ML20094S559

Requests NRCs Prescription of Stds to Define Transuranic Waste Per West Valley Demonstration Project Act.Discusses Need for Redefinition & Actions Needed by NRC

ML20094S559
Person / Time
Site:	West Valley Demonstration Project
Issue date:	04/15/1992
From:	Olsen M ENERGY, DEPT. OF, IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE
To:	Wolf J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20094S563	List: ML20094S559
References
REF-PROJ-M-32 NUDOCS 9204150168
Download: ML20094S559 (4)

Text

i fl(jkV .0lG p ', //f5%

/ ,blJ f ' '% ,,

,f - 1 Department of Energy l $ 1 M Idaho Field Office

'., j 785 DOE Place i, e Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 1562 James R. Wolf, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of General Counsel M.S. 15B18 Washington, D.C. 20505

SUBJECT:

NRC's Prescription of Standards to Define Transurinic Waste (TRU)

Purscent to the West Valley Demonstration Project Act (Act)

Dear Mr. Wolf:

Pursuant to our discussion in West Valley, dY on December 4, 1991, the Department of Energy (DOE) would like the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to prescribe, in accordance with provisions of the Act, a different concentration ,of transuranic elements for the definition of TRU.

1. NEED FOR REDEFINITION A. Dang.glion of- Project waste. As you know, one of the primary objectives of the West Valley Demonstration Project (Project) is to vitrify the high level waste contained in storage tanks on site. In order to achieve this objective with the least amount of vitrified waste, DOE is processing the liquid in the tanks, separating out the high level waste, and then ultimately solidifying the remaining low level effluent in a cement waste form contained in square 71-gallon drums. These drums are currently being stored in the on-site above-ground drum cell (WVDP waste). Tlie10,300plusdrums&Iready produced contain radioactive waste in concentrations of less than 100 nanocuries per gram (nC1/g); in fact, most of the drums have concentrations of under 80 nCi/g. These cemented wastes have been subjected to considerable developmental efforts and a testing program all aimed at their qualification as an acceptable waste form under 10 CFR Part 61.

B. Statutory backgted. The Act directs DOE to dispose of low level radioactive waste (LLW) and TRU produced by the solidification of the high level waste under the aroject "in accordance with applicable licensing requirements". T1e Act defines TRU as ' material r

a l l

. 9204150168 720415 3 *

$2 PDR

o James R. Wolf, Esq. contaminated with elenents which have an atomic number greater than 92

. . . and which are in concentrations greater than 10 nanocuries per gram, gr in such otAgr_npitatnijngs as the Commisijon may prescribt lo pretts1_the Dublic ht11th and sahiy." (Emphasis added)

There is a ragulatory gap not only with regard to the waste in general but specifically with regard to TRU. Although 10 CFR at West Valley,ith Part 61 deals w tht shallow land disposal of radioactive waste, the definition of waste.under Part 61 expressly excludes TRU.

Consequently, absent a redefinition of TRU by NRC pursuant to the

)rovisions of the Act, it appears the bulk of the WV0P waste could not se disposed of as LLW either at West Valley or at any licensed facility elsewhere. Even so, Part 61 defines a class of wastes that are referred to as low level wastes that may contain transuranic radionuclides in concentrations up to 100 nC1/g. We also note that the definition of ' waste" under Part 61 is set out in the context of shallow land burial, but without reference to a.ny particular geographic location or parent source.

In addition to Part 61, other regulations lend support to defir.ing the threshold of TRU as 100 nci/g, thereby defining as LLW that waste containing less than 100 nC1/9 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (at 40 CFR 191.02(h)(1)) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (at 6 NYCRR 382.2(a)(61)) both define TRU as waste containing more than 100 nC1/g transuranic radionuclides.

DOE also has defined TRU as waste containing more than 100 nCi/g transuranic radionuclides. See DOErn der 5820,2A. All of these definitions have been established without regard to the source of the ,

wastes or the geography of their disposal site.

C. DOE's inability to dispose of E . In preparing the joint EIS, DOE fully intends to consider all appropriate aptions for disposal of the

! LLW and TRU; one of these options is the w-site disposal of LLW. The legislative history of the Act reveals that such disposal made the most sense to Congress at the time the Act was adopted; however, in deference to the National Environmental Policy Act, Congress made clear that all appropriate options, including off-site disposal, l should be considered. Yet, as demonstrated above, without a i redefinition of TRU to include a threshold level of transuranic i elements of 100 nCi/g, DOE will not be able to dispose of the bulk of l the WYDP waste on site, assuming the on-site disposal alternative is l selected.

l 2, ACTION BY NRC Based on the foregoing, you can see that the most appropriate way to_

resolve the disposal dilemma is for NRC to prescribe, as contemplated by L -

L -. .... - -

/ ,

f James R. Wolf, Esq. ,-

Congress in the Act, the threshold limit of TRU to be 100 nCi/g, thereby making all waste of less than 100 nCi/g fall within the definition of LLW.

As discussed above, such a threshold limit is not without regulatory precedent; the issue also has been the subject of a substantial amount of NEPA evaluation.

NRC staff apparently also have considered the propriety of increasing the threshold concentration limit of TRU % 100 nCi/g. See the enclosed document entitled Evaluation of West VLilev TRU and Waste Classification Limih (Evaluation).

Initially, the Evaluation suggests that 10 CFR Part 61 does not apply directly to waste at West Valley 'since wastes resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel were not analyzed as a part of the scurce term used in the Environmental Irpact Statement (EIS) that provides the decision basis for 10 CFR Part 61."

The Evaluation goes on to state:

This is not to say that 100 nCi/gm may not be an acceptab)r; concentration limit for the disposal of 'GDP wastes. Howe ar, before NRC staff considers accepting a concentration limit other than 10 nC1/gm for transuranic radionuclides, DOE must conduct additional analyses to support its proposed use of any other-concentration limit.

Thu support should address: the specific physical, chemical and radiological properties of the WVDP wastes; the proposed methods of disposal; and the. site conditions. The support should also provide reasonable assurance that DOE's disposal of the WVDP wastes will adequately contain the radionuclides to meet all of the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61.

In his letter of August 18, 1987 to DOE, Malcolm Knapp of the NRC validated this provision of the Evaluation. See enclosed copy of the letter.

The Evaluation describes in detail the types of analyses that would be appro)riate for NRC review prior to any formal decision by NRC to increase the tireshold concentration limits of TRU waste. DOE is prepared to

perform these analyses in the context of the Phase II EIS and provide them l

to NRC.

At our meetir.; on December 4, 1991, you indicated that rulemaking might be l the most appropriate means to close the regulatury gap. We agree.

Therefor , we would like to dicuss the means by which DOE formally requests that NRC commence rulemaking procedures to increase, pursuant to provisions of the Act, the threshold concentration of TRU waste to 100 nCi/g. In future meetings, we may wish to discuss how the joint EIS, to which NRC is a participating agency, could be used to support NRC's rulemaking.

1

t .

\:, .

James R. Wolf, Esq. If you have any coments or would like additional information, please contact me at FTS 583-0277.

Sincerely,

,f/k'. 4--

Mark D. 01 set., Counsel Office of Chief Counsel cc: Hal Brodie Dan Sullivan Brett Bowhan h

r 1