ML20207C854
| ML20207C854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207C847 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-88-151, NUDOCS 8808100290 | |
| Download: ML20207C854 (8) | |
Text
- '
i May 27, 1988 SECY-88-151 For: The Commissioners i
From: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
CCMMISSION BRIEFING BY JOHN BAUBLITZ ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S REMEDIAL ACTION AND (LOW-LEVEL) WASTE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Purpose:
To provide the Commissioners with background information about 00E's Remedial Action and (Low-level) Waste Technology Program .
in preparation for a briefing by John E. Baublitz, Acting !
Director, Office of Remedial Action and Waste Technology (00E).
Background:
In response to an April 5, 1988 letter from John Baublitz to ;
me (Enclosure 1), DOE has offered to present an informational l briefing to the Consission on the following areas of their Reuedial Action and Waste Technology Program:
1 The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project; 2 The West Valley Demonstration Project; and 3 The Low-Level Waste Program.
Discussion: 1) Tna UMTRA Project The UMTRA Project was established under Title I of P.L.95-604, The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This Project calls for remediation of 24 tailings piles at 22 abandoned mill sites throughout the United States.
Under UMTRCA, DOE is responsible for selection and performance of remedial action at each site pursuant to standards prescribed by EPA, and is presently required to complete this remedial action by March, 1990. Because of schedule changas, DOE has requested Congressional action to extend the March 1990 deadline to September 1994
Contact:
Paul Lohaus, HMSS/LLWM (X23345) i 8809100290 880728 DR ADOCK0500ggol
. t
.. In its analysis supporting the Title I standards development, EPA estimated that the radon emission standard would reduce the amount of radon emitted frem uncontrolled mill tailings by 96%.
This reduction would in turn reduce the chances of a fatal lung cancer to an individual residing permanently near a tailings pile from approximately 3 in 100 to 1 in 1000. These benefits are not without substantial cost. 00E has estimated that remedial action costs at the 22 sites will approach $1 billion, not including the costs of groundwater restoration. The total cost including restoration could exceed $2 billion, since DOE iridicated in its January 26, 1988, connents on the EPA proposed groundwater standards that, "... the UMTRA Project implementation cost for the groundwater restoration alone could be well in excess of 51 billion (1987 dollars)."
Interaction with DOE on the UMTRA Project is one portion of HRC's overall uranium recovery program. In FY87 and the first half of FYB8 less than half of the staff resources for uranium recovery were dedicated to the UMTRA Project.
NRC's role in the UMTRA Project is one of consultation, concurrence in remedial actions, and licensing long-term custody. NRC concurs in the selection and performance of the remedial actions, and concurs in DOE certification of the completion of the remedial actions. Upon DOE completion of remedial action and transfer of land to DOE custody, NRC will license DOE for surveillance and monitoring of the remediated tailings and sites. NRC responsibility is to concur that the remedial actions comply with the EPA standards, and that there is reasonable assurance that the 00E-specified design will maintain integrity for at least 200 years.
The NRC staff is presently involved in various stages of review for all of the 22 sites. The review process includes NRC's review and connent on environmental documents, remedial action plans, site designs, QA inspection plans, remedial action completion reports, and surveillance and maintenance plans.
NRC staff (at Headquarters and the Uranium Recovery Field Office) presently has under review for concurrence, two DOE completion certification reports for sites at Shiprock, New Mexico and Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, and has concurred (some with conditions requiring later resolution) in proposed remedial action at 5 other sites where remediation is current 13
.- 3- .
l l
in progress. 00E is completing remedial action plans for an .
additional 5 sites in order to obtain similar concurrence from !
NRC by the end of FY88. Additionally, 00E is conducting l clean-up of vicinity properties associated with these UMTRA !
sites. NRC also has a concurrence role in these clean-up activities. An UMTRA Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC and DOE was adopted in 1985. Part of this MOU ;
establishes time guidelines for completion of HRC staff review 1 of the various documents associated with each remedial action. !
The combination of DOE schedule delays and fixed NRC resources i however, will likely make it difficult for NRC to meet those I times in all cases for the following reasons:
- 1. With DOE schedule delays, more reviews may be required of NRC staff in a given span of time than was initially contemplated.
- 2. Since development of the MOU, the number of docuinents requiring review has increased.
- 3. The required depth and scope of the technical reviews have become greater than originally anticipated. This is the case, for example, in the area of groundwater protection, where EPA's recent issuance of revised groundwater standards for this program has necessitated expanded groundwater analyses and related review.
- 4. Site specific problems during construction require additional unanticipated review.
Despite the fact that HMSS and Region IV have attempted to deal with this issue by improving the efficiency of the review process, by shifting some resources to support this program, and by identifying needed resources as a part of the current budget process, we still believe we cannot meet the schedules as they currently exist.
- 2) West Valley Demonstration Project The West Valley reprocessing plant is about 30 miles South of f>uff alo, New York. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) operated the reprocessing plant, as well as a low-level waste (LLW) burial ground on an adjacent site, under a lease from New York
.. 4 I
State. hFS began operating the plant in 1966 and shut down in 1972 for modification and expansion. In 1976 NFS decided not to reopen the plant and cropped their application for a license amendment. In 1980 Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act, instructir.g the Department of Energy (00E) to conduct a HLW solidification deronstration at West Valley. The DOE's tasks are to solidify the HLW into a form suitable for permanent disposal, dispose of LLW and transuranic waste produced in solidifying the HLW, and i cecontaminate the facilities used in these activities. The Act instructed the NRC to monitor the WVDP to ensure that public health and safety are protected, mainly by reviewing Safety Analysis Reports and conducting site monitoring visits. The principal West Valley issues that the NRC will be involved in during the remainder of the WVDP are: the safety of the waste handling and solidification processes; the qualification of the solidified HLW and its containers; the form and method of disposal of the LLW generated by the WVDP; and the ultimate l disposition of the contaminated facilities and two burial '
grounds previously operated by NFS, one for disposal of Commercial LLW and one for disposal of the higher level wastes i from plant operations, j The DOE has decided to treat the HLW in two steps. First, the supernatant will be decontaminated by ion exchange (zeolite) to remove most of the dissolved cesium. 'ihe decontaminated supernatant stream will then be mixed with cement and poured <
into drums. Operation connenced in May 1988. The second I step will begin in about 1992, when the DOE will remove the I sludge from the tank, mix it with the cesium-loaded zeolite and process it into borosilicate glass.
The DOE has prepared Safety Analysis Reports on the three processing systems that will begin operating in 1988. The NRC staff has reviewed these Safety Analysis Reports, concentrating. I on radioactive effluents and potential accidents, and has conducted many monitoring visits to the site. The staff has agreed with the 00E that operction of the supernatant processing systems will not pose a significant risk to public .
health or safety. I Supernatant ,,cocessing will generate 11,000 71-gallon drums of cement LLW which DOE hopcs to dispose of in an above-ground I
l
j
.. -s-1 l
tumulus on the West Valley site. The tumulus interrupted by a lawsuit from a local citizen' s group plan was which !
questioned the ei.vitonmental impact of disposing of more radioactive waste at West Valley. In an out-of-court settlement, the DOE agreeo to store the wastes in retrievable form while preparing an Environmental Impact Statement covering their disposal.
The NRC's responsibilities in LLW disposal and site closure are I indirect, but provide an opportunity for us to exercise a leadership role in defining appropriate closure conditions for this multi-use site. Two statements of the WVDP Act bear on these issues. The Act states that LLY dnd transuranic waste produced in solidifying the HLW must be disposed of "in accordance with applicable licensing requirements". 10 CFR 61 provides such applicable licensing requirements. The Act also l stipulatus that the HLW tanks and other facilities at West Valley used by the WVDP must be decontaminated and oecomissioned (D&D) in accordance with requirements prescribed by the flRC. There has not yet been an exact definition of which parts of the site will be covered by this D&D requirement. NRC staff considers the completion of activities et the site must be based on analysis of the entire site. DOE should be encouraged to take the lead, in coordination with New l York State, to prepare an EIS for the entire West Valley Site.
- 3) The Low-Level Waste Program The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments A-t of 1985 (Act) provides for the establishinent and operation of regional disnosal facilities for comercial icw-level radioactive waste.
It 'eaffirmed r the States' responsibility to provide disposal capacity for low-level wastes, and the policy that regional sites and compacts are the most effective approach for meeting this responsibility. The Act established specific milestones for the States and provided for interim disposal while new capacity is developed.
Both NRC and DOE were assigned responsibilities under the Act and have coordinated in carrying out these responsibilities.
The principal responsibilities of DOE under the Act that involve interaction with NRC include: (1) administering an escrow account for a portion of the surcharge fees, including
.. rebates to States as they meet their milestones; (2) providing technical and financial assistance to the States to help them meet their responsibilities; and (3) submitting various information and status reports to Congress. In addition, the Act provided that disposal of low-level wastes that contain radionuclides in concentrations exceeding 10 CFR Part 61 Class C limits is a Federal responsibility. In a 1987 report to Congress, DOE stated that it was taking responsibility for disposal of greater than Class C Waste (GTCC).
HRC responsibilities include: (1) licensing the disposal of commercial GTCC wastes; (2) establishing procedures for licensingalternativedisposaltechnologies;and(3) establishing procedures for licensing new sites in a timely manner.
The disposal of GTCC waste is one issue involving direct interaction with DOE. It is closely related to ongoing NRC activities concerning the definition of high-level waste. The staff recently submitted a proposed rule to the Consission (SECY-88-52) that would require all GTCC wastes to be disposed of in a geologic repository, unless DOE proposes an alternative acceptable method. DOE and NRC Tctivities involve a number of other areas of interaction. For =7 ample, administration of the escrow accounts involves DOE /NRC interaction on DOE judgments that States have met milestones. NRC licensing procedures and guidance documents help DOE determine whether State plans or documents associated with a milestone are adequate. Further, hRC (or the appropriate Agreement State) must determine that license applications are complete before DOE can determine that States have met the 1990 milestone. DOE also plans to submit two alternative technology designs for NRC review in FY-89.
OGC has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
lp a c / 7/ D A
- ctor Sthllo', Jp' Executive Direct for Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated
d 1
~
. I This paper is ten'atively t scheduled for discussion at an Open i l
Meeting on Friday, June 3, 1988.
DISTRIBUTION: l Commissioners ;
OGC OIA l; GPA REGION IV EDO ACRS ASLBP l ASLAP SECY I
t i
I i
1 1
1 l
4 l
4 1
i b
6 I 4
- . _ _ . . ~ . .-, . . - . , , _ _ _ , . - _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . .,_,,_,,__...__,.,_,,_..._..._-,.__,_,,._,.,.._..,_._..,,,.i
Department cd Energy Washmgten. DC N545 l
l April 5, 1988 -
i Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. l Executive Director for Operations I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i Washington, D. C. 20555 l
Daar Mr. Stello:
This follows up on our telephone conversation of last week regarding a short briefing for the Comissioners on the Department's Rimedial Action and Waste Technology Program. We believe the Comissioners ma unfamiliar with this less well known aspect of the Department'ysbe nuclear energy responsibilities and of the important role NRC plays in several elements of the program. A 30 40 minute briefing on our Low Level Waste Program West Valley Demonstration Project, and Uranium Mill Tailings RemedialActionProjectwouldbesufficienttohighlighttheseactivities and our perspective on the NRC role. Your reaction to this idea, as well as the assistance of your office in making appropriate arrangements, would be appreciated. Please contret me with your thoughts and coments.
Sincerely,
' John E. Baublitz Acting Director Office of Remedial Action and Waste Technology cc:
D. F. Bunch..NE 2 I
- - - - - - - - - - , - - . - - . , . - - , . - _ . . , _ . . . , - - - - - - , ,-,-----.-.-.,-n , , - _ -- --,-.. ,-.n-.,---.- , - .---_
-- - - _ .