K)

I

fM_- .9. ;-I:,,~~~~~- -

W.

WM Record File .M Pro-c_

'DOc.ke'tto. __ _

PDR _

LPDR

Distribution: AdL

fl,|O, | C ¢ °2 oAJ -iD Vy/

(Return to Wl, 623-SS) =

co: eo+* #&

4e Zo 4#-.

NO

0n - j

Nr.

Z)

I . -.

. ..

I- 

-Li

I

I

:r5I.1r* 

* .

! 8701270407 861231:

I - PDR WASTE \ . . ! WM- PDR, -
DOE/RW-01 15-

6 CR 1M United States WhigoDR20155 Department of Energy

', a * - Office of Civilian Radioactive waste' Management

B ulletin* Washington,,DC 20585

: :. -. : - . '<-_': . : ; : :;f; >:-1 ' ' - ' -. December 1986 i

; . ~'Notice of Inquiry Published for Proposed befense . - § '' . ' . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i . .. 1 .1..;.

The U.S. Department of Energy' (DOE cover the costs of DHLW disposal.

published a Notice of Inquiry in the . . . . -

December 2, '1986, Federal Register.' The adequacy of waste diposal fees

This Notice invites public comment on' is to be reassessed annually basbd on

a' 'tentative nethod 'for 'calculating actual costs and updated estimates 'of

total disposal fees 5 r high'level future costs and waste quantities to'be'

nuclear wastes from ''atomic energy handled. The cost estimates tolbe used

defense activities to be paidto' the in calculating fees are those used in

Nuclear Waste Fund. ' "Analysis of- th'e Total' Syste Life'

,, ,~ . . r . ..... Cycle Cost for :'the J Civilian

This allocation is needed because, on Radioactive Waste Management.

April 30, 1985, -the President deter- Progrii'' (DO E/RW-0047)- ,

mined that 'defense high-level waste .

(DHLW) should be disposed of in the The Federal Register.Notice evaluates

civilian repository system. The Nuclear . thie eoptionsfordeter-miningth'total

Waste Policy Act of 1982 NWPA), fee. A '

Section 8 (b)(2) requires that ther be . . , A 

an "allocation of costs of developing, Option I-Full Cost 'Recovery

constructing, operating, and decom- .-,;Using Sharing Formulas.

missioning': for the' one' or more -. - t * '. . :''

repositories to be developed under the Under this option, the fee for DHLW

2 NWPA. While the NWPA 'intends is established by allocations using costthat OCRWM fully recover all DOE .. _..._...

expenditures for the permanent dispbsal of hgh-level waste, including ..... DHLW, it does not specify the meth .. ;r " (I. . f Page-,

odology to be u6d by DOE in calcu-. Proposed Defense Waste Fee Allocation 1

ahting .the, fees 1to be paid for the Review Criteria for Facility-Specific 2

disposal . of DHLW. This includes ' Outreach and Participation Plans -. :

future DHLW as well as designated . Excerpts from Remarks by Ben C.- '

wastes .currently stored .at DOE' t Rusche before American Nuclear

Hanford site in 'Washington, the Society Meeting

Savannah, River .'Plant in ,,South A Chronolo, of Major OCRWM Events ,

Carolina; -and the ,Idaho National ' Selected Events Calendar 4

Engineering Laboratory.. Payments O , , .* ~~~~~~-,,....,,Oher Program Iters 5 for DHLW disposal Wvill be made by 4 TransportatIor Coordination :'''-'

DOE's Office of. Defense Programs Group Meefing. .

into the Nuclear Waste Fund, as part. . Update on Litigation , *..0.

of the appropriation process, and twill New Publications and Documents . 5

be sufficient, in the, aggregate, to - '

Waste Fee Allocation

sharing formulas applied to major cost

elements as reported in OCRWM's

annual total system life-cycle cost

ainalyses. Costs'for, facilities and

activities carried out'solely for DHLW.

dispoal, as tranportation tsuch and

waste overpacking for DHLW,' would

be treated as direct costs and included

in the DHLW fee together .with the

-.DHLW. share of. common costs for

facilities and.'activities used for both

DHLW and civilian 'waste disposal.

The basis for sharing can include

sich factors as areal dispersion (the

proportionof total repository disposal

area accounted for by. DHLW) and,

the share of canisters processed in a

facility., Under this; option,

preliminary DHLWfee estimates

:range from $2.60Ibillion to $3.43,

-billion in .1985 dollars.

Option' II-One-Mil/Kilowatthour

Electric-Generation' Equivalent 'Fee

.! . ' A:' : .; 

Under this option, the total fee would

be'based n s estimates 'of the

electric-generation equivalent for past

and future reactor operations that

have produced the DHLW covered by

the'Notice 

The- 'total . electric-generation

equivalent'for 16,000 canisters from

past and future reactor operations is.

estimated by DOE's Office of Defense

Programs at 780 billion kilowatthours

electric [kWh(e)] equivalent through

(continued on page 2); :

,.

II

I

I

I

i

Published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)

For further information about the national program or for copies of new publications and documents listed in the OCRWM Bulletin" contact the U.S. Department

of Energy. OCRWM, Office of Policy and Outreach, Mail Stop RW-40, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20585 (202) 252-5722. The OCRWM

Information Services Directory Is available to provide sources of program Information for the States, Indian TrIbes, Involved parties, and the public.
December 1986

0, . , - 5 ;% ' ': : 8 : 8 o,. w _ , I : ' t ,< *

'...--.-Notice of Inquiry Published; for Proposed Defense Waste 'Fee Allocation .~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - . .. 

(continued from page 1) defense reactor operations are proportion of the cost' of any waste

1986 and an additional 970 billion optimized for the production of disposal ystem is fixed. For example,

kWh(e) equivalent from 1987 through defense materials rather than _'costs of development and evaluation

2020. If the current 1 mill/kWh (e) fee electricity generation. (D&E) are largely unaffected by the

now being paid by civilian waste- precise amount of waste handled.-

generators were applied to these: Option III-Cost Shares- - Because, of the smaller volume of

defense reacto'r operations the total' Proportional to Avoided Costs defense' waste, fixed costs'rmust be

fee would be $1.75 billion in 1985 . spread over a smaller number of units

dollars. .' Under this option, estimates are made of disPosal service, so that avoided

Option is estimated to based on the cost of separate D&Ecostsperunitarehigherithanfor

Option II is estimated to yield' repbsitory systems ("avoided costs") civilian wastes. A preliminary study

rev'enues that't otal'abouit one-half the' for 'civiliaji and defense wastes. A of this option estimated that the total

revenue raised by Option Isince, major'reason for the'cost'savings' in' DHLW fee would equal 25 to 30,

unlike commercial nuclear reactors,; ' c&hbined systein is' that.- a large percent 'of total repository costs for . - -- . .......... .; , ..,. ,., ,,. .................... In........r.T... .

Headquarters Review Criteria for Facility-Specific

.. Outreach and Participation Plans . .

In response to the requirements of the NWPA, O'RWM p'repared a "Mission

Plan" (DOEIRW-0005) that describes the overall goals 'objectives" and strategy

for the program for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Among

other things, the Mission Plan requires that DOE devielop, Faciity-Specific

Outreach and Participation Pla'ns for each rep6sitory site. This requirement was

defined further in OCRWM's "Internal Guidelines for Interactions with

Communities' and Local Governments" (DOEIRW-0039). . . - -,-' . f . t : .. ;

Each facility-specific plan represents an umbrella plan for institutional activities

that will: address the needs of States,' Indian Tribes, and local parties affected

by the potential siting of a repository. These pans'aje to be based on discussions

and consultations with th;e involved'parties, and m'ay address activities such as:,

e public hearings, briefings, and other meetings to be sponsored by DOE

on major program reports and events;

* DOE participation at meetings sponsored by other organizations;

* information products to be provided by DOE;

* 'community information'facility activities and data- collection activities

involving States, Indian-Tribes, and local governments; and

* site activities, including site tours.

States and Indian Tribes may request financial assistance for participation in these

activities.' i l '. - . . . ' . ' 4' + ' .

After informal discussions with States, Indian Tribes, and local parties, draft

Facility-Specific Outreach and Participation Plans are to be prepared by OCRWM

Project Offices, reviewed by OCRWM Headquarters, and then discussed with

affected!parties.' The review by. Headquarters is intended to ensure that there

is consistency with established OCRWM policy on- institutional- activities and

equity among the three sites in the opportunities offered to affected parties for

involvement in the repository program. To guide this review, draft Headquarters

review criteria have been developed and are'Veing circlated for comment.'

. .', . (continued on page 3) -

UUUUJ flL'vy icansters. C teeC 

calculated by this methodology would

be on the order of $5.3 billion in 1985

dollars. l ,-

OPTIONS AND FEES FOR

DEFENSE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE

Estimated Fees

Option (Dollars in-'Billions)

Option I. $2.60 to $3.43,

Option II $1.75

Option III $5.30

A detailed evaluation' of the options

appears" in the Federal Register

Notice. A summary of estimated costs

for each 'option is shown! above.'

Copies'of the Federal Register Notice

of Inquiry'and Request fr Public

Comment' may be obtained froim the6

U.S. Depa'rtujient of Energy, Officeof,

Public 'Inquiries, Room' E-206,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Iiidependence'

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,

or call (202) 252-5575 5.','-

Public'comment on' determining a

total' DHLWdisposal fee is invited;

and' should' be addx'essed' to' Samuel'

Rousso,- 'Aisociate 'Dire'ctoi' 'for

Resource Management, RW-10; U.S.

Department of En'ergy -OCRWM,

Washington, DC'-20585,' and be

received by February 2, 1987. *
Is . -

K) K)J

December 1986 3

Excerpts From Remarks by Ben C. Rusche,' Director, OCRWM, Before the

'American-Nudear Society.Meeting, Washington, DC, November. 17, 1986

(In his remarks, Mr.-Rusche reviewed - "Unresolved - questions -about these terization phasi until t licer

programmatic and technical develop- four areas are the main us of site application is submitted t the NRI

ents in the OCR" program in the tartigtpint Th SCPs 'nd periodic progrf

areas of geologic repositories, at- foridentifying unresolved questions or reports that DOE will be making W

reactor storage, transpo'rtation'an~d issue is' theMissfon Plan for 'the have a crucial role in interactions wi

-International cooperative ac'tivitils.- Civilia n RadioacWive WsteProgram. the NRC, and as vehicles f

* Because' site characterization will be, The Overriding purpose is to make (presenting inforiation to the Statb

.the main .OCRWM-program thrust )clear.the logic:.of 'site studies and !Indian Tribes, Congress, utilities, a

for the next 5 years, Mr. Rusche's design activities'and to ensure that no the public;!

comments on this subject are significant issues are,overlooked or - r 'i..

excerpted belo'w) i-'. ' . ' extraneous information collected. The <"The SCPs will contain: '' - ....;,..Ac ad rA lltALret Ty- ! *~.'' .hi ! --. :

Lse

CC.

nss

Pill

Ith

or

s,

uid

...

"Essentially, it (site characterization)

involves'data!githering iind qu'estion,

'answering to verify site suitabiity aid

capability' to-meet 4

standards and

criteria ''established .by: the;

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC). - :."

"And in addition to the EPA and NRC

regulations, the requirements of the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act itself must

be met as vell as those contained in.

the DOE Siting Guidelines. The Siting

Guidelines establish performance

objectives for a geologic- repository

system,' rdefine the -basic technical

requirements that'cin'didate'sites must

-meet,- and specify how DOE will-

-implement the site selection process.

* *< , , ;I tjt, ,

"So- the .main:pur'pose of site

characterizitioi is' 5t6 determine

'whethr a candidate site'is suitable for

.a repository aid to provide'the bases

for the' construction' authorizations.

This has never been donr before...'

"To support the recommendation and

application -decisions, ; information

mtist be'developed that relates to fou'r

broad areas of interest: -:

; . te osure, performance,.

. -preclosure radiological safety,"

. 'nouiniadiological 'environmental

impacts, .2 .and 

* feasibility, and cost pof geologic

repository development. . '

Mission Plan ana- -supporting documents also provide a guide to

'-dev'eldpihefit of site characterization

-plans (SCPs). .7 fl:; 7

U"Theidevelorhent - of SCPs is

especially important ii6. -We are

deeplyiinvolved in developing-SCPs

forieach of the candidate sites, and

-their development.will continue to be

a major activity during this fiscal year.

- )' .1 .. J4 ,i

;!'"As one might guess, there is intense

interest in the SCPs since the SCPs will

guide DOE during -the site haraca 'detailed '.pecification 'of 'the

informaticn'to!be developed fo'

;each site,' the waste' package and

,," repository desig, ahd the issues to

'be addressed,-

* schedules to indicate a logical

sequence of testing and the timing

-. q Ifor the release of publications on

, technical. procedures, technical

l. findings, and issue resolution;

"-fl' t6 ; ; ; ; -

- * emilestones and decisio'npoints to

be encountered along the way.

-: -- - -(continued on page 4)

.- -Headquarters --- Review Criteria "

;. (continued from page 2,), , , .- -

The Headquarters review.criteria define the institutional activities that are basic

to the repository program. These criteria are not intended to establish a standard

format for the plans or to limit si activities to only those listed in the

revieiv, criteria,.!./ , . *.9, < *, -o ....- @* .' 5 -'.

Each facility-'specifi'plai'willi rvlide a general description of the site-specific

institutional activities 'to :be 'conducted on',a regular basis, 'such' as providing

teh&nil And pblic'.information and condiu'tingcregular-ineraction's with

ffected pa'rties , . . u ' . i ith .- . - ; i. ' , : ',, i . i i,' 

In addition to ongoing instititidnal activities, milest'one-related institutional

activities will also be conducted for repository pr'ogram components such as site

characterization" jldis, ocioeconomic add invirondental monitoring and

n'tigationwplans, prnents-equal-to-taxes, 'risk'assessment, quality assurance

plans, Environmental Imp'act Statements, and other plani'and activities identified

during the fcility-specific institutional planning process. The plans will identify

milestones fr each'of these program components and the institutional 'activities

that will be conducted for each of the milestoies. -'- ' "'; I'

.. ICv)w .: ::

The plans will provide a 6-month schedule of all repository program institutional

activities to be conducted. This will include both the ongoing and milestonerelated institutional activities: Schedule updateswill be provided to affected

parties every. 6 months and affected parties notified as changes occur. -
4 December 1986

Excerpts. From Remarks

By Ben Rusche,

Before the American

Nuclear Society Meeting

(continued from page 3)

"Considerable work has been done to

date on the. SCPs. An annotated

outline has been developed and

presented to the NRC and to States

and Indian Tribes. Onsite reviews

have been conducted for development

of the SCPs. Meetings have been

conducted with the NRC on items

regarding SCP preparation as well as

with the States and Indian Tribes. A

uniform issue resolution strategy has

been developed.

"Current plans for the SCPs call for

issuing SCPs for Hanford and Yucca

Mountain for public -review and

comment in approximately mid-1987,

and for Deaf Smith in late 1987.

"Activities during site characterization

are many and complex. Mluch of the

information that we need is already

available but must be compiled

systematically from the literature or

local records. Where new data is

needed, some. of it will be secured

through surface, sub-surface, and

laboratory testing.

"A major activity, the construction of

exploratory shafts, will not be

initiated during FY 1987. We had

planned to begin exploratory shaft

work at Hanford and possibly in

Nevada in FY 1987, but in light of the

Continuing Resolution and commitments made to Congress, no exploratory shaft drilling will begin in FY

1987 at either Hanford, Yucca

Mountain, or Deaf Smith. The timing

for shaft work in FY 1988 will depend

on progress on the SCPs. The impact

of this delay on the overall schedule,

as well as the reduced FY 1987

appropriation, is currently under

review.

Selected Events Calendar

January 20-22 Environmental Coordinating Group Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.

Contact Jerry Parker (202) 252-5679.

January 21-22 Quality Assurance Coordinating Group Meeting, Albuquerque,

NMI. Contact Carl Newton (202) 252-9300.

February 2-6 Ninth Annual Symposium, Geotechnical and Geohydrological

Aspects of Waste Management (Colorado State University), Fort Collins,

CO. Contact (303) 491-6081.

February 9-11 Second Annual Topical Conference on Nuclear Waste

Management Quality Assurance, Las Vegas, NV. Contact Judy Kail (619)

455-2627.

February 26-27 Environmental Issues Conference, National Congress of

American Indians co-sponsored with American Bar Association. La Fonda

Hotel, Santa Fe, NM1. Contact Robert Holden (202) 546-9404.

March 1-5 Waste Management '87, Tucson, AZ. Contact Morton Wacks (602)

621-2475.

March 15-18 Atomic Industrial Forum Fuel Cycle Conference'87, Boston, MA.

Contact AIF Conference Office (301) 654-9260.

For details on DOE/NRC meetings call (1/800) 368-2235 for a recorded message. In the

Washington, DC, area call 479-0487.

A telephone recording service has been establishedfor the announcement of upcoming meetings

related to the waste management program of the NRC. The number is (1/800) 368-5642, Ext.

79002. Washington, DC, area residents should call 427-9002.

For information on meetings and events occurring between issues of the 'JCR IV Bulletin'use

OCRIV. INFOLINK, an Electronic Bulletin Board that can be accessed through a standard

computer communications capability on (202) 252-9359 or (202) 252-5406, or call Tim Conner

(202) 252-6356. The "OCRIV.1t Bulletin" now is available through INFOLINK.

"Examples of the testing activities to

be conducted during surface-based

testing include seismic monitoring,

geologic trenching, meteorologic

monitoring, and surface borehole

drilling. Examples of laboratory

testing activities include corrosion

testing, borehole core testing and seal

system testing.

"Other data to be collected and

analyzed involve environmental,

transportation, and socioeconomic

studies that assess the potential

impacts of repository development

and operation.

"To do all of this, sophisticated and

interactive information systems are

needed to assist in coordinating the

data collection and review and to

provide a permanent record of

licensing activities which will be used

by all participants in the licensing

process, including the NRC, States,

and affected Indian Tribes. We are

nov in the process of developing such

a management tool called the

Licensing Support System.

"This is a major task not only

because of the comprehensive

technical and administrative data

and documentation required, but

because of the involvement of the

many parties with different

information needs. As the design of

the Licensing Support System evolves,

we are committed to interact with

the participants so that their

requirements can be factored into the

design." *
- ._ - 4 .- . - -

. Z

December 1986 5

- t Prgram. Ies'

'Other Progrram Items - ' *'' i 

Transportation Coordination

Group Meeting '

jOCRWVM's Transportation Coordina-

-tio''Group I(TCG) '-met--on

Novembe 18, 1986, in''Columbus,

Ohio, to review recent activities arid

near-term plans for the technical

;develbpmefit of the NWPA transporta-

'tionf program. The meeting was attended by inore' than 60 people

representing DOE, support contractors

for 'DOE,) Stat;i"Indian' Tribes,

utilities, and the'tiansportation

industry. -. E

The TCG is composed of voting

members from OCRWM, A the

repository Project Offices, and DOE's'

Operations Offices. The TCG was

formed in 1985 to ensure that NWPA

cask handling facilities aid cask dsign'

features are compatible. Other TCG

objectives, as stated in' the group's

charter, include the identification and

resohlti6n of common technical transNew^Publicationstand Documents. -. n { ! ' .' ''Hi ' e ':F. -

"Office of Storage and Transportation Systems DOE/RV-0103

Quality Assurance Directive" ,September'i986

This document sets forth program-wide quality assurance requirements and

l defines management's quality assurance responsibilities for the O 'fioe of

Storage and Tr'ansportatin Systems and its projects.

,OCRW'M Safety Plan" ' DOE/RW-0119

m : >, !C>; - i , r November 1986

'The' OCRWMSafety Plan sets forth management policies and general

' requirements forth'esafty'6f the "public and of personnel associated with-I

'the OCRWM program. . - 'E,

The following factsheets were rejrinted in October 1986

"The Illustrated Mechanics of Nuclear Waste Disposal"; DOE/RW-0105

":' hat:tt lViil i 1Nd6lrar Vaste Repository Look Like?" 'DOE/RIV-0106

Ihat W, is Nuclear Waste?' , DOE/RW-0107

"What is Spent Nuclear Fuelj;?"t 'DOEIRW-0108

C"CanNuclear Waste be Transported Safely?" !%Li\ i 1DOEiRW-0109'

"Radiation and Nuclear Woste2-How Are They I DOE/RWi-O110

Related?,-

portatin problems, and the exchange

'of inforrmati6n among member

organizations 'to ensure consistent

transportation inputs to NWPA

program documents.

The meeting'began with a brief i

review of transportation program

-'activities planned for th h'ext fiscal'

year. More' 7detailed discussions

addressed the following activities.

! The ALARA Study-A study has

been;initiated by OCRWM to'

- evaluate the costs and risks

associated with potential NWPA

transportation systems under

which reasonable efforts would be

made' to reduce radiation

. exposures to levels as far below

Federal dose limits as is practicable-that is, "as low as

reasonably' achievable" (ALARA).

OCRWM is now working on the

first phase of the report .that

postulates a reference transportation system, and alternatives are'

being developedl using ALARA

principles."When completed, the,

report will be made available for

comment both on the reference

system.- and on alternatives

deserving additional study.

* ' -.. 

* Future OCRWM Transportation

Risk Analyses-OCRWM' has'

;' begiin: to, develop preliminary

: t.plans. for enhancing future

transportation risk studies to

include.- -three.; modes of

transportation (truck, rail, and

barge);. greater use of State

meteorbldgic data,. land-use

patterns, and State-level accident

data; and ,consideration;iof a

greater number of population

zones. OCRWM plans to hold

ireginal ,'workshops in 1987 to

review and discuss study options.

(continued on page 8)

i

i

i

i

I

I

i

I

I

i

i

i

"HouiMuch 'High-Level Nuclear Waste is There?"

"What RockTypes Are Being Considered for '

Nuclear Waste Reposito~res and Why?"

,DOERW-0111

DOEI- . 12

DOE/RNV-0112~

Copies of new publications and documents are availablefrom the US .'Department

*of Energy, OCRIVM, Office of Policy and Outreach, Afail Stop RW'-40, 1000

tndependence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. L;:. V.
6 December 1986

A Chronology of Major OCRWM Events, 1983 to Present

1983

January

1983

July

February

May

April

* President Reagan signs the Nuclear

Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law

97-425.

* Temporary Nuclear Waste Policy Act

Project Office established by DOE to

carry out initial implementation of the

Act.

* Draft proposed siting guidelines for

recommendation of repository sites

made available to the public for

review and comment.

* Nine sites in six States identified as

potentially acceptable for first

repository, and affected States and

Indian Tribes notified.

* Nuclear Waste Fund Management

Plan Published

* Draft regional characterization reports

sent to 17 States identifying crystalline

rock formations for possible study for

a second repository.

* Standard Disposal Contract published

in Federal Register.

* One-mill/kilowatthour fee for nucleargenerated electricity implemented.

* First Notice published in Federal

Register of offer of cooperation and

technical assistance to non-nuclear

weapons States in all facets of spent

nuclear fuel storage.

* Owners and generators of civilian

spent fuel and high-level waste execute

contracts with DOE for disposal

services and for payment of fees into

the Nuclear Waste Fund.

* Formal procedural agreement with

NRC concluded relating to development of repository licensing plan.

* Report submitted to Congress

indicating that an MRS proposal can

be prepared using currently mature

engineering and design practice

without additional research and

development.

August

September * OCRWI organization activated.

November

1984

January

March

April

August

* Final siting guidelines for recommendation of repository sites

forwarded to the NRC for

concurrence.

* First deployment plan for Federal

interim storage submitted to Congress.

* Competitive solicitation issued to

industry for proposals for development

of a safe, economical waste packaging

and handling system.

* Agreements signed with Virginia

Power and the Carolina Power and

Light Company for cooperative dry

storage demonstrations.

* Congress notified that the Test and

Evaluation Facility will be collocated

with the repository if need for such a

facility is established.

* Comprehensive Nuclear Waste Fund

Management Plan issued.

* Fee collection and payment procedures

established.

* Formal negotiations for written

consultation and cooperation

agreements initiated with the Yakima

Indian Nation and State of

Washington.

* Revised draft final siting guidelines

provided to States and Indian Tribes

for review and comment.

June

July

October * Transportation Business Plan: Strategy

Options Document published.

November * NRC concurs in siting guidelines.

December * Siting guidelines published in Federal

Register.

* Draft Environmental Assessments for

each of the nine potentially acceptable

sites published.
" . 0  I

December 1986 F;

---- - A-Chronology of -Major OCRWM Events, 1983-to-Present -- - - -- -Q i. 4 . - i . Ace If 

-1984 - - - -- - --- -- - l - 1986- -- -

December . Study of Alteinative Means of Financing

and ManagingRadfioactive Waste Facili.

'' * i ' ' ities submitted to Secretary of Energy.

195,,Inf! 

February -!-Nuclear Waste Fund embarks on

I'm ' '''' investment 'pr'ogram>(short-term' -

- - '-Treisury-intruments).' - " r :,r; .

April ; ' President 'approves recommendation

' :,. -: ' -that acombined repository for both 

DHLW and civilian radioactive wast

Region-to-Area Screening Method-'

,: .. ,. -; ology Report issued. ' , '

' '" :"; I l . *Preliminary report published onthe

i - -"' r' need for.and feasibility of monitored

- retrievable storage. Also published was'.'

-i ;another , report on the screening and:

i:b f;,,'5 ,identification -of sites for a proposed

; ! '. ! . ' MRS facility.:; ; I.

Nuclear Waste Fund'sappropriatd '

debtof $265'million is repaid.

:July;- 'The Mission Plan for'the Civilian

' - ' '''' Radioactive.Waste Management

' ' Programsubmitted tojCigress. '

* Long-term investment strategy for - ~~-NuclearWiaste Fund implemented._

: -. - . -

.

l., _j'J

Februta

March

May

t 4

.. i ...

*June t

July

Aigust

* Draft Area- Recommendation ..Report

issued. Governors of States with proposed

potentially aeptable' sites notified.

* Transportation Business Plan issued.

* Information Package for From-Reactor

Cask-Program issued

"*Near-Termf Public Infor'mation Poddets

Program fo Fiscal Yeli 191987 issued.

Priojet Decision Schedule issued.

Environmental Assessments issued. Five

sites nominated as suitable;'for site

characterizatin. 'Three:' sites

recommended for detailed site

characterization. President approves sites

fof :haracterzation., , ;

* Site-specific -,work forsecond repository

indefinitely postponed.-

* Public Information Guidelines issued.

* Request for Proposal for Development of

r From-Reactor Cask issued: v

* NRC 'issued license foi Virginia Power -

'Surry" Plant' Independent 'Spent" Fuel

Storage Facility ' -' 

_ . . ~. .', . '

* Transportation Institutional Plan issued.

* NRC issued license for Carolina Power

and Light Robinson Plant Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Facility.

* Draft Mined Geologic Disposal System

Plan completed.

I

I

i

l

i

I

11

i__

i

I

July

August

September

* Draft Project Decision Schedule

issued, reflecting Federal agency

comments.

* Draft Transportation Business Plan issued.

* Final Regional Geologic and

Environmental Characterization Reports

issued on the Crystalline Repository

Project.

September

* Licensing Support System solicitation in

Commerce Busines Daily for design and

implementation procurement.

December * Federal Register Notice of Inquiry on

defense waste fee options issued.

* Draft Transportation Institutional Plan

issued.

October * Quality Assurance Plan issued for siting

and site characterization.

November..' ; Electroric Bulletin Board .

(INFOLINK) established.
8 December 1986

Other Program Items (continued)

Transportation Coordination

Group M'eeting

(continued from page 5)

* Cask Development-Proposals for

the design and development of

casks for shipping spent fuel from

reactors to NVPA facilities are

currently under review by

OCRWM. All surface modes of

transportation (truck, rail, and

barge) will be considered in the

design of "from-reactor" casks.

Contracts are expected to be

awarded in the late spring of 1987.

* Operations Management Configuration Study-Consistent with

the NWVPA, OCRWM plans to use

private industry to the maximum

extent possible to operate the

NWPA transportation system.

Proposals for a management

configuration study are now being

reviewed by OCRWM. The study

is to include an evaluation of

viable management structures

(i.e., total private operation, a

combination of private/Federal

operation, or total Federal

operation). A contract for the

study is expected to be awarded in

early 1987.

Update on Litigation

Monitored Retrievable Storage. On

November 25, 1986, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a

decision in the case of the State of

Tennessee v. John Herrington,

Secretary of Energy. The Court ruled

that Federal courts of appeals have

original jurisdiction over actions

involving the consultation and

cooperation requirements applicable

to monitored retrievable storage

(MRS) facilities under the NWPA.

The court further held that the NVPA

does not require the Secretary to

consult with any State before he sends

Congress his proposal for the location

and construction of one or more MRS

facilities.

The court recognized that DOE

notified the Governor of Tennessee of

the identification of three sites in

Tennessee for analysis as possible MRS

sites, and that DOE provided

Tennessee with a $1.2 million giant

to assist the State in its independent

evaluation of the MRS system.

The State of Tennessee filed a petition

for stay or extraordinary writ of

injunction on November 25. The

Secretary responded on November 28

with a motion in opposition to a stay

or injunction, and with a countermotion for immediate issuance of

mandate or dissolution of injunction.

DOE is awaiting the court rulings on

these motions.

Case Consolidation. On October 29,

1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit denied the

Government's motion to transfer all

cases (with the exception of those

lawsuits challenging the denial of

grant funds to States for litigation

purposes) to the District of Columbia

Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same

time, the court also consolidated all

cases except challenges to the

previously promulgated "guidelines"

for the recommendation of sites and

the above-mentioned denial of grant

funds.

-U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEg 1986-181-180,40218
K)

.- I. 

_ S e

\J Subject:

Department of Energy

Washington. DC 20585

Telephone Number Change

Effective December 26, 1986, the first three digits of Forrestal

Building telephone numbers will change to:

(1) Commercial callers - 586.

(2) Government (FTS) callers - 896.

Germantown telephone numbers shall remain the same.

For general information call 586-5722.