ML20046B191
| ML20046B191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/07/1993 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Thompson A PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9308030259 | |
| Download: ML20046B191 (7) | |
Text
_
guay 0
0 UNITED STATES f
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20065-0001
\\...*/
JUN 0 71993
+
i j
i Anthony J. Thompson Perkins Coie 607 14th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-2011
Dear Mr. Thompson:
I am respona'ing to your request of May 19, 1993, to review and provide comments on your draft article entitled " Mixed Waste: A Proposed Solution that Focuses on the Underlying Problem Rather than on its Symptoms."
In general, while accurate in depicting the complexities associate? with the management of mixed waste, the premise on which your solution is bued is not, in all cases, accurate (i.e. that the predominant hazard from mixed waste is the radioactive component of the waste).
For example, the recently completed
)
National Profile on Commert.ially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste.
(see Enclosure 1) indicates that approximately 100,000 cubic feet (or over 71 percent) of the approximately 140,000 cubic feet of mixed waste that was generated by licensed nuclear facilities in 1990 is liquid scintillation fluid (LSF) containing small amounts of. radioactive material. This same report indicates that all-but about 1,200 cubic feet of this LSF waste is incinerable under existing Federal or State permits. These permits allow only those i
scintillation fluids containing small amounts of radioactivity (typically 0.05 microcuries or less per gram of scintillation medium) to be incinerated as if it wr.e not radioactive. As such, for the majority of commercially generated mixed waste the predominant hazard is from the hazardous organic components of scintillation fluid, not from the radioactive material as indicated in your article.
The National Profile also indicates that while current disposal capacity is lacking, only 12,000 cubic feet of additional treatment capacity is needed to treat all of the mixed waste generated or in storage as of the end of 1990.
This would seem to be in conflict with your premise that mixed waste generators are currently unable to manage their wastes in compliance with all 4
Federal or State regulations.
The inconsistencies noted in your article are not inconsistencies as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Environmental Protection Agency, i.e. a situation where compliance with one agency's regulations causes non-compliance with the other agency's regulations.
For example, you indicate that an inconsistency exists because EPA requires disposal cells to be lined, while NRC discourages lined disposal cells. Lined disposal cells are not necessarily prohibited by NRC for low-level radioactive waste disposal. As outlined in the NRC/ EPA joint guidance document entitled " Joint NRC-EPA Guidance on a Conceptual Design Approach for Commercial Mixed Waste Low-Level I D
-q'// 9', if D 9308030259 930607
/ /d'yt h
9 PDR WASTE G
Af v WPf-3 pgg d
I e
i ngi G swas)
D'
1 O
O COMMENTS ON DRAFT ARTICLE ENTITLED
" MIXED WASTE: A PROPOSED SOLUTION THAT FOCUSFS ON THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM RATHER THAN ON ITS SYMPiOMS" 1.
Page 1, third paragraph - The premisa that the radioactive material is the predominant hazard associated with mixed waste is not substantiated by the National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste (NUREG/CR-5938). This report indicates that most commercially generated mixed waste is comprised of liquid scintillation fluid containing small amounts of radioactive material which is incinerated without regard to its radioactivity.
Suggest confining your discussion to those wastes where the predominant hazard is radioactive material and discussing only this subordinate portion of the mixed waste universe.
2.
Page I second to last line - Suggest replacing the word " attitudes" with
" constraints" as this more accurately depicts the environment in which the regulatory community operates.
3.
Page 2, second paragraph - The statement regarding disposal capacity for most of the nation's mixed waste is misleading as a significant portion of commercial mixed waste is disposed through incineration or other methods (see NUREG/CR-5938).
4.
Page 2, third paragraph, last line - An example of the " dangerously radioactive materials" being stored would be helpful to readers attempting to understand the nature of the waste being discussed and the proposed solution.
5.
Page 3, first paragraph - see 1 above. Also, it should be pointed out that some hazardous materials may remain " actively hazardous" forever.
As currently written the point seems to be that the hazardous component of the waste remains hazardous for only a short period of time.
6.
Page 3, third paragraph - The examples used to L:7 port the statement that precedents exist for sole NRC regulation of mixed waste are misleading.
EPA is playing a significant role in the development of the standards for the high-level waste repository.
EPA was also involved in developing standards for uranium mill tailings disonsal.
In addition, uranium mill tailings tend to be more homogerious wastes than i
mixed wastes which are generated through a greater variety of processes and are typically more heterogenous.
7.
Page 4, first paragraph - The statement that the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) was the first " cradle-to-grave" waste management system is misleading 1
because while the AEA does regulate the disposal of radioactive waste, it is not limited to waste mcnagement alone.
i
O O
1 2
8.
Page 4, second paragraph - The second sentence should be revised to read
... limited to the regulation of source, special nuclear and byproduct materi al. " Several isotopes are used in medical and experimental applications that are not regulated under the AEA.
9.
Page 4, third paragraph - Delete "and the Atomic Energy Commission" from the second sentence. The Atomic Energy Commission did not limit the scope of the AEA.
10.
Page 6, second paragraph - The Solid Waste Disposal Act was enacted in 1965, not 1976 as stated in the first paragraph.
11.
Page 10, first line - Suggest replacing " molecule-by-molecule" with
" atom-by-atom" as this better represents the idea being presented.
12.
Page 20, third paragraph - The statement that AEA-regulated material is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) via the mixture rule is in error. AEA regulated material is excluded from regulation egar the definition of solid waste in RCRA. As a practical matter, waste that also contains listed or characteristic hazardous waste may be regulated under RCRA because it contains the hazardous waste. As such, the last sentence in this paragraph is also in error.
13.
Page 10, fourth paragraph - The statement that it is fiction that mixed waste can be separated into radioactive and hazardous components is misleading. Although limited in actual practice, several mixed waste streams such as contaminated mercury, lead or certain solvents could be separated into their various components by thermal recovery. Also, the quotation used in this paragraph should be cited.
14.
Page 11, second paragraph - The statements made in.this paragraph regarding waste sampling and ALARA are misleading.
EPA does not alwaYs require sampling and testing of mixed waste.
In fact, EPA encourages the use of process knowledge whenever possible for waste characterization. Also, RCRA does not require visual inspection of all waste. Other means of inspecting waste containers are allowed such as remote closed circuit television monitoring.
Finally, it is not
" physically impossible" to sample waste without increasing exposure to radiation. Robotic sampling and analysis of the waste could be used to maintain worker exposure to radiation ALARA.
15.
Page 13, last paragraph - The statements regarding the time RCRN disposal facilities are monitored is misleading. The 30 year post-closure care period may be extended indefinitely if conditions at the site warrant.
In addition, the site is not " abandoned or sold" without deed restrictions and other post-closure criteria.
16.
Page 14, first paragraph - Statements regarding the use of liners in mixed waste disposal facilities are misleading. The use of a liner in mixed waste disposal cell has been accepted by NRC and EPA, as long as
O O
3 measures are taken to prevent the accumulation of water in the disposal cell. This was described in the NRC/ EPA joint guidance document on a mixed waste disposal facility design.
17.
Page 14, second paragraph - Delete the phrase " difficult to manage" from the first sentence.
In some cases, liquid wastes may be more manageable than solid wastes.
18.
Page 15, second paragraph - The statement that standpipes and leachate collectioa systems are designed to provide access and, thus, encourage intrusion into waste disposal units may be misleading.
19.
Page 16, second paragraph - The statement that a mixed waste disposal facility has yet to be built should be deleted as a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility that accepts certain mixed wastes for disposal is currently operating in Utah.
20.
Page 16, last sentence - The statement that NRC has not endorsed the joint guidance on a mixed waste disposal facility design is misleading as NRC, by publishing the document, endorses the design. Suggest deleting this sentence and the subsequent quote (from the joint guidance document) as it does not support the writers' assertion that NRC does not endorse the conceptual design.
21.
Page 17, second paragraph - It is unclear how the joint guidance document is an " attempt by NRC and EPA to mask incompatibilities between the AEA and RCRA requirements." The guidance was developed to provide an example of one design where both sets of criteria could be integrated into a workable disposable facility design. Until-recently one State that was designated as a host state for radioactive waste disposal facility was using this design. That State recently ceased all consideration of the develcpment of a LLRW disposal facility 22.
Page 17, third paragraph - Add the phrase "without a permit" to the end of the last sentence in this paragraph. This more accurately reflects the actual status of generators compelled to store mixed waste.
23.
Page 17, fourth paragraph - The first sentence is misleading as i
treatment capacity for commercially generated mixed waste, as outlined ir, the National Profile, is not extremely limited. Suggest revising to indicate that treatment capacity for lon mixed wastes is limited.
g 24.
Pages 17 through 19 - Suggest including a discussion on EPA's enforcement policy for mixed waste which ascribes a lower enforcement priority for mixed waste as long as certain conditi6ns are met by generators. This will provide readers with importa t information on managing their mixed wastes.
25.
Page 19, last line - Delete the phrase "or leach radioactive materials."
This is an erroneous statement.
]v
(]
V 4
26.
Page 20, second paragraph - while it is correct that RCRA does not specifically include waste form requirements, the treatment required by RCRA prior to lanJ disposal does address the potential for the waste to leach hazardous constituents out of the final waste form by requiring the waste to be treated in such a way that minimizes leaching (see 40 CFR Part 268).
27.
Page 20, third paragraph - The mixed waste streams discussed in this paragraph, LSF and solvents, can in many cases, be destroyed through incineration or other forms of thermal treatment. As such, using these t
waste streams may not be appropriate as an example of the waste forms that RCRA leaching and migration criteria were designed to control.
28.
Page 21, second paragraph - It is not clear that NRC controls are adequate to prevent migration of chemical hazards into the environment.
NRC criteria are designed to control the radioactive material only.
Although they also constrain the releases of non-radioactive constituents as well, such constraints are not specifically required in 10 CFR Part 61. As such this statement may be misleading.
29.
Page 21, third paragraph - The statement that EPA encourages sampling and manual inspection of mixed waste is not consistent with statements made by EPA.
EPA has er.couraged the use of process knowledge whenever possible to characterize mixed waste and is receptive to the use of innovative methods to inspect waste in storage. Also, the statement that RCRA wastes are generally more uniform than AEA wastes is not substantiated in the article and may be in error.
In addition, the basis for the statement that an increase in the dose to the public will occur because of compliance with RCRA criteria is unclear and unsupported. Finally, the 100 gram minimum sample size required for determining waste status using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) may be reduced, provided the resulting test is sensitive enough to detect the hazardous materials in the waste, at the levels prescribed in the TCLP.
30.
Page 22, third paragraph - The conclusions drawn in this paragraph are unsubstantiated and do not contribute to the writers argument.
Suggest deleting this paragraph.
31.
Page 22, fourth paragraph - The statement that differences between NRC, DOE and EPA have not nor will be reconciled is in error. NRC and EPA i
have produced several joint guidance documents on mixed waste minagement with the objective of reconciling perceived differences. The ager.cies are in the process of developing two additional documents for use by mixed waste managers.
33.
Page 23, last paragraph - Statements made concerning the number of NRC licensees and EPA permittees are misleading.
NRC currently licenses approximately 7,500 licenses for the use of source, special nuclear or byproduct material.
>gql
- 9 9
1
+
}
' I t the Barnwell, S.C. low-5 t may.be ts 10 CFR part 61 requiremen sd prior to prom
.. I aragraph The statement tha of-level waste disposal facility meeThe Barnwell facility was license d
Paga 25, thir p f
in error.
I
- 10 CFR Part 61 l
l r
f
^ r^. a m A
8 i
i
.1a
-i I
j o
l
~
I
.1j 1
O O
JUN 0 71993 2
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities" (August 1987), a lined disposal cell would be acceptable to both NRC and EPA, as long as measures were taken to prevent the accumulation of water within the disposal cell.
Regarding your solution to the mixed waste disposal issue, the development of a mixed waste disposal facility based on DOE's high-level waste repository neglected to discuss EPA's substantial involvement in the development of standards and continuing oversight through the National Environmental Policy Act for this facility. As such, it presents a somewhat distorted view of the issues associated with developing such a facility.
The proposal that DOE should accept commercially generated mixed waste for treatment and disposal has been encouraged by NRC on numerous occasions.
NRC-continues to support this idea and is ready to work with all affected parties to facilitate the acceptance of comri.ercial mixed waste by D0E. contains detailed comments on your draft article. While time constraints may not permit review by EPA at this late date, I believe it would have been appropriate for you to have solicited comments on the paper from EPA's Office of Solid Waste.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review the article. -If you have any comments or questions, please contact Dominick A. Orlando at 301 504-2566.
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated Ticket L-082 DISTRIBUTION:, LCentral;Filel NMSS r/f JSurmeier-PLohaus TJohnson LBell LLWM r/f LLWM t/f SUBJECT ABSTRACT: REVIEW 0F DRAFT PAPER ON MIXED WASTE
- See previous concurrence OFC :
LLDR*
W LLDR*
[
LLDR*
[
LLWMf g/
- LLWMf4, 1(BfS RBanhYt" NAME:
D0rlando MWeber JAustin DATE:
6/02/93 D
6/03/93 lk 6/03/93 fr f/~J/93
[b/d/93 Path & File Name:G:L-082.no 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l
In small Box on "DATE:" 7ine p7 ace a: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy PDR :
YES NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only -
ACNW:
YES NO v'
Delete file after distribution Yes / No IG:
YES NO _12
,