ML20024D391
| ML20024D391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/1983 |
| From: | Johnson T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8308040702 | |
| Download: ML20024D391 (8) | |
Text
^
r-t JUL 181983 DISTRIBUTION WM -202-BMSS r/f WMLL r/f 806//
WM s/f /
TJohnson DMartin EHawkins LHigginbotham REBrowning MEMORANDUM FOR:
Paul H. Lohaus, Section Leader low-Level Waste Licensing Branch FROM:
Timothy C. Johnson Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT ON MIDWEST WORKSHOP ON LLW Enclosed is my trip report on the Midwest Workshop on Emerging Roles and Requirements in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management.
This meeting was held in Columbus, Ohio on June 22, 1983.
At this workshop I presented a paper on the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 61 waste form and waste classification requirements.
Originni siened BY Timothy C. Johnson Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch I
l CWPB WM:WMLL TCJohn:J/C TC nJs h:mw PHLohaus 7/12/83 7//f/83 7/ /83 WM Record Fite WM Project 3
Docket No.
PDR i
LPDR
_DjstI tutia:
i (Return to WM,623 SS) e i
i i
8308040702 830718 l
PDR WASTE j
WM-3 PDR
is
,g-If
,p
^
%s.,
Midwest Workshop on Emerging Roles and Requirements in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management g
Purpose:
The purpose of this meeting was to exchange information on new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) requirements and an the status of Midwest programs to site new disposal capacity?
~
Attendees:
See Attachment 1 Date and Place:
June 22, 1983
+ ' '
Columbus, OH Discussion
\\;
s An agenda for the workshop is presented in Attachme'nt 2.
The most interesting papers presented related to the status of state comp, acts, 10 CFR Part 61, and incineration.
\\
State Roles - Levin
'Q
?',
G. Levin (EG&G, Idaho) presented a paper o$the role of states in LLW management.
He explained the Low-Level Waste Poliby Ac'g nd the responsibility of states t li to obtain the needed disposal capacity for thejr waste generators.
10 CFR Part 61 - T. Johnson w
t %
I presented'the same paper given at the Waste Management '83 Conference in Tucson, AZ (Attachment 3)., Jollowing the pr'esentation I was asked what were acceptable methods of classifying high-activity, wastes.
As an example of an acceptable method, I explained the approadh being considered for high-activity resins.at power plants. ~This" approach includes the establishment of scaling factors after a complete samph analysis and application of these factors to gamma spectroscopy data from resin samples.
I was asked how 10 CFR Part 61 would affect the management of institutional wastes routinely released into the sewerage systems.
I indicated that these i
l l\\_
practices are still allowed for certain wastes under 10 CFR Part 20.
The rule, 10 CFR Part 61, would only affect those wastes shipped for commercial disposal.
I was asked why we were interested in quantifying nu61 ides.
I responded that we needed to know the quantities of nuclides important for disposal in order to properly close the disposal facility.
I also explained some of the diffi-culties we observed in evaluating the Sheffield disposal records.
One person asked if it was necessary to drop test an HIC on its top to ensure the closure system was adequate.
He indicated that this was now required to get a Type A package qualification for transportation packages.
I indicated that we would review the Type A qualification for HICs in the same manner as transportation packages.
One person asked how much time would be needed for licensing a disposal site under optimum conditions.
I indicated that the optimum case would be 18-24 months and that it was assumed that the applicant would be keeping the regulatory authority informed of all new data.
One person asked if we had received many questions from licensees on implementing 10 CFR Part 61.
I responded that only a few licensees had contacted us with questions and that we are encouraging communication now so that problems could be resolved by December 27, 1983.
LSA Limits - DiSibio R. DiSibio (Hittman) presented a paper which discussed the proposed LSA requirements which incorporated a direct exposure scenario.
DiSibio stated that NRC would propose that, following an accident, LSA packages should not result in a direct exposure rate greater than 0.5 R/hr at 3 m.
This differs from the IAEA recommendation of 1 R/hr at 3 m.
2 1
3 p
t DiSibio reviewed a model developed by Hittman to evaluate the transportation packaging requirements for radwaste shipments.
He concluded that the LSA requirraent would result in more Type B shipments, a need for more Type B containers, increased costs, and a*disincentive for volume reduction.
He indicated that solidification of wastes and onsite storage;(decay of short-lived nuclides) would minimize these impacts.
Impacts of 10 CFR Part 61 - Neilsei; P
E. Neilsen of Toledo Edison examined the impacts of 10 CFR Part 61.
He indicated that increased costs would be significant.
He stated that com-plete' analysis of four samples would cost $40,000 to $50,000.
He also
. stated that very few laboratories were qualified to perform the required analyses.
Neilsen also said that the good experience at Barnwell showed that 10 CFR Part 61 overemphasized waste form aspects.
He stated that reliance should be placed on the disposal environment.
Regarding HIC technology, Neilson indicated that use of the HICs would increase waste management costs and that these costs would be passed on to the consumer.
Neilsen also referenced the volume minimization programs at Davis-Besse which resulted in a 50 percent reduction in waste volumes.
Neilsen stated that any increase in occupational exposures should be balanced by an equivalent reduction in exposure to the public from disposal.
He said that the occupational exposure impacts from 10 CFR Part 61 could not be justified.
The Technical Position (TP) on Waste Form would be difficult to live with, Neilsen said.
He said that irradiation tests to 108 rads would be difficult to obtain and that the thermal cycling test was unrealistic because there was no place in the country where temperatures cycled between -40 C and 60 C.
3
Neilsen stated that the 1 percent accuracy NRC desired in sampling was not realistic and he recommended a factor of 10 be used.
In response to these points, I corrected some of the misunderstandings expressed in the paper.
I stated that quotes from EAl. and SAI for complete analysis were $1500 to a.
$2000 per sample, not the $10,000 to $12,000 he quoted.
b.
Regarding our overemphasis on waste form, I stated I completely disagreed with his position.
I stated that 10 CFR Part 61 considered site suita-bility, design, operations, waste classification, and waste form as a system.
Together all of these areas were needed to demonstrate that the performance objectives would be met.
I indicated that waste form plays an important role in long-term site stability and that without these considerations, it would be virtually impossible to sell a new disposal site to the public.
Regarding the occupational exposure issue, I stated that the NRC staff c.
recognized there may be difficulties for some licensees and that we wished to work with them to resolve these problems.
The objective would be to develop a practical implementation program which would provide a realistic representation of the nuclides in the wastes without producing high occupational exposures.
l d.
Regarding the waste form tests, I stated that irradiation testing to 108 rads could be performed at many facilities.
Also, the temperature limits for the thermal cycling tests were designed to conservatively evaluate potential degradation effects using a short-term test.
e.
Regarding the 1 percent accuracy value, I stated that the factor of 10 is incorporated in the waste classification TP.
In conclusion I again expressed the need for more communication with the licensees to correct similar misunderstandings that were presented in this paper.
4
=-
Midwest Compact - Taylor W. Taylor (Michigan State University) briefed the group on the status of the Midwest compact.
He does not expect that a site will be licensed by 1986.
However, he did believe that significant progress has been made.
He stated that a commission will be established by the compact for appointing the host state.
The host state will have a good deal of latitude in setting disposal rates, transportation restrictions, etc.
The host state will also have veto power over any new states which might be admitted later into the compact and over any negotiations the commission enters into regarding use of the disposal site.
The selection of the host state-will consider the volumes generated, transportation impacts, and population density.
The compact, however, has established no specific criteria for host state selection.
The compact allows negotiations with other compact regions for transferring wastes which might be better disposed of at another site.
One goal of the commission would be to reduce waste volumes.
No specific details on how this might be accomplished have been developed.
The acceptance of D00/00E wastes is also an issue which has not been resolved.
l For low-level wastes which exceed the Class C limits, the Midwest states recognize their responsibility to manage these materials as required under the Low-Level Waste Policy Act.
For these wastes a regional storage facility might be constructed.
i In conclusion Taylor emphasized that the states have an excellent opportunity to solve the waste management problem independently of the Federal Government.
It was now up to states to resolve the political issues and get on with site selection and licensing.
5
, Biomedical Wastes - Roche L. Roche (NRC) discussed the NRC position with regard to biomedical wastes.
She discussed the options available to these generators, such as volume minimization, onsite burial, hold-up for decay, and incineration.
In conclusion she stated that decisions regarding the management of biomedical wastes need to consider the applicable federal, state and local regulations, public concern, and the costs of alternatives.
i Biomedical Wastes - Jayaraman S. Jayaraman of the University of Illinois (UI) Medical Center presented an interesting discussion of the legal and administrative difficulties in managing the wastes from the UI Medical Center.
Since 1978 waste volumes at the VI Medical Center have more than doubled.
Legally VI cannot indemnify waste shipments to Hanford as required by the State of Washington.
Because of this problem, incineration is being developed as an alternative disposal method.
In order to relieve public concern over incineration, contact with key political representatives and public figures is being made.
This approach has been success-ful to date and has not raised public alarm over the very small releases from the proposed incinerator unit.
Central Incinerator - DiSalvo R. DiSalvo (Battelle Columbus) discussed the program underway at the Battelle i
Columbus Laboratories (BCL) to site a regional incinerator at the W. Jefferson facility.
This project is a private venture which involves utilities, industry, and institutions.
6
,?
Atcor has been contracted for the design of the incinerator.
The incinerator to be used is the Kraf tenlagen incinerator which has substantial operating experience in Germany.
The scheduled operation date is early to mid 1985.
An NRC license application will be made in August 1983.
7
-