ML20057B652

Requests Concurrence on Encl Draft Commission Paper Re Denial of Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-60-4) from States of or & Wa Re Classification of Hanford Radwaste

ML20057B652
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/21/1992
From:	Heltemes C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Bernero R, Malsch M, Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20057B646	List: ML20057B645 ML20057B650 ML20057B652 ML20057B654 ML20057B656 ML20057B657 ML20057B659 ML20057B661
References
FOIA-93-156 NUDOCS 9309230074
Download: ML20057B652 (75)

Text

-.

l

,pa no,jo, w

UNITED sT ATEs

! _y j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e

W ASW.GTON. D. C. 20555 i

c.

%, ~

.cf FEB 211992 7

I MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material l

Safety & Safeguards Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel Patricia G. Norry, Director, Office of Administration l

Carlton C. Kammerer, Director, Office of State Programs Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs Joseph J. Fouchard, Director, Office of Public Affairs l

C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues and i

FROM:

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research OFFICE REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON DENIAL OF PRM-60

SUBJECT:

PETITION FOR RULEHAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON PEGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HANFORD RADI0 ACTI i

WASTE I

Your concurrence is requested on the enclosed Commission Paper.

The following is a summary of this request:

1.

Title:

Petition for Rulemaking PRM-60 4 from the States of Washington and Oregon.

2.

RES Task Leader: Naiem S. Tanious, x23878.

3.

Cognizant Individuals: NMSS - P. Altomare NMSS - D. Fehringer NMSS - C. Glenn l

OGC -

J.R. Wolf ADM -

M.T. Lesar R.O. Virgilio SP PA -

F.L. Ingram 4.

Requested Action: Concurrence on the enclosed Commision Paper Package.

S.

Requested Completion Date: March 13, 1992.

6.

Background:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a petition from the States of Washington and Oregon. The States requested that the i

NRC establish a process, outlined by them, to regulate the reprocessing The and separation of certain defense wastes at Hanford, Washington.

l petitioners also proposed that the NRC change its definitions of high-level waste (HLW) and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60. The staff has j

jt>.

?!!'2?8?!4'3oso4 1

FACARDS93-156 PDR i

i

I i

FEB 211992 Multiple Addressees 2

l l

l l

i examined the petition in light of existing regulations and the available facts.

The staff concluded that the current NRC involvement with DOE in their processing of the Hanford wastes has been appropriate.

Further, j

the current definitions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60 also i

seems adequate to NRC purposes.

Hence, the staff recomends that this petition be denied..

7.

No need for additional resources is anticipated to implement this i

action. A copy of this package has been forwarded to the Office of the Controller for coordination of resource issues per the ED0 memorandum of I

June 14, 1991.

I hb i

C.

Heltemes, M., Deputy Director Generic Isms and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

{

Enclosure:

{

Comission Paper cc w/ encl.:

R. M. Scroggins, OC Cognizant individuals l

i 7

\\

I 1

\\

c w

a

FEB 211992 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel Patricia G. Norry, Director, Office of Administration Carlton C. Kammerer, Director, Office of State Programs Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs Joseph J. Fouchard, Director, Office of Public Affairs FROM:

C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

0FFICE REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HANFORD RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE Your concurrence is requested on the enclosed Commission Paper.

The following is a summary of this request:

1.

Title:

Petition for Rulemaking PRM-60-4 from the States of Washington and Oregon.

2.

RES Task Leader: Naiem S. Tanious, x23878.

3.

Cognizant Individuals: NMSS - P. Altomare NMSS - D. Fehringer NMSS - C. Glenn OGC -

J.R. Wolf ADM -

M.T. Lesar SP -

R.0. Virgilio PA -

F.L. Ingram 4.

Requested Action: Concurrence on the enclosed Commision Paper Package.

5.

Requested Completion Date: March 13, 1992.

6.

Background:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a petition from the States of Washington and Oregon. The States requested that the i

NRC establish a process, outlined by them, to regulate the reprocessing and separation of certain defense wastes at Hanford, Washington.

The petitioners also proposed that the NRC change its definitions of high-level waste (HLW) and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60.

The staff has

FEB 211992 2

Multiple Addressees examined the petition in light of existing regulations and

Further, facts.

their processing of the Hanford wastes has been appropriate.

the current definitions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CfR Part 60 also Hence, the staff recomends that this seems adequate to NRC purposes.

petition be denied.

No need for additional resources is anticipated to implement this A copy of this package has been forwarded to the Office of the 7.

Controller for coordination of resource issues per the EDO memorandum of action.

June 14, 1991.

Odg:re.4 Prd 4*

C.J.McWacs,S.

I C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic issues and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

Comission Paper cc w/ encl.:

R. M. Scroggins, OC Cognizant 'adividuals Distribution: [B:PRM-60-4.NT)

ESBeckjord CJHeltemes

]

TPSpeis BMorris w/ encl.

FCostanzi i

SBahadur MFleishman i

I LRiani l

MSilberberg JRandall NTanious WMB Rdg/ Circ J

Subject File B:\\PRM-60-4.NT

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES Offc: WMB:DRA*

WMB:DRA*

WMB:DRA*

DD:DRA:RES* D:DRA:RES* D

RES Name: NTanicus JRandall MSilberberg FCostanzi BMorris C

ltemes Date:

1/17/92 1/17/92 1/17/92 2/20/92 2/20/92 2

92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Multiple Addressees 2

examined the petition in light of existing regulations and the available facts. The staff concluded that the current NRC involvement with DOE in their processing of the Hanford wastes has been appropriate.

Further, the current definitions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60 also seems adequate to NRC purposes. Hence, the staff recommends that this petition be denied.

7.

No need for additional resources is anticipated to implement this action. A copy of this package has been forwarded to the Office of the Controller for coordination of resource issues per the ED0 memorandum of June 14, 1991.

C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic issues and Rulemaking Office of Nur. lear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

Commission Paper cc w/ encl.:

R. M. Scroggins, OC Cognizant individuals Distribution: [B:PRM NT)

ESBeckjord CJHeltemes TPSpeis BMorris w/ enc 1.

FCostanzi SBahadur MFleishman LRiani HSilberberg JRandall NTanious WMB Rdg/ Circ Subject File B:\\PRM-60-4.NT

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES Offc:

WMB:DRA* WMB:DRA* WMB:DRA* DD:DRA:8Q

[JMh:RESDD/GIR:RES Name:

NTanious JRandall MSilberberg FCo"stanzV BMorris CJHeltemes Date:

01/17/92 01/17/92 01/17/92 t/~./92 2/2B/92

/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

2 Multiple Adressees itions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60 also the current def Hence, the staff recommends that this seems adequate tdsNRC purposes.

petition be denied 1 resources is anticipated to implement this No need for additio A copy of t is package has been forwarded to the Office of the 7.

tion of resource issues per the EDO memorandum of action.

Controller for coordi June 14, 1991.

\\.

\\

\\\\ C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues and Rulemaking ffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

Commission Paper 1

s cc w/ encl.:

R. M. Scroggins, OC

\\

Cognizant individuals Distribution: (B:PRM-60-4.NT]

ESBeckjord CJHeltemes TPSpeis

\\

BMorris w/ encl.

FCostanzi SBahadur MFleishman LRiani MSilberberg JRandall NTanious WMB Rdg/ Circ Subject file 5

B:\\PRM-60-4.NT lf

)

WMB:DRA*

DD:

,ES D:

f/S DD/GIR:

S WMB:D Offc: WMB:

trM CJHeltem Name: NTanious JRandall MSilberbergFCos Bfp/// /92 Date: 01'R792 01/Nf 92 01/IT/92

/ $ //92 7

/ /92 yFICIALRECORDCOPY 1 30 y

-r 1

i For:

The Commissioners From:

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Sub.iect:

DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES 0F WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD

Purpose:

To request that the Commission consider and deny the petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-4) from the States of Washington and Oregon regarding classification of certain radioactive waste at Hanford, Washington.

Summary:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received petition PRM-60-4 from the States of Washington and Oregon. The States requested that the NRC establish a process, outlined by them, for oversight of the processing and disposal of defense wastes presently contained in the double-shell tanks at Hanford, Washington. The petitioners proposed that the NRC change its definitions of HLW and HLW facility in 10 CFR Part 60. This petition presents the issue of whether NRC has responsibility and authority to regulate certain DOE waste processing and disposal activities, including those at Hanford, Washington.

Subsequent to discussions with the DOE, the staff has concluded that the activities in question will result in the separation of HLW for disposal in a geologic repository, with the residual wastes being

" incidental" wastes to be disposed of in a concrete grout CONTACT:

Naiem S. Tanious, RES 492-3878

.m

The Commissioners 2

facility at Hanford. This conclusion reflects the staff's view that residual wastes would be classified as

" incidental" if the great bulk of the radionuclides of concern have been separated out and the separation achieved is as great as is technically and economically practical.

The staff believes that this classification would satisfy the policy set out in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50. Hence, any radioactive material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste, and thus, would not be subject to the NRC's regulatory authority. The staff recommends that this petition be denied.

Backaround:

On December 17, 1990, the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732, Enclosure 1).

Following earlier consultations, the States of Washington and Oregon, and The Yakima Indian Nation, initially submitted the petition for rulemaking on January 2, 1990. On February 7, 1990, the NRC staff conferred with petitioner as contemplated by Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 2.802. The minutes of that conference are attached as Enclosure 2.

As suggested by the NRC staff, the petition was clarified and resubmitted on July 27, 1990.

The petition requested that the Commission revise the definitions of HLW and HLW facility and establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission would determine whether reprocessing waste, specifically that waste stored in tanks at Hanford, Washington, is HLW subject to the Commission's regulatory authority.

In particular, the petitioners requested (copy of the July 27, 1990 submitted Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC, is attached as Enclosure 3.) that the Commission amend 10 CFR 60.2 "to clarify the definition of HLW and the definition of 'HLW facility.'" Under the petitioners' proposal, the Commission would:

1.

Establish a process to evaluate the processing of defense wastes on a tank by tank basis such that the largest technically achievable amount of radioactive materials is removed and 2.

Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology) will be within temperature limits for long-term stability of low-level waste forms.

The Commissioners 3

The petitioners assert that the proposed rulemaking is essential to provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest.

Discussion:

The fundamental issue presented by the petition is whether the NRC has regulatory authority for the processing or disposal of tank wastes now stored in double-shell tanks at Hanford.

The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 assigned to NRC the regulatory authority over certain DOE facilities for the storage (including disposal) of "high-level radioactive wastes." The Commission has interpreted this term as having the same meaning as in Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50 - i.e.,

"those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent...." Thus, the key component for defining high-level waste (HLW) in this context is the source of the waste. When the Appendix F definition was promulgated, the Atomic Energy Commission specifically noted that it did not include " incidental" waste resulting from processing plant operations such as: ion exchange beds, sludges, contaminated laboratory items, clothing, tools, radioactive hulls, and other irradiated and contaminated fuel structure hardware (34 FR 8712, June 3, 1969; 35 FR 17530, November 14,1970).

Hence, incidental wastes generated in conjunction with or after the extraction cycles (e.g., decontaminated salts or miscellaneous trash from waste glass processing) would be outside the Appendix F definition of HLW.

In the cases of Savannah River and West Valley wastes, DOE plans to retrieve the wastes from their storage tanks and to separate essentially all of the radioactive raaterials for eventual disposal in a deep-geologic HLW repository.'

Accordingly, the projected recovery of HLW from the wastes in tank storage at those sites will be sufficiently complete that the decontaminated salts and other residual wastes are classified as " incidental" (i.e, non-HLW). The NRC will have no regulatory authority over DOE's facilities to be used for processing and disposal of the incidental waste.

'See 52 FR 5992, February 27,1987 (definition of "high-level waste"), n.

1, where the Commission characterizes as " incidental waste," the decontaminated

< alt with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nCi/g CS-137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2nti/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy's FEIS on long-term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, DOE /EIS-0023, 1979.

Although an EIS has not yet been published for the West Valley Demonstration Project, preliminary estimates indicate the likelihood of an equivalent degree of separation.

The Commissioners 4

At Hanford, DOE plans to process the wastes stored in the double-shell tanks in a manner that is conceptually the same as that to be used at Savannah River and West Valley. Most of the radioactive constituents of the wastes would be separated for eventual geologic repository disposal, and the residual salts would be disposed of on-site in a concrete-like grout facility. However, the Hanford wastes were generated using older separation technologies, which resulted in substantial dilution of those wastes with non-radioactive materials. Consequently, it is not technically and economically practical to achieve the same degree of separation of radioactive materials at Hanford that DOE projects to be achievable at Savannah River and West Valley.

In addition, many of the tanks at Hanford contain mixtures of wastes from both reprocessing sources and other sources.

Also, recordkeeping at Hanford was not always thorough enough to allow precise determinations of the origins of waste now present in specific tanks at Hanford.

For these reasons, some of the Hanford tenk wastes cannot be readily classified as either HLW or incidental wastes using previously accepted definitions and concepts.

The NRC and DOE staffs held several meetings to explore this situation in detail. A principal objective was to ascertain, to the extent practicable, whether some or all of the wastes should be regarded as HLW, as defined in Appendix F.

Several things became clear as a result of these meetings.

First, records were adequate for DOE to determine that some double-shell waste tanks do not contain wastes from reprocessing of reactor fuels. Therefore, these wastes are not HLW within the Appendix F definition.

Second, a DOE " material balance" analysis indicated that, after adjusting for radioactive decay, the amount of radioactive material expected to be recovered for geologic repository disposal would be nearly as large as the inventory of reprocessing waste originally generated.

Hence, the proposed on-site grout disposal of the residual waste from the double-shell tank waste processing would be only a small fraction of the radioactivity originally generated at the site.

Third, DOE intends to remove the largest reasonably achievable amount of radioactive material from the double-shell tank wastes to be disposed of in on-site grout facilities. This commitment by DOE coupled with the material-balance study indicating that nearly all of the remaining (after decay) radioactive material would be

The Commissioners 5

recovered, led the NRC staff to conclude that the residual waste material after processing of double shell tank wastes should be classified as incidental waste.

Specifically, the extent of residual radioactivity would be sufficiently low that such waste should be considered incidental to the process of recovering the high-level radioactive waste from the tanks (within the sense of the Appendix F definition of HLW).

In this regard, if the DOE processing operations go as planned, the activity of the residual or incidental waste would be below concentration limits for class C wastes under the waste classification criteria of 10 CFR Part 61.

Following its review, the NRC staff, by letter dated September 25, 1989, from R. M. Bernero to A. J. Rizzo, endorsed DOE's plans to sample and analyze the grout feeds before disposal in an effort to control the final composition of the grout feed. However, the staff indicated that if in the course of conducting the sampling program, DOE were to find that inventories of key radionuclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than t

previously estimated, DOE should notify the NRC and other affected parties in a timely manner.

Issues Presented: The petition for rulemaking presents two issues. The first is a substantive one, i.e., what criteria or standard should be applied to differentiate incidental waste from high-level waste. The second issue is a procedural one, i.e., what process should be used to establish that criteria or i

standard and thereby determine whether or not the NRC has jurisdiction over the incidental waste and its associated I

disposal f acility.

The petitioners proposed that the residual wastes from DOE's processing to remove the HLW component would remain i

I classified as HLW (and thus, potentially subject to NRC regulatory authority) unless the process employed by DOE removed "the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity." This concept of removing "the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity" is not embodied in Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act.

Although Appendix F itself is silent with regard to the criteria or standards for differentiating incidental waste from high-level waste, the contemporaneous views of the Atomic Energy Commission with respect to management of defense wastes shed light on the criteria that should apply.

These views appear in AEC Manual Chapter 0511, which reflects a policy of controlling the release of radioactive materials to the lowest levels " technically and economically practical." Although this policy refers to control of releases rather than stages in the waste management regime, it seems appropriate to apply it to the latter as well.

i

i The Commissioners 6

Therefore, in determining whether residual wastes remain HLW or not, the appropriate criterion consistent with history and practice would seem to be not whether the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity has been removed, but whether the quantities of radioactive materials have been reduced to the lowest levels that are " technically and economically practical."

In this regard, DOE's material balance demonstrates that nearly all of the radionuclides in the original spent fuel would be extracted or would have decayed. The amount of residual radioactive material, after the additional cost-effective processing identified by DOE, would be reduced to about 2-3% of that originally in the wastes. This radio-nuclide concentration is well within the classification limits of 10 CFR Part 61. The staff believes that such wastes are capable of being handled in a manner that presents no unreasonable health and safety risks to the public.

On the basis of this information, the staff concluded that, with respect to wastes now present in double-shell tanks, the policies set out in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 would be satisfied, that the high-level radioactive waste (within the meaning of the Energy Reorganization Act) would be removed from the site, and that any radioactive material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste, and thus, would not be subject to NRC's regulatory authority.

The petitioners also requested that the Commission exercise oversight to assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms.

However, inasmuch as the grout, for the reasons stated above is not considered high-level waste, the Commission does not have the authority to carry out this oversight function.

As to the procedural issue, the staff believes that this matter should be addressed case-by-case rather than by rulemaking. Rulemaking is desirable where an agency establishes a general principle having prospective effect, to be applied in a wide variety of factual contexts - but not, as here, where the matter involves the application of law to a specific, and unique, existing factual situation.

Public Comments: The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Two letters were from other Federal agencies (DOE and EPA), two were from public interest groups, one was from a nuclear industry corporation (Westinghouse), and seven were from private individuals. Most comments were opposed to the petition. A full discussion of the comments and the staff response to

~~

The Commissioners 7

them is included in the Draft Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 4).

Recommendation:

For the reasons discussed above, the staff recommends that the petition be denied. Specifically the staff recommends that the Commission:

(1)

Acorove for publication in the Federal Reaister the notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (Enclosure 4).

(2)

Note:

(a)

That the appropriate Congressional connittees will be informed of this action (Enclosure 5).

(b)

That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be informed of this action (Enclosure 6).

(c)

That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the notice of denial is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Enclosure 7).

f l

The Commissioners 8

Coordination:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no _ legal objection.

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2.

Minutes of meeting between NRC staff and representatives of the State of Washington 3.

The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 4.

Federal Register Notice 5.

Congressional Letters 6.

Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 7.

Draft Public Announcement l

i

i The Comissioners 7

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and Coordination:

has no legal objection.

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2.

Minutes of meeting between NRC staff and representatives of the State of Washington 3.

The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 4.

Federal Reaister Notice 5.

Congressional Letters 6.

Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 7.

Draft Public Announcement Distribution:

[CP3.WMB)

Subj: circ:chron Reading Files /Silberberg ESBeckjord CJHeltemes BMorris FCostanzi Silberberg JRandall NTanious JMTaylor, EDO JFouchard, PA DKRathbunCA CKamerer, SP PNorry, ADM MMalsch, OGC I

} -[,k g$g$

RBernero, NMSS

• See attached for,brev'ious oncurrences.

Offc: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DRA D:NMSS

- DGC D:ADM SP Name: NTanious*:Y JRandall*

Silberberg* RBernero HMalsch PNorry CKammerer Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92 y /22/92

/ /92

/ /92

/ /92 Offc: D:CA D:PA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD:GIR:RES D:RES EDO Name: DKRathbun JFouchard FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes ESBeckjord JMTaylor Date:

/ /92

/ /92

/ /92

/ /92

/ /92

/ /92

/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

1 i

The Comissioners 7

1 (b)

That the States of Washington and Orego/n, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be i rmed of this action (Enclosure 5).

(c)

Thatapublicannouncementw be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the note of denial l is filed with the Office f the Federal Register (Enclosure 6). ) Coordination: The Office of the General Counse as reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations /

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States /f Washington and Oregon (55/FR 51732) 2. The States' Petition to S.uel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 3. Federal Reaister Notice 4. Congressional Letters / 5. Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the yakima Indian Nation 6. Draft Public Annodncement

• See attached for previous concurrences.

Offe: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DRA D:NMSS DGC D:ADM SP Name: NTanicus*:Y JRandall* Silberberg* RBernero MMalsch PNorry CKamerer Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92 / /92 / /92 / /92 / /92 Offe: D:CA D:PA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD:GIR:RES D:RES EDO Name: DKRathbun JFouchard FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes ESBeckjord JMTaylor Date: / /92 / /92 / /92 / /92 / /92 / /92 / /92 0FFICaAL RECORD COPY

The Comissioners 7 (b) That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be informed of this action (Enclosure 5). (c) That a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs when the note of denial is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Enclosure 6). Coordination: The Office f the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Receipt of a Petition fo Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 2. The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chil, Secretary, NRC 3. Federal Reaister Notice 4. Congressional Letters l 1 5. Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 1 6. Draft Public Announcement i \\ quh. \\ Offt: WM RA W... RA WMB:DRA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD/GIR:RES Name: NTanious:Y JR(nc all MSilberberg FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes Date: 02/Jo/92 02/}J./92 02/26/92 02/ /92 02/ /92 02/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i l

b a i I Notice of receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) s i i i e I l

s l 9 j. 51732 Tederal Register / Vol. 55. No. 242 / Monday. December 17, 1990 / Proposed Rules for at least 3 years, unless a longer Freedom of Information and Nuclear Weste Policy Act (NWPA) 42 retention time is reqmred by part 75 of Pubhcations Services. Office of U.S C.10101 (12) gives the Commission this chapter. Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the authonty to define whether wastes (2) Records that must be mamtained Commission. Washington. DC 20555. are " highly radioactive matenal" or pursuant to this part may be the or:ginal ,on,vnran paromasAnow coortAcT. "solida denved from iliquid reprocessing or a reproduced copy or a microform if Michael T. Lesar. Chief, Rules Review wastes] that contam fission products in such reproduced c.opy or micmform is Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, sufficient concentrations."

• duly auttenticated by authorized Dwision of Freedom ofInformation and According to the petitioners, personnel and the nucroform capable Pubhcations Services. Office of legislative history revuls that Congrns of producmg a clear and legible copy Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory intended the Commission to license after storage for the penod specified by Commission. Washington. DC 20555.

defense reprocessing tar.k wastes at the Commission regulations.He record Telephone:301492-7758 or Toll Free: point oflong term storage or disposal. may also be stored in electroruc media 80 %36b 5042. De petitioners note that low fraction with the capabihty for producing. on sunicrasurTAny perone AT osc wastes resulting from pretreatment of demand, legible, accurate, and complete tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted records dunng the required retent2on Petitioners. Request and disposed of in land-based grout i period. Records such as letters, ne petitioners request that the vaults on the Hanford site in accordance drawiry;s. and specifications must Commission amend to CFR 60.2 to with regulations developed under the include all pertinent information such as clanfy the definition of"high. level Resource Conservation and Recovery stamps. initials, and signatures: radioachve waste" (HLW) and the Act (RCRA).ne petitioners beheve that (3) ne hcensee shall mamtam definition of "lD.W facility." ne if such westes are HLW.they clearly fall edequate safeguards against tamperms petitioners request that the under the Commission's hcensing i with and loss of records. Commission-junsdiction under section 202 (4) of the Dated at Rodville. Maryland. tius tith day

1. Establish a process to evaluate the Energy Reorganization Act of1974.*

oI Decemtier 19Wo. treatment of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such wastes will Reasons for Petition For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. not be considered HLW if, prior to De Petitioners point out that the g,,,,,,3 g. ru disposal, each tank is treated to remove Present defmition of HLW in the the largest technically achievable II " * * -" N'd 3 *""-** *

• 5 * *I amount of rsdioactivity; and Commission's regulations is based upon

2. Require that the heat produced by the source of the waste. Accordmg to residual radionuclides together with the petitioners, while HLW may be differentiated from

• incidental heat of reaction during grovt processing to CFR Part 60 (if employed as a treatment technology).

waste. the legal basis for doing so must IDocket No. PRfJ-4b41 will be within limits established to denve from NWPA. specifically 42 + ensure that grout meets temperoture U.S C.10101 (12) ( A). which refers to a " sufficient concentrations" criterion for Cefinition of the Terrn *High-level requirements forlong-term stability for Radioactive Waste" bw. level waste forms.: classification.* De petitioners claim Actney: Nuclear Regulatory ne petitioners seek clarification that that incidental waste source is the disposal of wastes treated to this impossible to ascertain due to mining in Commission. defense tanks and the unavailabihty of s,tandard is not disposal in a "HLW Actor Petition for rulemaking. aa presently defined in 10 CFR accurate records.They poir.t out,in sWWWasty:The States of Washmgton 60.2. The petitioners state that should particular, that over the last 45 years. and Oregon request that the the Commission regard to CFR Part 50. mixing of wastes from different sources Commission revise the dermition of the App-ndix F as the controlhng reFulation has compbeated the chssification of icrm ~high-level radioactive waste" so to determine whether a waste is HLW. Hanford tank wastes. includmg double-es to establir.h a procedural framework that the Ccmmission also modify that shell tank wastes. Moreover, the and substantive standards by which the definition as proposed in the petition. petitioners state that radionuchde Commission will determine whether Basis for the Petition substantial uncertainty, Va riables reproccasing waste. includmg in particular certain waste stored at the ne petitioners state that this contributing to the uncertain'y include US Department of Energy's site at rulemaking is based. in part, on section incomplete and inaccurate records, the llanferd. Washington. is high-level W of the 1974 Energy Reorganization lack of actual fuel and/or waste radioactive waste and therefore subject Act. which defines Commission analyses, and an incomplete to the Commission's licensing authonty. authority over retrievable surface understand;ng of the chemistry and st rage facilities and other facihties oarts: Submit comments by March 18. a uthonzed for the express purpose of . ro,... i,,,, or in, proo. on..ee -octnui.on i 1W1. Comments received after this date subsequent long-term storage of high. or Hyih teve Red,o.esive wenie tad.enu noin i wi!! be considered if it is practiW t d level radiosctive waste generated by o' ProPa'd rule **Ams 52 F5 S*'t: hb**'y rn i so. but consideration cannot be given DOE whico, are not used for, or are part "U ""d '"b"**""* * *' '*' '*'""*"s'm' t tpmposed amendmenu to 10 CrB peM st. except as to Comments received on of cf. research and development activities-mon Mer it nea r.nsl einendman to to crR i before this date, The petitioners further state that the p.n st.u rt 22.s t war 25 isan i I ADD 8ttistS: Submit comments to: Congressional defmition of the term

• tuhould tw noted he-ever. that the Ca* * '"*" h* * '"'* d** *"O' 'h' 8*

Secretary. U1 Nuclear Regulatory "high-level radioactive waste" in the of the irPo duc'4ed m mhon n12W Commission. Washmgton. DC 20555.

• Nw ho-on. the Coneinme n4* ment et Attention: DoCheimg and Service s: rR m,,s. Fe,bru.ry 27.11s8". th t cl.se fuieun

,,,,,,,,,, f,lo+d,maiore of te mer ht.ous,,,,,,,,,,g,, ,,,,,,,,,,n,

• Crovt is a Branch. For a copy of the petition. write:

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -outd te irrete..ni m Rules Review Section. Regula1ory ... a. ,o to,=== r...non nd deiermin.ns heiher..ch -esin muni te d sposed Pubbcation: Dranch. Dmsion cf m.maba.w.on. of m hm.ed d..pc I 1.cibuea " _w

Federal Register / Vol 55, No. 242 / Monday, Decernber 17, 1990 / Proposed RrrW 51733 2 pathways in reprocessing and waste

2. A new Append 2x-A is added to contemplate that particular treatment processes. The petitioners part 60 to read as follows:

deterrmnations of bow spe.cdic waMrs assert that neither DOE the wiH be characte tzed under these f. Commission, nor the petitioners have Lovert Technically AcNevable Treorment general startdards can be left to adequate information regarding the individual adpdica5ve proceedmgs. radioactive portion of the double-shell ^jy*,', ',NQ*n'*h '[7 The petitmners belreve that the yp amendments soggested by their petition tank waste.The petitioners beheve that weste components rs treeted. pretreated or the Commission needs to esteblish both blended pnor te permanent disposal. DOE would protect human health and the a procedure and a standard for making shall subtral the f Miowmg to the Conunission environment. would facihtste an evaluation as to whethe waste are and the maecied atate and pubnsh in the mesmn6kl C""n involvement in HLW on a tank by tank basis. Federal Resist =c the ultimate dssposal and/or long term The petitioners assert that the

1. Date on physical characteristics of the storage of Hernford double-eheH tack

• * * '" dud'"8 d'"'y *nd Percent solids, waste, and would support proposed amendment is essential to move en ame consutoms. and implementatmo of the Hartford Federal provide protection of the future health and safety of the crtnena of the Pacific "hl

)t bsIa*l Facility Agreement and Consent Onier. '8 p Northwest.

2. Volumetne date on untreeted weets.on Request for th-,nts volume changes expected as a result of Py treatment, pretreatment or blaruing activities Commenters are Invited to address.

The petitioners suggest that the and the expected volume of the final weste among other th!ngs, the desirabilrty and definittons of "High-level Radioactive form (grovt wherce ce witnfied westeh appropriateness of (1)The proposed Weste" and "HLW Facihty" in to CR 3 ^ d"C"PO " 'I th' l'"t'"'"' P"***- substantive standard (" remove the includ:ng an emanated muss balanar for each largest technically achievable amount of CO 2 be revised and a new appendix A be added to 10 CFR part 60. The epecific ,P,7pf, Q'*"N",7,, radioactreity en a tank-by tank basis"). 12nguage suggested by the petitioners waste corcponenta before and aDer (2) the proposed procedure for applymg that standard, anc (3) an amendment to reads as follows-treatment

1. In 5 00.2. the definitions of"High-

4. ne proposed gmut or salterete to CFR part 60 (in view of the scope Level Radiosctrve Waste" and "HLW fom.nlanon, totmher enth heet trensfer defined in 10 CR 60.1) vis-a vis the calculanons for the waste form and adoption of a new Part or assendment to Facihty" are revised to read as follows:

5. To the degree possible. treotment eystnn some other custmg Part of NRC f 60J Definitiona.

models sunilar to the attached g out system regulations' model should be used to present data and desenbe processes. Dated at Rock ville. Maryland, this nth day HigMerelradioactive waste or HLW y,g,,,,,,,,,e,y,y,qu7,,,,ny og of pecember 1sm rneans:(1)Irrediated reactor fuel. (2) defense reprocesamg tank =este, containrns For the Nucienc Reguistory Commiesirm Liquid wastes resulting from the high. level waste components is pretreated-Samuel l. E operation of the first cycle sohent trested or blended pnor to pennanent extraction system. of eqtrivalent. and the d:sposal m near-surface or deep peosopc concentrated westes from subsequent facihties. the Commission shall require a (TR Doc. WM8 FUed 12-14M S e5 am) extraction eycles, or equivalent. in a l' cense under secton 2A41 of the Fangy sam on Me**as Re rysmzanon Act. 42 U S C. SM2 (4) unless facihty for reprocessing imidiated de Comnission.on a tank-by tenk basis reactor fuel, and (3) Sohds into which such liquid wastes have been consened. $'"n',$)'bs DEPARTMENT OF COMMEACE strated that the provided that ii. prior to disposal, largest techmcally achirable senount of ForeigtwTrade Zones Board defense reprocesetng tank wastes are act nty from the tarJL mil be isoleted for treated to remove the larFest technicaUy witnfication pnor to perrcanent disposal. and 15 CFR Part 400 cchievable amount of radioactmty on a

2. nal use of permanent shallow la nd tank-by-tank basis (as provided in disposal for the rank weste will be lirmted to loodtet No. 21222-02521 th' "c' dental waste port on which is the appendtx A 1. the treated residual fraction shall be considered an acevity remaining after the larFest RIN DE25-AA04 I

incidental waste a.nd therefore not been removed. and Fore 4grwirade Zones in the United i UlW-

3. Ttat the trestinent pretreatment and States HLWfacility means a facthty subject blending processes descnbed is the DOE to the hcensing and related regulatory submittal mil achieve the stated separation AGEMcy; Foreign. Trade Zones Board.

authonty of the Commission pursuant to end/er recovery effeciencier. and InternationalTrade Adnurustration. sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy 4 That the treatment. pretreatment and Commerce. Reorganizat2on Act of 19'4 (88 Stat blending processes destnbed m the DOE Notice of roposed rulemaking; Acnow: E submittal are proven. cost effectwe. state-of-1244)', the art processes, wtuch are espeble of extension of comment penod. remonns the largest technically echievable s-b mpm M gm im amount of actwity. interested parties. the period for pubhc

• These em DOE -fenknes v ed pnmera im the r

Petit.ioners* Conclusions comment 6n the further amendments to ecceipt and stocaer of b,gh level radioecine eastes ce dhes f== acn**nes hcensed ender sera Act The petitioners state that rulemaking the proposed revisione to the regulations tihe Aie=c Laem Actl er.d 4ev.e..tdr sefs procedures are necessary to determine of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board I,"," f, ot $*M2,*,Y the nature of the incidental, lesser regardmg foreign-trade zones in the siorene of high levet red.o.ctive mes senereied radioactive fraction of wastes and that United States published in the Federal to (Dot) =hich en noi used for. or are part of rulemaking is appropnate to establish a Register on November 20.1MO (55 R research end development actmnes". Foolines for procedural framework and substantive 46446). is extended to February L 1991. standards by which particular wastes parts: Comments must be received on r t ro at o repwessmg =mes are not mw faca.i.es will be assessed. The petitioners or before February L 1991. j i

t I i I APPENDIX 2 i HINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON i ) s l i

oman j( g UNITED STATES g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

g ', j y

W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 Cq t %' ' jf c ....+ MEMORANDUM FOR: The Record FROM: Michael T. Lesar, Chief Rules Review Section Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration

SUBJECT:

FEBRUARY 7, 1990 MEETING CONCERNING THE STATE OF WASHINGTON'S PETITION FOR RULEMAKING DATED JANUARY 2, 1990 On February 7, 1990, members of NRC's technical, legal, and administrative staff met with representatives of the State of Washington to discuss the petition for rulemaking submitted by the State of Washington on January 2, 1990, concerning the classification of high-level radioactive waste at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford site. (See Enclosure A for a list of attendees.) The purpose of this meeting was to resolve the issues raised by the NRC concerning this petition in its letter to the petitioner dated January 24, 1990. The NRC explained its inability to docket the petition because it could not make the determination that the petition contained a " general solution to the problem." The difficulty in making this determination was a result of the petition's failure to identify clearly the specific problem which is to be addressed. As a result, the NRC could not determine that the petition presents a general solution to the problem. The NRC requested that the petitioner either submit an amendmen't to the petition or resubmit a new petition in lieu of the petition that responded to our concerns. In addition, the NRC suggested that the petitioner's request should be made in terms of an amendment to Part 60 rather than to Appendix F to Part 50. ~ The NRC also suggested that the petitioner provide the specific proposed text the petitioner believes necessary to solve the identified problem. The petitioner explained that it is concerned over the lack of effective oversight concerning Department of Energy (DOE) decisions concerning the extent and type of pretreatment that is to be given to the storage tanks at Hanford. The petitioner believes that the pretreatment process would result in what is essentially a new waste stream, incidental waste, and that I

The Record 2 characterization of that waste stream should occur through a process that ensures public review. Furthermore, the petitioner believes that some form of NRC approval of proposed DOE action is necessary on a tank-by-tank basis to ensure that the proposed pretreatment for that tank is appropriate considering its contents. The petitioner indicated its desire that NRC review and approval occur prior any final decision so that the opportunity for meaningful intervention on a timely basis exists. The NRC indicated that it may not have the jurisdiction,,under statute, to respond to the petitioner's concerns. NRC involvement, even though the agency may be sympathetic to the State's goals, must reflect the responsibilities and authority that have been given the agency by law. The NRC requested that the petitioner address the jurisdictional question in its resubmitted petition to indicate why the petitioner believes NRC has the legal and jurisdictional authority to respond, favorably to the petitioner's request. f The NRC indicated that it was comfortable with the percentage of key radionuclides that would be disposed of as low-level waste when the tanks were grouted under DOE's proposal. However, the NRC did request additional information from DOE so that it would have the additional data necessary to validate the earlier decision. NRC also indicated that DOE outlined its pretreatment strategy in the EIS and that it was subject to public scrutiny at that time. The petitioner believes that the information provided by DOE in the EIS is too general and potentially misleading. The petitioner believes that as more specific information concerning the composition and characteristics of the wastes becomes available, the process should be subject to review and public scrutiny on a tank-by-tank basis. The petitioner is concerned that various influences may pressurize DOE into maximizing the amount going to grout. The petitioner believes that DOE information dissemination, which it characterized as a yearly status report, would not be meaningful or effective. The NRC discussed rulemaking as an effective approach to solving this situaticn. As explained by the NRC, rulemaking is not generally used in making the types of case-by-case determinations envisioned by the petitioner. Individual case or site decisions are usually made through a more adjudicatory manner and result in a licensing type of action. Rulemaking examines a class of future situations for which some generic solutions provide a framework for a particular course of action. The NRC suggested that the petitioner consider making its revised proposal in a manner that would address a broader universe. For example, rather than focusing on the waste tanks at Hanford, the

n i l The Record 3 petitioner should present its case in terms of seeking a generic j J definition and solution to the problem of characterizing and regulating " incidental waste" regardless of the site or activity. The State of Washington agreed to resubmit a new petition for 1 rulemaking in place of the petition for rulemaking dated January 2, 1990. The petitioner indicated its willingness to address the concerns expressed by the NRC and that it would attempt to clarify the statement of the problem and would present more specific language to indicate its proposed solution. This completes and closes action on the petition for rulemaking submitted by the State of Washington dated January 2, 1990. / L Michael T. Lesar, Chief Rules review Section Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated

~ t MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 7, 1990 List of Attendees Michael T. Lesar NRC/ADM (301) 492-7758 James R. Wolf NRC/OGC (301) 492-idel Chad Glenn NRC/NMSS (301) 492-0567 Dan Fehringer NRC/NMSS (301) 492-0426 I Richard Bangart NRC/NMSS (301) 492-3340 John Greeves NRC/NMSS (301) 492-3344 Rosetta Virgilio NRC/GPA (301) 492-0325 Roger Stanley Washington State (206) 438-7020 Dept. of Ecology Don Provost Washington State (206) 459-6718 Dept. of Ecology Jeffrey S. Myers Washington State (206) 459-6134 Office of Attorney General i b

'~, i I h ENCLOSURE 3 The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission k n 5 h i t r i-

if/$/l - [tG? - G' L $ ,1;4;,i'. rtz.

tfa W

CCLME T E E- 'J5 NR C >T ATI Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY '90 JJL 31 P3 :05 (hb) 4594XA). 01verna. WaVungton 98564 8711 e Mart Stop fy.11 ^ ^ ); c: July 27,1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Chief Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Enclosed for your consideration and for action by the Commission is a petition for rulemaking (under 10 CTR, part 60.2) regarding the classification of high-level radioactive wastes at U.S. Department of Energy facilities. Note that this petition constitutes a resubmittal by the parties following discussions with NRC staff. Please also refer to our initial submittal dated January 2, 1990, and to ey November 17, 1989, notice of intent which was addressed to Chairman }'enneth M. Carr of the Commission. 1 i Please note that the enclosed petition represents the combined views of both Washington and Oregon. Ve look forward to working with you and Commission staff on this very important issue. Sincerely, k h Terry Husseman Assistant Director Vaste Management Enclosure Oregon and Washington Congressional Delegation cc: Dan Silver John Wagoner David Yaden Cecil Sanchey

.~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS PETITION FOR RULEMAKING bliQ PEOUEST FOR INSTITU2' ION OF A RULEMAKING PROCEEDING The states of Washington and Oregon (" Petitioners") hereby respectfully request and petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its rulemaking and offer adequate opportunity for public comment, .~ authority, adopt aylation concerning classification of Hanford high-level radioactive wastes currently stored in retrievable, surface, storage facilities. Procedures governing the rulemaking process are found at 5 U.S.C. Section 533 and 10 C.F.R. Section 2.800-2.809. I. PROPOSED RULES The petitioners ask that the Commission amend 10 C.F.R. part to clarify the definition of "high-level radioactive vaste" 60.2 ("HLW") and the definition of "HLW facility." The petitioners request the Commission to: Establish a process to evalua,te the treatment of defense

1. reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such vastes will not be considered HLW if, prior to disposal, each tank is treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity.

Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides,

2. together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology), will be within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms.

The petitioners seek clarification that the disposal of wastes 3 treated to this standard is not disposal in a "HLW facility" as presently defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 60.2. The proposed text of this amendment is attached as Appendix 1. Should the Commission regard 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix F is as the controlling regulation to determine whether a vaste HLW, the petitioners request that the Commission also modify that definition as proposed herein. The Commission has, on different occasions, suggested that this petition for rulemaking address ? LO} \\f 00%

, i both of the definitions contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This petition is intended to address the definition of HLW applicable to the determination of whether a waste should be considered HLW for licensing purposes at the time of disposal or long-term storage. II. GROUNDS AND INTEREST This rulemaking petition is based, in part, on Section 202 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which defines Commission facilities and other authority over retrievable surface storage facilities authorized for the express purpose of, subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive vaste generated by the Administration, (now Department of Energy) which are not used ~ for, or are part of, research and development activities. This petition seeks clarification as to whether certain wastes are defined as high-level radioactive wastes under various regulatory definitions and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, thereby subjecting such vastes to the Commission's licensing authority. The grounds and interests of the state are based on the following f acts and issues. 1. HLW was first defined in 1970 by tlie Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC") in terms of the source of the material rather than by its hazardous characteristics. The AEC defined HLW as: aqueous vastes resulting from the operation those of the first cycle solvent' extraction system, or i equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor { fuels. 35 Fed. Reg. 17530, 17532, Nov. 14, 1970. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F. The present definition utilized by the Commission in 2. determining whether a waste to be disposed of in a geologic repository is "high-level radioactive waste" is found at 10 CFR Part 60.2. This rule provides: "High-level radioactive vaste" or "HLW" means: (1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid vastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 2

reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted. "HLW facility" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of th Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244) 3. The Congressional definition in the NWPA states: The term "high-level radioactive waste" means-- (A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation. 42 U.S.C. S 10101(12). The Commission thus has the authority to define whether wastes are " highly radioactive material" or are " solids derived from (liquid reprocessing wastes) that contain fission products in suf ficient concentrations." 42 U.S.C. 5 10101 (12). i 4. Legislative history reveals that Congress intended the commission to license defense reprocessing tank wastes at the point of long-term storage or disposal. H. Rep. No. 785, pt. 1, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 38, Aug. 20, 1982. Low fraction wastes resulting from pretreatment of tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted and disposed of in (RCRA regulated) land-based grout vaults on the Hanford reservation. If such vastes are HLW, they clearly fall l 1 1 These are DOE "f acilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act [the Atomic Energy Act]" and " Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of HLW generated by DOE, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities. --~~.-n a m t-umvrur..,

under the the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under 5 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. 5. Over the last 45 years, mixing of wastes from different has complica1ed the classification of Hanford tank sources wastes, including double-shell tank wastes.

Moreover, radionuclide inventories are estimates, and subject to substantial uncertainty.

Variables include incomplete and inaccurate records, the lack of actual fuel and/or waste analyses, and incomplete understanding of the chemistry and pathways in reprocessing and waste treatment processes. Thus, neither USDOE, the Commission, or the petitioners have adequate information regarding the radioactive portion of the double-shell tank waste. USDOE plans to pretreat the majority of Hanford double-shell 6. tank waste in order to partition vastes into a "high-level" portion for vitrification and a low-level or " incidental" portion which will subsequently be disposed of at the Hanford Grout facility (currently under construction). USDOE estimates that from a minimum of 13,000,000 curies to more than 21,000,000 curies will be disposed of at the Grout facility. 7. The petitioners have a strong vested interest in the safe, There permanent disposal of Hanford high-level tank wastes. is great uncertainty at this time, concerning the ability of USDOE to demonstrate that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from each tan.k can be or will be isolated for vitrification. This is evidenced by USDOE's exceptionally large uncertainty (between 13,000,000 and 21,000,000 curies) concerning residual activity scheduled for surface disposal via grout. (Table 1 from Enclosure 1 of a March 6, 1989 letter from Mr. A.J. Rizzo to Mr. Robert M. Bernero.) 8. To date, incidental wastes have been deemed appropriate f or disposal in grout, as provided in the Banford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order and consistent with RCRA, due to lower hazard from radioactivity. Grout vault if design is protective of human health and the environment heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during grout process, is kept within defined limits which ensure that grout vaults meet temperature standards for long-term stability for low-level forms. s( j 9. The present definition of HLW in the Commission's regulations and the NWPA is source based. Incidental waste source is impossible to ascertain due to mixing in defense waste tanks and: unavailability of accurate records. Radioactive contaraination in incidental waste may be from a "HLW" source, even though the amount of activity is PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 4

comparable to LLW, and human health and the environment adequately by grout disposal. Thus, unless the protected and "HLW Commission modifies the present definition of "HLW" facility," incidental wastes must be considered HLW because of their source and would be required to be disposed of according to S 8 of IGPA. 42 U.S.C. 5 10107. 10. The petitioners believe the Commission has the legal authority and obligation to promulgate regulations of defense reprocessing concerning the classificationand that Commission staff are uniquely wastes in tanks qualified to evaluate the appropriateness and ef f ectiveness The rule amendment of various pretreatment processes. suggested above would authorize the Commission to ensure including Hanford double-shell tank that such

vastes, subjected to safe and appropriate methods of wastes, are pretreatment.

based the definition of HLW has heretofore been the legal basis for finding 11. Because solely on the source of waste, incidental wastes resulting from the treatment of that must def ense high-level wastes in tanks would not be HLW, derive from 42 U.S.C. 5 10101 (12) ( A), the NWPA definition definition combines a source-based NWPA of HLW. The a quantitative-based definition for solid definition and wastes derived from liquid reprocessing wastes. Characterizing incidental waste disposal in grout vaults as legally supported only if such wastes would not non-HLW is be HLW under the INPA definition. Thus, if solid, grouted do not contain wastes which are derived from defense HLW " fission products in suf ficient concentrations," they could be considered incidental wastes and not HLW. The petitioners believe that the Commission needs to establish both a procedure and a standard for making this evaluation on a tank-by-tank basis. These are provided for in the petitioners' suggested rules. prevailing an interest in and a The petitioners have responsibility for the protection of the future health and ~ 12. The rule i safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest. essential to provide this amendment suggested here is protection. III. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT Padioactive Wastes From Defense Reprocessina Operations are A. Hich-Level Wastes The tern HLW is not defined in the Energy Reorganization The starting point in defining HLW for ERA purposes Act (" ERA"). Atomic Energy in existing regulations adopted by the is found PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 5

i Commission in 1970. In this regard, Congress can be presumed to have been aware of the existing regulatory definition when it used the tern HLW in Section 202 of ERA. The existing definition adopted by the AEC in 1970 (10 CFR Section 50, Appendix F), The definition focuses on the process by which HLW is produced. also focuses on the process by which HLW is in 10 CFR Part 60.2 produced. It is clear that defense reprocessing tank wastes, including double-shell tank wastes at Hanford, were considered HLW when the ERA was passed. The legislative history of the ERA reveals Congress' intent at that time to subject def ense facilities to NRC oversight. In fact, the Congress recognized that HLW was leaking from temporary AEC tanks at various facilities and intended to subject such wastes to NRC licensing at the point of application of a permanent vaste management solution.

Moreover, found that " existing the House Committee on Energy and Commerce lav vith respect to atomic energy defense activities is unchanged by this Act, and facilities for the disposal of waste from defense activities remain subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

H. Rep. No. 785, pt. 1, 97th Congress, 2d Sess., 38, August 20, 1982. This issue was considered in USDOE's Final EIS on defense wastes at Hanford. The Environmental Impact Statement considered various alternative methods for dealing with these defense vastes. USDOE recognized that: Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act

Further, requires commission licensing of those DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of long-term storage of high-level radioactive vaste which are not used for, or are not a part of, research and development activities.

Therefore, to the extent that any decision based on this final EIS requires defense high-level waste to be placed in a repository constructed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, or a f acility subject to licensing under Section 202 of*the Energy Reorganization Act such a repository or f acility would be subject to licensing by the commission. t Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, vol. I, 6.11. December 1987. In summary, we, the petitioners, find that under existing law, d_efense reprocessing tank waste, including Hanford double-shell tank waste, is HLW. A letter from the Commission cannot law. Consequently, change the status of these vastes under the long-term storage or disposal of such tank waste is currently subject to licensing by the Commission. However, the rule PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 6

amendment suggested here would authorize and require appropriate Commission oversight of the management of Hanford double-shell l tank wastes, but would allow, under certain circumstances, the avoidance of the admittedly cumbersome licensing process. Petitioners believe that the rule amendment suggested would would facilitate protect human health and the environment, meaningful Commission involvement in the ultimate disposal and/or and would long-term storage of Hanford double-shell tank waste, support implementation of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. B. The Commission Has Historically Supported a Tank-by-Tank Analysis to Determine Whether Residual Wastes Are HLW The decision on treatment and disposal of tank wastes at Hanford has been discussed between DOE and the Commission for several years. Through these discussions, the concept of an " incidental waste" was identified. Moreover, both DOE and the Commission have attempted to <lemonstrate how the in dental waste concept would be applied to the tank wastes at Hanford. Early in these discussions, DOE and the Commission recognized that the heterogeneity of Hanford tank wastes prevented a determination of from the first cycle solvent extraction whether the wastes were process. In 1988, DOE and the Commission began an evaluation of 28 DST tanks. DOE and the Commission agreed that two DSTs contained phosphate sulfate vaste (PSW), which does not arise from reprocessing and is clearly not HLW. See letter from Hugh L. Thompson to Michael J. Lawrenc.e, 7/11/88. DOE and the Commission also agreed that neutralized current acid wastes (NCAW) in two DSTs are HLW. Id. Finally, the Commission and DOE agreed to characterize the vaste in tank 106AN, containing double shell slurry feed wastes (DSSF). See Meeting Minutes, DOE-the Commission meeting, 9/22/88. The Commission recognized that it would be inappropriate to generalize the findings of this In a letter dated specific tank to an entire waste category. November 29, 1988, the commission stated: As a more fundamental comment on DOE's proposed the staff had hoped that a determination of

approach, the classification of DSSF waste in tank 106AN might apply to the entire DSSF category.

We no lonaer believe that this is practical. Information nrovided by DOE in our June 9 neetina indicates that individual p_SSF tanks contain different suites of wastes. the documentation and determination of waste Therefore, classification would need to proceed on a tank-by-tank basis." Letter from Michael J. Bell, NRC, to Ronald E. Gerton, USDOE, dated November 29,1988. (Emphasis added). PETITION FOR RULEMAXING - 7

The materials balance approach suggested by the Commission and DOE does not eradicate the problems caused by mixing of vastes in tanks and poor recordkeeping. It merely glosses over j J the classification by attributing some wastes (destined for HWVP) to the solvent extraction process and attributing others y (destined for grout) to non-HLW sources. he petitioners do not believe that this attribution should be ma e without an amendment to the applicable definition of HLW, which formalizes a process identifying those vastes which are inappropriate to classify for as HLW. This process must be done in a public manner to ensure confidence in the treatment process fully employed by DOE. Public scrutiny is essential to building confidence that the treatment standard suggested by the Commission and the petitioners is being met. The petitioners' proposed treatment standard closely resembles the alternative approach suggested by the Commission. See letter from Michael J. Bell to Ronald E. Gerton, 11/29/88. on a tank-by-It refines that approach by applying the concept tank basis to reflect the admitted problems associated with mixtures of wastes in these tanks and uncertainty caused by poor recordkeeping. Both the Commission and petitioners share the goal of ensuring that after the proposed treatment of tank wastes the maximum amount of radioactivity possible be routed to HWVP and ultimate geologic disposal. C. The Standards to Evaluate Pesidua) Wastes Should i be DeterTnined by Rulemakina Procedures t Rulemaking procedures are necessary to determine the nature of the incidental, lesser radioactive fraction of wastes. Rulemaking is appropriate to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine l whether a particular vaste is or is not HLW. Such a j determination necessarily will require interpretation of e I statutory language in the NWPA and the formulation of agency Both of these tasks are well suited to rulemaking l policy. i procedures where an agency seeks to approach foreseeable problems { of general applicability. See SEC v. Cheney Corn., 332 U.S.

194, 202 91947); NLRB v. Wynan-Gordon Co.,

394 U.S. 759 (1969);.see I also NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974). 1 This proposal is particularly appropriate because it process and general standards by which particular i establishes a vastes will be assessed. Particular determinations of how specific wastes will be characterized under these general standards can be left to individual adjudicative proceedings. t i PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 8 r

i 1 i Rulemaking procedures are appropriate to provide the maximum and scrutiny to HLW treatment and j degree of public involvementThe controversial evolution of the defense disposal decisions. waste program and the equally controversial history.of the deep geologic repository program demonstrate a keen public sensitivity and awareness of HLW issues. The public's interest and concerns should be addressed in a constructive, open fashion, which rulemaking is specifically designed for. The initiation of rulemaking procedures will demonstrate to the public the regulatory agencies' commitment to accountability. Decisions regarding how HLW should be handled and disposed of have direct impact upon the public and the environment. As an the Commission agency charged with upholding the public interest, its i should avail itself of the opportunity to demonstrate that are consistent with its statutory mandate, well reasoned actions and benefit the public interest. Rulemaking proceedings are the optimal vehicle by which the Commission can satisfy the public that treatment and disposal of defense HLW in tanks is being carefully scrutinized in a protective manner. 1 PETITIONERS: For the State of Washington For the State of Oregon L H_ %[ David Yaden ./ / Terry (fusseman / Director Assistant Director Oregon Department of Energy Waste Management / / Washington Department Dated: 7/)#/ 9p of Ecology / / 7\\1C 9O Dated: PETITION FOR RULIEAKING - 9

a APPENDIX 1 The petitioners suggest adoption of the following language to resolve the concerns expressed in the foregoing Petition for Rulemaking: Amended 10 C.F.R. Part 60.2: "High-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means: (1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting i .from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or .~ equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted; provided that if. Drior to disposal, defense reprocessino tank wastes are treated to remove the larcest technically achievable amount of radioactivity on a tank-by-tank basis (as provided in Appendix A), the_ treated residual fraction shall be considered an incidental waste and therefore not HLW. "HLW facility" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the l Commission pursuant to Sections 202 (3) and 202(4) of i the E Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244) gergy Reorganization i i i L 2 These are DOE " facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from l activities licensed under such Act [the Atomic Energy Act)" and i " Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities j authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive wastes generated by (DOE), l which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities." Facilities for the lona-term storace or disposal of incidental wastes resultina from treatment of defense. reprocessina tank wastes are not HLW facilities, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 10

NEW SECTION APPENDIX A PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINIt1G LARGEST TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE TREATMENT 10 C.F.R. Part 60 Appendix A, Waste Classification Procedures for Treated Defense Reprocessing Tank Wastes. least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing At wastes containing high-level waste components is treated, USDOE shall pretreated or blended prior to permanent disposal, submit the following to the Commission and the affected state and public in the Federal Register: 1. Data on physical characteristics of the waste, including density and percent solids, inorganic and organic constituents, and radiochemistry (e.g., gamma energy analysis, total alpha, total beta); 2. Volumetric data on untreated wasta, on volume changes expected as a result of treatment, pretreatment or blending activities and the expected volume of the final waste form (grout, salterete or vitrified waste); t 3. A description of the treatment processes, including an estimated mass balance for each process, an estimated cent recovery for each separation, and per concentrations of major waste components before and after treatment; The proposed grout or salterete f ormulation, together 4. with heat transfer calculations for the waste form; and 5. To the degree possible, treatment system models similar to the attached grout system model should be used to present data and describe processes. At least six months before a tank of defense reprocessing 'S tank wastes containing high-level waste components is pretreated, treated or blended prior to permanent disposal in near-surface or deep geologic facilities, the Commission shall require a license under Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. S 5842(4) unless the Commission, on a tank-by-tank basis, determines the following: 1. That USDOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank will be isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal; and PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 11

2. That use of permanent shallow land disposal for the tank waste will be limited to the incidental waste portion, which is the activity remaining after the largest technically achievable amount of activity has been removed; and 3. That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the USDOE submittal will achieve the stated separation and/or recovery efficiencies; and 4. That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the USDOE submittal are proven, cost effective, state-of-the-art processes, which are capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity. O e f f a PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 12

l t h - V Federal Register Notice l ) t h b t 9 1 W I -ru

[7590-01) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 60 Docket No. PRM-60-4 States of Washington and Oregon: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUKMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-4), submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which deals with the classification of radioactive waste materials at defense reprocessing facilities. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (LowerLevel), Washington,DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3878. 1

^ u SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Petition The States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation, initially submitted a petition for rulemaking on this subject on January 2, 1990. On February 7, 1990, the NRC staff conferred with the petitioner as contemplated by Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 2.802. In response to suggestions by the NRC staff, the petition was clarified and resubmitted (by the States of Washington and Oregon) on July 27, 1990. On December 17, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission publishe.d a notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking (55 FR 51732). The petition requested that the Commission revise the definition of "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW) so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U. S. Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is HLW and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority. The petitioners request that the Commission amend 10 CFR 60.2 to clarify the definition of HLW and the definition of "HLW facility." The petitioners request that the Commission: i 1. Establish a process to evaluate the treatment of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such wastes will not be considered HLW if, prior to disposal, each tank is treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity; and 2

2. Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides, together j with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology) will be within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms. The petitioners state that this petition for rulemaking is based, in part, on section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which provides for the Comission to exercise licensing and related regulatory authority over facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by DOE which is not used for, or are-part of, research and development activities. l According to the petitioners, legislative history reveals that Congress l intended the Comission to license defense reprocessing tank wastes at the point of long-term storage or disposal. The petitioners note that " low-fraction wastes" resulting from pretreatment of tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted and disposed of in land-based grout vaults on the Hanford site in accordance with regulations developed under the Resource Conservation and f Recovery Act (RCRA). The petitioners believe that if these wastes are HLW, j they clearly fall under the Comission's licensing jurisdiction under Section l 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 USC 5842(4). { 3 The petitioners acknowledge that the present definition of HLW in the Comission's regulations is based upon the source of the waste, and that j

• incidental waste" generated in the course of reprocessing is not HLW.

(The j latter point is evident from the proposal to amend 10 CFR 60.2 to provide that { a residual fraction would be " considered an incidental waste and, therefore, i not HLW.") The petitioners claim, however, that wastes stored in tanks at Hanford cannot practicably be classified as incidental waste (as opposed to 3 i

HLW) because the tanks contain a mixture of wastes from a number of sources, including reprocessing of reactor fuel. Moreover, the petitioners state that radionuclide inventories are estimates subject to substantial uncertainty, owing to lack of accurate records, and further, the petitioners assert that neither DOE, the Comission, nor the petitioners have adequate information regarding the source and composition of the tank waste. Hence, the petitioners believe that the Comission needs to establish both a procedure and a standard for making an evaluation as to whether wastes are HLW on a tank-by-tank basis. The petitioners assert that the proposed amendment is essential to provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest. II. Classification of DOE Reprocessing Wastes At Savannah River, West Valley, and Hanford, questions have arisen regarding the classification of reprocessing wastes for which DOE must provide disposal. In the long-standing view of ti.s Comission, these questions must be resolved by examining the source of the wastes in question. The reason for this is that when Congress assigned to NRC the licensing authority over certain DOE facilities for "high-hivel radioactive wastes", the Congress was referring to those materials encompassed within the meaning of the term "high-level radioactive waste" in Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50. (For a full statement of this position, see the discussion presented in the Comission's advance notice of proposed rulemaking, " Definition of 'High-Level Radioactive . aste'" (52 FR 5993, February 27,1987).) Accordingly, any facility to be W 4

used for the disposal of "those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent,..........." - as HLW is defined in Appendix F to Part 50 - must be licensed by the NRC. Most of the waste storage tanks at Savannah River, West Valiey, and Hanford contain wastes meeting this definition, and the facilities to be used for disposal of these wastes are, therefore, potentially subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction. However, when the Appendix F definition was promulgated, the Atomic Energy Comission specifically noted that the tem HLW did not include " incidental" waste resulting from reprocessing plant operations such as ion exchange beds, sludges, and contaminated laboratory items, clothing, tools, and equipment. Neither were radioactive hulls and other irradiated and contaminated fuel structural hardware encompassed by the Appendix F definition. Under the same reasoning, as the Commission has previously indicated, incidental wastes generated in further treatment of HLW (e.g., salt residues or miscellaneous trash from waste glass processing) would be outside the Appendix F definition. In the cases of Savannah River and West Valley wastes, DOE plans to retrieve the wastes from their storage tanks and to separate essentially all of the radioactive materials for eventual disposal in a deep-geologic HLW repository.* Accordingly, the pro,1ected recovery of HLW from the wastes in 'See 52 FR 5992, February 27,1987,(definition of "high-level waste"), n. 1, where the Commission characterizes as " incidental waste," the decontaminated sal,t with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nC1/g CS-137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2nti/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy's FEIS on long-term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, DOE /EIS-0023, 1979. Although an EIS has. not yet been published for the West Valley Demonstration Project, preliminary estimates indicate the likelihood of an equivalent degree-of separation. 5

tank storage at those sites will be sufficiently complete that the i decontaminated salts and other residual wastes are classified as " incidental" (i.e,non-HLW). The NRC will have no regulatory authority over DOE's facilities to be used for processing and disposal of the incidental waste. At Hanford, DOE plans tc process the wastes presently stored in double-shell tanks in a manner similar to that planned for the wastes at Savannah River and West Valley. Most of the radioactive constituents of the wastes would be separated for eventual deep-geologic repository disposal and the residual salts would be disposed of on-site in a shallow, near-surface concrete-like grout facility. (Plans for processing of single-shell tank wastes are still under development.) However, classification of the Hanford double-shell tank wastes has proven more problematical than did classification of Savannah River and West Valley wastes. At Hanford, many of the primary reprocessing wastes were generated using older separation technologies, which resulted in substantial dilution of those wastes with non-radioactive materials. In addition, many of the tanks at Hanford contain mixtures of wastes from both reprocessing sources and other sources.

Finally, recordkeeping at Hanford was not always thorough enough to allow precise determinations of the origins of waste now present in specific tanks at Hanford. For these reasons, it does not appear to be practical at Hanford to separate essentially all of the radicactive materials for eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and to document such separation. Some of the Hanford tanks wastes cannot be readily classified as either HLW or incidental wastes using only the definitions and concepts discussed above.

Taking into accounts these uncertainties and their implications with respect to NRC jurisdiction, the NRC and DOE staff held several meetings to 6

explore the situation in detail. A principal objective of the parties was to ascertain, to the extent practicable, whether some or all of the wastes should be regarded as HLW and whether, on the other hand, some or all of the wastes should be classified as non-HLW. Several things became clear as a result of these meetings. First, management records were adequate for DOE to determine that two double-shell waste tanks do not contain wastes from reprocessing of reactor fuels. Therefore, these wastes clepely do not contain HLW within the Appendix F definition. The NRC agreed with DOE that any disposal facility intended exclusively for these wastes would not be subject to NRC licensing authority. Second, DOE has carried out a " material balance" analysis of waste management activities at Hanford. This analysis estimated the total amount of "first cycle reprocessing wastes" generated at Hanford and, to the extent practical, the current location of those wastes. DOE also estimated that, after adjusting for radioactive decay, the amount of radioactive material expected to be recovered for repository disposal would be nearly as large as the inventory of reprocessing waste originally generated. Hence, the proposed on-site grout disposal of the residual waste from the double-shell tank waste processing would be only a very small fraction of the reprocessing wastes originally generated at the site. (On-site disposal of single-shell tank ~ wastes, if pursued by DOE, would represent a larger fraction of the total 5 waste inventory generated). Finally, DOE studied possible technologies for additional waste processing, and agreed to remove the largest practical amount of radioactive material from any double-shell tank wastes to be disposed of in on-site grout facilities. This comitment by DOE, coupled with the material-balance study 7

indicating that most of the originally generated radioactive material would be recovered, led the NRC staff to conclude that the residual waste material after processing of double-shell tank wastes should be classified as incidental waste, since they are wastcs incidental to the process of recovering HLW from tank wastes (within the sense of the Appendix F definition of HLW). With this classification, DOE could proceed with on site disposal of such incidental wastes in a grout facility without licensing by the NRC. It should be noted that if the DOE processing operations go as planned, the residual activity of these incidental wastes would be below the concentration limits for class C wastes under the waste classification criteria of 10 CFR Part 61. Following its review, the NRC staff, by letter dated September 25, 1989, from R. M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to A.J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, endorsed DOE's plans to sample and analyze the grout feeds before disposal in an effort to control the final composition of the grout feed. However, the staff indicated that if in the course of conducting the sampling program, DOE were to find that the inventories of key radionuclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than previously estimated, DOE should notify the NRC and other affected parties in a timely manner. It should be noted that the appropriate classification of some Hanford wastes remains to be determined - specifically any single-shell tank wastes j that DOE might decide to dispose of on-site, and any empty but still contaminated waste tanks DOE might dispose of in place. For both types of 8

wastes, a case-by-case determination of the appropriate waste classification might be necessary. III. Discussion The petition for rulemaking presents two basic issues. The question is not whether "high-level waste" should be interpreted by reference to the source-based concepts derived from Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50. Even the petitioner agrees that this is proper. Nor is there any fundamental challenge to the concept that " incidental wastes" are excluded from the definition of "high-level waste." The issues are much narrower ones. The first issue is a substantive one - the criterion to be applied in differentiating incidental waste from high-level waste. The second issue is a procedural one - the process that should be employed by the Commission in arriving at a judgment whether or not it has jurisdiction over particular facilities. These will be addressed in turn. t A. The Standard for Classification We first consider the standard proposed b; the petitioners for distinguishing high-level waste from incidental waste. Under this standard, to be applied on a tank-by-tank basis, wastes would be considered to be high-level waste unless they have been treated, prior to disposal, "to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity." Since this is not the concept embodied in Appendix F to 10 CFR 50 (and, hence, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act), it is inappropriate. Rather, under 9

Appendix F, it is anticipated that incidental waste streams will be generated in addition to the primary solvent extraction wastes; and there is no suggestion that further steps be undertaken to remove (and treat as HLW) "the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity." Although Appendix F does not require separation of the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity, it does contemplate a degree of separation consistent with the technology for fuel reprocessing that was available at the time of its adoption. As to the required degree of separation, the contemporaneous views of the Atomic Energy Comission with respect to management of the AEC's defense wastes shed light on the principles that should apply. These views appear in AEC Hanual Chapter 0511, which reflects a policy of controlling the release of radioactive materials to the lowest levels " technically and economically oractical." Although this policy refers to control of releases rather than stages in the waste management i regime, it is not unreasonable to regard it as applying to the latter as well. In determining whether reprocessing wastes remain HLW or not, therefore, one appropriate question is whether the quantities of radioactive materials have been reduced to the lowest levels that are " technically and economically practical." At an August 4, 1989 meeting with the States of Washington and Oregon and the Yakima Indian Nation, DOE presented the results of a study of the cost-effectiveness of various waste processing alternatives. (Minutes of the meeting are available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room.) DOE's " baseline" disposal plans would have recovered all but about 12-13 million curies of cesium-137. DOE's study of the cost-effectiveness of i further processing indicated that an additional 6 million curies of cesium-137 could be economically removed for repository disposal. DOE comitted to 10

removal of this additional six million curies of cesium-137. However, efforts to further recover cesium-137 (beyond the six million curies just discussed) or other radionuclides for repository disposal would involve substantial increases in costs and the NRC staff agreed that the costs appeared to be unreasonably high. The NRC staff was concerned, nevertheless, that even the degree of separation proposed by DOE might not satisfy the underlying policies of Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50. (In legalistic terms; although those aqueous wastes resulting from the extraction cycles would be converted to dry solids to be transferred to a geologic repository, the " extraction cycles" themselves might not achieve sufficient recovery to carry out the regulatory objectives.) While there is no particular quantitative criterion in Appendix F, clearly it was the goal to remove the great bulk of the hazardous radioactive material to a repository. In response to the NRC staff concern, DOE developed a material balance that demonstrated (albeit on the basis of incomplete records) that nearly all of the radionuclides in the original spent fuel would be extracted or would have decayed. The amount of residual radioactive material in DOE's " baseline" plans would have constituted only about 3-5 percent of the radioactive material originally in the wastes, and with the additional cost-effective processing identified by DOE, the residual activity level would be reduced to about 2-3 percent of that originally in the wastes. Moreover, as DOE indicated, the concentration of radionuclides in the grout would be comparable to Class C low-level waste as defined in 10 CFR Part 61 for cesium and transuranics, and to Class A or B for the remainder. On the basis of these judgments, the NRC staff concluded that the policies set out in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 were satisfied, that with 11

respect to wastes now present in double-shell tanks the high-level radioactive waste (within the meaning of the Energy Reorganization Act) would be removed from the site, and that any radioactive material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction. The petitioners also requested that the Comission exerci:e oversight to assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms. However, inasmuch as the grout, for the reasons stated above, is not considered high-level waste, the Comission does not have the authority to carry out this oversight function. B. Procedural Issues 1. Whether Rulemakina is Necessary and Desirable i The petitioners urge that the Comission initiate rulemaking procedures that would result in uit establishment of substantive criteria for determining whether particular radioactive wastes either are or are not high-level waste. Generally, a decision whether to proceed by rulemaking (as requested) or to make determinations in individual, ad hoc litigation lies within the informed discretion of the cognizant administrative agency. Rulemaking is most appropriate where an agency seeks to establish a general principle, having prospective effect, to be applied in a wide variety of factual contexts. Where the issue before an agency involves the application of law to a very specific existing fact situation, especially where that situation is not representative of other matters that may need to be decided by the agency, 12

then it is clearly more efficient and more to the point to decide by a process of adjudication (i.e., on a case-by-case basis). Applying these principles to the petition at hand, the Comission has little difficulty in concluding that rulemaking is neither necessary nor desirable. Reprocessing wastes from defense activities are located at only four principal locations in the United States. The Comission has previously determined that the residual contamination anticipated from proposed operations at Savannah River should be characterized as incidental waste and not high-level waste. [ DOE /EIS-0023, Nov. 1979, and 52 FR S993; Feb. 27, 1987). Defense wastes generated at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant are markedly different from those at Hanford and Savannah. Therefore, if questions about classification of the Idaho wastes should arise, precedents established at Savannah River and Hanford would be difficult to epply. Any defense wastes at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center will require treatment in accordance with the applicable provisions of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. The limited practical effect of the decision - i.e., restricted to the Hanford tanks - is reason enough to proceed by way of adjudication instead of rulemaking. The Comission is persuaded further by the need to avoid making premature decisions with respect to the wastes stored at Hanford in single - walled tanks that are not the subject of pending treatment plans. If the Comission were to establish rules to apply to the wastes in those tanks, our s inquiry would have to be greatly broadened; and it might become necessary to consider a wide range of factual situations that might or might not ever come to pass in the future. 13 l _~

i 2. Whether the Commission Is Adecuately Informed Petitioners suggest that their proposed procedures, which include detailed tank-by-tank assessments, are necessary to ensure confidence in the treatment process employed by DOE and to building confidence that the treatment standard is being met. it is The issue to be decided by the Commission is a much narrower one: merely to determine whether the activities being undertaken by the Department As in the case of of Energy fall within the NRC's statutory jurisdiction. other persons whose activities may fall within our regulatory sphere, the ~ Commission may from time to time demand information so as to be able to determine whether or not to initiate an enforcement action. The NRC staff has 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 contemporaneous 1y to the public. 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 standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well. As indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Commission has obtained information that is sufficient for this purpose. 14 .l l'

l 3. Future adiudications The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in accordance with their proposal, particular determinations of how specific wastes would be characterized would be "left to individual adjudicative proceedings." The NRC infers that the " proceedings" contemplated by petitioners are licensing activities of the kinds specified in Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 USC 2239. Adjudicat' ions in this type of proceeding are in some cases to be conducted in accordance with the hearing provisions of Subpart L of 10 CfR Part 2. These procedures are appropriate with respect to activities that are subject to NRC regulatory and licensing authority. However, the NRC is reluctant to employ them in the context that is proposed - to determine if NRC has jurisdiction. This scrutiny of DOE activities might be seen as an unwarranted intrusion into a sphere which Congress has determined is not of regulatory concern to this agency. Moreover, if we were to find that the adjudications were properly to be regarded as Section 189 proceedings, the NRC would not be able to undertake them, because the NRC is barred from using any appropriated funds "for any purpose related to licensing of any defense activity or f acility of the Department of Energy." 42 USC 7272. 4. Other considerations While both NRC and DOE have focused their attention upon the meaning of the statutory term "high-level waste" and its application to the materials in storage at Hanford, other considerations might come into play in determining 15

whether or not DOE activities are subject to licensing. In particular, it should be recalled that NRC exercises licensing authority only as to " facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of [ DOE-generated] high-level waste." The content of individual waste tanks is by no means dispositive of the question whether the facilities for storage of the treated waste are subject to licensing. A number of other factors might need to be examined: (1) what are the limits, geographically and functionally, of " facilities;" (2) have those facilities been " authorized" (and by whom is such authorization required); and (3) have those facilities been authorized "for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level waste" where those who may authorize the facility make no express mention of high-level waste. It is not necessary for the Commission to address these ques. uns in order to dispose of the pending petition. IV. Public Comments on the Petition The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Two letters were from other Federal agencies, two were from public interest groups, one was from a nuclear industry corporation, and seven were from private individuals. Most coments were opposed to the petition. A. Process and Standards Proposed in Petition S Several coments expressed concern that granting the petition would have an adverse effect on the timely disposal of radioactive waste at Hanford. This was a concern because many of the Hanford waste tanks were sean as 16

p nearing or exceeding their design life. The provisions of the rulemaking proposed in the petition were viewed as limiting DOE's flexibility in selecting the most effective processes for waste treatment and disposal. The petitioner's request that "best available technology" be used in removing HLW material from the tank wastes was seen as ignoring costs of disposal, exposures to workers, and environmental impacts. Some coments disputed the petitioner's claim that the rulemaking proposed in the petition would offer a better process for classification and disposal of the Hanford tank wastes. These comenters did not see any advantage in the proposed process over the process for classification and disposal currently in use. One coment suggested that the 'Comission's rulemaking requiring disposal of Greater-than-Class C waste in a geologic repository or Comission-approved alternative (53 FR 17710, May 19,1989) might force DOE to allocate resources to handle the hazards, rather than to waste further time fruitlessly searching for ways to remove more and more activity from one part of the waste. The action proposed by the petitioners was viewed as not increasing the safety of disposal of the waste. The Commission believes that adherence to the standard of technical and economic practicality generally reflects agreement with these coments. B. Creation of a Risk-Based Classification System Several coments, while noting that the rulemaking proposed by the petition would not do so, favored creation of a risk-based system of radioactive waste classification. 17

i ~~ ,i The Comission has previously addressed the costs and benefits of creating a new system of radioactive waste classification. Its rationale for not doing so is outlined in the statement of considerations to the proposed Part 61 rulemaking on disposal of Greater-than Class C waste (53 FR 17709, May 18, 1988). Further consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this proposed rulemaking action. C. NRC Licensing Authority Some coments focused on the licensing authority of NRC over the Hanford tank wastes. DOE stated that the rulemaking suggested in the petition would involve NRC in regulation of DOE's predisposal waste treatment and processing activities, which would be inconsistent with NRC authority to license specific DOE facilities under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Another comenter stated that the proposed rulemaking was inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of DOE and NRC. These arguments have already been discussed, and require no further response. A commenter concluded that DOE was currently in violation of 10 CFR Part 30 requirements for a license because various near surface vaste disposal facilities at Hanford are being used for long-term storage" of high-level radioactive waste. The issue is not pertinent to the subject matter of the petition. However, in any case, the comment does not take into 3 consideration the judicial interpretation of the term in Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Comission, 606 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir., 1979). 18

l I i PuDlic Input l A number of comments stressed the importance of adequate public input into decision making regarding disposal of the Hanford tank wastes. Some called for public hearings on this subject-to be held in the Pacific f Northwest. One commenter noted that the EIS which was done for Hanford { provided the opportunity for public coment. Another commenter believed that the Comission's rulemaking procedures did not offer the public a better opportunity for input than does the current licensing procedure. As indicated in the Discussion above, the NRC's review of the situation with respect to the double-walled tanks has been carried out publicly from the start. Meetings with DOE have been open, and at least one of the petitioners (the State of. Washington) has been provided advance notice and an opportunity [ to attend. Documents have been placed in the Public Document Room and have been made available for public inspection. It appears to the Commission that i the essence of the issue concerns the appropriate standard for evaluating whether certain wastes should be regarded as high-level waste or not. Sufficient factual information is available to carry out these evaluations. Also, the petition for rulemaking has afforded an opportunity for views to be expressed with respect to the appropriateness of the standard. ~ A decision that NRC lacks licensing jurisdiction does not mean that opportunities for public input will be denied. As DOE undertakes its waste management activities, it will afford opportunities for public participation to the extent required by its own enabling statutes, regulations, and orders. l 19 )

E. Other Coments One comenter took exception to the petitioner's claim that the The radioactive inventory of the Hanford tank wastes was inadequately known. comenter believed that the contents of the tanks can be bounded well enough to judge the relative safety of various disposal options. The Comission considers the available information to be sufficiently bounded to enable it to conclude that DOE's proposed operations (with respect to the material stored in the double-walled tanks) can result in the removal from Hanford of as much of the radioactive waste as may be technically and economically practical. Once these judgments are made, it is not the NRC's role to judge the relative safety of various disposal options, and we decline to do so. One coment stated that while the petition was aimed solely at the Hanford tank wastes, its provisions could potentially affect all radioactive wastes from reprocessing, including those at Savannah River, West Valley, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. As the waste management programs at these other sites are in different stages of implementation, the impacts of the provisions would vary from site to site. As indicated above, the Comission is sensitive to this consideration yet believes that the specific case at hand only needs to be addressed at this time. Some coments urged the Comission not to change the present definition of HLW. The Comission is not changing the present definition. 20

V. Conclusion The petition for rulemaking is denied. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of , 1992. For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. t i Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Comission. I

• S 6

i 21

( 1 t F 5 f t t i a f 0 4 Congressional Letters f [ ? i s t f

l ~ The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works 1 l United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson Distribution: Subj/ Circ /Chron EBeckjord CHeltemes W0tt MSilberberg B:\\CONG.I.TR BMorris FCostanzi

• See attached for previous concurrences.

WMB:DRA* WMB:DRA* WMB:DRA* DD:DRA NTanious JRandall MSilberberg FCostanzi i 1/8/92 1/B/92 1/9/92 2/ /92 j i D:DRA DD:RES D:RES EDO OCA BMorris CHeltemes EBeckjord JTaylor DRathbun 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92

I 4 The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs i

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Representative Carlos J. Moorhead Distribution: Subj/ Circ /Chron EBeckjord CHeltemes W0tt MSilberberg B:\\CONG.LTR BMorris q FCostanzi

• See attached for previous concurrences WMB:DRA*

WMB:DRA* WMB:DRA* DD:DRA NTanious JRandall MSilberberg FCostanzi ) 1/8/92 1/8/92 1/9/92 2/ /92 i D:DRA DD:RES D:RES EDO OCA 1 BMorris CHeltemes EBeckjord JTaylor DRathbun 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 i l

' i-l l 1 E i e The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, chairman t Subcommittee on Energy and the Enys.onment v Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Represenatives Washington, D. C. 20515 -j

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the l States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of I high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director-Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Representative John J. Rhodes Distribution: Subj/ Circ /Chron EBeckjord CHeltemes W0tt MSilberberg B:\\ CONC _LTR' BMorris FCostanzi i

• See attached for previous coacurrences WMB:DRA*

~ )MB:DRA* WMB:DRA* DD:DRA 1 NTanious JRandall MSilberberg FCostanzi l 1/8/92 1/8/92 1/9/92 2/ /92 D:DRA DD:RES D:RES EDO OCA BMorris CHeltemes EBeckjord JTaylor DRathbun 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 2/ /92 l i

l } i The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C. R0510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Qffice of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. y In this notice, the NRC is ' denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC r lations. Sincerely, ic S. Beckjord, Director 0 ice of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated IDE ICAL LETTERS TO: The H' orable Philip Sharp, Chairman cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson Subco ttee on Energy and Power Distribution: Comitt on Energy and Comerce Subj/ Circ /Chron United S tes House of Representatives EBeckjord cc: Repre ntative Carlos Moorhead CHeltemes W0tt The Honorab Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman MSilberberg Subcomittee n Energy and the Environment B:\\CONG.LTR Comittee on terior and Insular Affairs BMorris United States F use of Representatives FCostanzi cc: Representati e John J. Rhodes M. A/ ~h..b WMBiDRA ' hTMBAd WMB$kA / 0 NTanious JRandalN MSilberberg F nzi 1/8/92 1/9/92 1/9/92 1/1 92 D:h)9 Qy svp 90 DD:RES D:RES Morris CHeltemes EBec kjord i 92 1/ /92 1/ /92

i a Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation i

i z M f,$g6R Rf Gp 'o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 3e g W ASHING T ON, D. C. 20555 s l 4 %,.....f Mr. Dan Silver Office of the Governor Insurance Building AQ-44 Olympia, Washington 98504

Dear Mr. Silver:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated 1

4 i ga aecoq'o, UNITED STATES E. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n 4 W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 ,o# e.... Mr. Cecil Sanchey, Chaiman Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948

Dear Mr. Sanchey:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the j . States of Washington and Oregon,'which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, l - i Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j

Enclosure:

As stated i a P di I i

i e 1 I I " "4'o c9 +4 UNITED STATES l g 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e wash NcToN.o.c.20sss 4,..... # Mr. David Stewart-Smith, Administrator Division of Nuclear Safety and Energy Facilities Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street, NE j Salem, Oregon 97310

Dear Mr. Stewart-Smith:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. 1 In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated h 4 o t )

i i ) i i A i 1 E Draft Public Announcement e t G D f I l r

I i i 4 Mr. Cecil Sanchey, Chairman Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee i Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road l Toppenish, Washington 98948

Dear Mr. Sanchey:

} Thrt NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the l enclosed Federal Reaister notice No. PRM-60-4. l r In this notice, the NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which request changing the definition of high-level waste in the NRC regulations. Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution: IDENTICAL LETTERS TO: Subj/ Circ /Chron Mr. Dan Silver EBeckjord Office of the Governor CHeltemes Insurance Building AQ-44 W0tt Olympia, Washington 98504 MSilberberg B:CONG.LTR Mr. David Stewart-Smith, Administrator B. Morris Division of Nuclear Safety & Energy Facilities F. Costanzi Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 WMB:DR&4 './ 5 DD5 s NTanioR Mandall erberg FCosthzi 1/b/92 1/T'/92 1/7/92 1/3 v92 M. DD:RES D:RES A_Morri s - CHeltemes EBeckjord RA(/92 1/ /92 1/ /92 [ l D I

i

i.

Draft Public Announcement t p t P t L 1 I t

NRC REJECTS PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rejected a petition for rulemaking submitted by the states of Oregon and Washington seeking revisions in the Commission's current definition of high-level radioactive wastes. i In addition, the states asked the Commission to develop new standards which would have permitted the classification of ) radioactive wastes stored in tanks at the Department of Energy's Hanford (Washington) facility as high-level radioactive wastes subject to NRC licensing authority. Under the petitioners' proposal, the Commission would have: 1. Established a process to evaluate the treatment of i defense wastes on a tank-by-tank basis so that the largest, technically-achievable amount of radioactive materials would be removed; and 2. Required that the heat produced by residual radioactive materials, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if used as a treatment technology) would be within temperature limits for long-term stability of low-level radioactive wastes.

Based on its review of the petition and the public comments received on it, the Commission has concluded that the Department of Energy already is committed to do all that is technically and economically practical to remove high-level radioactive wastes from the Hanford tanks for disposal in an underground geologic repository which would be licensed by the NRC and that any. remaining wastes could be disposed of in a manner that would present no unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public and would not be high-level radioactive wastes subject to the NRC's licensing authority. G:\\DPR\\HAN __}}