ML20217D609
| ML20217D609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/29/1997 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Sherr T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D567 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-105 NUDOCS 9710060031 | |
| Download: ML20217D609 (3) | |
Text
P
~
n
/
t MEMORANDUM TO: Theodore S. Sherr, Chief Regulatory and international Safeguards Branch gk0
- Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: Richard L. Bangart, Director office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
OSP COMMENTS ON INITIATION OF RULEMAKING - SAFE CONCENTRATION FOR POSSESSION OF SNM IN CONTAMINATED SOIL This 1). responds to your request for concurrence on January 31, 1995 (Enclosure Staff comments are as follows:
1.
The initiation of rulemaking package fails to note that the petition for rulemaking by Envirocare of Utah, Inc., was published in the Federal Reciater on February 22, 1993 (9552 EE 2/2/93) (Enclosure 2) and does not discuss the nature of the two comments received from Westinghouse Electric Corporation (April 19, 1993*' Enclosure 3) and from USEcology, Inc. (USE) (April 23, 1993)
(Enclosure 4). We believe that the notice and issues raised should be discussed in addressed intheaddition to how proposed various concerns raised in the letters are to be rulemaking.
2.
The Westinghouse letter supports the petition, However, the comment points out that the use of this proposed rule should be limited to licensee's processing waste materials for disposal in approved burial sites. Also, additional controls are needed to prevent accidental critical reactions.
These Specialshould Nuclear include a mass Material (SNM)concentration limit 350 gram limit for bulk materials when the is exceeded.
3.
USE offers a number rulemaking effort.
of comments that should be considered in any proposed First, it believes that Envirocare submitted this petition to avoid (NRC).
being regulated in this area by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission In USE's view, Envirocare is shifting the onus of criticality analysis and safety evaluation from the prospective licensee to the regulating body.
Such a shift, it claims, is inconsistent with previous licensing action in this area. Additional specific concerno are:
b SNM is still of strategic importance and should not be relinquished to non-federal government agencies, b Tens of thousands of grams of SNM may be involved, much of it inhomogeneous. Without knowing the concentrations of SNM g4 $ appropriate regulation of characterization, transportation, o disposal, long-term care and maintenance, among others, may not adequately addressed.
, n b Many issues at Envirocare are inconsistent with the other low-g$o level (LLW) waste disposal facilities. Controls in place in Utah ooi waN should be comparable.
<oe oto b
$$$ Although the petition notes that mass concentrations of the wast
"'3 mattrial may be as low as 0.0004 percent, it is not stated how high the concentrations may be. Much more information is required. USE suggests that NRC establish a framework for each occuacist / /o -
o /
A =
l f acility exemption af ter NRC performa a complete characterizatio l
l b USE suggests that it is more appropriate for individual disposal licensees to raise auch issues to NRC rather than Envirocare on behalf of all licensees.
- 4. Page 1, paragraph 2 notes that the staff investigated the maximum _SNM concentration in soil.u,_However, apparently, the presence of structural debris and inhomodehdity are not ~taken int'5 account. The Envirocare license includes limits on the combination of structural debris and soil; and the inhomogeneity of such is a given. These variance should be considered.
- 5. Attachment 1, page 2, item 5. Agreement States, host States and Compacts should be included as to impact. Of special concern is that this proposed rulemaking will focus attention that SNM, and especially Pu, is going to LLW disposal sites; and especially after the Wsrd Valley, California, reevaluations done by NRC when NRC was accused of " cooking the numbers." The North Carolina LLW Disposal Authority specifically avoided applying for an SNM license from NRC. States and Compacts are not interested in advertising that some small amount of SNM goes into the disposal facilities. This rulemaking action would tend to focus attention on this subject. Because this rule would be a matter of compatibility, many Agreement State issues would be raised, such as enforcement and increased amounts of SNM allowed under State licenses.
- 6. Attachment 1, page 2, item 6. The timetable does not allow for the Agreement States to review and comment on this proposed rule in advance. OSP usually allows Agreement States 30 days to comment. An additional 14 days is factored into OSP review and mailing before the Agreement States receive the proposed rulemaking package.
l0 l
4 ,
Distribution:
Tank # - 5S-33 File: LLW DIR r/f RLBongart ,
PHLohaus SNSalomon RDoda, RSAO, RIV RPerson, LLDP concurrence:
SNSalomon PilLohaus RLBangart Gi\SNS\SNMINITI.SNS
4 ,
M
l UNITED STATES
[ B NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U '
WAbt44GTON, D.C. so66 Hoot t
x
%,9,,,,, . August 26, 1996 NOTE'10 COMMISSIONER ASSISTANTS OCM/SJ OCM/KR OCM/GD
_ Marylee Slosson _ Myron Karman _ Brad Jones
_ Annette Vietti-Cook _ Mort Fleishman _ Terence Chan
_ Mitzi Young _ Jack Sorensen _ Anthony Markley
_ James Johnson L Seth Coplan L Joel Lubenau
_ Brian Hollan a Lynn Deering n Keith McDaniel L Regis Boyle _ Lil Vancise _ Donna Smith
_ Bo) Mcosker _ Ann Haikalis _ Joanne field
_ Jackie Silber _ Joel Lubenau
_ Janice Dunn Lee
_ Chris Hiller g Scott Moore
_ Gerry Schuetze
_ Evelyn Williams
_ Judy ledbetter
_ Pat Celenza Leslie Hill td FROM: James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations, OED0
SUBJECT:
STAFF RESPONSES TO CHAIRMAN'S QUESTIONS CONCERNING ENVIROCARE The Chairman's office verhily communicated five questions concerning the Envirocare facility to staff. Attached are the responses to those questions.
I
Attachment:
As stated cc: J. Taylor, E00 (w/o attachment)
J. Milhoan, DEDR (w/o attachment)
H. Thompson, DEDS (w/o attachment)
J. Blaha, A0/0ED0 (w/att;chment) ,
l K. Stablein, OED0 (w/o attachment)
L. Person, NMSS (w/o attachment)
SECY (w/ attachment)
OGC (w/ attachment)
OCA (w/o attachment)
OPA (w/o attachment)
\
QUESTIONS RELATED 10 ENVIROCARE AND $NM
- 1. Has Envirocare exceeded the 350 g possession limit for U-235 at its disposal facility?
Although the total amount of U-235 received for disposal, to date, has exceeded this amount, discussions with the State of Utah indicate that Envirocare has not exceeded the 350 g possession limit for U-235, which is the limit on the material above ground prior to actual disposal. NRC does not inspect the Envirocare facility because the LLW disposal facility is regulated by the State of Utah. The State of Utah inspection includes both inspection of the licensee's operating procedures and uranium and plutonium assay of waste shipments containing special nuclear material. The State has not identified any violations of this possession limit as part of its inspection efforts.
- 2. Has Envirocare worked with its customers on how the arrival of rail cars at the site could be spaced such that an accumulation of several cars could be avoided?
As we understand the situation at Envirocare and their waste shipments, it would not be practical to parse the shipments into smaller batches (single rail cars). For practical reasons, licensees will typically accumulate waste on-site at a decommissioning project and then ship large batches to Envirocare (10 or more rail cars may not be unusual).
We also understand from Envirocare that this situation is no longer posing a problem because they are not currently receiving large amounts of SNM waste from licensees. However, they still desire resolution of the problem because they anticipate it will resume under future contracts that they have already signed (e.g., NFS-Erwin for 1,000,000 cubic feet of waste).
\.
Chairman Jackson's Questions on Envirocare SNM Limit 3
- 1. How different is the Envirocare facility from other facilities that NRC licenses under 10 CFR Part 707 Answer: .
With two exceptions Envirocare is significantly different than most of the facilities that NRC licenses under 10 CFR Part 70. Envirocare is an operat;ng disposal facility for low-activity low-level radioactive waste (LLW), -Ile(2) byproduct material waste, and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) waste. The lle(2) disposal site is physically separate from the LLW-NC,iH disposal site. Envirocare has a 540 acre facility. The State of Uthh licenses disposal of LLW and NORM waste; NRC licenses disposal of the lle(2) byproduct material waste.
The special nuclear material (SNM) that is received at Envirocare for disaosal is at very low concentration; and dispersed in the LLW (soil, rub)1e, and debris). At the concentration level received, these materials do not pose a criticality hazard. The LLW is disposed in accordance with requirements that are compatible with NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 61, in contrast, the requirements in Part 70 are primarily intended for fuel facilities that process larger, more concentrated amounts of SNM in the form of enriched uranium fuel and chemical intermediates and concentrated and refined plutonium. In contrast with the diffuse SNM waste received at Envirocare, the SNM at fuel facilities pose criticality hazards, and are therefore carefully controlled to prevent inadvertent criticality, in addition, there is greater concern about pntential diversion of SNM at fuel facilities because of the strategic value of such materials or their potential use for radiological sabotage. Consequently, fuel facilities are also subject to comprehensive material control and accounting (MC&A) and physical protection requirements (10 CFR Part 73). Given current conditions, application of these requirements is clearly not necessary at the Envirocare facility, in addition to fuel facilities, Part 70 also applies to smaller-scale uses or possession of SNM. For example, certain uses of gauges or radioactive sources and devices are licensed under 10 CFR Part 70.
Similar to the fuel facilities, the SNM used in these applications is generally in a concentrated form and in a sealed form. Safety is built into the design and construction of the device or source. Consequenly, there is no additionr1 need to specifically address criticality safety, MC&A, and physical r,rotection.
The two exceptions identified above are the Barnwell and Richland LLW disposal facilities, which are licensed by both the State for LLW and NRC to dispose of waste containing SNM under 10 CFR Part 70.
'From July 18, 1996 meeting between Chairman Jackson and Carl Paperiello
1 '
l '
i Envirocare's operations are similar to those of Bcrnweli and Richland in that all three facilities are engaged in near-surface disposal of LLW.
However, there are significant differences between Envirocare's design and operating procedures and those of Barnwell and Richland. In addition, the waste forms and concentrations differ significantly. The wastes at Barnwell and Richland may include dis' crete sources and more highly concentrated wastes iri packages that are placed intact in the trenches, whereas the wastes dis)osed at Envirocare are in very low concentrations, diffuse, and bul c or generally unpackaged at the time of placement in the disposal embankment. The Part 70 criticality requirements are appropriate for the wastes at Barnwell and Richland because of a greater potential for inadvertent criticality during storage and placement of the waste in the trenches. However, in contrast * *he requirements applied to the fuel facilities, the MC&A and phys protection requirements are not applicable to waste disposal at Barnwell and Richland.
- 2. Would the staff propose to apply specific limits on the amount of SNM that Envirocare could receive for disposal?
Yes. The staff's proposed concentration limits for plutonium (5 micro-curies per gram of soil) and enriched uranium (400 pico-curies per gram of soil) in diffuse waste were provided to the Commission in a memorandum dated May 13, 1996.
- 3. How would these concentration limits be imposed on Envirocare?
The proposed concentration limits for SNM in diffuse waste would be imposed on Envirocare through NRC's order to Envirocare and through the State of Utah's license and regulations, as described in staff's memo to the Commission of November 13, 1995.