ML20029C571
| ML20029C571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1994 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Cook F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C570 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, DD-94-02, DD-94-2, NUDOCS 9403240144 | |
| Download: ML20029C571 (5) | |
Text
'
4 DD 94-02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS Robert M. Bernero, Director In the Matter of
)
)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
10 C. F. R. Section 2.206
)
Hanford Site
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISl0N UNDER 10 C.F.R. SECTION 2.206 INTRODUCTION By Petition dated July 25, 1991 (Petition), F. Robert Cook (Petitioner) filed a request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards exercise his authority to require a license application from the U. S. Department of Energy (D0E) with respect to certain high-level radinactive wastes (HLW), consisting of spent nuclear fuel generated at Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed nuclear reactors, stored at locations at the Hanford Site in the State of Washington.
By letter to Mr. F. Robert Cook, dated September 3, 1991, I acknowledged receipt of the Petition. Notice of receipt was published in the Federal Register on September 12, 1991 (56 FR 46449).
I subsequently determined that additional information was needed concerning DOE activities at Hanford, and on August 19, 1992, I wrote to DOE to request such information. A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. Cook. DOE provided its response on April 2, 1993.'
Based on the information obtained from DOE, and for the reasons given below, I have now concluded that the Petitioner's request should be denied.
Letter dated April 2,
1993, from Jill E.
Lytle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Department of Energy to Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC.
9403240144 940222 PDR ORG NOMA
L j
s I
2 BACKGROUND l
The Petition addresses spent nuclear fuel, generated in licensed activities, that is alleged to be located in certain burial trenches and hot cells at Hanford. The issue that I must resolve is whether such spent fuel is
{
in fact so located at any of the facilities at Hanford and, if so, whether j
l those facilities are subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory l
l Commission (NRC).
The Petitioner has identified, as the applicable provision of law, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5842 which reads in part as follows:
l Sec. 202. *** the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall ***
have licensing and related regulatory authority pursuant to chapter 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as to the following facilities of the (Department of i
Energy]:
{
(3)
Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act.
I agree with the Petitioner that this is the applicable statutory provision and I will proceed, therefore, to consider whether any or all of the activities, of the types identified by the Petitioner, at Hanford are within the scope of this law.
DISCUSSION DOE has advised me that over the years it has acquired certain spent fuel and fuel materials from NRC-licensed reactors for use in research and development activities. DOE has described the R&D activity as being work "that supports the R&D activities and projects of the Materials Characterization Center, the West Valley Demonstration Project, the Hanford Waste Vitrification Project, the MK-42 Processing Project, and the Federal Republic of Germany heat sources..a There are also studies of stored spent fuel behavior and canister fabrication. These materials are maintained primarily in hot cells of Building 324 at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory Ibid.
s r
3 (PNL) with lesser amounts located in Buildings 325 and 327 at PNL. After undergoing destructive examination, the remnants, or amounts exceeding the test requirements, are retained temporarily in one of these PNL Buildings' hot cells or at the Hanford 200 Area low-level waste (LLW) burial ground (which consists of the 200 East Area and the 200 West Area) pending disposal.
The question presented by the Petition is whether, under Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act, those facilities are subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the NRC.
Based on the information obtained 3
from DOE and an NRC site visit' that included PNL Buildings 324, 325 and 327, I conclude that research and development, rather than receipt and storage of HLW, is the primary use of these PNL Buildings with respect to NRC licensee generated materials and that the PNL Buildings are not subject to licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission.
As indicated above, it appears that certain wastes generated in the course of licensed activities are now located in the Hanford 200 Area Burial Ground.
I will assume, for purposes of this review, that those wastes are "high-level radioactive waste" within the meaning of the Energy Reorganization Act.
Even so, I find that the Commission has no jurisdiction with respect to the 200 Area, since neither the 200 Area, nor either of its subareas (200 East and 200 West) is being used "primarily" for the purpose of receipt and storage of the commercially-generated wastes.
DOE has explained that:
The Hanford 200 Area Burial Ground is a single facility, consisting of a number of trenches intended for the disposal of DOE-owned low-level waste. The 1,700-acre active part of the facility holds approximately 400,000 cubic meters of low-level wastes, approximately 1,100 cubic meters of which is of NRC-licensed reactor origin...[T]he latter represents materials not used or consumed in the tests at the PNL facilities, which is held here temporarily, pending disposition. An overwhelming percentage of the materials at this site are low-level wastes resulting from DOE's nuclear-materials production operations op operations of the DOE reactors that are not subject to NRC licensing Ibid.
NRC " Trip Report - Site Visit of Pacific Northwest Laboratory and Department of Energy Hanford 200 Area," dated January 21, 1994.
5 Letter from Jill Lytle, April 2,1993, supra n.1.
s 4
The presence of licensee-generated wastes does not in and of itself dictate that NRC exercise regulatory authority.
The Commission's jurisdiction exists only if the facility in which those wastes are stored is used "primarily" for the purpose of such storage.
DOE's need for the Hanford 200 Area Burial Ground arises out of defense-related programmatic requirements, in particular "the disposal of DOE-owned low-level waste." Serving that need is clearly the primary purpose for which the burial ground has been established.
The material from NRC licensed activities is commingled with greater amounts of unrelated materials, and there is no discrete area set aside for the materials from NRC licensed activities.
Also based on the site visit of November 9 and 10, 1993,6 NRC has been informed that the health and safety controls of the employees and the security for the 200 Area are under one managenent plan covering all radioactive materials, including NRC licensee-generated spent fuel and fuel materials.
I conclude that neither the Hanford 200 Area nor either of its subareas (200 East and 200 West), is used primarily for receipt and storage of HLW from NRC licensed activities. Accordingly, these areas are not subject to regulation by NRC.
CONCLUSION In summary, neither the PNL Buildings 324, 325 and 327 nor the Hanford "200 Area" LLW burial ground (or either of its subareas, 200 East and 200 West) is used primarily for the receipt and storage of HLW from NRC licensed activities.
Accordingly, these facilities are not subject to regulation by the NRC.
Therefore, the Petitioner's request for action under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 is denied.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 99na day of February 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
/
. _ - x Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
(
NRC Trip Report, supra, note 4.
6
4 The presence of licensee-generated wastes does not in and of itself' dictate that NRC exercise regulatory authority. The Commission'.s jurisdiction exists only if the facility in which those wastes are stored is used "primarily" for the purpose of such storage. DOE's need for the Hanford 200 Area Burial Ground arises out of defense-related programmatic requirements, in particular "the disposal of DOE-owned low-level waste." Serving that need is clearly the pri. nary purpose for which the burial ground has been established.
The material from NRC licensed activities is commingled with greater amounts of unrelated materials, and there is no discrete area set aside for the materials from NRC licensed activities. Also based on the site visit of November 9 and 10, 1993,7 NRC has been informed that the health and safety controls of the employees and the security for the 200 Area are under one management plan covering all radioactive materials, including NRC licensee-generated spent fuel and fuel materials.
I conclude that neither the Hanford 200 Area nor either of its subareas (200 East and 200 West) is used primarily for receipt and storage of HLW from NRC licensed activities. Accordingly, these areas are not subject to regulation by NRC.
CONCLUSION In summary, neither the PNL Buildings 324, 325 and 327 nor the Hanford "200 Area" LLW burial ground (or either of its subareas, 200 East and 200 West) is used primarily for the receipt and storage of HLW from NRC licensed activities.
Accordingly, these facilities are not subject to regulation by the NRC.
Therefore, the Petitioner's request for action under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 is denied.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22na day of February 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety
- prior concurrence and Safeguards 0FC IMIF*
IMIF*
IMIF*
- HLWM*
STSB*
NAME EShum:fbjc FBrown FSturz JGoldberg JYoungblood CJHaughney DATE 02/15/94 02/15/94 02/15/94 02/16/94 02/16/94 02/16/92 0FC DD:IMNS*
D:IMNS*
DD:NMSS D:NMSS df NAME BBrach CPaperiello GAArlotto RMBe N o DATE 02/17/94 02/17/94 02/ /94 02/cL/94 C= COPY E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G: cook.hjm 6
NRC Trip Report, supra, note 4.
.