ML20036A755

Responds to Raising Concerns Re Disposal of Hanford Tank Wastes.Processing Wastes Disposed of in Grout Facility Would Be Incidental Waste Based on Listed DOE Assurances

ML20036A755
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/06/1993
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Martin T HANFORD EDUCATION ACTION LEAGUE
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9305140130
Download: ML20036A755 (9)

Text

7 b4*

O "Fcg l

i, e 1*,

UNITED STATES l

j j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W

e wAssinoTou, o.c. 2asss-ooot

%......o

[

MAY 0 61993 Todd Martin Staff Researcher Hanford Education Action League 1720 N. Ash Spokane, Washington 99205 l

I

Dear Mr. Martin:

I am responding to your March 22, 1993, letter communicating your concerns I

related to the disposal of the Hanford tank wastes. Over the past several years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has considered many of these same i

concerns.

i t

The Commission recently completed its review of the petition filed by the j

States of Washington and Oregon on the Hanford double-shell tank waste.

In the enclosed petition denial, the Commission concluded, assuming implementation of the plans described by the Department of Energy (DOE), inat any radioactive material from the double-shell tanks that is deposited in the grout facility would not be high-level radioactive waste subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction. The basis for the Commission's conclusion is that the reprocessing wastes disposed in the grout facility would be " incidental" waste because of DOE's assurances that they:

(1) have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is.

i technically and economically practical; (2) will be incorporated in a solid i

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 in 10'CFR Part 61 are satisfied.

In your letter you' referred to DOE's current efforts to rebaseline treatment plans for the Hanford tank wastes.

In a recent letter to DOE (R. Bernero to-J. Lytle, March 9,1993) NRC stressed the importance of including these-principles in DOE's rebaselining exercise, or subsequent evaluations of treatment plans for the double-shell tank wastes.

In that letter NRC stated that if, during DOE's periodic evaluations, it becomes apparent to~ DOE that l

any'of such wastes may be subject to NRC licensing, it will be necessary for DOE to communicate that concern to NRC.

It would then be necessary to determine what form of pre-licensing interactions would be needed to define the appropriate disposition'of these wastes.

i 130031 1

i Mi b Ir gf. ;

-i r!

9305t40130 930506

\\

n PDR. WASTE i

un-a

=

Ww'E g

Q.

.l i

s 9

Todd Martin 9 If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me on 301-504-3340 or B.J. Youngblood, Director of the Division of High-Level Waste Management, on 301-504-3404.

t Sincerely,

()(ginai S!9300 N RCHARD L ST Richard L. Bangart, Director l

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning 7

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Petition Denial (58 ER-12342, 3/4/93)

DISTRIBUTION:

Central File NMSS r/f RBangart WBrach JSurmeier LLWM r/f PLohaus TCJohnson LBell In small Box on "0FC:" line place a: C = Cover E = Cover & Enclosure N = No Copy

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFC :

LLDR*

C LLDR*

C HLW*

C HLW*

OSP*

1 NAME:

CGLENN/CV MWEBER RBALLARD BJYOUNGBLOOD DATE:

4/18/93 4/19/94 4/20/93 4/21/93 4/26/93 f

0FC :

OGC*

LLDR*

C LLWM,e LLWM9 fj li t r) /

NAME:

JWOLF JAUSTIN BhRkbH RBAbdNNI 1

'h

DATE:

5/04/93 5/05/94 5/j/93 5/06/93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR :

YES X

HO Category:

Proprietary or CF Only l

ACNW:

YES N0 X

IG:

YES NO X Path & Name of File:

G:\\HANFORD.CG i

I

s Todd Martin If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me or B.J. Youngblood, Director of the Division of High-Level Waste Management.

Sincerely,

/

/

/

Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning t

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Petition Denial (58 ER 12342, March 4, 1993)

+V DISTRIBUTION:

Central File NMSS r/f RBangart WBrach JSurmeier LLWM r/f PLohaus TCJohnson LBell In small Box on "0FC:" line place a: C = Cover E = Cover L Enclosure N = No Copy LLDR//} (7 LLDR

{

H,g; 8 HL

05) g 0FC :

NAME:

CGLEhN[CV MWEBER[Lu h

BJYOdNEBLOOD IN p

DATE:

4//7/93 4/ l-]/94 E

4//h93 4/fl/93 4h93 f.

li

'g JOSC LLD%

C LLWM LLWM 0FC :

JWOLp fhf JAldTIN.

BBRACH RBANGART NAME:

DATE:

4/v /93 1/1/ /94 4/ /93 4/ /93 f

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR :

YES V

NO Category:

Proprietapy or CF Only.

ACNW:

YES N0 V

IG: YES N0 V Path & Name of File:

G:\\HANFORD.CG l

12342 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 41 / Thursday. Marth 4.1993 / Proposed Rules g

Deted c RockviDe Mary'and, this 20th dey requested that the Commission revise course of r processing is tot HLW. [N

~

of Fetruary 1993.

the definition of"high-level radioactive latter point is evident from the proposal i

For the Nuclear Regulatory Comrr.!ssion.

waste"(HLW) so as to establish a to amend 10 CFil 60.2 to provide that samuel J. Chi!k.

promdural framework and substantive a residual fraction would be Secret.try of the Commasson.

standards by which the Commission

" considered an incidents.1 waste and.

i

[rR Doc. 93-4943 Filed 3-3-93. 8 45 aml will detennine whether reprocessing therefore, not HLW.") h petitioners m coot m-,

waste, including in particular certain claim. however, that wastes stored in waste stored at the U S. Department of tanks at Hanford cannot practicably be E.nergy's (DOE) site at Hanford.

classi5ed as incY antal waste (as

(

i 10 CFR Part 60 Washmgton, is HLW and. therefore.

opposed to HLW) because the tanks subpect to the Commission's licensing contain a mixture of wastes from a authonty.

number of sources. Including States of Washington and Oregon:

The petitimers mquest that the Dental of Petttlon for Rulemaking Commission amend 10 CFR 60.2 to repromssing of reactor fuel Moreover.

the petitioners state that radionuclide clanfy the definition of HLW and the inventories are estimates subject to actNev: Nuclear Regulatory definition of"HLW facility."b substantial uncertainty, owing to lack of Comminion.

petitioners specifically request that the accurate remrds. Further. the acDow: Denial of petition for Commission:

rulemaking.

1. Establish a proms: to evaluate the petitioners assert that neither DOE the i

treatment of defense reprocessing Commission, nor the petitioners have suwARY: ne Nuclear Regulatory wastes in tanks so that such wastes will adequate information regarding the Commission (NRC) is denying a petition not be cmsidered HLW if, prior to sourm and composition of the tank for rulemaking (PRM-60-4). submitted disposal, each tank is treated to remove waste. Henm. the petitioners believe by the states of Washington and Oregon. the largest technically achievable that the Commisalon needs to establish which deals with the pro ssand amount of radioactivity; and both a procedure and a standard for criteria for classifying radioactive waste 2.

tre that the heat produced by making an evaluation as to whether materials at defense facilities as high.

resid reds,onuclidea, together with wastes are HLW on a tank-by-tank basis.

level radioedive waste (HLW) or as non. the beat of reaction during grout The petitioners assert that the HLW (As noted in the petition, csttain Promssmg (if employed as a treatment Proposed amendment s essential to facilities for the storage of HLW are technology), will be within limits provide protection of the future health subject to NRC licensing authority.) The established to ensure that grout meets and safety of the cituens of the Pacific petition is being denied because the temperature requirements for long-term Northwest.

NRC concludes that the prindples for stability for low-level waste forma.

IL ClassiScation of DOE Reprocessing waste classification are well established The petitioners state that the petition wt, and can be applied on a caseby. case for mlem is based,in part, on 4

)

basis without revision to the Sectim 202 o the Energy At Hanford and other sites, questions j

)

regulations.

Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA).

have arisen regarding the classification acoRtssts: Copies of the petition for which provides for the Comminion to of reprocessing wastes for which DOE j

i exerdse licensing and related regulatory must provide disposal. In the long.

's rid the v

ae o the authority over " facilities authorized for standing view of the Commission. these petitioner are available for public the express p of subsequent long. questions must be resoh ed by in8Pecdon or copying in the NRC Public term storage o gh level radiondive examming the sourm of the wastes in

)

e m 21

.S M

wastes ponerated by [DOEl which are question.The reason for this is that f,

not used for, or are part of, research and when Congress assigned to NRC the i

E'o i

l u uma womAm cowTAct development activities "

licensmg authority over certain DOE Naiem S. Tanious. Offics of Nuclear According to the petitioners.the facilities for "high-level radioactive i

Regulatory Research.,U.S. Nuclear legislative hidory olb ERA reveals wastes." the Congress was referring to Regulatory Commission. Washington, that Congress intended the Commission those materials encompassed within the DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3878.

to license defense reprocesamg tank maarung of the term "high-level wastes at the point oflong-tsrm storage radioedive waste"in Appendix F of to suPPLEutwTARY woRW.anow:

or dis

1. De petitioners note that CFR Part 50. (For a full statement of this L De Petition

" low-

'on wastes" resulting from position, see the discussion presented in pretreatment of tank wastes are the Commission's edvance notics of The States of Washington and Oregon, scheduled to be grouted and disposed of proposed rulemaking. " Definition of and the Yakima Indian Nation, initially in land-based gmut vaults on the Hign-l.avel Radioective Waste" (52 FR submitted a petition for rulemaking on Hanford site in accordance with 5993. February 27,1987).) Accordingly, this subject on January 2.1993.On regulations developed under the any facility to be used for the disposal February 7,1990, the NRC sta!!

Resoura Conservation and Recovery of "those aqueous wastes resulting from I

conferred with the petitioners as Ad (RGA). %e petitioners believe that the operation of the first cycle solvent contemplated by paragraph (bl of to if these wastes are HLW. they clearly extraction system, or equivalent..." as CFR 2.802. In response to suggestions by fall under the Commission's licensing HLW is defined in Appendix F to Part the NRC staff, the petition was clarified jurisdicion under Section 202(4) of the 50, must be limnsed by the NRC. Most and resubmitted (by the States of Energy Reorganization Ad of1974 (42 of the waste storage tanks et Savannah

)

Washington and Oregon) on July 27 U.S C. 5642(41).

Riveer (South Carolina). West Valley 1990.

ne petitioners scLnowledge that the (New York), and Hanford contain wastes On December 17.1990, the Nuclear present definition of HLW in the that meet this definition, and the Regulatory Commission published a Commission's regulations.s based upon facilities to be used for disposal of these i

notice of remipt of the petition for the sourm of the waste, and that wastes are, therefore, potentially subject rulemaking (55 FR 51732). The petition " incidental waste" generated in the to NRClicensing jurisdiction.

Enclosure

L Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 41 / Thtersday. March 4,1993 / Proposed Rules 12343 1

Mcrwever, when tho Appendix F whld resuhed in rubstantial dilution of licensing by the )GtC. It abould be noted i

-definition was promulgated, the Atomic those wastes with nonredioactive that if the DCT pmcessing operations go Enc gy Comminion s that the term IEW di$necsfically accedmetenals in addition, many of the ta.nks u plarmed.the residual ectivity of bee not include et Hanford contain mixtures of wastew incidental westes would be blow the incidental" waste resuhinE rom from both reprocessing sour &s and cxincentratmn bmits for Class C wastes f

repruceuing plant operations. such as other souras Fina!!y.recordkeeping at under the waste Sassification critena of icn ext.hange beds, sludges, and Hanford was not alwrys thorough 10 CFR pert 61.

i antarnineted laboratory items. such as enough to allew procrse determinsticns Following its reelew. b NRC staff.

< bthmg tools, and equipment. Neither of the origms of the wastes now present by letter dated September 25,1989. from were radmettave hulls and otbr in syfic tants et Hanford. For ttese RM Bemero. Dbuctor. OfTim of irradirted and contemmated fuel n.asons. sw::e of h Hanford tank Mrclaar Material Safety and $dguards.

<tructural hardware encxrmpossed by the wassa cm.nnot be readily claniSed na NRC. to A I Riszn. Assistant Manager Appendix F defimtion Under the same eitbr HLW or irndental wasuis unng br Operrtions. Richland Operations reesordng. as the Cor. mission has cely 6 definitiaca and conepts Office. DOE. endorsed DOE's pla ns to prwiously indicated. incidental wastes d:scasand abovs.

sample and analyse tb grovt bds genereted in further treetment of FEW Taking into account these before chsposal m an erflort to control t+ p. sah residues or misallaneous uncertainties and their imphcadons the fmal cx>mposition of the grout bd.

trash frorn weste glaw processing) with rwpect to NRChrrisdicion, b However, the staff indicated that if DOE would be outside tb Appendru F NRC and DOE staff held serm!

were to find,in h course of conducing definition.

meetings to explore the situa. tion in the sampling program, that the In the er,es of Sevant.sh River and detail A principal objective of these inventories of key radionuclides West Valley wastes. DOE plans so meetings was to asartan, to tb exrmot actering the gmut fadlity are rvenere the wastes from their stereste practicable, whether some or allbf tk significantly higher than previously tanks and to separete essentielte all of wastes shoold be regarded as lEW and estimated. DOE rhould notify the NRC the radioactive matenals for edntust whether, on the other hand, some or all and other effected parties in e ifmely disposal in a deeppologic IEW of the wastes should be classified as

manner, repository.' Acz:onsingly,the projected non4EW. Several things became chr ft should be noted that tb n covery ofIEW from the wastes in as a result of these meeticgs.

appropriate clasa:Scation of some tar.k storage at those artes will be First. managammet records wm Hanford westes remains to be sufficwntty complete that tb adequate for DOE to determine that two determined-specifically, any singh.

decantamir.sted salts and other residual double-shell wasts tants do not rem sbfl tank westos. and any etnpty but

• astes are classihed as " incidental-wastes from reprocessang of reaciar still contaminated weste tanks DOE f Le non4EW). m NRC will have no fuels Therefore. these wastes chrty do might dispose of in-place. For both n gulatory authority. under Section 202 not caotain IEW within 6 Appen<hx types of westes, a case 4ry-case of the Energy Reorganization Ad. over F definition. N NRC agreed wsth DOE determination of the appropriate weste DOE's facihties to be used for that any disposal facihty intended classification might be newssary, promssi and disposal of the exclusiva}y for these wastas would not incidents wete be subisct to NRC h authonty.

• C"***

At Hanford. DOE plans to prowss tk Second. DOE has out a m petition far rulemaling presents u astes presently stored in double-shell

" material hata rn" analysis of waste two basic issues m question is not tanks in a manr+er similar to that managernant activities at Hanford. This whether high level waste" should be planned for tb wastes et Sevannah acalysis estimated b total amount of int-ed by refereoce to tb source-Riwr and West Valley Such processing "first cyde repromssing wastes" concepts derived from appendix F would separate most of tb radioactive generated at Hanbrd and, to b exiant to 10 CFR part 50 m petitioners agree constituents of tb wastes for eveetual practical. the current location of those that this is proper. Nor is there any deeppologic repository dirposal and.

westes. N DOE proposed onsite grout fundemental ciaBeege to the concept the residual salta would be disposed of disposal of tb residual waste frorn the ht " incidental wastes" are exrluded onsite in a shallow, near-eur few double-shell tank waste processmg trorn tb de6nition of "high4 vel concre6e-like gmut facility. (Plans br would be only a small fraction of the waste." b issues are much narrower promssing of sirgle-shell tank wastes reprocessing wastes originally generated ones. b first issue is a substantire have been deferred 1 However, at tb site.

danification of the Hanford double-Finally, DOE studied possible one-the criteria to be applied in 1

differentiating inddental waste from shell tank wastes has proven rnor, technologies for additional waste highavel wasts. h second ir. sue is a difficult than classification of Savannab ssing. and egned to remove the River and West Valley wastes. At fargest predical amount of radioacts"pro & dural one-th proceu that should ne employed by the Comminion in llanford. rnany of the primary material from doub4-shell tank wastes arriving at s Judgment whether or not it reprocaumg wastes were generstad Pnor to disposalin onsite grout b.s junsdialon over particular using older separation technologist.

I8Ciliti8'Jhis cz>mmitmunt by DOE:.

l cilities. These will be addressed in coupled with the rr.aterial4.elancs study turn.

's= si re seen, retruary 21. t oer te indicating that most of the origina!}y-of b

<+.n.sh nevw m.T a t. wb= :h. r-...a generated radioedive material would be A. The Standardfor Classificcrdom n-t mao. mar -c th.

recovered. led the NRC staff to reeMa We first address the standard that orNrN3 ehE"my that h residual wassa material shoni.ld should be employed in distinguishing oc s. 6 ohn i. en orn.ni at 6.%= mw se be clusilied as incidental waste. aines high level wasts from inddental wasta.

c niofr rrr, ms e. w the Savann e -, man.pm they are wastes incidental to the pro =ss b doing so, we strive to apply the h Psur ft.at DOUDS-oo23. tere of reCoVedng IEW. With this policies that tmdedit the adoption of

^' Msg =

h ggu claulfication. DOE could proceed with appendix F to 10 CFR part 50 (and, w

emmeu raw. e maa.ood or n.:pe-w.r.,

onsite disposal of such incuktal boce, section 202 of the Energy dar= orwe.ao.c w astes in a grout facihty without Reorganization Act).

t

]

12344 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 41 / Thursday. March 4.1993 / Proposed Rules The petitioners suggest that the of the proper classiScation of the tank of cesium.137 for repoaltory disposal.

proper standard. to be appbed on a wastes and grout at Hanford.

DOE proposed to remove this additional 1

l tank-by-tank basis,is to consider all When the question reEardmg 6 milhon curies of omnium.137. DOE processing streams to be high-level classtScation of wastes was first raised.

also ident25ed additional trutment waste unless they have been treated, the NEC staffidentified to DOE some alternatives, with their usociated costs.

prior to disposal. "to semove the legest approaches that might be used in which at viewed as not being technically echievable amount of distmguishing HLW from incidental economically practical. DOE's materiel radioactivity " Adoption of such a weste. One approach was expressed as balance showed that. after the residue cntenon would certainly serve the goal, follows:2 frorn the double-shell tank wastes is which had been contemplated by the DOE attempt an overa[nroach, we suggest that grouted. 2 to 3 percent of the key As an alterr.anve sp Commission, of removing the huardcas 1 material balance for radionuchdes which originally entemd for permanent storage !!is not the only seus1(g all Hanford tanks would be disposed of nrocess streams to e geclogic repository a

an s

standard, however, that would sufLce approach mig.ht provide a more e'ficient as LLW in neu-surfacs vaults. The meses of identfmg those wastes sutract to concentrations of radionuclides in the for this purpose, cularly when at is 1.cennng ty NRC under terms of the 1974 grout would be comparable to Class C viewed m a bros er regulatory context.

Energy EsorFanization Act. L'nder ttus for cesium and transuranic wastes, and The cle.arest expression of the overall approach. if DOE truld demonstrate that the to Class A or B for the remainder? DOE regulatory obpectives is the Atomic largest practical amount of the total site also noted certa 2n empneering and Energy Commission's (AEC's) activity attnbutatse to "first<ycle solvent institutional factors tnat might explanatory statement when it artnetim" wasus has teen segxsawd for promu! sted appendix F-.-namely. "that dj[as H.

d compensate, especially as to potential intrusion huards, for the possibility the pub ic interest requires that a high that et least 90 perant of the activity would that the total amount of waste that degree of decontamination capabihty be have baco separe*ed in this way. Thus. if it would be grouted would be greater than included in such facihties and that any can be shown that DOE bas processed the the amount of Class C waste that might t

twidual radioactive contemination aher was~e w:th the mtent to dispose of the HLW be contained in a typical commercial decommissionirig be sufEuently low as in a repository or other appropnate licensed burial ground.

not to represent a hazard to the pubhc facs!*ty, leaving behind only a small fraction Based on its review of DOE's March heahh and safety. 35 FR 17530 of only moderstely radic. active matenal, then 6.1989 submission the NRC staff Nos ember 14.1970. As we read the the g als cated in to m part 50 appendix concluded that DOE's proposed AEC's intent, the reference to "a high

• d I",C }

$1, processing wcs.ild remove the largest j

degree of decontamination capabihty satided. and the disposal of the residual practical amount of total site activity.

(

leavea a substantial degree of discretion

.,ould aaordingly not be subject to NRC attributable to HLW. for disposal in a It certainly does not rule out 1,ansmg deep geologic repository.This finding l

consideration of economic factors as In response. DOE considered the was based on:(1) Past and planned w ell as technical ones. It was the AEC.s contemporaneous practice to consider praciality of varsous msm pesig treatment of the tank wastes:(2) fmancial impacts as, for exampie, in attematives and presented the results of radionuclide concentration and material m an c st-eMmess d controlling releaws of radioactne its study by letter dated March 6.1989) materials from licensed facilities to the The resuhs were also presented at a additional radionuclide removal. These cedusims nnected ME s lowest levels 'techmcally and meeting among interested parties, t

economically practical., AEC Manual including the peutioners, held on undertalings both to achieve a high degree of separation and to provide Chapter 05n.When the AEC spde of August 4.1989. (Minutes of the meet.mg a "high degree" of decontamination are available for pubhc inspection m the protection of public health and safety.

capability, we believe that it was guided NRC Public Ibcurnent Room) DOE s As a result, the staff concluded that the by similar considerations. Moreover, basehne disposal plans would have expected residual waste would not be I

from a policy standpoint. this males recovered all but about 12-13 million high-level waste and would thus not be i

4 good sense, for so long as there is curies of cesium.u7. togdier we subrect to NRC licensing authority. The I

adequate protection of public health and lesser activit2es of strontium-90*

staff thereupon advised DOE that NRC a reed that the criteria used by DOE for cfassification of the grout feed are safety,it would not be prudent to tran.ursnics, and other radionuclides.a espend potentially vast sums without a ME,s, study indicated the practicality of commensurate expectation of benef;t to amoving an additional 6 million curies appropriate and that the grout facility for the disposal of the double-shell tank heahh and the environment.

waste would not be subject to NRC Achieving a "bigh degree of 3,',*'* !*",',",, gl UZ,("g*M,n, licensing authority.*

,g decor.tammation capability imphes.

,,, n,,,,,sa.% orr.cs of Nucl.ar Mat.nal then, that the facility should separate for sare y and safe NRc. to Ronald E canon.

'wuc und.r.ioud th e stai m.no io connoie e t i

disposal as much of the radioactivity as Dir.ctor.

• uw umwe==>< Da mon. Rachland c um ut and transurasuc red.ac.cled.s in the possible, using promsses that are O "r*inctud.d."ame *sugg.ated cru.n "invetving P

t"8 OfLc M F*" ant-2n. insa m r o.ini.asi. would be i than ibe <=c.niret>on len tt.chnically and economically practical.

hauts far C au C low lev.I wasas. as d.raned in e rood f=th ekri w ech mal non of taw ac s riquiremenu in to cnt eut et u.d est e.

In addition, however, as the AEC's in,m nomomaav, salta. m ch an oftart to be conca nir.t.o. of oe,, r.&anudades would b.1.ss statement indicates, the residual Msed. u a pr.ctic.i s n by consad.nns tamons e.an ih. concentrat>on hauts sar c:ans A or B low-radioactive contamination should be a** dJ"s51 *h"*** P**o o" P""

3*.3-**

• • '"'*"^I"'"*^"'"'"

F" '"

• *'" l'** K*" M Ba' h'" 06

• i sufficientl low as not to endariE'r opw.twr.s. Rxhland 0;- uons OfLc.", DOE to of Nucl.ar Mat.r.nl s"afery and s'*afeguards. NRC.

public h th and safety.

g.,bwt M Ber >.rn. D$remar orLcs of ws.d r A 1 Fwasistarit Manager 6 des, i

These principles-bigh uai.nais sarery d sarguards. Nac unrch e.

R,cu.no o uor.s ort.c. act. sepi mt= 2s.

decontamination capability and nee nee The 1.n= also can d upon not so.6=.

protection of health and safety-are the

• DOE "iad $n it. Mmh a. ines lene from oc p &cnny of it. analyt. cal r=ulu of

""*'"8*'""""**d

"' ""*d* *

• essential benchmarts that have analytscal data the scstal c.snarn."137 could be as'** P'". s'o# k'7 *d ""d**

"""* 5 ** 8"'

i tacahry that tb. classification of the waste might influenced the development of NRC's much a 20 meu.an cuna ensus the u-u annon to r.-deed if the invanon we-. sp r.cantry position vis sals DOE on the question wiimei.

h.sb= *an coE h.d u.mai.d.

e

7

- i Fedara! Engistar / Vol 58 No. 41/ Dursday. March 4.1993 / Proposed F.1.,

1' At a meeting in Ridsland.Waa*.Jngtoc hut genitsted from reections during the

%e limited prutht eGod of the..

on }uly is.1H2, DOE staff presented grout procesa is kept within defined dedsfoo-4A. rwtnded to b Hanford more detailed double-shell tank waste limita hy present no technical data to tanks-is reason somsh to proceed by pmcessing options and, bued on recent ruggest that achienment of these way of adjudication instand'of analyses, summarised evallable teroperature controls presents any rulemaking.b Cor+= w is infor r.ation on b characteristics of unusual engineering challenge. In any persuaded further by the need to avoid waste within the tanks. DOE's current event inasmuch u the Commission making premature deha with estimate of the total amount of does not consider the grout produced in respect to the wutes stored at Hanford rehactmty pro sed for disposal in accordancs with DOE's plans to be high-in single-shell tanks that are not the gmet m near.s. ace vaults is within lent waste,it does not have the subject of pending traermant plans. If urlier range estimates but is now authority to carry out this overight the Commission were to establish rules beheved to be nearer the upper end of funcion.

the range. DOE also clarified its to apply to the wutse remainingin miention to spply cnteria companble to B. ho&duro1 Issues those tants, our irgiry would have to the Performance Obpetives set out in to be gnatly broadened; and it might

1. Whether Rulemaking is Necessary become nomssary to cmsider a wide CTR part 61. Among other things, these and Desirahla range of situaties that might or might performance objectives include not evercome to pus in the future.

numerical radiation exposure limits for ne petitioners urge that the s

brotoction of the general population Commission initiate rulemaking

2. MA 6 Wr ' %

m releases of radioactivity and procedures that would result in the Adaquataly hd requires a design to achieve long-term establishment of substantive criteria for Peutioners that their pro,

stabihty rJ b disposal mia.

determining whether particular procadures, include d -

DOE intends to coreplete a ndioactin wastes either are or am not tank-by-tank assessments, are namacar high-level wasta Generally, a decision to ensure con 5dencs in the treatmattt.y rsassessment of the tank wsste pmmssing options by March IM3. his whether to proceed by rulemaking (as Prmess employed by DOE and to build reassessment. the NRC staff recuested) or to make determinations in confidence that the treatment stanctard _

understands, will include a individual, od hoe litigation lies within is be met.

rectamination of the practicality of achieving higbar degrees of separation.

the informed discetion of the cotmfrant no e to be decided by the particululy with resped to those tanks administative agency. Rulern abg is CommMm is a much namer a R most a repriate where an e k

is merely to determine whear.h,.

to estabsh a general prospective effect tobrindhe,ncy see s that contain substantial quantities of key having acmes being undenales 4;.

radionuclides-applied in a Department of Energy fa!! wi Assuming implementation of DOE's P ans as described abon th*

wide variety of factual contexts. Where NRC's statutory jurisdiction. As the, l

C""

I 'h*'

Commission concludes that any b issue kfore an agency bvolves 6

• • I *U "O{rn as whoes act!ritica radioactin material from the double application oflaw to a very specific I

"'QM M O'

shell tanks that is deposited in the grout existmg fad situation, especially where facility would not be high-level that sit tation is not represantative of demand information so es to be [to

" **I radioactive waste subject to NRC's other matters that may need to be determine whether or not to initista ma rmnant edianA Naf% m hcensing jurisdicion. Tb8 dedded by the agency, then it is clearly en responsibility for safely managing thoes more e!5 dent and more to the point in aded in bs manner in As wastes rests with 6 Departmmt of decide by a Pracess of adjudication (i e ' DOE. h has h and y*.

Energy. ne basis for the Commission's

"*cuebI

• • i8 int rmatim that is releend and y adt to a determination whether or noube -

conclusico is that the reprmess.ng Applying these prindples to the proposed actirities of the DDE un t.

wastes dis would be " posed of in the grout facilitypetition at hand. the Commission hu subjem to NRC licensing jurlarf'd%..

inddental" wastes bocaune uttle dif5culty in concluding that All the information obtained and +:A of DOE's assuranms that they: D) Have rulemaking1s neither nomssary nor enluated has been mcde arallable been promssed (or will be further desirable. Reprocesatng wastes are promssed) to remove keyradionuclides located at only four principal locations contemporsnoously to the public.

Moreover, as a proctxal mattee, HRC to the maximum extent 6t is in the United States. ne Commission recogmrad the uncertainties===etM technically and economically pracs.ical; bas previwsly determined that the with the projected radionuclide (2) wf!! be inwrporated in a solid residual matamination anticipated from innatorice in the tank wastes and physical form at a concentration that proposed operations at Savannah River endorsed DOE plans for sampling and does not exmed the applicable should be characterir.ed as incidental analyzing the grout feeds bekre conmotration limits for Class C low-waste and not high level waste (see 52 disposal he objective of these aflorts is level waste u set out in 10 GR part 61: Dt 5993. Feb.17,1987, dted above, at to control the finalcomposition of tbs -

and {3) are to be managed, pursuant to footnote 1.) Wastes generated at the grout wastes. lf DOE finds that it can no the Atomic Energy Ad. so that safety Idaho Cbemica.! Promsung Plant are longer assure that these rutas irIItW r requirements comparable to the markedly different from thoes at managed in accordanos with the criteria performance ob)octives set out in 10 Hanford and Sannnah. nerefore,if previously discusami. DOE shouldw CFR part El are satisfied.

questions about classification of the notify NRC.

..,::e ne petitioners also requested that the Idaho wastes should arise, precedents If a standard of" largest Abily_

Commission axardse onrsight to assure established at Savannah River and achievable amount * *

• will be that the grout meets temperature Hanford might be difficult to apply. Any isolated" ware to be applied. then tbs.

requirements for low-level waste forms. wages at the Western New York facts submitted by EOE might am be A They acknowledge that DOE"s vault Nucleu Service Center will require suffident to conclude that NRC lack'ed design is protective of human hea'lth treatment in acmrdanu with the Jurimeltmon. However, the prger.-M and the environment if heat produmd applicable provisions of the West Valley standard includes mnsidersticas of _

by residual radioactivity, together with Demonstration Project Act.

ecoerwnical practicality u ws!L As

3 Federal Register / Vol. 88. No. 41 / Thursday, March 4,1993 / Propaad Rules 123M i

Indicated in en earlier part of this inci!!!y inahe no express mention of he Commluton has previously decialon,the Commission has obtained high level wastof It is not newssary for addrened th costs and benefits of information bt is rumdent for this the Commisalon to addrws these aesting a new system of radioactive purpose.

questions et length in order to dispose weste classification. Its rationale for not l

s

3. Future Adjud;catlons of the pending petition.

doing so is outlined in tb sutement of i

The peutioners contemplate that if a W. Public Comments on the Petiu.

considerations to the proposed part 61 os rulemaking on disposal of Crester than rule were to be adopted in acx:ordancs he NRC received letters fmm 12 Class C waste (53 FR 17709, May 18, i

with their proposal, particular commenters Twoletters were from 1988). Further consideration ofihese

)

determinatsons of how specific wasta other Federal agencies, two wen imm issues is beyond the scope of this

{

would be charadenrad would be "left to individual adsdicative proceedmps " public intest groups, one was imm e proposed rulemaking action.

The NRCinfers that the "promedmgs" nuclear industry corporation. and seven were from pnva'te indaviduals. Most C NRCli##"

contemplated by petitioners are i

licensing scuvities of the kinds comments were opposed to the petition.

Some comments focused on the licensing authority of NRC ovw h r

spectned in Secuan 18e of the Atomic A. Pmcess and Standards Proposedin Hanford tank wastes. DOE stated that Energy Act, as amended.42 U.SC 2239. Petition Adjudications in this type of proceeding the rulemaking suggested in the peution are in some cases to be conduced in Several comments crpressed concern w uld involve NRCin regulation of accordanm with the hearing pmvisions that granting the petition would have an DOE's predisposal waste treatment and adverse effect on the timely dis Pro &ssing activities, which would be radioactive waste at Hanford. T$posal of inmmident with NRC outhwity m of subpart L of 10 CF1t part 2.

tis was These procedures are often

• PPropriate with resped to activities a concern because many of the Hanford license specific DOE facilities under the that are subject to NRC mgulatory and waste tanks were seen as nearirg or Energy Reorganization Act of1974.

}

exceMMg bir d life. Tb Another commenter stated that tb i

provisions of the @rulemaking proposed honnsing authenty. However, the NRC Pro rulemaking was incesistent j

is reluctant to employ them in the wit the statuto responsibiliues of context that is proposed-4o determine in the petition were viewed as limiting whether NRC has furisdiction in the first DOE's flexibility in sekcting the moet DOE and NRC.

ese arEuments have sses for waste,trsatment already been discussed, and require no

[

place. To do so wood entall the effective to further resbnoe. It may be emphasized, mnduct of an ad try proweding

{d di',P,osaI; i

e oners e

however, t t even if the Commission l

m order to see w soother

.g

,}

3 adjudicatory limosing proceeding must in mmw6g p ensterial imm the were krund to have junsdiction over b be held. More importantly.th tank wastes was sem es ignwkg cons disposal facilities,it would not regulate

}

Commission musidws that the existing of disposal, exposures to workers, and either the tanks themselves or the I

remrd contains all tb factual

""i"""*"I*I I"P*Ct8-hcilib W mW m pmcess b information needed for a decision ahd S me comments disputed the wastes in thces tanks; and there is that no unresolved material factual petitioner's claim that the rulemaking reason for concern that implementation issues remain that would require further Proposed in the petition would offer a of the pedtioner's proposal might draw i

pmadings.

better promss for classification and the Commission imoronerly into

[

disposal of the Hanford tank wastes.

regulation of those Wities.

i

4. Other Considerat,ons A commenter concluded that DOE While both NRC and DOE have advantage in the proposed process over was currently in violation of to G1t f

nose commenters did not see any part 30 requirements for a limnse focused their attention upon the the process for classification and because various near-surface waste meaning of the statutory tarin high.

disposal currently in use. One comment level waste" and its applimtion to the suggested that tb Commission's disposal facilities at Hanford are being materials in storage at Hanford, other rulemaking requiring disposal of used for "long-term storage" of high-level redioactive waste. The issue is not considerations might mme into p!sy in Geseter-than-Class Cwaste to a geologic pertinent to the subject matter of the determining whether or not DOE repository or Cormnission-eppmved petition. However,in any case, the activities are subjed to licensing. In attemative (53 FR 17710. May 19.1989) mmment does not take into particular it should be recalled that might forcs DOE to allocate resources to NRC exercises licensing authority under handle the hazards, rather than to waste consideratloa the judicial interpretation I

of the term in Naturn! Resources section 202(4) only as to -facilities furtha time fruitlessly searching fw Defense Council. Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear i

authorized for the express purpose of ways to remove more and more activity subsequent lon arm stwage of[ dor, from one part of the wask. ne action Regufatory Commission. 606 F.2d 1261 (DC Cir 1979). Re D C. Circuit Court

)

pnerated) hi level weste." no Proposed by the petitioners was viewed of Appeals ruled in this case in support j

content ofin ividun! waste tanks is by as not incrossmg the safety of disposal no means dispositive of the question of the waste-of NRC's position that the tants have i

not been authorized for use as long. term i

whether tb facilities for storage of the no Commission believes tbt storege or disposal and are. therefore,

)

treated waste an subjod to licensing. A edherena to the standard of technical not subject to NRClicensing.

number of other fedors may be relevant and economic practicality generally and material as well:(1) What are the reflects egreement with these comments.

D. Publicinput j

limita, gegraphica!!y and functionally.

A ""*

of "factittles": (2) have those facilities B. Creation 8[a RistBosed been " authorized"(and by whom is Cfess@mtion & gem importana of adequete public input i

nio decision making regarding dirposal

{

such authorization required); and (3)

Several mmments, while not!ng that of the Hanford tank wastes. Sorne called have those facilities been authortred the rulemaking pmposed by the petition for public hearings on this subject to be "for the express purpose of subequet would not do so. favored creatloc of a held in the Pacific Northwest. One long-term storep of higMevel waste" risk-based system cf radioactive waste commenter noted that the EIS which wnere those who may authorize the classification.

was done for Hanford pnuided the

3 Federal Repaler i Vol. 54. No, et A 1hamaday. Masti 4,1982 l Propened Rinles 123p opportusky fier puhnic -

these other nitas ese in di5seest

=

Another commenter believed that ee of impt=madah<= the impetta M k' " ~ - FAALThemsport Airplana Ihaectossh, ANM-uts.

Commission's rulemaking procedures prawm would very bom tas to sheL Artseelen: heten Dockst Nu6 u-Nb4-did r.ot Ghr the pubHc e bet'.ar As inde=44 abmae, the - % is 05-AD 1601 Lind Avenua,SW.,

r opportunity for input thasdoes the senutive to tins cnasidenaien ye current Lcenstg procedars.

belieses ht the spoofc' cue et hand Renton, Washington 98055-40se.

the MCs ivnew of es sikaan= wink only caeds to be addmsed at thk time.

Commeans may be kapersed at this As in6ated vi the Disc nica abow.

Some comments urged the locaean herween 9 a_am and 3 p.m.,

Meadsy skreugh Frsday, sumpt Padment respect to the dowhle-we'iad tanh hea Co:amksion not to ch e the presset bolidays.

a Mn carried out public]y from the snart. defin: tion cIHLN. na mmfsaion is Weir.p with DOE have home spost, and not cAangng the present deEnftfon.

m servacs hkamanism asseasd in at least one of the potrefoners ithe Stese the W nahm may he d=== d kam cf Waelr g*on) has been provided g,, gg boesagrm--mm-er Airplane Croup, adsance n< rice and an coporturuty to Fur b n=v== pmescensi a e" P.D. has 3c'er, h=ad= wombingtem attend Doca.ents haie been phand in documera, the petAion ks ruimanen og i* 98124-32sP. nme hkirmstama mey be the Public Document Room and 1. sus den and.

eW W h FAA.Tsanspat been made anathble far pahisc Airplansh m und Dated er nixbete. naaryland tids Ps 6 der Avenue,35., pn=*= Washingsma, inspection.1 appears te en of Nruarv. 7983-Comr.ission that the s=e=rac= oise Per Ibo i* vel==e Rapslutary f==me==a =

POR PtNYT9e5F frOnemattm C0ertad"T.-

issue concerns the eppropne$e standid ggp,, g A g

samaal3.Ch t, for es afuermg Mwther aarta wasts' seente A w m on m,

should be nys~kd as highh of weste Secretary of she Owt=4eba.

Propulsion Branch, APGil-1455.FAA.

or not Suficier.t kctualinformatum ts gpg poc, n_,,,4 P0ed M st e ael TransportAir Lind Avemas. plane Dtactorate, rett!

eveilable to canry out thans stator""

,,g,,,,,,,e. w 5W Rsotos,Weahingfaa A15e. the petition ist rulemeniag ka' 98055-4050; telephone Co61227-2 set.

+

effordeal an oppcrtursty for siem s to be fad 206} 227-! tat.

axpressed witk seapats to is DSPARTWIT OF TNATION oppxpriatestens of b Mad-

$UPPt maastagt gaMgage730 set A decissost that NRC hacks kamsing Fedesat Aviation Admicalskeitien Comumenk brvited jurwdiction dose not meen that 14 CFR part 3g oppor* n ies for pubfie hrput willbe latesesasi perseas ase bihdla a

denied. As DOE undertakesits weste

@*d88 N*-

Parecipesa in the makeng of ths manegement activfties. R wilt c5crd propond ruk by==hasmg such cpportunkies fbr pub!!c participation to Airwoctinasa Dker.Um BW

• • i' E*'**'i*"'**'"E""'**

the extent required by b own enabling Model7'ESeries Airplanes they asir dentsa. Communicas==== abe(

Mast % ee Rake hachat simahar and statutes, regulations, and caders.

AGEaset Fedusel Aviatlee E Odmer Cta== ens Adamanistradas. DOT.

to submitted is inphsata tcn b addamme specified ebene AH cemen==are g-a n

One comrnenter took emptian to the ge,,,, go,,ce orpeeposed reveneking received cm er bedens the skissng dune (NP!54 petitiones's cla.m that b ansheacwe for onraments, apardad ahowa, will be -

inverdery of the Hmmford naak uestes ~

sunsumm.autmew===a yneposes se consideand bokse hiang action on ths was inadegundy known. h

. supersedum of an existingmesenthiana" pro ruis he poopenals comenised in conusienue benemind ht h cens sas g dtractive (AD), applicable to certain anh m smey bechanged in Nght the emks can be bounded weR enough Boeing Model 33r series airpnames, that of h omemands ancared.

en=um.=m ase a to iudge the reistive safety of vetmr currently requues to itive inspecions b overan - ' perscrnuy kMned een di_rposa1 options.

of the wing main tan BoatsM p====h-ne Commisason consfducs the electrical conduits for trapped water, anvironspeans'd, and ansagraspecsa af avanabk int

• auri to ha su!Lcent}y and removal of the weiaa.lf intend. his h proposed ruhn, AU -imeam bounded to ars.ble it to comichade gg action would require installation af sub sited winher W boe 6s,im.

DOEs picposed operations (with grease in the kwerier af the Asst sarisch and aba ee ensung dem for czramenes, respecs = the m.hterial s.tosed in the conduits, wh sca weeki tarmansse the in b Rdes Decks ter em by do ble-shou tanks) can neidt as the requireamsme he sapstitive inspecniana d interested pescan. A repast remosal tros tha Hanford deoble-shell the candmas.nis w+== wouM aise summartz. sag each TAA-putue courtact tacks elas modt of ibe redsencsive

• • Pand the ksbikty of the ruia-concerned==6h the substance of this w esto as swy be techniemp and his propose is prwnpend by the proped wd be E) d in da Rh y

ecnoornicaDy practscal, and that the development of a modification that Dasist.

applirable teory ch.e.

heve would preclude the possinality for wea" CorneiaWeas websma en TAA tai r

receipt elemis commoner WD utish Onm her Mts am to scrumulate in the conduita.m ac made,it is not the NRC's role to judge actions speci$ed by the proposed AD Mttedin v m eh nanka the relative safety of various disposal "I'I*"d" # P"*8 b'II'*b'F' must ruhana a enMd====ani sanasped optic,ns, add we der 4ma to de as, frorn the wing ms!a nana a wM M postcard can wksch ee Moinhg One czaamt stated that while the PfoPa6ste demo tha wing bedag statement la smedet "Comuments te petinoa was aimed soiety as the W=E=4 cavity. en to the sospecLNe en9'*

Docket Noamber 93-WhM6-AI1** h tar.k wasses. 6ts poornstons con &d P8Pe, and cmuse an external fire under postcard wiu be dets stam retimmat m ha ped and potentieUy of'.ect aN moloective wesses the wmg.

from reprocesing. k,clA those ag DATY.$:Co:nments must be rees$ved by vailabfIlly SUPRMs Savanceh River. West Valley, and the A ril 27.1941.

P Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. ADoestsses: %hme commentsla Any persom may ahewa a capy of this As the wesie a.acepment psograrns at triphenas to the Fedamel Aviatian NPRM oy =*==4 ting a sequest to the FAA Trsnopart Airpiario Direcimate,,

t

,