ML20006E685
| ML20006E685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1990 |
| From: | Salomon S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9002260211 | |
| Download: ML20006E685 (3) | |
Text
y n v
y r
l'EB 12 1990 a
MEMORANDUM POR: Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, HMSS FROM:
Steve Salomon Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS
SUBJECT:
POLILY HIGHLIGHTS FROM LLW FORlN MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO This short summary gives policy highlights from the LLW Forum meeting in San Francisco, January 24-26, 1990.
Significant Policy and Institutional Issues
[
The LLW Forum tried to identify by means of a survey questionnaire the significant policy and institutional issues that confront meeting the objectives of the Low-Level radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Act). Eight issues were tentatively identified without priority:
- 1) local opposition, 2) delays in promulgating federal guidance and regulations, 3) overlapping federal regulations, 4) media coverage of siting activities, 5) site proliferation, 6) liability and financial assurance mechanisms, 7) public perceptions of the risk posed by LLW; and 8) litigation. During the discussion, DOE announced that the Forum report would be appended to the DOE annual report to Congress mandated by the Act. Consequently, participants E-voted to have the responses to the questionnaire returned because the ground rules for the questionnaire were not fully disclosed initially.
No Forum report would be forthcoming.
Site Proliferation On the issue of site proliferation (too many disposal sites), the Forum agreed to have Michigan and Connecticut, the two States that have been most adamant on the subject, present their views to the Forum at the next meeting, April 25-27, in Austin, Texas. Some Forum members believe that unless these states offer to host sites and offer their sites to others no more progress will be made on the subject.
Compliance with 1990 Milestone The sited States indicated that the majorit3 of States were in compliance and would have access to the disposal sites. Some edditional information might be required. These States would be monitored to stay in compliance. Some States
=
would be required to submit additional substantive information to remain in compliance. A small number of States clearly did not comply. Those States not in compliance will be announced February 1,1990, when the South Carolina governing board meets. The State will be denied access starting with the date when the order is signed.
(On February 1, the South Carolina board announced that the States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont; the District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico did not comply with the 1990 Milestone.)
W 90031 h/
,b g
$e $$hE Fif
[t)//)
22 8
gl,
.t'
,a.
b MEMO DIST-SS=
2
,v
, DOE review for compliance with the 90 Mi estone is still underway.. The States l
e won't get their rebates on time. A substantive matrix analysis is being conducted for the annual report.
(DOE does not expect to make a decision on compliance until February 15, at the earliest.)
Source Term Deficiencies 1
e A gjor tecgical deficiency in the estimated source term was discussed -
3I and Tc.. - Both the Mid West Compact and New York have contracts to j
determine the actual amount versus the overestimated manifest amount which could differ by more than a couple of orders of magnitude. The Forum suggested that NRC publish an Information Notice on the subject.
NRC Technical Assistance Because NRC cannot complete the State workshop promised for below ground vaults on account of resource restraints, as it did for the earth mounded concrete bunker, EG&G will try to fill in the gap.
]
Mixed Waste l
Updates of Forum activities to resolve the ongoing mixed waste dilema were given by Edgar Miller, Afton Associates and Richard LaShier, EPA. Two items standout. The first is that mixed waste might become classified under Subtitle C.as special waste to accommodate NRC's regulations.
The second is that EPA is conducting a series of workshops starting March 6-8 in Chicago for State and EPA staff. There will be a workshop in Washington, D.C., on Institutional impediments to dual regulation which will include a meeting with
^
RCRA's chief regulator, Sylvia Lowrance, with the Forum on the third day. The-date has yet to be announced.
- BelowRegulatoryConcerdBRM x
i
. Clark Bullard, Chairman, Central-Midwest Compact, questioned how the proposed
!BRC policy could affect the compacts. He said that NRC is not sensitive to the
-ceiling and floor of the definition of LLW as defined in the Act. He suggested that NRC should notify the regulated comunity that the compacts have authority
-over the disposal of LLW, so that a petitioner for BRC would be subject to-compact law.
g Disposal Costs The disposal cost estimates are still rising. California estimates over $100 per cubic foot for shallow-land burial, and Nebraska, over $300 per cubic foot for an enhanced facility and smaller volume of low-level waste compared to California.
(Current disposal costs without surcharges is about $50 per cubic foot.) Other States and compacts did not offer revised estimates.
s
rz
- MEMO DIST SS.
+
3 ProposedD0bandNRCTransportatiodu]
The Forum is concerned about the increase (2 to 5 times) in the number of shipments that may occur because of the d NRC and DOT rules pertaining
.to new limits on low specific' activity (proposeLSA) shipments. Additional technical information on the subject will be supplied to the Forum in addition to the r
rules which were given to the members. The Forum may wish to comment on these rules.
(DOT will be extending its comment period by 90 days beyond FLbruary 9,1990. NRC has not received a petition to extend its rule beyond '
February 9,1990.)
.Public Participation A number of States reviewed their successes and failures in public
~
participation.
In particular, New York described how glitches in its law and
"~
i oversights by its regulatory bodies contributed inadvertently to confrontations with the public. The Forum is investigating on how best to capture this information by a frank appraisal so lessons learned can'be applied in the future.
Regulators The need for getting the regulators involved before licensing begins was stressed. More than only the NRC regulatory workshops is necessary.
3 I can supply additional information on these subjects upon request based on my comprehensive notes. My phone extention is 20569.
ORIGINAL S!GiiED BY Steve Salomon Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS-DISTRIBUTION: Central File #409.52 NMSS r/f LLOB-- r/f JSurmeier HDenton, GPA RBangart SSalomon LRoche, EDO
'FCombs, SP JGreeves RPerson MWeber,OCM/KC DKunihiro, RV PLohaus RBernero MFederline OCM/KC CAder, OCM /TR RBoyle LCamper MLopez-Otin,OCM/TR RMacDougall, OCM/FR SBilhorn,OCM/KR KDragonette, OCM/KC PDR Yes: /X. /
PDR No: /
/
Reason: Proprietary _/
/
or CF Only /
/
[
ACNW Yes: E/
No: {~/
l
. SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
PQ.ICYHIGHLIEHTSFMLLWFORUMMTGINSANFRANCISCO M
f' 0FC :LLOBE n5 %
NAME:SSalomon/j1 :PLohaus DATE:02/N/90
- 02/)f/90
~
~
l.
OTFTUTAE~ RECORD COPY
.