ML20199F996
| ML20199F996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199F987 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-244-C, NUDOCS 9802040189 | |
| Download: ML20199F996 (5) | |
Text
~W(hy4?Gcw> ' v' > uaugytquppIgu.cp-pTCPree re:si r.: c se .
E. M..
e..q. h. 8. m t!51 F ........ . .. ..... . E !E ?f.. R !ss,,,t,3 ,a , 31
] .
s l NOTATION VOTE i t
f .
RESPOhlSE SHEET
, e
- * , s 8
TO: John C. Hoyle.Soorstery ji i
FitOM: '. CHAIRMAN JACKSON .
l:
' . gbajECT: , SECY-87 244 WASTE CLASSIFICATION DF THE TROJAN 'l
! REACTOR VESSEL
~
j
- . ed ilm Disapproved _ Absteln 14ot Portlolpsting Request Discussion .
4
. t COMMENT $: ,
- o ..mcw. .
2 o.
4 l.
,1 -
L, .t .
e f
4 1
! I 8
4 t
i, d Ad / J ' "
3 : ~SIGNATORE { .
December 4, 1997' -
JRolesseVh/K/ '
. . DATE !
. 3 r :itM*wed Vote / / l
- i Entered ok "AS" Yes.X.,_,_ N o __, _ i
', i- r l
I ! I i .(
- } .
i t -
j ,:'
- i. "
.t 9902040189 900122 PDR COMMS NRCC i CORRESPONDENCE
,, P,DR . ,
ii.....:.._.......
___-1.... . . _ _ _ _ _ . .
e Chairman Mam's Comments on SECY 97 244 in light of the Commission's national responsibility in setting policy in the regulation of the -
disposal of nuclear wastes, I approve the transmission of the letter to the State of Washington, subject to the attached edits which clarify the basis for the Commission's involvement in the final decision, and to indicate that while the state may make an initial determination of the saceptability of the disposal of this waste, the final decision rests whh the Commission. The responsibility for disposal of Greater than Class C (GTCC) lies with the Federal Govemmerd,
- not the states. Allowing the state of Washington to make the final determination with NRC acting in a consulting role is inconsistent with this responsibility,-
As a matter of public policy, I am concemed with the use of 10 CFR 61.58 as a means of
- justifying the disposal of the Trojan Reactor Vessel with its intomal intact at the Hanford Disposal Site. The Environmental impact Statement whleh supported 10 CFR Part 61 (NUREG 0945) did not address the disposal of GTCC. Instead H stated that westes not generally suited for shallow land disposal would need to be addressed by the Commission on a case by case basis. The use of the staff's Branch Technical Position, which was intended to address small quantities of waste with irregular distributions of activated materials (hot spots) to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Objectives of Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 61, does not appear to be appropriate considering the sheer magnitude of the activity proposed for disposal.
Based on the preceden; setting nature of this request, the Commission should assume its responsibility and exercise its authority for making the final determination of the appropriateness of this proposed disposal to un Agreement State for several reasons:
- 1) Since 10 CFR Part 61 did not envision the disposal of GTCC wastes, it does not follow that the State of Washington, nor any other Agreement State, has the authority to approve such a disposal request without a specific determination being made by the Commission that such a disposal would be acceptable.
- 2) Although the impact on the Hanford Disposal Site may be determined to be acceptable based upon site specific characteristice, the precedent setting nature of this action will weaken the position of other existing and proposed shallow land disposal sites to make an independent determination of the acceptability of such a disposal if a similar request is made to dispose of other reactor vessels at these sites. Additionally, there cunently is no IAEA standard for disposal of GTCC weste in a shallow land disposal sitt. Therefore, the determination of the mppropriateness of this disposal should be viewed in the broader context of its impact upon national policy, not within the narrow confines of this case specific action.
- 3) - Authorization for this disposal could complicate the siting process for the LLW Compacts and may make future sitings politically untermble. . Those who oppose those disposal sites already use the range of materials included within the broad definition of low level waste to attack claims of low public health and safety risks associated with these weste sites. This issue needs to be addressed at the national level and with the national perspective for which the NRC is uniquely qualified.
4)- Disposal of GTCC wastes is the responsibility of the Federal Govemment per Section 3(b)(1) of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of
- =. , __ - - - - - - - -
1985. Under other provisions of Section 3, this disposal site will be licensed by the NRC and operated by DOE. Allowing disposal of this waste in a manner that
'- is inconsistent on a site 19 site basis will complicate the Federal Govemment's
, resolution of the GTCC waste stream.
- 5) The significant degree to which the proposed disposal relies upon institutional controls to protset the public health and safety could not have been previously anticipateo by the disposal site operators. Therefore, this issue needs to be addressed from a national perspective.
1 l
l
- l l
i I
i l
~ . - .- , m, p g- 9-wy, - . e --
5- rF 49'-f~-**g:+ t- ***6-+ - * - - - - - . -w-*-w----v- *
~
u
- . j 4 l b Mr. John L Erickson, Director j Division of Radiation Protection
- ' Department of Health .
Altdustrial Center Building #5 P.O. Box 47827 Olympia, WA 98504 7827 l
i i
Dear Mr. Erickson:
I On March 31,19g7, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) requested the U.S. Nuclear !
i Regulatory Commission to issue a Type B Certificate of Compliance under our transportation regulations to allow a one time shipment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant's reactor vessel with its i intomals for disposal at the U.S. Ecology site in Hanford, Washington. NRC technical staff wa
! mesess the suitability of transporting the Trojan remotor vessel to the U.S. Ecology sito.1This"
{ assessment will be based on the potential riait to the public as well as an analysis of possites !
j pfsclAc exempHons of #w packets hem,the requirements of 10 CFR 71dPrior to beginning a j full review of this transportation package application, it Is our intent to address the waste classification of the waste shipment and make sure of its suitability for disposal. Under the 10 l CFR 20 waste manifesting requirements, a waste generator must classify wastes in accordance
- with 10 CFR 61.55. It is our goal to ensure that the weste shipment is property classified.
On June 18, igg 7, PGE submitted responses to several of our questions relating to the i
classification of the waste shipment (Attachment 1). PGE acknowledges that some of the 1 i intemals are Greater Than Class C (GTCC), but is proposing to classify the wastes by l averaging the reactor intomals with the pressure vessel. The core baffle plates, the core former
, plates, and the lewer core plate substantially exceed the recommended ratios for classifying activated metals given in Section 3.3 of the Branch Technical Position of Concentration j Averaging and Encapsulation dated January 17,19g5. However, PGE indicated that the one-piece shipment of the RV with the intemals would allow contact handling of the shipment, would
] result in 3g to 44 fewer waste cans requiring storage until a GTCC waste disposal site is l'
developed, would reduce contamination control problems, would reduce occupational exposures from 134 to 154 person rom to 67 person-rom (out of Sg1 person-rom estimated for the entire Trojen decommissioning), and would reduce waste shipments from 44 to 1.
PGE also provided a pathway analysis performed by U.S. Ecology, which was previously !
submitted to the State of Washington. This pathway analysis addresses groundwater impacts .
E and doses from direct exposure. Other intruder pathways such as construction and resident-farmer scenarios are not addressed, nor is there a justification for assuming that the package will remain intact over the hazard lifetime of the nuclides that are critical to the waste classification: C 14, Ni 5g, Ni 63, and Nt>94.
4 Pwvently there is no IAEA Standard for disposal;of GTOC waste in 'a"shanow land;desposal alloc Sodion 3(b)(1) of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments lAct of 1985l faserved to the Federal Govemment the responsitulity for disposal of low level radioactive wests
,_ swith concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits' established by the Commission fsr~
l' Class C radicadive waste, as defined by'aeotion 81.65 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,' -
es in'effect on January 26,1983? Scotion 41_.88 of tido 10, allows the Commission to authortas other provisions of waste classification upon spoolfic evaluation ~ of the specific characteristics of ~
l- - Die waste, disposal site, ahd'me$od of disposalAThe determination of the~appropriatentes "
of this disposal could impact other disposal sites and should be' viewed in the broader context of
- - klmpact,upon national pidicygather_than in #m nanow _con {nes,o[this case specinc, actionj i
l 0
Therefoe, because'of the'procedent setting nature of the disposal request,'the' Commission
'empects that the State of Washington will perfonn its inhiel evaluation of disposal requestf
@ to the additional Nems below in this letter, then forward the evaluabon to the ~ ~
Commiselon for Anal approvalldisapproval. ;The NRC staff Mll consider altemativ'e' approaches
~
to weste nuclide~ averaging lf it can be shown that the wastes will meet the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61 (see 10 CFR 61.58 and Section 3.g of the Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation). The evalu. tion should include a comprehensive and defensible pathway analysis that includes all relevant pathways. The draft Branch Technical Position on a Performance Assessment Methodology for Low Level Radioactive Weste Disposal Facilities could be used as guidance for this analysis}~howeverlthe
~~~~
pnel,, W,_@gQsubjectACommissioniapgmjetj We request that your staff ask U.S. Ecology, in coordination with PGE, to perform a comprehensivs and defensible pathways analysis to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed wastes for disposal at the Hanford disposal site. Specifically, the analysis should be based on intruder-construction and intruder resident farmer scenarios carried out for a 10,000 year period, if the waste package is assumed to be intact for a period greater than 500 years, justification needs to be provided. The draft " Branch Technical Position on a Performance Assessment Methodology for Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities'should be used as guidance.
Sections 3.2.2,3.2.3,3.3,4, and 3.3.5 of this Branch Technical Position provide guidance on the time frames for the performance assessment, use of engineered baniers, and evaluation of waste forms for the perfomnance assessment. Aftet your review of this information, if you conclude that the reactor vessel with intomals is suitable for disposal under the State of Washington's regulations'end.the Commission concurs, we will consider allowing the shipment
~
to be classified under the altemative averaging provisions of the Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation.- We are also willing to provide any technical
- assistance you may desire for the review of the submitted pathway analyses.
Sincerely, Richard L Bangart, Director Office of State Programs t
, w e v- # -***