ML20034F952
| ML20034F952 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PRM-60-4 NUDOCS 9303050217 | |
| Download: ML20034F952 (7) | |
Text
,
Y RELEASED TO THE PDR '
o.
/
UNITED STATES 3
b y
f., -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N-date '
inifi!s j
,{
W ASHWGTON. D C. 20556 -
ee.*ee*eeeeeeeeeoeeaeeee
'+,
/
- ..e*
OFFCE OF THE SECRETARY February 16, 1993' MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Dire r for Operations
(;
FROM:
Samuel J. Chil Secr tary
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL OF.PRM-60 PETITION
_j FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the.
l staff's recommendation that the subject petition be denied.
l A majority of the Commission (the Chairman'and Commissioners Rogers, Remick and de Planque) has approved publication in the
'j Federal Reaister of the proposed notice of denial of the petition i
for rulemaking with the changes indicated _in the-attachment.
A majority of the Commission (the Chairman and Commissioners l
Rogers, Remick and de Planque) has also approved the proposed d
letter to DOE with the changes indicated in the attachment.
j I
Commissioner Curtiss disagreed with the proposed notice and letter to DOE, as modified by the Commission majority, for reasons stated below.
The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioner Rogers, Remick j
and de Plangue agreeing). believes that it is DOE's responsibility to communicate to NRC any new indication that some wastes are
-l subject to NRC licensing and therefore do not believe that DOE 1
needs.to keep the NRC informed of its ongoing assessments.
This-e is not different from other situations involving an activity that j
may or may not be subject to NRC Jurisdiction.
In such cases, l
- the party wishing to engage in the activity must make an initial j
determination about whether its proposed activity would'be subject to NRC licensing.
Presumably, the party would involve l
NRC only~if it finds that its proposed activity would be' subject to~NRC jurisdiction or if it finds that such jurisdiction is
'j unclear.
The changes indicated in the attachment' reflect this j
position, which is based on DOE assurances.
j SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-92-391, AND THE VOTE SHEE7.S OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM 030059
(
9303050217 930216 PDR 10CFR
- d' ll PT9.7 PDR i -
g 2
t-
f i
! t i
5 Commissioner Curtiss. believes that DOE should explicitly document the results of its analysis supporting any DOE conclusion that l
the criteria proposed by the NRC staff in the subject paper have been met.
Commissioner Curtiss also believes that a commitment by NRC to carefully review such documentation is essential to' provide a credible basis for the Commission's denial of the subject petition and for continued confidence that the wastes in question are not subject to NRC jurisdiction.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers i
Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OIG l
Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail) l OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX) j i
E t
4 r
~,
/
/
i
/
managing those wastes rests with the Department of Energy.
The basis for the websien Commission's ;;;it;c ^.is that the reprocessing wastes disposed of in the grout
/
^
of toe *5 newenoc.c.s Mt i
facility would be " incidental" wastes because they: (1) have been processed r
3 (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 the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in 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 f
in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
The petitioners also requested that the Commission exercise oversight to i
assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms. They acknowledge that DOE'; vault design is protective of human health and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with j
heat generated from reactions during the grout process, is kept within defined k
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 l
i accordance with DOE's plans to be high-level waste, it does not have the i
authority to carry out this oversight function.
I l
I 3
i 15 1
4 acted in this manner in its inquiries to DOE.
It has obtained and evaluated information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not the proposed activities of the DOE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available contemporaneously to the public.
Moreover, as a practical matter, the "RC h: reque:ted th: 00E to t
-periedically submit urm ric: cf the 2n: lytic:1 result: cf al' :: ple: cf th: *-
-9Fout f Od for dispc;;l 2 incident:1.:::te:
NRC recognized the 8 -
uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the tank wastes and endorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds before disposal. The objective of these efforts is to control the final W can no len3er amec Od cf key 1 composition of the grout wastes.
If DOE finds that irverte.ie:
wik O c. c.riteci troiousl dese. u;a6tes w;\\\\ be_ mang t f:ci ity are signi'ic:ntly higher than DOEs y in acycedanc4.
a-r:di enucl idc: entering the,rcu DcE showtcl twMh MR.C.,
th:t the Ccr-i :icn cculds' 3;gcu,y:d,ted4-19o9, DOE chcald notify "RC ::
a-ec. ::
recencider it: cl:::irie: tier of the u :tc.
"RC h:: 1:c reque:ted 00E to -
e te other affected p:rtie:.e, provide the turcaries of the analytical det If a standard of " largest technically achievable amount.... will be isolated" were to be applied, then the facts submitted by DOE might not be sufficient to conclude that NRC lacked jurisdiction. However, the proper As standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well.
indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Comm.ission has obtained information that is sufficient for this purpose.
3.
Future Adiudications The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in i
18
1 Further consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of May 18, 1988).
l this proposed rulemaking action.
l f
/-
C.
NRC Licensing Authority Some comments focused on the licensing authority of NRC over the Hanford DOE stated that the rulemaking suggested in the petition would tank wastes.
involve NRC in regulation of DOE's predisposal waste treatment and processing activities, which would be inconsistent with NRC authority to license specific Another commenter DOE facilities under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
stated that the proposed rulemaking was inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of DOE and NRC. These arguments have already been discussed, It may be emphasized, however, that even if and require no further response.
the Commission were found to have jurisdiction over the disposal facilities, it would not regulate either the tanks themselves or the facilities being used i
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 facilities.
A commenter concluded that DOE was currently in violation of 10 CFR Part 30 requirements for a license because various near-surface waste disposal f acilities at Hanford are being used for "long-term storage" of high-The issue is not pertinent to the subject matter of level radioactive waste.
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 Reaulatory Commission, 606 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir., 1979). Tht D.C. GecuN CoarT b byuls tuleN IG 1NS ctse in support af MRL's pos' Mon 4hd %e tan ks hA* not 13cen loq - te r,n 54ecqc oc diegosal and are.,
22 au:thorized for us e.
As 4teedore-, not % \\oie d % KRc, Ucendw3
' " 4r UNITED STATES y*
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_r,
s i
w AssincTon. o.c. 20sss yv.....f Ms. 3l\\ Lytk Depaj A*istant Secniacy for hte. opecakos iu
,. & w_
m a m,e benf$[5 N $ h $ Efl2 UI Cuoucay, M 9 uamin e.
Office of Waste Management availabtk. mechanisms b Environmental Restoration l
and Waste Management gg;"3 $
g U.S. Department of Energy radionad;de, Sepration, (j Washington, D.C.
20585 l
Dear Mr T = g:
S Ms. Lytle, 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 The current DOE plans for management of radioactive tank waste at Hanford.
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 We are also taking this opportunity to respond to the Hanford tank wastes.
related November 4,1992 letter from Leo P. Duffy to Chairman Ivan Selin.
ME dn$ is concecneA m ht, e.ge6 ally ginn ib(T h.During the meeting, DOE hresented revised tank waste inventory estima es based on current characterizat' on data.
The information indicated that the double-shell tank activity that would be f
lts is w' thin earlier range estimates.Z Sowever, grouted in near-sur ace vau
,Cs-137 quantities are now near the upper end of the range, rather than at the lower end as previously believed 2 DOE indicated that uncertainties associated with the activity estimates remain d
l because of the limited sampling and analysis {to date. 04osegue.nMb u>e, e ikt hu been carkcied --
In presenting its current plans for waste management, DOE outlined its intention to complete, by March 1993, a broad reevaluation of various These options treatment options for both single and double-shell tanks.
include a new facility to be used to separate radionuclides for repository disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).
ogreement as predicated on,
As you recall, NRC indicated to DOE, in 1989, its agreement that the criteria Jt feed as low-level waste were appropriate, DOE used for classification of grofacility for disposal of double-shell tank and, consequently, that the grout licensing authority (R. Bernero letter to A.
waste would not be subject to our Rizzo, September 25, 1989).
Thisgef'~+"' our understanding that DOE would l
p 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.
l l
The Commission has recently completed its.eview of a rulemaking petition from the States of Washington and Oregon on the subject of the double-shell tank wastes and ha, indicated in tne enclosed petition denial that it would regard l
l the residual fraction as " incidental" waste"prciided th:t the c:ntre (1) has d) to remove key radionuclides to been processed (or will be further proces the maximum extent that is technically a d economically practical; (2) will be based on Oe-Cownisson's underdoActig b TOE wiU Mhre hd h un.Me.t
.]
incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does rot 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 periccic evaluations as may be conducted, include the application of these principles.
I We recognize that there may be significant economic, programmatic, 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.
dacinj yene peciedk eAbdien5, requestthatyoukeepu.,informedoftheprogre::]0.
your engcing?
.?:ress:c sment :nd of -elev:nt tecMic;l " form; tion Mclhding, but ;ct li 4t e d+
to, jour t;nk. :: c treatment plan: :nd 15
- n: lytic;l "c ult; for t;nk s;stest
'5;t are prop 0 d 10 bc ::nt to the gr0ut f;ci'ityt Ifdit becomes apparent yo you that any wastes may be subject to NRC licensing, it will be necessary t-s<.
determine what form of pre-licensing interactions, analogous to repository site characterization, would be#n:cc :;rg to#dt'-
"" the appropriate disposition of these wastes. g b oudui b define trust that this letter, and the enclosed petition denial, provide the information requested in Leo P. Duffy's November 4,1992, letter to Chairman Ivan Selin, regarding NRC's intended response to the rulemaking patition 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:
l As stated 7 DTn
-fw Ym yo comunicAke M cenWo 40 %.
-2 6 J. An/tqnen, DOE-RL h DiU A bL ntMW'Y 0*
cc:
J. Bartlett, DOE-@)-\\
L. Duffy, DOE -EM-1 D. Duncan, EPA l
R. Stanley, Washington State J. Franco, Oregon State R. Jim, YIN We expect that DOE will document the results of the analyses f
supporting its conclusions and that this documentation will be adequate for an NRC review should that be appropriate.
We i
believe it would be prudent for any such documentation to be j
developed with good record-keeping and under an adequate quality assurance process.
.