ML20056B554
| ML20056B554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1990 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056B555 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9009050294 | |
| Download: ML20056B554 (2) | |
Text
,.
UNITED STATES o't, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
j, E
wAssincrow. o. c. 20sss e
,AUG 2 9 Jgg l
NEMORANDtM FOR A. Bill Beach, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region IV FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommiissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
WASTE DISPOSAL FROM IN-SITU URANItM FACILITIES i
By memorandum dated April 20, 1990, you provided comments on the NRC draft position on the issue of on-site disposal of in-situ uranium facility waste.
Based on your memorandum, comment from URF0, and additional staff coment, the draft position has been revised. The attached discussion remains unchanged.
As agreed during staff discussion, we have retained the provision to have the l
licensee investigate the' feasibility of onsite disposal >efore approval of on-site storage.
If such investigation was not initially performed and later characterization revealed the site to be unsuitable for disposal and no off-site disposal options were available, the licensee would have accumulated waste with no disposal options. We have, therefore, retained this recensendation.
i We reconnend the following 3 points be followed and applied when reviewing requests from in-situ licensees to dispose of in-situ wastes on-site:
1.
In-situ licensees should seek permanent disposal for in-situ wastes. The selection of any permanent disposal option should reflect existing policy guidance contained in Criterion 2 to avoid proliferation of small disposal sites and, therefore, associated long ters surveillance obligations. Thus, licensees requesting on-site disposal should be encouraged to identify and use permanent disposal options and disposal options which will not lead to the establishment of small disposal areas at a number of sites. Such options could include commercial disposal at a facility such as Envirocare, disposal at a Part 61 licensed facility or disposal at a separate facility specifically established to serve multiple l
in-situ licensees.
2.
An in-situ licensee may demonstrate that no option other than individual on-site disposal is currently available for in-situ wastes.
In this case, the licensee should include a request to store in-situ wastes for an l
interim period of time until permanent disposal options become available.
C//9/73 XA e-S7
~.
2 NRC would authorize storage for a period of time generally no greater than five years. As part of the license amendment request, the licensee would also be required to provide a surety sufficient to cover the costs to properly dispose of the waste that is being stored and provide assurance that there are no legal or technical restrictions against on-site storage or disposal in the future. This would include some site characterization activities and analysis sufficient to demonstrate that the onsite disposal option is feasible and would not be in conflict with Appendix A, Part 40 requirements.
If on-site disposal is precluded because of site characterization problems or by economic or other institutional factors, on-site storage must not be approved.
In such a case, a licensing action to approve initial or continuing operation could only occur after an off-site permanent disposal option was formulated.
3.
If curing the third year of the five year temporary storage authorization no other options are likely to become available, NRC will consider requests for on-site disposal upon licensee demonstration, as required by Criterion 2, that off-site disposal or other disposal options are not available or are impracticable.
Prior to the end of the third year, if no permanent offsite disposal option can be demonstrated to be availab'le, the licensee must propose a suitable onsite disposal design for NRC review and approval.
In view of the potential significance of this issue, the above position should be considered to be interim final until we can evaluate the reaction from affected states and interested licensees. Therefore, please consnunicate the position to all in-situ licensees and request comment from them within 60 days.
By copy of this memorandum, we request State Programs do the same with Agreement States.
ORIGliiAL SIGilED BY Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
V. Miller Distribution:
(LLWM 90-095) Central ("ef 205 NMSS r/f RBangart JGreeves JAustin JSurmeier PLohaus RHall, URF0 JLepre JJones r/f JJones t/-
RFonner MF11egel PDR YES X
ACNW YES X
SWastler SUBJECT ABST E T:
WASTE DISPOSAL FROM IN-SITU URANIUM FACILITIES
- See Previous Concurrence
^
OFC :LLOB *
- LLOB *
- LLOB*
- 0GC*
- LL
- LLWM
...........................L.
NAME:SWastler
- MFliegel
- PLohaus
- RFonner :J, es :R rt bATEObh[bh9b 08h0ff9b 08hbh)9b Obf2[)90 hf h 9b h h fbo
~
SW/ TICKET 90095 DUP OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _