ML20151T654
| ML20151T654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/09/1988 |
| From: | Bell M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T657 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8808160431 | |
| Download: ML20151T654 (4) | |
Text
l TJ/ REVISED MINUTES ASME
_1-AUG 0 91988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS FROM: Michael J. Bell, Chief Regulatory Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning, NMSS
SUBJECT:
REVISED MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 1988 MEETING WITH ASME On July 18, 1988 we transmitted to you minutes of our June 18, 1988 mixed waste meeting with representatives of the Aaerican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). On July 27, 1988 Dr. Moghissi requested that the meeting minutes clarify that the ASME recomended a single set of mixed wbste regulations be developed jointly by NRC and EPA and that NRC enf'rce these regulations (see attached letter from Dr. Moghissi).
We have made the recomended change and are redistributing the e u/ised minutes. If you have any questions, please contact T.C. Johnson (20550).
(Original Signed by ,
Michael J. Bell, Chief Regulatory Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Cecomissioning, NMSS i
Enclosure:
j As stated i
l DISTRIBUTION: File 407.19 Central File NMSS r/f LLRB /rf PDR TJohnson, LLRB MBell, LLRB PLohaus, LLUB JSurmeier, LLTB JGreeves, LLWM i
0FC lL :
p :
NAMErtJ n/ec.. el :
bkTbkhkhbb$hkhbb 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8808160431 880809 WASTE 6
! 1
I y .
J.i MINUTES OF MEETING WITH ASME TO DISCUSS THE ASPE POSITION PAPER ON REGULATION OF MIXED WASTE DATE: June 30, 1988, 3:00 p.m.
PLACE: NRC office at One White Flint North, Rockville, MD ATTENDEES: An attendees list is attached PURPOSE: To discuss the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' (ASME) position paper on regulation of mixed waste which was forwarded to NRC by letter to Chairman Zech dated May 4,1988 (copy attached)
BACKGROUND: The thrust of the ASME position is that the U.S. Congress should eliminate dual regulation of mixed waste by changing current laws and regulations to provide for regulation by one agency under one set of performance-based regulations. In connection with passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act the Comission previously indicated it supported single-agency regulation of mixed waste, by NRC under 10 CFR Part 61. The Congress chose not to act on this recommendation to eliminate dual regulation of mixed waste.
Since then, both NRC and EPA staffs have been working together to identify and address the problems inherent in dual regulation.
Three jointly signed guidance documents have been issued and others are planned. Guidance already issued addresses the identification and definition of mixed waste, and the siting and design features of a mixed waste disposal unit which would meet both NRC and EPA requirements. Future guidance is planned on sampling and testing, and inspection and enforcement. This effort has shown thus far that while dual regulation may be cumbersome it appears to be workable, i.e., no genuine conflicts in EPA and NRC regulations have been identified where full compliance can not be achieved. The staff's current approach is to exert continued effort to minimize dual regulation problems to make dual regulation as workable as possible.
DISCUSSION: Hugh Thompson opened the meeting with a welcome and introduction. Following this the ASliE representatives, Dr. Alan A. lioghissi and Dr. Thomas W. Lester, recapped the development of the ASME position paper by the ASME Mixed Waste Panel and described the Panel's recomendations.
l > . \
l In the discussion that followed, several points were made. ASME indicated they believed NRC was the agency best able to regulate mixed waste alone because of considerations related to enforcement, and that they believed HRC and EPA should work together to develop a single set of performance-based regulations for mixed waste to be enforced by NRC. Mr. Thompson indicated that at one time NRC had recorraended single agency regulation but Congress had not favored that approach, and that now NRC staff were trying to make dual regulation work. He agreed that legislative relief was needed if dual regulation was to be avoided, but stated that lacking such relief NRC had no choice but to obey existing law.
In response te ; question on NRC and EPA activities for making dual regulation wurk, Timothy Johnson indicated that the next joint guidance document planned would cover sampling and testing, dnd the one after that Would Cover inspection and enforcement.
Regarding ASME's proposal for an inter-agency working group, ASME indicated that it did not believe there was sufficient communication among concerned parties, and they proposed regular meetings which would include DOE and industry representatives.
Hugh Thompson indicated that flRC and EPA staffs met routinely on ongoing matters and that there were regular interface meetings as well. He agreed to give consideration to a more definite proposal from ASME and asked them to prepare a proposed meeting agenda for review. He also cautioned that flRC had limited resources, must adhere to the Federal Advisory Comittee Act, and said the proposed meeting should have a well focused agenda and be of benefit to NRC. It was later suggested by Mr. Thompson that the first meeting be scheduled after completion of a draft report on mixed waste by NUMARC when updated waste source term data would be availabie. It was agreed that ASME would develop a proposed agenda and invite participants.
In discussion of ASME's proposal that NRC redefine byproduct material, ASME indicated that the purpose was to remove "ambiguities" as to what was mixed waste in order to avoid ths possibility of states with RCRA authority declaring waste to be mixed waste unnecessarily. They indicated that Colorado had made a formal ruling that spent fuel was mixed waste. Timothy Johnson (NRC) indicated that the proposed redefinition would not have any significant effect for low-level wastes because stable isotopes of heavy metals are not likely to occur in quantities sufficient to fail the EPA toxicity test. ASHE indicated that the benefits of the proposed redefinition would include not having to perform
- f- e ,
i the toxicity test, and not being vulnerable to states imposing more stringent requirements. ASME pointed out that theoretically, what is low-level waste now could become mixed waste in the future, as radioactive nuclides decay to stable isotopes.
Other points of discussion included ASME's concept of developing performance-based standards for mixed waste based on lifetime risk, (draftthe schedule report due inofSeptember, the NUMARC-sponsored final by the endmixed of the waste year study),
and the upcoming legislation concerning RCRA reauthorization.
In closing both Mr. Thompson and Betty Shackleford of EPA thanked the ASME for coming. The meeting adjourned at about 4:20 p.m.
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: ASME is to develop and provide a proposed agenda for a meeting following issuance of the draft report on mixed waste sponsored by NUMARC.
Enclosure (s):
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. ASME Mixed Waste Position Paper i
l l
l l
l l
-