ML20059C629
| ML20059C629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1993 |
| From: | Wolf J NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059C627 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-134 NUDOCS 9311010233 | |
| Download: ML20059C629 (1) | |
Text
I t
From: James R. Wolf (JRW)
To:
PMA Date: Honday, March 15, 1993 9:33 am
Subject:
Hanford Minutes
- 2) DOE stated their intent, for the tank waste grouting program, to apply safety standards similar to those in 10 CFR Part 61 and, in particular, to provide at least as great a measure of long-term protection as the performance objectives set out therein.
9311010233 930504 f
f March 4, 1993 EREEDOM 0F il1FORMATl0N Director ACT REQUEST Division of Freedom of Information
[of//-7,$-/Jf and Publications Service Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission glh j-fOd Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Freedom of Information Re qu e s t
Dear Director:
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I request, on behalf of The Seamless Web, that you send me copies of the following records within 10 working days.
(1) All records (that I have not previously received pursuant to three earlier FOIA requests, copies of which are enclosed) considering or otherwise relating to the petition of Oregon and Washington for rulemaking on the classification of high-level radioactive waste at defense processing facilities -- such records include, but are not limited.to,.the following;
.... - -.... - ~. _.
(a) 'The NRC's letter of June 11, 1992, requesting a meeting with the DOE and other interested parties in Richland, Washington; (b) All records prepared for the meeting; (c) All notes taken at the meeting; and (d) All analyses of matters presented at the meeting; (2) The NRC's schedule for reaching a decision on the petition; (3) All records relating to the petitions of Bob Cook and the Yakima Indian Nation, dated September, 12, 1991, and April 2,.;1992, in relation to the long-term storage or disposal of HLW in Hanford's cribs, ditches, trenches, and single-shell tanks; (4) All records prepared for, relating to, or arising from the meeting on September 23, 1992, of HRC staff and Portland General Electric staff to discuss the individual Plan Examination Program at Trojan Nuclear Plant; sN x
.a
-.s.-,.
-.g.-
9 i
NRC.FOIA Request March 4, 1993 Page 2 r
(5) All records prepared for, relating to, or-arising from the meeting on September 25, 1992, of the Region V Administrator, Region V staff, the Oregon Department of Energy, and the Trojan Subcommittee Chairman; (6) All records prepared for, relating to, or arising from the meeting on October 1, 1992, of NRC staff and the Oregon Energy Facilities Siting Council; and (7) All records prepared for, relating to, or arising from the meeting on 6ctober 2, 1992, of HRC staff, the Oregon Department of Energy, and the Oregon Energy Facilities Siting Council.
Please provide these records without exception or deletion.
If any material responsive to this request is withheld, please provide ample justification.
I hereby petition for a waiver of all fees otherwise incurred for the processing of this request under 10 C.F.R. 9.41(b):
(1) The information will be used for news articles arising therefrom; (2) Each record will be fully analyzed, and the analysis will determine the extent of extraction; (3) The records will be used for investigative articles in various publications, and the requester is an editor of an environmental newsletter titled The Seamless Web and an accomplished writer competent in legal analysis; (4) The public will develop an understanding of l
(a) the petitions, the way in which they are slowly processed, the NRC's evaluation thereof, and the significance of the petitions, and (b) the events and analyses leading up to the decision to shutdown Trojan; (5) The information is targeted to reach people who read newspapers and magazines, the circulation of which exceeds 1 million people; (6) The Seamless Web will publish the stories in its capacity as a news service, and will make the stories available for reprinting by newspapers and
s' j
!JRC FOIA Request March 4, 1993 Page 3 magazines; (7) The stcries will be copyrighted and made available for reprinting in original form, with proper credit, at no charge, and The Seamless Web itself will be distributed at no charge; and (8) It is possible, though fairly unlikely, that the requester will win an award for investigative environmental reporting.
Please send the records to me at The Seamless Web, P.O. Box 5448, Eugene, OR 97405-0448.
If you have any ' questions, please call me at (503) 345-9907.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely, 6
0 WW Nickolas Facaros NF/nf Enc 1.
.,_,,'~g,,,_,,,,,,_,,,
+
T e
e a,
NOTATION VOTE b
^+C
^
AM Am g RESPONSE SHEET j
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY. OF THE CO!44ISSION FROM:
C0l41ISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD w/cm - /-
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NoT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0141ENTS:
- gcA' I
- f/ eau f*
(/ SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X/
/ T Mc PL DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
gb;9)b%((>l'l h,\\
ENTERED ON "AS" YES /
No
'.'s
\\
Commissioner Remick's Comments on SECY-92-391 In recognition of the limits of our regulatory authority in this area, I approve the staff's recommendation to publish in the Federal Recister the notice of denial of the petition for rulemaking filed by the States of Washington and Oregon provided that the staff makes clear, in both the Federal Recister Notice and the letter to DOE, that the conclusions reached on the classification of the tank wastes are based on DOE's assurances that (1) the vastes have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) the wastes will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) the wastes will be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, so that safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
The staff should make it clear in its letter to DOE and the Federal Recister Notice that the findings in this matter are based on DOE's assurances that the above criteria will be met.
I would prefer speaking of DOE's assurances rather than using the phrase "provided that" (see last paragraph in proposed letter to DOE - Enclosure 2) which suggests that the NRC is imposing conditions on DOE.
If, for any reason, the DOE is unable to provide the NRC staff with assurances that these criteria can or are being met, then the staff should immediately inform the Commission so that this matter can be reconsidered.
Staff should modify the proposed Federal Recister Notice and the letter to DOE to reflect this position (see attached modifications).
managir.g those wastes rests wiAh the Department of Energy. The basis for the t:
w Commission's pccition-is that the reprocessing wastes disposed of in the grout: - =_j -ec ;t r 4 Ooc.s -
facility would be " incidental" wastes because they: (1) have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C lov-level waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) are to be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act',
so that safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
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.
p D
15
UNITED STATES
- ol' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20665 k, [,)..
e Mr. John Tseng, Director Hanford Program Office Office of Waste Management Environmental Restoration and Waste Management ll.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585
Dear Mr. Tseng:
Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissia staff appreciated the opportunity o meet with the Department of Energy (DOE) staff, DOE contractors, and other t
parties on July 16, 1992, to review new waste characterization data and current DOE plans for management of radioactive tank waste at Hanford. The purpose of this letter is to provide DOE with the staff's assessment of that information as it relates to DOE's program to classify, process and dispose of Hanford tank wastes.
We are also taking this opportunity to respond to the related November 4,1992 letter from Leo P. Duffy to Chairman Ivan Selin.
During the meeting, DOE presented 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.
Rizzo, September 25, 1989).
This reflected our understan' ding that DOE would segregate 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 Commission has recently completed its review of a rulemaking petition from the States of Washington and Oregon on the subject of the double-shell tank wastes and has indicated in the enclosed petition denial that it would regard the residual fraction as " incidental" wastegrcvided thct the. Mte: (1) has been proceiseo (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to he maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be y_LG
- L_p
- --h i Q
+C /
m-2
+&x
& A- :
NOTATION VOTE b
&\\'
ch.
\\#
of[fgrP RESPONSE SHEET T0:
SA!4UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COf44ISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER ROGERS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL 0F PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD
- wir.
APPROVED c --s DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
<~
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
I agree with the staff's recommendation regarding denial of te petition.
I also agree that DOE should perform ongoing assessments of the wastes as they are processed.
However, I believe that it is DOE's responsibility to communicate to NRC any new indication that some of the wastes are subject to NRC licensing.
Accordingly, I do not think that DOE needs to keep us informed of 1;ts ongoing assessments.
The enclosed mark-ups to the Federal Register notice and the letter to DOE reflect these thoughts.
+b bJLE SIGNATURE M
RELEASE VOTE
/
/
M lE ML l
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
,. 1, 'l g s
ENTERED ON "AS" YEs /
NO d "? b P
e
- t acted in this manner in its inquiries to DOE.
It has obtained and evaluated information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not the proposed activities of the DOE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available -
/ >y[f \\
Q*
contemporaneously to the public.
Moreover, as a practical matter,[the NRC has requested' the DOE to al results of all samples of the) ically sub,m'it summaries of the analy tgrout feeds for disposal a's incidental wastes [NRCrecognizedthe uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the tank wastes and endorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds before disposal. The objective of these efforts is to control the final composition of the grout wastes.
If DOE finds that inventories of key radionuclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than DOE estimated in 1989, DOE should notify NRC so that the Commission could k/N reconsider its classification of the wa 4RC has also requested DOE to gvide 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 i
sufficient to conclude that NRC lacked jurisdiction. However, the proper standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well. As indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Commission has obtained information that is sufficient for this purpose.
3.
Future Adiudications The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in 18 D
a y-n
-m
.~
incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) will be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, so that safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
It is therefore essential, in 'the light of this position, that DOE's present reevaluation of waste tank remediation options, and subsequent periodic evaluations as may be conducted, include the application of these principles.
We recognize that there may be significant economic, programatic, and safety factors affecting the remediation program, but the consideration of such factors as they may relate to the possible jurisdiction of NRC should be made hgpMav.Ad elear.
j I request Jhat you keep us jnformed of the progress of yo ongoing reassessment and of relevarit technical inforpation inclu g, but not Ltmited
/
uits for tank wastes to, youry ank waste treatm'ent plans and th9 analytical r t
_that are proposed to be dent to the groutdacility. f 1f 'it becomes apparen%p 3
that any wastes may be subject to NRC licensing, it will be necessary determine what form of pre-licensing interactions, analogous to repository site characterization, would be -necc'^~ to 4ctedina the appropriate
~
disposition of these wastes, cl %
I trust that this letter, and the enclosed petition denial, provide the M(C #
information requested in Leo P. Duffy's November 4, 1992, letter to Chairman Ivan Selin, regarding NRC's intended response to the rulemaking petition by the States of Washington and Oregon.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me, at 301-504-3352, or B.J. Youngblood, Director of the Division of High-level Waste Management, at 301-504-3404.
Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Attachment:
As stated cc:
J. Anttonen, DOE J. Bartlett, DOE L. Duffy, DOE D. Duncan, EPA R. Stanley, Washington State J. Franco, Oregon State R. Jim, YIN
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C fMISSION FROM:
C0f41ISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL OF PRM-60 PETITION.
FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD APPROVED xx DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN Nor PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0141ENTS:
I concur with the comraents of both Commissioners Rogers and Remick.
Further, I have additional edits to the letter to DOE and the Federal Reaister Notice (attached).
f a
SIGNATURF/
RELEASE VOTE
/ xx /
December 22, 1992 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
\\
ENTERED ON "AS" YES xx NO
'I Y' C
acted in this manner in its inquiries to DOE. It has obtained and evaluated information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not the proposed activities of the DOE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.
All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available contemporaneously to the public.
Moreover, as a practical matter.jthe NRC has requested' the DOE to cal results o!all samples of the) ically subm'it su::::ar es of the anal (grout feeds for disposal,as incidental wastes [HRC recognized the uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the tank wastes and endorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds before disposal. The objective of these efforts is to control the final veNeh7e composition of the grout wastes.
If DOE finds that Ny i
D r
uc g
iy u ci r
-s4 eE NIS nNh9 ot4fy-N C h
is*4cn CDsle rem e' ce r 4+e e i n s s i fi c ati on of t hewesttr. NRC has also requested DOE to ide the sumaries 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 standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well. As indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Comission has obtained information that is sufficient for this purpose.
3.
Future Adiudications The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in 18
A UNrrED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIGSION.
i WASHINGTON. D.C. M
.?
.\\
Ms.3?R g hjoSW_ dp2.XDhD6Q ufv/l
('
- awf4rd.eg h, Mr:: tar e w Tsem i
Giiice Office of Waste Management j
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management i
U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585 l
Dearp.Te=%.. %%L'.
Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff appreciated the opportunity i
to meet with the Department of Energy (DOE) staff, DOE contractors, and other parties on July 16, 1992, to review new waste characterization data and current DOE plans for management of radioactive tank waste at Hanford. The 1
purpose of this letter is to provide DOE with the staff's assessment of that information as it relates to DOE's program to classify, process and dispose of Hanford tank wastes. We are also taking this opportunity to respond to the related November 4,1992 letter from Leo P. Duffy to Chairman'Ivan Selin.
During the meeting, DOE presented 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.
Rizzo, September 25,1989). This reflected our understanding that DOE would segregate 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 Commission has recently completed its review of a rulemaking petition from the States of Washington and Oregon on the. subject of the double-shell tank wastes and has indicated in the enclosed petition denial that it would regard the residual fraction as " incidental" waste,pnid:d th;t th:.2!te: (1) has been processeo (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to he maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be
$ " Q K/
y_LG
.p A7
%g &
__ ~ w N b
i g
incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level wasta as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) will be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, so that safety requirements comparable to the perfomance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.
It is therefore essential, in the light of this position, that DOE's present reevaluation of waste tank remediation options, and subsequent periodic evaluations as may be conducted, include the application of these principles.
We recognize that there may be significant economic, programatic, and safety factors affecting the remediation program, but the consideration of such
. actors as they may relate to the possible jurisdiction of HRC should be made clear.
hpAh j
T request Jhat you keep us jnformed of the progress of yoyf ongoing reassessment and of relevap technical infomation includ)hg, but not Mmited that are/ank waste treatment plans and th/ analytical r(sults for tanii wastes to, your proposed to be dent to the grout /tacility.J 1f 'it becomes apparenct 3
thlit any wastes may be subject to NRC licensing, it will be necessary y gen boraf@de3rmine what form of pre-licensing interactions, analogous to repository fite characterization, would be -newA to etedin2 the appropriate
~
disposition of these wastes, dp
,_g_
C+ A I trust that this letter, and the enclosed petition denial, provide the information requested in Leo P. Duffy's November 4,1992, letter to Chairman Ivan Selin, regarding NRC's intended response to the rulemaking petition by the States of Washington and Oregon.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me, at 301-504-3352, or B.J. Youngblood, Di s ter of the Division of High-Level Waste Management, at 301-504-3404.
Sincerely, l
Robert M. Bernero, Director I
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I
Attachment-As sta d
, g_g J. An/then, 00E' RL cc:
J. Bartlett, DOE-RW-I L. Duffy, DOC-6 /A-l D. Duncan, EPA R. Stanley, Washington State J. Franco, Oregon State R. Jim, YIN
NOTATION VOTE R_ESPONSE SHEET
~
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COI41ISSION FROM:
THE CHAIRMAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-391 - DENIAL 0F PRM-60 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE STATES OF WASHINGTON ~
AND OREGON REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD APPROVED X
DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0lHENTS:
I agree with the staff's recommendation that the petition be denied.
In addition, I concur with the comments of Commissioners Remick, Rogers, and de Planque.
i SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/x /
December 23, 1992 DATEX WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
--n;p(
?
~
.y m/) w x; -
.,l ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO
--