ML20244B386
| ML20244B386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Bell M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Row T OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8906130090 | |
| Download: ML20244B386 (9) | |
Text
_
,4 9,, f.
.ASME MX WRKSHP LTR/TJ 1-W 8 1 1989 Dr. Thomas H. Row, Director Environmental and Health Protection Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Post Office Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 6198
Dear Dr. Row:
Thank you for the invitation to )articipate in the American Society of
'Mechnical Engineers (ASME) Workslop on Mixed Waste held in Knoxville, TN on May 1,.1989.1In response to your request following the workshop we have enclosed several comments.on the Workshop Sumary Report. We hope these coments are helpful in preparing a final report.
If you have any questions, please contact me at FTS 492-0560 or Mr. Timothy C.
Johnson at FTS 492 0558.
Sincerely.
Original Signed by MIM y, 33t;5 Michael J. Bell, Chief Regulatory Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution: CentralTFile T M NMSS r/f LLRB r/f TJohnson MBell DMartin RFonner JGreeves
. RBangart ~
Ptohaus JSurmeier PDR Yes No
/ /
Proprietary or CF Only /
/
ACNW.
Yes No
/ /
SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
COMMENTS ON ASME WORKSHOP
SUMMARY
REPORT ON MW
_t d
- D
- LLRB
}.....
fV.... y 0....................................
0FC :LL
\\
- LLRB NAME:
nson/es:
artin :py nner :MBell bATb hb9
[5fbhfhhhh
)/hb9 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8905130090 890531 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDC
/pg 4063.4 Sm NL\\4
_L 4
COMMENTS ON THE WORKSHOP
SUMMARY
REPORT 1.
General It appears there is a difference in the way people are using the term
" inconsistency". This is an important term since it is used in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 1006(a), which gives presumption in favor of the Atomic Energy Act when provisions in the law or regulations conflict. As NRC staff uses-the term, an " inconsistency" is present where two laws or regulations directly contradict one another or where one creates an obstacle that could prevent fulfillment of the other.
The Workshop Summary appears to use the term " inconsistent" in the sense that if one law or regulation is more stringent than the other law or regulation, the two are " inconsistent". We recommend that the Workshop Summary be reviewed where the term " inconsistent" is used, and the term defined and used consistently throughout.
2.
General The Workshop Summary appears to be oriented primarily to the commerical sector.
If it is intended that the document also apply to Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, the identified issues should include appropriate wording to reflect both DOE and comercial facilities.
3.
Characterization Section, Third Para.
It is unclear how determining when a waste is a waste, the form of the samples, and the wide variations in State requirements are the result of inconsistencies.
It appears that these issues are questions that involve interpretations of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RCRA regulations.
It is also unclear how inconsistencies will be potentially compounded by the export limitations imposed by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. Some additional explanation or specific examples should be provided to expand these discussions and clarify the specific problems identified.
4 Characterization Section, Recommendation 2 It is unclear what " interfaces with the environment" means. We recommend rewording this sentence to make it clear.
l q
l
~
1 1 l
5.
Characterization Section, Recommendation 3 This recommendation should acknowledge the Below Regulatory Concern efforts underway by both the EPA and NRC staffs.
6.
Characterization Section, General It should be noted in the Workshop Summary that a generator may make a determination that a waste is hazardous based on his knowledge of the waste stream.
In these cases sampling and testing would not be required.
Testing performed by disposal site operators would be performed in accordance with a Waste Analysis Plan developed in the permitting process.
ThfL analysis plan could be developed to reflect the radiation hazards ass 0ciated with the wastes.
The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), however, would require testing following treatment. The LDR testing requirements for high activity wastes could very well present radiation hazards. We suggest that the Workshop Summary also address these LDR testing requirements.
In specific DOE cases EPA Regions have allowed less than the required 100 gm. sample to be used in performing the EP Toxicity Test. We consider that flexibility needs to be provided by the EPA where the required 100 gm. samples of high activity wastes could present a dangerous radiation hazard or where such wastes can not be analyzed by current commercial laboratories. We suggest that the Workshop Summary specifically address the 100 gm. sample issue.
7.
_T_reatment Section, Fifth Para.
It is unclear what is meant by: "it was concluded that the BRC, landbans requirement need coordination." This sentence should be rewritten.
8.
Treatment Section, Last Para.
The Workshop Summary states that there is a " lack of coordinated and focused regulatory direction which has also impeded timely development of treatment and final disposal options." We suggest providing some specific examples that support this statement.
9.
General We recommend that the Workshop Summary be presented in the same format for all four sessions.
It would also be useful to identify or group reconnendations separately for Congress, EPA, NRC, DOE, and the industry.
-s-
SUMMARY
REPORT OF ASME MIXED WASTE WORKSHOP May 1,1989 Held in Conjunction with The 1989 Incineration Conference NOTE:
Written comments are solicited. The comment period will close June 1,1989.
All comments will be considered in developing the final summary report to be submitted to ASME. Please direct comments to:
Thomas H. Row, Director Environmental and Health Protection Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Post Office Box 2008
- Oak Ridge, TN 37831 6198
-________-_m__
La CHARACTERIZATION Characterization of certain solid wastes is required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to determine if the waste contains listed materials or exhibits characteristics which render the waste hazardous. The same characterization is necessary to determine if a mixture of solid waste and radioactive waste contains listed materials or exhibits characteristics which render the mixture hazardous and thus a mixed waste.
However, due mainly to the radioactive constituents, significant limitations and complexities exist when characterizing potential mixed waste which do not exist when characterizing potentially hazardous waste.
The limitations of the aggregate characterization capacity and capabilities are a result of receipt and analysis requirements imposed on analysis facilities. These receipt and analysis requirements include obtaining and maintaining Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or NRC Agreement State license, having the necessary personnel expertise, and having the techniques available to analyze radioactively contaminated samples. Limitations of analysis capabilities are further compounded by the prescriptiveness of the allowed characterization methodologies while meeting the activity limits of individual licenses.
The dual regulatory scheme, currently imposed on mixed waste generators, introduces significant complexities and inconsistencies. These complexities and inconsistencies include determining when a waste is a waste, in what form the sample should be for characterization, the wide variance in regulations among the states, and which entity is ultimately responsible for the post-sample waste. These complexities and inconsistencies will be potentially compounded by limitations imposed by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLWPAA) on the exportation of low level radioactive waste across state or regional compact boundaries.
The following changes are recommended to resolve the problems associated with the characterization of mixed waste:
(1) Consistent guidelines are necessary to determine what constitutes a waste and when a material should be considered a waste. Consistency is necessary within the governing regulations of NRC and EPA and with the ultimate intent of protecting human health and the environment.
(2) Characterization of a waste should be required only at the point during its life cycle when it interfaces with the environment.
m-m s
4 l
STORAGE REQUIREMENTS Introduction Storage of. mixed waste is inevitable, since treatment and/or disposal are not currently readily available'. Generators, for the most part, are storing their own mixed wastes on-site.
p Regulations Several sets of regulations are applicable to mixed waste storage. Included are NRC and RCRA regulations and,- for the Department of Energy (DOE), DOE Orders. The Land-Disposal Restrictions (LDR) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-
and Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) limitations, being developed by both NRC and EPA, appear to be the most significant regulations. BRC regulation could potentially reduce the volume of waste considered mixed. However, because commercial facilities acceptance of BRC waste is uncertain, the final impact could be minimal.
Observations RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) are not fundamentally inconsistent. Compliance
- with one statute does not theoretically preclude compliance with the other. Compliance with both Acts and their regulations may, however, prove difficult in practice. Compliance
- with both statutes may require innovative technology. (For example, compliance with RCRA-inspection requirements and maintenance of personnel exposures ALARA could-both be achieved through the use of electronic surveillance or vapor detection devices.)*
In addition, expenditures exceeding the amount required to protect human health and the environment may be necessary. The difficulties appear to be more institutional (cost,
- timing) than technical.
Compliance with RCRA permitting requirements for storage facilities may trigger other requirements, such as corrective action requirements of RCRA 3004u that would not otherwise apply to the facility. In this case, and for the sake of efficiency, commercial or regional mixed waste storage facilities may provide a more optimal solution for the mixed waste storage needs, Although near-terms availability of treatment and disposal facilities for mixed waste is uncertain, planning for long-term (10 20 year) storage indicates a lack of commitment to development of the needed technologies. In few cases, is long-term storage warranted.
- Joint guidance on sampling and testing of waste at disposal sites has been promised by EPA and NRC.
_-.-____m-__------------------------------
d TREATMENT INTRODUCTION An ASME Workshop was convened to address the treatmen issues attendant to mixed waste. Twenty-eight people from the nuclear energy industry, regulators and the treatment industry addressed definitions of broad waste types, treatment technologies and the difficult problem of treatment or performance standards.
It was concluded that there are a variety of proven treatment technologies that are capable to treat both the Department of Energy (DOE) and commercial mixed waste streams. The current lack of availability, however, is due to many factors, including lack of application experience and the adaptability of these technologies to mixed waste, an excessively long licensing period due to regulatory uncertainties compounded by dual EPA /NRC regulations, public perception, and general market uncertainties. These uncertainties have created facility siting problems and concerns for allocation of capital.
Changes need to be made to reduce the limiting factors including adoption of one controlling set of regulations on mixed wastes immediately, more waste generators input into rulemaking and policies, reductions in the licensing time period, coordinated and simplified Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)/delisting procedures, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognition of uniform construction standards and codes, taking advantage of upcoming Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reauthorization to statutorily provide for mobile treatment regulations, increased government funding for mixed waste demonstrations, and more use of foreign technologies. The adverse public perception of mixed waste treatment technologies can be reduced by early public involvement in the process with creater public education, and a demonstrated, excellent track record. Even among our industry, it was recognized that additional exchange of information is needed.
For mixed waste, the preferred objective should be to treat both the radioactive and hazardous constituent, but there are technical factors that determine the priority of each constituent. These include waste characteristics, economics, available options for treatment i
and disposal, regulatory and recycling incentives, including public perception, and the most controlling factor is treatment or performance standards, which are not completely defined.
Since the controlling factor is treatment or performance standards, it was concluded that the BRC, landbans requirement need coordination. The EPA delisting and relisting process and the BRC performance modeling process should also be meshed, satisfying both set of criteria.
I
q s
i 4
i l
i SITING AND DISPOSAL FACILITY DESIGN 1
The workshop consisted of fifteen individuals representing the nuclear power industry, universities, other low-level waste (LLW) generators, the engineering community, and the federal government. The workshop was charged to address they key issues associated with developing mixed waste disposal capacity - specifically, to examine the issues associated with siting and design of mixed waste disposal facilities. The fundamental conclusion of the discussion was that while proper management of mixed wastes poses no unusual technical problems nor do they raise any unique public acceptance issues with respect to siting, there is a serious regulatory problem caused by dual regulation.
The work of the committee can be divided into two broad categories, including policy and general observations.
POLICY COMMENTS
- 1. Dual regulation of commercial mixed LLW is probably not a problem with satisfying disposal facility siting criteria at the federal level, but is still a substantial impediment to the remainder of the management / disposal cycle at both state and federal levels.
Simultaneously satisfying both Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disposal unit design requirements is difficult, cumbersome, and may result in designs that are not best for the region or site.
Additional difficulties may also arise due to state regulations for hazardous waste which may be incompatible with federal and state regulations for radioactive waste. In addition, it is unlikely that the long-term performance requirements of 10 CFR 61 can be met by existing hazardous waste regulations. Finally, the volume of commercial mixed LLW is very small in comparison to the total volume of LLW currently regulated by the NRC and even smaller when compared to the volume of waste regulated under RCRA. Therefore, commercial mixed LLW should be regulated as NRC (10 CFR 61) wastes by the NRC and agreement state agencies.
Factors which also must be considered include:
- Fundamentally, existing NRC regulations provide fo.: the protection of public health and the emironment; however, there needs to be a way to include EPA input of a general nature in the NRC program (e.g., " cradle-to-grave" tracking). This can be accomplished by establishing a consultive role for EPA;
~
~
i :. s n'-
1 3
Sitina and Diannaal Facility Desian (continued)
- 7. The failure to address dispsosal of commercial mixed LLW mayjeopardize compliance by states and compacts with the milestones of the Low level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments ~ Act of 1985.
/
e
.___.______.____.__m.__m-_____.
__m.________
m
____.._________m__.m___
_ __________________