ML20209B453

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Response to Re Federal Role in Storage of Nuclear Waste
ML20209B453
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/02/1987
From: Roberts T
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To: Pryor D
SENATE
Shared Package
ML20209A941 List:
References
NUDOCS 8704280445
Download: ML20209B453 (3)
v • d • e


Text

-.

.[

3 -

~ '*),;

o-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f* ' 3 .E' WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 r

T.,...../ .

l CHAIRMAN April 2, 1987 l

l

~

l-' The Honorahle David Pryor IJnited States' Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Pryor:

I am pleased to respond to your letter of February 24, 1987 l regarding the Federal role in the storage of nuclear waste. I l understand your interest is in low-level radioactive waste.' The j i answers to the questions'you raised are provided in the enclosure '

to this letter.

If it would be helpful to have NRC staff testify before Committees of the Arkansas legislature, the Commission will be pleased to-make an appropriate staff person available.- Our point of contact for this arrangement is Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director ,

for State Agreements Program, Office of Sta_te Programs, '

301-492-9843.

Sinc rel , ,

T mas M. Roberts Acting Chairman

Enclosure:

As Stated ,

i I

i 87042 5 870422 PDR S P5tCC CORRE ONDENCE PDR

E e

4

~

Answers to Specific Questions on Storage of Nuclear Waste j 1. What types of storage are acceptable to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

In general the Commission believes that storace of low-level radioactive waste should be on a temporary basis and not be used as a substitute for waste disposal.

There ara several types of waste storage that are acceptable to NRC. For materia 1' licensees, such as hospitals, universities and industrial concerns, NRC has authorized storage for decay where radionuclides having relatively short radioactive half-lives are involved. Waste generators are authorized to store their own waste for a period sufficient to accumulate enough for shipment to a disposal facility.

Also, contingency storage has been authorized to cover situations where disposal sites may be temporarily unavailable.

The NRC staff has issued two generic letters outlining its position on storage of low-level radioactive waste at power reactor sites (enclosed). Generic letter 81-38 specifies the l steps a nuclear power reactor licensee should take to obtain NRC approval for storage of low-level waste generated on site. NRC has the regulatory jurisdiction over such storage.

Briefly, licenses for long term storage of low-level waste on-site are issued for a 5 year term and are renewabla where good cause is shown for extending the time period. Generic letter 85-14 provides NRC views on the concept of using the reactor site for commercial storage of low-level waste not generated by the utility licensee. This letter also describes the circumstances under which NRC or'the Agreement State has regulatory jurisdiction. In additinn to the positions discussed in these two letters, a case-by-case evaluation would need to be performed on the accaptability of any proposed storage facility from a health and safety and safeguards standpoint.

Interest is being expressed by some States fr. commercial storage of low-level waste generated withi:e the State.. While NRC recognizes that storage may appear desirable in States which have not resolved their low-level waste disposal problems, NRC is concerned that commercial storage facilities do not become de facto disposal sites. For commercial  ;

storage under its jurisdiction NRC will require that the  !

license applicant provide satisfactory commitments and '

assurances for eventual disposal of all stored wastes and adeouate financial guarantees to cover the cost of eventual packaging, shipment and disposal of the weste.

l i

'The enclosed paper _which was presented at Waste Management '87 on March 2, 1987.provides information on the NRC perspective on low-level radioactive waste disposal.

2. What authority does a State have in relieving itself from the L directives of NRC?

Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act'of 1954, as amended provides a mechanism by which the Commission may relinquish, l and the States assume, a part of the Commission's regulatory l authority. Arkansas became an Agreement State in 1963.

l There are currently 28 Agreement States. Under the Agreement, the State agrees to maintain a radiation control program which is adeouate to protect public health and safety i and compatible with NRC's program. The NRC does not issue directives to the Agreement States. Rather, we work closely with them to achieve an orderly regulatory pattern. The Agreement State has the reaulatory jurisdiction over storage of those materials covered by the agreement, except on a reactor site, at a fuel cycle facility handlinp large quantities of special nuclear material or at Federal l facilities.

3. Does there exist any NRC regulation which would prohibit a unit of county government from requiring prior approval before a permit is granted for a nuclear storage site?

There is no specific NRC regulation which would prohibit a unit of the county government from requiring prior approval before a permit is granted for a waste storage site. For waste storage under NRC regulatory ,iurisdiction, regulation for purposes of radiological health and safety by a Stata, county or other local jurisdiction is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. However, a county government may reculate for other purposes - e.g., enforce zoning requirements. For a storage facility under Agreement State I

jurisdiction, it is possible that a county could be involved in the licensing process. The Section 274b Agreement is between the NRC and the State, with the State being responsible for implementing the radiation control program.

l It would be the State's option regardino.any narticipation by a county government in implementing the regulatory program.

We would expect to see clear lines of authority and responsibility delineated.

l l

l

, - .- . . - .- - - - ~ - - - - - ._----.------.--_- - _ -_____ _ .

e.- ,

s .

k UfflTSO STA758 NUCLEAR REOULATORY COAstel8810N 3 f l

5 M88888T888* 8 8 3M 4

j .

\*.... Novemoer 10. 1981 i

TO ALL NOLDER$ 0F AND APPLICANTS FOR OptRATING LICEllSES AM CONSTRUCTION ptRN!TS

$USJECT: STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL RADICACTIVE WASTES AT POWER REACTOR $1TES

, (Generic Letter 81-38)

Gentlemen:

As a result of a reduction in weste disposal availability in the United

States, many nuclear power reactor licensees are taking er are planning to i take steps to provide for additional ensite storage of low-level radioactive wastes generated onsite. These steps range from storing packaged wastes in unused space to construction of new facil' ties for volume reduction and i extended storage. The NRC has been considering the variety of plans which j are underway and how they should be reviewed and approved.

4

( Actions on wasta storage can influence the development and implementation

! of final disposal plans by states, acting individually or en a regional t

basis, to establish additional disposal capacity. Some states have indicated to NRC that utt11astion of disposal services by nuclear power plant Itcensees is essential if disposal sites are to be developed by states or regional compacts. Thus, it is toportant that the NRC not take deliberate action that would hinder the establishment of additional disposal capacity by the i states and yet, consistant with NRC regulatory safety requirements, I permit necessary operational flexibility by its licensees. It is with

{ these points in mind that the following guidance is provided.

For proposed increases in storage capacity for low-level weste generated j by normal reactor operation and maintenance at power reactor sites, the safety of the proposal must be evaluated by the Itcensee under the provisions

of 10 CFR 50.5g. If (1) your existing license conditions or technical i specifications do not prohibit increased storage, (2) no unreviewed safety j question exists, and (3) the proposed increased storage capacity does not i ,

exceed the generated waste projected for five years, the licensee may j provide the added capacity, document the 50.5g evaluation and report it to

the Comission annually or as specified in the license.

ti 1 us:

0 9

%~

- - -,-_- - ---,- ... _.- ,- ,..- , .- - . . , . - - - - , , - ~ - . , - - - , - . . _ - - e

_ -__ _ _ _ - -- _. .- . = - - . . . . - -

Radiological safety guidance has been developed by the staff for the design and operation of interim contingency low-level wasta storage .

facilities. Necessary design features and adninistrative controls will be dictated by sucn factors is the waste form, concentrations of radioactive -

material in individual waste containers, total amount of radioactivity to

< be stored, and retrievability of waste. A copy of the guidance document is enclosed with this letter. This outdange_shall ha used.jn .the design,

  • construction and operation of your storage facility. In addition, thw NRC will judge the adequacy of your 50.59 evaluation based on your compliance with the guidance. Please note also that IE Circular No. 80-19. dated August 22, 1980, provides information on preparing 50.59 evaluations for
changes to radioactive waste treatment systems.

1 If you detemine that an unreviewed safety question exists, authority for use should be requested through application to the Office of Nuclear i Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) pursuant to 10 CFR 30. accompanied by j an environmental evaluation that considers the incremental impact as i

related to reactor operations. Such application for a separate Part 30 Ifeense is for the adninistrative convenience of sne Comission and is not j intended to be substantively different than an application for amendment of 1 the facility operating license. Application for use should also be accom-panied by a showing that the storage provisions will not impact on the 1

safety of reactor operations and will not foreclose alternatives for 4

disposal of the wastes.

) NMSS will notice the receipt of' application in the Foderal Registor, offer an opportunity for public hearing if significant pub'ic interest s demonstrated, and will perfom an environmental assessment to detemine if the proposed activity will significantly affect the quality of the environment. Facility construction prior to the staff's detemination would be carried out at the Itcensee's risk. Any license issued will be for a standard five-year term.

4 renewable if continued need is demonstrated and if safety of continued storage is established. NRC licensing jurisdiction will be retained in ,

Agreement States in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1) for storage of  !

J; low-level waste ge*erated and stored onsite. Indemnity coverage will be provided under and in accordance with your existing indemnity agreement l with the Comission.

J ,

If it is detemined that the storage provisions could impact on the safety I of reactor operations or an existing license conoition or technical specifica- '

tion limit on the amount of waste storage, a change in the conditions of the reactor facility license may be necessary. '

l -

1 I

n 4

i I

l

.n-.- - . - ~ .., - - - -. . - - - ,-n. , - - - - - , - - - - , , - . . - - - . , . - - . - - - - - , , . , . - - . , , , - - , - , , - ,.---~-.-----n--- - - - - - - , - , - - - - - , - . -.----..-,.,nn,,-,-,

e i

l l l l

The provisions for added capacity should be used only for interim contingency storage, and low-level wastes should continue to be shipped to disposal sites

! to the extent practicable. The " Low Level Radioactive Waste policy Act* of 1980 gives primary responsibility for the disposal of low-level weste to the

, states. Some states have initiated disposal plans and we believe it is important that power reactor licensees, as major wa,ste generators, work with -

and provide technical assistance and other support to assist individual ,

states or regions in developing new disposal sites. You are encouraged to 1

take an active role in the development of additional disposal sites.

! some licensees are considering the installation of major volume reduction processes, e.g., incineration, dehydration, or crystallization to substantially i

reduce the vo'une of weste for disposal. You are encouraged to esamine i

the costs and benefits of such processes for your operations. However, l notwithstanding the use of volume reduction, you are also encouraged to

! take an active role in the development of additional disposal sites.

1 t

For proposed increases in storage capacity for more than five years (long-j

[ ,

tem), the application and review procedures will be pursuant to 10 CFR 30 with consideration of container integrity and retrievability, volume

'j reduction, influence on state planning for disposal, and implications of de facto onsite disposal. Any long-tem license issued will be for a i five-year, renewable term.

1 l If you have any questions about these matters, please let us know. '

i j

t Sincerely, S

k.. b 111 Tam 'J. Of rcks Executive Director

for Operations j

Enclosure:

l Guidance Document l  :

8 I

o i

i i

- -. - _ . - .--  :?L. _-- . . - - - . -

. . - . . . - - . . . . - - - . - . - . . . - ~ _ _ - - - -

1 I

i Enclosure .

i RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY SU! DANCE FOR

, ON51TE CONTINGtlCY STORAGE CAPACITY i

!. Introduction i l The objective of this technical position is to preide guidance to licensees considering additional onsite low level radioactive waste '

storage capabilities. While it may be prudent and/or necessary to estab'ish additional onsite storage capability, weste should not be i placed in contingency storage if the ability to dispose of waste at a licensed disposal site ex< sts. The shipping of weste at the earliest practicable time minimizes the need for eventual weste reprocessing due

to possibly changint burial ground requirements reduces occupational  !

! and non-occupational esposures and potential acc,ident consequences, and

in the event space of burial available ground closure, maximizes the amount of storage for use.

I j

The duration of the intended storage, the type and fem of weste, and
the amount of radioactive material present will dictate the safeguards and the level of complexity required to assure public health and safety, j

( -

and minimal risk to operating personnel. The longer the intended storage period, the greater the degree of controls that will be required for radiation protection and accident prevention. For purposes of this document, the duration of temporary weste storage is to be up to five (5) years. The magnitude of the onsite storage safety hazard is pre-

! dicated on the type of waste being stored, the amount of radionuclides 1

present, and how readily they might be transported into the emiroment.

In general, it is preferable to store radioactive material in solid i form. Under some circumstances, however, temporary storage in a liquid j

form may be desirable or required. The specific design and operation j

of any stora .

1 waste foms,ge facility will be significantly influenced by the various i consequently, this document addresses wet waste, solidified wet waste and dry low level radioactive waste. t l

i I

Guidance similar to that prwided in this enclosure has been incor-porated in NUREG-0800, NRC/NRR Standard Review Plan, July 1981, as '

.i Appendix 11.4-A to SRP 11.4, Solid Waste Management Systems.

j.  !!. General Information 1 i

' prior to any implementation of additional onsite storage, substantial safety review and environmental assessments should be conducted to {

assure adequate public health and safety and minimal emiromental impact. The acceptance criteria and performance objectives of any I

proposed storage facility, or area, will need to meet minimal require-l ments in areas of design, operations, safety considerations and policy I

i 4

2-i I

considerations. For purposes of this technical position, the major i

emphasis will be on safety considerations in the storing, handling and eventual disposition of the radioactive waste. Design and

! operational acceptability will be based on minimal recuirements which i are defined in existing SRPs, Regulatory Guides, and industry standards j for proper management of radioactive waste. Considerations for waste

  • i

' minimization and volume reduction will also have to be incorporated into an overall site waste management plan and the onsite storage al ternative. Additional waste management considerations for ALARA, decontamination, and decommissioning of the temporary storage facility, i including disposal, should be performed as early as possible because l future requirements for waste foms may make stored wastes unacceptable

! for final disposition.

t Facility design and operation should assure that radiological conse-quences of design basis events (fire, tornado, seismic event, flood) should not exceed a small fraction (105) of 10 CFR Part 100, i.e., no j more than a few rem whole body dose.

l The added capacity would typically extend storage to accommodate no more 1 than an amount of waste generated during a nominal five-year period. In i addition, waste should not be stored for a duration that exceeds five-years. Storage of waste in excess of the quantities and duration *

{ described hegein requires Part 30 licensing approval. The design j capacity (f t C1) should be detamined from historical waste generation j rates for the station, considering both volume minimization / reduction

programs and the need for surge capacity due to operations which may generate unusually large amounts of waste.

! The five-year period is sufficient to allow licensees to design and con-i struct additional volume reduction facilities (incinerators, etc.), as necessary, and then process wastes that may have been stored during con-

[ struction. Regional state capacts to create additional low-level waste l disposal sites should also be established within the next five years.

!  !!!. Generally Applicable Guidance

! (a) The quantity of radioactive material a* lowed and the shielding con-i figurations will be dictated by the dose rate criteria for both the

! site boundary and unrestricted areas or. site. The 40 CFR 190 Itaits will restrict the annual dose frca direct radiation and effluent releases from all sources of uranium fuel cycle and 10 CFR Part 20.105 limits the exposure rates in unrestricted areas. Offsite doses from onsite storage must be sufficiently low to account for other uranium fuel cycle sources (e.g., an additional dose of i1 mram/ year is 4

j ,

i 1

  • e- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , , _

i i

! not likely to cause the limits of 40 CFR 1g0 to be exceeded).

! Onsite dose limits associated with temporary storage will be

! controlled per 10 CFR part 20 including the ALARA, principal of 10 CFR 20.1.

j

(b) Compatibility of the container materials with the waste foms and

! with emironmental conditions external to the containers is neces-i sary to prevent significant container corrosion. Container selec-j tion should be based on data which demonstrates minimal corrosion from the anticipated internal and external emiromaant for a period l

well in excess of the planned storage duration. Container integrity i after the period of storage should be sufficient to allow handling i

during transportation and disposal without container breach.

4 Gas generation from organic materials in waste containers can also lead to container breach and potentially flammable / explosive con-ditions. To minimize the number of potential problems, the waste fore gas generation rates fras radiolysis, biodegradation, or chemical reaction should be evaluated with respect to container l

( breach and the creation of flammable / explosive conditions. Unless storage containers are equipped with special vent designs which i

allow'depressurization and do not pemit the migration of radio-i active materials, resins highly loaded with radioactive material, such as SWR reactor water cleanup system resins, should not be stored for a period in excess of approximately one year.

i A program of at least periodic (quarterly) visual inspection of container integrity (swelling, corrosion products, breach) should j be performed. Inspection can be accomplished by use of TV monitors; by walk-throughs if storage facility layout, shielding, and the container storage array pemit; or by selecting waste containers that are representative of the types of waste and containers I

l stored in the facility and placin designed for inspection purposes.gAllthem in a location inspection procedures specifically duaLoped should minimize occupational exposure. The use of high i

1 integrity containers (300 year lifetime design) would pemit an I

inspection program of reduced scope.

t i (c) If possible, the preferred location of the additional storage facility is inside the plant protected area. If adequate space in the protected area is not available, the storage facility should be placed (fence, lockedonandthealarmed plantgates site/ doors, and both a physical periodic patrols andsecurity) a program restricted area for radiation protection purposes should be j establi shed. The facility should not be placed in a location that 4

i mn

requires transportation of the waste over public roads unless no other feasible alternatives exist. Any transportation wer public .

roads must be conducted in accordance with NRC and 00T regulations.

(d) For low level dry waste and solidified waste storage:

1.

Potential release pathways of all radionuclides present in the solidifiedA.

Appendix waste fom shall be monitored as per 10 CFR 50, Sunte111ance programs shall incorporate adequate methods for detecting failure of container integrity and mea-suring releases to the emironment. For cutside storage, periodic direct radiation and surface contamination monitoring shall be conducted to insure that levels are below limits specified in 10 CFR 20.202, 20.205, and 49 CFR 173.397. All containers before should be decontaminated to these levels or below storage.

2.

Prwistons should be incorporated for collecting liquid drain-age including prwistons for sampling all collected liquids.

Routing of the collected 11 quids should be to radwaste sy:tems ifif contamination the water ingris detected or to normal discharge pathways uncontaminated. ,ess is from external sources and remains 3.

Waste stored in outside areas should be held securely by in-Q")

stalled hold down systems. The hold down system should secure all containers during severe emirovmental conditions up to and facility.

including the design basis event for this waste storage 4

Container integrity should be atsured against corrosion from the external emirorment be included where necessa;ry and practical. external Storage weather protection should containers should be raised off storage pads where water accumulation can be expected to cause external corrosion and possible degrada.

tion of container integrity.

5.

Total curie limits should be established based on the design of the storage area and the safety .ea.ures prwided.

~

6.

Imentory records of waste types, contents, dates of storage, shipment, etc., should be maintained.

IV. Wet Radioactive Waste Storaes (a)

Wet radioactive waste will be defined as any lisuid or liquid / solid i

slurry. For storage considerations, wet wasta i; further defined l'.

  • . v. .

o ., .

  • W

as asy waste which contains free'11guid in amounts which exceed the requirements for burial as established by the t.urial ground Itcens-ing authority.

(b) The facility supporting structure and tanks should be designed to prevent uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials due to spillage or accident conditions.

(c) The following design objectives and criteria are hppitcable for wet radioactive waste storage facilities:

1. Structures that house liquid radweste storage tanks should be desig'ied to seismic criteria as defined in Standard Review Plan (Section 11.2). Foundations and walls shall also be de-signed 6nd fabricated to contain the liquid inventory dich might be released during a container / tank failure.
2. All tanks or containers should be designed to withstand the corrosive nature of the wet waste stored. The duration of
storage under which the corrosive conditions exist shall also be considered in the design.
3. All storage structures should have curbs or elevated thresholds with floor drains and smps to safely collect wet waste assuming ,

(-,

the failure of all tanks or containers. Provisions should be incorporated to remove spilled wet waste to the radweste treatment systems. ,

! 4 All tanks and containers shall have prwisions to monitor '

liquid levels and to alars potential overflow conditions. '

l

, 5. All potential release pathways of radiomelides (e.g., evolved j gases, breach of ccntainer, etc.) shall be controlled, if feasible, and monitored as per 10 CFR 50, Appendix A (General Design Criteria 60 and 64). Surveillance programs should incorporate adequate methods for monitoring breach of container integrity or accidental releases.

, 6. All temporarily stored wet waste will require additional reprocessing prior to shipment offsite; therefore, provisions should be established to integrate the required treatment with-the waste processing and solidification systems. The inter-face and associated systems should be designed and tested in

, accordance with the codes and standards described in Standard Review Plan Section 11.

i t

i

  • l

*~ , -.- .. . _ _ . - . . .. . ._

0 b

- 6.-

V. Solidified Radioactive Waste Storage

, (a) Solidified redwaste for storage purposes shall be defined as that waste which meets burial site solidified waste criteria. For purposes of this document, resins or filter sludges dewatered to

  • the above criteria will be defined under this waste classifica-tion / criteria.

(b) Any storage plans should address container protection as well as j any reprocessing requirements for eventual shipment and burial.  ;

i (c) Casks, tanks, and liners containing solidified radioactive waste  :

should be designed with good engineering judpent to preclude or I reduce the probability of occurrence of uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials due to handling, transportation or storage.

Accident mitigation and control for design basis events (e.g.,

fire, flooding, tornadoes, etc.) must be evaluated and protected ,

against unless otherwise justified. l (d) The following design objectives and criteria are applicable for l

solidified waste storage containers and facilities:

1. All solidified radweste should be located in restricted areas '

where effective material control and accountability can be maintained. While structures are not required to meet seismic criteria, protection should be afforded to insure the radio-activity is contained safely by use of good engineering

jud pent, such as the use of curbs and drains to contain spills of dewatered resins or sludges.
2. If liquids exist which are corrosive, proven provisions should be made to protect the container (i.e., special liners or coatings) and/or neutralize the excess liquids. If deemed appropriate and necessary, highly non-corrosive materials (e.g., stainless steel) should be used. Potential corroston bcween the solid waste forms and the container should also be considered. In the case of dewatered resins, highly corrosive acids and bases can be generated which will significantly reduce the longevity of the container. The Process control Program (PCP) should implement steps to assure the above does not occur 1 provisions on container saterial selection and precoating should be made to insure that container breach does not occur ,1uring temporary storage periods.
3. Pravision should be made for additional reprocessing or re-packaging due to container failure and/or, as required for l I'

i 4

e

- - , , , , m- - -

v. - - . - - - - ,- -w-

J

  • 7 final transporting and burial as per D0T and burial site criteria. Contamination isolation and decontamination cap-abilities should be developed. When significant handling and personnel exposure can be anticipated. ALARA methodology should be incorporated as per Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10.
4. Procedures should be developed and implemented for early de-  !

tection, prevention and mitigation of accidents (e.g., fires). :

Storage areas and facility designs should incorporate good  !

engineering features and capabilities for contingencies so as  !

to handle accidents and provide safeguard systems such as fire detectors and suppression systems, (e.g., smoke detector and sprinklers). personnel training and administrative procedures should be estabished to insure both control of radioactive materials and minimum personnel exposures. Fire suppression devices may not be necessary if embustible materials are minimal in the area.

V. Low Level Dry Waste Storage (a) Low level dry weste is classified as contaminated material (e.g.,

paper, trash, air filters) which contains radioactive material dispersed in small concentrations throughout large volumes of inert material and contains no free water. Generally, this

( ,

consists of dry material such as rags, clothing, paper and small equipment (i.e., tools and instruments) which cannot be easily decontaminated.

(b) Licensees should implement controls to segregate and minimize the generation of low level dry waste to lessen the impact on waste storage. Integration of Volume Reduction (VR) hardware should be considered to minimize the need for additional waste storage f acilities.

(c) The following design objectives and criteria are applicable for low level dry waste storage containers and facilities.

1. All dry or compacted radweste should be located in restricted a areas where effective material control and accountability can be maintained. While structures are not required to meet seismic criteria, protection should be &fforded to insure the radioactivity is contained safely by use of good engineering judpent.

1 I

i 6 &o*

2. The waste container should be designed to insure radioactive -

material containment during nomal and abnomal occurrences.

The waste container materials should not support combustion.

The packaged material should not cause fires through spon-taneous chemical reactions, retained heat, etc. *

3. Containers should generally comply with the criteria of 10 CFR 71 and 49 CFR 170 to minimize the need for repackaging for shipment.
4. Increased container handling and personnel exposure can be anticipated, consequently, all ALARA methodology should be incorporated per Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10.

i i

4 4

l

i

_ ,, ., , . - .-7 _ ., . - . . _ . m ,.

, i ENCLOSURE

/** "%~^

UNITED STATES

e ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g wasenwoTom o.c.sesos

,,, August 1,1985 -

TO ALL LICENSEES

SUBJECT:

COP 91ERCI'AL STORAGE AT POWER REACTOR SITES OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE NOT GENERATED BY THE UTILITY (Generic Letter 85-14)

~

~

Gentlemen:

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (P. L.96-573) assigned to the states the responsibility to provide for disposal of consnercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generated within each state. The Act envisioned that

. all states would be capable of providing for disposal of casunercial LLW generated within their borders by 1986. Based on the current status of state efforts and the substantial time required to establish new disposal facilities, no new sites will be available for at least several years. Due to the uncertainty of this situation and statements made by some officials of states within which currently

! operating disposal sites are located, it appears possible that access to the existing sites may be restricted.

While some licensees have taken steps to temporarily store LLW generated at their sites to alleviate any impact that limiting of access to disposal

( capacity may have on licensed operations, provisions for storing LLW should be used only for interim contingency purposes. It is the policy of the NRC that licensees should continue to ship waste for disposal at existing sites to the maximum extent practicable.

In anticipation of possible curtailment of access to existing disposal facili-ties. interest is being expressed in some states in consnercial storage of LLW generated within the states. While the NRC recognizes that storage may appear desirable in states which have not resolved their low-level waste disposal problems, conenercial storage facilities, however, should not become de facto disposal sites. NRC will require for consnercial storage under its Krisdiction that, in addition to safe siting and operation, consnitments and assurances be made for eventual disposition of all waste stored at comunercial storage locations. This includes provisions for repackaging (if necessary), transpor. I tation and disposal of the waste, as well as deconsnissioning of the facilities.

Some of the concepts for consnercial storage involve using nuclear power reactor sites as consnercial storage locations for LLW not generated by the utility licensee. As a matter of policy, the NRC is opposed to any activity at a nuclear reactor site which is not generally supportive of activities authorized by the operating license or construction permit and which may divert the atten-tion of licensee management from its primary task of safe operation or construction of the power reactor. Accordingly, interim storage of LLW within the exclusion area of a reactor site, as defined in 10 CFR 100.3(a), will be subject to NRC jurisdiction regardless of whether or not the reactor is located in an Agreement State, pursuant to the regulatory policy expressed in 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1). Within Agreement States, for locations outside the -

exclusion areas, the licensing authority is in the Agreement State.

19FWWN g .

.f In order for NRC to consider any proposal for consnercial storage at a reactor site, including conenercial storage in existing low-level waste storage facili-ties the NRC must be convinced that no significant environmental impact will result and that the conenercial storage activities will be consistent with and not compromise safe operation of the licensee's activities, including diverting reactor management attention from the continued safety of reactor operations.

A Part 30 license is required for the low-level waste storage and a Part 50 license amendment may also be required. ,The application must include:

By the utility 1 i

A detemination by the utility licensee that the proposed low-level waste consnercial storage activities do not involve a safety or environmental question, and that safe operation of the reactor will not be affected.

In making this detemination, the licensee shall consider:

Direct impacts of the conenercial storage operation on reactor operations during nomal and accident conditions; Diversion of utility management and personnel attention from

. safe reactor operation; Con 61ned effects of onsite and offsite dose during normal and accident conditions; Influence on effectiveness of reactor emergency plans; Influence on effectiveness of reactor security plans;

(~ -

Financial liability provisions, including impact on indemnity coverage; and 1

Environmental impact of the storage facility, including potential interaction with the generating station.

By the applicant (the utility or another person)

Infomation relating to the safety of the commercial storage operation; Infomation relating to the environmental impact of the storage operation in sufficient detail to allow staff to establish the need for preparation -

of an Environmental Impact Statement; Financial assurance to provide for the consnarcial storage operation and decomisioning including any necessary repackaging, transportation and disposal of the waste; and Written agreement from the jurisdiction responsible for ultimate disposal, the State, that provisions are sufficient to assure ultimate disposal of the stored waste.

The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) will conduct an environmental review and review the application to determine whether the low-level waste comercial storage activities on a reactor site impact the safe operation of the reactor. Following NRR review, the licensing authority for comercial storage on a reactor site under NRC jurisdiction (all locations in non-A States and locations within reactor exclusion areas in Agreement States)greementis the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. The NRC will assess

~

4 3

environmental impact and will issue an Environmental Impact Statement, if appropriate, in accordance with provisions of 10 CFR 51.20, 51.21 and 51.25.

As part of the procedures, the NRC will provide notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER of receipt and availability of any application received for comercial storage activities. The public notice will also indicate the staff's intent regarding preparation of an environmental assessment and its circulation for public review and coment. An Environmental Impact Statement will most likely be needed based on the environmental assessment, Because the NRC has not yet received or reviewed an application for a centralized comercial low-level waste storage facility intended to store large amounts of LLW for five or more years, the NRC may consider applying the criteria described above to such comercial storage facilities whether they be on a reactor site or not.

Interim storage of utility licensee-generated LLW will continue to be considered according to the provisions stated in Generic Letter 81-38, dated November 10, 1981.

For additional infomation, please contact Frank Miraglia, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555

[ Telephone: (301)492-7980] or Richard Cunningham, Office of Nuclear Material SafetyTelephone:

20555 [and Safeguards, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.

(301)427-4485).

Sincerely, e Willi &L J. Dircks -

Executive Director for Operations e

1

. I o

a THE NRC PERSPECTIVE ON LOW-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ,

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Malcolm R. Knapp '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 ABSTRACT This presentation addresses the Nuclear Regulatory Comunssion's (NRC) actions in response to the Low-Level Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments Act (the Act) and NRC's assistance to States and Coppacts working to discharge their responsibilities under that Act. Three of NRC's accomplishments which respond explicitly to direction in the Act are highlighted. These are: development of the capability of expedited handling of petitions addressing wastes below regulatory concern (BRC); development of capability to review and process an application within fifteen months; and development of guidance on alternatives to shallow land burial. Certain e NRC efforts concerning special topics related to the Act as well as NRC efforts to assist States and Compacts are sussiarized.

INTRODUCTION NRC COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT I am pleased to behere today to present NRC's Congress gave NRC explicit direction in a variety perspective on the management and disposal of Low- of areas. Today I will highlight three of these areas.

Level Radioactive Waste (LLW). My remarks today and also discuss some special topics related to the address NRC actions in response to the Low-Level Act which the NRC is addressing, ,

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (the Act) and NRC's assistance to States and Compacts working to Three accomplishments for NRC called for discharge their responsibilities under that Act. explicitly by the Act are: (1) development of the capability of expedited handling of petitions Low-Level Radioactive Weste is generated by addressing wastes below regulatory concern (BRC);

cosuiercial power reactors, fuel cycle facilities. (2) development of capability to review and process private industry, hospitals, and research laboratories an application within fifteen months; and (3) develop-in all fifty states. In 1984, more than 22.000 ment of guidance on alternatives to shallow land licensees generated over 2,500,000 cubic feet of LLW. burial.

  • The NRC staff considers that proper implementation of the Act will promote safe disposal of such wastes and First I would like to address wastes below regula-thereby increase protection of public health and tory concern. The NRC published a Commission Policy safety. Statement and Staff Implementation Plan for timely handling of BRC petitions in August 1986 (51 FR 30839).

As you know, Congress in passing the Act These documents established criteria and procedures established specific schedules for the States. NRC, for promptly handling petitions concerning sucn wastes.

and DOE. Both incentives and penalties were included Such petitions are expected to propose a combination of to encourage progress toward the siting and develop- treatment and disposal practices that would permit ment of new disposal facilities. The States and waste streams to be considered below regulatory concern, Compacts were given the lead for the Act's success, rather than to identify BRC waste streams based on including responsibility for site selection and their particular radionuclide concentrations alone, development. We therefore intend to assist the States The Policy Statement and Staff Implementation Plan and Compacts to the extent practical to help them identify the infomation and analysis that petitioners discharge their responsibilities. need to provide for the NRC staff to move promptly to a BRC rulemaking. The NRC anticipates and strongly The NRC is fully casuiltted to meeting its encourages groups such as the Electric Power Research obligations under the Act. We have implemented our Institute, the Atomic Industrial Forum, the Society of portion of the Act on schedule so far, and we antici. Nuclear Medicine, and the Association of American i pate continuing to do so. To focus our efforts and Universities to help generators pool resources to i to ensure management attention to our progress, the provide information addressing waste streams of NRC is establishing the Division of Low-Level Waste national or generic interest.

Management and Decosuiissioning in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. This new The staff enhanced its capability to process such division will be responsible for discharging NRC petitions by modifying and publishing a microcomputer i responsibilities under the Act, for providing techni- code which both the staff and petitioners can use. '

cal assistance to developing States and Compacts, and This code can predict the doses resulting from the '

for ensuring the safe perfomance of facilities under treatment and disposal practices that would pemit a NRC jurisdiction. This Division will be fully waste stream to be considered below regulatory concern established by mid-April this year and Dr. Malcolm (NUREG/CR-3585). In December 1986, the NRC published Knapp will be the Division Director, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (51 FR 43367) which seeks consient on ways to declare waste streams to be below regulatory concern, with particular emphasis on the above concept of arriving at such a finding based on a particular treatment and disposal method.

Attachment to Enclosure 1

.I

I4 i

. ' A second important activity for NRC is' the we are putting significant resrurces into developing -

licensing review of low-level waste disposal regulatory guidance on such alternatives. - The guidance facilities. Specifically, the NRC must be able to

' we are now developing is directed toward such areas as complete.its environmental and technical review of structural stability and materials integrity applied to license appitcations within 15 months of submittal. these concepts over intervals of up to 500 years. This In addition, the NRC must consolidate all required guidance will be published in January 1988 in the form reviews and public hearings to the extent practical. of revisions to our Format and Content Guide and In January, the NRC issued two guidance documents-that Standard Review Plan.

' are geared to the staff's reviewing license applica-tions on that schedule. The Standard Format and As States. Compacts, and ind'ustry focus on partic- -

Content Guide (SF&C) (NUREG-1199) provides explicit ular designs and practices, we intend to develop more l

, direction as to the kinds of information and analyses detailed guidance on the basis of specific disposal s '

that the NRC staff considers necessary to support an alternatives received for review. We will also develop -

acceptable license application. The Standard Review more detailed guidance based on analysis of the generic

+

Plan (SRP) (NUREG-1200) closely corresponds to the disposal concepts previously studied by the NRC staff j SFAC and establishes detailed criteria and procedures and the Corps of Engineers. We will give priority to for reviewing license applications. The SRP helps developing guidance on alternatives and features in ensure a thorough and consistent NRC review of appli- which States and Compacts express the most interest.

cations and permits potential licensees to prepare an application with full knowledge of how it will be We want to work with States from the early stages

.eviewed. of their consideration of particular alternatives and to interact with them frequently in order to provide Although these NUREG documents have been pre- guidance that is relevant and meets the schedules of

  • pared in direct support of the NRC's licensing review the Act. Due to the tight deadlines in the Act and our program, they should be very useful to State and limited resources, however, it is essential for us Compact agencies faced with similar situations. The to set priorities for the alternatives which we will 1 SFAC should greatly ease a State's decisions on what address in our development of guidance and our technical infonnation and analyses need to be included in a assistance efforts.  !

license application to the State. The SRP is a sound  ?

basis for establishing the skills and staffing levels This brings me to the first of three special topics  !

i that State regulatory agencies should have available I wish to discuss today; standardization. The NRC to conduct the required evaluations. staff strongly supports the standardization of facility ,

! designs which are alternatives to shallow land burial.

Third, the Act requires NRC to develop guidance Standardization will allow States, industry and the on alternatives to conventional shallow land burial. Federal Government to concentrate their resources and

, The NRC staff has been examining alternative methods to share experience and expertise, permitting better i of disposal for several years and has identified five analyses and earlier refinements in facility designs, concepts which constitute potential engineered enhance- Such a program could spare States and Compacts the ments. These are: augured holes, above and telow necessity of developing highly individualized designs.

ground vaults, earth mounded concrete bunkers, and It might also shorten the licensing process since it is mined cavities. We agree with the consenters on our likely to be easier to justify and license a design draft guidance on alternatives published March 1986 with features in conson with other approved designs.

that these concepts cover the range of alternatives NRC staff can review and approve standard design that can realistically be considered. In December features or components. Such review and approval would I 1986, we published final guidance on these concepts provide preapp11 cation guidance and resolve issues of '

(NUREG-1241). concern at the staff level. Standardization could significantly enhance the likelihood of States and Some States and Compacts are showing considerable Compacts meeting the Act's milestones for the 1990's.

interest in these alternatives. We understand that j this interest is in part to prevent recurrence of Consistent with the above thinking, the NRC staff

, problems such as those observed at Maxey Flats KY, now emphasizes two alternative facility designs as a West Valley, NY and Sheffield, IL. We understand result of internal discussions and public comments that some States and Compacts expect alternatives to on the draft guidance on alternatives mentioned earlier.

I shallow land burial to enhance overall facility per. These alternatives are properly sited below-ground formance; to prevent, to the extent possible, any con- vaults and earth-mounded concrete bunkers. They share tamination of the facility's environment; and generally the desirable combination of using concrete and steel l

to provide increased confidence in performance that to enhance facility performance, and having earthen will help obtain local acceptance of new disposal covers likely to withstand centuries of weathering. As facilities, a part of its technical assistance to States and l Compacts. DOE is developing designs of two such I

The NRC staff appreciates this view. We do note, facilities; the NRC expects to receive and review them however, that all commercial LLW disposal facilities in 1988.

were licensed before promulgation of NRC's low-level waste regulation,10 CFR Part 61. Part 61 was The second special topic is storage. NRC staff is designed to preclide problems experienced in the past concerned that some States and Compacts may be con.-

with shallow land burial. The NRC considers that sidering deferring real progress on LLW disposal in shallow land burial, as licensed under Part 61, will favor of pursuing long-term storage options. The NRC properly protect public health and safety. Also, the staff is concerned that plans to store waste may not staff considers that Part 61 will adequately accommo- be considered by present host States to be an-4 date alternative disposal techniques under considera- - acceptable means of meeting the milestones of the Act a tion. Based on our experience to date the staff sees which explicitly calls for development of new disposal no need to develop additional regulations specifically facilities. For that reason, States or Compacts that for engineered enhancements, develop storage facilities rather than disposal capacity face the real possibility of losing access to Because we recognize that some States and Compacts existing disposal facilities under the provisions of 1 may desire to make greater use of engineered approaches, tne Act.

J I

,,-w w - ' ~ n,n--- r - -.

r , - -. ,--,,~e. ~, ,. -

We have also met with compact officials

~

4 i practicable. NRC's licenses for storage are issued on a 5-year renewable basis, and applications must include from the Appalachian, Central, Central Midwest, Midwest, Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Southeast

' comitments and financial assurances for eventual Compacts. We have provided written reviews of drafts disposal, in particular, disposal after 5 years, should of legislation, regulations, and site characterization the NRC not renew the storage license. Therefore, a plans for a number of these States and Compacts. We State or Compact seeking to store LLW will generally have to present a plan for its disposal within 5 years, have provided seminars on the fundamentals of low. level and such a plan will probably have to provide for weste management and on the baste concepts underlying 10 CFR Part 61 We are developfng a plain language disposal in that State or Compact.

version of that regulation so that people without For most situations then, NRC continues to hold technical training or background can have an the view that storage, particularly in a comercial appreciation of the protection that would be provided facility, will only be possible as an interim by a newly-licensed low-level weste disposal facility, contingency measure and cannot become de facto disposal. States and Compacts pursuing ~ storage should We anticipate a continuing program of providing general guidance to States and Compacts, and we devote the majority of their resources to ensuring welcome suggestions as to what particular efforts the availability of true disposal capacity, will be most helpful.

My last special topic is mixed low-level radio.

active waste. Some States and Compacts have expressed Despite the progress mentioned above, however, the concern that any LLW disposal facilities must be NRC is concerned about the overall success of the ,

prepared to accept low-level wastes that also contain Act. As the staff testified during the hearings wastes considered hazardous under the provisions of the preceding the enactment of the Act, the deadlines are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Since demanding, and States and Compacts must make rapid such RCRA wastes are regulated by the Environmental progress to meet all of them. At this time, we Protection Agency (EPA), some States and Compacts are understand that about fifteen new facilities are concerned that dual regulation of these wastes will presently contemplated. Of these, the staff has make it very difficult to meet both agencies' criteria confidence that around three are well underway and and to meet the Act. appear to have the prospect of meeting all of the l

deadlines. The remainder may well have difficulty.

This is not the case. Although dual regulation The most important consequence of failing to meet will place additional burdens on all concerned, it deadlines will be loss of access to operating

  • facilities. This possibility brings se to my last should not preclude timely implementation of the Act, topic today, emergency access.

l I

The NRC has been working and continues to w rk closely with EPA. The agencies are issuing jointly signed  !

guidance on a number of mixed waste topics such as The Act requires NRC to act on petitions for 1 the definition of mixed waste (1/8/87), and location emergency access to operating disposal facilities.

The Act places stringent limitations on the avail- {

and design standards for mixed waste disposal facilities. Further, both agencies are committed to ability of such access and requires consideration of i providing detailed guidance on this subject to States a number of alternatives, including terriination of the '

and Compacts who request it. For these reasons, the activity that produces the waste. Because of the NRC and EPA agree that problems concerning mixed wastes severity of these restrictions, and the staff's ,

should not prevent States and Compacts from meeting anticipation that emergency access decisions may be I the provisions and timetables of the Act. controversial, the staff is developing appropriate  !

regulations. A Notice of Intent to Develop Regulations was published in January 1987 (52 FR 1634). Proposed STATE AND COMPACT C(NPLIANCE WITH THE ACT and final regulations are planned for September of 1987 and August of 1988, respectively.

Congress in passing the Act established challenging schedules for the development of new disposal facil. This rulemaking will make it clear to unsited ities, and the development process itself is not an easy one, States and Compacts that the provisions for granting emergency access are stringent and that such access States and Compacts must solve complex political will not provide an alternative to timely development and technical problems, frequently with limited of LLW disposal capacity.

resources, and occasionally with staff who are new to CONCLUSION nuclear waste management issues. This situation has led to many requests for help from NRC, DOE and other Federal agencies. This sussierizes NRC's actions in response to the Act and NRC's support of States and Compacts working For our part, the NRC staff has assisted individual to discharge their responsibilities. So far, the NRC States including California, Illinois, Maine, has met its responsibilities on time, and we intend Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, North to do all that we can to help the States and Compacts do likewise, i

-=e=~-

- ,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20209B453&oldid=3318102"