ML20034F909
| ML20034F909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/15/1992 |
| From: | Remick F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303050177 | |
| Download: ML20034F909 (4) | |
Text
V 0 T E !"'nihkh;b%;;;;,;R I
NOTATION 5
kE.h f RESPONSE SHEET J.........$;f,,,,j T0:
SAf4UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0114ISSION FROM:
C0f44ISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL 0F PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD w / c " I APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0f44ENTS:
ah f/rau sw I
r 9303050177921E" E$acER&%Jjgjg3y VV TOMM RELEASE VOTE
/X/
/ f / 'd 92_
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
1 ENTERED ON "AS" YES /
No
,qt d ;
es i
J
Commissioner Remick's Comments on SECY-92-391 In recognition of the limits of our regulatory authority in this area, I approve the staff's recommendation to publish in the Federal Reaister the notice of denial of the petition for rulemaking filed by the States of Washington and Oregon provided that the staff makes clear, in both the federal Reaister Notice and the letter to DOB, that the conclusions reached on the classification of "che tank wastes are based on DOE's assurances that (1) the wastes have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) the wastes will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits fer Class C low-level radioactive waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) the wastes will 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 staff should make it clear in its letter to DOE and the Federal Reaister Notice that the findings in thin matter are based on DOE's assurances that the above criteria will be met.
I would prefer speaking of DOE's assurances rather than using the phrase "provided that" (see last paragraph in proposed letter to DOE - Enclosure 2) which suggests that the NRC is imposing conditions on DOE.
If, for any reason, the DOE is unable to provide the NRC staff with assurances that these criteria can or are being met, then the staff should immediately inform the Commission so that this matter can be reconsidered.
Staff should modify the proposed Federal Recister Notice and the letter to DOE to reflect this position (see attached modifications).
l I
1 i
i
i' r
managing those wastes rests with the Department of Energy.
The basis for the wA - : -
Commission's petition-is that the reprocessing wastes disposed of in the grout f 4 toc s - - -
e--s e t facility would be " incidental" wastes because they: (1) have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum i
i extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in i
t 10 CFR Part 61; and (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 Commission exercise oversight to assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms.
They acknowledge that DOE's vault design is protective of human health and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during the grout process, is kept within defined limits.
They present no technical data to suggest that achievement of these temperature controls presents any unusual engineering challenge.
In any event, inasmuch as the Commission does not consider the grout produced in accordance with DOE's plans to be high-level waste, it does not have the authority to carry out this oversight function.
(
Qca uc (
Fe octau ac.s Tro_ b < c 1
15
)
i e
i
- %f, UNITED STATES 8 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 l
v w,,..
Mr. John Tseng, Director Hanford Program Office Office of Waste Management Environmental Restoration and Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585
Dear Mr. Tseng:
Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Department of Energy (DOE) staff, DOE contractors, and other parties on July 16, 1992, to review new waste characterization data and current DOE plans for management of radioactive tank waste at Hanford.
The purpose of this letter is to provide DOE with the staff's assessment of that information as it relates to DOE's program to classify, process and dispose of Hanford tank wastes.
We are also taking this opportunity to respond to the related November 4, 1992 letter from Leo P. Duffy to Chairman Ivan Selin.
During the meeting, DOE presented revised tank waste inventory estimates based on current characterization data.
The information indicated that the double-shell tank activity that would be grouted in near-surface vaults is within earlier range estimates.
However, Cs-137 quantities are now near the upper end of the range, rather than at the lower end as previously believed.
DOE indicated that uncertainties associated with the activity estimates remain because of the limited sampling and analysis to date.
in presenting its current plans for waste management, DOE outlined its intention to complete, by March 1993, a broad reevaluation of various treatment options for both single and double-shell tanks.
These options include a new facility to be used to separrte radionuclides for repository disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).
As you recall, NRC indicated to DOE, in 1989, its agreement that the criteria DOE used for classification of grout feed as low-level waste were appropriate, and, consequently, that the grout facility for disposal of double-shell tank waste would not be subject to our licensing authority (R. Bernero letter to A.
Rizzo, September 25, 1989).
This reflected our understanding that DOE would segregate the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction, or equivalent" for disposal as HLW, leaving behind only a small fraction of moderately radioactive material.
The Commission has recently completed its review of a rulemaking petition from the States of Washington and Oregon on the subject of the double-shell tank wastes and has indicated in the enclosed petition denial that it would regard 159 rasidual fraction as " incidental" wastegrovided that th: :nte: (1) has f<eenpDseo(orwillbefurtherprocessed)toremovekeyradionuclidesto he maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be A='
fCf d " }L :
-pg _ L L
.=w D o,c J
n-
+L4