ML20057B659
| ML20057B659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/16/1992 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Heltemes C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057B646 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-156 NUDOCS 9309230088 | |
| Download: ML20057B659 (88) | |
Text
^~
^
d
~
N 7 a y ae
.se-
%6 g
'~
ft$
un:Tro states NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f) o k
Y(
Ie'",'cC639s$"'
@ #PM
.r
~'
s.....
MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues an emaking Office of Nuclear R atory ese h
FROM:
Carlton Kammerer Director 5
Office of State rogr O
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HANFORD RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE (PRM 60-4) i I concur in the subject denial package and suggest adding the individual noted below as a cc to the letter to Cecil Sanchey, Chairman of the Yakima Indian Nation. I would also appreciate being added to the distribution list to receive a copy of the letters to the States of Washington, Oregon and the Yakima Indian Nation. Thank you.
i Mr. Russell Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration / Waste Hanagement Program Yakima Indian Nation i
cc: H. S. Tanious RES Task Leader I
9309230008 930504 PDR FOIA FACAROS93-156 PDR
l For:
The Commissioners from:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Sub.iect:
DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD
Purpose:
To request that the Commission: (1) consider and deny the petition (Enclosure 1, Federal Register Notice, Denial of Petition) for rulemaking (PRM-60-4) from the States of Washington and Oregon regarding classification of certain radioactive wastes at Hanford, Washington, and (2) approve the transmittal of the enclosed letter to the Department of Energy (Enclosure 2) on the classification of the Hanford radioactive tank waste.
Summary:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received petition PRM-60-4 from the States of Washington and Oregon, dated July 27,1990. 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 most recent of which was on July 16, 1992, and on the basis of information provided by DOE, the staff has concluded that the activities in question are expected to 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 facility at Hanford. This conclusion CONTACT:
Naiem S. Tanious, RES 492-3878
The Commissioners 2
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 that to accomplish this, processes are employed that result in the largest recovery that is technically and economically practical. The staff believes that this separation vould 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. Since the principles of waste classification are well established and can be applied on a case-by-case basis, the staff recommends that this petition be denied.
The staff also recommends that the enclosed letter (Enclosure 2) be transmitted to 00E. This letter would advise DOE that the classification criteria (as reflected in the preceding paragraph) should be applied in light of current information, including information resulting from DOE's planned reevaluation of its tank waste remediation options.
Petition 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 3). 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 petitioners as contemplated by Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 2.802. As suggested by the NRC staff, the petition was clarified and resubmitted on July 27, 1990.
The minutes of the February 7, 1990, conference are attached as Enclosure 4.
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 Petition' submitted to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC, is attached as Enclosure 5) 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:
T 1.
Establish a process to evaluate the processing of defense wastes on a tank-by-tank basis such that the I
The Commissioners 3
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 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 question presented by the petition is whether the NRC has regulatory authority for the processing or disposal of radioactive wastes now stored in 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." Aside from spent nuclear fuel, 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 materials for
n Coa
/yv The Commissioners 4
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 ay classified as " incidental" (i.e, non-HLW). -Be-NRC will I C4 g, m I 4avemo-regulatwy-auther4ty e,w DOE's fas44+t4es-to4e* '
T> c J
"4 "tl ed kr-procewing-and-duposal of the incidental e ste^
..n,. q -t v ~ { g g "
-[. h c< d At Hanford, DOE plans to process the wastes presently stored 4-in the double-shell tanks in a manner similar to that 4 W J
s planned for the wastes at Savannah River and West Valley.
a However, the Hanford wastes were genera'ted using older O.A
.,y & )
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.
Also, recordkeeping at Hanford was not always thorough enough to allow precise determination of the origins of waste now present in specific tanks at Hanford.
For these reasons, some of the Hanford tank 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 in 1988-1989 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 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 entering all Hanford tanks.
'See 52 FR 5992, February 27, 1987 (definition of "high-level waste"), n.
1, where the Commission characterizes as " incidental waste," the decontaminated salt with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nCi/g Cs-137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2nCi/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy's Fels 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 5
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, 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 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 pli.nned, 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 from R. M.
Bernero to A. J. Rizzo, dated September 25, 1989, endorsed DOE's plans (this letter was approved by the Commission in SECY-89-164, May 30, 1989) 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 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, and any empty but still contaminated waste tanks DOE might dispose of in-place.
For both types of wastes, a case-by-case determination of the appropriate waste classification might be necessary.
The HRC and DOE staffs met on July 16, 1992 at Richland, In this meeting, DOE presented some options for Washington.
processing the waste in the double-shell tanks, along with available information on the characteristics of the wastes within these tanks based on recent analyses. Based on the meeting, the staff concluded that the new analyses and j
r the double-shell tank wastes are planned disposition fp'with DOE's commitments of March 1989.
reasonably consistent Issues Presented: The petition for rulemaking presents two issues. The first is a substantive one, i.e., what criteria or standards should be applied to differentiate incidental waste from high-level waste. The second issue is a procedural one,
{
i.e., what process should be employed by the Commission in
The Commissioners 6
arriving at a judgment whether or not it has jurisdiction over particular facilities.
The petitioners suggest that the proper standard, to be applied on a tank-by-tank basis, is to consider all processing streams to be high-level waste unless they have been treated, prior to disposal, "to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity." Adoption of such a criterion would certainly serve the goal, which had been contemplated by the Commission, of removing the hazardous process streams to a geologic repository for permanent storage.
The petitioners' proposed standard, though, is not the only one that might reasonably be derived from the applicable regulatory history. The task before the Commission is to f
articulate a standard that is faithful to the policies that underlie Appendix F and Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act. These policies, the staff believes, contemplate that the great bulk of the radioactive waste
{
products should ordinarily be removed from the plants where I
i they were generated and that, to accomplish this, processes should be employed that result in the largest recovery for purposes of disposal that is technically and economically practical. Consideration of economic factors is consistent with contemporaneous policies of the Atomic Energy l
Commission (AEC). Thus, in a like manner in connection with f
the control of releases of radioactive materials from licensed facilities, AEC Manual Chapter 0511 called for such releases to be kept to the lowest levels " technically and economically practical." Moreover, technical and economical considerations aside, DOE has declared that any remaining material would be subject to management that seeks to provide a measure of protection of the public health and safety comparable to the performance objectives of the Commission's regulations (10 CFR Part 61). The execution of DOE's plans to recover waste to the extent practical and to manage waste in a manner it has specified will meet the applicable regulatory goals.
Such actions will conform to the explanatory statements made by the AEC when it promulgated Appendix F--namely, "that the public interest requires that a high degree of decontamination capability be included in such facilities and that any residual radioactive contamination after decommissioning be sufficiently low as not to represent a hazard to the public health and safety." 35 FR 17530, November 14, 1970.
When the question regarding classification of wastes was first raised, the NRC staff identified to DOE some
__m___
The Commissioners 7
approaches that might be used in distinguishing HLW from incidental waste. One approach was expressed as follows:'
As an alternative approach, we suggest that DOE attempt an overall material balance for HLW at the Hanford site, using the source-based meaning of HLW.
It is hoped that this approach might provide a more efficient means of identifying those wastes subject to licensing by NRC under terms of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act. Under this approach, if DOE could demonstrate that the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction" wastes has been segregated for disposal as HLW, then NRC would view the residual as a non-HLW. We would anticipate that at least 90 percent of the activity would have been separated in this way.
Thus, if it can be shown that DOE has processed the waste with the intent to dispose of the HLW in a repository or other appropriate licensed facility, leaving behind only a small fraction of only moderately radioactive material, then the goals stated in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix F and incorporated in the Energy Reorganization Act would have been satisfied; and the disposal of the residual would accordingly not be subject to NRC licensing.
Under this approach, the Commission might still assert jurisdiction over facilities used for long-term storage of large fractions of the waste originally generated, especially where the concentration of radionuclides is high.
The Commission would presumably assert such jurisdiction whenever it believes its statutory mandate applies. By the same token, however, the NRC's authority with respect to defense facilities is carefully limited by law, and the Commission has no warrant to go beyond those bounds.
In the present case, DOE considered the practicality of various waste processing alternatives and presented the
- Letter from Michael J. Bell, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Division of low-Level Maste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to Ronald E. Gerton, Director, Waste Management Division, Richland Operations Office, DOE, November 29, 1988. The letter included some
" suggested criteria" involving a " good faith" effort to achieve isolation of HLW from nonradioactive salts, such an effort to be judged, as a practical matter, by considering (among other things) alternative separation processes.
)
w The Commissioners 8
results of its study by letter dated March 6, 1989.' The results were also transmitted at a meeting among interested parties, including the petitioners, held on August 4,1989.
(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, together with lesser activities of strontium-90, transuranics, and other radionuclides.'
DOE's study indicated the practicality of removing an additional 6 million curies of cesium-137 for repository disposal, and DOE proposed to remove this additional 6 million curies of cesium-137. 00E also identified additional treatment alternatives, with their associated costs, which it viewed as not being economically practical.
DOE's material balance showed that, after the residue from the double-shell tank wastes is grouted, 2 to 3 percent of the key radionuclides which originally entered all Hanford tanks will be disposed of as LLW in near-surface vaults.
The concentrations of radionuclides would be comparable to Class C for cesium and transuranic wastes, and to Class A or B for the remainder.' DOE also noted certain engineering and institutional factors that might compensate, especially as to potential intrusion hazards, for the possibility that the total amount of waste that would be grouted would be greater than the amount of Class C waste that might be contained in a typical commercial burial ground.
Based on its review of DOE's March 6, 1989 submission, the staff advised DOE that NRC agreed that the criteria used by DOE for classification of the grout feed are appropriate and, therefore, that the grout facility for the disposal of
' Letter from A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, to Robert H. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials safety and Safeguards, NRC, March 6,1989.
S
' DOE noted in the March 6,1989 letter from Rizzo to Bernero that, based on limited available analytical data, the total cesium-137 could be as much as 20 million curies versus the 12-13 million estimate.
'The staff understood this statement to connote that cesium-137 and transuranic radionuclides in the residual waste would be less than the concentration limits for Class C low-level waste, as defined in NRC's requirements in 10 CFR Part 61, and that the concentration of other radionuclides would be lass than the concentration limits for Class A or B low-level waste.
j The Commissioners 9
the double-shell tank waste would not be subject to NRC licensing authority.'
1 At a meeting in Richland, Washington on July 16, 1992, DOE staff presented double-shell tank waste processing options and, based on recent analyses, summarized available information on the characteristics of waste within the tanks.
DOE's current estimate of the total amount of i
radioactivity proposed for disposal in grout in near-surface vaults is within earlier range estimates but is now believed to be nearer the upper end of the range. DOE also clarified its intention to apply criteria comparable to the Performance Objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61.
DOE intends to complete a reassessment of the tank waste processing options by March 1993.
On the basis of these considerations, and assuming implementation of DOE's plans in accordance with the criteria discussed above, the staff believes that the policies set out in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 would be satisfied. This means that, with respect to wastes in double-shell tanks, the high-level radioactive waste (within the meaning of the Energy Reorganization Act) would be removed from the site, and any radioactive material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the responsibility for safely managing those wastes would rest with the Department of Energy.
The petitioners also requested that the Lemmission exercise oversight to assure that the grout meets temp 3rature requirements for low-level waste forms. They a.cknowledge that DOE's vault design is protective of human haalth and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during the grout process, is kept within defined limits. They present no technical data to suggest that achievement of these temperature controls presents any unusual engineering challenge.
In any event, if the Commission concludes that the grout produced in accordance with DOE's plans is not high-level waste, it would not have the authority to carry out this oversight function.
' Letter from Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, September 25, 1989. The letter also called upon DOE to advise NRC periodically of the analytical results of samples of key radionuclides entering the grout facility, so that the classification of the waste might be reconsidered if the inventories were significantly higher than DOE had estimated.
The Commissioners 10 As to the procedural issue, the staff believes that this matter should be addressed case-by-case rather than by e'
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.
A full discussion of the procedural issues is included in the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1).
Public Comments: The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Two letters were from other Federal agencies (00E 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 them is included in the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1).
In view of the new information received during the July 16, Letter to DOE:
1992 meeting with DOE, the staff is recommending transmittal of the enclosed letter. While confirming the classification criteria previously agreed to by NRC (segregation of the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction, or equivalent" for disposal as HLW, leaving behind only a small fraction of moderately radioactive material), the letter advises that these criteria should be applied in light of current information, including information resulting from DOE's planned reevaluation of its tank waste remediat, ion options.
For the reasons discussed above, the staff recommends that Recommendation:
the petition be denied. Specifically the staff recommends that the Commission:
(1)
Anorove for publication in the Federal Reaister the notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (Enclosure 1).
(2)
Accrove for transmittal to 00E the enclosed letter (Enclosure 2).
(3)
Note:
That the appropriate Congressional committees (a) will be informed of this action (Enclosure 6).
(b)
That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation will be informed of this action (Enclosure 7).
't lhe Commissioners 11 i
4 (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 8).
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper
_ Coordination:
and has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1 federal Register Notice 2.
Proposed transmittal letter to DOE
?.
Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon-(55 FR 51732) 4.
Minutes of meeting between NRC staff and representatives of the State of Washington 5.
The States' Petition to Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary, NRC 6.
Congressional letters 7.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 8.
Draft Public Announcement
- ii I
I
l The Commissioners 11 (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 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 I.
Federal Register Notice 2.
Proposed transmittal letter to DOE 3.
Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from the States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732) 4.
Minutes of meeting between NRC staff and representatives of the State of Washington 5.
The States' Petition to Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary, NRC 6.
Congressional letters 7.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 8.
Draft Public Announcement
- See attached for previous concurrences Offc: *WMB:DRA
- WMB:DRA 4'MB.M)'RA D:HLWM D:LLWMD D:NMSS OGC Name: NTanious JRandall MSilberberg BJYoungblood RBangart RBernero*
MMalsch*
Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 0[//f/92
/ /92
/ /92 5 /7 /92 5 /12/92 Offc: OGC D:ADM OSP D:CA WP6:
DD:DRA:RES D:QP.
S
, f, Name: STreby PNorry*
CKammerer* DKRKbbun JFouchard*
FCos onzi S o Ms Date:
/ /92 3 /16/92 3/16/92
/ %
5/19/92 7//6/92
/T/?7/92 Offc: DD if:RES D:RE EDO Name:
n temes ESBeckjord JMTaylor g/92 7 /g /92
/ /92 Date:
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l
The Commissioners 10 (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).
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper Coordination:
and has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Receipt of a Petitio for Rulemaking from the State 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 6f g8 4
[CP4.WMB) r ces.
dM'y>
- See attached for fco Y
D:ADM SP Silberberg* R e n/ /
WMB:DRA D: M Offc: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA ero MF 1 ch PNorry Kammerer Name: NTanious*:Y JRandall*
Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92
/ /1 /92 g 92 3 //tc 92
/sc/92 D:RESh Offc:
CA D:PAF DD:$d@ES D:D S
JD:T:RES E
/CJHelt mes ESBeckjord JM a 9or Name: DK, thbun JFouchard FCostanzi 4Morrir g
Date:
/
/92 a /pe//92 Of7/92 O/y/92 I //7 /92 6/jQ/92 y g/92 f
I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
The Commissioners 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 H. 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 5.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 6.
Draft Public Announcement
[
qV.
)ffe: WMB?DRA Wt. RA WMB:DPA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD/GIR:RES iame: NTanious:Y # 'ndall MSilberberg FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes Jate: 02/Jo/92 02 1/92 02/'26/92 02/ /92 02/ /92 02/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY w
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:
T Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations 1
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Receipt of a Peti ion for Rulemaking from the States f Washington and Oregon (55 F 51732) 2.
The States' Petition to Samuel
. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 3.
federal Recister Notice 1
4.
Congressional Letters 5.
LetterstotheStatesofWashingtona\\d Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 6.
Draft Public Announcement
- See attached for previous concurrences.
,e Offe: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DRA D:NMSS DGC D:ADM SP Name: NTantous*:Y JRandall*
Silberberg* RBernero MMalsch PNorry CKamere Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92
/ /92
/ /92
/ '92
/ /92 l
Offe: D:CA D:PA DD:DRA:RES D:DPA!RES DD:GIR:RES D:RES E
Name: DKRathbun JFouchard FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes ESBeckjors JMTaylor Date:
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
Y 7
The Comissioners (b)
That the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation till 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 s filed with the Office of the Federal Register nelosure 6).
Coordination:
The Office of th'q General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal obje tion.
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.
The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC 3.
Federal Recister Notice t
4.
Congressional Letters 5.
Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation 6.
Draft Public Announcement OSee attached for previous concurrences.
Offc: WMB:DRA WMB:DRA WMB:DPA D:NHSS DGC D:ADM SP Name: NTanious*:Y JRandall*
Silberberg* RBernero MMalsch PNorry CKamerer Date: 02/20/92 02/20/92 02/20/92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 I
DD:DRA:RES D:DRAiRES DD:GIR:RES D:RES EDO D:P4[hk'rd Offe: D:CA i
JFouc FCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes ESBeckjord JMiaylor Name: DKRathbun Date:
/ /92
~/j/92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
-/ /92 0FFICIAL RECOPS COPY
DOC. FILE NAME:
CP5.WMB
-LONG DISPLAY:
COMMISSION PAPER - 10 CFR PART 60 CREATED:
AUTHOR:
N. TANIOUS t
REVISED:
8/25/92 08/28/92 08/31/92 09/03/92 09/22/92 TYPIST:
CJones CJ CJ CJ CJ TIME:
4:30 pm 10:55 am 12:05 pm 11:10 am 11:18 am l
09/25/92 CJ i
1:05 pm j
EXCERPT:
l For:
The Commissioners From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Sub.iect:
DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD i
i I
t i
i e
)
r a
--,w
-e
,,,,----,---m, n,,
--?.
>-e--n~~
l I
1 J
i A
l I
i
. #J F
i
' l 1
I l
t t
r
')
i e
ENCLOSURE 1 4
Federal Reaister Notice h
i I
9 8
9 i
i f
4 i
5 F
i i
f f
[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 Regula*ory Commission.
ACTION:
Denial of-petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- 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 process and criteria for classifying radioactive waste materials at defense facilities as high-level radioactive waste (HLW) or as (As noted in the petition, certain facilities for the storage,of HLW non-HLW.
are subject to NRC licensing authority.) The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well established and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
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),tashington,DC.
1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanicus, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3878.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
i 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 petitioners 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 Commission published 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 (DOE) 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 specifically request that the Commission:
2
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.
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 limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms.
The petitioners state that the petition for rulemaking is based, in part, on Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), which provides for the Commission to exercise licensing and related regulatory authority over " facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive wastes generated by [D0E] which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities."
According to the petitioners, the legislative history of the ERA reveals that Congress intended the Commission 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 l
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 Recovery Act (RCRA). The petitioners believe that if these wastes are HLW, they clearly fall under the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 l
is (42 USC 5842(4)).
The petitioners acknowledge that the present definition of HLW in tt.?
Commission's regulations is based upon the source of the waste, and that 3
c
" incidental waste" generated in the course of reprocessing is not HLW.
(The 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, not HLW.") The petitioners claim, however, that wastes stored in tanks at Hanford cannot practicably be classified as incidental waste (as opposed to HLW) because the tanks contain a mixture of wastes from a number of sources, including reprocessing of reactor fuel. Horeover, the petitioners state that radior.uclide inventories are estimates subject to substantial uncertainty, owing to lack of accurate records. Further, the petitioners assert that neither DOE, the Commission, nor the petitioners have adequate information regarding the source and composition of the tank waste. Hence, the petitioners believe that the Commission 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 Hanford and other sites, questions have arisen regarding the classification of reprocessing wastes for which 00E must provide disposal.
In the long-standing view of the Commission, these questions must be resolved by I:
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 f acilities for "high-level radioactive wastes," the Congress was referring to 4
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 Commission's advance notice of proposed rulemaking, " Definition of High-level Radioactive Waste" (52 FR 5993, February 27,1987).) Accordingly, any facility to be 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 (South Carolina), West Valley (New York), and Hanford contain wastes that meet this definition, and the facilities to be used for disposal of these wastes are, therefore, potentially subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
However, when the Aprendix F definition was promulgated, the Atomic Energy Commission specifically noted that the term HLW did not include
" incidental" waste resulting from reprocessing plant operations, such as ion exchange beds, sludges, and contaminated laboratory items, such as 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.
5 In the cases of Savannah River and West Valley wastes, DOE plans to i::
retrieve the wastes from their storage tanks and to separate essentially all i
of the radioactive materials for eventual disposal in a deep-geologic HLW i
5 I
I 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, under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act, over DOE's facilities to be used for processing and disposal of the incidental waste.
At Hanford, DOE plans to 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. Such processing would separate most of the radioactive constituents of the wastes for eventual deep-geologic repository disposal and, the residual salts would be disposed of onsite in a shallow, near-surface concrete-like grout facility.
(Plans for processing of single-shell tank wastes have been deferred.) However, classification of the Hanford double-shell tank wastes has proven more difficult than 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 nonradioactive 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 the wastes now present in specific tanks at
'See 52 FR 5992, February 27,1987 (definition of "high-level waste"),
n.1, where the Commission characterizes;as " incidental waste," the decontaminated salt with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nCi/g Cs-137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2nci/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy's FEIS on long-term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, Although an EIS has not yet been published for the West DOE /EIS-0023, 1979.
Valley Demonstration Project, preliminary estimates indicate the likelihood of an equivalent degree of separation.
6
Hanford.
For these reasons, some of the Hanford tank wastes cannot be readily classified as either HLW or incidental wastes using only the definitions and concepts discussed above.
Taking into account these uncertainties and their implications with respect to NRC jurisdiction, the NRC and DOE staff held several meetings to explore the situation in detail. A principal objective of these meetings 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 clearly 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. The DOE proposed onsite grout disposal of the residual waste from the double-shell tank waste processing would be only a small fri.ction of the reprocessing wastes originally generated at the site.
Finally, DOE studied possible tecNnologies for additional waste processing, and agreed to remove the largest practical amount of radioactive material from double-shell tank wastes prior to disposal in onsite grout 7
i I
t facilities. This commitment by DOE, coupled with the material-balance study indicating that most of the originally-generated radioactive material would be recovered, led the NRC staff to conclude that the residual waste material should be classified as incidental waste, since they are wastes incidental to the process of recovering HLW. With this classification, DOE could proceed with onsite disposal of ;uch 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 DOE were to find, in the course of conducting the sampling program, 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, and any empty but still contaminated waste tanks DOE might dispose of I
i:
in-place. For both types of wastes, a case-by-case determination of the appropriate waste classification might be necessary.
8
.. l
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. The petitioners agree 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 criteria 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 ever particular facilities. These will be addressed in turn.
A.
The Standard for Classification We first address the standard that should be employed in distinguishing high-level waste from incidental waste.
In doing so, we strive to apply the policies that underlie the adoption of Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 (and, i
hence, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act).
The petitioners suggest that the proper standard, to be applied on a tank-by-tank basis, is to consider all processing streams to be high-level waste unless they have been treated, prior to disposal, "to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioaktivity." Adoption of such a criterion would certainly serve the goal, which had been contemplated by the Commission, 9
l
E of removing the hazardous process streams to a geologic repository for permanent storage.
The petitioners' proposed standard, though, is not the only one that The task might reasonably be derived from the applicable regulatory history.
before the Commission is to articulate a standard that is faithful to the policies that underlie Appendix F and Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
These policies, we believe, contemplate that the great bulk of the radioactive waste proescts should ordinarily be removed from the plants where they were generated and that, to accomplish this, processes should be employed that result in the largest recovery for purposes of disposal that is j
technically and economically practical. Consideration of economic factors is consistent with contemporaneous policies of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Thus, in a like manner in connection with the control of releases of radioactive materials from licensed facilities, AEC Manual Chapter 0511 called for such releases to be kept to the lowest levels " technically and economically oractical." Moreover, technical and economical considerations aside, DOE has declared that any remaining material would be subject to, management that seeks to provide a me'asure of protection of the public health and safety comparable to the performance objectives of the Commission's regulations (10 CFR Part 61). The execution of DOE's plans to recover waste to the extent practical and to manage the incidental waste in a manner it has specified will meet the applicable regulatory goals. Such actions will conform to the explanatory statements made by the AEC when it promulgated i:.
Appendix F -- namely, "that the public interest requires that a high degree of decontamination capability be included in such facilities and that any residual radioactive contamination after decommissioning be sufficiently low 10 i
l as not to represent a hazard to the public health and safety." 35 FR 17530, November 14, 1970.
)
When the question regarding classification of wastes was first raised, tbc MC staff identified to DOE some approaches that might be used in distinguishing HLW from incidental waste. One approach was expressed as follows:'
As an alternative approach, we suggest that DOE attempt an overall material balance for HLW at the Hanford site, using the source-based i
meaning of HLW.
It is hoped that this approach might provide a more efficient means of identifying those wastes subject to licensing by NRC-under terms of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act. Under this approach, if DOE could demonstrate that the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction" wastes has been segregated for disposal as HLW, then NRC would view the residual as a non-HLW. We would anticipate that at least 90 percent of the activity would have been separated in this way.
Thus, if it can be shown that DOE has processed the whste with the intent to dispose of the HLW in a repository or other appropriate licensed facility, leaving behind only a small fraction of only moderately radioactive material, then the goals stated in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F and incorporated in the Energy Reorganization Act would have been satisfied; and the j
' Letter from Michael J. Bell, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to Ronald E. Gerton, Director, Waste Management Division, Richland Operations Office, DOE, November 29, 1988. The letter included some
" suggested criteria" involving a " good faith" effort to achieve isolation of HLW from nonradioactive salts, such an effort to be judged, as a practical matter, by considering (among other things) alternative separation processes.
11
i disposal of the residual would accordingly not be subject to NRC licensing.
i Under this approach, the Commission might still assert jurisdiction over facilities used for long-term storage of large fractions of the waste'
_b-originally generated, especially where the concentration of radionuclides is high. The Commission must assert such jurisdiction whenever it believes its statutory mandate applies. By the same token, however, the Commission recognizes that its authority with respect to defense facilities is carefully limited by law, and the Commission has no warrant to go beyond those bounds.
In the present case, DOE considered the practicality of various waste processing alternatives and presented the results of its study by letter dated March 6, 1989.' The results were also presented at a meeting among interested parties, including the petitioners, held on August 4,1989.
(Minutes of the meeting are available for public inspection in the f4RC Public f
Docement Room.) DOE's " baseline" disposal plans would have recovered all but
~,
about 12-13 million curies of cesium-137, together with lesser activities of strontium-90, transuranics, and other radionuclides.' DOE's study indicated the practicality of removing an additional 6 million curies of cesium-137 for repository disposal. DOE proposed to remove this additional 6 million curies of cesium-137. DOE 01so identified additional treatment alternatives, with their associated costs, which it viewed as not being economically practical.
' Letter from A. J. Rizzo, Assistantg: Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, to Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of tiuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, f4RC, March 6,1989.
' DOE noted in the March 6, 1989 letter from Ri7.zo to Bernero that, based on limited available analytical data, the total cesium-137 could be as much as 20 million curies versus the 12-13 million estimate.
12
DOE's material balance showed that, after the residue from the double-shell tank wastes is grouted, 2 to 3 percent of the key radionuclides which originally entered all Hanford tanks would be disposed of as LLW in near-surface vaults. The concentrations of radionuclides in the grout would be comparable to Class C for cesium and transuranic wastes, and to Class A or B for the remainder.' DOE also noted certain engineering and institutional factors that might compensate, especially as to potential intrusion hazards, for the possibility that the total amount of waste that would be grouted would be greater than the amount of Class C waste that might be contained in a i ypical commercial burial ground.
t Based on its review of DOE's March 6, 1989 submission, the NRC staff concluded that DOE's proposed processing would remove the largest practical amount of total site activity, attributable to HLW, for disposal in a deep geologic repository. This finding was based on (1) past and planned treatment of the tank wastes; (2) radionuclide concentration and material balance; and (3) cost-effectiveness of additional radionuclide removal. These conclusions f
reflected DOE's undertakings both to achieve a high degree of separation and to provide protection of public health and safety. As a result, the residual waste was deemed not to be high-level waste and would thus not be subject to NRC licensing authority. The staff thereupon advised DOE that NRC agreed that the criteria used by DOE for classification of the grout feed are appropriate
'NRC understood this statement to c nnote that cesium-137 and transuranic radionuclides in the residual waste would be less than the concentration limits for Class C low-level waste, as defined in NRC's requirements in 10 CFR l
Part 61, and that the concentration of other radionuclides would be less than the concentration limits for Class A or B low-level waste.
13
--- - -m.
and that the grout facility for the disposal of the double-shell tank waste would not be subject to NRC licensing authority.'
At a meeting in Richland, Washington on July 16, 1992, 00E staff presented double-shell tank waste processing options and, based on recent y analyses, summarized available information on the characteristics of waste within the tanks. DOE's current estimate of the total amount of radioactivity
/
proposed for disposal in grout in near-surface vaults is within earlier range estimates but is now believed to be nearer the upper end of the range.
DOE also clarified its intention to apply criteria comparable to the Performance Objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61. 00E intends to complete a reassessment
$ 'I ).of the tank waste processing options by March 1993.
,4 J On the basis of these considerations, and assuming implementation of
- DOE's plans in accordance with the criteria discussed above, the Commission affirms the judgment of the NRC staff that the policies set out in Appendix F
/
to 10 CFR Par t 50 would be satisfied, that with respect to wastes in double-
~
shell tanks tne high-level radioactive waste (within the meaning of the Energy
~
m Reorganization Act) would be removed from the site, and that any radioactive
,g material remaining on site would not be high-level radioactive waste subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the i
, responsibility for safely managing those wastes rests with the Department of Energy.
' Letter from Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, 00E, September 25, 1989. The letter also called upon DOE to advise NRC periodically of the analytical results of samples of key radionuclides entering the grout facility, so that the classification of the waste might be reconsidered if the inventories were significantly higher than DOE had estimated.
14
The petitioners also requested that the Commission exercise oversight to assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms. They acknowledge that DOE's vault design is protective of human health and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during the grout process, is kept within defined limits. They present no technical data to suggest that achievement of these temperature controls presents any unusual engineering challenge.
In any event, inasmuch as the Commission does not consider the grout produced in accordance with DOE's plans to be high-level waste, it does not have the authority to carry out this oversight function.
B. Procedural Issues 1.
Whether Rulemakina is Necessary and Desirable The petitioners urge that the Ccmmission initiate rulemaking procedures that would result in the 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, 15 J
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 Commission has little difficulty in concluding that rulemaking is neither necessary nor desirable. Reprocessing wastes are located at only four principal locations in the United States. The Commission 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.
[D0E/EIS-0023, Nov. 1979, and 52 FR 5993, Feb. 27, 1987). 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 might be difficult to apply. Any 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 Commission is persuaded further by the need to avoid making premature decisions with respect to the wastes stored at Hanford in single-shell tanks that are not the subject of pending treatment plans.
If the Commission were to establish rules to apply to the wastes remaining in those tanks, our inquiry would have to be greatly broadened; and it might become necessary to consider a wide range of situations that might or might not ever i; i come to pass in the future.
16
2.
Whether the Commission is Adeauately 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 build confidence that the treatment standard is being met.
The issue to be decided by the Commission is a much narrower one:
it is merely to determine whether the activities being undertaken by the Department of Energy fall within the NRC's statutory jurisdiction. As in the case of 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 00E.
It has obtained and evaluated information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not the proposed activities of the DOE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available contemporaneously to the public.
Moreover, as a practical matter, the NRC has requested the DOE to periodically submit summaries of the analytical results of all samples of the i
grout feeds for disposal as incidental wastes. NRC recognized the uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the tank wastes and endorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds j
O before disposal. The objective of these efforts is to control the final F
\\
i composition of the grout wastes.
If DOE finds that inventories of key radith uclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than DOE est'.ated in 1989, DOE should notify NRC so that the Commission could 17 i
reconsider its classification of the waste. NRC has also requested 00E to provide the summaries of the analytical data to other affected parties.
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 r
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.
3.
Future Ad_iudications 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. Adjudications 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 often 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 whether NRC has jurisdiction in the first place. To do so would entail the conductofanadjudicatoryproceedingihordertoseewhetheranother adjudicatory licensing proceeding must be held. More importantly, the Commission considers that the existing record contains all the factual 18
e l factual information needed for a decision and that no unresolved materia issues remain that would require further proceedings.
~
4.
Other Considerations i
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 whether or not DOE activities are subject to licensing.
In particular, it i
should be recalled that NRC exercises licensing authority under Section 202(4) 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 l
A number of other for storage of _ the treated waste are subject to licensing.
factors might need to be examined:
(1) what are the limits, geographically i
and functionally, of " facilities"; (2) have those facilities been " authorized" j
i (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 l
mention of high-level waste.
It is not necessary for the Commission to i
address these questions in order to dispose of the pending petition.
i 1
e 19
--e-
IV.
Public Comments on the Petition The NRC received letters from 12 commenters..Two letters were from t
other Federal agencies, two were from public. interest groups, one was from a r
nuclear industry corporation, and seven were from private individuals. Most l
comments were opposed to the petition.
I 5
A.
Process and Standards Proposed in Petition Several comments expressed concern that granting the petition would have an adverse effect on the timely disposal of radicactive waste at Hanford.
This was a concern because many of the Hanford waste tanks were seen as nearing or exceeding their design life. The provisions of the rulemaking proposed in the petition were viewed as limiting DOE's flexibility in The selecting the most effective processes for waste treatment and disposal.
petiticser's request that "best available technology" be used in removing HLW material from the tank wastes was seen as ignoring costs of disposal, l
exposures to workers, and environmental impacts.
l Some comments disputed the petitioner's claim that the rulemaking j
proposed in the petition would offer a better process for classification and
[
disposal of the Hanford. tank wastes. These commenters did not see any advantage in the proposed process over the process for classification and disposal currently in use. One comment suggested that the Commission's rulemaking requiring disposal of Greatefb an-Class C waste in a geologic th repository or Commission-approved alternative (53 FR 17710, May 19, 1989) might force DOE to allocate resources to handle the hazards, rather than to 20 t
waste further time fruitlessly searching for ways to remove more and more l
i 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 comments.
r B.
Creation of a Risk-Based Classification System Several comments, while noting that the rulemaking proposed by the petition would not do so, favored creation of a risk-based system of radioactive waste classification.
The Commission 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 comments 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 ll activities, which would be inconsistent with NRC authority to license specific DOE facilities under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Another commenter stated that the proposed rulemaking was inconsistent with the statutory 21 n
-~
I responsibilities of DOE and NRC. These arguments have already been discussed, and gequire no further response.
It may be emphasized, however, that even if the Commission were found to have jurisdiction over the disposal facilities, it would not regulate either the tanks themselves or the facilities being used to process the wastes in these tanks; and there is reason for concern that implementation of the petitioner's proposal might draw the Commission improperly into regulation of those facilities.
A commenter concluded that DOE was currently in violation of 10 CFR Part 30 requirements for a license because various near-surface waste disposal 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 consideration the judicial interpretation of the term in Natural Resources Defense Council. inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, 606 F.2d 126)
(D.C. Cir., 1979).
D.
Public Input 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 Northwest. One commenter noted that the EIS which was done for Hanford providedtheopportunityforpubliccomSent. Another commenter believed that the Commission's rulemaking procedures did not offer the public a better opportunity for input than does the current licensing procedure.
22
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 Heetings with DOE have been open, and at least one of the petitioners start.
(the State of Washington) has been provided advance notice and an opportunity Documents have been placed in the Public Document Room and have to attend.
been made available for public inspection.
It appears to the Commission that 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 As DOE undertakes its waste opportunities for public input will be denied.
management activities, it will afford opportunities for public. participation to the extent required by its own enabling statutes, regulations, and orders.
i E.
Other Comments One commenter took exception to the petitioner's claim that the The radioactive inventory of the Hanford tank wastes was inadequately known.
commenter believed that the contents of the tanks can be bounded well enough i
to judge the relative safety of various disposal options.
)
i The Commission considers the available information to be sufficiently
)
bounded to enable it to conclude that DOE's proposed operations (with respect i
to the material stored in the double-shell tanks) can result in the removal i
23 i
i l
l
)
i
(+C IU[M h
+v k1
,t-Lt.
pf~
fromHanfordjofasmuchoftheradioactivewasteasmaybetechnicallyand economically practical, and that the applicable regulatory objectives have been satisfied. 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 comment 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 Commission is sensitive to this consideration yet believes that the specific case at hand only needs to be addressed at this time.
Some comments urged the Commission not to change the present definition of HLW.
The Commission is not changing the present definition.
24 T
4 4
i V.
Conclusion i
\\
l For the reasons presented in this document, the petition for rulemaking i
is der.'
l.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of
._, 1992.
f for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
f
[
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
b a
]
I Y
4 a,
a to I
i i
25
\\
i D0C. FILE NAME:
HNFDPET5.WP
'LONG DISPLAY:
PRM-60 Denial CREATED:
AUTHOR:
N. Tanious REVISED:
08/24/92 09/25/92 08/31/92 09/03/92 09/22/92 TYPIST:
CJones CJ CJ CJ CJ TIME:
3:30 pm 3:00 pm 4:10 pm 1:30 pm 11:28 am 09/25/92 CJ 1:05 pm EXCERPT:
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 60 Docket No. PRM-60-4 States of Washington and Oregon: Denial of Petition for Ru'emaking AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Denial of petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-4), submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which t
i I
i
)
1 t
i t
h i
t i,
i a
i r
ENCLOSURE 2
' I t
Proposed Transmittal Letter to DOE f
N e
6 t
s i
i i
i
?
i T
t p
v
-.4 a,.
..----4
p at%
UN!TED STATES 8
o g
,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHIN GT ON. D.C. 205%
G o,
%,..... /
Mr. John Tseng, Director Hanford Program Office Office of Waste Management Environmental Restoration and Waste Hanagement U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Mr. Tseng:
Hembers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Department of Energy (DOE) staff, DOE contractors, and other 16, 1992, to review new waste characterization data and parties on July current DOE plans for management of radioactive tank waste at Hanford.
During the meeti.g, DOE prasented revised tank waste inventory estimates based on current characterization data. The information indicated that the double-shell tank activity that would be grouted in near-surface vaults is within earlier range estimates. However, Cs-137 quantities are now near the upper end of the range, rather than at the lower end as previously believed. DOE indicated that uncertainties associated with the activity estimates remain because of the limited sampling and analysis to date.
In presenting its current plans for waste management, DOE outlined its intention to complete, by March 1993, a broad reevaluation of various treatment options for both single and double-shell tanks. These options include a new facility to be used to. separate radionuclides for repository disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).
As you recall, NRC indicated to DOE, in 1989, its agreement that the criteria DOE used for classification of grout feed as low-level waste were appropriate, and, consequently, that the grout facility for disposal of double-shell tank waste would not be subject to our licensing authority (R. Bernero letter to A.
25,1989). This' reflected our understanding that DOE would Rizzo, September segregate the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable "first-cycle solvent extraction, or equivalent" for disposal as HLW, to In leaving behind only a small fraction of moderately radioactive material.
this regard, it is essential that DOE's present reevaluation of waste tank remediation options, and subsequent periodic evaluations as may be conducted, include the application of those classification criteria. We recognize that there may be significant economic, programmatic, and safety factors affecting the remediation program, but the consideration of such factors in the application of the criteria should be made clear.
We request that you keep us informed of the progress of your ongoing reassessment and of relevant technical information including, but not limited to, your tank waste treatment plans and the analytical results for tank wastes
Mr. John Tseng that are proposed to be sent to the grout facility.
If it becomes apparent that any wastes may be subject to NRC licensing, it will be necessary to determine what form of pre-licensing interactions, analogous to repository site characterization, would be necessary to determine the appropriate disposition of these wastes.
301-504-3352, or If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, at B. J. Youngblood, Director of the Division of High-Level Waste Management, at 301-504-3400.
Sincerely, Robert H. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc:
J. Anttonen, DOE J. Bartlett, DOE D. Duncan, EPA R. Stanley, Washington State J. Franco, Oregon State R. Jim, YIN l
J ll 6
f l
1
?
i L
[
ENCLOSURE 3 l
Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking from-The States of Washington and Oregon (55 FR 51732)
{
t i
i k
r t
t 4
.u m,
- -a m unca i v us, n, no. m i suvuun. *^ + 4ma u, mv s s e ve~- a -
for at least 3 years, urdess a lorwer Freedom of Informa tion and Nudcar Waste policy Act (NWpA) 42 retentioritime is required by par 175 of pubhcations Services. Offit e of U.S C.10101112) gives the Commission thls chapter.
Administration, U.S. Nuden Regulatory the authonty to define whether wastes (2) Records that must be maintained Commission, Washington. 9C 20555.
are " highly radioactive material" or pursuant to this part may be the original ron runrHER EMFORMADON CO*(TACP.
- solids derived fro:n (liquid reprocessing or a reproduced copy or a microform if Micha el T. lesar, Chief. Rules Review wastes} that contain fission products in such reproduced wpy or microform is Secuon, Regulatory Publications Branch, sufficient concentrations."
- duly authenticated by authorned Division of Freedom of Information and Acmrdmg to the' petitioners, personnel and the microform is capable Publications Semees.OInce of legislauve history reveals that Congress of producing a dear andlegible copy Administration. US Nudear Regulatory intended the C f uion to license after storage for the period speciLed by Commission, Washingtm,DC 20555.
defense reprocessing tank wastes at the Commiasion regulations.Re record Telephone:30t 492-7758 or Toll Free:
point of long-term atorage or disposal.
may also be stored in electronic media 80>368-66t2.
ne petitlooers note that low fraction 1
with the espability for prcducing. on sumrutxT,Any ser@tMAD01C wastes resulting from pretreatment of demand, legible, securate, and complete tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted records during the required retention Petitioners
- Request and disposed ofinland-based grout period. Records such as letters, ne petitioners request that the vaults on the Hanford sita in accordance drawires, and specifications must Commission amend 10 CFR 00.2 to with regulations developed under the indude all pertinent information such as clarify the definition of"high-level Resource Conservation and Recovery stamps, initials, and signatures.
radioactive waste"(IEW) and the Act (RCRA).ne petitioners believe that (3)he licensee shall maintam definition of"lEW facility.* De if such wastes are H1,W.they dearly fan adequate safeguards against tampering petitioners request that the ander the Commission's licensing with and loss of records.
Commission-dicus undersection202(4)of the
- 1. Establish a process to evaluate the Energy Reorgantration Act of 1974.8 Dated at Rockvme. Maryland. this tith day treatment of defense reprocetring of December 1100.
wastes in tanks so that auch wastes will Reasons for Patition For the Nuclear Reguistory Comminion.
not be considered IEW if, prior to g
wgg present dehnitim ofIEW in the
- M ""
te rges t yc ers !
ComWuim's ngulaties is based ope IrR Doc. Em Fned 12-14-91 E45 am]
amount of radioactivity; and the source of the waste. According to
- 2. Require that the heat produced by name eme naam residual radionuclides, together with the Petitioners, while ID.W may be differentiated from" incidental heat of reaction during grout promssing
].
(if employed as a treatment technologyl, waste
- the legal basis for doing so must IDocArt No. PRtJ-4N1 will be within limits established to derive from NWPA.spedfically 42 UAC.10101 (12)(A), which refers to a ensure that grovt meets temperature "sufLeient concentrations" af terion for Cennition of the Term 4CgMevel requirements for long-term stabihty for Radioactive Waste" law-level waste forms.:
dassification.* %e petitioners claim he petitioners seek clarification that that incidental waste source is actNev:Nudear Regulatory the disposal of wastes treated to this impossible to ascertain due to mixing in standard is not disposal in a "H1.W defense tanks and the unavailability of Comm!"
acnote Petition for rulemsking.
g,c;;;,y. as presently defined in 10 CFR accurate records.%ey point out,in SUMMrJtr.De States cf Washington 60.2.ne 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 definition of the Appendix F as the controlling reFulation hss complicated the dassification of term *h!gh-level radiosetive waste" so to determine whether a waste is IEW, Hanford tank wastes, including double-es to establish a procedural framework that the Commission Liso modify that sheh tank westes.Moreover, the and substantive standards by which the definition as proposed in the petition.
petitioners state that rsdionuclide inventories are estimates and rubject to Commission will determine whether E""*5 for the Petitio substantialuncertaintyMariables reprocessing waste,induding in De Petitioners state that this contributing to the unceztainty indude particular certain waste stored at the rulemaking is based, in part. on section incomplete and insecurste recorda, the U.S. Departmere of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington,is high level 2a2 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization lackbf actualfueland/orwaste radioactive waste and therefore subject Act, which defines Commission analyses, and an incomplete i
to the Commission's licensing autho:ity.
authority over retrievable surface understanding cf the chemistry and storage facilities and other facilities caTts: Submit comments by March 18, authorized for the express purpose of
. For... w t mi.prem perma on 1991. Comments received after this date subsequent long term storage of high-
.t wth4, vet r d.o.cuve weste 1.dv..c.
uce wI11 be considered if it is practical t d of ropn.d rulembrg M R sen Febmary Ir.
level radioactive waste generated by P
seers. d ub
.mimie us dommenu so, but consideration cannot be given DOE vehich are not used for, or are part iproposed..edmeou no no cn p.n at u ra except ae 1o comments received on or of, research and development activities, 377m. u,, m rmat.=nd,rienu a so crm before W date.
he petitioners further state that the p.n si.u m us7s.u.r s.sean Acontssts: Submit cornments to:
Congressional definition of the term
- si.hauto be oied. ho-em. n.si the Cam **dal= >m daci+on enir if the f. cat'r..re Secretary, UA Nudear Regulatory
- high. level radioactive waste" in the of the types de.cnted in secuan m2m Commission. Washington. DC 2c555.
"a***"*e. Se CammW"* *= eat..'
Attentien Docketing and Service
- Crovt L.. fMd smance of ce enhieou.
&2 n s9n Febru.ry st 19e'. thet c1.ssification B. ranch. For a copy of toe pctition. write en.iert.i..no i, avid w ie th.t.cu p... ot.d
.nder the caed pronsion Newtd be irretc..nt in t
Rules Renew Section. Regulato y sn.
and a ed for ute ra.t.on.nd drierminme =heiber..ch. sies snust be di. posed Publications Branch. Division of ernmobit z.t crL of en I orn.ed di.pos.t f.catie.*
e w& -
m
iederal Ecpster / Vol M. fN. 242 / Monday. Ucccmber 17.19% / Proposed ms MW
?
pathways in reprocu. sing and waste ~
- 2. A new Appenda-A is added to contemplate that particular treatment processes. %e petitioners part 00 to read as follows:
deterrmnations of bow specific wastes will be characienzed under these essert that neither DOE the Commission, nor the petitioners have h jj.
"["((["((
gencrat standards can be left to individsal ad;ndica sve proceedmss.
cdequate information regarding the At least one year 1,fwe a taa of defen" The petitioners believe that the 1
radio:ctive portion of the double-shell tank w:ste.The petitioners bebeve that
$"ts r amendments suggested by their petition would protect knman health sad the the Commission needs to establish both blended pnar te permanent esposal. DOE o pMm and a starviard for making shall subtrat the fonowing to the CommMon environment, would facilitate
- and the nuccted state and pubank in the meamngful C 6f an involvement in en evaluation as to whether waste are O
HLW on a tank-by-tank basis-Federal Registen the ultimate disposal and/or long-term
- 1. Data on physicalcharacteristics of the storage of Hanford double <heH tank The petitioners assert that the weste. tocfodmg denalty and perant solida, waste, and would support proposed Otnendment is essential to provide protection of the future health jj
%j Ng implementation of the Hanford Federal
[
Facility Agnement and ConsentOrder.
itnd aafety of the citizens of the pacific bul siphs. htal betay Northwest-t volumetric date on untreated we te,en Request for Comments volume changes expected as a result of Peg eers' W trea tment, pretreatment or blendag actietties Commenters are invited to address.
,o"
%e pe itioners su2 gest that the and the expected volume of the naal weste among other things, the desirability and definitione of"High-level Radioactive form (gmut. sehcrete or vttrified westek appropriateness of(1;%e proposed 1 ^ d**cripu n of h treatment prowssee, substantive etandard [" remove the Weste" and *HLW Facihty"in 10 CFR induding an estnr.ated ara ss balance ice cach largest techrdcally achievable amount of W be W ad a m spa A be cdded talo Cm part in %e rpecific f "'
",*[,[*"# Q or radicartrvity on a tank-by-tank basis"),
(2) the proposed procedure for applying language suggested by the petitioners weste components before and after that standard. and (3) an amendment to r
reeds as follows:
ana tment-
- 1. In 100.2. the defmitions of"High.
4.ne proposed grovt or saltente to CFR part 60 (in view of the scope i
level Radioactive Waste" and "HLW fonr.aktion.together with bens tranofer defined in 10 CFR 60.1) vis-a-vis the c*1cul*tions for the waste forns and adoption of a tiew Part or amendment to facility"cre revised to read as follows-1 To the degree posethle. treatment system some other existing Part of NRC D
f6a2 Definitions.
models similar te the attached grout system regulations
- 9 model shou!dbe used to present data and i
Dated at Rockvtue Maryland, this nth day describe promsses.
r ff&levelrodioactive waste orHLW gg ;,,,s,g,,anzy, y, gor,,,,ny er of December 1gn m2 ant (1) Irradia ted reactor fuel (2) defenu repmoeuing tank wutes containW For the Meer Reguhtory Conuniesion.
Liquid wastes resulting from the Lyh-level waste components la pretasted.
s,mg g eperstion of the first cycle solvent tnated or teended prior to permanent gg
,ggg extrsction system,or equivalen* and the disposal in ocar-surface or deep geolore (I'R Doc.9FDC8 Illed 12-14-4n M5 am]
concentraled wastes from subuquent facilities, the Commission shau require a lanse underuccon 20:3) of the Energy samo coot rees e-as extraction cycles, or equivalent. in a Re rganiuti n Act.a2 USC.r,s42(4)unless i:cility for reprocessing irradiated the Commission. on a tank-by-tank basis reactor fue! and (1) Solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted;
' "Qtreted ht &
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE es provided that il prior to disposal, largest technicaUy achievebte arneunt of ForelgrkTrade Zones Board defense reproccumg tank wastes are actaity from the tank win be isoisted for treated to remove the largest technically vitrification prior to permanent disposak and 15 CFR Part 400 ochievable amount of radioactivity on a 1nat un of permanent shallow land tank-by-tank basis (as provided in dapoul for the tank weste wiU be tunited to
[ Docket Wo 21222-CJC2]
the incidental wute portion, whkh is the appendix A), the treated residuaj ochvity remaining a her the larFest RIN 0625-AA04 fraction shall be considered an incidental waste and therefore not been removed, and Forehn-Trade Zones in the United gg,-
1 That the trestroent, pretreatment and States IfLWfacility means a facility subject IAending processes desen' bod in the DOE to thelicensing and related regulatory submittal win r-hieve the stated separation actucy: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, authority of the Commission pursuant to and/or recovery efficiencies; and InternationalTrade Admuustration, cections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy
- 4. net the treatment. pretreatment and Commerce.
Reorganization Act of1974 (88 Stat blending procenes descnbed in the DOE Acnoe Notice of proposed rulemakm.g:
submittal are proven. cost effective, stateef.
extenanon of comment period.
1244)a the art prowsses, whick are capable og remo e la st tec _nically achieveble bmmMgeb interested parties, the period for public
' The e are Doc -!.cman e.ed pnm. ray b the Fetita.oners' Conclus. sons comment on the further amendments Io reast and etorup of brMevel red eactive wastes p
re Ihns Imr= nen..<
hur..ed ender a Ac' The petitioners state that rulemaking the proposed revisions to the regulations tihe Atomic Energy Act)
- and Eetr.esable sort.a Erocedures are necessa#7 o detennine of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board t
Statete Facihhes a rid other facfhbe. authortued for the nature of the incidentallesser regarding foreign-trade zones in the atoren of u ue.et red.r enw...ie. rener.eed radioactive fraction of wastes and that United States published in the Federal the ey,,
p.,p,,, or g.,,,,,,%w t,y gooEL wh.ch are oot used for, or are part at gyfemaking is appropriate to estabIish a Register on November 20.1990 (55 FR s
researd end developmeni activine.. ac.hwe. t '
Irocedural framework and substantive 48446). is extent ed to February 1.19n.
the lorse term storage or dispos.f of meideme!
standards by which particular wastes DATE.S. Comments Inust be received on wee 4es resultmg fews treaneent of defen.,
repmwsning==eetes are not HLW ise bi.e.
Will be assessed.The petitioners or before February 1,19n.
~
I
-l I
i i
i E!1 CLOSURE 4 I
i Minutes of Meeting Between NRC Staff and Representatives of the State of Washington b
=
1
+
ll:
~
\\
/ e mc,\\
UMTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
j W A$HING10N. D. C. 20555 y
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Record FROM:
Michael T. Ledar, 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 colution 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 amendment 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 ef fective 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
!3
/
r The Record 2
i r
f characterization of that waste stream should occur through a Furthermore, the' petitioner-process that ensures public review.
believes that some form of NRC approval of proposed DOE action is i
t necessary on a tank-by-tank basis to ensure that the proposed pretreatment for that tank is appropriate considering its The petitioner indicated its desire that NRC review contents.
and approval occur prior any final decision so that the opportunity for meaningful intervention on a timely basis exists, f
f The NRC indicated that it may not have the jurisdiction,.under
~
+
NRC statute, to respond to the petitioner's concerns.
involvement, even though the agency may be sympathetic to the
+
I 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 l
resubmitted petition to' indicate why the petitioner believes NRC has the legal and jurisdictional authority to respond
[
ll favorably to the petitioner's request.
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 l
NRC also indicated that DOE outlined its pretreatment decision.
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 l
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 l
available, the process should be subject to review and public scrutiny on a tank-by-tank basis.
The petitioner is concerned f
that various influences may pressurize DOE into maximizing the The petitioner believes that DOE amount going to grout.
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
-j this situation.
As explained by the NRC, rulemaking is not l
?
generally used in making the types of case-by-case determinations I
fndividual case or site decisions envisioned by the petitioner.
are usually made through a more adjudicatory manner and result in l
f a, licensing type of action.
Rulemaking examines a class of future situations for which some generic solutions provide a i
framework for a particular course of action.
The NRC suggested that the petitioner consider making its revised proposal in a For example, manner that would address a broader universe.
rather than focusing on the waste tanks at Hanford, the l
4 b
l
.~
t I i
i 3
The Record petitioner should present its case in terms of seeking a. generic i
i definition and solution to the problem of characterizing and regulating " incidental waste" regardless of the site or activity.
l The State of Washington agreed to resubmit a new petition for rulemaking in place of the petition for'rulemaking dated January
+
The petitioner indica'ed its willingness to address the t
2, 1990.
concerns expressed by the NRC and that it would attempt to clarify the statement of the problem and would present more This i
specific language to indicate its proposed solution.
completes and closes action on the petition for rulemaking 1990.
. j submitted by the State of Washington dated January 2, Michael T. Lesar, Chief l
Rules review Section Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications' Services Office of Administration
Enclosure:
l
~
As stated i
1
?
-1 i
4 i
1 1
i i
i
i MEETING DETWEEN 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) 492-1641 Chad Glenn NRC/NMSS (301) 492-0567 Dan Fehringer NRC/NMSS (301) 492-0426 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 9
y
t r
r r
6 I
i
?
ENCLOSURE 5 The States' Petition to Samuel J. Chilk, a
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3
4 9
1 i
lii r
l P
...r-4
v
{\\'
j$'
bh= q.,}r ;
DOCHEite 14 APf
- JS?i[?C
' ' ~ ~ ~
ST ATE OF WASHNCTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY F JJL 31 P3:05 (20Q 4594dXO.
Olvtrpsa. Washwgton 98504B711 e
Mail Stop PV-11
. w n,
r..
e
- 't;.
July 27,1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Co= mission Vashington, D.C.
20555
~-
Chief, Docketing and Service Branch ATTENTION:
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Enclosed for your consideration and for action by the Commission is a petition for rulemaking (under 10 CFR, part 60.2) regarding the classification of high-Note that level radioactive vastes at U.S. Department of Energy facilities.
this petition constitutes a resubmittal by the parties following discussions Please also refer to our initial submittal dated January 2, with HRC staff.
notice of intent which was addressed to 1990, and to my November 17, 1989, Chairman Kenneth M. Carr of the Commission.
Please note that the enclosed petition represents the combined views of both We look forward to working with you and Commission Washington and OreSon.
staff on this very important issue.
Sincerely, NW Te Husseman Assistant Director Maste Management Enclosure Oregon and Washington Congressional Delegation cc:
Dan Silver John Vagoner 1
David Yaden Cecil Sanchey
)
i 1
l
1 _,
UNITED STATES OF MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS PETITION FOR RULEMAKING N!D REOUEST FOR INSTITUTION OF A RULEMAKING PROCEEDING hereby The states of Washington and Oregon (" Petitioners")
respectfully request and petition the Nuclear Regulatory
("the Commission") to exercise its rulemaking Commission offer adequate opportunity for public comment, cnd authority, lation concerning classification of Hanford,high-adopt a Jrelevel radioactive wastes currently stored in retrievable, Procedures governing the rulemaking surface, storage facilities.
Section 533 and 10 C.F.R. Section process are found at 5 U.S.C.
2.800-2.809.
I.
PROPOSED RULES The petitioners ask that the Commission amend 10 C.F.R. part P
to clarify the definition of "high-level radioactive vaste" and the definition of "HLW facility."
The petitioners 60.2
("HLW")
request the Commission to:
Establish a process to evaluate the treatment of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such wastes will not 1.
prior to disposal, each tank is be considered HLW if, treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity.
Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides, of reaction during grout 2.
together with the heat (if employed as a treatment technology), will processingbe within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature r'equirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms.
The petitioners seek clarification that the disposal of wastes treated to this standard is not disposal in a "HLW f acility" as The proposed text of presently defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 60.2.
this amendment is attached as Appendix 1.
Should the Commission regard 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix F as the controlling regulation to determine whether a vaste is the petitioners request that the Commission also modify that The Commission has, on different
- HLW, definition as proposed herein.
suggested that this petition for rulemaking address occasions,
10 of the Code of the definitions contained in Title i
both of Federal Regulations.
This petition is intended to address the to the determination of whether a definition of HLW applicable waste should be considered HLW for licensing purposes.at the time
+
of disposal or long-term storage.
II.
GROUNDS AND INTERES2 in part, on Section 202 This rulemaking petition is based, Energy Reorganization Act, which defines Commission of the 1974 authority over retrievable surface storage f acilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the which are not used (now Department of Energy)
Administration, This for, or are part of, research and development activities.
petition seeks clarification as to whether certain vastes are defined as high-level radioactive vastes 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 facts and issues.
in 1970 by the Atomic' Energy defined 1.
HLW was first in-terms of the source of the material Commission ("AEC")
The AEC rather than by its hazardous characteristics.
defined HLW as:
those aqueous vastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent' extraction system, or and the concentrated wastes from equivalent, subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent in a facility for.' reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels.
35 Fed. Reg. 17530, 17 532, Nov. 14, 1970.
deEinition utilized by the ' Commission in The present determining whether a waste to be disposed of in a geologic 2.
repository is '"high-level radioactive waste" is found at 10 CFR Part 60.2.
This rule provides:
"High-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means:
?
i; (1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle and the l
solvent extraction system, or equivalent, concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for PETITION FOR RULE! M ING - 2 i
,6
and (3) irradiated reactor fuel, reprocessing such liquid wastes have been solids #
.- which converte
.ty" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the "HLW faw and 202(4)
Commission pursuant to Sections 202(3)
(8.8 Stat of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 1244).y The Congressional definition in the NWPA states:
3.
The term "high-level radioactive waste" means--
the highly radioactive material resulting from including (A) the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid ~ material derived from such liquid wasteconta that concentrations; and other highly radioactive material that the consistent with existing law, (B)
Commission, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.
42 U.S.C. 5 10101(12).
Commission thus has the authority to define whether wastes are " highly radioactive material" or are "solidsthat contain The (liquid reprocessing wastes) 42 U.S.C.
derived from fission products in sufficient concentrations."
S 10101 (12).
intend (d the Legislative history reveals that CongressCommission to licen st 4.
H. Rep. No.
the point of long-term storage or disposal.
785, pt.
1, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 38, Aug. 20, 1982.
Low fraction vastes,resulting from pretreatment,of tank wastes of in (RCRA be grouted and disposed regulated) land-based grout vaults on the Hanford are scheduled ~to reservation.
If such vastes are HLW, they clearly fall These are DOE "faciliti s used primarily for the receipt 1
and storage of high-level radioactive vastes resulting fromd activities licensed under such Act [the Atomic Energy A of subsequent long-tern authorized for the express purpose storage of HLW generated by DOE, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 3
under licensing jurisdiction the Commission's of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
under the S 202(4) mixing of wastes from dif f erent sources has complicated the classification of Hanford tank over the last 45 years, 5.
- Moreover, including double-shell tank wastes.and subject to
- wastes, inventories are estimates, Variables include incomplete and radionuclide substantial uncertainty.the lack of actual fuel and/or waste analyses, and incomplete understanding of the chemistry and inaccurate records, in reprocessing and taste treatment processes.
Thus, neither USDOE, the Commission, or the petitioners have pathways i
f adequate information regarding the radioactive port on o the double-shell tank waste.
USDOE plans to pretreat the majority of Hanford double-shell l"
tank waste in order to partition vastes into a "high-leve 6.
portion f or vitrification and a low-level or " incidental" portion which will subsequently be disposed of at the (currently under construction).
facility 13,000,000 curies to Hanford Grout USDOE estimates that from a minimum ofcuries will be disposed of at the more than 21,000,000 facility.
The petitioners have a strong vested interest in the safe, There permanent disposal of Hanford high-level tank wastes.
7.
is great uncertainty at this time, concerning the ability of USDOE to demonstrate that the largest technically achievable d
amount of activity from each tank can be or will be isolateby USDOE's for vitrification.
This is evidenced13,000,000 and' exceptionally large uncertainty (betweencuries) concerning residu (Table 1 from Enclosure 1 21,000,000 for surface disposal via grout.1989 lette'r from Mr. A.J. Rizzo to Mr. Robe of a March 6, M. Bernero.)
incidental wastes have been deemed appropriate f 8.
To date, Facility Agreement and Consent Order and consistent with disposal in gr,out, Grout vault due to lower hazard from radioactivity.
design is protective of human health and the en
- RCRA, is kept generated from reactions during grout process, within defined limits which ensure that grout vaults meet temperature standards for 4cng-term stability for low-level q(s j
forms.
The present definition of HLW in the Commission's Incidental vaste regulations and the NWPA is source based. source is im 9.
accurate records.
vaste tanks andj unavailability of Radioactive contamination in incidental waste may be from aactivity is even though the amount of "HLW"
- source, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 4
and human health and the environment comparable to LLW, Thus, unless the protected adequately by grout disposal.
Commission modifies the present definition of "HLW" and "H of their source and would be required to be disposed of facility,"
42 U.S.C. S 10107.
according to S 8 of NWPA.
Commission has.the legal The petitioners believe,the authority and obligation to promulgate regulations 10.
concerning the classification of defense reprocessingin t qualified to evaluate the appropriateness and eff ectiveness wastes The rule amendment of various pretreatment processes.
suggested above would authorize the Commission to ensureincludi are subjected to safe and appropriate methods of such wastes, that
- wastes, pretreatment.
Because the definition of HLW has heretofore been based solely on the source of waste, the legal basis for finding 11.
incidental wastes resulting from the treatment of def ense high-level wastes in tanks would not be HLW, uustthe NWPA defin that S 10101 (12) ( A),
source-based derive from 42 U.S.C.
NWPA definition combines a
definition and a quantitative-based definition for solid of HLW.
The wastes derived from liquid reprocessing wastes.
Characterizing incidental waste disposal in grout vaults a Thus, if solid, grouted non-HLW be HLW under the NWPA definition.
wastes which are derived from defense HLW do no 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 evaluationThes on a tank-by-tank basis.
petitioners' suggested rules.
an interest in and' a prevailing The petitioner $ haveresponsibility for the protection of the futu 12.
The rule safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest.is essential to provide this amendment suggested here protection.
III.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT Radioactive Wastes From Defense Reprocessinc Operations are A.
Hich-Level Wastes in the Energy Reorganization is not defined The term HLW The starting point in defining HLW for ERA purposes is found in existing regulations adopted by the Atomic Energy Act (" ERA").
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 5
Congress can be presumed to In this regard, existing regulatory definition when it Commission in 1970.
The existing definition have been aware of the of ERA.
used the tern HLW in Section 202 CFR Section 50, Appendix F),
in 1970 (10 The definition adopted by the AEC focuses on the process by which HLW is produced.also focuses on the proce in 10'CFR Part 60.2 produced.
including It-is clear that defense re' processing tank wastes, double-shell tank wastes at Hanford, were considered HLW when ERA was passed. intent at that time to subject defense facilities to Congress' the Congress recognized that HLW was NRC oversight.
In fact, tanks at various facilitie's and leaking from temporary AECintended to subject such vastes to NRC licensing
- Moreover, application of a permanent vaste management solution.the H law with respect to atomic erergy defense activities is unchanged and facilities for the disposal of vaste from by this Act,def ense 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 defenseThe vastes at Hanford.
various alternative methods for dealing with these def ense wastes.
USDOE recognized that:
Further, Section 202 of the Energy Reorg'anization Act requires Commission licensing of those DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of long-tern storage l
l of high-level radioactive waste which are not used for, research and developme'nt a part of, or are not Therefore, to the extent that any decision activities.
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 facility subject to licensing under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act such a repository or faciIity would be subject to licensing by the Commission.
Hanford Defense Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of 6.11.
December Transuranic and Tank Wastes, vol. I, High-Level, 1987.
thepetikioners, find that under existing l
law, de_f_epse_ reprocessing tank waste, including Hanf ord double-A In summary, we, i
is HLW.
Consequently, chell tank waste, change the status of these wastes under the law.long-term sto l
However, the rule licensing by the Commission.
subject to i
a e
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 6
suggested here would authorize and require appropriate Commission oversight of the management of Hanford double-shell amendment under certain circumstances, the but would allow, j
tank wastes, avoidance of the admittedly cumbersome licensing process.
Petitioners believe that the rule amendment suggested would i
would facilitate protect human health and the environment, meaningful Commissi and would long-term storage of Hanford dodble-shell tank waste, supp and Consent Order.
Supported a Tank-by-Tank
'Lhe Commission Has HistoricallvAnalysis to Determine Whether Re B.
The decision on treatment and disposal of tank wastes at Hanford has been discussed between DOE and the Commission for Through these discussions, the concept of an Moreover, both DOE and the several years.
" incidental waste" was identified.
Commission have attempted to demonstrate how the incidental wasteEarly in concept would be applied to the tank wastes at Hanford. DOE and the C these discussions, heterogeneity of Hanford tank wastes prevented a determ In 1988, DOE and'the Commission began an evaluation of Commission agreed that two DSTs process.
28 DST tanks.
DOE and the contained phosphate sulfate waste (PSW), which does not arise
-Ffee letter from Hugh from reprocessing and is clearly not HLW.
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 doubleSee Mee shell slurry feed wastes-(DSSF).The Commission recognized that it 9/22/88.
Commission meeting, to generalize the findings of this would be inappropriate In a letter dated specific tank to an entire vaste category.
November 29, 1966, the Commission stated:
As a more fundamental comment on DOE's proposed approach, the staff had hoped that a determination of the classification of DSSF waste in tank 106AN might We no lonaer_
apply to the entire DSSF category.Information provided believe that this is oractical.
individual by DOE in our June 9 meetina _ indicates that DSSF tanks contain different suites of wastes._
Therefore, the documentation and determination of waste classification would need to proceed on a tank-by-tank basis."
Letter from Hichael J. Bell, NRC, to Ronald E.
Gerton, USDOE, dated November 29,1988.
(Emphasis added).
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 7
approach suggested by the Commission
'Lne materials balance and DOE does not eradicate the problems caused by mixing of It merely glosses over vastes in tanks and poor recordkeeping.
the classification by attributing some wastes (destined for HWVP) and attributing others y to the solvent extraction process (destined for grout) to non-IEW sources. [he petitioners do _ not believe that this attribution should be made without an amendment to the applicable definition of,1EW, which f ormalizes a proc This process must be done in a public manner to ensure in the treatment process fully employed by DOE.
as IEW.
Public scrutiny is essential to building confidence that thesugges confidence treatment standard petitioners is being met.
proposed treatment standard closely The petitioners' resembles the alternative approach suggested by the Commission.
Bell to Ronald E. Gerton, 11/29/88.
Ee_e_ letter from Michael J.
It refines that approach by applying the concept on a tank-by-re e
tank basis to mixtures of wastes in these tanks and uncertainty caused by poor recordkeeping.
share the goal of Both the Commission and petitioners ensuring that af ter the proposed treatment of tank wastes the maximum amount of radioactivity possible be routed to HWVP cnd ultimate geologic disposal.
The Standards to Evaluate Residual Wastes Should.
C.
be Determined by Rulemakinc Procedures Rulemaking procedures are necessary to determine the nature of the incidental, lesser radioactive fraction of wastes.
Rulemaking is appropriate to establish a procedural fra l
is or is not HLW.
Such a particular waste interpretation of whether a determination necessarily will require statutory language in the NWPA and the formulation of agencytasks are policy.
Both of these procedures where an agency seeks to approach foreseeable problems Eqq _SEC v. Chenev Corn._, 332 U.S. 194, of general applicability.
394 U.S. 759 (1969); see NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co.,
202 91947);
also NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co_, 416 U.S. 267 (1974).
it This proposal is particplarly appropriate because establishes a process and general standards by which particular of how Particular determinations va'stes will be assessed.
characterized under these general will be specific wastesstandards can be left to individual adjudicative proceedings.
l PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 8
Rulemaking procedures are appropriate to provide the naximum i
scrutiny to HLW treatment and degree of public involvement andThe 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 addre'ssed 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 As an have direct impact upon the public and the environment.
agency charged with upholding the.public interest, the commission should avail itself of the opportunity to demonstrate that its are consistent with its statutory mandate, well reasoned Rulemaking proceedings are the actions and benefit the public interest.
optimal vehicle by which the commission can satisfy the public that treatment a'nd disposal of defense HLW in tanks is being carefully scrutinized in a protective manner.
PETITIONERS:
i For the State of Oregon For the State of Washington T
> \\b-f[
/
/
David Yaden Terry liusseman
/
Director Assistant Director Oregon Department of Energy Waste Management
/
/
Washington Department Dated:
7/)#/ 94/
of Ecology 4
/
7\\10.$ 0 Dated:
Ii!
I i
l PETITION FOR RULDIAKING - 9
__m i
I APPENDIX 1 The petitioners suggest adoption of the following. language to foregoing Petition for resolve the concerns expressed'in the i
Rulemaking:
Amended 10 C,F.R. Part 60.2:
j l
(1)
"High-level radioactive vaste" or "HLW" means:
Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting of the first cycle solvent
[
from the operation extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated
+
subsequent extractio'n cycles, or wastes fromin a facility for reprocessing irradiated equivalent, solids into which such liquid I
reactor fuel, and (3) vastes have been converted; provided that if, crior to l
disposal, defense reprocessina tank wastes are treated to remove the larcest technically achievable amount of (as provided in radioactivity on a tank-by-tank basis the treated residual fraction shall be Annendix A).
3 considered an incidental vaste and therefore not HLW.
i l
"HLW f acility" means a f acility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the and 202(4) of l
Commission pursuant to Sections 202 (3) ion Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244) gergy Reorganizat the E i
I i
l
}
These are DOE " facilities used primarily for the receipt 2
l and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting f ron activities licensed under such Act [the Atomic Energy Act)" and
" Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities of subsequent long-term authorized for the express purpose storage of high-level radioactive wastes generated by [ DOE),
which are not used for, or are part of, research and development j
Facilities for the lona-tern storace or disposal of activities."
incidental wastes resultino from treatment of defense reprocessina tank wastes are not HLW facilities.
I PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - 10
NEW SECTION APPENDIX A PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING LARGEST TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE TREATMENT 10 C.F.R. Part 60 Appendix A, Waste Classification Procedures for Treated Defense Reprocessing Tank Wastes.
At least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing components is treated, wastes containing high-level vaste USDOE shall pretreated or blended prior to permanent disposal, submit th public in the Federal Register:
Data on physical characteristics of the waste, inorganic and including density and percent solids, 1.
and radiochemistry (e.g., gamma organic constituents, energy analysis, total alpha, total beta) ;
on volume changes Volumetric data on untreated waste, pretreatment or 2.
expected as a result of treatment, blending activities and the salterete or vitrified waste);
final vaste form (grout, A description of the treatment processes, including an an estimated 3.
estimated mass balance for each process, separation, and per cent recovery for each concentrations of major vaste components before and after treatment; together The proposed grout or salterete formulation,with heat 4.
To the degree possible, treatment system models similar to the attached grout system model should be used to 5.
present data and describe processes.
At least six months before a tank of defense reprocessing 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 42 U.S.C.
of the Energy Reorganization Act, tank-by-tank basis, under Section 202(4)
S 5842(4) unless the Commissfon, on a determines the following:
That USDOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank 1.
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 after the which is the activity remaining portion, technic. ally achievable amount of activity has largest
)
been removed; and pretreatment and blending processes l
That the treatment, achieve the described in the USDOE submittal vill 3.
stated separation and/or recovery efficiencies; and 1
4.
That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes cost described in the USDOE submittal are proven, which are effcetive, state-of-the-art processes, capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity.
l I
i I
r PETITION FOR RULEMA1;ING - 12
?
5 5
i
)
i t
h i
5 4
la 1,
i ENCLOSURE 6
.t Congressional Letters
'1 t
-l t
h
?
+
s i
o 1
4 6
I i
$f e
I i
i I
I i
f s
l
{
$} navb, P
?,
UNITED STAld E
Agr.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 i
% a...+ /
.yer, Chairman The Honorable Peter H. Kc '
Subcommittee on Energy ar
- ne Environment Committee on Interior anc % sular Affairs United States House of Rep esentatives Washington, DC 20515 1
Dear Hr. Chairman:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon. The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" 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 high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Twelve comments were received. The ta'jority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days. We have enclosed a copy of the denial that is being sent to the Federal Reaister.
The States of Washington and Oregon have been notified of this action.
Sincerely, i
i k
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs o
Enclosure:
As stated Representative John J. Rhodes cc:
t E
t
The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon. The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the i
term "high-level radioactive waste" 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 high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Twelve comments were received. The majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days. We have enclosed a copy of the denial that is being sent to the Federal Reaister. The States of Washington and Oregon have been notified of this action.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs t
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Representative hn J. Rhodes WMB:hd. ES;', DD E
ES D:
- RES D:RES Offc:
WMB:DRA:RES W
- RES Name:
NTanious/cj JRanda 1 Silberberg FCdd fioris CH mes Beckjord 9////92 cj /,y/92
/Q/92 Date:
08/21/92 1/(f/92 1//(/92 7/M/92 Offc:
OCA Name:
DRathbun Date:
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
1 The Honorable Peter 11. Kostmayer 2
t 1
Distribution:
[CONti.LET]
i Subj-circ-chron DRathbun, OCA JMTaylor, EDO l
EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris w/ enclosure i
FCostanzi NSilberberg JRandall NTanious F
6
'I t
s l
i i
i
e nso
/
UNITED STATES l
hl'e,
f o
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGT ON, D.C. NA5
.4 g
o,g..2 f
.+
1he Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the and Oregon.
term "high-level radioactive waste" 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 high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Twelve comments were received.
The majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petitiun and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days. We have enclosed a copy of the denial that is being sent to the Federal Reaister. The States of Washington and Oregon have been notified of this action.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
As stated Representative Carlos J. Moorhead cc:
)
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon. The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-loel radioactive waste" 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 high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Twelve comments were received. The majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days. We have enclosed a copy of the denial that is being sent to the Federal Reaister. The States of Washington and Oregon have been notified of this action.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Representative C r s J. Moorh ad DDb(:RESD:hdhES DD RES S
Offc:
WMB:DRA:RES k
ES WMB:
. ES
%qn,d7 Name:
NTanious/cj JRandal Silberberg FCosianzi 4M6Fris CH es Date:
08/21/92
[/92 f/p/92
'T//6 /92 r 7h7/92 g/(g92 9 // 9/92 9 Offc:
OCA Name:
DRathbun Date:
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
i The Honorable Philip R. Sharp 2
Distribution: [C0!4G.LET]
Subj-circ-chron e
DRathbun, OCA
[
JMTaylor, EDO EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris w/ enclosure FCostanzi MSilberberg JRandall NTanicus i
T I
I i
h t
a I
I f
f ll l 5
T Y'
s
g ># "I CQ UNITED STATES y>[s e,
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
y, p
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 is o,%,...../
The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking 27, 1990, from the States of Washington (PRM 60-4) that was received on JulyThe petition requested the NRC to revise t term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and Oregon.
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 high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
17, 1990, with The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on DecemberTwelve comments we an opportunity for the public to comment.
majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the T
NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regul ations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the We have enclosed a copy of the denial that is being sent to The States of Washington and Oregon have been notified next few days.
the Federal Reaister.
of this action.
Sincerely, t
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Offi e of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
l As stated cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson
The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon. The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" 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 high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Twelve comments were received. The majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classif 4 -t'on are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days. We have enclosed a copy of the denial that is being sent to the Federal Reaister. The States of Washington and Oregon have been notified of this action.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson Offc:
WMB:DRA:RES Wlhe A WMB M ES* D.V
':RES D;.tf ' RES DD DRES D:RES Name:
NTanious/cj JRandalf Silberberg FC zi
's CH semes EBeckjord y/[/92 f/t /92 B{7/I7 /92 f
q/$/92 S/d/92-Date:
08/21/92 e//p92 Offc:
OCA Name:
DRathbun i
Date:
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
m The Honorable Bob Graham 2
Distribution:
[C0tiG. LET)
Subj-ci rc..cieron 0Rathbun, OCA JMTaylor, EDO EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris w/ enclosure FCostanzi MSilberberg JRandall fiTanious t
4 4
?
Eli i
I
00C. FILE NAME:
CONG.LTR LONG DISPLAY:
CREATED:
08/25/92 AUTHOR:
N. Tanicus REVISED:
08/25/92 TYPIST:
CJones TIME:
10:30 am EXCERPT:
IDENTICAL LETTERS T0:
~
The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Committee Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Chairman on Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Energy and Power i
United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Washington, DC 20515 United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead-cc:
'The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Comm. on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Senator Alan K. Simpson cc:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
lhe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60 The l
27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon.
- 4) that was received on Julypetition requested the NRC to revise the definit tive i
f
-m
F
.'f,.,1
-,s t
] '
l i
t I
l
?
1 ENCLOSURE 7 Letters to the States of Washington and Oregon, l
and the Yakima Indian Nation i
I I
i
)
i L
l i
4 N
e 1
--m$.
e,
esg r
l l
1 i
,.._o r,,.-,.. -
n
ga %,
l Y
UNITED STATES 8\\')y*((.h, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D.C 20555
{
4 o,
- 4..... s*
Mr. Cecil Sanchey, Chairman Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road 98948 Toppenish, Washington
Dear Mr. Sanchey:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking 27, 1990, from the States of Washington (PRM 60-4) that was received on JulyThe petition requested the NRC to revise term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and Oregon.
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 high-levcl waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
17, 1990, with The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on DecemberTwelve comments were an opportunity for the public to comment.
majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days.
Sincerely, Donnie Grimsley, Director Division of Freedom of Information and. Publications Services Offic'e' of Administration cc:
Mr. Russel Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948
Mr. Cecil Sanchey, Chairman Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948
Dear Mr. Sanchey:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking 27, 1990, from the States of Washington (PRM 60-4) that was received on JulyThe petition requested the NRC to revise th term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and Oregon.
and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, includino in particular certain waste stored at the U.S.
Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.
17, 1990, with The petition was published in the Federal Reaister on DecemberTwelve comments we an opportunity for the public to comment.
majority of the comments opposed the petition.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by case basis without revision to the regulations.
A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Reaister within the next few days.
Sincerely, Donnie Grimsley, Director Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration cc: Mr. Russel Jim. Manager Environmental hestoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948
)WN.
Q:
DD.
RES D:DRA:RES Offt:
WM:DRA Name:
NTanio s:p /cj JRan 11. sea FC sta zi BMorris Date:
08/gh92
/g/92
//(/92 7/s/92
/ /92 Offc:
- RES D:RES$
DFIPS:ADM Name:
CJ temes EBe(kjord DGrimsley Date:
f% /92 5/t</92
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
2 Mr. Cecil Sanchey IDENTICAL LETTERS T0-Mr. Dan Silver Office of the Governor Insurance Building AQ-44 Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr. David Stewart-Smith, Administrator Division of Nuclear Safety & Energy facilities Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 Mr. Terry Husseman, Assistant Director Waste Management, Department of Ecology State of Washington, Hail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 Mr. David Yaden, Director Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street, NE.
Salem, Oregon 97310 Distribution: [SANCHEY. PAT)
Subj/ Circ /Chron CKammerer, SP DGrimsley, ADM EBeckjord CHeltemes TSpeis BMorris FCostanzi MSilberberg JRandall NTanious 8:CONG.LTR WM Subj WM Rdg file ti l 1
~..
A DOC. flLE NAME:
SANCHEY. PAT LONG DISPLAY:
CREATED:
AUTHOR:
NTanicus REVISED:
08/24/92 TYPIST:
CJones TIME:
10:30 am EXCERPT:
Mr. Cecil Sanchey, Chairman Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151,. fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948 s
Dear Mr. Sanchey:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon. The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the I
i t
t
?
I l
r r
' t
. ~.
b s
4 1
4 e
I ENCLOSURE 8 Draft Public Announcement I
5 i
i s
L i
)
)
-l
-t i
e
- t i
i i
i III i
i i
[
i
?
5 9
, y
,r
,p
..m.,
y
+
6-,,-
v
-.a
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DENIES PETITION FOR RULEMAKING i
1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking submitted by the states of Oregon and Washington seeking revisions 1
in the Commission's current definition of high-level radioactive wastes.
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 (HLW) subject to NRC licensing authority.
Under the petitioners' proposal, the Commission would have:
1.
Established a process to evaluate the treatment of defense c
reprocessing wastes in tanks 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.
Required 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 limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms.
After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied. The petition is being denied
- s because the NRC concludes that the prindiples for waste classification are well established and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.
,