[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12787]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 25, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Waste Acceptance Issues
AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy seeks to address the concerns of
affected parties regarding the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel
at reactor sites beyond 1998. Through this Notice of Inquiry, the
Department desires to elicit the views of affected parties on: (1) The
Department's preliminary view that it does not have a statutory
obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel in 1998 in the absence of an
operational repository or a suitable storage facility constructed under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; (2) the need for an
interim, away-from-reactor storage facility prior to repository
operations; and (3) options for offsetting, through the use of the
Nuclear Waste Fund, a portion of the financial burden that may be
incurred by utilities in continuing to store spent nuclear fuel at
reactor sites beyond 1998. While seeking these comments, the Department
remains committed to pursuing the permanent disposal of spent nuclear
fuel and developing a strategy to address its interim storage.
DATES: Written submissions are due on or before September 22, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to Mr. Alan Brownstein,
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW-432), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Brownstein at the address
above, or by telephone at (202) 586-7346 or Mr. Robert Waxman of the
Office of General Counsel at (202) 586-6975.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, [Act], 42 U.S.C.
10101 et seq., provides a comprehensive framework for disposal of
commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Section
302 of the Act established the Nuclear Waste Fund and required owners
and generators of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to pay fees
into the Nuclear Waste Fund sufficient to ensure the full-cost recovery
of all program expenditures. Section 302(a) authorized the Secretary to
enter into contracts with the owners and generators of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste of domestic origin [herein referred to as
``utility''] for the acceptance and disposal of such wastes. Section
302(a)(5) of the Act further stipulated that these contracts shall
provide that the Secretary shall take title to the spent nuclear fuel
or high-level waste as expeditiously as practicable following
commencement of operation of a repository and that, in return for
payment of the fees established by this section, the Secretary,
beginning not later than January 31, 1998, will dispose of these
wastes.
B. Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-
Level Radioactive Waste
The Department implemented Section 302(a) of the Act through
rulemaking under which it promulgated the Standard Contract for
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste
(Standard Contract) (48 FR 16590, codified at 10 CFR part 961), which
was published on April 18, 1983. Article II of the Standard Contract
states that ``the services to be provided by DOE [Department of Energy]
under this contract shall begin, after commencement of facility
operations, not later than January 31, 1998 * * *''. The use of the
term ``facility'' in the Standard Contract, as contrasted with the use
of the term ``repository'' in the Act, was in recognition that a
Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility may be available before a
repository and could meet the intent of the statute.
C. Development of a Repository and a MRS
When the Act was passed, the Department anticipated that a geologic
repository would be in operation and prepared to begin acceptance of
spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. As indicated above, when the
Standard Contract was promulgated, the Department envisioned that it
would have a waste management facility in operation and would be
prepared to begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998.
The Act provides for a comprehensive site selection and site
characterization process, wherein the Department makes a recommendation
to the President for approval of a repository. Currently, the Yucca
Mountain site in Nevada is the only site authorized by the Congress for
site characterization. Should Yucca Mountain prove scientifically
suitable, and be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
approved by the Congress, the Department currently projects that the
earliest possible date for acceptance of waste for disposal at a
repository is 2010.
With respect to availability of an MRS to accept and temporarily
store spent nuclear fuel, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
1987 (Amendments Act) linked the development schedule for an MRS
facility to the geologic repository. The Amendments Act precludes the
Department from selecting an MRS site until a repository site is
recommended to the President, and MRS construction may not be started
until a construction authorization for a repository is received from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Given these timing restrictions, the
Department has looked to the negotiated siting process, administered by
the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, and a negotiated agreement proposing a
site to the Congress as the appropriate mechanism for achieving the
1998 waste acceptance target. Experience has shown that there are
significant challenges associated with siting any facility of this
type. Thus far, neither the efforts of the Department nor any other
organization, including the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator,
have achieved the level of success needed to realize significant
progress in locating and developing a site by 1998.
In an April 1, 1993, letter to the Secretary of Energy, the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
proposed that a collaborative dialogue be initiated to identify and
develop constructive recommendations for the Secretary and others for
their consideration in evaluating alternatives for interim spent
nuclear fuel storage. In order to establish a dialogue whose
participants represented a broad range of affected interests, NARUC
extended invitations to state utility regulators, nuclear utility
executives, environmental groups, and representatives from the State of
Nevada. Individuals from the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission were invited to provide technical assistance.
Over the course of three meetings, the participants identified
alternatives for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, and considered
the advantages and disadvantages of each. On February 25, 1994, NARUC
issued the Report and Recommendations of the NARUC Dialogue on Spent
Fuel Management, presenting the results of this stakeholder dialogue.
In summary, the majority findings of the NARUC dialogue were that:
Centralized off-site interim storage of spent fuel is far
preferable to on-site storage at reactor sites throughout the
country. The federal government should take immediate action to
establish centralized interim storage capability by 1998, including
the commencement of an effort to develop such capability at one or
more federal sites. This represents a sensible, safe, economic
approach to meeting the nation's near term spent fuel management
needs. The participants recognize that Congressional action is
necessary to effectuate many of the recommendations. They also
recognize that this is a difficult issue and are ready to actively
assist the federal government in discharging its responsibilities.
D. The Department's Waste Acceptance Obligation
Many utilities have maintained that certain terms in the Act and
the Standard Contract created an unconditional obligation on behalf of
the Department to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel in 1998. Some of
these utilities have informed the Department that they have implemented
long term waste management plans based on this interpretation.
The Department's preliminary view is that it has no statutory
obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel beginning in 1998 in the
absence of an operational repository or other facility constructed
under the Act, although the Department in implementing the Standard
Contract may have created an expectation that it would begin accepting
such spent nuclear fuel in 1998. Accordingly, the Secretary has
indicated her intent to explore with affected parties various options
and methods for sharing the costs related to the financial burden
associated with continued on-site storage. Any form of cost sharing
offered through the Nuclear Waste Fund is not intended to fulfill the
Department's ultimate obligation under the Standard Contract to take
title to and physical possession of spent nuclear fuel once a facility
constructed under the Act is operational.
E. Purpose of Notice
This Notice of Inquiry is intended to implement the Secretary's
initiative by eliciting the views of affected parties on: (1) The
Department's preliminary view that it does not have a statutory
obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel in 1998 in the absence of an
operational repository or other facility constructed under the Act; (2)
the need for an interim, away-from-reactor storage facility prior to
repository operations; and (3) options for offsetting, through the use
of the Nuclear Waste Fund, a portion of the financial burden that may
be incurred by utilities in continuing to store spent nuclear fuel at
reactor sites beyond 1998.
Should the Department proceed with some form of cost sharing, each
utility would be offered an opportunity to modify its Standard
Contract. As a condition of such cost sharing, it is possible that the
Department may require a release, in whole or in part, of potential
contractual liability arising out of any obligation to accept waste
prior to commencement of repository operation or the operation of
another facility constructed under the Act.
The Department recognizes that there are a number of potential
forms of cost sharing arrangements, but at this time, the Department
has not reached a decision whether to proceed with, nor is it
predisposed to, any particular form of cost sharing. Currently, the
Department is evaluating a design for multi-purpose canisters (MPC) to
support spent nuclear fuel transportation, storage, and disposal. The
MPC offers the potential for considerable standardization,
simplification and, consequently, cost savings for both utilities and
the Federal waste management system. Given the potential benefits of
the MPC, the Secretary has directed that the options to be explored by
the Department should include, to the maximum extent possible, the
provision and use of MPCs to address both schedule and cost concerns
arising from the potential unavailability of a repository or an MRS in
1998.
II. Requests for Submissions
The Department requests written comments from all affected parties.
All written information provided by respondents will be available for
public inspection at the Department of Energy, Freedom of Information
Reading Room, room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11,
any person submitting information believed to be proprietary or
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two
copies of the document; 1 complete copy and 1 copy in which information
believed to be proprietary or confidential has been deleted, and the
reasons you believe the information is not subject to disclosure.
Information identified as proprietary or confidential will be handled
in accordance with governing Departmental regulations. Specific areas
for comment are identified below; however, this delineation of issues
is not intended to limit the content of submissions.
Legal Issue
Does the Department have a legal obligation under the Act
or the Standard Contract to accept waste in 1998 in the absence of a
repository or other facility under the Act? If so, should the
Department seek a release, in whole or in part, of any liability
arising out of such obligation as a condition of cost sharing?
Interim Storage Issues
Does there continue to be a need for a Federal or
centralized interim storage facility prior to repository operations?
Should the development of an interim spent nuclear fuel
storage facility at an existing Federal site be pursued?
What role, if any, should the Department play in the
development of private interim storage facilities?
If the Department is successful in making available
central interim storage for spent nuclear fuel, should each utility
have the option to pursue continued storage on-site or elsewhere?
Should the Department pursue with Congress the elimination
of the existing restrictions on MRS siting, construction, and
operations?
What additional comments do you have on the NARUC
dialogue? (Copies of their Report are available in the Department of
Energy's, Freedom of Information Reading Room, room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between the hours of 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.)
Cost Sharing Issues
Recognizing the full-cost recovery provision and the
limitations imposed on the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund by Section 302
of the Act, should the Department consider offering some form of cost
sharing to utilities if it is unable to begin accepting spent nuclear
fuel by 1998?
What basis should the Department use for establishing the
order and timing by which such cost sharing is offered?
If it is found that such cost sharing may result in
increased fees, should the Department continue pursuing implementation
of a cost-sharing program?
If cost sharing involves the Department providing MPCs and
the utilities paying the costs associated with storage modules and
other on-site storage related needs (e.g., costs of loading and
handling operations), would the extent of utility expenditures required
by this approach affect whether utilities would use it?
If the primary emphasis of a cost-sharing program were to
be the provision of MPCs by the Department, what should be done for
utilities unable (e.g., those sites that are physically constrained
from utilizing MPCs) or unwilling to make use of MPCs?
What other forms of cost sharing should the Department
consider?
Issued in Washington, DC, May 19, 1994.
Daniel A. Dreyfus,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
[FR Doc. 94-12787 Filed 5-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
