ML20034F519
| ML20034F519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/01/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-60-4 NUDOCS 9303030347 | |
| Download: ML20034F519 (10) | |
Text
\\
RELEASED TO THE PDR NOTATION V0TE g7ggg 4
date idat s
RESPONSE SNEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMISSION FROM:
C0l44ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD X/with
)
APPROVED comments DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN j
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0t44ENTS:
See attached comments.
l
~
SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/ X /
February 1, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES No v
M 88R3 gge 7;g i '
CORRESPONDENCE PDR N-
~
Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-92-391:
I am generally supportive of the approach set forth by staff in its proposal that the Commission deny this petition.
I believe it is necessary to define more precisely than was done in 1989 those criteria which will enable the Commission to find that the residual wastes resulting from DOE's processing and disposal of these defense wastes indeed can be classified as " incidental wastes".
These criteria, as proposed by staff, include a judgment that --
i (1) the wastes have been (or will be) processed to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practicable; j
(2) the wastes will be incorporated into grout at concentrations that do not exceed Part 61 limits for Class C low-level waste; and (3) the wastes will be managed consistent with safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives of Part 61.
i I am concerned, however, that the basis upon which economic practicality will be assessed for purposes of the first criteria has not been defined.
Furthermore, neither the FRN or the letter to DOE identifies who is to evaluate compliance with any or all of the specified criteria.
I propose that both the letter to DOE and the draft FRN be modified to indicate that NRC expects not only that the above criteria will be satisfied, but that DOE will also explicitly document to the NRC its analyses and conclusions that the criteria have been met.
I believe that NRC's commitment to seek and to carefully review such documentation is essential to provide a credible basis for NRC denial of the subject petition and, more importantly, for continued confidence on the part of l
the Commission that the wastes in question are not subject to NRC jurisdiction.
Proposed modifications to the letter and the draft l
FRN are attached.
l j
i
3-I The bar4s ";r th:
managing those wastes rests with the Department of Energy.
w t P"#the reprocessing wastes disposed of in the grout a
Commission N P ition "
PewAn l e
facility suld b? " incidental" wastes ta;; :: they: (1) have been processed qs (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed i
the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; :nd (3) are to be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, so that safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
The petitioners also requested that the Ccamission exercise oversight to l
assure that the grout meets temperature requir ements for low-level waste They acknowledge that DOE's vault design is protective of human health forms.
and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with l
heat generated from reactions during the grout process, is kept within defined l
They present no technical data to suggest that achievement of these,
limits.
I temperature controls presents any unusual engineering challenge.
f In any h as 4a Departyn a g4 b ythe Commissionjdcc: gt ;;r.sid;.- the great produccd i y has n event, in truch net hnc the N b aes rdance with DOF's niant_to-be-high-level.;a;ts, it deci ou tte s eversi st nmetion
- n% a-l autneruy to carry
-%e- +'
o W5 h
)
DY i
W l
.% '9 i
Sc L SQ e& M1wsse x w ; m e -
w IDcw La i k scdh F,eh l
15 l
l l
l and wi cmkw h do %
ll
\\/
It has obtained and evaluated actedinthismanner/initsinquiriestoDOE.
I information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not l
the proposed activities of the DOE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available l
contemporaneously to the public. fur &wmoNjy j
thranvm> a preu kalW, khe NRC has requested the DOE to periodically submit summaries of the analytical results of all samples of the 25 grout feeds for disposal as incidental wastes.
NRC recognized the uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the kas tank wastes andjendorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds before disposal. The objective of these efforts is to control the final composition of the grout wastes.
If DOE finds th..t inventories of key radionuclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than DOE vtC equh was estimated in 1989,JDOE shenld notify NRC so that the Commission edcan
/
W fil reconsider its classification of the waste.
NRC has also requested DOE to provide the summaries of the analytical data to other affected parties.
' If a standard of " largest technically achievable amount.... will bDV h
e isolated" were to be applied, then the facts submitted by DOE might not be j
sufficient to conclude that NRC lacked jurisdiction.
However, the proper i
I standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well.
As i
' indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Commission has obtained
\\ information that is sufficient for this purpose.
3.
Future Adiudications The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in l
18 j
waste tanks is by no means dispositive of the question whether the facilities A number of other for storage of the treated waste are subject to licensing.
f actors may be relevant and material as well:
(1) what are the lin.its, i
geographically and functionally, of "f acilities"; (2) have those facilities been " authorized" (and by whom is such authorization required); and (3) have those facilities been authorized "for the express purpose of subsequent long-f term storage of high-level waste" where those who may authorize the facility make no express mention of high-level waste?
It is not necessary for the 1
Commission to address these questions at length in order to dispose of the pending petition.
)
IV.
Public Comments on the Petition Two letters were from The NRC received letters from 12 commenters.
other Federal agencies, two were from public interest groups, one was from a i
Most nuclear industry corporation, and seven were from private individuals.
N comments were opposed to the petition [iaDM Or d bg daSen S' A.
Process and Standards Proposcd in Petition i
Several comments expressed concern that granting the petition would have an adverse effect on the timely disposal of radioactive waste at Hanford.
This was a concern because many of the Hanford waste tanks were seen as nearing or exceeding their design life.
The provisions of the rulemaking f
proposed in the petition were viewed as limiting DOE's flexibility in The selecting the most effective processes for waste treatment and disposal.
20 i
y May 18, 1988).
Further considera; ion of these issues is beyond the scope of a
this proposed rulemaking action.
C.
NRC Licensing Authority Some comments focused on the licensing authority of NRC over the Hanford tank wastes.
DOE stated that the rulemaking suggested in the petition would involve NRC in regulation of DOE's predisposal waste treatment and processing activities, which would be inconsistent with NRC authority to license specific DOE facilities under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
Another commenter stated that the proposed rulemaking was inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of DOE and NRC.
Tnese arguments have already been discussed, and require no further response.
It may be emphasized, however, that even if the Commission were found to have jurisdiction over the disposal facilities, it would not regulate either the tanks themselves or the facilities being used to process the wastes in these tanks; and there is reason for concern that implementation of the petitioner's proposal might draw the Commission improperly into regulation of those f acilities.
A commenter concluded that DOE was currently in violation of 10 CFR Part 30 requirements for a license because various near-surface waste disposal facilities at Hanford are being used for "long-term storage" of high-level radioactive waste.
The issue is not pertinent to the subject matter of the petition.
However, in any case, the comment does not take into consideration the judicial interpretation of the term in Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Reoulatory Commission, 606 F.2d 1261
\\
(D.C. Cir., 1979). % S C. Cuxus Ceue s+ Rypalo 1 uLJ m & ca M in sup rM M tJ t c 's pwn D & bRs hag not bFe d*W N UE 2
" d"r"'
22 W "' " 5 % M 1\\L,7 Q hyc, g9] $ygyj {t, jjg( l[CMW}.
L l
D.
Public Input t public input A number of comments stressed the importance of adequa e Some ding disposal of the Hanford tank wastes.
into decision making regar ld in the Pacific called for public hearings on this subject to be he f d One commenter noted that the EIS which was Another commenter believed that Northwest.
provided the opportunity for public comment.
f the public a better the Commission's rulemaking procedures did not of er cedure.
opportunity for input than does the current licensing pro f the situation As indicated in the Discussion above, the NRC's review o ried out publicly from the with respect to the double-walled tanks has been car titioners Meetings with DOE have been open, and at least one of the d an opportunity l
start.
(the State of Washington) has been provided advance notice a have Documents have been placed in the Public Document It appears to the Commitsion that f
to attend.
been made available for public inspection.
d rd for evaluating the essence of the issue concerns the appropriate stan a high-level waste or not.
whether certain wastes should be regarded as lito carry out these evaluations u i
ctual information i ity for views to be pots Also, the petition for rulemaking has afforded an opportun h
t ndard.
expressed with respect to the appropriateness of t e s athat A decision that NRC lacks licensing jurisdiction does not me As DOE undertakes its waste epportunities for public input will be denied.
fcr public participation management activities, it will afford opportunitiesgulations,'and orders.
to the extent required by its own enabling statutes, re f
23 t
Y -
i
+
~
E.
Other Comments One commenter took exception to the petitioner's claim that the The radioactive inventory of the Hanford tank wastes was inadequately known.
commenter believed that the contents of the tanks can be bounded well enough j
to judge the relative safety of various disposal options.
i The Commission considers the available information to.be sufficiently bounded to enable it to conclude that DOE's proposed operations (with respect to the material stored in the double-shell tanks) can result in the removal from tne Hanford double-shell tanks of as much of the radioactive waste as may l
be technically and economically practical, and that the applicable regulatory
-=d d 3 is not; objectives hav/
tisfied.
N^
+haea 4"da-^-+e
=ra NRC's role to judge the relative safety of v:! Iuh d sposal options, and we l
decl.ae to do so.
One comment stated that while the petition was aimed solely at the Hanford tank wastes, its provisions could potentially affect all radioactive wastes from reprocessing, including those at Savannah River, West Valley, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
As the waste management programs at these other sites are in different stages of implementation, the impacts of the provisions would vary from site to site.
As indicated above, the Commission is sensitive to this consideration yet believes that the specific case at hand only needs to be addressed at this time.
Some comments urged the Commission not to change the present definition
~
of HLW.
The Commission is not changing the present definitinn.
24
-i, m
,,i,----
w r-- - -
-v,+p y_,,ey-y,-,g---m 9
-wpg g-m9-e-yewp--
ym UNITED STATES
~.k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E.
WASHINGTON. o.C. 20566
[
- y.v f I
...+
'r p y Mr. John Tseng, Director Ukoura p TJOE b Hanferd Program Office Office of Waste Management p gfj 4%
J Environmental Restoration MM and Waste Management
/ INchanisms (vy U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585 Qukv3 u tralcr rudlonochh gepardon. ;
Dear Mr. Tseng:
ity Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff appreciated the opp d other to meet with the Department of Energy (DOE) staff, DOE contyactors, an data and to review new waste characterizat' ion The current DOE plans for management of radioactive tank wasty' at Hanford.
parties on July 16, 1992, t of that purpose of this letter is to provide DOE with the staff's/ a to respond to the We are also taking this opportunit lin.
l related November 4,1992 letter from Leo P. Duffy to Ch irman Ivan Se Hanford tank wastes.
d During the meeting, DOE presented revised tank waste i ~ventor t
l on current characterization data.
routed in near-sur ace vaults is within Ofe k shell tank activity that would be
-137 quantities aviously believed /
OE re now near the upp earlier range estimatesj ptbwever, p Wr fend of the range, rather than at the lower end as preindicdted t because of the limited sampling and analysisjto date.'rh4 hasbeen Cc6cM
'iks-pSA In presenting its current plans for waste management, DOE outlined its V,
intention to complote, by March 1993, a broad reevaluation of various These options treatment options for both single and double-shell tanks. i.
disposai of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).
j i
As you recall, NRC indicated to DOE, in 1989, its a l
ll tank and, consequently, that the grout facility for disposal of double-she(R. Ber waste would not be subject to our licensing authority I
Thispeflecidour understanding that DOE wouldl s Rizzo, Seotember 25, 1989).
F(segregate the largest pracucaT~ amount o
- HLW, l
Oce M from The Commission has recently completed its review of a rulemak' g petit le-shell tank the States of Washington and Oregon on the subject of the d/at it wou
[?
i wastes and has indicated in the enclosed oetition denial t)the wa M
the residual fraction as " incidental" was'te provided tha i
l (2) will be the maximum extent that is technically and economically pract ca ;
t l
/
tration that does not exceed incorporated in a solid physical form at a concenC low-level waste as set out in the applicable concentration limits for Class 10 CFR Part 6 ic Energy Act, so f
that safety requirements comparable to the per ormanc
?
DOE Y pres % f** E 09f9 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
J ent It is therefore essential, in the light of this position, that d7shbsequent pet % die <-of these pH reevaluation of waste tank remediation options, an evaluations.as my he ennducfAL_mcaude-ttre appi man unprogrammatic and safety g' peg We recognize that there may be significant economic tionkoffsiich 3
f actors aff ecting the remediation program, tet-MB tonsiderac y y#$
dbeeede'c[prl 2
h f actors as -thy my deat aeid +M retowQ ch oing We request that you keep us informed of the progress of your ongincludi reassessment and of relevant technical information l results for tank wastes l
i to, your tank waste treatment plans and the cnalyt ca If it becomes apparent that are proposed to be sent to the grout facility.ill be necessary to that any wastes may be subject to NRC licensing, it w to repository determine what form of pre-licensing interactions, a h
propriate l
disposition of these wastes.
ide the I trust that this letter, and the enclosed petition denial, prov to Chairman information retpested in Leo P. Duffy's November tition by If yn B.J. Youngblood, Director the States of Washington and Oregon.301-504-Li52, or 504-3404.
please feel free to contact me, atof the Division of High-Level Was Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Attachment:
As stated J. Anttonen DOE cc:
J. Bartlett, DOE L. Duffy, DOE D. Duncan, EPA R. Stanley, Washington State l
J. Franco, Oregon State R. Jim, YIN
-