ML19242D406
| ML19242D406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1979 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242D407 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-RM-50-6 NUDOCS 7908150068 | |
| Download: ML19242D406 (3) | |
Text
,
'I f.
- gljl, 3 GI3 Cocket No. 50-201 r,:' 50-6 i
i I
i i
i I'E!'ORM'0U" FCR : Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
j Ceneral Ccunsel i
FROM:
Willian J. Circks, Direct.or Office of ::uclear f'.aterial Safety and Safeguards (FESS)
SUCJECT:
RESPONSE TO CZCRESS:*t.i: UCALL'S QUESTI0LS RECARDII:G i
NRC AUTHORITY AT WEST VALLEY t
I l.
The purpose of this rerorandun is to provide t'?SS input concerning responses l
to Ccw.issioner i'ennedy's questions contained in his menorandun to you dated June 20, 1979.
i In his first question, Conrissioner Kennedy asked whl:h potentially sianificant hazards to public health and safety are associated with Maste solidification activities. Priefly, these pctential hazards include radioactive releases asscciated eith off-gas effluents, the potential effects of severe natural pberecena such as earthquake and tornado and other accidents. Cornissicner Kennedy also asked if the staff's perception I
had chanced sirce rocorrer. ding in SECY-79-sea that direct "RC regulation cf i
federal waste solidificaticn activities shculd not be pursued. The recor-I nerdaticn contained in SECY-7C-3~' applies to the major epartrent of i
Energy (CCE) sites ':ith production reactors, reprocessin; ;,lants, fuel ficrication riants and waste handling facilities.
It v.as concluded tr.at the envircerental, heal:h and safety aspects of waste solicification activity were nct likely to be significantly dif ferent than the other l
activities conducted at these DOE sites that are exempt frcn licensing.
I Thus, it did not appear reascnable to isolate solidificaticn facilities sut' ject to 73.C regulation fron the integrated process activities Lerfer ed I
at these sites.
n the case of dest Valley, the cppcsite situation is presente:. Activities at the site are su.; ject to Iicensing 3nd it coes not appear reasonable that sclidification cperations shculd te considered rithout Leing subject to iSC jurisdiction.
in cur revised response to Congressran Udall's second question-(copy attached),
pr ;id;" y: :r :::f' i ' 4-fer:t - t!' t 2nt'. "*s C c~i s t i ^ -'r ""-^ dy 's d
t second question.
Specifically, the second paragraph of cur proposed response to t'r. Udall addrcsses the issue raised by ?'r. Kennedy.
t OF/ *C E >
eunnais s >
i i
cars h N% PORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 fl' u ***=.. m v. % m....ws:..n in-in
,q U h, b-i. O CI M{OM hQ OM2-7908150 Os# g
Leonard Cich.it, Jr.
-2_
j l
i In ny testinony presented on.'ay 31, 1979 before the Subccruittee on Ener;y cvirm ant of the Deuse ecmittcc on Interior and Irsular.*1ffairs, ard tPe c Congressran Ucall presiding, I discussed the issue raised in Cetrissier.cr i
Eenney's third qu'.stion.
A copy of ry testirony is enclosed.
The last paragraph on pa<,e three and the first para'jraph cn pase fcur of i.y testirony i
aderess this issue.
I t
In anss.:cring Ccrrissioner Eennedy's fourth questien, one U.ust recognize that the existing facility license considers neither the construction nor the cperation of a waste solidification plant at the l'est Valley facility. l.ppropriate safety and environrental evaluations rust be cendt.cted i
l as a prerecuisite to r odifying the existing license before construction This and cr,eration of a waste solidification plant could be pernitted.
r.atter is discussed on pace three of ny testirony before the Udall ccc:ittee.
l l
In anwer to Ccrrissioner Ecnnedy's last questien, please see the last l
paracraph on page six cf ry testirony as well as the second paragraph l
of our proposed response to Congressnan Udall's second questicn.
In suvary, WSS recenrends that the prcposed letter to Congressran Udall be r.cdified to incorporate our proposed response to Pr. Udall's second question. Gur response to this question, previously foraarded
{
to Pr. Trubatch of ycur staff and enclosed with this rer.orandum, should l
replace the f:rst paragraph of page 3 of the proposed letter to Mr. Udall.
I We feel that nodifying the letter in this fashion snould nake the letter I
acceptable to Ccrrissicner Kennedy.
i Willian J. Circks, Director Office cf Nuclear Paterial Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
Distribution:
ED0-06634 1.
Revised response to Docket File 50-201 STrubatch, CGC Congressman Udall's RM 50-6 LVGossick
_ seccnd "cestion WJDircks HShapar 2.
Testirony by Nillian J. Dircks RECunningham VStello presented on Nay 31, 1979 TFCa rter E00 R/F M1SS R/F LCRouse
- l ATClark FCRR R/F CJHaughney BClausser JShafer Eleins j
MMalsch, ELD MBridgers STreby/RBlack ELD
,GEttt er FCRR O{
p g
SS-gg FCRR p Disc B ic +
I A8&9 CJHaughney: flulCRous Tr Ster R M~N i[JDNcEs emm"* was'-
. 6/33 /.7.9..
6/ M R9.
6/ / \\/79.
. 6/ 21./ 79..
.6 /.../79.
. 6/.../ 79,
w&
- ac roax m me.sacu mo
- .....)L......,-........ot............
L 1
~. ~ -
~
PROPOSED RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN UDALL'S SECOND QUESTION The Commission believes that its current authority for licensing non-Federal waste management activities at West Valley is adequate.
However, this authority should be made clearer if DOE becomes involved in activities at the West Valley site. As discussed above, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the Commission to impose license conditions which the Commission determines are requirad to protect public health and safety. Accordingly, if DOE builds a waste solidification facility on the licensed NFS site, NRC could conduct analyses to determine:
- 1) whether any transfers to and from the licensed NFS waste storage facility can be accomplished safely, 2) whether the solidification process is safe since the licensed wastes will be processed there, and 3) whether the impacts of the solidification facilities on other NFS licensed facilities are contrary to the requirement for protection of the public health and safety. NRC could conduct these analyses pursuant to its authority under Part 70 to regulate NF' 's receipt, possession and transfer of licensed materials and could impose license conditions on the NFS licenses to regulate these activities.
If DOE takes over the entire West Valley site and the NFS license is transferred to DOE, while NRC could regulate DOE's activities pursuant to section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, it could be argued that the Ccmmission is' not authorized to regulate a DCE waste solidification process itself because such a facility would not be used primarily for the receipt and storage of hi i-level wastes resulting from activities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act.
~
~~
However, NRC clearly could regulate DOE's activities involving storage and disposal. Jurisdiction over the waste solidification process could be asserted on the gr,unds that there is an intimate health safety connecticn between licensed storage activities and the solidificaticn process.
Because the Ccemission authority to regulate solidification i" DOE takes over the entire facilit. is only indy rectly related to the process itself, the Commission believes clarification regarding its authority to regulate the solidifcation process in this case would be helpful although not absolutely necessary.
U b m,n
.u -
_