ML20196B441
| ML20196B441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/26/1988 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Vaughan R COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196B428 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9906230196 | |
| Download: ML20196B441 (4) | |
Text
g O UNITED STATES P ,,
{' I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHIN3 TON, D. C. 20555
\...../
FEB2812 Mr. Raymond C. Vaughan Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14055
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
Thank 'you for your letter to me on January 19, 1988. We appreciate your concerns, and recognize the need for coordination in reaching a mutually agreeable solution to the problems of waste disposal for West Valley Demonstration Project wastes. As we know you are well aware, we were not a
' party to the lawsuit between the Coalition and DOE, or a signatory to the compromise settlement (settlement).
is not binding on the NRC. Under these circumstances the settlement The settlement calls for DOE to seek a determination from the NRC as to whet or not project radioactive waste with concentrations of transuranic nuclides above 10 nCi/g may be considered to be low-level wute within the meaning of the West Valley. Demonstration Project Act (Act). Your letter expresses concern over the procedure for making such a detemination, and the potential overlap with the ultimate decisions to be made by DOE on site selection and disposal method for the project's low-level waste.
As indicated in our previous letter to DOE on this subject, DOE.must first ask NRC on the record for a fomal determination and provide a detailed technical justification before we could consider the acceptability of treating transuranic (TRU) contaminated waste above 10 nC1/g as low-level waste. We understand 'that DOE is presently developing this amterial. When DOE does request a detemination, and provides the necessary supporting infomation and analyses, the NRC will endeavor to reach a detemination on the issue. As a federal agency, our decisionmaking process would be subject to the requirements of the National Envirormrantal Policy Act (NEPA), and we would adhere to our own regulations for. implementation of NEPA requirements contained in 10 CFR Part
- 51. We have enclosed a copy of that regulation for your use.
We have not determination.
the required yet detemined the precise steps that would be involved in reaching This includes the question of whether or not an
. Environmental Impact Statement would need to be prepared. However, we can promise an open process, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, before a final determination is made. Also,- to keep you better infomed of developments in this area, we will include you in our distribution list for copies of all our correspondence to DOE on this subject.
t gu g, .
Ag
'Y N
.l \
l We trust this is responsive to your concerns and look forward to working with you in the future on this and other West Valley issues.
Sincerely, y
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director
. Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
Enclosure:
10 CFR Part 51 cc: W. Bixby, DOE G
e e
i A10
h MEETING MINUTES NRC/ DOE meeting on West Valley Demonstration Project Low Level l Waste Date: April 27,1988 Place: West Valley, New York Attendees: List of Attendees Attached l
I.
Following introductory remarks by Willis Bixby and Malcolm Knapp. Tim Johnson discussed NRC's approach followed in the development of NRC's waste classification system in Part 61.
Tim Johnson also reviewed guidance which DOE could apply in determining classification limits for West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) wastes (see attached viewgraphs and Task Plan Guidance).
II.
On questions on assumptions NRC used. NRC discussed assumptions but noted DOE could propose to use alternative assumptions but DOE would have to provide a supporting detailed rationale.
III. The NRC and DOE agree that the issue concerning Transuranic waste is not establishment of a generic concentration limit for commercial reprocessing TRU in low level waste, but rather determination of what concentrations of TRU may be disposed of safely at West Valley in consideration of the perfomance of the West Valley site as a whole.
M ~k m All
t ywe _
A m ua77g pgaps m.
FT5 */ 92-d5FP TW1 Joi4 usa; utzc /ct_tx;uf 3ee- wz- o sve M As.c os.n WAFP (se / J- 492. - 33 C NR C/u.w M kksl hN'GMT ddC/dtV._ (pi7)- sto en's P u Lobvs rmclu wm c 30-w.-oss
)Rv(I 44u.n." NR.c,/IM S (3o Q 4 9 a.-CG H ISL il i16t,t 1/)[/htt/lC *)/I.,-44)-43
. l20Y THGMAS W U A/S 9 t c, - 9 y 2. - Y'5 e 0 NE**'&- 0 h5 ef% Mf i
& f)] WB - tuli 60 o Nd De 8eer AO' SEAM (~7/4) sir- 9.s4zt/- 3. i9 t/3 270 Aoms cor-wo ra, - ras- v.u
' 54 /3a es.y VWu 6. 2 it. - 1 e x - ~ ? t-Lf,Ilan Dhygen % s t ts <a 7th - sn e-- Wrc S cre/ E u e c v.3c o r +t_ D- es i t-%7_, ri c,, _92 - 4 :.=.
Pa ot \[Atest WV4 5 -/.( r., - 94 2 - 4 4 G 4 i s % H+< w vv"!
n et. m - y m SvS G2 swr /2 - Ad3 w& -19z- Y3 M Chto4 bioneetzwo Dear &6) 7/b -7W- gibg L, 4. 6 Cu% m J.J u.J.m,ks ~7d -C 9 9 -Tbl-i b hdb- 6W/05 ..
. 7/6-4.G - M7 Ta f,ady MS494 ya - 9y2 - YJt?
b6bh L /s 2. led y
MN 5
. . . tuv of /Dgm il( - % J.- Wal 21 s - 9 9 z_ - y 2.?
98
4 .. .
C
, COALITION ON WEST VAT.TRY NUCLEAR WASTES 1
. Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14055 -(716) 941-3168 March 28, 1996 Andy Bates office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Bates:
1 I am writing to you on two points, one being a timeliness- l of-response concern and the other being a separate issue that I I hope you will refer to the appropriate person within NRC. l l
11 Timeliness-of-resconse 4
On November 9, 1995, I wrote to Robert C. Pierson, Chief of the Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards.
I believe that a copy of my letter is in the M-32 file in the NRC Public Document Room (ACN 9511170125).
To date, I have received no reply from Mr. Pierson. Think-ing that his reply might have been lost in the mail, I checked yesterday with the Public Document Room to see if their database I showed a reply from Pierson to me. No such reply is listed, which adds to my concern that Pierson has not yet responded. Can you check on this? ;
I recognize that some time may have been needed to answer ,
the twelve questions in my November 9 letter, but 4-1/2 months seems excessive. In the event that more time is still needed to answer my questions, I should add that I am most interested in answers to the first six. Answers to these six questions should be relatively straightforward inasmuch as I an asking for reaffirmation of NRC position or policy as previously stated by senior NRC officials such as Knapp, Bangart,,and Bernero. In any case, I would like answers to all twelve questions but am willing to receive some answers before others if that proves most conven-ient.
- 2) Denendence of West Vallev decisionmakinc on NRC decision This is a substantially separate issue from the above.
On March 22, 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy issued the Draft EIS for completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project and closure or long-term management of the site (DOE /EIS-0226-D) .
We are very ccncerned that this EIS cannot serve its intend-ed purpose because NRC has not made a crucial decision. The decision to which I refer is the establishment of "such require-ments as the Commission may prescribe" for the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the high-level waste tanks, other OMM 3 @' AS4
facilities, and any msterial and hardware used in connection with ths Want Valley Dsmonstration Project, as set forth in the West ,
~
Valley Demonstration Project Act.
When, and how, and with what degree of public input and NEPA review, will NRC establish such D&D requirements?
i dependent,Any DOE decisionmaking based on the aforementioned DEIS is by NRC. by law, on D&D requirements that must be established Indeed, it would be a sham for DOE to purport to make a decision without knowing NRC's D&D requirements, yet this is precisely the direction in which the EIS process seems to bn headed.
West NRC Valley is wellrequirements.
D&D aware of its responsibility for prescribing the (See, for example, items 9012130314, 9102070028, and 9107180119 in the NRC Public Document !
Room.) Going a step further, NRC is listed as a cooperating agency in the aforementioned West Valley DEIS. On page 1-5 of the DEIS, the reason given for NRC's status as a cooperating agency is that "NRC has specific obligations under the WVDP Act to prescribe the WVDP." decontamination and decommissioning requirements for 2 Yet these requirements out in the DEIS, and on page 5-144 the do not appear to be spelled D&D requirements from NRC are called " unavailable information"!
It appears to us that DOE and NRC are subverting the NEPA process by allowing a sham EIS to go forward. The EIS does not clearly acknowledge DOE's inability to make the decisions out-lined in the EIS without NRC's missing input, nor does it ;
acknowledge NRC's crucial (and presumably NEPA-reviewable) decisionmaking role in setting the D&D requirements.
What does NRC intend to do to rectify this problem? It appears to us, as outlined above, that the controlling decision on completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project, site c '. o s u r e ,
and/or long-term of the aforementioned EIS.siteIt management lies outside the scope appears to us that the controlling decision will be made by NRC in the form of D&D requirements, the basis for waich is not set forth in the EIS. Will NRC conduct its own separate EIS process to support its decision, or will the !
decision room?
emerge mysteriously from the proverbial smoke-filled i j
We recognize that the aforementioned DEIS contains much information that is relevant to the question of D&D requirements for the West Valley site.
tion relevant to D&D requirements Other documents in general. contain much informa-But neither the DEIS nor any other document brings the necessary focus to NRC's role in this case.- Will NRC prescribe D&D requirements in the ]
form of exposure standards? The application of such standards to !
the West Valley site would be highly pathway-dependent and highly assumption-dependent, especially in view of the increasingly well-documented problems with erosion at the site. (For example, comparisons made in Appendix D of the aforementioned DEIS show exposure differences of roughly three orders of magnitude depend-ing on assumptions made about institutional control.) Alterna-2 A55
l . .
' tively, will NRC prancriba D&D rcquirements that are facilitv-snecific and task-oriented? It so, how will their impacts be i
assessed?
Regardless of the ultimate form of the NRC D&D requirements, their form, intended purpose, underlying assumptions, impacts, etc., must be presented explicitly (along with alternatives thereto) and must be subject to the scrutiny of NEPA review before they are prescribed by NRC.
l We look forward to a prompt response from NRC on how this very serious omission can be remedied. We need to see the West Valley EIS move forward properly, but without undue delay.
Sincerely, A
l 1d Raymond C. Vaughan 1
l l
l l
1
)
i cc: R. Guimond, DOE !
T. Rowland, DOE '
C. Borgstrom, DOE j D.P. Moynihan, U.S. Senate l 3
>\W3
L.
y f% $
4 UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\,,,,,,*/*j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20tW64001 March 11, 1998 l
Mr. Raymond C. Vaughan '
Coalition On West Valley Nuclear Wastes Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14055 i
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
l l am responding to your letter of February 1,1998, commenting on the U.S. Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission's positions or policies related to the West Valley Environmental impact Statement. As you point out, the NRC staff is preparing a Commission Paper on the West I i
Valley Demonstration Projcct and West Valley site. We will continue to take your comments into account as we go forward, at the staff level, with our activities related to our responsibilities under the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, and as a coo,>erating agency in the West Valley Environmental Impact Statement.
l l
Sincerely, I
r dfY John T. Greeves, Director
^
I Division of Waste Management Office af Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I
cc: T. Rowland, DOE R. Tc: "ey, DOE P. Picico , NYSERDA H. Brodie, NYSERDA l P. Merges, NYS DEC CTF 1
g
p uag (l' y k UNITED STATES l 3
j f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555-0001 l
\ ,4
%g
- / June 5, 1998 Mr. Raymond C. Vaughan Coalition On West Valley Nuclear Wastes Sharp Street East Concord, NY 14055 ;
Dear Mr,
Vaughan:
)
1 I am responding to your letter of March 21,1998, regarding the West Valley site. Thank you for providing the technical information on the emplacement of steel pilings through the Lavery Till beneath the main plant and the seismic / tectonic issues. This information will be considered during the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) technical review of any proposed remediation once a plan is provided that addresses the affected facilities.
Your letter also comments on the material provided by Jim Hammelman of Science Applications International Corporation, which were hard copies of a slide presentation given to the NRC on November 17,1997. This material, entitled " Application of NRC Criteria to West Valley Draft EIS Alternatives," was presented to NRC and simultaneously discussed in a conference call with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Administration (NYSERDA) as part of NRC's informal review and consultative role j under the West Valley Demonstration Project (VNDP) Act. This presentation and discussion were arranged to give NRC staff an interpretation of the potentialimpact of applying existing NRC waste disposal and decommissioning regulations and policies at the West Valley site.
NRC staff asked questions on the material to help us understand the points being made, but we did not offer any judgment of it. No transcript or recording was made of the discussion.
Since West Valley specific decommissioning criteria have not been determined, the discussion was on existing NRC regulations and policies. It is the NRC staff's understanding that the subject matter covered will be addressed as part of a performance assessment and cost-benefit analysis to be submitted by the DOE in the future for NRC staff review and written comments.
As you point out, part of the material dealt with " preliminary performance assessment results (not in the draft EIS)." Requests for the preliminary performance assessment should be directed to the DOE cffice at West Valley.
Although the staff placed the discussion materials in the NRC's Public Document Room, the discussion did not take place in a public meeting. It is the NRC staff's longstanding practice to provide the public with the fullest information practicable on its activities and to conduct its business in an open manner as set forth in the Commission's Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public (59 Federal Reaister 48340). However, the Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and DOE on West Valley (46 EE 56960), which predates the policy statement, does not apply NRC's open meeting policy to meetings between NRC and DOE in connection with the WVDP. A decision to apply the policy in the future would not, in my judgment, be inconsistent with the principle that NRC review and consultation are to be conducted informally, and are not to include, or require, any formal NRC procedure or action.
Therefore, it is my intention to obtain DOE's agreement to apply the policy statement to future NRC staff meetings with DOE.
W 6
n Mr. R. Vaughan Public notice of such meetings will be given in accordance with the policy statement, and the public will be able to obtain a schedule of staff meetings on West Valley through telephone recording (800-952-9674), electronic bulletin board (800-952-9676), or World Wide Web (http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/PUBLIC/ meet.html). l I
)
Sincerely, ,
lohn T. Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc: B. Mazurowski, DOE R. Tormey, DOE
{
P. Piciulo, NYSERDA H. Brodie, NYSERDA P. Merges, NYSDEC CTF i
}
- - - - -