ML20153D751
| ML20153D751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/11/1988 |
| From: | Roles G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Mccabe G CONGRESS (JOINT & ROTATING COMMITTEES, ETC.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809060027 | |
| Download: ML20153D751 (9) | |
Text
(,
e MCCABE MEMO AUG 11 1988 Gretchen Hund McCabe Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment Washington, DC 20510-8026
Dear Ms. McCabe:
I have performed a limited review of the Office of Technology Assessment draft report titled "An Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Radioactive Waste." My comments are enclosed.
In preparing these comments I was assisted by other members of NRC staff.
Nonetheless, the coments should not be construed as representing Comission policy. Rather, the comments represent questions on, or clarification of, technical points.
All that read the report agreed that a mechanism needs to be quickly put into place which will ensure the orderly disposition of radioactive sealed sources that are generally unsuitable for disposal in low-level waste disposal sites and are no longer needed by NRC and Agreement State licensees. Such a mechanism should not await the availability of a hign-level waste repository and should not req)uire an emergency (that is, an iminent threat to public health and safety to implement. The mechanism should be such that it helps to prevent such emergency situations from occurring.
If you have coments, I can be reached at 492-0595.
Sincerely, G. W. Roles Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Distribution: NMSS Dir r/f Central file As stated LLRB r/f PDR GRoles TJohnson MBell PLohaus JSurmeier MXnapp JGreeves cc:
H. Thompson, HMSS IMHS R/f RCunningham, IMNS PVacca, IMNS R. Bernero, NMSS RBrowning, HLWM DFehringer, HLWM
.)
9 J. Funches, NHSS y'
i Q L
- LLRB OFC :LLRB Q-fj r
[/
NAME:G A @dC :T so
[,0
- i; p ;3 ;V;g;;; ;----------------~~~ ~ ~----~~ ~ l jI 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8809060027 000011 PDR HIGC PNV 8809060027
s OTA COMMENTS Comments on Draft OTA Report on Waste Exceeding Class C Concentrations
- 1. In several places, the document mentions that pipe welders use radioactive material to check the integrity of welds.
This is not correct.
Nondestructive testing companies (e.g., radiography firms) use sealed sources for various purposes, including checking weld integrity.
- 2. In several places, the document says that commercial waste disposal facilities are licensed by NRC.
In fact, all sites are located in Agreement States and rnost site activities are licensed by State regulatory agencies. At two sites, Barnwell, SC and Richland, WA, NRC licenses possession of special nuclear material in quantities exceeding a critical mass.
- 3. Statements are made on page five and elsewhere that NRC limits storage licenses to five years. This is not entirely correct.
Materials (as opposed to reactor) licenses are usually issued for five years. At the end of five years, the licensees may apply for renewal of the license. License renewal may be granted arovided that no significant health and safety problems are identified.
T1us, licensees may hold many materials licenses indefinitely.
Materials licenses are permissive in nature; they allow licensees to use certain materials, but do not require it.
Thus, materials licensees may have some or all of their radioactive mater bis in storage and need not notify NRC about tha amount in storage or the Mr.gth of storage, in most cases, neither NRC nor the licensee will specify how long radioactive materials identified as waste will be stored before disposal.
One exception is a waste broker, who picks up packaged waste from other licenses and stores it for a period of time before transporting it to a comercial disposal facility. Waste brokers are authorized to hold radioactive waste for periods not to exceed 100 days.
In the case of nuclear power reactors, licenses are normally issued for a 40 year period.
Licensees are authorized to possess and use radioactive material, including waste, as part of normal operations.
NRC has, however, provided guidance for storage of waste beyond that needed for normal reactor operation and maintenance.
This November 10 1981 guidance document is attached. This guidance docuncr* states "If (1), your existing license conditions or technical specifications do not prohibit increased storage, (2) no unreviewed safety question exists, and (3) the proposed increased storage does not exceed the generated waste projected for five years, the licensee may provide the added capacity, document the 50.59 evaluation and report it to the Commission annually or as specified in the capacity for more than five years (long-term) posed increases in storage license." The document later states "For pro
, the application and review A
i OTA COMMENTS 2-procedures will be pursuant to 10 CFR 30 with consideration of container integrity and retrievability, volume reduction, influence on state planning for disposal, implications of de facto onsite disposal. Any long-term license issued will be for a five-year, renewable term."
- 4. The problems identified by the Brazilian teletherapy accident and the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base incident have prompted NMSS to give increased attention to the need for strict accounting for licensed materials. NMSS is reexamining its past practice of amending (pursuant to a licensee's request) a license to permit "storage only" of materials such as teletherapy units, self-shielded irradiators, radiography and well-logging sources, and portable gauges.
These "storage-only" licenses may be in effect for long periods of time (i.e., years) while the licensees decide matters such as whether to resume use of the sources, whether to replace qualified personnel who have resigned or died, or whether to dispose of sources either by transfer to a comercial disposal facility or to another person licensed to receive them.
In the past, these "storage only" licenses have been limited to a specified time period.
In light of the inciderces referenced above, however, HMSS believes that licenses should not store such materials for long time periods.
NRC encourages licensees to dispose unneeded sources promptly. This position was comunicated to licensees in NRC Information Notice No. 88-07 (attached).
NRC also alerted the Department of Energy (DOE) of this action by a March 1988 letter from Malcolm R. Knapp, NRC, to John E.
Baublitz, DOE.
This letter is clso attached.
It advises DOE that 00E may shortly receive requests to take possession of sealed sources and other materials as GTCC waste.
It states that "Government acceptance of these sources for storage and ultimate disposal would clearly be in the direct public interest to help prevent possible unauthorized use er loss of control
- 5. The option of storage of GTCC waste at the generator's site (mentioned on page 5 and elsewhere) presents some problems in addition to those addressed in the report.
Under this option, many licensees (perhaps thousands)mustprepare, package, label,andstoreunneededradioactive materials for long periods of time (e.g., years). Not only may such licensees run out of space, forcing them to change operations, but Jersonnel changes or inadequate administrative practices (e.g., illegible landwriting; poor quality adhesive that allows labels on prepared packages to fall off) may lead to a loss of control of licensed materials.
Licensees engaging in such inadequate practices may not be immediately known to NRC or to Agreement State regulatory agencies.
Conversely,.if one or a few organizations were authorized to accept GTCC waste for storage, it would be easier to ensure that adequate practices are followed over the long term.
i OTA COMMENTS 6. Emergency access to unlicensed DOE storage of GTCC waste is frequently mentioned in the document.
We note that provisions for emergency transfer of radioactive material already exist.
Such transfer can occur based on inninent danger to public health and safety. What is needed is a mechanism to permit orderly transfer of GTCC waste to 00E before such a problem exists.
We believe that most of the GTCC waste volume will be generated by large licensees such as nuclear power plants.
These licensees are likely to have the resources to ensure long-term GTCC waste storage and also to pay for disposal of GTCC waste by a greater confinement method such as a repository. The opposite situation may exist for the hundreds or possibly thousands of licensees who may only hold one or two sealed sources. These licensees are frequently small operators having small resources. Some of these licensees may have difficulty ensuring control of licensed material.
- 7. It seems more and more clear that little progress will be made in resolving the GTCC waste issue until a decision is made on the GTCC waste disposal method.
Until this decision is made, DOE, waste generators, and NRC are all caught in a Catch-22 situation. 00E will have difficulty providing packaging and other guidance to waste generators and assessing fees. Generators do not know packaging criteria or a schedule for waste transfer.
NRC does not know what regulatory guidance is needed.
(NRC does not have the resources to cevelop regulations and guidance for every conceivable disposal method.)
NRC believes that the most reasonable approach would be to dispose of GTCC waste in a geologic high-level waste repository. A proposed rule requiring such disposal was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 1968.
(The proposed rule also allows DOE to propose other disposal options.) A copy of this proposed rule is attached.
If a decision is made to dispose of the waste in a geologic repository, then many problems are eliminated.
Consider the five regulatory actions cited by 00E in 00E/NE-0077.
In this report, DOE states that no decisions can be made until NRC and EPA take a number of regulatory actions.
NRC disagrees with this assessment. NRC believes, and communicated this belief to DOE in a April 30, 1987 letter from Hugh Thompson, Jr. to A.
David Rossin, that DOE need not wait to make a decision on an acceptable disposal method for GTCC waste.
The actions listed in 00E/NE-0077 are repeated below along with some remarks.
i 1.
Promulgation of NRC licensing guidance for GTCC low-level waste disposal facilities.
Regulations for disposal in a geologic repository already exist as 10 CFR Part 60.
These regulations do not restrict the repository to disposal of
OTA COMMENTS 4
high-level waste and spent fuel. Assuming GTCC waste was disposed in a repository, then the impacts from such waste disposal would have to be added to thuse from the other waste disposed.
If the conditions of repository operations or site environment dictate the need for additional guidance, then such guidance can be developed.
(Since the April 30 letter to Rossin, NRC staff has indicated to DOE the belief that overall packaging requirements need not be more stringent than those provided in 10 CFR Section 61.55 for 300-year waste stability.)
2.
Promulgation of an EPA general environmental standard for disposal of non-transuranic GTCC low-level waste.
Decisions on waste disposal need not await promulgation of EPA standards.
The absence of an EPA general environmental standard for LLW did not prevent NRC from promulgating 10 CFR Part 61 in 1983, and does not prevent States and Compacts from proceeding with development of new LLW disposal r.a pa ci ty.
In the case of HLW disposal, the EPA standard for spent nuclear fuel, was promulgated in September 1985.
Prior to its promulgation, NRC developed 10 CFR Part 60 and DOE for many years pursued a repository development and siting program.
This DOE repository development and siting program has continued even though the EPA HLW standard has been remanded by the courts.
(The standard is scheduled for republication in 1990. No substantive changes are expected.)
3.
A decision by NRC wnstM r or not to proceed with definition of high-level radioactive waste based on radionuclide concentrations.
The rulemaking is proceeding.
In the rulemaking, NRC proposes to retain the existing definitions of high-level waste, low-level waste, and spent fuel.
4 Prctulgation of the definition.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 1908 seeattachment). A final rule will be publishel within a year.
5.
Resolution of the inconsistencies between EPA and NRC regulations for management of GTCC low-level radioactive waste that also contains hazardous chemical waste.
Disposal in a high-level waste repository may bypass these issues.
- 8. Sealed sources are described on page 13 of the report. This description references a 1984 NRC letter from Nunzio Palladino to Senator Strom Thurmond and a June 1988 personal communication with R. Cunningham. Both references are cited inaccurately.
The 1984 reference is to 10,000 sealed sources containing transuranic isotopes that gy,be considered candidates for GTCC waste.
As noted in l
~
OTA COMMENTS <
this reference, many sources will probably be recycled rather than disposed.
The estimates in the personal comunication were provided by Pat Vacca, not Richard Cunningham. A sumnery of these estimates is as follows:
The total nunber of sources possessed by all licensees (NRC and Agreement States) that could be considered GTCC waste and that could be sent for ultimate disposal is estimated to be 25,000 to 30,000 sources.
The total number of sources to the year 2020 that licensees will want to ultimately dispose (others are recycled) is roughly 4,000, of which we estimate 1,300 will be possessed NRC licensees and 2,700 will be possessed by Agreement State licensees. These 4,000 sources are widely dispersed and possessed by as many as 3,000 licensees (about 1/3 NRC licensees and 2/3 Agreement State licesees).
There are about 40 sealed source manufacturers licensed by NRC and Agreement States.
- 9. The description of sealed sources on the bottom of page 12 and top of page 13 is misleading.
In f act, roughly 200 radioisotopes have been used in sealed sources. Most such radionuclides are short lived.
Sealed sources can range in activity from a few microcuries to several thousand curies.
Hundreds of thousands of sealed sources have been manufactured, most of very low activity (e.g., sources used for smoke detectors). Only those non-exempt scurces containing a sufficient quantity of a few particular radionuclides (i.e., those specifically listed in section 61.55 for which a Class C limit is given) would be considered candidates for GTCC waste.
- 10. The description of GTCC waste is occasionally misleading. Many licensees possess radioactive material in the form of scaled sources or in other forms.
It is not always obvious when this radioactive material becomes waste. Waste is not generated as a result of a process.
(That is, the waste is not like ion-exchange resins which are produced as part of routine operations at a reactor.) Waste is "produced" for other reasons.
Perhaps a sealed source develops a leak.
Perhaps a decision is made that the radioactive materials are no longer needed.
For example, a manufacturing process in which a sealed source is used (perhaps as a gauge) may be altered.
- 11. The discussion on pages 16 and 17 is misleading.
Table 1 does not accurately reflect the Part 61 waste classification requirements.
For example, transuranic radionuclides are considered along with the other i
long-lived nuclides, and the sum of the fractions rule is invoked.
In addition, short-lived nuclides are considered separately from long-lived nuclides.
Furthermore, NRC regulations allow averaging radionuclide concentrations cver the volume or mass of the waste, not the container.
l
OTA COMMENTS We suggest that Tables 1 and 2 in 10 CFR Section 61.55 be presented, perhaps as an appendix.
Placement in an appendix would facilitate listing the classification requirements accurately.
The three times that GTCC waste was disposed at comercial sites did not involve mixing GTCC waste with Class A waste. These disposals were approved by the State regulatory agencies and occurred soon after the classification system was implemented in December 1983.
fio disposals have occurred since.
- 12. The discussion on the first full paragraph on aage 15 is questionable.
The estimated activities in GTCC waste appear 11gh.
Do the activities include a contribution by spent fuel hardware? We also note that the GTCC waste activities listed in the report activities are not provided in the referenced 1988 Knecht paper.
Wherever the activities are derived, they are undoubtedly based on a number of critical assumptions.
These assumptions should be provided.
Since most of the activity in GTCC waste is contributed by short-lived isotopes, changes in assumptions on decay times prior to disposal can cause significant changes to the activity projected to be disposed.
We also question the statement on page 15 that "this is more than three times the radioactivity of all other comercial LLRW that had been disposed of by the end of 1985." Through 1985, the as-dispo'.eri (non-decayed) inventory of comercial low-level waste exceeded four million curies.
- 13. On page 12, the report references contractual arrangements to transfer waste from comercial licensees to 00E. As a matter of clarification, 00E has accepted wast 0 from commercial licensees by at least three mechanisms.
One mechanism is a research and development contract.
As noted in the attached May 11, 1988 nemorandum from Roles to Johnson, 00E has accepted under contract, transuranic waste from decomissioning f acilities operated by Monsanto (Dayton, Ohio), i4FS (Erwin, Tit), and Babcock and Wilcox (Lynchberg,VA). Monsanto is a former sealed source manufacturer; the other two licensees are fuel fabricators. A fourth contract is being negotiated with the Exxon fuel fabrication facility in Richland, WA.
These negotiations are stalled.
A second mechanism involves acceptance of plutonium-containing sources from t4RC licensees who no longer have a need for them and have no means of disposal.
(See the attached June 30, 1988 letter from Saxman to Roles.)
A nunber of these sources, primarily plutonium-beryllium (PuBe) sources, have been donated to 00E.
It is important to realize, however, that DOE accepts plutonium sources only if the sources contain plutonium in quantities exceeding an "economic
F l
OTA COMMENTS discharge limit" (EDL). We understand that the criteria for determining the EDL is set by DOE headquarters and that the criteria occasionally changes.
The EDL has been recently raised from 15 grams of plutonium per source to 38 grams per source. This high EDL exeeds the plutonium content in existing sources, with the result that DOE acceptance of transuranic sources has ceased.
A third mechanism involves DOE acceptance of radioactive material under an en,ergency condition.
This has happened occasionally.
A recent example involved transfer of material contaminated with americium-241 and recovered from operations formerly conducted by J.C. Haynes.
So far, 00E has not accepted GTCC waste from NRC or Agreement State licensees under the authority of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We understand that DOE is considering charging a fee equivalent to disposal of high-level waste in a geologic repository.
This fee amounts to thousands of dollars per cubic foot of waste. This high projected fee has discouraged licensees from transferring GTCC waste to 00E.
- 14. We suggest that the report include a discussion of DOE acceptance of high activity sealed sources and other waste containing radium-226. Radium-226 appears to be about as hazardous as plutonium-239 and currently, disposal sites are accepting only small quantities for disposal. A rechanism is needed for orderly transfer of such waste to permanent dispor,al.
- 15. The second full paragraph on page 10 of the report is contradictory.
Perhaps the reference to "increase by a factor of 5 or more" applies only to sealed sources.
For most wastes other than sealed tources, packaging would probably be performed in a manner that reduces volumes, particularly considering the high per-cubic-foot costs for GTCC waste disposal currently projected by 00E.
The last sentence of this paraoraph states that the "quantitative estimates used in the report can be increased or decreased by at least 50 percent without significantly affecting the conclusions about storage or disposal of GTCC waste." The volunes expressed in this report, however, represent changes from past estimates that exceed 50 percent. The original DOE report on GTCC waste, 00E/NE-0077, estimated 2,000 cubic meters of GTCC waste by 2020. The 1988 Knecht paper from Waste Management
'88 estimates 6,000 cubic meters. A later reference, a personal conynunication from Knecht, estimates 4,800 cubic meters.
We suggest that the report review the estimates and provide the reasons for the changed projections.
What adoitional waste sources have been added since 00E/NE-00777 What waste sources have been deleted since Waste Management '887
u OTA COMMENTS 8
- 16. The report frequently states that an increasing nurrber of waste generators claim existing on-site storage capacity is limited and that this storage capacity cannot be expanded. We suggest that these claims be documented.
We suspect that problems with expansion of storage capacity are mostly a tratter of economics.
- 17. On page 25, the report states that "if a particular type of waste cannot be safely stored, then it would have to be disposed of using a current available disposal technology, rather than a more appropriate one that might require several decades to develop." This is incorrect. GTCC waste is currently being safely stored.
If a problem develops with storage of GTCC waste at an existing facility, then the storage facility could be upgraded or the waste could be moved to a different storage facility.
- 18. The economic analysis of GTCC waste disposal costs is interesting.
We note that many shipments of Class C wastes to existing low-level waste disposal sites exceed $1000 per cubic foot.
We suggest contacting U.S.
Ecology or Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. for an example rate structure.
- 19. It should be recognized that NRC recently published a final regulation which sets forth general requirements for decommissioning licensed facilities. A copy of this regulation, published in the Federal Register (53 FR 24018) on June 27, 1988, is attached. The regulation addresses decomissioning planning needs, timirig, funding trethods, and environmental review requirements.
The intent of the regulations is to assure that decomissioning of all licensed f acilities is accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adeouate licensee funds will be available for this purpose.
- 20. In several places the report states that it is unlikely that any state or private industry would be willing to accept the long term liability associated with GTCC waste storage.
We suggest that the issue is not so clear.
Private industry may very well accept GTCC sealed sources or other radioactive material provided that the acceptance fee is sufficiently high.
- 21. In Table 3 (p. 21), Figure 1 (p. 22), and elsewhere, the report provides a rough quantification of "longevity of risk." The authors need to provide details on how risk longevity is determined.
We also note that the average ccncentration in GTCC waste is projected to range from 800 to 2200 curies per cubic foot.
How was this estirnate derived? Since most of the activity in GTCC waste will be contributed by short-lived radionuclides, assumptions on generation rates and storage times prior to disposal will result in a large difference in waste concentrations prior to disposal.
A