ML20149K940

Submits Approaches That Might Reasonably Be Considered to Lend NRCs Assistance & Expertise to Efforts to Resolve Technical & Environ Issues on Ward Valley That Doi Seems Intent on Pursuing

ML20149K940
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/28/1997
From:	Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
REF-WM-3 COMEXM-97-002, COMEXM-97-2, NUDOCS 9707300269
Download: ML20149K940 (11)

Text

.

11EQUEST fiEPLY BL4/ahg y/ %'o i

UNITED STATES

~g 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

3

,E COMEXM-97-002 WASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555

( ***** /

l RELEASED TO THE PDR OFFICE OF THE

//h[9 gg cOnmisSIONER May 28, 1997 l

date in?Jals l

MEMORANDUM T0:

Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers J C-l Commissioner Dicus,c,.3 Commissioner Diaz, a.7.(hh FROM:

Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

v.

SUBJECT:

NRC ACTION WITH REGARD TO WARD VALLEY LOW LEVEL WASTE (LLW)

DISPOSAL SITE In recent seaarate meetings with Carl Lischeske. Manager of the Low Level Radioactive 4aste Program for the California Department of Health, and the NMSS staff. I was made aware of a " Fact Sheet" related to the proposed Ward Valley LLW disposal site that was published by the U.S. De)artment of the l

Interior (DOI) and of an informal recuest from Mr. Lischesce that the NRC seek to become a " cooperating agency" witi regard to DOI's preparation of a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on Ward Valley. One basis' for the recuest from Mr. Lischeske is that many of the issues that DOI proposes to readcress in its second SEIS involve technical radiological matters particularly within the scope of NRC's special expertise and outside DOI's areas of expertise.

Illustrative of DOI's lack of expertise is DOI's

)

" Fact Sheet" (copy attached) which. according to the NMSS staff, is rife with errors and misleading statements, is critical of current law and NRC l

definitions of low level waste, and needs to be corrected.

To an extent. I have explored with the NMSS staff the issue of a more active role for the NRC in the ongoing DOI work on Ward Valley.

From these I

discussions, I believe that there are several approaches that might reasonably-i be considered to lend NRC's assistance and expertise to the efforts to resolve the technical and environmental issues on Ward Valley that DOI seems intent on pursuing.

Specifically, we might ask the staff to --

(1) AssesstheDOI"FactSheet"andsendalettertop0Icorrectingthe i

errors in the " Fact Sheet" and offering to assist DOI, within NRC's Under CEO regulations, a " cooperating agency" is "any Federal agency 2

other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with res)ect to any environmental impact involved in 'a proposal... for..

r deral action significantly affecting the quality of the human tQ

. major e

environment." 40 CFR 1508.5. An agency may be designated as a " cooperating h#

agency" upon the request of the lead agency.

40 CFR 1501,6.

The NMSS staff noted that DOI has informally indicated in the past that 2

it would not seek NRC's assistance.

\\

\\

l l

9h00dM

(

Pa79M 'R**

HEENHEMH 2N I

CORRESPONDENCE PDR

.G-

i

! areas of expertise, in 001's preparation of the second SEIS on Ward Valley. This wili likely require a minimum resource commitment from

-NRC.

j

(

. (2) Assess and correct the DOI " Fact Sheet" and assume a more active role by becoming an active " commenting agency"3 with regard to DOI's new SEIS on Ward Valley. The NMSS staff has indicated that, because it has not done a great deal-of independent review and i.nalysis of the Ward Valley site to date, a more meaningful and aggressive commenting agency role for the NRC would require a not-insignificant commitment of NRC resources from the LLW staff, particularly if the draft second SEIS is poor. On the other hand, an active NRC commenting role might force DOI to correctly and objectively address the remaining issues for Ward j

Valley.

(3) Assess and correct the DOI " Fact Sheet" and seek a " cooperating agency" designation *. As a cooperating agency, the NRC might be involved in the preparation of portions of the new SEIS or in commenting on DOI's work as it prepares the new SEIS. The staff has indicated that NRC participation as a cooperating agency would entail a substantial commitment of NRC resources (roughly estimated as one to three FTEs and

)

$200,000) considering that LLW work is currently budgeted at approximately four FTEs.

As a result, NRC might consider requesting i

j additional resources from Congress to support this effort.

In addition, l'

since the NRC would require some time to familiarize itself with the i

i Ward Valley issues. DOI might blame any delay in completion of its second SEIS on NRC's participation as a cooperating agency. On the other hand. I should note that DOI typically is given cooperating agency status on NRC environmental impact statements (EISs), such as the EIS i

j prepared for the Moab mill tailings site, where DOI has special expertise or interest. This would clearly be the most effective mechanism for ensuring that NRC's Atomic Energy Act jurisdiction is not inadvertently ceded to DOI.

In view of the inaccuracies in the DOI " Fact Sheet". I suggest that, as a 4

minimum, we should pursue item (1).

In addition. I believe that NRC could 4.

make a beneficial contribution to the process and assist in resolution of the remaining issues by aggressively preparing itself and commenting on the DOI work as suggested in item (2).

I also believe that this additional step would make it clear to DOI that we do not intend to cede our regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act to that agency. On balance. I do not recommend

' under CEQ regulations " Federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or s)ecial expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved...

s1all comment on statements within their jurisdiction, expertise or I

authority." 40 CFR 1503.2.

' In view of DOI's informal indication that it would not seek NRC's assistance. it is doubtful that DOI would designate NRC as a " cooperating 3

agency" under 40 CFR 1501.6.

t l

pursuing item (3), although I would reconsider the matter if Congress were to provide the additional resources, outside our fee base, that would be required to implement item (3).

In any event. I propose that we direct the staff to more actively participate in the DOI process along the lines of the options or a variation on the options described above.

SECY, please track.

I

Attachment:

As stated cc:

ED0 i

%C CFO CIO SECY

- 3g g g g399 - -~~---~ ~ ~~ ^ ~-^ '~ ~

~~

!,NRC/NMS$/DUM TEL:301-415-5398 May 28'97 7:16 No.002 P.01 j

l United States Department of the Interior 4

OFFICE OFTHE DEPUTYSECRETARY j

j wedmassan. D.C. 20240 j

MEDICAL, RESSARCE AND wanuarIC LOW LEVEL EADIDACTIVE umSTE (LLEW) 1 PACT SRBET f

Radioactive materials used in medicine pisy an important role in j

diagnosis, therapy and biomedical research applications. 'Ibey have l

been responsible for many breakthroughs in the control of life-threatening illnesses such as cancer and heart disease.

Claims that medical diagnosis, treatment and research have been crippled by a delay in the opening of Ward Valley are unfounded.

IEDICAL AMD ACADEKIC MASTE i

The comunercial low level radioactive waste stream is divided and l

measured by the U.S. Dept. of Energy in categories: utility, l

industrial, academic and medical.

Records are kept of radioactive l

waste disposed by volume (in cubic feet) and radioactivity (in i

curies).

d 1

academic waste includes westes of Energy, According to the Dept.

and from university hospitals and university-affiliated medical non-medical research facilities.

Medical waste includes westes from hospitals,' clinics, and re.. search fa,cilities.

Medical waste and academic waste each constituted less than 1% of 1987-1995.

waste shipped to disposal sites in the years The waste stream generated by medical and academic weste is radically different than the waste stream of nuclear reactor and Hospital wastes are dominated by radionuclides with utility waste.

short durstion half-lives.

With the exception of sealed sources (see definitions),

raiiionuclides.comanly used in medical diagnosis and treataset have half-lives numbering in hours 'or days. Nuclear utility wastes are extres=1y'long-lived by comparison.

Of the approximately 27 radionuclides used in diagnosis, therapy 22 have half-lives ranging f rom 13 seconds and biomedical research, to 87 days.

',' NRC7 NMis /0WM TEL:301-415-5398 May 28'97 7:1? No.002 P.02

~

~

j i

l i

4 l

Because of their short hazardous

lives, waste from these i

radionuclideo can be stored, annaged and isolated at the same place they are produced. The radioactivity decay to undetectable levels l

within hours or days.

i CCEEPARISCEI 0F LI.RW TFTII,rrr R&STE TO 1.LRN 3EEDICAL JufD meerrC 95WFrE i

This table shows how low the low-level of medical and academic radioactive waste is compared to " low-level" utility waste.

j l

Radioactivity Measured in Curies f

1 l

17941iev Af'Afiment r' Msullf*Al I

1987 219,787 69 24 I

1988 213,395 2,282 86 1,946 149 i

1989 725,226

- ~

3 1990 433,739 1,096 59 l

i 4 Year Totals 1,595,147 5,393 318 k

1993-95 27,586 2

17 (Source :US Dept of Energy data on waste received at disposal sites in the years 1987-1990 and Southwestern Compact data for the years 1993-1995)

MASTE PRODUCED.BY CCSS10NITY HOGPITAIA VS. MikTOR ACADEMIC 3DSPITALS AMD RESEARCH FACILITIES

'According to the American'Bospital Association, about 90% of the appraziantely 500 hospitals in California are commamity hospitals.

53 of the 500 hospitals are connected to major academic and research institutions.

The c h iming radionuclide of Choice in small hospitals suploying' radje==wlidas in patient care is technetiums-99m, half-life E hours, used in the study of brain, lung, liver, heart, kidney, bone, blood vessal and blood flow.

It is egloyW in approximately 85% of radiologic diagnostic procedures.

2.

HkL/NMud/DWM TEL:301-415-5398 Mayl F9T ~ 7: 17 No.002 P.03

}

t i

4 Technetium-99m can be disposed of in an ordinary landfill after the decay of its radioactivity in 60-120 hours.

Even in larger hospitals, diagnostic procedures are dominated by j

technetium-99m, accounting for about 65%

of procedures, and j

thallium-201 (halt-life 73 hours8.449074e-4 days <br />0.0203 hours <br />1.207011e-4 weeks <br />2.77765e-5 months <br />), accounting for about 25%.

1 2

Even in larger hospitals, diagnoscic procedures are dominated by

]

technetium-99m, accounting for about 65%

of procedures, and j

thallium-201 (half-life 73 hours8.449074e-4 days <br />0.0203 hours <br />1.207011e-4 weeks <br />2.77765e-5 months <br />), accounting for about 25%.

A survey of 9 Los Angeles hospitals was conducted by radiologist Barl Budin, M.D.

in 1991.

The hospitals were Daniel Freeman, 2

Little Company of Mary, St.

Francia, UCLA Medical Center, St.

Joseph's Medical Center, Centinella, and Cedars sinai.

i l

Bach of the hospitals reported they stored all radioactive material i

from patient care for 1 to 2. months, using storage-to-decay and l

then disposing of it as ordinary trash.

Only the hospitals which l

used radionuclides in research as well as patient care produced any l

radioactive waste requiring'off: site' disposal.

Ucra, UcsF, sturronD Major tuedical and ar cat==4 c research institutions with affiliated l

research and teaching hospitals like the University of california j

at Los Angeles, the University of California at san Francisco and stanford University have been==naging low level radioactive waste i

since the advent of nuclear medicine.

Each has a sophisticated l

LLRW management program and esplays the latest techniques in the management and storage of LLRW.

l l

UCLA stores-to-decay its short-lived waste on-site. ne university has arranged, as part of a UC-system wide contract, for treatment l

of its long-lived waste, shipping it to sciantific scology Croup of j

l Oak

Ridge, Tennessee, where the volume of waste will be j

significantly reduced, requiring eventual disposal off-site of only four drums a year.

l UCLA believes it can manage its own waste without shipping it for disposal for the next ten years, (Source: UCLA) 1 l

madioactive wastes generated and=== =W at the University of.

j California at San Francisco are divided into two categories, short-l lived <90 and short-lived >90.

i 3

fir C 76H5 3i7D6fH ^ ~ -'-"T Li~iT01TJiS4 Mi

~ isii I J d N i:1o tao.uuz P.ua i

i l

Wastes with half-lives less than 90 days are scored-to-decay either i

on-site or is sent to a waste broker, EMC, Turlock, CA.

l To reduce the cost of using Turlock, UCSF is building a 500 square foot facility for storage-to-decay.

4 l

UCSF initiated the contract now esployed by the entire UC system to l

send LLRN to Security Ecology Group for a volume reduction of waste to one-fif tieth of its original volums for. dry wastem and one-j twentieth of original volume for biological waste.

The returned j

volume.is expected to be about 4 drums per year. ' These are the only wastes which will potentially need disposal at a facility such as Ward Valley.

1 i

UCSF personnel are adamant that no wasts is " piling up" in unsafe 4

i conditions at UCSF.

John Shaver, manager of UCSF's Hazardous Waste l

Program, has been quoted in newspaper accounts as believing UCSF i

can manage its own waste safely without Ward Valley for the next l

twenty years.

(Source: UCSF) 90% 'of M.RW produced at Stanford is short-lived <90 and is About managed by on-site storage-to-decay.

The only long-lived waste j

produced at stanford that would eventually need disposal off-site l

Stanford has at l

amounts to approximately one-half drum per year.

l least ten years of storage space' to accomplish their LLRN l

management mission.

Stanford has been annaging its storage-to-i, decay on-site since 1986. (Source: Stanford University) 3 It follows that medical, accalami c,

and research personnel who i

j safely h=41e radionuclides in a virgin state in their day-to-day work would also safely handie the resulting waste from the use of l

]

those radionuclides in diagnosis, treatment and research.

j i

f There is no evidence that California's hospitals, universities and research institutions would jeopardize their own j

academic students, patients or nearby comummities by storing and i

personnel,

{

disposing of radioactive waste' in anything less than a safe, l

professional manner.

'they have been doing so f or many years and will continue to do so for many years to come.

J

)

i I

i i

l 4

"NkC[hM 5670Wri TE[T50iliF5M5~ ~'~ ~~"iQ~TfI'T fi[ fili ~.~06fi> ~.05 ~

~

f 9

'1 s

j 5

1 i

RADIOACTIVE WASTES PROJECTED TO GO *IC WARD VALLEY OVER AN ASSUMED l

30 YEAR LIFE (IN CURIES) 1 NUCLEAR REACTOR WASTES 1,393,880 97.59%

i BIOTECH 2,433 0.17%

{

MIDICAL TREATMEET, DIAABIOSIS, RESEARCE 1,197 0.08%

4 i

OTHER INDUSTRIAL (B.G. DEFENSE CaprrRACTORS) 25,266 1.77%

ACADEMIC INSTITtTTIONS 1,557

.11%

l GOVIIMMENT ENTITIES 799

.05%

I TRITIUM WASTES (MORAVEK) 3,131

.224 1

1,428,263 100.00%

b (Sources: Ward Valley EIS: US Ecology License Application; US Nuclear Regulatory Coselission US Dept. of Energyi Southwestern l-Compact Top 100 Generators list. (Jan.1988-Sept. 1991) j i

j SON MANY CURRENT LLRW BTORAGE SITES ARE TEEME IN CALIFORNIA?

There are currently 2105 radioactive materials licenses in f

j California, but nobody but Ward Valley proponents say there are that many storage sites.

Its San Diego Tribune has r w i.ed there are 800 cites where radioactive materials are being stored in California.

500 of those sites may be accounted for in the 447 hospitals and 53 teaching / university hoepitals and academic research institutions which have been discussed above, leaving 300 sites of storage for biotech, waste brokers, nuclear reactors, defense contractors and other ' gover===nt entity waste.

It is clear that the diagnosis, treatment of research of disease in California has not harmed or even effected by a delay in the opening of ward valley.

Waste is regularly being generated, stored-for-decay and disposed of by the medical and academic ca===m1 ties and not = piling up.=

CO W1USIONS Eon-nuclear reactor LLRW producers need only 2.19%

of the 5

I

~s C,/r(MS D DUM~~ '~ ~ ~ Ei'is0T-Tf5-5Ys8- ~ ^ ~~ ~ [ 5 575T fi1T ho~.~UO2 P.05 -

t T

Ma

+

(

r

{

6 f

radioactive storage capacity of the type of facility to be opened i

in Ward Valley.

i I

LLRW disposal costs have been on the rise for leveral years.

l Casumercial generators of low-level radioactive waste have responded creatively to these increases.

They have found shorter-lived l

alternatives, non-radioactive alternatives, technology to recapture i

waste and to reduce, reform, compact and incinerate it.

4 j

It is a matter of curiousity that so usach of proponent rhetoric is focussed so little on the waste generators who need ward valley and I

will provide the bulk of its ihconur and so much on those in no j

iussediate or short-term need of such a disposal f acility.

DEFINITICEt OF TERMS UEED IN T1EZ5 DOCOISBff i

CURIE -- A curie is a ustrure of' radioactivity.

One curie equals 37 billion disintegrations per second.

Each disintegration is an j

j emnission of an alpha or beta particle or a gamma. ray, each of which is capable of damage or destruction of human tissue.

The suore l

curies measured in a radioactive substanca, the gzwater the hazard i

in its use and disposal, i

MADIONUCLIDE--Any atoutthat is radioactive is a radionuc1'ide.

RADIOACTIVE HALF LIFE--The general rule is that the hazardous life l,

of a radioactive substance is 10 to 20 times its half life.

t Iodine-123, used in thyroid insging and brain and heart studies, j

has a half-life of 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />.

That means tihat af ter 130-260 hours, i

the radioactivity of Iodine-123 declines to the point that it, is f

undetectable and is no hazard.

h Iodine-129, fran nuclear power reactors, has a. half-life of 16 million years.

which means it is hazardous for 160-320 million years.

LOW LEVEL RADIQACTIVE MASTE--According to the Nuclear Regulatory r'amm4 saion, low level radioactive waste is any waste not classified as high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, irradiated fuel or uranium or thoriustmill tailings and waste.

It'. is 'an unfortunate and{ misleading citoh-all definition which ham -

t 6

, ~^1EC/ NM 5 57DDC' ~ ~~-~~ T ED 50 FJ1525 396 ' ~~~ ~ ~ Msf2&' 9 7 -

7TWhi6~ 00TEGF~

~

l J

l 7

l l

l engedi$%e%rmous%cisttaision.', By this definition, everything from intensely radioactive nuclear reactor control rods to the plastic 4

i l

booties, worn by radiological technicians,is included as a type of LLRW.

1 l

Under this definition, plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years is low-level radioactive weste and placed in the same cat.egory as Xenon 133, used in lung scanning, with a half-life of j

l 5 days.

j STORAGE-70-DECAY -

A very cosumon waste management and disposal i

w technique for most ac M c and medical waste.

The waste is stored on-site until radioactivity is undetectable, and the'n disposed of I

as ordinary trash.

l l

SHORT-LIVED -- Low leve?. radioactive waste that has undetectable 1

l levels of radioactivity within 3 years.

i I

i l

LomG-LIVED LLRW

- Lov level radioactive waste that takes anywhere to virtually forever for radioactive decay to j

i from five years l

undetectable levels.

i long-lived radionuclides scantimes used in small amounts in Two medical research are hydrogen-3 (tritium, half-life 12.3 years) and i

(half-life, 57J3 yearsi. The increasing use of shorter-carbon 14 lived radionuclidas are increasingly replacing these longer-lived radionuclides in research.

SEALED SOURCES -- Radionuclides which are sealed inside a rupture-resistant metal or synthetic housing, used in medical treatment and research.

Cobalt-60 (half-life 5.3 years)is such a sealed source.

j It is returned to its manufacturer after it has lost its potency and does not require waste disposal or storage by academic or medical waste generators.

DRUM

--A safe container in which LLRW stored at academic / medical institutions and on or off-site.

one drum holds approximately 13

)

cubic feet of dry waste and approximately 2.5 cubic feet of biological waste.

7

_.M

/NH5570WM ~~ ~

^

TEL:501-415-5598

~

- 28'97 7:20 No.002 P.08 May j

a i

8 1

somtess Aus AcamowLancesENTS NOT ALasaur NOTED

,i

==41am,,4v. w.

e..

Th.

- = 4 c.m1 ymeea* by Minard Hamiiton, Jan.'93, Wuclear.Information and Research Service.

}

Most of the half-life data, definitions and hospital practices j

inforumtion found in this document are the original research of Minard Hamilton.

An updated 1994 version of this report will be published in September.

202-328-0002

}

US Department of Energy:

seme._hv_seme. m m... --n e ne r-- r-i

==ai ru cc i va wmme.= ancaimand l

m e _ e.-

vr4mi niny --i a4enn-1eav_ 1ena-tone; 1 gen l

DOS /LLW-69T, DOE /LLW-87, DOE-LLW-107, DOE /LLW-132.

l 4

cemeh=.-e.rn cc-in= c e im_ r-1 omainmeciv. c nsemenr= he eme. cerv _

3 1_9 9_ h i n e s.

l UCLA Director of Environment, Safety and Health, James Greenwood, j

Ph.D.,

Radiation Safety Officer, Joe Tak=hmshi, and Michael Campbell, UCLA LLRW waste program manager.

Stanford University Radiation Safe'ty Officer John Homes.

i i

j UCSF Hazardous Wasta Program Manager, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, John Shaver, Ara Tahmasian, Director of BE&S and UCSF radiation safety officer.

l (winh revel rm11 ca.

r-rmvel man==,

by Arjun Makhijani and Scott

saleska, published in 1992 by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a review of the history and inconsistencies of U.S.. radioactive waste classification) 9

.