ML20210D921
| ML20210D921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/15/1992 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9206180184 | |
| Download: ML20210D921 (7) | |
Text
,...
+
c MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
LOW-LEVEL RAD 10ALTIVE WASTE STORAGE BY MICHIGAN GENERATORS As you n aquested, we have conducted a reappraisal of the low-level radioactive waste storage situation in the State of Michigan.
The enclosed report has been developed based on information provided by the Region Ill staff.
Liccasees in the State of Michigan appear to have adequate waste storage capacity and management programs to deal with denial of access to disposal facilities for the next three to five years.
However, the nead to store LLW has caused -some generators to restrict or curtail research using radionuclides that can not be stored for decay. We will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:(LLWM 92-092)
Central File NMSS r/f RBangart WBrach JAustin JSurmeier PLohaus JKennedy JKane RNelson GPangburn, IMNS FCombs, IMNS JGrobe, Rill CNorelius, Rlll LCunningham, NRR LLWB r/f LLMir/f LLWM r/f POR YES X
PDR NO Category:
Proprietary:
or CF Only ___
ACNW YES X NO SUBJECT ABSTRACT: REAPPRAISAL OF LLW STORAGE IN MICHIGAN
- See Previous Concurrence
....I p!
.h..I.
NAME:RNel son
- JKennedy
- Fbo,bs/
- CNorelius :LCunnin
................................V.............................gham DATE: //it /92
- (,/t/ /92 lf Il 4Y V ///92
- / /92
- / /92 o
..........g......... g' 0FC :L
- LLWH
- LLWMt t
NAME:dLhas
- WBea h
- RBangaFt
)
bAkEkhhhh h9h f[hhh n
! < b. 1 "9 RN/ MICHIGAN.LLW 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 4
& \\.-0)i
/
\\
9206180184 920612 (A
"^S" M"2 eoa 1
N, o**%g j
IT f-
'4 UNITED STATES e
5, i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20556 j
o MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE STORAGE BY MICHIGAN GENERATOR $
As you requested, we have conducted a reappraisal of the low-level radioactive waste storage situation in the State of Michigan.
The enclosed report has been developed based on information provided by the Region III staff.
Licensees in the State of Michigan appear to have adequate waste storage capacity and management program to deal with denial of access to disposal facilities for the next three to five years. However, the need to store LLW has-caused some generators to restrict or curtail research using radionuclides that can not be stored for decay. We will continue to monitor this situation closely.
$klL3aam1 Richard L. Bangart, Direc r Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated
s APPRAISAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE STORAGE IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CACKGROUND Under the terms of the Midwest Interstate low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact
-(hereafter, Compact) the State of Michigan was to serve as the first host State ~ for the Compact's low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility.
Other members of the Coinpact include Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
In a special meeting held in March 1990, the Compact Commission passed a resolution expressing concern, "regarding the current status of Michigan's siting process, including the reduction in the number of candidate areas under consideration, the resultant loss of geographic diversity in selecting candidate sites, and the uncertainty that any remaining candidate areas can meet the State's siting criteria." The Compact Commission's action followed a February announcement by the Michigan Low Level Radioactive Waste Authority that two of the three candidate areas in Michigan had been eliminateu from siting consideration.
In May 1990, the Authority announced that the remaining candidate area had also been eliminated from further consideration.
In letters to the Governor of Michigan dated June 28, 1990, the sited States of Nevada and Washington claimed that Michigan's siting criteria were so restrictive that it would be impossible to find a suitable location within the State.
The letters further stated that access to disposal sites in those States would be denied unless the Michigan legislature revised the Michigan siting criteria or candidate sites were designated for characterization.
A similar letter was written by the third sited State, South Carolina, in July.
The access denial went into effect on November ll,1990.
The State of Michigan was expelled from the Compact on July 24, 1991, and has not announced plans to manage and dispose of LLW generated within the State.
SUMMARY
OF LICENSEES AND LLW DISPOSED OF IN 1990 There are' approximately 600 NRC material licensees, four power reactor licensees, and three non-power reactor licensees in the State of Michigan. A summary of materials licensees is provided in Table 1 on the next page.
Approximately 300 material licensees and all but one of the reactors (Fermi 1 which is deactivated) generate LLW. Many of the material licensees store only for decay leaving approximately 55 material licensees which would dispose of LLW if access was available to an LLW disposal facility. Until LLW disposal facility access was denied on November 11, Michigan generators disposed of-3 approximately 30,000 ft of LLW in 1990. Of this total, approximately 91% was generated by utilities.
LLW statistics for Michigan are provided in Table 2 which follows.
l
x Table 1 Michigan Materials Licenses
- Part 30 i
-Medical Institutions,-
268 Practices, Laboratories
!and Pharmacies Measuring Systems:
232-Research and Development 33 Irradiators 16 Industrial' Radiography 10 Manufacturing 6
-Academic 4
Instrument Calibration 3
Well Logging 2
'Other:
16 Part 40 10 Part 70 16
+
l.
2 l.
i l-
Table 2 Michigan low level Radioactive Waste Received at Comme!cial Disposal Facilities in 1990 Volume Activity Ca t " ory
( f t*)
Percent (curies)
Percent Academic 1,658 4.6 64
-0.3 Government 40 0.1 18
<0.1 Industrial 1,104 3.1 36 0.2 Medical 374 1.0
<1
<0.1 Utility 32.861 91.2 21.255 99 4 Total 36,038 100.0 21,373 100.0
. Source: Report to Congress in Response to Public tan 99 4 40, 1990 Annual Report on ton-Level Radioacthe Waste Program Management (DOE /EM-0059P, September 1991)
ASSESSMENT OF LLW STORAGE CAPABILITY Material Licensees During the period of November 1, 1990, to December 31, 1991, Region Ill inspection staff performed 254 inspections of State of Michigan materials licenses. Region III inspection staff considered the following areas, relating to the handling of LLW, in their inspections:
Management and control Access control and security Waste package visibility, access, and housekeeping e'
Placement of waste containers Storage conditions (e.g., extreme temperature and humidity,
' ventilation,etc.)
Package integrity and labeling These inspections included 17 licensees who are generators of LLW that requires disposal.
This represents approximately 30% of the State's LLW generators in this category.
3
. ~.
e
' Region III staff asked licensees how future wastes would be managed and whether existing storage: capacity would be adequate.
Licensees indicated that by minimizing waste generation through the use of administrative controls and
.by.using volume reduction equipment, such as compactors, they expected that i
-their existinq waste storage capacity would be adequate over the next three to
-five years. Region III staff identified no cases where existing and projected
-storage practices are inadequate.
Some licensees have. indicated during inspections that they are restricting or curtailing research which uses radionuclides with half _-lives greater than 65 days. Also, some licensees have expressed concern regarding the unwillingness
-of some sealed source suppliers to accept sealed sources for disposal.
Power Reactors
-The power reactors in the State of Michigan have varying types of interim radioactive waste storage facilities (IRSF).
The facility for each reactor is discussed below.
Big Rock Point The licensee's IR5F is a Butler (sheet metal) building i
with a concrete foundation, floor, and underground vaults.
The facility is used to store loose (unprocessed) dry active waste (DAW) and drained (but not dewatered) high integrity containers (HICs) containing Cuno and sock filters. The facility has a 4
- 5 year capacity remaining for each type of waste.
In addition to the IRSF, the plant has large underground spent resin storage tanks which have a 4 -
5 year capacity remaining. No processing or HIC storage of resin is anticipated until the tank storage capacity is exhausted. No additional LLW storage capacity is currently being planned.
D.C. Cook 1 & 2 The licensee's IRSF is en 80,000 ftJ reinforced concrete building with 30 inch outer walls and storage cells with 2 ft concrete walls for dewatered resins and filters in HICs. DAW may also be stored in the IRSF but:it is usually sent to an off site vendor facility with which the licensee has a contract.
Fermi 2 An on-site IRSF was completed approximately six years ago and is currently at 15% of its 53,000 ft capacity.-
Palisades The two IRSFs are both Butler buildings. One IRSF stores solidified (asphalt) waste and DAW.
The other IRSF has storage vaults for HICs containing DAW and dewatered resins and ffiters. Both facilities were upgraded recently after an NRC inspector identified that a-10 CFR 50.59 evaluation had not been done. A 50.59 review of these buildings was subsequently 4
2 performed.
The licensee plans to decide in 1994 whether a third IRSF may be needed.
Non Power Reactors University of
'LLW'is stored inside the reactor building'in Michigan-55 gal' drums.
Region Ill estimates that the capacity of the current facility configuration is adequate for four more years of LLW storage.
If storage space is reallocated or LLW is compacted, storage capacity could be extended.
Dow Chemical The reactor generates approximately one 55
~ Company _
gal drum of LLW per year. They appear to have no capacity problems.
Fermi 1
~This reactor is deactivated (Class !!!) cad does not generate any LLW.
fonclusion Licensees in the. State of Michigan appear to have adequate waste storage capacity and _ management programs to deal with denial of access to disposal facilities for the next three to five years.
However, the need to store LLW has caused some generators to restrict or curtail research using radionuclides Lthat can not be stored for_ decay, s
4 5
.-