ML20034F916
| ML20034F916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1992 |
| From: | De Planque E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303050181 | |
| Download: ML20034F916 (4) | |
Text
l RELEASEDTO THE PDR "s
NOTATION V 0' T E :..
/3 g
i g& '/g g I
RESPONSE SHEET
" "*" " " "*"*vaa in i
i T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE CO!EISSION FROM:
C0fEISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION-FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF l
RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN xx 1
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION l
C0lEENTS:
1 l
I concur with the comments of both Commissioners Rogers and 1
Remick.
Further, I have additional edits to the letter to DOE and the Federal Reaister Notice (attached).
1 1
)
i l
l l
)
DR CO MS J
/
CORRESPONDENCE PDR s q, SIGNATURE #
l RELEASE VOTE
/ xx /
December 22, 1992 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
i l
ENTERED ON "AS" YES xx NO l
yOT. '!
(,
acted in this manner in its inquiries to DOE.
It has obtained and evaluated I
information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not the proposed activities of the DDE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
l All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available contemporaneously to the public.
Y Moreover, as a practical matter.jthe NRC has requested' the DOE to
[
fhically submit summaries of the analyt cal results of all samples of the) grout feeds for disposal as incidental wastes RC recognized the
[
uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the tank wastes and endorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds t
before disposal. The objective of these efforts is to control the final it Cany ne lpsycY &% utt composition of the grout wastes.
If DOE finds that inventertes c. ney-l 41[LC Njltd LLB'4*;
tll Od IV$1 1Q4#dIVt/Of(Cf,1M(C_ W W NW radMRUC44dB&--efttffiTG {u.ci dc1 (karHttj CanL4y nighTr Inan uut yruu6 QlE.Y'ClLQ& $1&{WMk
([] S kC.L U nc h % (J Q,
estimatad 'n4S89, OnE chn,@[4-not4Ey M -so-that-the--Gemission-could-
=
rew as m. ite classification of the watttr. NRC has also requested DOE to g vide the summaries of the analytical data to other affected parties.
f If a standard of " largest technically achievable amount.... will be f
isolated" were to be applied, then the facts submitted by DOE might not be l
sufficient to conclude that NRC lacked jurisdiction.
However, the proper standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well. As indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Commission has obtained ir. formation that is sufficient for this purpose.
3.
Future Adiudications i
The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in 18 i
5
v 7,
UNITED STATES-A i
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
8 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20W5 h
l
(%,..- /
~
M6dik Lu h Q@u.bbWMERI- %W%
f f
Mr 39n Trenn Dir:ctor s pry Vyct
((cCSEC6 l
Hankrd ".mg ei Office' 7
Office of Waste Management Environmental Restoration
- l l
and Waste Management
}
L U.S. Department of Energy g
Washington, D.C.
20585 Dear 10. Tss%L '.
j M6 LM i
g.
r Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff appreciated the opportunity l
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 I
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 j
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 separate radionuclides for repository disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).
j 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 l '
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 rasidual fraction as " incidental" wastegr:vid:d th;t th: :pte: (1)'has t _h o u
been processec (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to he maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be QM
- p _ -, f _. G
- A
% g-J
+d -f d " A-:
,s' i
incorporated in a solid physical fom at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) 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.
It is therefore essential, in the light of this position, that DOE's present reevaluation of waste tank remediation options, and subsequent periodic evaluations as may be conducted, include the application of these principles.
l i
We recognize that there may be significant economic, programatic, and safety factors affecting the remediation program, but the consideration of such factors as they may relate to the possible jurisdiction of NRC should be made clear.
h pg4T '
p f
/
We request that you keep us jnformed of the progress of yotfr ongoing to, your tank waste treatment plans and the>' analytical re'jiig, but not Ltmitedsults for reassessment and of relevant technical information includ that are' proposed to be dent to the grout tacility.flfyit becomes apparent.r -
/
o thgt any wastes may be suoject to NRC licensing, it will be necessary gHg
~. reuwdettmine what fom of pre-licensing interactions,, analogous to repository site characterization, would be ecc'^~ to "" - the appropriate
_w disposition of these wastes.
cl %
~w I trust that this letter, and the enclosed petition denial, provide the information requested in Leo P. Duffy's November 4,1992, letter to Chaiman Ivan Selin, regarding NRC's intended response to the rulemaking petition by the States of Washington and Oregon.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me, at 301-504-3352, or B.J. Youngblood, Director of the Division of High-Level Waste Management, at 301-504-3404.
Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Attachment:
As sta g,tgg_ g cc:
J. Antt en, DOE-RL J. Bartlett, DOE-RW-i L. Duffy, DOE-E /& l D. Duncan, EPA R. Stanley, Washington State J. Franco, Oregon State R. Jim, YIN l
.