which is available at the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Agency-wide Documents commercial facilities and disposal Access and Management System, under ML19295F109. Any disposal in a non-10 CFR at the WIPP are considered as Part 61 or Agreement State licensed disposal facility is considered an alternative alternative disposal facilities? disposal. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has specific legal limitations on what it can accept, and it is not considered to be an alternative disposal facility. WIPP accepts for permanent disposal defense-generated transuranic and transuranic mixed waste in conformance with the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
152 Table A-3/ Despite of the declared long term There is no programmatic timetable for when spent fuel and high-level waste disposal p.20 policy to dispose SF and HLW in a capability will exist, and therefore, such a facility is not included in the matrix.
geologic repository, this facility is not considered as a future facility in the matrix. Why?
153 E.2.2/p.59 What is the reason for giving the Congress structured the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act to oversight over WIPP to EPA and provide the Environmental Protection Agency with regulatory authority over certain not NRC in WIPP LWA? aspects of the operation of WIPP, including, in partnership with the State of New Page 75 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer Mexico, regulatory oversight of the disposal of any hazardous waste components in radioactive waste streams. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act did not provide for Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulatory oversight.
154 F.2.3.2/ Are there any utilities generating No. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires commercial HLW and/or SF not having a nuclear reactor owners to enter into, or engage in active and good faith negotiations for, contract with DOE for their contracts with the Department of Energy for the disposal of their spent fuel and high-disposal? If yes, how will they level waste. All U.S. utilities that generate or possess spent fuel and high-level waste manage (technically and from civilian nuclear power reactors have contracts with the Federal government for financially) disposal of their HLW disposal.
and/or SF.
155 p.73 Do you perform any emergency Section F. 5, Emergency Preparedness, in the U.S. Seventh National Report describes tests? If yes, how often? the extensive emergency preparedness and emergency management programs in place at U.S. facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations require that comprehensive emergency plans be prepared and periodically exercised to ensure actions are taken, among other things, to notify and protect citizens in the vicinity of a spent fuel storage facility during an emergency. For example, NRC regulation at 10 CFR 72.32 states, 12) Exercises. (i) Provisions for conducting semiannual communications checks with offsite response organizations and biennial onsite exercises to test response to simulated emergencies. Radiological/Health Physics, Medical, and Fire drills shall be conducted annually. Semiannual communications checks with offsite response organizations must include the check and update of all necessary telephone numbers.
The licensee shall invite offsite response organizations to participate in the biennial exercise(ii) Participation of offsite response organizations in biennial exercises, although recommended, is not required. Exercises must use scenarios not known to most exercise participants. The licensee shall critique each exercise using individuals not having direct implementation responsibility for conducting the exercise. Critiques of exercises must evaluate the appropriateness of the plan, emergency procedures, facilities, equipment, training of personnel, and overall effectiveness of the response.
Deficiencies found by the critiques must be corrected. In the Department of Energy, emergency preparedness activities encompass drills and tests (see Section F.5.2 in the U.S. Seventh National Report).
156 F.5/ p.87 NRC conducts approximately 900 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approximately 30 inspectors who conduct a inspections per year. How many variety of inspections of nuclear material licensee fuel cycle facilities and radioactive inspectors do work at NRC? materials activities and operations, including the management of radioactive waste and discharge of radioactive effluents. The specific types of inspectors include fuel facilities Page 76 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer inspectors, physical security inspectors, health physicist inspectors, spent fuel storage inspectors, emergency preparedness inspectors, and transportation and storage safety inspectors.
157 F.12.1.1/ Do R&D projects consider disposal The Department of Energy (DOE) conducts ongoing research considering disposal of p.105 of SF in storage canisters or casks, spent fuel in canisters and waste packages in various geologic media including without the need of SF re- clay/shale, salt, and crystalline rock. Part of this work evaluates the feasibility of direct packing? If yes, provide a general disposal of commercial light water reactor spent fuel in dual purpose canisters.
overview of such a project. Information on this work can be found at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1648777; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1544664-direct-disposal-dual-purpose-canisters-lanl-boral-solubility-fy19; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1616378-preliminary-analysis-postclosure-dpc-criticality-consequences; and https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub151495.pdf.
In addition to commercial spent fuel, DOE manages spent fuel from a wide variety of reactors with different cladding and enrichment. DOE has overseen the design of two types of canisters capable of storage, transportation, and disposal of DOE-managed spent fuel as part of a larger system: the Multi-Canister Overpack (MCO) and the DOE Standard Canister. Over 400 MCOs have been loaded at one of DOEs nuclear sites.
Additional information on the design, loading, and sealing process can be found at:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1194007-drop-testing-representative-multi-canister-overpacks and https://www.osti.gov/biblio/823763-design-hanford-multi-canister-overpack-mco-development-qualification-closure-welding-process.
To help package the additional DOE-managed spent fuel, DOE is funding the development of a DOE Spent Fuel Packaging Demonstration Project to develop and demonstrate the designs, technologies, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE-managed spent fuel in the DOE Standard Canister. The project is supplemented by many structural, criticality, and material compatibility evaluations that supported disposal of the DOE Standard Canister for the Yucca Mountain Repository license application. Some of these evaluations can be found at:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/911076-drop-testing-doe-spent-nuclear-fuel-canisters; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1515019-neutron-absorber-considerations-doe-standardized-canister; and https://www.osti.gov/biblio/911533-packaging-strategies-criticality-safety-other-doe-fuels-repository.
Page 77 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer Many of these evaluations are expected to be valid in any deep geological repository, but new assessments or evaluations would need to be performed to confirm these assumptions.
Currently, DOE Spent Fuel Packaging Demonstration is focusing on the loading process:
handling, welding, inspection, weld repair, conditioning, leak testing, and stress mitigation/protection. Current plans are to start with two distinct uranium-thorium graphite fuel types that can be co-loaded into the DOE Standard Canister. To demonstrate the capability of long-term storage, the packaging demonstration includes encasing multiple DOE Standard Canisters in an over-canister, which maintains the same function as a multi-purpose canister for commercial spent fuel. The over-canister would then be stored on an aging pad as part of a commercial storage system (overpack, module). An overview of this project can be found at:
158 G.7/p.113 Existing storage systems are being No, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not allow the use of a spent fuel evaluated for longer time than storage cask system beyond the period for which it was originally designed. As discussed originally considered. Do you in B.3.1 in the U.S. Seventh National Report, cask storage systems can be initially license the casks for longer certified for up to 40 years of use with renewal periods of up to 40 years. NRC does not storage time that they were restrict the number of renewals but considers the appropriateness of each renewal originally designed? request in a technical and safety review. The 40-year licensing period does not necessarily equate to a design life for a specific system. An applicant seeking approval of a spent fuel storage system must demonstrate the safety of the storage system design, including materials performance, for the requested license term. Renewal of licensing periods includes evaluation of degradation mechanisms and aging effects that may cause a reduction in the efficacy of storage system structures, systems, and components (SSCs). NRC's requirements for renewal of a spent fuel storage system include demonstration that aging and degradation will be addressed by either: (1) time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that the SSCs continue to perform their intended functions for the requested renewal period, or (2) aging management programs to manage issues associated with aging, which could adversely affect SSCs during the requested renewal period.
159 G.7/ p.113 Can you describe how do you As stated in Section H.3.2, Controlling Solid Materials Disposition, in the U.S. Seventh determine near the surface National Report, the release of solid material is addressed on a case-by-case basis using license conditions and regulatory guidance. In general, if the radiological contamination Page 78 of 79
U.S. Responses to Questions and Comments on the U.S. National Report - Seventh Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Index Reference Question/Comment Answer contamination and volume is present on the surface of an object in such a manner that direct radiological surveys, contamination? including both wipe samples and measurements using radiation detectors, can be used to reliably measure the areal quantity of fixed and removable radionuclides present, then the contamination is deemed to be on or near the surface.
160 H.3.2/ The report states that the U.S. has For the past 10 years, Congress has appropriated no funds to the Department of Energy p.121 taken steps forward to address for a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain or to the Nuclear Regulatory the challenge of safely managing Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. NRCs adjudicatory spent fuel and radioactive waste. proceeding on the Yucca Mountain license application is currently suspended. There is Please provide details on further no programmatic timetable for when spent fuel and high-level waste disposal capability development of Yucca Mountain will exist.
Repository and an update on the decision schedule, if available.
Page 79 of 79