ML20154Q695
Text
DISTRIBUTION LLWM 87-126 LLhM s(
NMSS rf
, $b LLRB rf MKnapp 1
409.33/GWR/LLWM87-126 ha
-I~
JSVrmeier i
MKea rney RBoyle AUG 121987 TJohnson GRoles MSeemann MEMORANDUM FOR:
Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program State, local, and Indian Tribe Programs, GPA FROM:
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of low-level Waste Management and Decomissioning, HMSS
SUBJECT:
NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE TRANSPORTER PERMIT AND MANIFEST 1
SYSTEM Enclosed for your consideration are our coments on the New York Department of Environmental Conservation Low. level Radioactive Waste Transporter Pennit and Manifest System. These coments principally cover technical considerations.
We anticipate that 0GC will provide coments as to compatibility of the regulations with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
Our coments were assemoled by G. Roles (x74791).
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-level Waste Management
.and Decomissioning, HMSS
]
1 Enclosure.
Coments on NYDEC regulations 8806070097 880527 PDR FOIA RESNIKOBB-13D PDR r\\\\
./
. v-
.. q..
L.. :.......@..... :........... :...........
b :LLWM
)FC :L j
- LLR
...::LLRBF \\(:LLWM c....
iAME :
- T
- MKearne
- JGreeves f
- MKna
..... :.......... :............ :............ :........./.. :.... p p JAJ :87/08/10
- 87/08/10
- 87/08/10
- 87/08/ y
- 87/08/
gg g, nrririu arenon enn a,9
NYDEC TRANSPORT REGS j Comments on 6 NYCRR Part 381:
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Transporter Permit & Manifest System 1.
Section 381.4, General Definitions.
The definition for transfer incidental to transport excludes transfer of waste containers from one vehicle to another. Does the Department intend to track specific trucks? That is, what happens it a truck breaks down on the way to a disposal site and there is a need to transfer the waste to a different truck owned and operated by the same shipping company.
Does this mean that the company must prepare a separate manifest?
We also note that the definition for disposal appears to contain some inconsistencies. Abandonment is an illegal act, and should not be considered disposal.
Transfer to an authorized recipient, however, is normally considered a form of disposal.
2.
Section 381.5, Exemptions, paragraph (a).
The last thought in paragraph (a), reading "and that they can comply with the requirements of this section," is not clear.
Is NYDEC trying to say that the NYDEC would~only consider exempting a person who could otherwise comply with all safety related considerations, but the costs and paper work associated with the permit and manifest requirements would create a financial burden?
3.
Section 381.5, paragraph (e) (2).
We wonder why there is a weignt ) imitation, or why there is even a need to track mosement of waste (but not other radioactive materials) between buildings at a large hospital or university complex. The manifesting requirements could be circumvented by merely moving waste using small pickup truck loads. Alternatively, individual waste containers could probably be easily moved using hand trucks.
4.
Section381.7, paragraph (a)(1).
We suggest providing additional guidance on what constitutes a "point of origin." The words could be construed to apply to any movement of radioactive material within the grounds of a facility, even if the movement did not entail using or crossing a public road or highway, as long as the movement took place using a vehicle licensed for street use.
As written, the requirements would apparently not apply to movement of the same material in the same facility by something like a forklift or a handtruck -- i.e., something 1ot licensed for street use.
NYDEC TRANSPORT REGS '
5.
Section 381.9, Permitting Standards, general.
This section reflects an adversarial posture with permittees. As the regulation is written, a permit can be revoked for almost any offense, no matter how trivial.
6.
Section 381.8, paragraph (a) (3).
This requirement seems open ended.
It would be helpful if persons har j
to comply with the requirement had a general idea of what will be required.
7.
Section 381.11, paragraph (c).
This requirement can be construed as circumventing 00T limits for shipment radiation levels and surface contamination. That is, does the word j
"prevent" imply zero-leaking, blowing, emitting, or discharge? As j
written, any surface contamination, even if within 00T limits, could be i
construed as violating the "prevention of leakage" criterion. Similarly, any radiation levels other than zero, even if within 00T limits, could be construed as violating the "prevention of emitting" criterion. We note that some shipment containers are designed to safely vent gases if the gas pressure within the container becomes excessive.
This safety feature should not be precluded.
Finally, it is not clear whether the regulation requires that waste packages withstand accidents as well as normal conditions of transport. DOT regulations only require that Type B shipments withstand accidents.
8.
Section 381.11, paragraph (g).
This requirement also seems open ended.
It would be helpful if persons having to comply with the requirement had a general idea of what the report will contain.
9.
Section 381.12, paragraph (b).
All existing shipment manifests should already contain infonation prescribed by 00T and NRC regulations.
Does this mean that existing manifests can be used to meet the NYDEC manifesting requirements? What other information would be needed besides the NYDEC permit numer?
10.
Section 381.13, paragraph (h).
This requirement will result in a lot of paper being delivered to the NYDEC of fices.
It will require considerable manpower to compile and make sense of the information.
Besides the sheer volume of paper received, there will be a problem with duplications and manifest copies that are either not sent to NYDEC or are lost.
NYDEC TRANSPORT REGS.
11.
Section 381.13, paragraph (i) (2).
"Significantly" should be defined. As presently written, the transporter could legally drive away with 45 55 gallon drums while the manifest indicates 44 or 46 drums.
Perhaps the regulation could provide a minimum number of spot checks to be performed -- for example, do the number of containers in the shipment match the number of containers listed on the manifest?, do the sizes (30 gal., 55 gal., etc.) of the containers in the shipment match the sizes of the container on the manifest?, etc.
)
- 12. Section 381.14, paragraph (a), (2).
Would shipment transfer from one truck to another truck owned by the same transport company be interpreted as transfer incidental to transport?
13.
Section 381.15, paragraph (b).
Five business days seems too short. We suggest 10 or 15 business days.
- 14. Section 381.17, Mixed Wastes.
In the first line of this section, the word "not" should apparently be inserted between "waste" and "mixed."
1
- _