ML20058A087

Forwards Background Info in Ref to 931104 Meeting W/ Envirocare

ML20058A087
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/03/1993
From:	Greeves J NRC
To:	Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20058A091	List: ML20058A087
References
NUDOCS 9311300095
Download: ML20058A087 (7)

Text

--

DMALL R

- n e

s

[

,\\

UNITED STATES i.! W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ T-

~!

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001

,[

/MS' f /FD v

...+

NOTE T0:

Robert M. Bernero

?

?

se M.J Ak FROM:

John T. Greeves

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE NOVPeER 4,1993 ENVIR0 CARE MEETING The purpose of this note it to provide you with some background information that you may find useful in preparing for the meeting with Envirocare tomorrow. contains several pages from the staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) which present the basis for the license conditions presently being contested by Envirocare.

Of particular interest is the information documenting what Envirocare presented in its license application, and then that which the staff used to form the basis for its license condition.

At no point in time since it received the FSER in June has Envirocare told the staff that the information presented is incorrect or represents a misinterpretation of the license application.

Given that, the staff used this information as the basis for license conditions covering the operating parameters for the facility.

On recent telephone calls between the staff and representatives of Envirocare, the staff has been requested to change the appropriate conditions without any supporting change in the license application by Envirocare. On more than one occasion, Envirocare has stated that it would like to meet with the staff and negotiate the license conditions.

Because the conditions in question are based on the information contained in the Envirocare license application, ani because Envirocare has not contested the staff's findings based on this information in the FSER, the staff has told Envirocare that it has no basis to change the license conditions.

In addition, the staff has explained to Envirocare in writing on October 29, 1992 (enclosure 2 to this note) and on several telephone conversations this week that the burden is on Envirocare to provide analyses that justify changing any condition in the license.

Envirocare, however, has not accepted this fact, and continues to approach the staff on ways it can negotiate changes to the license.

Therefore, it may be beneficial for you to also emphasize with the Envirocare representatives in your meeting tomorrow that the license is based on the analyses presented by Envirocare in its application. Any changes to the license would need to be justified by Envirocare.

Unless this is done, Envirocare should understand that the staff has no basis for changing the license.

Also, for your information, is a copy of the November 2,1993 letter to Mr.

Semnani from Mr. Taylor regarding fees.

If you need any further information, 1

we are prepared to meet with you.

P f"7 m%p yyy g cr&ey. a m wx m e a

I f

2 002063.

1. wA.o4 y [ p!**

• O()&, w n utn 1800GG 9311300095 931103 Y

PDR ORG NOMAPDR

i from these specifications will require a revised radiological dose assessment that considers the potentialimpacts associated with design and operational changes submitted in the form of a license amendment. In particular, these Lcense conditions are:

5

1. The maximum bulk mass of waste disposed of annually will not exceed 4.536 x 10 5

tonnes (5 x 10 tons).

2. The maximum annual disposal area will not exceed 229 m x 168 m (equivalent to 2

38,472 m 3,

3. The 11e.(2) waste will be disposed of in no more than about one-third of the annual l

disposal area at any one time (This value was derived from the applicant's figuro for total mass of waste processed annually and waste density).

4. The total embankment capacity will not exceed 2.52 x 108 m' (3.3 x 108 yd').

5. The maximum volume of waste that may be stored on site prior to disposal will not 2

5 exceed 2.743 x 10' m (9.687 x 10 ft').

6.1.1.2 Non-Radiological Characteristics of the Waste The applicant stated that 11e.(2) byproduct materialis expected to contain constituents similar to those found in uranium mill tailings, regardless of the source. The applicant provided information in the license application to show the typical chemical and radiological properties of tailings wastes (dry solids and liquids) generated by a model uranium mill. The applicant also provided information on elements present in tailings from acid-leach uranium mills.

Envirocare also provided upper ranges of elemental concentrations in mill tailings be. sed on EPA reports and compared those ranges with average elemental crustal concentrations (see Table 17.5 in the license application). The applicant assumed that 90% of the waste arriving at the proposed 11e.(2)' waste disposal facility will be less than or equal to average concentrations of the constituents in the earth's crust. As a result of this comparison, Envirocare pointed out that arsenic, barium, and lead would cause the waste to fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leachiag Procedure (TCLP) under 40 CFR 261.24, EPA's hazardous waste regulations. Envirocare indicated that most of the highest concentrations were found only at one mill site and, therefore, the applicant expected the average concentrations of non-radiological constituents to be lower. Envirocare anticipates (based on rough estimates) that actual concentrations of non-radiological constituents may be less than half of the maximum observed concentrations.

Envirocare indicated in its application that low concentrations of hazardous volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds could also be present in thorium 11e.(2) byproduct i

materials. Examples of organic constituents include: Acetone: 2-Butanone; Chloroform; Carbon disulfide: 1,2-Dichloroethane: Methylene chloride: Napthe: Diethylphthalate; and 2-

]

Methylnaphthaline.

)

The NRC staff reviewed Envirocare's characterization tsf the non-radiological j

ENVIROCARE FINAL SER 81 June 18.' 1993

s constituents in the 11e.(2) byproduct material that would be disposed of at the proposed facility. Based on its review, NRC staff concluded that Envirocare may not have sufficiently estimated the non-radiological characteristics of the waste in terms of constituent concentrations. Specifically, the applicant did not present an assessment or references to justify the assertion that 90% of the waste arriving at the proposed 11e.(2) waste disposal facility would be at concentrations that approximated average concentrations of the constituents in the earth's crust. Therefore, the NRC staff will require the applicant to include in the certification procedures, required by license condition in FSER Section 5.2.1, an assessment by the shipper of the non-radiological constituents in the 11e.(2) byproduct material.

6.1.1.3 Radiological Characteristics of the Waste The apphcant has described the radiological characteristics of the 11e.(2) waste using available waste characteristics data for operating and non-operating uranium mill sites and three 11e.(2) waste sites where other uranium and thorium processing has taken place.

The applicant provided data on the radiological characteristics of: generic uranium mill tailings from Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP) sites; the UMTRAP disposal site at Clive Utah; the raffinate pits st Weldon Spring, Missouri; the Kerr-McGee Rare Earths Facility in West Chicago, Illinois; and the Maywood Stepan Chemical site in Maywood, New Jersey. Using data from these sites, Envirocare generically described the physical form of the waste to be disposed of in the proposed disposal facility. For example, the applicant stated that building debris, contaminated soils, and mill tailings (low-specific activity waste) will constitute approximately 80% of the wasta. The average total activity of such waste was estimated by the applicant to be below 1,000 pCi/g for any waste generator site, with the most probable average activity close to 400 pCi/g.

The applicant has also generically described another waste category designated as high specific activity waste. Suc h waste is generated from tailing waste concentrates such as sludges, slimes, and raffinate concentrates. Envirocare indicated that the weighted average 22 era concentrations in such waste must not exceed 2,000 pCi/g and average 232Th concentration must not exceed 6,000 pCi/g. The applicant assumed in the dose assessments for the proposed facility that the average concentration for any radionuclide in the high specific activity waste is 1000 pCi/g. However, the applicant did not provide a rationale for this assumption. The applicant has assumed in the dose assessments that the high specific activity waste represents 10% of the 11e.(2) waste. The applicant did not specify a maximum concentration for each radionuclide or the total activity in the high specific-activity waste.

Based on such radiological data, the epplicant proposed the following radiological characteristics of the 11e.(2) waste:

e) The average bulk concentration (for the disposal site) for any radionuclide in the U and Th decay chains will be 500 pCi/g or less. It should be noted that the applicant has analyzed occupational and public doses based on the assumption that 90% of the waste will have an average bulk-specific activity of 500 pCi/g for each radionuclide in the uranium and thorium decay series.

ENVIROCARE FINAL SER 82 June 18.1993 i

P I

b) Individual shipments of waste may contain higher average concentrations of 22sRa and 2'2Th.

The applicant emphasized, however, that the weighted average concentrations i

(by weight) in a shipment would not exceed 2000 pCi/g for 22*Ra or 6000 pCi/g for 232Th. Both radionuclides may be present in the shipment at these concentrations.

c) Assuming that the total bulk mass of waste to be handled annually is 451,500 tonnes (500,000 tons), and considering an average concentration of 500 pCi/g for each 22 era and 232Th, the total annual activity for each radionuclide was estimated by the applicant at 227 Ci.

d) The applicant has assumed that all decay products of 22 era and 222Th are in secular equilibrium. Thus, there would be 227 Ci of each radionuclide (such as 22 era and 22*Ra) in the two decay chains. However, this assumption was not apparently applied when the applicant calculated radon and thoron releases.

e) The concentration of 23eV in the waste was assumed to be less than 25% of the 22'Ra concentration and the average 23 Th concentration is assumed to be equal to the 22 era concentration. The applicant based this estimate of the 23sU concentration on isotopic ratios observed at UMTRAP sites (as discussed below). The applicant estimated the 23 Th concentration based on the assumption that Th was in secular equilibrium with 2

22 era.

The NRC staff reviewed the applicant's analysis of waste characteristics by comparing proposed characteristics with the characteristics of wastes from the facilities at West Chicago, Weldon Spring, Maywood, Clive, and from UMTRAP tailings. All of these sites -

i contain 11e.(2) byproduct material or similar material. NRC staff has summarized the-radiological characteristics for these sites in Table 8.

Considering the radiological characteristics presented in Table 8 and the data presented j

by the applicant, the NRC staff concluded the following:

a) that the 22 era mean concentration will be in most cases less than 500 pCi/g. Thus, the average 22 era concentration in the waste should not exceed 500 pCi/g. Because radiological impacts will depend largely on this average concentration, the applicant will be required to maintain the 22 era concentration, averaged over the bulk waste disposed of in any one year, below 500 pCi/g.

j b) that 22 era concentrations may vary over a wide range, with concentration levels of-2000 pCi/g or possibly higher encountered for certain categories of 11e.(2) weste.

Therefore, the NRC staff finds acceptable the applicant's commitment not to accept average concentration of 22 era above 2,000 pCi/g in any shipment.

c) that the license application did not specify an upper limit on the average radionuclide concentration in the high activity waste; establish lower / upper concentration limits to segregate the waste from the low activity waste; or explicitly identify the maximum total concentration limits for the high activity waste. Nevertheless, the applicant assumed in the radiological assessment that the average radionuclide concentration in j

the high activity waste will be 1,000 pCi/g. Since the applicant has restricted the ENVIROCARE FINAL SER 83 June 18.1993 l

4 I

TABLE 8 - Radiological Characteristics of Mill Tailings SITE MEAN STANDARD RANGE OTHER l

22 era DEVIATION 22 era RADIONUCLIDES (pCilg) 22'Ra (pCi/g)

(pCi/g) 23 UMTRAP Sites 464 509 45-2315 Th:

(Up to 10' pCi/g in slime, raffinates, and evaporation ponds)

Site wide 23 Th is equal to 22 era 23sU:

8% of 22 era Active Mills 319 230 87-981 na UMTRA Site at 670 na' 460-900 23 Th:

equal to 22 era Clive, Utah (100-2000)"

23"U:

8% of 22 era Weldon Spring 343 216 11-460 2' Th:

12448 Site, Missouri 232Th:

118 23sU:

556 23'U:

598 22sRa:

157 Kerr-McGee W.

300 na' 1.8-7526 23sU:

43-135**(83)

Chicago, IL (47) 23oTh:

equal to 22 era 232Th:

6.6-5284 (900) 22sRa:

549 232 Stepan na na na Th:

6000 Chemical 23sU

~

Maywood, NJ chain: less than Th

• na: not available

• *(..): Concentration ranges reported in the reference, followed by the average.

maximum weighted average concentration in a shipment to 2000 pCi/g 22*Ra and 6000 pCi/g 232Th, and restricted the yearly average concentration for the site at 1000 pCi/g, the staff considers this assumed limit acceptable, d) that the applicant's estimate of 10% of the bulk waste being high activity waste is reasonable considering the restrictions on the average concentration per shipment and per year at the site. However, since it is an estimate based on projected waste ENVIROCARE FINAL SER 84 June 18,1993 F

I

sources, the applicant will be required to verify this number during operations.

e) that the applicant has not shown that yearly average concentrations of low-activity radionuclides other than 22 era will not exceed 500 pCi/g. Since the applicant has already provided a yearly average 22 era concentration and an average concentration per shipment of 500 pCi/g, the staff considers a restrictien of the maximum average concentration of low activity waste to 500 pCi/g for any radionuclide in the U/Th series acceptable.

Since the applicant has based estimates of worker and public exposure on calculations that employed the above parameters the staff wilt make these parameters license conditions. Deviations from these specifications will require a revised radiological dose assessment that consider the potential impacts associated with design and operational changes submitted in the form of a license amendment.

6.1.2 Facility Operations i

6.1.2.1 Generic Description of Waste Handling Operation The procedure for accepting, inspecting, receiving, handling, storing, and disposing of incoming waste at the facility has been described fully in Chapter 16 of the license 5

application. This Section provides an overview of waste handling operations; a more detailed description and review of the waste handling operations follows.

The 11e.(2) byproduct material will be received either by truck or railcar. The railcar 1

will be directly unloaded using the " rollover" facility or a specially designed front-end loader. Trucks will be directly unloaded at the storage or disposal facility. Envirocare will i

use a dust abatement technique, consisting of a water spray application, when receiving the waste at the rollover facility. In addition, Envirocare will mitigate' dusting prior to rollover and after relocation of the waste to the disposal area by applying water u dry waste.

Envirocare will also use respiratory protection for individuals unloading waste in the rollover f acility. Thus, all individuals directly involved with the rollover procedure will use half-f ace respirators with a protection factor of 10 (in accordance with Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 20) or greater respiratory protection from airbome particulates (i.e., full-face i

mask respirator) for unloading higher activity waste. Envirocare emphasized that front-end loader operators will wear a half-face dust mask with a minimum protection factor of 10 i

during removal and loading operations. The truck drivers will also wear a half-face respirator during the loading / unloading operations.

The applicant has established certain procedures on waste handling based on the radiologic characteristics of the wastes. Since these procedures are considered in the estimate of worker and public exposure, the NRC staff will make these procedures conditions of the license. These license conditions include:

f a) Wastes will be segregated into two categories of specific activities: lower activity and ENViROCARE FINAL SER 85 June 18,1 m J

higher activity. Envirocare will dispose of the higher activity wastes (those with average concentrations of 1,000 pCi/g for any radionuclide) within 10 days of acceptance. Envirocare will place such waste in the embankment region at depths more than 3.3 m below the elevation of the radon barrier. Consequently, the higher activity waste will be located closer to the bottom of the embankment. The applicant will also cover the higher activity waste with either lower specific activity material or

soils, b) If high activity waste is stored, it will be covered with an additional 15 cm (6 in) of Icw activity waste or clean fill material to reduce gamma exposures and radon emissions.

c) Only solid waste will be received and accepted for disposal. Any containers having more than 1% free-standing liquid will be rejected and returned to the originator. The applicant proposed to determine the amount of free-standing liquid by using EPA's Paint Filter Liquid Test (SW-846, Method 9095).

d) Prior to shipment of the waste to the proposed disposal facility, Envirocare will obtain from the generator a description of the waste to be managed at the Envirocare facility.

The description of the waste willinclude concentrations of radionuc; ides present in the waste to ensure that these concentrations are within the acceptaNe limits of the license.

The applicant described waste handling procedures for the proposed disposal facility as follows:

1. Transoortation: Waste will be loaded at the generator site and shipped to the proposed dipsosal facility using either rail or highway transportation vehicles. The waste will be contained in either bulk rail, bulk highway shipments, or in boxes of capacity 20 or 3.5 yd'. Drums, barrels and/or bags may also be used to contain waste during shipment.

2. Radioactive Characteristics of the Waste: Envirocare has indicated that the first step in receiving the waste is to obtain, in advance of the waste shipment, assurance from the waste generator (a form of certification) declaring that the material to be delivered for disposal at the site is within the parameters of the license. Lists of laboratory analytical data for all radionuclides present in the waste will also be provided. The generator will also certify that the 11.e(2) byproduct material does not contain hazardous waste as defined by 40 CFR 261.3 or any other EPA regulated material.

3. Samolino of incomino Shioment: The next step is independent sampling of incoming waste shipment by Envirocare. For each waste stream, the minimum number of samples 20 be analyzed are:

One representative sample for each of the first ten shipments (rail or highway cars of waste volume approximately 100 yd'), or One representative sample for each 100 yd' up to 1,000 yd', and Thereafter, one representative sample for each additional 500 yd' following the first ENVIROCARE FINAL SER 86 June 18.1993 k_

~

/y arcg o

UNITED sT4 TEs

['

NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSION w

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20t%

y

\\-

/

OCT 29 99 Mr. Khosrow B. Semnani, President Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

46 W. Broadway Suite 240 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Dear Mr. Semnani:

I am writing in response to several telephone conference calls Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare), has initiated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff between October 25, 1993, and October 29, 1993.

In those calls, Envirocare indicated that it believed the NRC staff incorrectly interpreted its license application, and as such, developed proposed conditions 10.9 and 10.10 in the October 5, 1993, version of the draft license that were excessively limiting.

Envirocare stated that portions of the proposed conditions, as written, hindered its ability to accept 11e.(2) byproduct material from Kerr-McGee. Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to document those telephone calls, formally present you with the staff's position on the content of the draft license, and identify what steps are involved with Envirocare modifying its license application, such that it could propose a different basis for the conditions.

As was discu: sed with representatives of Envirocare in the above referenced telephone calls. NRC developed the proposed license conditions from the information contained in the Envirocare license application. As part of its review of the Envirocera license application, the staff performed a number of confirmatory calculations, especially in the area of radiation exposure.

The bases for these confirmatory calculations were derived from the information provided in the application. Unfortunately, in many instances, there were inconsistencies among various sections in the application, and the staff had to choose a set of conditions that it believed served as the best basis for its calculations.

Because of this, and to ensure that Envirocare operated its facility within the bounds used in the license application, the staff placed in the license, conditions which specified the operating parameters for the facility.

For this reason, the NRC staff has continually emphasized the necessity for Envirocare to present an application that was clear, concise, complete, and contained an internally consistent presentation of data. This concern was documented as part of the staff's acceptance review of the Envirocare application.

In its letter dated June 4, 1991, the staff stated that, "the information provided in the application and environmental report is cursory, not up to date, and presented in piece meal fashion that does not orovide coherently intearated loaic basis that demonstrates that the license i

application or environmental report will meet the reauirements in the applicable reaulations (Emphasis added)". Unfortunately, even though the NRC has repeatedly pointed out this problem during its review, the Envirocare license application still contains inconsistencies. An example of this is in the area of radiation safety, where, as discussed above, these inconsistencies have been critical to the staff's confirmatory analysis.

I

Y Khosrow B. Semnani 2

In addition to the several rounds of acceptance and licensing review questions addressing the inconsistencies in the information contained in the license application, the staff documented the proposed license conditions and their basis in its Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) issued June 18, 1993.

In a July 14, 1993, meeting on the remaining FSER open issues, the staff specifically stated that in addition to responding to the open issues, Envirocare should review the license conditions set forth in the FSER and, should Envirocare have a disagreement with the proposed license condition, address the condition in the response to the open issues. This is documented in the August 5, 1993, summary of the meeting.

In addition, to ensure that Envirocare fully understood the conditions the staff would be placing in its license, the staff provided Envirocare a copy of the draft license by letter dated October 5, 1993, and subsequently met with your staff on October 13, 1993.

This meeting offered Envirocare a final opportunity to ensure it fully understood the conditions and their bases.

Based on the above information, it is obvious that the staff has raised the need for Envirocare to ensure the quality of the information in its application, early in the process, and on numerous occasions during NRC review.

In addition, the staff documented potential conditions to the license in its FSER issued in June 1993, and provided Envirocare several opportunities to ensure it had a sound understanding of these conditions and their bases.

Because the conditions are based on information provided in the Envirocare license application, there are two options that Envirocare can choose to pursue.

The first would entail a decision by Envirocare to not amend its existing application, and therefore, not to provide tny new or different information than that presently set out in the application and evaluated by the staff.

Under this option, the staff would proceed to issue the license with the proposed conditions based on the present license application.

If, in the future, Envirocare finds that changes are needed to the conditions, it can submit, for staff review, a proposed amendment to its license along with the technical analyses it believes supports that amendment. The staff would then proceed to evaluate this information. Under the second option, Envirocare could choose to amend its existing application now and request that the NRC delay issuance of the license until the staff had reviewed and reached a decision on the amended application.

In either case, it is. incumbent upon Envirocare to provide new analyses and i

information that demonstrates compliance with the appropriate. regulations.

If the staff found the Envirocare demonstration acceptable, it would then modify the license to reflect this new basis.

If Envirocare would like to meet with the staff to discuss the types of changes it is considering before it files a' formal amendment to either the license af ter it is issued, or to the license application before licensing, the staff is prepared to meet to assist in resolving these issues.

4 Khosrow B. Semnani 3

In closing, I would like to reiterate that unless Envirocare amends its existing license application, the staff has no basis to change the conditions contained in the draft license. Therefore, if Envirocare is planning to amend its application Lefore it receives the license, it will need to inform the staff in writing that it is planning to do so, and is not prepared to receive its license at this time.

I hope this provides appropriate guidance for resolution of your concerns.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 504-3439 or Sandra Wastler of my staff at (301) 504-2582.

Sincerely, ORfGNAL SIGNED By Joseph J. Holonich, Acting Branch Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety i

and Safeguard i

cc:

W. Sinclair, Utah D. Hiller, Envirocare 1

i i

Distribution:

See attached list SUBJECT ABSTRACT:

RESPONSE TO TELECON OF OCTOBER 25-29,1993

• SEE PREVIO,pS CONCURRENCE L\\k E

OFC LLUR*

E LLUR*

E NAME SWastler/eb MFliegel JMnkch 10h93 M

DATE 10/29/93 M

10/29/93 M

p:\\ENV\\ LICENSE \\ CONF ENV.LTR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

'j PDR : YES X ~

NO Category:

Proprietary or CF Only ACNW: YES X

NO Delete file after distribution Yes X No IG: YES NO X

G

OCT 2 91993 BCC list for letter dated:

Paul J. Merges, Ph.D New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 Mr. Albert R. Chernoff Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 Ms. Maxine Dunkleman Washington Department of Health Division of Radiation Protection P.O. Box 47827 Olympia, WA 98504-7827 Mr. Bill Seay Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office P.O. Box 2001 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8723 4

3 93 Distribution:

Letter to Envirocare dated:

Central File #

LLWM r/f NMSS r/f PDR ACNW HThompson RBernero

.i GArlotto JGreeves PLohaus JHolonich JSurmeier JAustin MBell MFliegel l

DGillen SWastler AMullins EBrummett DRom LHamdan TJohnson RAbu-Eid LBykoski PGarcia,URF0 LPittiglio DSollenberger,SP JCallan,RIV CHackney,RIV, SLO JGilliland,RIV,PA0 RHall,RIV,URF0 RFonner,0GC STurk,0GC TCombs,0CA KStablein, ED0 CMcKenney e

4

--