ML19289E072
| ML19289E072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Oertel G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903230305 | |
| Download: ML19289E072 (23) | |
Text
.
,[, s
~
M j
UNITED STATES
- .+
/.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON wasHINCTCN. O. C. llC555 s_,
FEB 61973
=*
1 DOCKET NO. 50-201 Dr. Goetz Oertel, Acting Director Division of Waste Products U.S. Department of Energy Mail Stop B 107 Washington, D.C.
20545
Dear Dr. Certel:
We appreciate the complexities in attempting to sort out the technical and institutional issues associated with tra West Valley site. A start has been made. Our corrents are intended to assist in guiding further steps.
The NRC staff has made a general review of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center study conducted by the Department of Energy.
This review has not been a detailed technical review as would be performed for a license application for a reactor construction permit. Nonetheless, this review does incorporate some general and specific coments on the study on West Valley. The general coments are contained below, while the specific comments are attached as enclosures. We are also enclosing a copy of the most recent radiation readings from internal process cells at the Nuclear Fuel Services West Valley, New York Plant.
For the past two years, we have held the view that to expedite resolution of the West Valley waste disposal question, the detailed engineering work should be decoupled from financial and institutional questions and should proceed on a parallel rather than a series path.
Furthermore, irrespective of these responsibility questions, we have repeatedly maintained that the realities of the situation are that DCE with its contractors is the only organization that has the resources to actually undertake this detailed engineering work.
We feel that the recent discovery of a defect in the 20-2 waste tank pan is not a cause for alarm, but underscores the wisdom of getting started on this detailed engineering work at tne earliest possible time.
It is our hope that this course of action will be undertaken very soon and we continue to urge you to prcceed with this wert.
790323 03o 6
Dr. Goetz Certel.
Section 3 of the Sumary Report discusses aspects of institutional controls and responsibilities for decisionmaking..This section recognizes the complex responsibility issues involved but fails to adequately state the impact of delays that could arise should complex and protracted litigation develpp as these responsibility and institutional questions are decided. Since the study did not clearly define the responsibilities of the concerned parties under the various options, it is recommended that consideration be given to the development of a proposed legislative package in consultation with the concerned parties, particularly New York State, to clearly define these responsibilities.
Technical options discussed in the DOE study were developed to bound the cost estimates for possible future actions for each area of the site. These are the so-called high and low options mentioned for each site area. The adjectives high and low describe the upper and lower bounds of estimated costs for each option. As can be expected, the range of these cost estimates is broad. Because of the approach taken, options tr.at are intermediate in cost but perhaps technically and environmentally superior have, in general, not been discussed in the report. Therefore, the actual options to be selected and their associated costs probab]y are not shown in the report. Further work by the ultimately responsible parties will be needed before the tme costs and impacts will be known.
In our letter to Mr. C. V. Seedira of DOE dated August 8,1978, the NRC staff provided the 00E with its view on possible future licensing procedures that could be taken with respect to the facility. Portions of that letter are quoted on pages 7-2 and 7-3 of the companion report.
We wish to emphasize that the 1,1 cense and NRC actions with respect to the license are independent of any leases, contracts or other agree-ments between NFS and the State of New York. The NRC is not a party to any such agreements, and as such, our license and our licensing actions are independent of these contracts and lease arrangements.
Therefore, the expiration date for the lease and waste storage agreement between NFS and the State of New York, December 31, 1980, has no bearing in and of itself on any licensing actions regarding NFS.
NFS is the licensed operator of that facility. It will remain so until the license is either terminated or transferred. Such licensing action must be approved by the NRC following submission of the proper application. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.80 and 50.82 apply to license
Dr. Goetz Oertel.
transfer or license termination, respectively.,Unless we receive such applications, conduct the proper reviews and approve such applications, NFS will remain the operator of the West Valley facility. They cannot unilaterally depart the site on December 31, 1980 without our approval.
Sincerely, Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosures:
- 1. Specific Comments on the Companion Report
- 2. Specific Comments on the West Valley Tank D&D Task Group Report
- 3. Specific Comments on the Final Report Pubite Comment
- 4. Radiation Readings e
ENCLOSURE 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE WEST VALLEY TANK CECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING TASK GROUP STUDY t
General The West Valley Tank Decontamination and Decommissioning Task Group (Task Group) was given the task of recomrending criteria for the decontamination and decommissioning of the high-level waste. tanks.
As stated in their report, they felt they had to expand the scope of the report to cover the entire site. This was done to acccunt for other site realities which could. offset high-level waste decisions.
In expanding the scope, they took what was a very difficult task and turned it into an impossible task. As written, the report attempts to cover the same ground covered by the main study report and thereby dilutes the effort to define criteria for the waste tanks.
.The approach of the group is extrere. Impossible restrictions are devised such as calling for total decantamination of the site with no risk. Very little numerical guidance is provided and contradictory proposals such as virtually immediate imcebilization of the high-level waste on site with complete removal eventually. The Task Group has not seriously addressed the question of cost; no help was provided on acceptablo cost / benefit ratios.
Although the 'ask Group tried to make a positive contribution to the many questions about the future of the site, the lack of focus and direction and diverse views of the participants prevented such an outcome. Our specific comments follow.
Pace 2 Section II does not define the period of population projection.
Pace vif Since there is no numerical guidance ~provided for cost / benefit ratios in the Principles, it cannot be known if the principle is violated. The use of the word " minimize" should have been defined.
Page ix (Urgent Action Criteria)
The assumption that immediate action will lower the risk may be erroneous. Action should only follcw rareful thought.
2-P' age ix (Nuclear Recository Goal)
A " burden of proof" analysis should accompany either action - remaining on site or transportilg.
Page xi (Site Restriction Consideration) j ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) and best available technology l
are used as though they are compatible but in fact r:uy be inconsistent criteria. They should be defined.
l Page x1 (Health Effects Standard)
This exposure limit amounts to approximately 10 mr/yr. We feel that it l
wou}d be almost impossible to show compliance with a cancer risk of i
10' /yr. Such a number has been suggested as a "deminimus" level by other studies.
Page xii (Soil Contamination Goal)
What is the definition of "as low as reasonably achievable" in the context of soil contamination?
Page xii What is the destination of the contaminated soilt Page xii (Criteria Durino Decocnissioning Ooerations)
EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 190.10 do not apply to this old waste generated before 1968.
Pace 2 (Considerations for Selection)
The expression "long term population health risk levels" should be defined.
Pace 6 The criteria in 10 CFR Part 100 apply only to reactors by rule.
It was an NRC staff decision to apply the criteria to new con-struction at reprocessor sites.
Page 19 It is not clear why the discussicn of generic models is included since none are used.
Page 29 There is no basis in fact for the statement that exact knowledge of inventories is the most important factor in planning and implementing for site D&D.
Page 46 There is considerable innuendo and speculation in the statement on contaminated soil around the process building.
Page 54 The statement attributed to the NRC on the effects of natural phenomena (earthquake) is incorrect. The April 2,1976 letter did not mention application, it enly discussed seismic determina-tion methodology. A later letter indicated application of the 0.2g as ' design basis criteria for new construction.
Page 55 What.is the basis for the statement that the high-level wastes are hazardous for thousands of years?
Page 55 The existence of a spare tank is completely neglected in the dis-cussion of the tank-pan-vault complex.
,Page 57 There is confusion in the first paragraph between alpha emitters and fission products. When an atom is split the two (or sometimes three) products are lighter and do.not emit alpha particles.
page 64 (General Selection Consideration No. 3)
More help shculd have been provided on the confidence needed fer long term risk.
W
Page 73 Surface Cc,tamination Standard Are the radioactive surface contamination limits of the State of New' York (New York Code, Rules and Regulaticns; Title 10, Appendix 16 Table 7) consistent with the health effect standard as proposed by the Task Group?
Pace 76 Soil Contamination Goal It may be that this section should be titled Soil Decontaminatien Goal.
Also we believe the levels used for decommissioning criteria by Rockwell International at the Santa Susana site are above background and do not-serve as a justification for what the Group has proposed.
Pahe85 It is not understood why immobilization of the high-level waste at West Valley is recommended. We fully agree that work on the disposi-tien should start inmediately.
~
Page 86 No mention is made of the source of the adequate or sufficient fund's which must be provided.
9 9
9 0
0 e
Thinos Missino in the Recort 1.
The cost analysis for extended care of the SLBA does not include any contingency for waste management. Surely, 00E must realize that the recapping operation recently performed may not be a permanent fix. It may merely change the time constant as to when water reaches the trench.
In any event, it may be years before we know if the problem can be solved by increasing the cap thickness.
2.
The basis for the DOE cost estimate on exhumation of the SLBA, option two is not specified. West Valley contains about 2.4 million cubic feet of wastes (page 23, Final Report). Trench utilization appears to have been less than 50 percent (page 3-42, Companion Report). Yet 00E assumes that only five million cubic feet of
~
waste and soil would require removal (page 24, Final Report). In reality, the volume of contaminated soil should exceed the volume
. of waste buried by a factor of 4-10.
00E assumptions merely cover the soil which was placed in the trenches during burial. In addition, DOE appears to grossly overestimate disposal costs.
According to Table 4-83 (Companion Report) the cost of shipping the waste, by train, from West Valley to the new site is $23/ cubic feet. The cost of disposal at a new site is nearly $100/ cubic feet. This cost is high by an order of magnitude for shallow land burial.
3.
00E never gave serious consideration to the grout injection fix for the site. Grout is written off because (a) voids are quickly filled by soil anyway, and (b) grout probably wouldn't contain the wastes better than the native till. The first point is valid, if a long time span is considered. However, if a trench contains several thousand gallons of water, it must contain massive voids temporarily filled with water. If trench grouting (pressure) were peformed while the trenches were ceing pumped, the operation could be highly effective in stabilizing the caps.
As to the second point, we agree that cement grout is no less permeable than native till. But cement will support the caps and.
will not be subjected to settling--this cannot be said for the till.
4.
The block diagrams in Section 4.of the Companion Report depict possible waste solidification methods.
In addition, several figures illustrate rough time estimates for implementation of these options. These block diagrams of the processes and time tables, which are in the form of bar graphs, lack detail and as such make substantive decisions regarding selection of specific options difficult indeed.
S e
ENCLOSURE 3 SPECIFIC CCMMENTS ON THE FINAL REPCRT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Page 3, Section 1.1 A portion of the history describes the changes to AEC regulations 10 CFR 50, Apendix F, and the exception to.these regulations that NFS high level liquid waste would be subject to a further rule raking pro-ceeding. The NRC is the regulatory successor to the AEC and thus is the present organization responsible for conduct of this future ruling.
However, the NRC lacks the technical resources necessary to fully develop the detailed technical waste disposal alternatives in such a -
fashion that the rule raking can proceed and be conducted within the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a result, the NRC has been requesting that the DOE, as tht only organization with the technical resources capable of developing high level liquid waste disposal alternatives, undertake the development of those alternatives for the NFS waste. This NRC request to DOE has not been acted upon, and until it is acted upon, the prepa' rations for the. rule making cannot begin.
Page 4, Section 1.1 The statement is made that NFS estimated that $600,000,000 would be required to complete their proposed modification program in tae light of present and future proposed criteria requirements. This $600,000,000 cost estimate was never reviewed by the NRC. The possibility exists that this estimate was high based on the fact that it exceeds the total amount of money expended to construct the Allied-General Nuclear Services reprocessing plant at Barnwell, South Carolina (5250,000,000),
a plant which exceeds the throughput capacity of the proposed modified NFS plant.
Pace 4, Section 1.1
" This section on history contains an incorrect value for the recurrence interval of the exceedance probabillity for the design basis earthquake.
This recurrence interval should be once in 15,000 years vice once in one million years as stated.
2 Summary Report, Page 9, Section 1.4 Summary of Public Interactions e
Suosection on the West Valley Tank Decontamination and Decernissionino Task Group Recommendations -
Recommendation No. 7 This recommendation that adequate funds be provided such that short term and long term risks can be determined with ccnfidence and minimized does not account for a cost benefit analysis that would be necessary if future actions at the West Valley site constitute a major federal action under the requirements of NEPA. The likelihood that future federal actions at West Valley will in fact be considered a major federal action is substantial.
Page 11, Section 2, Third Paragraoh The dirussion of NRC's developing waste classification system and criteria as applicable to the high level liquid waste tanks at the Center fails to mention that during application of the waste classi-fication system to these tanks the OCE was asked for specific criteria that applied to their,own waste tanks. The DOE response was that such criteria for their own waste tanks has also not been developed..
Page 11, 4th Paragraoh The statement that accident analyses and their potential resulting radiological impacts are not within the scope of the study, while true, can imply that decisions on specific technical options to be selected may be difficult without such analysest For example, some options such as burial ground exhumation should only be undertaken follcwing a detailed safety and accident analysis in addition to environental reviews and cost benefit analyses.
I
ENCLOSURE 1 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE ESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR CENTER STUDY (COMPANIONREPORT)i Page 2-22, Section 2.5.3, Paragraph 4 of the Page 1.
The statement in the. report that " monitoring of ensite strees adjacent to the waste burial areas (stations 53, 67, and 75 in Fig. 2.8) was begun in 1969" we believe to be incorrect. The State has.been monitoring sin.ce 1963 at the inception of operations.
2.
The statement which says that closing the State Licensed Burial Area (SLBA) and routing the pumped out trench water through the LLWT facility decreased the tritium levels implies that closing the burial grounds ' helped decrease tritium levels. The closing of the SLBA and the accompanying decrease in tritium levels have no correlation.
Page 3-8, Table 3.1 Subsequent to the publication of the DOE Study Report, the NRC staff has received more extensive radiation level readings taken in the internal process cells in the Separaticns Plant. Tnese readings were provided to the NRC staff in a memorandum frem R. Smokowski of NFS to W. Oldham of NFS dated November 13, 1978. A copy of this memorandum is attached.
Pace 3-21, Discussion in Second Paragraph of the Page This paragraph of the report discusses an apparently inexplicable difference between the Cesium 137 concentration in the supernatant measured by analyses as compared with the preufcted Cesium 137 supernatant concentration based upon calculations. Although the reason for this apparent discrepancy is not known, the possibility exists that some Cesium ions have been complexed and tied up with, various constituents in the sludge and therefore do not appear in the supernatant. The only way to resolve this apparent discrepancy is to conduct detailed samplings and analyses of both the sludge and the supernatant. For some time the. NRC has been urging that the 00E utilize its expertise to undertake such a sampling program.
.-.e.
e>-
e===
a--.
w-e=.-e*-
- -=
Page 3-22, Table 3.7 Page 3-23, Taole 3.8 Page 3-24, Taele 3.9 1.
The total number of curies of Ba1375 7
should be 1.0 x 10, also Cs137 and Ba137m a,re in secular equilibrium and should be equal.
2.
Pu241 curie quantity should be 112,000 in 1978 Am241 kilogram quantity should be 6.05 in 1985, curie quantity should be 19,000, and number of watts 646 in 1985.
Page 3-25, Paracraoh 3 (Discussion in the center of the paragraph about the unknown carbonate concentration)
With any significant campaign which involved precipitation with oxalic acid and loss of material to the waste tank, it would seem that exalate sent to the waste tank could be easily dissoci-ated by decay heat and converted to the carbonate. The carbonate content should also be a function of the amount.cf degraded solvent
~
sent to the waste tank. Of course, these unknown conditions again point to the need to perform detailed saepling and chemical and radiochemical analyses of the waste constituents.
Page 3-26, Table 3.10 No actinides are shown for the acidic waste.
Page 3-38, Section 3.4.1, Paracrach 4 of the Page The sentence in this paragraph which reads, "The burial grounds consist of several excavated trenches.", should rea ' "The burial grounds consist of several trenches which have been excavated, filled and capped."
Page 3 42, Section 3.4.2.2, Paragraoh 2 of the Pace Burials of Plutonium-238 were not stopped in 1973 but rather, were limited to low concentrations.
Page 3-46, Section 3.4.3.2, Paragraoh 5 cf the Pace Cnly liquid scintillation vials we-e allowed to be buried in this manner.
Other liquids have to be solidified er surrcunded by an absorbent mat eri al.
Page 4-20, Section 4.4.2.3.2 If 10 nei/gm is the requirement for shallow land burial, it would appear that all wastes would have to go to geologic disposal because DF's greater than could be achieved would be required (e.g., >106 for Csl37) especially where there are high tonic concentrations.
Page 4-70, Table 4.9 What is the item storage at $2,300,0007 What about contaminated concrete disposal?
Page 4-74, Section 4.6.2.2, Paracrach 7 of the Page Should the last sentence read " disposed" in deep geologic?
Page 4-75, Table 4.11 Should waste storage or disposal be indicated here?
Pace 4-76, Section 4.7.3, Paragrach 4 of the Page The target date for development of the criteria and standards pertinent to shallow land burial of low level waste is April of 1980.
Page 4-76, Section 4.7.3, Paragrach 6 of the Pace The statement which indicates proposed EPA criteria of returning low level burial sites to unrestricted use within 100 years is believed to be incorrect. EDA criteria state that confinement of waste should not rely cn active institutional controls for mere than 100 years. Passive controls, e.g., land reccrds can be expected to prevent intrusion. We do not believe tPA's intent was to release the site for unrestricted use after 100 years.
Page 4-77. Section 4.7.4, Paracrach 2 of the Page "Other possible options" for the SLBA should be defined.
~.
Page 4-78, Section 4.7.4.1.3, Paragraoh 1 of the Page 1.
Determination of the " gross decay rate" may be misleading since this may not detect the isotopes of specific interest.
Paragraoh 3 of the Page 2.
Integrating fence line dosimeters would give only the external dose; it would not. include other pathways.
Page 4-82, Section 4.7.4.2.F. Paragraoh 3 of the Page Why.are wastes transported to a Federal Repository and not to another State licensed burial ground?
Pace 4-84, Section 4.8.3, Paragraph 6 of the Page This section seems to neglect the fact that TRU wastes are also buried at the SLBA.
Page4-87,Section4.8.4.2.1,Paragraoh3oftpePage This section seecs to indicate that "The procedur es for exhumation of the radioactive wastes" from the NLBA would be similar to those of the SLBA. This is not totally true since occvpationai exposures will. probably be much higher.
Pace 4-87, Section 4.8.4.2.1, Paragraoh 4 of the Page What is the definition of intermediate level waste as used here?
Page 4-87, Section 4.8.4.2.1, Paragraoh 4 of the Pace This section for NLBA is nct clear on where the TRO (low level) would be oisposed (Federal Repository was listed for SLBA). Is there any high level waste associated with this exhumation?
Page 4-90, Table 4.12 and 4.13
~able 4.12 and Table 4.IJ show geologic disposal cost of $2300/m3and 3
$3719/m. The transportation costs are shown as $706/m3 and $877/m3 Which costs are correct? Also in Table 4.13 a f acility deccamission-ing cost of $26,800,000 is stated. What is the facility that requires such high cost?
5-Page 6-7, Section 6.2.3.2, Paragraoh 6 of the Page This section on environmental impact says that 9.6 ha would be required for shallow land burial. The scenario on p. 4,-82 seems to indicate that only a Federal Repository would be used.
Page 6-9, Section 6.3.1, Paragraph 2 of the Pace This section does not consider the economic advantage to the State for operation of the SLBA (depending on ownership and the financial option chosen.)
Page 7-18 of the Comeanion Recort Section on pr ececence assignment of financial resconsibilities This section cites as a precedent the 75/25 financial responsibility between federal and state governments with respect to the Grand Juncticn, Colorado remedial criteria.
It should be noted that there is a,significant difference between this remedial action and that which may be applied to the NFS West Valley situation. This difference involves the fact that in the.cill tailings case, the former mill operators did not possess a license.
In the case of NFS, the facility operator does possess a license and, as such, has certain responsibilities under that license. The low financial responsibility assignad to NFS in many of the options discussed in the study appears to ignore the fact that NFS is a licensee and to ignore the fact that the precedent frcm mill tailings did not apply to licensed facilities.
=.
ENCLOSURE 4 West Valley flovember 13, 1973 8-78-C78 TC:
W. A. Oldhai FRCM:
R. T. Smokewski
SUBJECT:
CELL RADIAT Ct! READI;!33 Per NF3' understanding with the.NRC Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch,.
and in su ;crt of the task esticatina residual cell con:a:inatien, a ree.ct'a radiati:n survey was performed on Monday, ::cvsmber 6,1978.
A Technical Assceiates CP-TP liedel 1310n cht:ber was c:nnected to a'Tachnical Associates CP-TP 1B survey meter by ISO feet of Colunbia shielded cable. The ion chamber was fitted witn a Icco and suitably reinfer:ed so that it c:uld be positioned by crana heck in specific aress Of the cells. The shielded cole vtas manually fed and retrieved. The survey =eter was c:nvenienti'v placeEih
,he operating aisle near the c;eratives and observers.
The modified survey device was calibrated with cur 30 curie Cs-137 sealed source at the.:0 R/hr and 160 R/hr leve.ls. The survey device has the caaabil-
.ty of reading up to :CCO R/hr withcut chamber ::difications.
Upon c pletion of the radiation surveys Cf the General Pur;ose Cell and Proce3s Mechanical Cell, the intervening cable was cut and dis:csed as high s evel viaste. The salvaged 103 chamber is sbheduled for dec:ntaminatice.
The positiening of the icn chamber within the cells and descrip:icn of *'hess locations were made by Cr. A. C. Pierce and are listed en the at:3cted 3 hee's.
/
/,
/-
,12'fa u / A ' N RTS/aa
/
Attach.
cc:
J. P. ::c herta A. c. Pier:e
- t rr;-. : -
U U.* I O *,E3
~
pg.c
.x,
- i. '
_P_MC RADI ATh0'l LEVELS 11/6/78 No.
Locatien R/hr 1
'6' frem N end, S' frem E wall 8' above shear 70 2
IS' directly above shear 320 3.
18" S of shear at maga:ine c;ening level S' above ficor 370 4
8' S of shear 5' above ficer 4' from E wall 145 -
5 5' frem C window, directly in frent 16" frem DIFO table,
- 80 6
5' frem 11 wall, even with sau blade 18" frem table 185 7
Sirectly in frcnt of B winUcw 2' above table l' above saw rail 5' frcm windcw 240 8
Directly in front cf F:tC transfer pcrt Center of cell 4' above rail 335 9
Sam.e as (8) but l' above rails 450 10 3' frem FttC ;crt 2-1/'2' above rail icvel In frent of 3 wind:a 600 m
e
^,
- .,",o.
0
.g %
g s
.y..
e h.,
,Y - g-
.o..
.,a.
,.*O.
6.-
'. s.'
k b
[
i @S 6 i
<s.*
d
/
.. s f
a qs
..t 1
v C
g
~3 -
rs y
k @,
Q 1
1
'e.v 6
I..
...O-3 k.e 4. c y, y
- 3 w,.
}
/
/
/
a.,
O%
N-6 e
nam e
GPC RADIATIC" LEVELS
_11/6/78 flo.
Locatien R/hr 1
su corner 18" frem 5 wall 3' frca door s 12'at crane recs ficer level 65 above ficer 2.
P.' frem S wall, 3' frem W wall i
5' above f1cer 18" from basket 115 3
18" frem hull he;;er Hiddle of cell (M-5) 4' frca flocr 220 4
Sameas'(3)
Only l' frem fleer (Hulls en ficer) 480 5
Middle of cell
~
7' frem ficer In front of cell c:oler 175 6
Middle of cell-fr:nt of cell cooler 2-1/2' fren ficer 10" frca tcp of scrap drum with empty lids, mise.
435 7
Middle of cell 11.' abeve ficer In frcnt of cell c:cler IC5 8
2' over i2 basket 3' frem S wall 140 s 10' above ficer 9
l' in front cf II taste:
2-1/2' frem ficer s7' frca fuel chute 350 10 2-1/2' in fren ef !2 wind:.<
2' frem ficer Jus E of hull dum:cr 553 4
se
.9 ed de.
kl en 18" frem flece l' W of.'urpi..; s:s:f: P 5:0 mm
g
,e.
.g
.e.
V{
. e...
M 4s.,4
- b
- c. g r
- e..
A.
D i
SQ '.
U yO ad Y.O
/
%.e M.
s
.s g
o e
(..
I..
,o 3
.t c.,
g; 4.
a n..
w s
c.
so.
Og 9
s es.M i.
--O-a 4
y 3
9.h
.W e
~*J L '>
3 i
O c4 I
9.
g. o.
D w
L s
- p..a.,,
\\
u.c. O z
s y
F y
Oq
.0
. i t::
i D.*
.d........
s O ].
.q h
9
&g g...
. ;o t
~
Q{
\\3 V.
^
.\\S U
O e
e e
e e
.e..
..m.
1 b
i 9
.g T
g I
D
^
Qs.
s a
t p O
~
9 g (g q
w O
,.k 1
.u s i.
f,A I
t l
9 i
P s.,
s i
y CJ R'>
4
$q l
g s,
3
/
.s
-a g
8 i
g g
I e
6 i
1 i
4
f-UNITED STATES
.y 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON 3
I, D.}
wAsuiNcToN,0. C. 2C555
/
00CXET NO. 50-201 M[ ~...'_'.. J Or. Goetz Oertel, Acting Director Divisien of Waste Products
- e. v " g,.,
,,...e
' ' 'f
~
,f
[.s ]." E;',<r& 7W ,3,M.s
) # ,,..
U.S. Department of Energy
'/#
e.
Mail Stop B 107 f au -
- C':
r Washington, D.C.
20545
Dear Dr. Certel:
. W '*,,, +:... e~,, f. ~,
d M.).
"
- J. J L * 'r '-
The NRC staff has made a general review of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center study conducted by the Department of Energy.
This review has not been a detailed technical review as would be performed for a license application for a reactor construction permit. Nonetheless, this review does incorporate some general and specific comments on the study on West Valley. The general comments are contained below, while the specific comments are attached as enclosures. We are also enclosing a copy of the most recent radiation readings from internal process cells at the Nuclear Fuel Services West Valley, New York Plant.
- i,. s.
For the past two years,'N. 3-has-had the view that to expedite resolution of the West Valley waste disposal question, the detailed engineering work should be decoupled from financial and institutional questions and should proceed on a parallel rather than a series path.
Furthemore, irrespective of these responsibility questions, we have
,,./,"',*..
repeatedly maintained that the realities of the situation are that your ve u...ent is the only organization f a -thi; ;w.uy that has
~
r the L..:. h:;l rescurces to actually undertake this detailed engineering work.
We feel that the recent discovery of a defect in the 80-2 waste tank can is not a cause for alam, but underscores the wisdom of getting started on this detailed engineering work at the earliest possible time. It is our hope that this course of action will be uncertaken very soon and we continue to urge you to proceed with this work.
s Dr. Goetz Oertel.
Section 3 of the Surmary Report discusses aspects of institutional controls and responsibilities for decisionmaking. This section recognizes the complex responsibility issues involved but fails to adequately state the impact of delays that could arise should complex and protracted litigation develop as these responsibility and institutional questions are decided. Since the study did not clearly define the responsibilities of the concerned parties under the various options, it is recommended that consideratien be given to the development of a proposed legislative package in consultation with the concerned parties, particularly New York State, to clearly define these responsibilities.
Technical options discussed in the DOE study were developed to bound the cost estimates for possible future actions for each area of the site. These are the so-called high and low options mentioned for each site area. The adjectives high and low describe the upper and lower bounds of estimated costs for each option. As can be expected, the range of these cost estimates is broad. Because of the approach taken, options that are intermediate in cost but perhaps technically and environmentally superior have, in general, not been discussed in the report. Therefore, the actual options to be selected and their associated costs probably are not shown in the report. Further work by the ultimately responsible parties will be needed before the true costs and impacts will be known.
In our letter to Mr. C. V. Smedira of 00E dated August 8,1978, the NRC staff provided the DOE with its view on possible future licensing procedures that could be taken with respect to the facility. portions of that letter are quoted on pages 7-2 and 7-3 of the companion report.
We wish to emphasize that the license and NRC actions with respect to the license are independent of any leases, contracts or other agree-ments between NFS and the State of New York. The NRC is not a party to any such agreements, and as such, cur it:ense and our licensing actions are independent of these contracts and lease arrangements.
Therefore, the expiration date for the lease and waste storage agreement between NFS and the State of New York, December 31, 1980, has no bearing in and of itself on any licensing actions regarding NFS.
NFS is the licensed ocerator of that facility. It will remain so until the license is either terminated or transferred. Such licensing action must be approved by the NRC following submission of the proper application. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.20 and 50.82 apply to license
d' Or. Goetz Oertel transfer or license termination, respectively. Unless we receive such appitcations, conduct the proper reviews and approve such applications, NFS will remain the operator of the West Valley facility. They cannot unilaterally depart the site on December 31, 1980 without our approval.
Sincerely, Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosures:
- 1. Specific Comments on the Companion Report
- 2. Specific Comments on the West Valley Tank D&D Task Group Report
- 3. Specific Comments on the Final Report for Public Comment
- 4. Radiation Readings
.