ML20195H215
| ML20195H215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1988 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Vaughan R COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-32 24429, NUDOCS 8806280243 | |
| Download: ML20195H215 (15) | |
Text
.
s.
l 88095 GP 6/8 Mr. Raymond C. V.'.ughan Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Kastes Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14055
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
This letter is intended as a follow-up to our letter of February 26, 1988 which responded to your letter of January 19, 1988 and your question on this subject raised in the public meeting on April 27, 1988.
Your inquiry related to NRC's process and precedural rules for making a determination on the definition of transuranic wastes for the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), with particular emphasis on the use of the National Environmental Policy Ict (NEPA).
We have consitiered the application of NEPA to this determination and our conclusions are stated below.
In the West Valley Demonstration Project Act (P.L.96-368, hereinaf ter, the Act), Congress made clear its intent that NRC's role of review and consultation
...shall be conducted informally by the Comisslon and shall not include nor require formal procedures or actions by the Comission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energ Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or any other law." (Section 2 [c, emphasis added.) The Comission dnd the Department of Energy (DGE) reinforced this language in the Memorandum of Understanding (M0U) prepared by the two agencies in accordance with Section 2 (c) of the Act.Section II.B.1. of that MOV states that "... review and consultation shall be conducted informally and, in accordance with the Act, shall not be subject to formal Commission procedures or actions required by law for licensed activities." Accordingly, it is NRC's view that the application of NEPA in this instance is totally within the discretion of NRC. Given the fact that DOE is preparing an Environmc.ntal Impact Statement on disposal of LLW at West Valley, a NEPA review by NRC could be duplicative.
If the NRC ccrcludes that it should perform an environmental review of the precise issue placed before it in its consultative role, it will follow 10 CFR Part 51, as stated in our letter of February 26. NRC intends, however, to work with DOE in its proper review and consultation role unaer the Act and the 1100 to assure that all reasonable alternatives, including the disposal of transuranics, are considered in the DOE NE9t. process.
As stated in our previous letter to you, it is our intent to conduct an open review of DOE's justification for the proposed transuranic limit at WVDP.
Our current plan is to conduct this review in accordance with the Task Plan (copy attached) which was distributed at the April 27, 1988 meeting at West Valley, To provide for adequate public involvemnt, the staff will prepare a Federal Register notice upon con;pletion of a draft determination allowing 45 days f or public review and submittal of coments. The staff will then review and ccnsider the coments, make a final determination and prepare a Federal Register notice announcing that determination.
Yl' Q j g 880608 b'
M-32 DCD
- - -M 32 d//. -
8' 1
88095 GP 6/8 2-We hope this is responsive to your question and look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely, DRIGINAL SIGNED BY Richard L. Bangart Acting Director Division of Low. Level Waste Management and Deconraissioning
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
W. Bixby, DOE D. Hurt, IHNS DISTRIBUTION: V / moi"#-
Central File HMSS r/f LLOB r/f GPangburn, LLOB l
SBahadur, LLOB PLohaus, l. LOB JSurmeier, LLTB HBell, LLRB JGreeves, LLVM RBangart, LLWM DHurt, IMNS TJohnson, LLRB JShaffner, LLOB
_ /)
O ft, # -
.(4
.....I.
...I..IL b [f
..I
[LkI.....I.. b e....
NAME:GPangburn/dfw:SBahadur :PLohaus :RFonner :DHurt
- J e ves:RB 'g rt bkTb$bb)hbb Ob.hbbbb)k)bb$b6)hkbbbkhbb$b6))bb5bb/[k)hb
~
OFFICIAL T[CrabW 3
l
~_
.-e~
,y.,,,_
j l
TJ/WV TRU.
EVALUATION OF WEST VALLEY i
TRU AND WASTE CLASSIFICATION L M A.
BACKGROUND As part of a Compromise Settlement between the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear WastesandRadioactiveWasteCampaign(Coalition)andtheU.S.Departmentof Er "v (D0E), DOE agreed "to expeditiously seek and abide by a determination or pre.~ription provided for under the West Valley Demonstration Project Act from the Nuclear Regulatory Connission as to whether waste material (other than high-level waste) intended for disposal by 'the Department of Energy in con,iunction with the West Valley Demonstration Project which waste material contains elements having an atomic number greater than 92 in concentrations greater than ten (10) nanocuries per gram but less than or equal to 100 nanocuries per gram, are transuranic wastes or low level wastes within the meaning of the West Valley Denonstration Project Act, Pubic Law 96-368 for disposal at the Center."
The Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) staff has not endorsed the applicability of the 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification system to *.bst Valley DemonstrationProject(WVDP) wastes. The waste classi'.'! cation system in 10 CFR Part 61 contains radionuclide concentration limits that apply to onr.ucia1 wastes and some Federally generated wastes typically disposed at commerciel sites. The regulation,10 CFR Part 61, sets a 100 nCi/ gram upper bound for
s TJ/WV TRU 2-disposal of commercial wastes that are contaminated with alpha emitting transuranic radionuclides with a half-life greater than five years. This limit is not directly applicable to the WVDP wastes since wastes resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel were not analyzed as a part of the source term used in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that provides the decision basis for 10 CFR Part 61.
This is not to say that 100 nCi/gm may not be an acceptable concentration limit for the disposal of WVDP wastes. However, before NRC staff considers accepting a concentration limit other than 10 nCi/gn for transuranic radionuclides, DOE must conduct additional analyses to support its proposed use of any other concentration limit. This 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 cbjectives in 10 CFR Part 61.
In order to make the determination sought by the Compromise Settlement, NRC staff will review DOE's support for justifying its proposed transuranic limit and conduct the necessary independent analyses to ensure protection of public health and safety.
This Task Plan (TP) is divided into two parts:
the first part provides NRC's guidance for DOE to prepare its justification for a site specific TRU limit and n
TJ/WV TRU
-4 waste classification system; the second part provides guidance to NRC staff reviewers in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (HMSS) for performing a review of DOE's justification. This TP addresses only the DOE assessment of the TRU and waste classification limits. The principal purpose of the TP is to ensure that a high quality and well coordinated review of the WVDP disposal analysis is performed.
It is also the purpose of the TP to make information on regulatory matters about West Valley widely available and to improve the understanding of the HkC staff review process by interested parties.
It is not intended to prov'de guidance for development of a complete DOE EIS as is also required under the Compromise Settlement. The pathway analyses performed under this effort, however, could be ut,ed as a part of the DOE EIS development.
B.
GUIDANCE FOR THE WVDP__TRU JUSTIFICATION To ensure thot the DOE prepares a complete justificatior. De NRC staff is providing guidance on the areas that DOE will need to consider in developing support for a West Valley specific TRU limit and classification system.
The determination of acceptable TRU and waste classification limits should be basad on analyses similar to those performed to establish the 10 CFR Part 61 waste c 6ssification system limits. The 10 CFR Part 61 approach was based on 1
I calculating waste nuclide concentrations using a generic series of intruder and groundwater migration pathway models.
Those limits were then tested using a l
~
TJ/WV TRU 4
generic commercial waste source term and four reference disposal sites to verify compliance with the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives.
The approach is discussed in detail in the draft and final EIS's prepared to, support the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking (NUREG-078? and NUREG-0945). The approach should consider the following:
a.
Characterization of the West Valley wastes. This characterization should include both the WVDP wastes aad all other wastes disposed at the West Valley site. This is needed since some of the radionuclides may be site inventory limited as is the case for H-3, C-14, Tc-99 and 1-129 for com,ercial wastes.
In addition, long-term release of these radionuclides may be significantly affected by the chemical and physical form of the wastes. Therefore, the characteristics and entire inventory of all the wastes at Waste Valley would need to be considered in the analysis. The characteristics of waste disposed of in the NRC licensed disposal area and the commercial disposal area should be estimated frcm available data and disposal records.
It may be necessary to make assumptions regarding the waste stream characteristics and nuclide distributions based on the type of waste generator or other Laowledge of the waste generation process.
The EIS's supporting 10 CFR Part 61 provide information which may be suitable for making estimates for the comercial waste generatod. All assumptions should be documented.
b.
Application of the 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification system. The 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification system should be applie6 to the WVDP waste
TJ/WV TRU streams and used as input to a West Valley site specific pathway analysis model. This model should evaluate applicable intruder scenarios (e.g.,
scenarios identified in the EIS supporting the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking andStandardReviewPlan(SRP)6.1ofNUREG-1200, Revision 1,"Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.") The models should be modified to reflect the West Valley groundwater and surface water pathways and the proposed disposal facility designs. Consideration should also be given to using newer waste leaching models which have been developed since the 10 CFR Part 61 rulcmaking. The site specific pathway analyses should evaluate the dose impacts resulting from human exposure to contaminhted groundwater, surfece water, air, soil, plants and animals for >1 disturbed and intruder scenarios. One analysis should be conducted to address only the WVDP wastes and disposal facilities for those wastes. A second analysis should evaluate the incremental impacts of the disposal of WVDP wastes with the impacts from all other wastes disposed at West Valley.
The impacts should not exceed the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives.
These performance objectives provida + hat intruder doses be limited to 500 mrem / year and doses resulting from releases to the environment be limited to 25 mrem / year to the whcle bcjy, 75 mrem / year to the thyroid and 25 mrem / year to any other organ.
If the performance objectives are exceeded, the waste concentration limits, disposal facility design or proposed disposal operations should be reassesseo.
l TJ/WV TRU 6-In developing the evaluation tools it will be necessary for DOE to construct site specific source terms and pathway models. Specific guidance is found in Chapter 6 of NUREG-1199, Revision 1, "Standard Format and Content of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility."
Assumptions used in the pathway analyses should include:
a.
All unstable wastes after 100 years and all stable wastes after 500 years are unrecognizable from soil, b.
Af ter 500 years intruder barriers and engineered erosion control measures are no longer effective.
c.
Instituti".:.1 control over the disposal site is lost after 100 ycars allowing an inadvertent intruder to have access to the site.
d.
Intruder and groundwater exposure scenarios are those (as appropriately modified) used in the EIS's supporting the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking, e.
It should be recognized that the models used to support the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking were intended to be used for generic assessments of disposal impacts and not for site specific applications. There are, though, elements of the 10 CFR Part 61 codes (e.g., some intruder scenarios) which may be adapted for use in site specific evaluations.
l TJ/WV TRV.
These assumptions were used in the development of the 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification system and have undergone extensive public review and comment in the rulemaking proceecing. The NRC staff will consider modifications to these assumptions. However, a rigorous justification must be provided to support their use.
Other items which need to be considered in evaluating the impacts against the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives include:
a.
Maximum site inventories of nuclides which are inventory limited.
For concercial waste disposal these include H-3, C-14, Tc-99 and 1-129. Those nuclides which are inventory limitec' in the West Valley application should be determined and their impacts assessed, b.
Long term stability effects of the site on the dose pathway models.
C.
NRC STAFF REVIEW PLAN In order to review the 00E evaluation to justify a transuranic limit, NRC staff must be prepared to perform an independent confirmatory analysis of the disposal of the wastee to be generated by the WVDP to ensure that public health and safety is protected.
It is expected that the DOE will select and exercise l
the appropriate nodels and codes neeced for their justification. The NRC staff effort is expected to be limited to familiarization with West Valley site
_e
l l
l TJ/WV TRU information, technical consultation with DOE and DOE contractors, work performed in preparation for the review, and the review.
It is not intended that NRC staff will develop the models and codes required for the DOE to prepare their justification.
It is expected that codes developed by the DOE will be provided to the NRC staff.
NRC staff will review and exercise these codes and may incoporate alternative models and codes as may be required for its independent review.
The NRC staff evaluation will consist of the following elements:
1.
Source Term The West Valley waste and site specific source term proposed by DOE should be reviewed in accordance with SRP 6.1.1.
As used in this discussion "source term" refers to the waste form and radionuclide inventory used for the appropriate pathway analyses. Source terms should be reviewed for the proposed WVDP wastes as well as other wastes previously disposed at West V611ey.
Projected WVDP wastes should be reviewed in' accordance with Section 4.3.1 of SRP 6.1.1.
2.
Radionuclide Release The site specific radionuclide release performance assessment models should be reviewed in accordance with SRP 6.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5.1, 6.1.5.2,
i TJ/WV TRU
.g.
6.1.5.3, 6.1.5.4 and 6.1.6.
These models should use the site specific source terms as input as well as other input parameters specific to West Valley.
The evaluation criteria will be the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61.
Scenarios for releases from engineered disposal concepts should be reviewed based on conservative but reasonably likely events.
3.
Intruder Impacts The intruder analysis should be based on the pathway analyses described in the EIS's supporting the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. The site specific analysis should use the site specific source term and the applicable site specific intruder exposure models. The intruder protection analysis should be performed in accordance with SRP 6.2.
Intruder doses should be less than 500 mrem / year, whole body dose equivalent.
The intruder pathway analyses should be reviewed by NRC staff to assess the acceptability of the proposed waste classification limits for transuranic and other nuclides important for disposal Site safety. As a minimum the nuclides in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 561.55 should be evaluated, J
a l
l i
e n
l TJ/WV TRV.
4 Product The product of the WVDP review will be a Safety Evaluation Report describing:
a.
Background
b.
Evaluation objectives c.
Source term d.
Radionuclide releases e.
Intruder impacts f.
Evaluation conclusions and recommendations 5.
Staff Resources Staff resources will be determined through an assessment of the tasks required for the review and review preparation. These resources may be dependent on other HMSS priorities.
It is expected that staff will be required from the Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, the Division of Institutional and Medical Nuclear Safety, and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
o TJ/WV TRU
' 6.
Schedule The detailed schedule for the review will be developed one month prior to the expected receipt of the DOE analysis and will consider the appropriate office priorities at that time. The following provides a general schedule for preparing for and conducting the review:
a.
NRC staff to meet with DOE to provide guidance April 1988 and ascertain DOE analysis schedule b.
NRC staff to develop list of tasks and skills Hay 1988 needec for preparation and conduct of the review including contractor support c.
NRC staff to develop schedule for completing flay 1988 review preparation 1
d.
hRC staft to meet with DOE to discuss TBD i
their plans and proposed technical approach for performing the evaluation l
e.
NRC staff to review draf t DOE analysis TBD f.
NRC staff to develop detailed schedule for the TBD review of the final DOE analysis
l o.
l0 l
l TJ/WV TRU 12 g.
HRC staff to initiate review TBD l
ee i
DATE 07 DOCUMENT DAf t RECitytD NO 2/26/881 5/18/88 LL w 88-095 \\
FROM halcolm Knapp om 4.
CC OTHE R t.s
^ " ^ * " '
Raymond Vaughan Acro' a Ci=^av O
coNcuaaiNci O
No AcreN NicessAav O co== INT O
6/8/88
)
CLAS$lF
- Ost OF 7 6CE FILE COOL' mtG NO DESCn-PiloN tuvoi se wee feel rep tantD 70 DATE REClivtO GY Daft
(
jF
- j.,.
- l. ) {, i X
,/,'.,
CORRESPONDENCE WITTI Lohnus/Bahadur 5/20 Q
'b/)
RAYMOND VAUGHt.N CONCERNING WVDP l
f -.;,
sNcLosmas Efdb
({N
($ d1t 1 w ps
}f
-/ e j/, \\r ( w ' j $ '
- T
~
l
=
g o
I e ?'
Lt/
l W anns i
l I
l\\,
, 'i t
i,?
'omuhncan u.s NvCttam mtoutAtome CowwitscN MAIL CONTROL FORM n.7ss
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____