ML20245K314
| ML20245K314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1989 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0010, NACNUCLE-T-10, NUDOCS 8905050021 | |
| Download: ML20245K314 (168) | |
Text
a -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ACJH07; oo/ O l
0RlGRAL O
UNITED STATES NUCLBAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i b
.---== .. ===.-======. --=== . --== .... ... ..-==.......{
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE In the Matter of: )
)
)
9th ACNW Meeting )
Day Two )
O I? ages: 139 through 258 Place: Bethesda, Maryland Date: April 27,
% asv g 1 00 VO[ lei'-
A g. '
g ym.~
l e.go..............c
,s.__ ,...... _ _.
v nggg
_____.4
' ,_ . M.:L1 O HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OficialReporten 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 h$k kOObk f$0bb[LE T-OO1O PDC (202) 628-4888
_c. -
139. i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
- l. ADVISORY. COMMITTEE.ON NUCLEAR WASTE Ir. the Matter of: )
)
L * )
9th ACNW Meeting ,)
Day Two )
4 Thursday, April 27,.1989
. Room P-110 7920 Norfolk Avenue ,
Bethesda, Maryland 1 The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m.
BEFORE: DADE W. MOELLER Chairman,.ACNW Professor of Engineering in Environmental Health O'
Associate Dean for Continuing Education School.of Public Health Harvard University Boston, Massachusetts ACNW MEMBERS PRESENT:
DR. MARTIN J. STEINDLER Director, Chemical Technology Division Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4888
_ .___-_-__-__-__________A
_--_--.-__--._------_----m-g-,-_
4
'140
't pESIGNATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES:
DR. SIDNEY PARRY. ,
OWEN MERRILL NRC STAFF PRESENTERS:
T.C. JOHNSON * ,
DR. MALCOLM R. KNAPP JOHN GREEVES .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
_ _ - - _ _-_________-_-_____---_______O
141 1 E B Q G E E R J. H G E f
2 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will now come to order.
3 This is the second day of the 9th meeting of the 4 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
5 This morning we met,with the Commissioners at i l 6' White Flint North to review p range of items including the 7 status of the SCP, SCA review. The West Valley 8 Demonstration Project and the Great Than Class C Radioactive a
9 Waste matter.
10 This afternoon we are going to be reviewing the 11 disposal of mixed waste with both representatives from the 12 NRC staff and industry appearing. And then following that 13 we will discuss a little more our SCP and SCA review and 14 then to into Executive Session to complete letters on the 15 several items that we've heard thus far in the meeting.
16 The meeting is being conducted in accordance with 17 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the f 18 Government in the Sunshine Act.
19 Owen Merrill, seated on my right, is the 20 Designated Federal employee or official for this meeting 21 this afternoon.
22 The rules for participation in the meeting have 23 been announced as part of the Notice that was published in 24 the Federal Register. We have received no written 25 statements or requests to make oral statements from members
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation h
- -.- t s
142
() 1 of the public regarding today's session.
2 A transcript of the formal portions of the meeting i 1
3 will be kept and it is requested that each speaker or anyone 4 who desires to contribute to the meeting first be 5 recognized, go to a mic*ophone, r give us your name, and then 6 nake your statement with sufficient clarity and volume so 7 that everyone here can understand what's being said. And 8 most importantly our Reporter.
9 We discussed briefly this morning the subject of 10 mixed waste with the Commissioners, not because it was on 11 our agenda, but because they raised the issue. We saw it in 12 our review of the West Valley matter because the question 13 had come up would not some of the waste generated in
(} 14 decommissioning or decontaminating that facility lead to 15 mixed waste?
16 We know that'the mixed waste issue is a cloudy one 17 due to the dual jurisdiction between EPA and NRC. And we 18 know that industry and the staff is interested in resolving 19 this issue if they can.
20 So with those opening remarks I will call upon Dan l 21 Martir. from the NRC staff to make their presentation.
22 Welcome and it's a pleasure to have you.
23 You can either sit at the chair there and talk at 24 the table or stand up. Whichever you are more comfortable 25 with.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_-------_-_-____)
__m._ - . _ _ - - - - -__ - - . - _ _ - - -
e i
143
() 1 2
MR. MARTIN:
DR. MOELLER:
I'm more comfortable standing up.
Fine. We want you to be comfortable 3 because we much prefer an interactive discussion than a 4 stilted formal presentation.
5 So, go ahead.' ,
6 MR. MARTIN: I'm D,an Martin. I'm with the 7 Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning.
8 I am a Senior Project Manager.
9 My Section Leader is here with me today and will 1
10 support in answer questions and perhapo explaining some of 11 the intricacies of mixed waste.
12 DR. MOELLER: Now, when you say you are the Senior 13 Project Manager, this is for the subject of mixed waste?
14 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
15 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Thank you. I mean is that 16 your primary responsibility?
i 17 MR. MARTIN: I'm also responsible for 18 decommissioning.
19 DR. MOELLER: Okay. But that fits in quite 20 nicely.
21 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
22 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. Go ahead.
l 23 MR. MARTIN: Currently we are continuing to trying
, 24 to make dual regulation of mixed waste as workable as 1
25 possible. There's been a lot of advice given to us to try i
i O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation 1
_-_-___--_----_____-__------____ _ A
x ,.
4 144
/~T 1 to push for single-agency regulation, but the agency has not V
2 elected to date to do that.
3 DR. MOELLER: And how is a decision like that 4 made? Do you get a memo from the Commissioners telling you 5 "We're not interested ih pursuing that matter"?
6 MR. MARTIN: Yes. ,
We try and obtain the best 7 information we can as to what the Commission wants.
8 DR. MOELLER: And how is that fed down to you?
9 Through the TA's?
10 MR. MARTIN: Through the normal management chain 11 of command.
12 DR. MOELLER: Okay. But you definitely know that 13 it's the Commissioner's position that your walking orders 14 are to try to work with EPA and do it on a dual basis?
15 MR. MARTIN: That's my understanding. And when 16 the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was 17 being pushed through Congress, we and EPA did provide 18 Congress some advice that single-agency regulation of mixed 19 waste would be more workable. Congress elected to keep dual 20 regulation, and from that time we have been trying to make ,
21 dual regulation as workable as we can.
22 DR. MOELLER: And do--
23 MR. MARTIN: I just wanted to say at the outset 24 that we remain on that course and I did not want to try and 25 debate that issue within the context of this presentation.
'"4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
145 l
() 1 DR. MOELLER: Could you clarify or give us the 2 primary reasons that Congress has chosen the path that it 3 has? I mean if you don't feel comfortable in interpreting 4 what Congress has done, just say so.
5 MR. MARTIN: I would not feel confident trying to 6 explain that for you. ,
7 DR. MOELLER: Fine, fine. Okay.
8 MR. MARTIN: So basically I did want to say that 9 we have remained on that course trying to make dual 10 regulation work. We continue to push toward that end.
11 We were here a few months ago and Tim Johnson made 12 a presentation on mixed waste at that time. And since then a lot of activity has occurred in the nixed waste area and I 13 14 what I wanted to do today is basically take you through what
({}
15 has transpired since then, i
16 We have made' advances in trying to establish 17 further Joint Guidance documents on mixed waste working with 18 EPA. We've had a lot of meetings. There's been a lot of l 19 correspondence. EPA has issued a Notice in the Register as 20 to deadlines for coming into compliance with RCRA for mixed 21 waste licensees, mixed vaste permittees.
22 And so those are the things that I'll be trying to 23 cover today in this presentation.
24 I'd like to start off with the status of Joint 25 Guidance documents.
l
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
i U <
- l. 146 T i l_ 1 DR. M0ELLER
- Let's see. Let me ask whether or
)
[ 2 not, after all this activity, anybody has got a license to d
!- 3 dispose of mixed waste?
4 MR. MARTIN: No one has both a permit from EPA and 5 an NRC license for dispbsal of mixed waste. I understand-6 DR. STEINDLER: Sometime before you are done I 7 think one of the things I'd like to at least hear something 8 about is'why you think that's true. I assume there are 9 folks that have applied for auch permits and licenses.
10 MR. MARTIN: No one has applied--
11 DR. STEINDLER: Nobody's even applied?
12 MR. MARTIN: --for that. Basically regulation of 13 mixed waste is a new endeavor by EPA. A recent endeavor.
14 DR. STEINDLER: A recent endeavor.
O 15 MR. MARTIN: And since EPA determined to regulate 16 mixed waste, and has sst about establishing deadlines for 17- coming into compliance with mixed waste, no one has yet been 16 in a position to apply for both a permit and an NRC license.
19 We , in fact, do not have an application for 20 another low-level waste disposal site of any kind since EPA 21 determined to regulate mixed waste.
22 We continue to have just three operating low-level t
23 waste facilities that have been in operation for a long 24 time.
25 DR. MOELLER: Yes, but that delay is not for the Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
- - ___-________________--_-_a
_m _y ,
147 f3 1 delay in applying for permits or licenses to dispose of low-(_) .
2 level waste. Is not due to the mixed waste issue,.is it?
3 Isn't it just due to the--
4 MR. MARTIN: No, it's not. That's the point.
5 DR. MOELLER: --to the Regional compacts and all 6 of this? .
I 7 MR. MARTIN: That's right. That's the point.
8 MS. MOODY: Before you start this, what is mixed 9 . waste? Howareyoudefinh.ngthat?
10 MR. MARTIN: One of our Joint Guidance documents--
11 in fact, it was the first one we issued, addressed the 12 subject of identification and definite of mixed waste. In l 13 that document, mixed waste is defined as low-level vaste I
.() 14 which also has hazardous waste in it which make it tsubjech 15 to EPA regulation under RCRA.
16 Okay. If I can proceed with the status of Joint 17 Guidance development efforts.
18 Back when we did talk to you some months ago, we l
19 had issued three Joint Guidance-documents. They addressed 20 the definition of mixed waste and siting and design of a 21 disposal facility for mixed waste. Okay. Those thr.oe.
22 guidance documents stand and exist and are in use.
23 Four other Joint Guidance development efforts are 24 currently underway. There is a guide that's been drafted by 25 EPA on waste characterization which addresses principally L
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation i
1
148
[~)
v 1 sampling and testing to determine if waste is, in fact, a 2 hazardous waste and subject to EPA regulation under RCRA.
3 Okay. That was drafted. It was issued by EPA to i
4 uts for comment on April 6th. We did respond with comments 5 on April 20. .
6 Another guide on inspection is under development.
7 We are preparing the initial draft of that guide and it is ,
I 8 almost complete.
9 EPA is also preparing a guide on storage. They 10 are having a contractor prepare a draft and that effort is 11 underway. I don't have a date to give you as a scheduled 12 completion date on that.
} 13 DR. MOELLER: On that one, and this reveals some l ,
{} 14 of the problems I have with it--now, you say--I guess it's 15 EPA is developing a guide on storage. l 16 MR. MARTIN: 'Yes. ,
17 DR. MOELLER: Okay. My question is or my comment l 18 is, and if you can comment on my comment--my comment is that 19 EPA's definition of disposal of toxic chemical waste is I
20 nothing more than storage. I mean how does putting toxic 21 chemicals in an earthen-covered bathtub, how is that 22 disposal? I can go back there five hundred thousand years 23 and dig in there and it's still there, isn't it? So it's l
l 24 just storage.
25 Whereas in contrast, if I bury low-level--you
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 E _ _ _ ________
. 149 1
h) 1 know, even coslum and strontium with thirty-year half lives 2 and wait a few hundred years, I go in there and they have
- i- 3 all decayed.
4 MR ,. MARTIN: Yeah.
5 DR. MOELLER: 'So I guess my point is that I hear 6 this. discussion and I find time and time again where EPA 7 comes to you and they'll say, "We' ve got to rerolve the 8 design--or get an agreed-upon design for a disposal 9 facility. Your disposal facility for low-level radioactive 10 waste doesn't meet EPA's requirements under RCRA so you have 11 to change."
12 Have you ever said to EPA, "Your disposal for 13 mixed waste or for toxic chemical waste really is nothing
(} 14 more than storage. Go back and redo it."
) 15 MR. MARTIN: No, we have not done that.
16 DR. MOELLER: Of course, it wouldn't be your 17 authority to do that anyway. But somebody should say it.
18 Go ahead. l 19 MR. MARTIN: The last guidance development effort )
20 that is underway addresses a comparison of licensing and 21 permitting requirements. It's an effort we undertook some l
22 time back and at this time we are planning to reactivate 23 that effort and complete it.
L 24 DR. STEINDLER: How does the staff view these l
25 guidance documents? Are they equivalent to Reg Guides or l
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
i- ;
y ,' l .
1 150 i a 1 technical positions or, you know, what kind of--number <one, 2 what's the detai3? And number two, what kind of authority 3 does the NRC stat!f' attribute to these? And thirdly, have 4 you gotten any feedback from the world at large on how they 5 view the content of the' existing three that I guess have i
6 been issued? In relation to.either the licensing process or 7 the permitting process or whatever?.
y 8 MR. MAF. TIN: Before I lose track of your 9 questions, maybe I can--
10 DR. STEINDLER: I've already lost track.
11 MR. MARTIN: Try theim one at a time. It would be i 12 easier for.me.
13- They are statements of position. They are not the j
14 same as Regulatory Guides or branch technical positions. i 15 The guidance documents that have been signed out have been 16 signed out by high-level officials of both agencies. The 17 ones that we have issued have been signed out by the 18 Director of NMSS.
19 DR. STEINDLER: As viewed from the sense of the 20 customer's standpoint, what good are they?
21 MR. MARTIN: They are explanations by the agencies 22 that show where it is that we have been able to agree and 23 issue a document co-signed by both agencies.
24 DR. STEINDLER: Do you have some reason to believe 25 that your customer cares whether or not you agree with the O nerie ee neverei 9 cerger eie=
(202) 628-4888
, 1
. y 7-----_.---_
.; - l:
i-
! :l1
]l-d 151 a ?
fl 1 E* 'A?
I
- 2. MR. MARTIN: Yes.
3 DR. STEINDLER: Why? l r 4 MR. MARTIN: And it's perhaps more in.portant for .j 5 our licensees to know that EPA agrees with us.
6 DR. STEINDLER: Ah, Okay, l'at me--
7 MR. MARTIN: Because the question, in the minds of ,
)
8 our licensees is not so much how to meet NRC regulations, 9 but how to meet EPA regulations.
10 DR. STEINDLER: Uh-huh, uh-huh. Do I have it 11 correct that an NF.C licensee actually goes to th( EPA for c
12 whatever permite they would require if they were so l I 1 13 inclined? I mean thny don' t come to you for the EPA permit, I
() 14 do they?
15 MR. MARTIN: That's true. Either EPA or one of 16 their authorized states.
IT DR. STEINDLER: Sure. Then let me go back to my 18 original question. Having already been a licensee of the
.19 NRC, why should this group care whether or not you two 20 agencies agree? They are going to have to go to the EPA 21 anyway. I don't have the connection made. It seems to be 22 at the moment a fairly separate operation. And the 23 agreement or disagreement or lack of agreement between the i
24 NRC and EPA is puzzling to me as being important.
25 MR. MARTIN: Perhaps the best use of these Joint
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation i
l ~ - - - - _ . - . - . . . - _ ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
l 152 I
~ ( }, 1 Gui. dance documents is clarification. For example, en the 2 definition document, we perceived a need to define vihat was 3 mixed waste. And to' issue some guidance so that out:
4 licensees could determine whether or not they generated or 5 had in their possession
- mixed, waste or not. And so it's 6 useful from the standpoint of our licensees being able to.
7 make decisions. To use that guidance and determine whether 8 or not they have mixed waste.
9 DR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. I continue to be 10 confused and I don't want to prolong this thing, but you 11 have issued, for my purposes of discussion, a license for a 12 low-level waste operation. And your concern is low-level 13 waste. You do not regulate the chemical portion of that 14 waste. The chap who's got this licensee to do whatever he's 15 doing with low-level waste would have to go to the EPA 16 office down the street'to get his permit concerning that 17 part of the same box. Okay.
18 MR. MARTIN: That's true.
19 DR. STEINDLER: Now, I'm still puzzled as to why 20 that person should really get very upset if you, the NRC, 21 have a violent disagreement or in fact speak to the EPA at 22 all on the subject. I mean you've used the 55-gallon drum 23 he's got containing three millicuries of cobalt. And 10 24 grams of dichlorophenal as a single container containing two 25 kinds of waste that are separable from the permitting Heritage Reporting Corporation
(]) (202) 628-4888
s... ,
153 i '
1 standpoint. And obviously the issuen, they are also
.(]J 2 separable from what he has to do to get rid of it.
3 But why should he care? Where is there some t 4 advantage tc. the customer, if you are a licen:see, that 5 you've formed Joint Gui*ance d t$ocumenta? Do I nake myself 6 clear? I'm not quito clear yhy you're doing this.
7 MR. MARTIN: Perhaps the last two guidance 8 documents are better examples.
9 DR. STEINDLER: Okay.
10 MR. MARTIN: They show how it is possible for a 11 disposal site operator to simultaneously meet EPA and NRC 12 requirements in the siting of a disposal site and in the 13 design of a disposal site.
14 And those guidance documents were issued because 15 we had indications that a lot of people didn't feel that NRC 16 could approve a design'which met EPA requirements, and vice 17 versa.
18 And we clarified that issue by issuing the Joint 19 Guldance document on design. We said--the two agencies 20 together said, "Yes, you can design a low-level waste 21 disposal facility which meets both sets of regulations."
22 DR. STEINDLER: Okay, I think that's reasonable.
23 I'm having some difficulty looking to the purpose 24 of some of the other things you've got up there. But let ne 25 not prolong the issue. Just go ahead.
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
l l
154 1 MR. MARTIN: All right. I'd like to turn to the 2 next sheet.in my handout.
3 MS. MOODY: Can I get back to my initial question.
4 So when you talk about waste characterization, you 5 are just simply saying that this particular waste.is both 6 radioactive and chemical toxic? Is that correct?
7 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Under EPA's RCRA Regulations, a 8 number of hazardous chemicals are listed, so-called listed.
9 And if you have that chemical in the waste, it is definitely 10 hazardous waste.
11 Another way to determine that a waste is a 12 hazardous waste is by characteristic testing. And you can 13 test it for toxicity--I think it is reactivity?
14 DR. MOODY: Uh-huh. ' That's a good term.
f 15 DR. MOELLER: Flammability.
16 MR. MARTIN: ' Flammability.
17 DR. MOODY: Flammability.
i 18 MR.' MARTIN: Ignitability. ]
19 DR. MOODY: Yes. Okay.
20 DR. STEINDLER: Dr. Moody, on the definition and ,
I 21 perhaps Dan can clarify it if it's been further resolved, 22 but last time we met they said if the certain listed toxic 23 chemicals are in the waste it must be called a hazardous 24 waste. But it was not clear to us what concentration had to 25 be present in order to be declared--
{
Heritage Reporting Corporation l O (202) 628-4888 i l
I i
'l
_____._-__________________m_ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_m, ,
l P L 155 1 DR. MOODY: Hazardous.
2 DR. STEINDLER: Correct. Has that been clarified
- 3 as to what concentration of the toxic chemicals must be in 4 the waste?
5 MR. MARTIN: I think if you have a waste and it 6 has a listed. hazardous waste,in it, regardless of 7 concentration, I believe it's hazardous waste.
8 DR. MOELLER: And I think that'a correct.
9 MR. MARTIN: If'anybody known different, perhaps 10 you can correct me if I'm wrong.
11 DR. MOELLER: No, I think you are right. And so 12 if there's one drop in a ton or something, it's hazardous y 13 waste.
l
- 14 MR. MARTIN: One atom.
U DR. MOELLER: One atom.
15 16 DR. MOODY: tou'll have a hard time detecting it 17 though perhaps.
18 DR. STEINDLER: I think that's precisely the f 19 issue. Detectabilities are sufficiently far below toxic l
20 levels these days. And the analytical chemist in getting to 21 be a real wizard at being able to find things that almost 22 aren't there.
23 DR. MOODY: Yes.
24 MR. ORTH: Again, I don't'know whether it's been 25 clarified but some of the fine print in what we heard last Heritage Reporting Corporation l
I O' (202) 628-4888 i l
l l _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
c , v ,, .
156-() 1 time implied that if there was any possibility that it was 2 there you had to assume it.
3 DR. MOODY: Okay.
4 MR. ORTH: Again, that's another one of those.
5 things we were hoping wbuld be clarified in that 6 concentration type range. ,
7 DR. MOODY: Yeah. All we have to do is remember
-15th 8 that Chlorine 36 measurements at 1.0 gram.
9 DR. MOELLER: Yes. We have a-comment.
10 MR. MERRILL: Yes. This is Owen Merrill.
11 Isn't it correct also that that's only one 12 definition. The other has to do with the presence of 13 certain heavy metals.
. ,(]) 14 MR. MARTIN: Yes. That's the toxicity test. And 15 that is a concentration-based test. In other words, if you 16 take a waste and you p6rform the toxicity characteristic 17 leeching procedure, a mandatory analytical test, and you 18 produce a leechate which has concentration of, for example, 19 a chrome above a certain level, then it is hazardous waste.
20 If the leechate is below that level, it's not 21 hazardous waste.
22 DR. MOELLER: Well, that we can understand. And, 23 of course, the toxicity, the ignitability, or whatever you 24 call it, et cetera.
25 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.i . ,
157 y
hr 1 DR. MOELLER: .Those are clear. But the other cne 2 is not.
3 DR. STEINDLER: One other question. If you allow 4 me the assumption that a particular waste is well enough 5 characterized so that there's,a pretty handle on everything 6 that's in a drum. And it happens to be low-level waste 7 without being a m3ned waste today. And the chap who runs 8 the burial ground gaes out and buries it and two years later l
9 the EPA adds Compound Q w$2ich happens to be in that . drum to s
10 its RCRA list.
V 11 Does that then magically. transform that drum into 12 a mixed waste and therefore requires an exhumation plus a 13 redisposal or r6 burial?
14 MR. MARTIN: Ona of the things I meant to say in 15 my opening remarks is to apologize .for not knowing 16- everything there is to'know about EPA regulations, and this
[ 17 is'one of thoss questions that I can't answer.
I: 18 DR. STEINDLER: That's fine. Fair enough.
29 MR. MARTXN: I'11 continue an.
t 20 DR. MOELLER: Yes. Don't let us interrupt you.
21 MR. MARTIN: I'11 try and get through the second 22 sheet anyway.
23 You.see before you in the handout, the second 24 page, a list of the recent correspondence we have had. This 25 is not everything but it's among the more significant pieces Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t I
158
-h 1- of. correspondence, I think the most important is probably 2 the-September 23, 1988 EPA Federal Register Notice on 3 Interim Status.
4 And I'm going to talk about that in more detail 5 later on. So I'd like t.o hold off questions on that for the 6 moment. .
?
7 1 think the other correspondence you are pretty 8 much aware of. I did mention the last item that on April 6, l
9 EPA did send us a draft of the' Waste Characteri::ation 1.0 Guidance which they had developed.
11 DR. MOELLER: The letter from George Holman who of L 12 course if the Radiation Safety Officer, among othar things, 13 at Yale. What stimulated--and I read the letter but I don't
.14 remember it. What stimulated him to write to you? I mean 15 did Cornell and Columbia and the other places--why did Yale 16 write?
17 MR. KARTIN: I do not know. I did not speak to
.18 Mr. Holman.
V 19 DR. MOELLER: Well, that's okay. Go ahead.
20 C '!7 TIN: I can't say what prompted him to 21 write.
I 22 DR. MOSLLER: Yes. We have his letter and we can 23 certainly read it.
24 MR. MARTIN: I think he noticed it was on your 25 agenda for this meeting and wanted to say something about O aerit 9e aegert.ias corger tioa (202,) 628-4888 l
1
. w.9 [ >
hi L ' ,f 4
159 a o
()
n 1 it.
f' 2 I'm going to-turn to page 3 on the handout and go j 3 over the highlights there of the recent meetings we have had 4 on mixed waste.
b 5 You see listeb as the second item an Office of !
6 Technology Assessment meeting on mixed waste. It was a l
7 ' workshop. We did attend. And I believe the intention was i G to follow up on that meeting with a report. And.I haven't 9 eeen a final product yet. And I'm not sure what the status 10 is on getting that report out.
11 Also' you'll see a number of meetings we've had 12 with EPA on diiferent subjects. We did heet with them on 13 the status of Joint Guidance developments in March. In
(')
s/
14 April we met with them te discuss the 100 gram kample size, 15 which is a mandatory minimum sample sizG in the TCLP test.
f 16 The Toxicity Characteristic Leeching Procedure.
27 Just yesterday ss met with them on ths tand ban
( 18 storage and testing restrictions to see how those'would l 19 affect mixed waste.
1 L 20 Back up on the list you'll notice on April 6th we l'
L 21 had a meeting with the Energy-Information Administration of l
22 DOE, Those folks.are considering launching an effort to 23 collect data on mixed waste generation and inventory. And 24 we have supported that effort and will try to asaist them if 25 we can in seeing it to fruition.
i l
l Heritage Reporting Corporatlun (202) 628-4888
160-1 DR. MOELLER: Which one was that again?
l( )
2 MR. MARTIN: It's, let's see. The fifth one down 3 I believe.
4 DR. MOELLER: The DOE EIA meeting 1 5 MR. MARTIN: Yes. ,
6 DR. MOELLER: Okay, So they are trying to--how 7 much is being generated and what are the projections and so 8 forth?
9 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Right now they are exploring 10 the possibility of launching an effort t.o collect 11 information on mixed waste using their data collection 12 authority. They publish an Annual Report which provides L 13 data on spent fuel inventories and other subjects. And they
[~1 14 are-considering adding mixed waste to that routine data
%)
IS' collection effort.
16 DR. MOELLER: Okay. In the material that was 17 provided to us, and I'm looking at your list as I say this, 18 we find, for example, there was a meeting of the states and 19 industry in Tucson in March of ' 89 and I notice here there !
20 is a Technical Coordination Committee on Mixed Waste within 21 the host states. H-O-S-T, the host states, for I guess low-22 level sites. J. Ringenburg from Nebraska is the chairman.
23 And they are looking into this subject and they have this I
24 committee and they are issuing reports.
25 Are you interacting with these pecple?
() Heritage Repoiting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
1 l
1 - _ _ - _ _ - .__ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ ___ ____ _ -_
161
, 1 MR. MARTINA .Not-personally. That's part of I 2 think--is that part of the low-level waste forum activity?
3 We do' send representatives to all the forum meetings.
4 DR. MOELLER: Is EPA interacting with these j 5 people? I mean like you went.to the OTA meeting or you said 6 you did on December the 15th.and 16th. I have a summary of 7 that meeting. But I would think these state meetings would [
8 be--for there to be a coordinating committee among the 9 states, I'd think you'd want to be right on top.of that.
10 Well, we'll ask NUMARC when they speak if they are 11' up with that. I
{
12 DR. STEINDLER: Let's see. Can you tell me 13 whether or not any agreement scates are carrying out 14 attempts to c.:ntact and discuss issues with EPA separately i O
\*# 15 from your activities?
16 MR. MARTIN: 'I don't know of any particular 17 agreement states trying to do that. There are a number of 18 states which are trying to obtain their so-called mixed And some of those states happen to !
19 waste authorization.
20 also be NRC agreement states, l Uh-huh.
21 DR. STEINDLER:
22 MR. MARTIN: But they are dealing with EPA to get 23 their authorization to regulate mixed waste.
24 DR. STEINDLER: Okay. Authorization to regulate l 25 hazardous waste plus being an agreement state is apparently Heritage Reporting Corporation O. (202) 628-4888
162 l 1 not sufficient to also be allowed to regulate mixed waste. i 2 Is that correct?;
3 . MR . MART 7.N: Yes. Let me turn to my next page in 4 the handout.. Thic is where I want to talk a little bit more 5 about the. EPA Interim Shatus Votice that was issued last 6 fall .
7 EPA did issce a Notice last September in the 8 Register,and we subsequently copied it and put a cover 9 letter.on it and sent it to all of our NRC licens6es, and I 10 did bring copies of that with me and they should be part of 11 what was handed out I supposa.
12 But in that Notice they explained the situation ;
l' 13 for EPA direct regulation and for state regulation of mixed 14 waste under a delegation of authority from EPA.
O 15 Basically, BPA regulaten directly rhere a state i
16 does not have a RCRA authorization of what'a called a base i
17 authorization. And EPA does regulate eight states directly.
18 And there's a list of them on the chart. g i
19- DR. MOELLER: And that means in those eight '
20 states,'which ircludes California and Ohio, that these e ;
21 states have not--well, is it comparable to an agreement j 22 stat.a for the NRC? They are not quite an agreement state !
23 for EPA.
- 24 MR. MARTIN: Yes. It's comparable, right.
i 25 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
I l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 l
__..__._________mm.___________.__________a-______-_au-
- 7. .
3
,3
'i' *
.[ 163
). 1 MR4 MARTIN: All right. And for these states-l
.2 where EPA does regulate directly, EPA set a deadline of I
March.24, 1989 for submittal of what's called a Part A 3 i 4 application for a mixed waste treatment, storage or disposal j i
5 facility. , l 6 In other words, if.a mixed waste operator in one
'7 of these EPA-regulated' states fails'to file his Part A B application by March 24, 1989, he no longer is eligible for.
9 what is called interim status. i 10 If.a Part A application is filed in time, the 11 operator automatically obtains what's called interim status j 12 and he's allowed, within the regulations, to continue to 13 operate his facilities.
14 Later on he is called on to submit the more 15~ detailed Part B application and then he is still in interim 1
16 status and allowed to operate until that Part B application 17 is reviewed and acted on.
10 But where a Part A application is not timely 19 filed, interim status is not there and operation is no l
l 20 longer within the regulation.s.
1.
~
21 So if n mixed waste operator in one of thede 22 states has not filed hde Part A application already, because 23 the deadline is past, and he continues to opente a mixed
.24 waste facility, he is operating outside of EPA's 25 regulations. j
)
j' t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4883 1
_~. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
164
\
(r~) 1 Now, we know of several nuclear power plants in l
2 these states that have indeed submitted their Part A 3 applications. And they include the Catawba facility I 4 believe and the H.B. Robinson plant.
5 There are forly-two,other statea which have a base 6 authorization to regulate RCRA for EPA. Only seven of those 7 states, however, have also received their mixed waste 8 authorization.
9 DR. STEINDLER: You talked about the Part A filing 10 by the state. And yet you mentioned a reactor. is this 11 Part A to be filed by the state government?
12 MR. MARTIN: The Part A application is to be filed 13 by a mixed waste facility operator to his permitting agent,
()
14 whether that's EPA, in the case of an EPA-regulated state, I l
15 or the state, if EPA has delegated RCRA authority.
16 DR. STEINDLEh: So that's a facility issue, not a 17 state iesue.
18 MR. MARTIN: That's right.
19 DR. STEINDLFR: Okay.
20 MR. MARTIN: Now, the two are closely tied l 21 together here because a state with a baeo authorization to 22 implement and regulate RCRA cannot regulate mixed waste 23 under RCRA until it also receives a mixed waste l
24 authorization. They must have demonstrated they have mixed j 25 waste authorization and I believe it's four of those states l
( Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation 1
i
~ ,- I 165 i("j 1 have already set deadlines for the filing of Part A 2 application to achieve interim status. In those four states 3 that deadline has come and gone.
4 So in the states where EPA regulates directly and j 5 in those four states which haye their mixed waste 6 authorization and have set dpadlines that have already gone 7 by for filing interim status, any mixed wakte operator in 8 these twelve states total should have already filed their 9 Part A application and obtained interim status in order to 10 be within the regulations.
11 Now, in the other states that do not have their 12 mixed waste authorization yet, they are going to have to 13 come into compliance with EPA requirements and obtain their
(} 14 mixed waste authorization. And that's being worked on by )
15 states individually with various timetables.
16 But in not too long we will have a situation where 17 all the states that have the base authorization also have 18 the mixed waste authorization.
19 But for a lot of facilities, a lot of operators f
l 20 out there that do have mixed waste, they are in states where 21 there is a base authorization but no mixed waste 22 authorization And no deadline has been set for them to file 23 a Part A application, j 24 Aay questions on that before I go on?
l l 25 DR. MOELLER: I hear none. Go ahead.
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l 1
1 .
166
() .
1 2
MR. MARTIN:
DR. MOODY:
Okay.
Just a second.
5 You say that--this is just on.your Vu-Graph that l
4 the interim status deadline for the EPA regulated states has 5 past. ,
6 MR. MARTIN: That's right. It went by a little 7 over a month ago.
8 DR. MOODY: Okay.
9 MR. MARTIN: Now, we don't have a nuclear power i 10 plant that I know of in Hawaii, so we can use that as an 11 example. But suppose there was a nuclear power plant in 12 Hawaii that had mixed waste. And they had not filed their 13 P rt A application by that deadline, they would be outside i
14 of EPA's regulations and in non-compliance. They would be l 15 vulnerable to enforcement by EPA.
16 DR. MOODY: Nell, I live in Ohio so, you know, I 17 was just wondering reading this--so the State of Ohio has 18 nct met their deadline. Uh-huh.
19 MR. MARTIN: It's not the state. It's mixed waste 20 operators in that state.
21 DR. MOODY: Okay.
l 22 DR. MOELLER: Let me follow up on a comment I made 23 a few moments ago about this Host State Technical 24 Coordination Committee which met in March in Tucson. One of 25 the decisions they made at that meeting was to prepare a
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation k _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
x.
I l
?
167
,- 1 mixed waste primer and they are going to have within this f E) 2 basic guide coverage of applicable Federal Regulations, 3 Federal Guidance documents, waste stream information, 4 commercially available treatment methods for mixed waste.
5 e Applicable disposal alt'rnative. And the sixth item is 6 state approaches to developing mixed waste disposal 7 facilities.
8 And the Technical Coordinating Committee will l 9 provide input in the Low-Level Waste Forum will be asked to i 10 provide input and they are going to nominate representatives 11 to participate in a peer review of the draft document and so 12 forth.
13 It sounds like it will be very useful when it 1
j 14 comes out and now that I see that, that's one reason I had
' 15 flagged this as appearing to be of importance.
16 MR. MARTIN: 'That's one activity I haven't been 17 personally involved in to date.
18 DR. MOELLER: I do note in looking at their 19 minutes that both NRC and DOE--
20 DR. MOODY: Yes.
21 DR. MOELLER: --representatives were present at 22 the meeting, so you are involved.
23 DR. STEINDLER: This business of what you call, I 24 guess what you call, I guess what is called an interim 25 status that you get when you file a Part A or whatever it S Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
168 1 is.
(~T s/
2 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
3 DR. STEINDLER: That doesn't require anything but 4 paper. I mean 't doesn't require you to have demonstrable 5 competence, an existing' facility, a capability for analysis, 6 emergency plans, or anything,else, is that correct?
7 MR. MARTIN: A Part A application must be filed 8 and it's a pretty basic form. It doesn't require a lot of 9 detailed information. But after that is filed, then you 10 become subject te EPA regulations as an EPA interim status 11 permittee. You are subject to enforcement. And EPA does 12 have regulations which must be followed by people in interim 13 status. There are specific regulations for people in fs 14 interim status, k
15 DR. STEINDLER: Have you looked at those 16 regulations to determine whether any of them deal with the 17 health and safety of the public?
18 MR. MARTIN: They do deal with the health and 19 safety of the public. I can't give you, you know, quotes l
l 20 from the Regulations.
I'm not looking for that. {
21 DR. STEINDLER: No.
22 MR. MARTIN: I don't remember them myself. But--
23 DR. STEINDLER: All right.
i l 24 MR. MARTIN: They are basically the basic 25 requirements that you would have to follow if you had a Heritage Reporting Corporation
(~}
ss (202) 628-4888
169 gg 1 permit, I believe. But they do lack a lot of the I
\~~ /
2 administrative requirements that are there for you to follow 3 if you have an actual full-scale permit.
4 Again, if that's a bad way to describe that, I
5 please, if anybody could help,me, I'd appreciate it.
i I
6 DR. MOELLER: Gene,.
7 MR. VOILAND: Does that simply give them continued 8 operation until they file and have an accepted Part B in?
9 MR. MARTIN: Yes. The interim status qualifies 10 them to continue in operation until they are called on the 11 file, their Part B application until that application is
.I 12 acted on by EPA or the authorized state. l i
13 MR. VOILAND: It's not a lot different than
_ 14 requesting a permit to be a waste storage facility or a
'- 15 You go through those same stages I processing facility.
16 believe.
17 MR. MARTIN: That's right. The same process for 18 storage treatment or disposal facility. ,
19 I'd like to turn to the next sheet and go over 20 what we see as the key or major issues that we are 21 attempt 1ng to work with EPA to resolve.
22 At the top of the list is the requirement for a 23 minimum sample size of 100 grams in the so-called toxicity i
24 characteristic leeching procedure. If you have waste and, 25 for example, and it has chrome in it, and you are not sure Heritage Reporting Corporation (q_) (202) 626-4888
$ - - --___-_--_o
- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - - - _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_ - _~_ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _
170
. 1 whether if you perform the test it will exceed the limit or 2; not, then you must perform the test and under EPA 3 requirements as they stand at this raoment, you would be in 4 violation if the sample size was not at least 100 grams.
5 We have quite*a number of radioactive waste out 6 there which have enough radioactivity in them so that if you 7 took a 100 gram sample you would have no place in the 8 country.to turn with that sample to have it analyzed under 9 this test. And we do have high levels of radioactivity such 10 that if you were to take and try and transport and analyze 11 in a laboratory using standard techniques, a 100-gram sample 12 size, it would be dangerous.
13 It would also be inconsistent with our l
14 requirements to keep radiation exposures as low as 15 reasone.bly achievable.
i 16 So that is one issue that we are now working on 17 with EPA to attempt to resolve.
18 DR. STEINDLER: You've found no place in the i
l 19 country where you can do this--is that a figure of speech or 20 is that what you perceive to be the real world?
21 MR. MARTIN: That is what I understand is the 22 actual situation.
23 DR. STEINDLER: I see.
24 MR. MARTIN: That special--very, very special l 25 requirements would have to be made for a laboratory to be i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
L
171 o
(_) 1 able to analyze a 100 gram sample size of, say, very high 2 activity resonance.
3 MR. VOILAND: Hot cell with extremely 4 sophisticated equipment for measuring these organic or 5 whatever the heck they hre. ,
6 DR. STEINDLER: We,11, the leeching test isn't all 7 that--I mean that's why I asked. The leeching test isn't 8 all that sophisticated, quite frankly.
9 And I want to drive back to the other question. I i 10 assume that that 100 gram minimum sample size arose not so 11 much arbitrarily, although that number is awfully nice and 12 round, so it may well be arbitrary. But rather it has l 13 something to do with the requirement for sensitivity of the I
I'\ 14 test.
V 15 MR. MARTIN: It has to do with sensitivity of the 16 test perhaps, and also' EPA places a lot of emphasis on 17 making sure that there is a representative sample. And I 18 think they consider that if- you know, the bigger sample you 19 have the more likely it is to be representative.
20 DR. MOELLER: But that was going to be my 21 question. The first thing is what about the i
22 representativeness of the sample, and for many low-level 23 wastes, they are no homogeneous.
24 DR. MOODY: Correct.
25 DR. MOELLER: How are you going to obtain--
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
- g. _ . _ . -- _ _ _
l.
172 l"
rg 1 DR. MOODY: It's depending on what size you talk V
2 about.
3 DR. MOELLER: Yes. How are you going to obtain a 4 representative sample? Does it require that the waste 5 somehow be ground up anh homogenized before you take the l 6 sample? ,
7 MR. MARTIN: I believe that's part of the test 8 procedure.
9 DR. MOELLER: And I wonder how much you have to l
10 grind up to be sure that the sample from which you obtain 11 the--
12 DR. STEINDLER: The answer is obvious, Dave.
13 That's a representative sample that has to be ground up.
- 14 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
(s) 15 DR. MOODY: That's the reasoning behind 100 gram 16 weight is that to get a representative sample?
17 DR. MOELLER: Or Martin thought it was to be sure 18 that you had a large enough sample for the--whatever the--
19 leechate to be quantifiable. )
20 DR. MOODY: 'ih-huh.
21 MR. MARTIN: The second item I've got on th3s list j 22 is land ban storage restrictions. Under what is called I 23 " land ban," EPA has been directed by Congress to establish 24 treatment requirements for waste prior to land disposal.
25 And they have been required to set these treatment Heritage Reporting Corporation
(~)N
( (202) 628-4888 i
f
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N
173
() 1 requirements by certain deadlines.
2 They issued an initial notice which placed 3 requirements on solvents, dioxins. There was a second 4 notice that placed requirements on what they refer to as a 5 " California List" which' includes halogenated organic 6 compounds. .
7 And the rest of their wastes that are hazardous 8 under RCRA they've divided into thirds. And they have set 9 final treatment requirements for what they call "first third 10 wastes." They have proposed treatment requirements for
( .
i 11 t'second third wastes. " And they have not yet proposed 12 requirements for treatment for " third third wastes."
13 When they set requirements final for first third 1
14 and proposed for second third, they deferred setting
/,g~T 15 treatment requirements for those wastes if they were mixed l
}
16 wastes. If they also had radioactivity to the third third.
17 But that deferral wasn't made when they set the original 1 18 requirements in the first couple of notices for solvents,
)
l 19 dioxins and the California List wastes. Which includes 20 halogenated organic compounds.
21 And we do have mixed waste which fall in those 22 categories. For example, I think freon sludge from nuclear i 23 laundries is classified as a halogenated organic compound.
l l 24 DR. STEINDLER: That's independent of toxicity?
l l 25 MR. MARTIN: I think it's a listed waste. So it's
[) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
174
('
t y i not subject to a test procedure.
2 Now, also under land ban, there are storage 3 limitations and there is a requirement that waste not be 4 stored longer than is necessary to accumulate a sufficient 5 quantity for processing *and treatment.
6 There is a requirement not to store for more than 7 one year and if you exceed storage for a year, there is an 8 absolute requirement not to store for more than two years 9 and within that second year, if you are questioned by EPA, 10 you must be able to provide a documented rationale why it 11 was necessary for you to store for longer than a year to 12 accumulate for treatment.
13 Now, our concern has to do with the fact that
() 14 right now there is no way to dispose of mixed waste, and i 15 also for certain wastes subject to land ban storage f
16 limitations, you can't' store it either for longer than a l
l 17 certain period of time.
I 18 Like I say, this is a problem that we in EPA have 19 recognized and we are working to try and resolve it. We l 20 don't have the answer yet.
21 MR. ORTH: Now, this particular problem has been 22 apparent since EPA first promulgated its part of the
! 23 standards. So it would seem that progress is not getting i 24 done very fast. Can you make any kind of a projection?
25 MR. MARTIN: Well, the original problem we saw was O
4,,,/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
._________-____A
175
() 1 one where if you had mixed waste, you couldn't dispose of 2 it, and you would have to store it, and if you stored it, 3 you would need a permit.
4 MR. ORTH: And you can't get the permit.
5 MR. MARTIN: But in.this situation, the 6 Regulations don't allow you even with a permit to store it 7 for longer than a certain length of time.
8 MR. ORTH: The question still is, can you make a 9 project!.sn as to when EPA and NRC might be able to come to 10 some kind of an agreement?
11 MR. MARTIN: I cannot make a projection as to when 12 that might happen. We don't have a schedule, as such, for 13 trying to work this out. We have discussed it with EPA.
() 14 Right now the problem is--seems at least, to only be 15 resolvable by changer to EPA's regulations.
16 DR. STEINDLER: Is it correct that if there were ;
17 no radioactive component to an halogenated waste that is 18 allowed to be stored for only a limited period, there exist i 19 facilities wherein you could dispose of this material?
20 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
21 DR. MOODY: How do you dispose of halogenated 22 organic material?
23 MR. MARTIN: I am not sure what the prescribed 24 treatment is for those compounds.
25 Tim from the side has told me that the prescribed
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
l 176
- 1 treatment is incineration for those compounds.
V, 3 2 DR. STEINDLER: And so I guess what you are saying 3 is that if I could license in some fashion or another a hot 4 incinerator that met the EPA criteria for decontamination, 5 then I would be in business? .
6 MR. MARTIN: That's right. In order to treat 7 mixed waste which is also a halogenated organic compound, 8 you would need a permit as a treatment facility from EPA and 9 a license from NRC.
10 DR. STEINDLER: Okay.
11 DR. MOELLER: In your negotiations with EPA to try 12 to resolve these problems and to ultimately develop a 13 procedure whereby applicants could come in and obtain 14 licenses for mixed waste disposal facilities, is there a 0 15 hidden agenda or something here that we don't know about?
16 In other words, what I'm basically asking is when 17 you go to these meetings, do you feel on both the part of 18 the NRC and EPA that there's a genuine desire to move ahead 19 with this? And therefore the problems are not of the making 20 or they do not originate within the staff of either agency 21 but they originate in the basic laws under which you are 22 trying to operate?
23 MR. MARTIN: I think it's primarily the fact that 24 the laws restrict what EPA can do. Also there is another 25 problem in that when you deal with EPA, you don't deal with Heritage Reporting Corporation j n) t m (202) 628-4888 '
177
,e3 1 just one organizational component. There's a solid waste
(-) 2 unit. There's a land ban unit. There's a separate group 3 which performs enforcement. I mean we are, ourselves, 4 broken down into organizational units, but it's much more 5 difficult for a large a'gency like EPA to move in concert 6 than it is for us. .
d 7 DR. MOELLER: Okay. That's helpful. So when you 8 deal with EPA, it's very difficult to get a decision and to 9 have it apply once and for all? I mean you have to get this j 10 group to agree and then you find out you have to get two or f
11 tlaree more divisions, or whatever they are, to agree?
l 12 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
13 DR. MOELLER: Okay. That's helpful. And that's 14 what we really need to know.
15 And to what degree do the basic laws hamper your 16 progress versus just the total red tape between the two 17 agencies? How much of the slowness is due to that versus 18 the basic laws?
19 MR. MARTIN: Well, the original source of the 20 problem is the laws, and the fact that we have dual 21 regulation. Also, EPA's regulations largely are just the 22 result of what is in the law. In other words, the double 23 liner requirenient for a hazardous waste disposal facility is l 24 a requirement I believe that stems from the law. From the 25 actual legislation. Congress determined that a hazardous 1
,e) Heritage Reporting Corporation
't,j (202) 628-4888
y .. . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
e 178
() 1 waste disposal: facility had to have a double liner.
2 DR. MOELLER: That's helpful.
3 MR. MARTIN: So in order to solve this problem 4 complete, it would take legislation. )
5 DR. MOELLER: 'And y9u have a third point on the--a 6 third issue? .
7 MR. MARTIN: I do have a third point on this 8 chart, and I'm not able to discuss thi s with a lot of 9 clarity because it's very fuzzy to me what the actual 10 testing requirements are going to be.
11 But EPA does have regulations which govern testing 12 of hazardous waste at a disposal facility. And there is a 13 requirement for a disposal facility operator to have a Waste. ,
.() 14 Analysis Plan. That plan is negotiated with the permitting l
. 15 agency when the permit is issued.
16 But there will undoubtedly have to be some testing i 17 of waste by the disposal site operator in a mixed waste '
18 disposal facility.
19 Now, we have minimal requirements in place by way 20 of license condition for low-level waste disposal facility 21 operators to test waste, And they are minimal because of 22 the radiation hazard and because we don't want a lot of 23 packages being opened up at the disposal site and retested.
24 DR. STEINDLER: So your term " testing" here refers 25 to the determination of the contents of packages? j
'( ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
179 1 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
l )
l 2 DR. STEINDLER: You are not also equating that 3 with monitoring wells and the sundry other things that you 4 might do with it?
5 MR. MARTIN: No. I,am talking about the testing 6 of waste packages to determine what the contents are.
7 DR. STEINDLER: In other words, again though, 8 under EPA's manifest system, there is cradle-to grave 9 tracking of all toxic chemical waste--
10 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
11 DR. STEINDLER: --and when a shipment arrives, of 12 course there is paper that accompanies it which supposedly 13 clearly describes how much and of what range of chemicals 14 are in that package and what you are doing here is 15 verifying, I assume, on a random basis of some sort that 16 what they say is there'is true.
17 MR MARTIN: Yes.
18 DR. STEINDLER: Okay.
19 DR. MOELLER: Go ahead. j 1
20 MR. MARTIN: And that's the third point I had on 21 that chart. And, again, that's something we are trying to 22 hammer out with EPA.
23 The last sheet on my handout--I've just got sort 24 of a mix bag, if you will, of items to talk about.
25 Mixed vaste is, for example, on the agenda for Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888 i
t 180
() 1 discussion at the next Inter face Council meeting between NRC i 2 and EEA. It is receiving what you might call higher 3 priority management attention.
4 DR. MOELLER: And the Interface Council, what is 5 that again? ,
6 MR. MARTIN: That $s a group of people which now 7 .have a charter and their mission is to coordinate EPA and 8 NRC activities and to make sure that issues that do exist 9 between the two agencies are discussed, are brought out into 10 the open, and they are given the proper attention.
11 DR. MOELLER: And this is for not only mixed waste 12 but any kinds of interactions?
13 MR. MARTIN: It has to do with any interaction Ii 14 between the two agencies.
U 15 DR. MOELLER: BRC-- >
16 MR. MARTIN: 'BRC, Clean-Air Act Regulations.
17 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. All right. Okay. Good.
18 MR. ORTH: Are these people at a level that they 19 can have anything done? What authority do they have?
20 MR. MARTIN: It's beneath the Commission level, 21 but it's more, I would think, at the Office Director level.
22 MR. ORTH: Okay.
23 DR. MOODY: When is the next meeting?
24 MR. MARTIN: I don't have in my notes the exact 25 date, but I think it's in a month or two. ,
(D ts/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
181 1 DR. MOELLER: How long has the Interface Council O 2 existed? To be honest, if I had heard about it before, it 3 went over me. !
1 4 MR. MARTIN: Again, I apologize for not knowing 5 exactly, but it's been *around.for perhaps a couple of years.
6 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
1 7 MR. ORTH: The answer is they don't have any 8 authority to get anything done then.
9 MR. MARTIN: They serve more or less a 10 coordination function.
11 The second item on my list which I'm happy to be 12 able to point out is the fact that we do have now a line 13 item in our budget for mixed waste. It's a .5 FTE for both 14 of the next two fiscal years. Maybe not a concern to you, O 15 but I'm happy to see it there because it does mean that we 16 have management support.
17 DR. STEINDLER: I'm somewhat underwhelmed by this 18 half FTE. By any other, you know, comparison that I'm aware 19 of, that's almost paramount to saying the whole thing is 20 being ignored. You may be happy to see it, because that may 21 be the first time it's appeared as a line item. But I'm 22 certainly not particularly taken back, except in a negative l 23 way, by that magnitude.
24 MR. MARTIN: Yeah.
25 DR. STEINDLER: Do you have some knowledge of what Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
___x__
e 182 i
f, 1 in fact was requested before the budget process ground it b 2 down to a half FTE? Or maybe even raised it to a half FTE?
3 MR. MARTIN: Well, that's what was submitted in 4 our budget for--
5 DR. STEINDLER*: That's what you submitted.
6 MR. MARTIN: For Office Director approval, and I 7 believe at the Office Director level those numbers have been 8 approved and they have to go forward for further approval 9 before they can be, in fact, considered reality.
10 Now, we've been working on mixed waste all along.
11 It just hasn't been appearing as a line item in our budget.
12 And now it is.
13 DR. STEINDLER: What's been the magnitude of the l 14 effort in FTE's or any other unit that I can understand, 15 say, for the last couple of years?
16 MR. MARTIN: 'Well, it's gone up and down. I would 17 say the last year that I've been involved--since I've been 18 involved with mixed waste, the level of effort has been 19 probably about at this level, .5 FTE.
20 DR. STEINDLER: So it's half of your time, in 21 effect?
22 MR. MARTIN: I think before that there was perhaps 23 more activity when we were involved getting those first 24 three Joint Guidance documents out, and trying to sort this 25 area out for the Commission. Because there were a number of g Heritage Reporting Corporation g (202) 628-4888
__ x_
183 r^)
(, 1 Commission papers being generated and that sort of thing.
2 DR. STEINDLER: Would the process benefit, and by 3 benefit I mean come to sensible conclusions faster if the f 4 amount of resources budgeted by the NRC were to be increased 5 over that half FTE by, let's say, a factor of 5?T 6 MR. MARTIN: I wou,1d think that would certainly be 7 a boost. .
8 DR. STEINDLER: I know it would be a boost. Let 9 me rephrase the question.
10 There are two parties in this and so I'm trying to )
11 find out--
12 MR. MARTIN: That's right. And I think it may 13 very well take more resources applied to the problem at EPA
() 14 to make a big advance in what we can do to make dual 15 regulation a more livable reality for people.
I 16 DR. STEINDLER: What's the size-- ,
17 MR. MARTIN: Because a lot of these problems that i 18 we' re seeing that are being identified to us in 19 correspondence and in meetings are problems which need to be 20 addressed through changes of regulation at EPA.
21 DR. STEINDLER: What's the size of the effort at 22 EPA, do you know?
23 MR. MARTIN: No, I do not know.
24 DR. MOELLER: And at the moment, as I hear you, 25 you have no problem keeping up with EPA. In other words,
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
_ _ _ _ _ _ .____________________________a
184 1
f_ 1 they have a program and you are not too stretched to keep up
(" 2 with what they accomplish and to do your side of the 3 aquation?
4 MR. MARTIN: In general, not terribly hard pressed 5 to keep up with EPA. C'rtainly e more resources applied to 6 the problem would be useful ,and we could perhaps enjoy a 7 better understanding of EPA regulations. If you want to sit {
8 down and try and 1. earn what is in EPA's regulations in these 9 various areas, it takes a' considerable amount of work.
10 And we're often not on an equal footing dealing 11 with EPA for a lack of that knowledge.
12 DR. MOELLER: Well, you know, I have to join with 13 Dr. Steindler. When you first spoke you introduced yourself 14 or you indicated to me you were a Project Director for mixed pm 5J
- 15 wacte. And I thought, well, you know he has five hundred 16 people working for him'and so forth. But it's not quite 17 that way.
18 MR. MARTIN: No , I'm not. I'm Senior Project 19 Manager. And there are other people working on mixed waste.
20 Mr. Johnson is here with me. And my other managers do work 21 on mixed waste as well.
22 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
23 MR. MARTIN: The next item on my final page here 24 io a positive note. We do have mixed waste disposal 25 capability being actively pursued in four states, and they s Heritage Reporting Corporation
,, (202) 628-4888
v ,.
185
{} 1 are listed there. Those states are moving forward with 2 siting design engineering efforts to accommodate mixed 3 waste.
4 DR. MOODY: Can you articulate in any way for a 5 given state, for examp1b, what the volume is we're talking 6 about? How big is, say-- ,
7 MR. MARTIN: We've estimated before that perhaps 8 about 3 percent of low-level waste is mixed waste. And as 9 far as what the actual volumes are I think NUMARC is going 10 to have more to say about that than I could say now, in 11 their study.
12 DR. MOODY: Okay. l l 13 MR. MARTIN: The last item on my agenda will throw 14 a little negative light on things.
15 Toledo Edison Company had a PCB spill at their i
16 Davis Besse facility, 'That spill was into an area where 17 there was some cosiun 137 contamination. So they ended up 18 with what you might call mixed waste. PCB, as it turns out, l
19 are not regulated under RCRA. They are regulated under the 20 Toxic Substances Control Act. So it's more of a hybrid sort l 21 of mixed waste than what we typically have to deal with.
22 But under TSCA there is a limit on storage of 23 spilled waste of one year. And Toledo Edison'was not able 24 to unburden themselves of this waste within that time 25 period. EPA did propose a fine of $10,000. Later on that
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e o l 186
. 1 fine was mitigated to zero. And now after some time, an 2 approach.has been found by which they will be able to treat 1
3 and dispose of this waste.
4 DR. STEINDLER: In your agreed-on definition 5 between yourselves and EPA on, mined waste, is TSCA involved?
6 MR. MARTIN: No, it's nOt.
7 DR. STEINDLER: So they couldn't have been fined 8 presumably if logic prevails for having not taken care of a 9 mixed waste. They were fined presumably for not taking care 10 of-PCB's?
. 11 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Because it was a spill waste 12 specifically that--
13 DR. STEINDLER: And their problem was they 14 couldn't get rid of it.
15 MR.-MARTIN: They couldn't get rid of it because f
l-E16 it had radioactivity in it.
17 DR. STEINDLER: Because it was a mixed waste.
I 18 DR. MOODY: That's right.
19 DR. STEINDLER: Catch 2 was written for purposes 20 like that.
21 MR. MARTIN: That's right.
22 DR. STEINDLER: But it's not a mixed waste.
23 MR. MARTIN: Well, they have found a way now. And 24 what the approach has been is for NRC to authorize disposal I 25 of this particular radioactivity at other than a low-level Heritage Reporting Corporation l
l O (202) 628-4888
- _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _______-____-_-______-_A
1 187
()~ 1 waste disposal facility under 20.302 and with that 2 authorization, and that authorization is limited actually to 3 disposal at an authorized PCB incinerator facility.
4 With that authorization from us in hand, the waste 5 can then be taken to onb of the dozen 9r so incinerators l 6 around the country which ha6, authorization to incinerate PCB 7 waste and then that waste can be incinerated. Even though 8 it does have radioactivity in it. l 9 DR. MOODY: Then what are you going to do with the ,
1 10 residue then? Are you going to even incinerate the cesium?
11 MR. MARTIN: Well, a health and safety review was 12 performed to determine that there was no~-that no particular 13 requirement necessary for a disposal of the residue. The
() 14 level of radioactivity was so slight that that was something 15 that was allowable. Yeah. i 1
16 DR. STEINDLER: You say that the residue was below 17 regulatory concern?
18 MR. MARTIN: No, no. I didn't say that.
19 DR. STEINDLER: Okay.
20 MR. MARTIN: Those are not the right words to use.
21 DR. STEINDLER: Yes, I'm aware of that.
i 22 MR. MARTIN: We did authorize it under a 20.302 l l l I
23 disposal.
, 24 DR. MOELLER: And excuse rie. Unless I-- l l
25 MR. MARTIN: The stuff was laced with PCB.
l
)
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
)
l
e 188
(} 1 DR. MOELLER: Unless I missed it--
2 MR. MARTIN: Very little radioactivity.
3 DR. MOELLER: --did you cover No. 37 Are there 4 going to be four states that have announced they are going 5 to come in for a mixed taste disposal license? Your third i 6 ite.n . .
7 MR. MARTIN: Yes. These four states are actively 8 moving toward providing for mixed waste disposal.
9 DR. MOELLER: And they are going to be upplying 10 for a mixed waste disposal site license?
11 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I think the timing is 12 consistent in that when they submit their application for a I
13 low-level waste disposal site, part of that application is 14 going to ba for a mixed waste unit.
('q 15 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Thank you.
36 DR. STEINDLER: I've got two questions. One of 17 them was asked of us this morning by Commissioner Curtis.
18 And that one is, in effect, knowing what the NRC does to l
! 19 regulate low-level waste, what benefit, and I interpret that 20 to mean what benefit in relation to the health and safety of 21 the public, is added by adherence to EPA regulations, 22 whatever they may be, in the disposal of mixed waste?
23 MR. MARTIN: The best response I can give you to l
24 that is to point you to that part of our response to Alan 25 Pasternak's letter which addressed that issue.
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
-- _._._.--_._________m.m____m
~O' !
1 I
(
189 j
()
/ m. 1 1 DR. STEINDLER: Okay. l l
2 MR. MARTIN: And it did say that we were not sure 1 3 as to what the health benefit would be. J 4 DR. STEINDLER: But the answer is not much, is
= i 5 what you are telling me. , j 6 Okay. My second question is what can this 7 committee do to help you move the ball forward either faster 8 or more efficiently?
9 MR. MARTIN: I think in order to make better 10 progress on this, we're going to need more resources applied 11 to the problem both here and at EPA in concert. And we're 12 going to have to have some flexibility on both sides as 13 well.
34 DR. STEINDLER: Well, 7 wouldn't went you to (J~)
15 -confuse this committee.
16 MR. MARTIN: 'And I'm not sure how much flexibility l
l 17 we' re going to be able to expect when we are, particularly I
l 18 at EPA, tied dawn by the legislation inat we hava. ?
19 DR. STEINDLER: I wouldn't want you to confuse l 20 this committec with a group that has any influence of the l
21 EPA.
1 j 22 On the other hand, we have from time to time had 23 some useful discussions with representatives of the EPA >
1 24 MR. MARTIN: Uh-huh.
l l 25 DR. STEINDLER: And it may well be worthwhile just l
1
(/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488R f
i
i .
l 190 1 to establish at least a forum, as far we're concerned,
[v')
l 2 for us to understand better what they are doing and why they f
l 3 are doing it. That may be useful.
l l 4 DR. MOELLER: Yes. I would say, Martin, that if 5 we could have EPA and even L0E in to ciscuss this we might I
6 make a contribution that way, 7 Is that it then?
I 8 MR. MARTIN: That's all I had prepared to say at
) -
9 this time. I hope'I've been helpful.
10 DP. MOELLER: You have. And thank you for being 11 with us and answering our queations.
)
12 We are planning to move on with the industry l 13 presentation, but I think this is a good point at which to 14 take a break.
{
l 15 So we'll break until a quarter of three.
16 (Whereupon, tnere was a short break.)
17 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume please.
18 And we've now, of course, talked to the NRC st.aff i
l 19 in terms of the mixed waste question and ue now will hear a 20 report from NUMARC on this subject and we have with us Lynne 21 Fairabin.
?
22 Welcome, and we look forward to what you have to 23 say.
24 MS. FAIRABIN: What I'd like to talk abcut today 25 is a study that NUMARC has underway entitled ths Management l
G Heritage I% porting Corporation i,
' ')
(202) 628-4888 L
_ ____ __--__ -- _ a
I L
191 j 1 of Mixe1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste in the Commercial 2 Nucleat Power Industry. l i
d 3 But before I go into some of the summary points ir l 4 this draft report, since.it's NUMARC's first opportunity to 5 speak directly with you'all, I thought I'd'take a minute or l
- 6 two and just tell you who NUMARC is for those who might not 7 be familiar with us.
8 NUMARC stands for the Nuclear Management and --
9 Council. And we were for$1ed, boy, it's about two years, 10 April. And what our mission statertent is is that we provide
~
11 a unified nuclear power approach on generic nuclear 12 operational and technical regulatory issues and we interact 13 primarily with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but we also l 14 have the charge to interact with other government agencies 15 as appropriate on those issues of concern to the commercial l 16 nuclear power indusury'.
17 NUMARC is one of two organizations that is funded L
l 18- and has membership from all fifty-four nuclear power plants
! 19 in this country. And the way at which we arrive at number l
20 fifty-four is that those are the actual utilities that are 21 Jisted either on the construction permit or the operating 22 license by the Nucienr Regulatory Commission.
~
23 This briefly just shows our organizational' L 24 structure. We have a Board of Directors which overseae and l
l 25 directs our activities. From a day-to-day level, Byron Lee 1
1 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I
- j 192 1 is our President and Chief Executive Officer. And of l O 2 interest to you all I think is how we are formed at a )
3 technical or a staff level.
4 We have four divisions and the two divisions that q 5 are of real interest is'the T9chnical Division, which is -
6 under the direction of Bill Raisen, and just briefly, in a 7 nutshell, they are responsible for the real hardware 8 operational issues of a power plant.
m .
4 9 The Division that I'm out of is the Authorizations 10 Management and Support Services, and basically we have 11 responsibility for radiation protection related issues, 12 emergency planning, and other issues such as the maintenance 13 rules, fitness for duty, access authorization, standard-tech 14 specs, those that are non-hardware related.
15 This is a little bit about not only do we interact j 16 with NRC, but we also interact with other industry I
17 organizations.
l 18 As I mentioned briefly, we do have membership from 19 all fifty-four utilities. We also have what's called a
( 20 participant member. And the participant members are l
21 represented by the four NSS vendors and we have four 22 architect engineering firms. Babcock and Wilcox, Combustion 23 Engineering, United Engineering, and Floor Daniel. Stone 24 and Webster--I'm trying to think of who else I forgot. I 25 can't think.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
193
() 1 We also interact very heavily with the four owners 2 groups for the reactor design and other industry 3 organi?.ations.
4 And the next slide vill show a little bit of how 5 we came to be where we'*re at pnd some of those other 6 industry organizations. ,
7 DL. MOELLER: Excuse me, Lynne.
8 MS. FAIRABIN: Yes.
9 DR. MOELLER: You didn't show EPA. l'ow, do you 10 interact with EPA?
11 MS. FAIRABIN: Yes. EPA comes under the term of 12 "Other Federal Regulatory Agencies."
13 DR. MOELLER: Okay. Thank you.
14 MS. FAIRABIN: And basically really where we come I
r"}
v' 15 into interacting is the highest percentage for other federal 16 agencies is in radiation protection. And we interact 17 heavily with EPA and the Department tf Transportation and 18 then in Emergency Planning, we interact heavily with FEMA.
i 19 DR. MOELLER: Okay, thank you. l l
20 MS. FAIRABIN: When the Nuclear Power Oversight 21 Committee looked at industry organizations a few years ago, 22 one of the things they attempted to do was realign us so 23 that they did away with some of the duplication of effort 24 that was ongoing.
25 A lot of people are very familiar with the Atomic l
l l
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation i
1 I
I
. .- . - . _ _ - --____-___.-_-u-
t 194
() 1 Industrial Forum. AIF, in the reorganization by INPO, 2 disappeared. And was really merged in with what was called 3 the U.S. Committee on anergy Awareness. And they formed the 4 U.S. Council on Energy Awareness. The only aspects really 5 from the AIF that came Into NUMARC and merged with what was 6 called NUMARC as a committee. organization was the Technical 7 and Licensing Prc' grams as they related to the commercial 8 nuclear power industry.
9 The Technical and Licensing Programs as they are 10 related to the back end of the fuel cycle also were folded 11 in to U.S. CEA as well as the Public Affairs Program.
12 The ANEC, or the American Nuclear Energy Council, 13 is the lobbying group and deals primarily with representing
() 14 the nuclear power industry on Capitol Hill.
15 One group that is not on this slide, because they 16 were not really involved in the merger, is the Edison 17 Electric Institute. And we interact very heavily with the 18 Edison Electric Institute as well as the Utility Nuclear l 19 Waste and Transportation Program, which it a separately 20 funded industry group tied in with EEi.
21 Before I get into the purpose of our study, I'd f 22 like to mention that back at the licensee table with me is l
23 Bryan Ferrell, who is the Project Manager for the Utility 24 Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program on Low-Level Waste 25 Issues. And Bruce Watson, who is the Plant Health Physicist
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620<4888 i
l 1
195 .
rs 1 .and a member of my task force from Baltimore Gas and cQ 2 Electric.
3 The purpose of the NUMARC study was to examine 4 practices of low-level waste generated in the area of 5 generation management and disposal of mixed low-level waste.
6 The study intends to evaluate impacts of existing regulation 7 and regulatory guidances on those practices. And hopefully 8 provide recommendations for use by both the generators, in 9 this case, the commercial nuclear power plants and the 10 regulators, both NRC and EPA, in establishing a technically 11 sound and cost-effective mix low-level waste program.
12 One thing I'd like to say is that we have limited 13 our report te mix low-level radioactive waste. The report l
l 14 will not discuss the management of those categories in I
CE) 15 greater than Class C or if mixed high-level waste exists.
16 To aid me in'this project, I bave a Mixed Waste 17 Task Force and we have representatives from fifteen 18 different utilities.
l l 19 And at this point I'd like to add, I'd like to add 20 that in selecting the utility representatives, one of the 21 things that we tried to do was get representation from both 22 the Low-Level Waste Project Managers or Program Managers as 23 well as those utility experts that were expert in RCRA, in 24 dealing with simply chemical and hazards waste at the 25 nuclear power plants.
l
(" Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 1
l
- - _ _ __________--__.---_-____-_-___-_-_A
196
() 1 We have ten consultant organizations and basically 2 these fold in from the fact that they were liaisons or 3 members to the Atomic Industrial Forum. This study was 4 initially conceived under AIF before it was disbanded. We 5 have three liaisons and'they pre very critical in my mind to l 6 the study and to what we are,trying to do. The three 7 liaisons are DOE, NRC and EPA.
8 And we have three other industry organizations
~
9 that are involved with us as well. Utility Nuclear W&ste 10 Transportation Program, the Electric Power Research 11 Institute, and also the Atomic Nuclear Energy Council, ANEC.
12 The reason for these other industry organizations l
13 is to help us coordinate from the regulatory sense and our 14 purview on generic regulatory issues with other programs
(]) t 15 that these other organizations may have underway. l 16 When we started out, you heard Dan Martin mention 17 earlier that one of the first Joint Guidance memorandums 18 that EPA and NRC issued was addressing the definition of 19 mixed low-level radioactive waste.
20 This is a flow chart simply listed from that Joint 21 Guidance memorandum as to what one would go through in order j 22 to define whether or not a material is mixed 10w-3svel 23 waste. I throw this up because we have '.nodified this in the l
24 study. We use this as our starting point.
l 25 The next couple of slides in your handout are out l
O(
%s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
_ s_ _ .
1 197
{} 1 2
of order and I apologize for that, but in the Xeroxing of them they got a little bit out of order.
3 In trying to define what is mixed waste, there are 4 several aspects, as their flow chart and their guidance 5 memorandum directed us lo look at. One was that only the 6 radioactive materials are regulated under the authority of 7 the Atomic Energy Act. That other non-radioactive materials 8 contaminated by or containir.g radioactive materials are not 9 regulated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, but 10 they are regulated under RCRA and HSWA.
11 That materials regulated under the Atomic Energy 12 Act and not regulated under RCRA, there was some differences
)
13 in the definition of byproduct at the time between what was 14 originally conceived and what is now in fact being l k_
15 regulated.
16 At one point'under the byproduct definition, it l
l l
17 was assumed that not only the radioactive components, but 18 the other materials tied up with those were also regulated 19 under AEA.
20 EPA has issued some clarif.ication and said no. In 21 fact, those materials are the materials that are handled 22 under RCRA. And that I think is partly why we are into the 23 whole mixed waste and dual regulation problem.
l 24 We sort of went on and looked at some other 25 definitional problems as to how one would identify what was
\
() ~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
-s .
l l
l 198
() 1 hazardous waste. In waste sampling neecs, manufacturing 2 processing units, what do we do on site at a commercial 3 nuclear power plant that we use hazardous materials in. And j I
i 4 where are they used? What residues are in containers and 5 others? Is that residue a hazardous waste? And dischargers l 6 that are currently made from,the commercial nuclear power 7 plants under the Clean Water Act and what might come inte 8 play there.
9 Some of the itspects of the hazardous waste 10 definition that we are trying to wrestle with is what's 11 called the Mixture' Rule definition. And basically this is 12 an interesting aspect under RCRA because it says that if the l
l 13 material in the mixture is listed only for Subpart C 14 characteristics only, then that material may or may not,
')
15 once incorporated into a mixture material, be hazardous. If l 16 the mixture itself does not manifest a hazardous 17 characteristic defined in Subpart C, as was mentioned 18 carlier, toxicity, procivity, ignitability and reactivity, 19 that mixture material may or may not be mixed low-level 20 waste.
, 21 If, however, one of the components of the mixture 22 is listed for other than Subpart C characteristics--for 23 example, it's a listed solvent on EPA's list--then the 24 mixture is in all cases mixed low-level waste.
25 Formulated substances.. One of the things that's
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 629-4888
3
\
l
. l 199 1 giving us a great deal of difficulty or concerns are 2 definitions of whether or not a rag or a cloth that one uses 3 with spent solvents on it to decontaminate an area, whether 4 that cloth is mixed low-level waste.
1 5 EPA, I undersland now, is working on a 6 clarification of that. Whether or not we might be able to i 7 exempt those cloths if, for example, they contained less 8 than 10 percent by weight volume of the solvent.
9 Waste oil. Waste oil is an interesting hazardous 10 component because it is not currently listed as a hazardous 11 item by EPA. However, it is listed by several states. EPA 12 currently also, I believe, has waste oil back under remand 13 to see whether or not they need to redefine this as a l
14 hazardous material.
l
( 15 And waste treated in accumulation containers 16 within the generators accumulation time, how the mixture 17 rule applies to this, if the listed waste is involved.
18 We are looking at in the study several cf these l
19 aspects of the definition as mixed low-level waste.
20 In doing that, we have expanded upon that initial 21 flow diagram that NRC and EPA had in the Joint Guidance. It l 22 goes into a little more detail for our utility members to 1
i 23 take a look at and hopefully help them answer whether or not 24 their material will remain mixed low-level waste.
25 For example, when you get down to is the low-level l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
- - ----_-------______----______J
- r. .
200
() 1 waste mixture of listed waste other than what's called an 2 FOO3 solvent and solid waste. If it is, and it can be 3 discharged under the Clean Water Act, it's not a mixed 4 waste. If it cannot be discharge under the Clean Water Act, 5 then it potentially is h mixed low-level waste.
6 We are trying to look at all of the various 7 different arguments and scenarios one could hypothesize 8 under both regulations in order to help our utilities 9 characterize the waste as'they are managing it on site.
10 We are establishing a methodology for estimating 1 11 mixed generation rates. I think one of the P.qgest 12 questions I got asked all the time is how mucu 1.;xed low-13 level waste does the commercial nuclear power industry I l
(} 14 generate?
l 15 One of the fundamental premises when we undertook 16 this study was the aspect that hazardous materials are not 17 created in the power plant. That a supplementary premise to f
18 that is that a hazardous waste is generated only when 19 hazardous materials, and I mean these are in terms of 20 chemically, are either discharged or through contact with 21 other hazardous materials in the power plant.
22 And what we are saying is the hazardous material 23 is any material which would be a hazardous waste when 24 discarded or intended for disposal. Primarily focused to 25 EPA's definition of '. hazardous material or a hazardouc
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y ,, -___, - - _ _ . - _ _-- - - - _ - .
4 201 1 waste.
V 2 One of the questions we still have and our EPA 3 liaison is working with us to provide us clarification of 4 just when is a waste a waste under EPA rules.
5 There are sevbral limits and cautions that in 6 talking about the study at this point in time, in particular 7 I want to draw your attention to before we get into some of 8 the volume numbers and doses assessment values that we have 9 calculated.
10 I really would like to stress that the estimates 11 as far as quantity of waste generated presented are really 12 presented to illustrate the methodology which we are going 13 to suggest that the utilities use and characterize it. And 14 not to actually definitively say that this is the actual p
v amount of mixed waste that the commercial industry might 15
( 16 generate.
)
l 17 These are potential sources of mixed low-level 18 waste. They may not be mixed low-level waste when an 19 individual plant does their analysis on the waste stream.
20 That as a result of this, the assumptions used in estimating 21 the volumes are extremely conservative.
22 One of the directions that I gave to our 23 contractors, who is Rogers and Associates, was that if they 24 could not cite data to substantiate that the mixed low-level 25 waste stream would not be mixed waste in all cases, then g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7_,_.
202
() -1 they were to leave the waste stream in the associated volume 2 as a potential mixed low-level waste.
3 And that we also focused on what regional 4 practices individual facilities generally go through and 5 cause generation of substantial smaller volumes of mixed 6 waste. For example, volume reduction, compaction of dry 7 active waste, rags, et cetera.
8 We started with taking a look at what chemicals or 9 hazardous materials are typically used by the power plant.
10 One of the things we did was take a look at what chemicals 11 are ordered, what volumes, what replacement rate, and then 12 we took e look to see which of those chemicals are used in 13 an area that we defined as the power block. And in our
(} 14 terminology for power block in this study, it's equating it 15 to an area where they could potentially come in contact with 16 some radiation contamination. And to determine which waste 17 was produced by which activity of the plant, i 18 For example, in doing decontamination, what waste l
I i 19 might result in the decontamination resonance? What might 20 be typical waste generated by laboratory analysis and 21 sampling of potential waste stream?
22 We wanted to also then determine if the waste had 23 a radioactive component as well. We then tried to estimate 24 annual volumes in the generation rate. And then we are 25 attempting to characterize the waste in terms of hazardous
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_______--_-__---_-_-_-----_y .- ----
l 4
203
() 1 and radioactive content, so that we know what it is in that 2 waste stream that is causing it to be a mixed low-level 3 waste.
4 On our first cut, and here's the numbers that I 5 really caution that are* ultra-conservative and are very 6 preliminary at this time--we,ll, they are preliminary at this 7 point. I won't say "very."
8 DR. MOELLER: By ultra-conservative, you mean they 9 are larger than probably is true?
10 MS. FAIRABIN: Yes. And they are larger than, for j 11 example, if one were to take these estiraates for both a BWR 12 and a PWR, in either case, as an as-generated volume or as 13 an as-disposed volume, and went to say, for example, Duke 14 Power, who has a Part A permit and has estimated their
{" }
15 volumes on their Part A permit, you would see that these are 16 greater than what the Duke Power Part A permit illustrates.
17 And part of the reason is we made no assumptions 18 in doing our waste stream identification that certain waste 19 streams may not be prosent at each individual power plant.
20 I think that is safe to say that when we look at all of the 21 waste streams we've identified in the report, I don't think 22 there's any one power plant, whether it's a boiler or a 23 pressurized water reactor, that would have all waste 24 streams.
25 MR. FARRELL: Lynne, as you point out, these are I
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation I
204
() 1 sort of a worst-case analysis--
2 MS. FAIRABIN: That's right.
3 MR. FARRELL: And from what we've seen from actual 4 Part A's that have been filed and the number of cases, as 5 Dan Martin pointed oute 'arlier, there are half a dozen 6 utilities that have already filed Part A's. And from those 7 that have been filed, they've generally been on the order of 8 a few hundred cubic feet, because they don't have all of 9 these various sources, as Lynne pointed out. Which also 10 squares with Dan's number of on the order of 3 percent of 11 the utility low-level waste stream.
12 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me. You had introduced Brian 13 earlier, but for the record, it's Brian Farrell with the
T 14 Edison Electric Institute.
(' )
15 MS. FAIRABIN: And I also would like you to know 16 that these were as we started the study. Now, as we 17 continued in the study, we took a look at what could we do 18 to the waste streams initiated identified that might help us 19 to lower these volume estimates?
l 20 One of the things that comes out is that there are 21 certain solvents that are being used in the commercial 22 nuclear power industry that may be a listed solvent. And if 23 you use that material, there's really no way to get around l
l 24 the mixed low-level waste problem if it's used where it can 25 come in contact with radioactive contamination.
(~)T
(_ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
205
() 1 Some of the other utilities, however, are using 2 what's called an F003 spent solvent. And those solvents are 3 not a listed solvent, and may only be a hazardous material l
4 if they manifest the four characteristics. So therefore the 5 waste with those solvents may,not be a mixed low-level 6 waste. ,
7 One of the things we're hoping to share industry-8 wide from this is practices that are in common use at some 9 utilities that others may'not be familiar with, where 10 substitutions of solvents could be made.
11 Another is that it may be possible to process the 12 characteristic hazardous waste to render them 13 characteristically non-hazardous. That is allowed by EPA 14 regulations.
15 What procedures can be implemented at a particular 16 site or industry-wide to preclude the possibility of 17 radiological contamination or increased volume?
18 One of the common terms that I use a lot in 19 talking about it is the need to front end manage the 20 chemicals before we take them into the power block area.
21 For example, if you have a ten gallon can of 22 solvent and you only need a pint amount when you go in, 23 don't take the whole ten gallon can in with you.
24 Some of this seems to be common practice or 25 logical assumption, but for those who only deal with I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
206 1 chemicals'on a daily basis and are not involved with
- h. ' 2 radiation concerns, it may not be so logical for them to cut 3 down the volume.
4 One of the waste streams we identified is that in 5 doing welding and using'well rods, that can be a content in 6 these, once subjected to EP toxicity tests, may not be shown 7 to exhibit that characteristic.
8 This is one of the waste streams that we do not 9 have generic data or definitive data to say in all cases 10 this would be true. So therefore in the report the volumes 11 that this waste stream generates show up as potential low-12 level waste. In fact, the util_ ties that have tested these 13 things are finding out that they do not manifest the EP 14 toxicity characteristics, and therefore would only be a low-0 15 level waste product.
16 And that if one could tie for whatever reason the I
17 timing of infrequent events and use o'f material to 18 procedures that are ongoing, to maintenance activities that 19 may be underway, and plan for that, we may be able over time 20 to decrease some of the generator of some of these waste 21 streams.
22 DR. .IOODY : Lynne, just a point of clarification.
23 What is EP toxicity?
24 MR. FARRELL: It just means toxic under the EPA 25 regulations.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(). (202) 628-4888
4 207
(} 1 DR. MOODY: Okay. Gotcha.
2 MS. FAIRABIN: That's the common term used.
3 DR. MOODY: Then why don't you say EPA.
4 MR. FARRELL: EP is extraction procedure.
5 MS. FAIRABIN Extraction procedure toxicity test.
6 DR. MOODY: Okay. ,Thank you.
7 DR. MOELLER: Earlier you pointed out that certain 8 utilities had ways of handling mixed waste.
9 MS. FAIRABIN: Uh-huh. ,
10 DR. MOELLER: And you've given us now numbers of 11 the conservative estimates of the volumes. What are all the 12 other utilities doing then with these wastes?
13 MS. FAIRABIN: Well, I didn't mean to mislead that l 14 they had ways of handling mixed waste. They may, for 15 example, in their common practice use a solvent other than 16 acetone for a decon procedure, okay. Because they like that 17 solvent better, okay. The individual doing the maintenance 18 or the decontamination work.
19 Whereas at another utility that individual may 20 always use acetone no matter when they do that activity. j 21 Not recognizing that acetone is listed agent and is always 22 going to generate a mixed low-level waste product. Whereas 23 the substitution of the solvent with, say, something listed 24 as an FOO3 class solvent will do the job as effectively and 25 not generate the mixed waste. That's what I'm talking about
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
208
() 1 managing there.
2 The other thing is that the utilities who have 3 filed and gone through the Part A permitting process are 4 really the ones that have taken a close hard look at 5 managing their chemical's within the power block regions of 6 the plant. .
7 The other utilities who at the time had not gone 8 through Part A permitting simply nad not really focused on 9 this issue yet.
10 DR. MOELLER: Well, is there an educational 11 program underway to acquaint the utilities with the fact 12 that acetone.gives them problems?
13 MS, FAIRABIN: Yes. One of the things that we'll
, 14 do-with this report once it's finalized, our procedures then
(~}
15 are to send it out to all of the fifty-four utilities.and as 16 part of that, there will be a recommendation section geared 17 to the activities at the power plant versus recommendations ;
18 that might fall more under the jurisdiction of either one of 19 the regulatory agencies.
20 The other aspect ie that there is a new group 21 within the ASME that has recently been formed called an 22 Operating Committee of the ASME on mixed low-level waste.
23 There are many utility representatives on that and one of 24 the goals of this ASME committee is to foster and share 25 technology with other generators within the same industrial I
(h Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
209 l( f 1 practices. There's also representative from universities, 2 radiopharmaceuticals, hospitals, et cetera.
3 And one of the things they see down the road is 4 individual subcommittees that will focus, for example, a 5 subcommittee on nuclear' power plants and hold a workshop on 6 technology exchange. .
7 And I think it's currently a gap that nobody is 8 really focusing and trying to coordinate and ASME is 9 attempting to do that with this new Operating Committee.
10 MR. FARRELL: Of course, Mr. Moeller, also through 11 industry associations like there are committees--in fact, we 12 have a committee expressly to deal with-mixed waste to try L 13 and share this kind of knowledge to help minimize 14 generation.
(])
15 I'm sure you know, as your question points out, l
16 these are forward-looking activities in an effort to further 17 reduce future volumes. Needless to say, past volumes of 18 mixed waste that have generated cannot be disposed of and 19 therefore are stored on site.
20 DR. MOELLER: Thank you.
21 MS. FAIRABIN: Some of the other changes in the 22 assumptions in order to--I'll use decrease the original 23 volume estimates, is that the synerlation cocktails again 24 may not exhibit the ignitability characteristic when tested.
l 1
i 25 Chromate bearing iron exchange resonance which in the report l
[
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
l l
I l
210
() 1 is a very large volume waste stream, when tested by the 2 individual utility, has not to date shown to be a mixed low-3 level waste stream.
4 However, that testing has to be done on an 5 individual generator-byL generator basis so there is no 6 generic testing data one could say this would always be the 7 case.
8 Plus the processes are so independent from plant 9 to plant that I think in particular for resonance, it would 10 be very difficult to design a generic testing to say that 11 the resonance in all cases would not be mixed waste.
12 Decontamination resonance again is the same thing i
t 13 as the chromate bearing iron exchange. They may not show
/~T 14 the characteristic once tested, j (_/
l 15 And that individual plants may have, again, design 16 and operating feature which do not produce mixed waste 1 *7 streams assumed in this estimate.
18 So therefore, any one plant would probably not 19 have the total volume that we're showing in the report.
20 Once we went through this exercise of trying to l 21 identify and quantify, we think that still as a conservative l
l 22 estimate if one does not loc.- on an individual test-by-test j 23 case basis, that you can decrease the as-generated volume to 24 perhaps 2900 cubic feet per year per unit. And the as-25 disposed volume more likely would be on the order of 750 1
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
211
(} 1 cubic feet per year. I l
2 Duke Power Plant, for example, in their Part A
'3 permit, I believe their estimates per unit are on the order 4 of 300 cubic feet per year.
5 DR. MOELLER: 'Excusp me. Once again, the 6 difference in the as generated and as-disposed is because i
7' you've done some treatment-- K l
8 MS. FAIRABIN: Some treatment, or, for example, !
9 compaction.
10 DR. MOELLER: Okay. l 11 MS. FAIRABIN: Compaction right now is being 12 looked at by EPA as to whether or not that technology is a 13 treatment process. And that's going to be one of very much 14 concern because we routinely, in order to decrease low-level 15 waste volume, compact everything.
16 When we got 6hrough this and it's clear if you 17 look at it in your handout, but one of the things that we 18 are trying to do for the utilities is to say that if you go 19 through this process and you come out to find that you do 20 have a waste, where does that waste have to go and how does 21 one have to handle it?
22 One of the things we haven't talked about is the 23 application of--and I hate really to bring that up here, but 24 below regulatory concern in the mixed-waste arena. We have 25 information from NRC and EPA that if the radioactive Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m ,.
212 1 component.of a mixed low-level waste would meet NRC's
(~}
v 2 regulations as being defined to be below regulatory concern 3 once those regulations are promulgated, that the material 4 could be handled and disposed of in a hazardous waste 5 treatment storage and disposa} facility.
1 6 One of the other things we are trying to call !
7 attention to in the study from the view of what should the 8 utilities know, is what to do to avoid mixed waste 9 generation. And some of these, like I said, now that we've 10 been through the study are very obvious They weren't so 11 obvious when we started a year ago. One is to exclude the i 12 hazardous materials from the power plant, control their use, 13 substitute where possible for listed items, process to 14 remove the characteristics from a characteristically O 15 hazardous waste.
16 Oil. Oil is'a big volume at the utilities. It's i 17 not hazardous right now by EPA. For example, one of the 18 utilities which has plants in both South Carolina and North 19 Carolina, their estimates ef mixed waste volumes differ by 20 1,000 cubic feet a year. " hat 1,000 cubic feet is in the 21 state where oil is a hazardous material.
22 DR. MOELLER: Well, now, this oil is from the 23 diesels or what? Is it like you drain the oil from your 24 car? Is it that?
25 MS. FA1RABIN: I yield to Bruce to answer that. i
. ,Q Ueritage Reporting Corporation v (202) 628-4888
i 4
213
() 1 MR. WATSON: Primarily reactor coolant pumps.
2 Reactor coolant pumps and other turbine generator rould be--
3 that normally stays clean, but primarily pumps and other 4 operating equipment in the plant.
5 DR. MOELLER: 'Well,,now, of course the oil in your 6 car, you have the wasto oil from an automobile engine. You 7 have many toxic chemicals in that due to the coThustion 8 process and so forth. I gather that's not true for these 9 oils at the nuclear power plants?
10 MR. WATSON: Not to my knowledge. The oil is 11 simply a lubricating oil.
12 DR. MOELLER: Lubricating. Thank you. And the l 13 only thing would be any metal that has dissolved or worn.
14 Okay.
15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e
-214
()L l DR. MOELLER: Excuse me. Can you run oil through 2 an ion exchange--I wouldn't think that you could. What are 3 we talking about?
4 Can someone help me about what you do to fill up-5 the oil? ,
6 MS. FAIRBIN: Do ypu want the process?
7 DR. STEINDLER: You're talking about very small 8 particule.tes.
9 MR. MOELLER: Well particulate you could remove.
10 MR. WATSON: In most cases, the contamination 11 component in the oil is an iron or a metal oxide that is 12 suspended in the oil and it is filtered.
13 MR. MOELLER: Okay. Thank you.
) 14 Dr ORTH: I don't think that the power plants 15 will have the kind of contamination that does exist in'other
}
'16 facilities where it is' perfectly possibly to get materials
[
17 that are soluble in the oil and those you have to just 18 incinerate.' .You simply can't get them out. But here it 19 should all be particulate.
l 20 MR, MOELLER: Okay.
21 MS. EAIRBIN: Some of the other things that we can 22 do to manage unavoidable mixed waste, that which, you know, I
[ 23 by all the other things we have talked about that you cannot 24 cause them to no longer be a mixed waste stream.
25 One is to work to minimize their generation, 1
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
f'
215
( 1 reduce the volume is tied in with that. The other thing is 2 potentially to treat in the accumulation container, a tank 3 within the generator's accumulation tank. I 4 Some of this getsy unless one is a real RCRA 4 5 expert, which I am not,'but fortunately we do have some 6 members of the task force thpt are, as well as the DOE 7 liaison and the EPA liaison are much more familiar, 8 obviously, with the RCRA requirements but the is some ;
9 treatment processes within the accumulation tank itself that 10 one can take without being a permitted treatment facility, 11 currently under EPA.
12 One of the other things that is a potential l
13 recommendation, in order to avoid the need for, say a 107 rw 14 individual Part A or in Part B permit for the utilities b would be to look at a central mixed waste storage facility.
15 16 Someplace where the inflividual utilities could ship within 17 the 90 day time frame and have it stored there and you would 18 have that as a permitted facility rather than each utility 19 in each power plant.
20 An option that might have to be explored, you 21 heard Dan allude to some of the aspects that would need 22 legislative or regulatory change from EPAs purview as to 23 what their current regulations are, methods for doing that, 24 petition for general or individual rule changes, either 25 petition as NUMARC EIU waste, on behalf of the entire O neritese neverei=9 cerver tie-(202) 628-4888
vs. .
l fi 216 1 industry where it is a generic waste stream problem or an. f 2 individual utility petitioning to someone-for exemption from 3 the rule or a change.
4 To use a once promulgated a BRC regulation, in 5 conjunction with mixed low level waste where the rag 6 component would be BRC and tpen to handle that as imply a 7 hazardous waste. And, in those cases, to take a harder look 8 at and the need to manage those as greater than Class C 9 waste, where that is appl:i. cable, where the waste would not 10 be within the definition of low level waste. j 11 MR. FAREGLL: Lynn, if I might interject.
12 Nonetheless, your study is doing the best to ;
13 identify what mixed waste is and where it comes from and how i 14 to reduce it, but we always seem to come up with, at the end 15 .of it all, their probably will be a small amount of mixed 16 waste that we can't help but generate and as we discussed 17 with NRC and EPA many times, they both feel that, by law, 18 they are required to be involved in the. process and you 19 don't have any choice to be involved in the processe !
20 So as I believe was said earlier, the only way to 21 really completely fix that. dual regulation problem is 22 through legislation.
23 DR. STEINDLER: I don't think I understand the 24 greater than Class C comment of your last slide. Greater 25 than Class C, C is still low level waste, one would expect l.
O erit ce xegerti=9 cerror tie =
(202) 628-4888 7 - i .. j
217
() 1 it to continue to remain te be a mixed waste.
2 MS. FAIRBIN: les, but it would not be a mixed low 3 level waste that could go to one of the compacted sites that 4 are currently, there are four of them that are in their 5 design process right nok, designing four with the ability to k
6 handle or dispose of mixed 1,cw level waste in the greater !
7 than the Cl39s C component. If any of this low level waste 8 falls into that definitional area, silt could not go into 9 one of those uited compact disposal facilities and would 10 have to be managed, eithur by DOE or some other procedural 11 mechanism.
12 MR. FARRELL: It's not actually--it wouldn't be 13 excluded necessarily from the sites, but it is federal
(~)
%/
14 responsibility under the Low Level Waste Policy Act, so
(
15 therefore DOE is responsible--has taken on the 16 responsibility for disposing of greater than C. It shifts it 17 elsewhere.
18 DR. STEINDLER: It isn't at all clear to me, from 19 what I have heard today that the material that contains the 20 radio activity levels at greater than Class C levels, but 21 also contains hazardous a waste component is still DOEs 22 responsibility.
23 MR. FARRELL: Why do you say that?
24 DR. STEINDLER: Well, tell me where it says that 25 is DOEs responsibility.
/~
(>) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
__ _j
\
218' ]
1 MR. FARRELL: 'In the Low Level Waste Policy 1
' \A) .
J 2 Amendments Act,Eit says that. disposal of any waste that is
- 3. greater than Class C is the responsibility of the federal l
4 government and DOE has said that is us, 5 DR. STEINDLER': I think it .says greater than Class l u
L' I'm drawing a J 6 C low level waste, not mixed, waste.
7 distinction--I'm trying to draw a distinction.
8 MS. FAIRBIN: 1 see the distinction you're making ,
1 9 and that would even make the situation worse because then in 10 that case--
11 MR. FARRELL: Exactly, 12 MS. FAIRBIN: --then definitely the question ist 13 Is there anybody who would have the responsibility for that, 14 little own a facility which could take it.
O 15 DR. STEINDLER: That's the point I am raiaing.
16 MR. FARRELL:' But the Amendment's Act doesn't say 17 that mixed waste is the responsibility of the state to 18 dispose of either, yet, the states are reading the Low Level 19 Waste Act as they are responsible for all low level waste 20 which includes mixed waste. !
21 DR. STEINDLER: Well, I think that's not true.
22 What I am saying is that's not true of greater than Class C. h 23 MS. FAIRBIN: I think the point you' re making-- t 24 MR. FARRELL: I don't think the agency said that.
25 MS. FAIRBIN: --is valid and as unclear as Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4880 l
1 l
y- _ _ _ _ . . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 i
219
() 1 handling mixed low level waste, other than greater than 2 Class C addition to it, once you look at those waste streams !
i 3 that might be greater than Class C low level waste and have l i l 4 a hazardous component, it even becomes unclearer as to what j 5 ons could do with it. ,
1 6 DR. STEINDLER: Before you leav9 some of that. Is 7 there a particularly clearly identified problem with 8 shipping mixed wastes?
3 MS. FAIRBIN: Nbt te my knowledge, other than the 10 fact that there is no place to ship it to.
2 11 MR. MOELLER: That might be the answer. ;
12 DR. STEINDLER: That's the perfect answer.
13 Mh. MOELLER: Just put it on a train.
14 DR. STEINDLER: I thought you were talking about a 15 centralized processing facility. l 36 MU. FAIRBIN:' Right.
17 DR. STEINDLER: That implies that you can, in 18 fact, ship it. I 19 MS. FAIRBIN: As far as I know, there should not 20 be any reason under DOT regulations one could not ship that I
21 if there was such a beast as a centralized mixed waste l
22 atorage facility. l 23 Now, if we look into that, as a specific question, j 24 we might find that that is not true. ;
1 25 DR. STEINDLER: Are you allowed--as far as you l f
() Heritage Reportirg (202) 628-4888 Corporation i !
t
)
._--_-__.-___-__w
_7 i
220 i
/~T t, ) 1 know, would you be allowed to filter contaminated oil 2 without having to get a permit for a treatment facility?
3 MS. FAIRBIN: To my knowledge, we would need to 4 have e permit, ;
)
5 DR. STEINDLERf: Is it clear what you can do 6 without such a permit? How far--what kind of treatment or 7 what kind of things you can do except move it from one drum 8 to another?
9 MS. FAIFBIN: No. One of the on going discussions 10 f. hat we' re having with EPA in conjunction, not only with 11 tnis task force, but also just in the area of mixed waste, f 12 is definition of what is treatment and what is process and 13 where does not come into play and the other end and that is ]
(} 1d not clear and it even gets foggier when you start dealing in 15 terma of authorized states versus EPA, where the individual 16 state may have different regulations.
37 One of the other things and you all have sort of 18 touched upon it this morning and Commissioner Curtis' 19 comment, I believe, raised some question and direction int:
20 this and that was whether or not, with meeting the dual 21 regulation, is there any additional protection level 22 afforded either to a member of the public or the 23 environment.
24 One of the things that we are trying to estimata l
25 in this study i.s what would be the occupational radi& tion i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
V,.
221 1 expoaures encountered once we employ mixed waste sampling
-( }
2 programs.
3 EPA has a requirement, I believe, that you have to 4 sample and teot weekly--sample test and weekly inspect 5 stored waste, okay. Ahd these are some estimates--
6 preliminary estimates that we are coming up with in doing 7 this sampling as te what the occupational radittion 8 exposures would be for a site doing this under the strict 9 letter of the law.
10 Our understanding right now is that the EPA 11 sampling program. 3 12 And this ties into what Dan was saying with the 13 100 gram sample requirement. For some of our waste streams 14 that are significantly re.dio active, we could incur 15 significant occupational exposure which would be contrary to -
16 our ALARA Program as wb try to meet NRC Regulations. ,
17 DR. STEINDLER: Are those numbers per year, per 18 reactror unit--
19 MS, FAIRBIN: Per unit.
20 DR. STEINDLER: Per unit.
21 MS. FAIRBIN: Yes.
22 DR. STEINDLER: But for what period of time, per 23 operation?
l 24 MS. FAIRBIN: Per year.
25 DR. STEINDLER: Per year.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation l
[^>))
(202) 628-4888 l
l l
l
222
() 1 MS. FAIRBIN: Yes. There is 17 person rem per 2 year per that reactor unit and for example, if you were able 3 to so le with the aprons in place, you could decrease that I
4 to half a perctn rem per year per that unit. l i
5 DR. STEINDLER: What fraction of the total person I i
6 rem exposure per year per unit does that represent? I l
7 MS. FAIRBIN: I believe, in the report, in the I l
8 preliminary numbers, we're saying it could be as much as 9 half of the total.
i 10 Thee numbers, I might add right now are one set of 11 the calculational figures in the draft report that are being i
12 looked at and scrutinized, as they are preparing the final I 13 draft report for our review.
14 MR. MOELLER: Excuse me. What determines which of
}
15 the first three ways the mixed waste sampling takes place.
, i 16 I mean, why not just do 3t all in the middle their, sampling 17 with the aprone in place?
u 18 MS. FAIRBIN: I believe it comes down to whether 19 or not you can physically, with the apron in place, 20 accumulate the sample necessary that would meet EPAs 21 definition one of the 100 grams plus representati,ve of the ;
1 22 material. 1 23 I would have to--Bruce, I don't know if he could 24 shed some light on that night. I think that the only ones I J
L5 who really could and Baltimore Gas and Electric is not a
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
(v 223 1 utility that has a Part A Permit right now, would be one of 2 ,our utilities that do have their Part A Permit and are now 3 looking at the possibility of Part B requirements being 4 imposed.
5 MR. MOELLER: 'Before you respond. First, is the 6 middle one truly a half of a. person milirem pe: year It's' )
7 that much different from--
1 8 MS. FAIRBIN: That's what the preliminary 9 Astimates is and that's one of the reasons I said that. l 10 Those are the r. mbers that we have asked ': hem to go back and 11 be sure their calculational estimates were correct. j 12 MR. MOELLER:
13 MR.'MOELLER: Okay. I would like to know more 14 about it. I am not familiar with this procedure and back to 15 what Dr. Steindler asked, if you looked at a typical power
- 16. plant, with 400 person' rem a year, when the response was 17 that half of it might be through this, did you--was that--
18 did I hear'that correctly?
19 MR. WATSON: I think, with the report, in which we l
20 have asked the vender to go back--the contractor to go back 21 and reevaluate these, it wasn't real clear to us what they 22 were actually telling us and that we were asking them to 23 reevaluate these.
24 I think that the poir,i that this particular slide 25 would make is that we can apply a lot of ALARA principles to 1 4
! I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
l J
- ~ , , ,
i j
. j i
22d j
() 1 this, but if we didn't have to do this in the first place, 2 we wouldn't have any exposure for this purpose.
3 MR. MOELLER: And is thic being done now? I l
4 MR. WATSON: Is what?
5 MR. MOELLER: 'Are wp doing--
6 MR. WATSON: Some utilities have started a i
7 sampling program.
8 MR. MOELLER: Ohay, 9 MS. FAIRBIN: This is one of the creas in the i l
10 report, Dr. Moeller, that when the report is final or even i
11 when the final draft is out, that we would be more than 12 happy to come back, after you have had an opportunity to 13 read it and go into detail on some of the essutaptions. j i
14 A lot of the assumptions that went into some of i
("N)
%- y 15 these calculations, for example, were extremely conservative j l
i 16 times one would have to be ir place to take the sample and 17 we have asked the contractor to go back in and talk with 18 same of the utilities that have startad--I don't want to say 19 really to do time in motion studies, but have looked at i
20 implementing now under their Part A permits and recognizing l 21 that their day is coming close to hand of the need for a 22 Part B permit.
23 For example, in South Carolina, it could be called !
l 24 at any point to file for a Part B permit. )
25 MR. MOELLER: And what I am hearing you here, to
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
l l
1
1 I
225 cN 1 be sure I understand, is t?pt in addition to all of the d 1 2 problems of--well, you're investigating how much mixed waste j l
3 possibly wil' be generated at nuclear power plants?
4 N3. FATRBlN: Right.
5 MR. MOELLER: You'r9 looking nt ways to reduce it l 6 by substitution and so forth, You're helping us with 7 understanding what they can do with the waste once they .
8 have it and the licensing of a disposal facility, but you 9 are also showing us here that the collective occupational 10 dose associated with some cew program that requires lots of 11 sampling of raixed waste and so forth, could be relatively 12 significant.
13 MS. FAIRBIN: That's correct.
14 MR. MOELLER: Okay. That's very important, thank O 15 you.
16 MS. FAIRBIN: And when I fi rst saw the numbers 17 myself, 1 was surprised at the orders of magnitude that they 18 were and that also surprised some of the task force members 3 19 and why we have asked them to go back and be sure that the 20 estimates that they have used are fairly accurate.
21 One of the other things that we touch upon in the 22 report, although the report wan primarily focused on the 23 management of the mixed waste at the commercial nuclear 24 power plant.
25 As we went through and did some comparisons on EPA r^N Heritage Reporting Corporation
(/ (202) 628-4888 i l
i i
y-p g.
226
,e . 1 and NRC regulations, was the question, could we adequately
-NJ 2 dispose of it in a low level waste, Part 61 facility, 3 without needing an EPA permit and if one did design to meet 4 dual regulations, what potentially could be some of the 5 problem that one would incur.,
6 And this slide illustrates--what they did was NRC 7 and EPA issued what was called the conceptual design that 8 they felt a facility designed to that concept would meet or 9 could meet both sets of regulations.
10 They then did a typical RCRA disposal facility, a 11 below grade double liner and then the current shallov land 12 disposal which we are currently shipping low level waste to 13 and these show you the variance in the performance 14 assessment.
n'~' 15 Now, I would like to point out that aince these 16 were done on generic assumptions versus any individual or 17 specific physical criteria, you knows, we used a lot of the 18 same assumptions. We put the facilities in the same 19 geographic location, for example., that any specifically 20 licensed facility may not give you these exact figures, but 21 in the first cut of the performance assessment in looking at 22 disposal and at the time of the draft report, these are very 23 preliminary, they had just finished doing this assessment.
24 These were the values that they were calculating at the 25 time, i
I Heritage Reporting Corporation p)+
N- (202) 628-4088 I I
l l
l 1
1 I
-. o.
l 227 l
i O 1 1 th1=*, im ee e -er te ce-mi eioa cereis' 2 question this morning from the nuclear utilities purview, te 3 feel and we are on record, and not only will this study 4 point it out, but you wasted a study comparing the 5 regulations for tanks b' tween,NRC e and EPA regulatory 6 requirements. And also in that study, it is our feeling i
7 that we could e.dequately dispose of mixed low level waste 8 simply by meeting NRC requirements without imposing any of 9 the RCRA requirements and still safely. protect public health
! 10 and safety in the safety and in the environment.
l 11 DR. STEINDLER: I got two questions before you 12 take that view graph off--
13 MS. FAIRBIN: Okay.
(} 14 DR. STEINDLER: --tell me what these units are.
15 This is the--
16 MS. FAIRBIN: Dose to the max individual who turns 17 out to be the inadvertent intruder scenario.
18 DR. STEINDLER: From what size facility are we 19 talking about?
20 MS. FAIRBIN: Do you recall offhand, Bruce?
21 DR. STEINDLER: Is that one units worth or--
22 MS. FAIRBIN: This would be--
23 MR. FARRELL: It's a regional low level waste 24 disposal facility.
25 MS. FAIRBIN: Yes, it would--
l I,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
j l
I
228
() 1 MR. FARRELL:. Similar to a Barnwell or a Hanford 2 type of disposal facility.
3 MS. FAIRBIN: Did you have another question, Dr.
4 Steindler before I--
5 DR. STEINDLER*: Yes, My other question was:.Was 6 the statement that you just told us, is that statement 7 likely to show up in that report?
8 MS. FAIRBIN: Yes. And it has show up, I believe, 9 in the tank report that has already been issued by EEI with 10 respect to--
11 MR. FARRELL: The utility industry has officially 12 expressed that position before and will be happy to do so 13 again at a moments notice.
[} 14 15 DR. MOELLER: Well, I think that's a powerful statement and if it can, you know, be supported, it would go l
j 1
16 a long way to resolve Ehe problem. )
i 17 MR. FARRELL: Unfortunately it alone would not, ]
I 18 only legislation will, because the bottom line, the line q l
19 that I think that, frankly, on a personal basis, if you j 20 asked NRC or EPA personnel, which we have done on a personal 21 basis, do you believe that NRC regulations would adequately 22 protect the environment, I think most of them would agree 23 that they do.
I 24 We gave a tour of a power plant to some people l l
25 from EPA and said., gee, these are good controls, don't you ]
O(,) Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
l 229 J 1 think they would protect the environment and most of them 2 said yes, it certainly appears that they would. They're 3 remarkable controls. However, RCRA requires EPA 4 involvement, by law, so therefore, EPA, until the law is 5 changed, can't back off'. ,
6 MR, MOELLER: But EPA, through this negotiation 7 with NRC--let's just take a scenario and assume that EPA had 8 a memorandum of understanding or something with NRC and they 9 simply stated in this understanding that they agree that the 10 procedures for the disposal of radio active waste more than 11 comply with any requirements for RCRA and therefore they--
12 MR. FARRELL: They can't do it. It's against the 13 law. We have asked them that question. Can't they give us 14 a permit, by rule, that says that. I mean, perhaps if anyone O 15 can tell me that I am wrong, but my understanding is that is 16 that they are unable to do that. They must apply all of 17 RCRR. That is the way they interpret the statute. Their 18 General Counsel has determined that. ,
19 And I think, frankly, that there are some people 20 at EPA who feel it would be a good thing for the nation if 21 they didn't have to be involved or if they had a 22 consultation role or if they could oversee it, but not be a 23 fully involved partner all the way and have all RCRA ,
24 regulations apply, )
ii 25 But they have determined that they must so the
)1 1
Heritago Reporting Corporation O (.?O2) 628-4888 l
j I
l
y _--___ _ - --
l l I i -
230 1 only way to fix it is through a law, change an existing law.
2 MR. MOELLER: Okay.
3 MR. FARRELL: Which, needless to say, we would 4 like to see done.
5 MS. FAIRBIN: 'This bring up to where are we with 6 our report. .
7 MS. FAIRBIN: The task force has reviewed and 8 commented extensively on the draft report when we met in 9 February and this was the first cut of the full report.The 10 draft final report is due to me, from Rogers and Associates, 11 roughly the middle of May, second week of May.
12 The task force will be asked to comment on this 13 and return their comments to me by the end of May and we 14 hope to have a camera ready copy to the printer, mid June, 15 with the final report issued at the end of June.
16 DR. STEINDLEk: It's too bad we didn't have that 17 table in front of us this morning.
18 MS. FAIRBIN: Well, you know when the question got 19 asked of you, you know, I was all set to say, hey, but--
20 MR. MOELLER: You didn't want to be thrown out.
21 MS. FAIRBIN: That's right.
22 Also I know that Owen has asked, on the 23 availability of the report for you all to review, and at the 24 time when that question was asked, we were so far involved ,
25 with incorporating the current set of comments on the Heritage Reporting Corporation tO (202) 628-4885
l
\
231
"% 1 current draft that we felt it would not be productive to l (O
2 give you that copy. We certainly would be willing to allow l
l 3 you to look at the draft of the final report when we get it 4 in the middle of May, if you're interested, and we would 5 welcome any comments, either from the ACNW or from your I
6 staff at that point. ,
7 NRC staff is an active participant and has 8 provided us some very good comments as did both DOE and EPA i
9 which helped us from understanding some of the regulatory )
10 interface meetings that have been going on between, in 11 particular NRC and EPA, to help provide guidance to the 12 generators as to how one could met for what both sets of 13 regulations meant.
14 Earlier you asked Dan Martin a question as to the 15 validity or the interest in these guidance memorandums since 16 they really don't have'much weight from a regulatory sense.
17 From my purview at NUMARC and I think it is safe 18 to say from the industry purview, having the joint guidance 19 memorandum, although they might not have a lot of weight, 20 certainly help us to understanding the thinking of the 21 regulatory agencies as we go forth and develop our program 22 to meet both regulations.
23 And from that regards, I think they are very 24 critical to us, as a generator and I certainly urge both NRC 25 and EPA, as we are all faced with meet?.ng dual regulations,
/~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
x., _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
232 1 to continue to work together to help us to make this as 2 smooth of a process as one can.
3 Just a couple of other things that the study 4 didn't go into, but some of the utilities, but some of the i
5 e utilities have identifi'd. ,
6 As they have gone forth in doing Part A permits, 1
7 the cost of a Part A permit, for one utility, was in the l
8 order of $75,000 and they estimate that to file their Part B j i
9 permit, for per plant, the cost could be ont he order of 10 $300,000 and that both of these permitting processes are 11 subject to public hearings, both at the Part A stage and as 12 well, at the Part B stage.
13 So they are not a trivial matter for the utility 14 to go forth and get at either stage.
O 15 Any other questions?
16 DR. STEINDLER: Can you clarify something for me?
17 There is a class of radio active materials, that 18 go by the abbreviation of NARM sources, Naturally Incurring-19 -
20 MS. FAIRBIN: Radio Active Materials.
21 DR. STEINDLER: Radio active materials, j 22 accelerated produced.
23 If I mix those kinds of sources with some 24 hazardous chemical waste, does that constitute a mixed 25 waste?
Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 l 1
233
() 1 MS. FAIRBIN: I think I would have to yield that l l
2 question to EPA. All I can say on that is that I know the 3 proposed EPA low level waste standard that is before the )
1 4 Office of Management and Budget right now, does have a 5 section in there on NARM. ,
6 MR. FARRELL: Well,,of course, it wouldn't be mixed )
7 low level waste because NARM is not low level waste, but 8 there is no reason to this it would not be mixed waste, 9 mixed radio active waste, similarly that greater than Class 10 C could be mixed waste and, in fact, we have no reason to 11 think that high level waste or spent fuel could not, 12 perhaps, be mixed waste.
13 DR. STEINDLER: I guess I am trying to distinguish
() 14 between what is and what could be subject to a great deal of 15 speculation. Your initial comments dealt with the Atomic 16 Energy Act.
17 MS. FAIRBIN: That's right and NARM-- i 18 DR. STEINDLER: Which is silent in that area--
19 MS. FAIRBIN: That's correct.
20 DR. STEINDLER: --in the area of NARM.
21 MS. FAIRBIN: That's correct. But I think that 22 that definition for NARM and how EPA is going to be handling i
23 it once the low level waste standard comes into play, may 24 shed light on how they would then handle mixed NARM 25 hazardous waste.
k'5) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 234 f 1 MR. FARRELL: Well, in fact, I have a quote, from 5'
2 EPA's September 23rd Federal Register Notice that says, 3 "Any hazardous waste that is mixed with a radio active waste 4 is a radio active mixed waste. Such waste is subject to 5 RCRA regardless of furhher sub classification as high level 6 - low level transuranic..." et cetera, which does not 7 specifically address NARM, but it addresses other categories 8 of radio active waste.
9 DR. STEINDLER: We have addressed this issue in 10 the past and I didn't hear it here. There was a time, at 11 least, when disposal methodologies between hazardous waste 12 and radio active waste were diametrically opposed when you 13 tried to compare them 14 In the one case, you keep the water out and in the 15 other case you catch it. l 16 Do you address this issue at all somewhere in your 17 report?
18 MS. FAIRBIN: Only in the sense that when you take 19 a look at the performance assessment numbers between the 20 facilities designed to meet your regulation and simply a l
21 shallow land burial. I think that a portion of that dosta is 22 actually--can be attributable to the bath tub liner effect, 23 for example.
24 It definitely will cause, I believe, an increase 25 to the site operator or it could cause an increase to the Heritage Reporting Corporation l
() (202) 628-4888 l l
1 l
235
() 1 site operator and the sampling the--
2 DR. STEINDLER: When you compare the utility of 3 adding to the existing NRC regulations for low level waste, I 4 those from the EPA, did you take into account the negative 5 attribute of combining those in making your comments?
6 MS. FAIRBIN: It took into account, I believe, the 7 conceptual design and maybe Dan or--
8 MR. FARRELL: It's clear that the two agencies 9 have different philosophies in terms of allowing water into 10 the trench. The EPA requires a double liner, NRC shies away 11 from liners. Testing of waste, EPA requires that you test 12 waste at the site. NRC, for ALARA reasons, shies away from 13 that.
() 14 There are some very fundamental philosophical 15 differences. Although it is true that the two agencies are 16 making a very concerted effort and from what we can tell a j 17 strong effort, to do the best they can to reconcile those.
18 That's not an easy thing and, in our view, it's unfortunate 19 that they have to try.
20 MS. EAIRBIN: And, I think one of the things--I 21 also was involved with the OTA report that Dan mentioned 22 earlier and I think one of the findings that is potentially I 23 going to come out of that study is that from technical 24 design or technology, there is probably no reason why we do 25 not design a facility that will meet dual regulations.
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation 1
4 4eQ~@* f+
% W,A#2 V s
IMAGE EVALUATION Nig
/,o///
,j '(# *%f/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) /
,,[ ] ,Q h ' g
}fp7 f/ \\\\
//777 1.0 PWM
,e_m ,
. ,,cJm_
I.I _b J1 1.25 I l.4 1.6 l
4 150mm >
4 6" >
%, / 'bs s[gy ,y,,,,, .-
4y,p o, e fs v.
' 4> 46'<f> l 40 k *k# IMAGE EVAL.UATION //,,gf ['GQ,4 k//77 \f'+gk/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) g/// } '%; '[}j[$'
+ <,
l.0 lf a m p m g33 aw j,l fC bb LE I.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
4 6" >
%p,,
4l4' gy ,y,,,,, . -
if;49 //p //
4,,
.y
4e vM*&48*k ,i *o O n.
O t. @ e N's N IMAGE EVALUATION #A,
/
//// g 'f ^ *( f/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) y]g%[* /
W k,,, ,,,l, $
$+f <<
l.0 2 lf[j;*
ll ;;;-
liLE I.I { "" M l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
- 6" >
dI+
.,<y ,y,,,,
- 4%
+&py_, 3// //
o ;
- ep rN EU'** ~
g8*@$$5* il O IMAGE EVALUATION pppp / O6, 4
%//o
/ sj' "td h h
/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) ,
/g
+ .
1.0 lSa NA y m gp=a c ru D lllllN l,l l.8 1.25 1.4 I.6 4 150mm >
4- 6" >
+[,4f ,3pppp, % i / !b 7
g.gp ///xp o$f77
~h"D
236 f'} . 1 Now the practicality of living with and getting ]
v 2 all the necessary permitting may not be as' straight forward 3 as one thinks.
4 For example, we take a look at some of the 5 different classifications of who one needs to deal with. On 6 the NRC side, we have NRC and we have agreement state 7 responsibilities. That is very clear cut when you compare 8 it to what is on the EPA side where you may have an EPA 9 state.
10 For example, the State of California, EPA 11 regulates hazardous waste. The State of California in their 12 proposed facilities for their low level waste site, is not !
13 designing to handle mixed waste, they do not have the f-~s 14 authority. Since basically because they don't have the
()
15 basis or refers to RCRA. Without they could not get the 16 authority, I believe, to regulate mixed low level waste from 17 EPA.
18 So therefor,in California, they' re going to have 19 to do something else with the portion of waste that is mixed 20 low level waste and that would be regulated by EPA.
21 But there are state agencies in Californist even 22 though they don't have the legal of federal authority 23 transferred to them, that play a very active role in it from 24 what the California utilities tell me and it is somewhere 25 between 3 and 5 agencies that may be involved.
J
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation )
l I
j I
j
y.
J j
i 237 s Y ); 1 So you know, where it comes out and comes across 3s/
-2 -asfdural regulation, I think dual times two is a misleader j i
3 in many cases when one actually gets down to try and comply j 4 with all the regulatory bodies that might be in place.
5 MR. MOELLER: *Lynn,,you have indicated, of course, !
6 that.when your report-comes ,out, you would appreciate any
- 7. comments this committee may have and so far as I know, we 8 will certainly try to meet that request. I think it is the 9 minimum, that we can do.
10 What would you suggest or do you have any 11 suggestions right today on what this committee should do or 12 could do to assist in helping to resolve the mixed waste ;
13 problem?
f'] 14 MS. FAIRBIN: I think one of the things that I
'%)
15 would like to see and I am not sure that it would really 16 resolve or could really resolve it, but it certainly would 17 help to educate and maybe raise the visibility of the 18 concern is to go ahead and hold the one to two day meeting 19 that has been bandied about with all parties that are
- 20 concerned, to get everybody, maybe in a room, or maybe not a 21 meeting forum, but perhaps a workshop forum and discuss the 22 issues of both commonality of views and differences of 23 views, so that we all could have a betser understanding as 24 we go forth and try and wrestle with this.
25 I know, personally, for myself, everytime I get my l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1.
I a____-.
238 g~1 1 task force together and I sit down with DOE, EPA and NRC in
%)
2 the same room, it's a very good learning experience for us.
3 We often are able to clarify many misconceptions that we 4 have when we have all three parties in the same room and we 5 can share information na'd that is important, especially in 6 this area because we're all,.I think, breaking new ground, 7 as we go forth and try and meet the intent of the dual 8 regulations.
9 MR. MOELLER: Well we certainly have that in mind 10 and I appreciate your supporting in it.
11 Any other thoughts?
12 MS. FAIRBIN: No. I guess my bigger concerns come 13 down to more along the lines as to when applications start 14 hitting for disposal facilities, adequate level of staffing O 15 to review those so that we don't get bogged down.
16 One of the biggest problems,. why we have all this 17 concern with mixed waste is we can't ship it anywhere right 18 now. We cannot dispose of it so we're being forced to 19 become storage facilities. The need to get the Part A's and 1
20 then ultimately end up as a Part B permit holder, and we 21 really are dependent, because we can't ship the waste off 22 site any where, where, if we can quickly move purely 23 hazardous material in and out of the site because we have 24 that disposal option available to us.
25 Brian, is there anything that--
/s Heritage Reporting Corporation
(_) (202) 628-4888
- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . \
239 A(,j 1 MR. FARRELL: I hate to sound like a broken 2 record, but tLe only way to fix it is to change the law.
3 MR. MOELLER: Okay. What percent of NUMARCs 4 budget goes to waste management. I know you had what, the 3 5 or 4 branches, sections *in your part of the one. What -
6 percent of the total, I mean.1 percent, 10 percent, 30 7 percent?
8 MS. FAIRBIN: Waste is not an easy answer to --an 9 easy subject to' answer in that light. M; ate in 10 transportation issues, per se, are not dirte:t NUMARC issues, 11 okay. We provide a supportive role to the utility nuclear 12 waste and transportation program, as that has been conceived 13 and formulated by the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee.
() 14 Staff, timewise, from my purview right now. In 15 the past year, I have been spending roughly 40 percent of my 16 time in waste and transportation related areas.
17 They primarily involve the Part 71 Rule Making and 18 DOTS Rule Making endeavors with LSA, monitoring of dry cast 19 storage facilities, Part 72 licensing requirements, BRC 20 mixed waste, obviously anc just general monitoring and 21 cognizance of what the utility waste group is doing.
22 I think one of our concerns, from NUMARC's 23 perspective, is that we need to be sure that aspects of the 24 waste program, as they are unfolding and developing do not 25 adversely impact other operational programs that we do have Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
240
(~) 1 direct responsibility for and also to help provide the
%.)
2 knowledge that we have in dealing on generic regulatory 3 issues that we can provide and also we can provide the 4 entire industry viewpoint which, I think, is a real 5 difference. .
6 So, you know, 1 to.5 percent, it's real hard to 7 estimate.
8 MR. FARRELL: As Lynn points out, there is also 9 the separately funded Utikity Nuclear Waste and 10 Transportation Program which has, as its sole purpose, inter 11 action on waste issues, NRC and DOE oversight activities 12 along lines of the U-Waste Frogram, as it is called, and is 13 comprised of 4 professional employees and a budget of almost 14 $2 million a year.
(7 ,)
15 MR. MOELLER: Any other questions or comments?
16 DR. STEINDLER: One other one. Is there anything 17 that prevents a utility having a decent number of reactors 18 on one site from making a stab becoming a processing--mixed 19 waste or hazardous waste processing operator?
20 MR. FARRELL: It doesn't have any choice, frankly.
21 It has to get the permit right now.
22 MS. FAIRBIN: We're required to do that right now.
23 Part A and Part B, by definition, is going to define us as a 24 processor. We will not be a disposal facility.
l 25 DR. STEINDLER: You say storage is the same as i
(')
\>
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
4 241 1 treatment?
2 MR. FARRELL: Yes. My understanding is that the 3 RCRA permit, Part A or Part B, the permit that we need to 4 get is for TSGF, Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility and 5 that is what we will be*, treatment and storage.
6 DR. STEINDLER: So.then you could filter the oil--
7 MS. FAIRBIN: Yes.
8 DR. STEINDLER: And you can incinerate the oil if 9 you have to?
10 MS. FAIRBIN: If we have a RCRA authorized I
11 incinerator...
12 DR. STEINDLER: Is there anything that would 13 prevent you from applying to get a RCRA authorized
(^)
15 16 incinerator on the site?
17 MS. FAIRBIN: I don't think there is anything 18 legally that would prevent us. Whether or not the utility 19 would choose to do that--
20 DR. STEINDLER: It's a separate issue.
21- MS. FAIRBIN: It's a separate issue.
22 Legally though, it would mean constructing some i
23 sort of an incineration facility unless one could burn it or-24 get RCRA authorization, for example for--
25 MR. FARRELL: Public reception and money are
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
g __ _ - . _ _ _ _ ..
I I
242 l
\
()
,,~
1 different matter.
2 MS. FAIRBIN: Yes.
3 MR. FARRELL: But legally there doesn't appear to l 4 be a difference.
- i. 5 DR. STEINDLER: There is an option then for a 6 utility to set up its own hagardous waste treatment facility 7 which could include mixed waste and it can, presumably, 8 without any serious difficulty, ship among its own plants?
9 MR. FARRELL: Probably. _.
10 MS. FAIRBIN: Probably. The trans shipment '
11 aspect, even between one plant within an individual utility, i
12 for example, take Duke Power, could ship between all their 13 units and consolidate at once,I think is an issue that, I 14 don't believe, has really been focused cn
}
15 The Part A permits right now, I believe, only 16 address the generation'of that waste by that site, okay.
17 Not necessarily from another site.
18 Now, I would be more than happy to take that back 19 and ask some of our utilities that have Part As and multiple 20 sites and ask them if they have looked at that and I will 21 provide that answer to Owen next week.
22 MR. FARRELL: Needless to say, of course, getting 23 a RCRA permit is an extraordinarily involved and expensive 24 process and something that all utilities have desired not to 25 do thus far, including fossil fired plants, coal and oil et
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l
.._--7 243 ;
1 cetera have found it beneficial to not treat or to store
-)
2 hazardous waste and therefore,_ utilities strongly feel that i l
- 3. it is not in their best interest to do that, but'it would-be 4- legally possibly. q l
5 DR. STEINDLER': I alp correct . in saying--
1 6 MR. FARRELL: Oh yes.
7 DR. STEINDLER: --that coal fired plants have a I k
8 way to get rid of their hazardous waste. )
9 MR. FARRELL: They ship it off site within 30 10 days. They do not have a RCRA permit. They are not 11 required to get one.
12 DR. STEINDLER: The point is that they have got
~
13 someplace they can.go with it.
, 14 MR. FARRELL: Exactly.
15 MS. FAIRBIN: That's right, because they are able 16 to send it directly to'a hazardous waste licensed facility 17 which once you add the rag component too, you can 18 .MR. MOELLER: Gene, did you have something?-
19 DR. VOILAND: No.
20 MR. MOELLER: Well, let me thank Lynn and Brian 21 and Bruce for being with us and for giving us a very 22 illuminating presentation. It has been very helpful to us 23 and we look forward to receiving the printed document and 24 having a chance then to interact again with you.
25 MS. FAIRBIN: Thank you. l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 244 1
,I 1 MR. MOELLER: Bob Browning is here and King 2 Stablein is also here. f i
3 Bob, why don't you go ahead with a few remarks, j I
i 4 and 15 minutes would --
5 MR. BROWNING:' I'm p minute man.
6 MR. MOELLER: Fine, 7 I think 15 minutes will be wonderful.
8 MR. BROWNING: To refresh your memories I handed 9 out the schedule that we identified for our staff review of 10 DOE's site characterization plan.
11 And as you noted, we would be providing the 12 proposed site characterization analysis to you folks for 13 comment on June 2.
(} 14 What we are in now is the dotted line phase, somewhere between the time DOE briefed you on the SCP itself 15 16 with the incentive of trying to work out some scheme that 17 would L11ow you to be able to complete your review within 18 that very short one month time frame.
19 In that regard, we have given you briefings by 20 management people and.by project people but we have not yet 21 been able to schedule an interface with the tcchnical staff 22 that has actually been generating the technical comments 23 that show up in the site characterization analysis.
24 And I thought the one thing I would like to try to 25 work out, to make sure we have a common understanding of
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ ..
i 245 l
,,i-(,u. J 1 what the events, the milestones are between this meeting and l 2 the time in which you would be getting the proposed site l
1 3 characterization analysis in its final integrated form on 4 June 2, just to make sure there are not any disconnects in 5 your expectations and o*ur ability to accommodate them.
6 After that, 1 do hpve King Stablein who gave the 7 presentation to the subgroup on the overall approach, some 8 of which I will be stealing a little bit of his thunder 9 here.
10 And then we also have Mr. Ballard and Mr. Bunting, 11 the Engineering Branch Chief and the Natural Science Branch 12 Chief, to be able to answer any questions you might have 13 about the listing of concerns that they covered during the
/^\ 14 Subcommittee meeting.
U 15 Now, with regard to the schedule of milestones 16 coming up, working you'r way back into our own process for 17 generating this final product, there are several stages in 18 which the product is evolving.
19 Right now the individual technical reviewers have 20 produced a pile of comments about this thick which we are >
l 21 going through sorting out, prioritizing, doing the technical )
22 integration route here.
23 The next product we refer to as the branch chief 24 draft. This is the level at which the branch chiefs, Mr.
25 Bunting and Mr. Ballard, have personally gone over the 1
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
l 1
1
-246.
"(f 1 results and will be. certifying to me that they are happy
.2 with the results.
3 Then I.go over it. Then we eventually give it to 4 Bob Banero who.is the office director, and actually signing 5 'the site characterizati'on analysis for the Commission.
6 The branch chief draft would be ready, according 7 to our schedule, by May 8 and we are presently planning to 8 provide that draft to the Committee for whatever you choose 9 to do with it.
10 MR. MOELLER: Then I might interject that it is at 11 that point, Martin, that we plan to ask the consultants for 12 independent, individual reviews.
13 Go ahead.
(} 14 MR. BROWNING: On 5-11, I'm sorry, 5-9 and 10 were 15 to schedule the meeting with the Department of Energy using 16 the major concerns that the management personnel have 17 identified based on the comments that we've got so far.
18 A major concern that we think warrants some 19 additional discussion with the Department of Energy just to I 20 make sure they are aware of our concerns and that we are 21 aware of any insight they may give us that might change 22 those concerns.
23 That is scheduled for 5-9 and 5-10 and that will l
24 be here in Washington if I'm not mistaken. So you could
]
25 have either your consultants or a member of your staff sit
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
1 4
247
-() 1 in. Those meetings are all open to the public.
2 On 5-11, our understanding is we would then be 3 meeting with the full ACNW Committee and at that point in 4 time the technical team members that have produced this 5 document would be avail'able to either brief you or respond 6 to any specific questions or. con nrn areas that you folks 7 would have.
8 on 5-22, we would have what we referred to as the 9 division draft.
10 This is the draft that I 'fould then propose for 11 the Office Director's signature. And the Office Director 12 would then get involved in the review. And at the point in 13 time where he is satisfied with it then that would result in
(} 14 the 6-2 document which would actually be the formal 15 submittal to the Advisory Committee.
16 All the othe'r drafts are not submittals to you.
17 They are giving you sneak previews of coming attractions.
18 As a matter of fact, the normal process, you 19 wouldn't see these. And the only reason we are providing l
20 them to you is we think that might be helpful to you. !
I 21 It may not. It may actually cause you to review l 22 something three times which may not even end up being in the 23 final product by the time we get through with it.
24 So we are kind of experimenting on a process or l
25 procedure which is not really a help to me by getting I
l
/",N (j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
248 1 ). 1 involved in'its early stages, and it may or not be a help to 2 you..
3 MR. MOELLER: And the June 2 draft, is the 4 division draft?
5 MR. BROWNING:' No. ,
G MR. MOELLER: Oh . ,
7 MR. BROWNING: The June 2 draft would be the 8 version that Bob Banero would be ready to sign to the DOE 9 except we have to get the Advisory Committee's review first 10' at the request of the Commission and then we have to get the 11 Commission's review.
12 MR. MOELLER: So it is the final --
13 MR. BROWNING: All these steps take an extra O 14 month.
\_/ l" 15 See, we had planned on a six-month review process 16 to get to the 6-2 date'. Then with the Advisory Committee 17 review, we laid out a month's schedule for that and another 18 month for the Commission. l 19 Now, if in fact this sneak preview of coming 20 attractions is effective and helpful, perhaps you will not j l
21 need a whole month to do your review. ]
, i 22 I sincerely doubt that will be the case. I think I 23 you will need the full month, too. !
l 24 But the hope is at least then you would be able to i 25 do your job within a month because it would have given you
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporailon
249
()
<~.
1 an idea of where we are coming out from, if you 2 independently had a copy of the SCP and DOE's briefed you on 3 it, you've in fact looked at some study plans, and the staff 4 has not really focused in on.them yet.
5 e So I think th*oretically anyway you would be able 6 to have an idea of where you,think some of the concerns are 7 and you can put that against where the staff's concerns are 8 and see if they match. And that would give you some
~
9 confidence that we may be on the right mark.
10 And then when you see the detailed technical 11 comments coming out on 6-2 you could get a sense as to 12 whether our whole process, your reviewing, commenting, 13 integrating, management review, internal QA, is in fact 14 producing a product that we should feel proud of and you 15 could feel proud to endorse.
16 Part of the problem with this process is if you do 17 give us feedback as to things you are seeing in these 18 interim stages you are in fact perturbing the process. You 19 may or may not want to do that.
20 I would like, if you see some fatal flaw, I would 21 like to know that as early as possible. But on the other 22 hand, the Commission may not know whether it is your input l 23 or my input. i 1
1 24 So we are experimenting. The main result is we !
I 25 get a good product back to the Department of Energy on a l
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
l i
< i
l 250
() 1 . timely basis and not end up holding up their production 2 schedule unnecessarily while we do-our regulatory job.
l:
l- 3 FR.-STEINDLER: Your review is against a review 4 plan, right?
l 5 MR. BROWNING:' That,is right.
l 6 MR. STEINDLER: And presumably you are adhering 7 quite strictly to the scope of ~that plan in defining the l 8 scope of your review?
I 9 MR. BROWNING: Right.
10 MR. STEINDLC'..: One of the things we have to --
11 MR. BROWNING: One of the things we've done based 12 on our lessons learned coming out of the CDSCP review was we i
13 need to give the staff more time for technical integration. l 14 MR. STEINDLER: One of the things that I think we 15 need to do is we need to define'what it is we are doing when 16 we are reviewing.
17 It is obvious that there are some things we simply 18 cannot possibly accomplish with say even if we had ten j 19 people working on it.
20 MS. MOODY: I agree with you, Martin, because if -
21 you look at this schedule, you know, how can the ACNW review l
22 be used in terms of the SCA report that you are going to 23 submit to the Commission? ;
j 24 I mean, timewise how can you plan that? I mean 25 when is ACNW going to get --
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
i l
( '
(' 251 !
(') 1 MR. BROWNING: ACNW will get the final product 2 that we would propose sending to the Department of Energy on 3 June 2.
1 4 MR. MOELLER: And you will have had on May 8 or at i
5 least delivered here thb branch chief drafts?
l 6 MR. BROWNING: You,will have seen one draft on 5-7 8, another draft on 5-22 and then the 6-2 version which j
8 would be the final version.
. i 9 There are of course other internal drafts but 10 those are the key steps in our process. We thought it might 11 be helpful for you to get a look at the product as it was 12 being developed.
13 I think at the 5-8 draft the staff would have done 14 enough review and enough review and enough technical 15 integration so that it would be a useful expenditure of 16 their time and I think'your time to see whether they can 17 stand the scrutiny on specific technical concerns that you 18 folks might have. l 19 That's why we have scheduled that particular 20 session of 5-11 plus it would come after we've had a chance 21 to bump what appear to be some of our major concerns against 22 the Department of Energy just to make sure we are on the 23 right mark because if they can offer some insight that might 24 allow us to modify those in our comments, I think that would 25 be very helpful, rather than do it after the fact.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
252
() 1 MR. STEINDLER: Right.
2 MR. BROWNING: And one other thing to keep in mind 3 too is we had promised to have interactions with the State 4 of Nevada. Note on the chart we have a dotted line all the l 5 way across there. ,
6 To date 'we have not had a request from the State 7 of Nevada. My understanding is if they think they need one 8 they have asked for one.
9 But of course ail of the interactions with you 10 folks and the interaction with the Department of Energy, the 11 State of Nevada is free to attend those and participate 12 also.
13 So that could or could not serve as an interface
- 14 with the State of Nevada. j
'}
15 So that is all I had on the scheduled case.
16 On the other' case I have Mr. Ballard and Mr. ,
i 17 Bunting -- the three B's, Banero, Ballard and Bunting --
18 MR. MOELLER: And Browning.
19 MR. BROWNING: And Browning. -- who could raact 20 to any of the concerns or identify them with papers that we 21 talked from at the working group meeting, or Mr. King, who 22 could elaborate further on where we stand on the process, 23 and any questions in that regard.
24 MS. MOODY: Can we go back again to this USCP ,
1 l
25 Review activities?
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation 1 i
.-_-____a
r . w..
\
V
. 253 1 Canfyou make any changes if you give us, give the fs')
l 2 ACNW the final draft on June 2, but you want the Commission l
3- review by 6-30, I mean, can you make any changes in that 4 intervening three weeks?
5 MR. BROWNING:* Again, it would depend on how major 6 the comment is. ,
7 Hopefully the process we are going through earlier 8 on, if there is some major problem that you see, you know, 9 we should get soes indication of it.
10 Hopefully, not in the form of a letter to the EDO, 11 but with some communication to us that would be part of the 12 record so we're not hiding the fact you are bringing the 13 problems to our attention.
14 MR. .MOELLER: Well, and on the consultation draft, 15 I thought, well, I know you incorporated all of our 16 sugge ions and you did it very rapidly a..d quite 17 effectively.
18 MR. BROWNING: And I think that was because as 19 you've deliberated --
20 MR. MOELLEP: Sure.
21 MR. BROWNING: -- it was clear what your comments 22 were.
23 MR. MOELLER: Correct.
24 MR. BROWNING: So we didn't have to wait for the 25 formal piece of paper. We were off moving on what your O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
254 (3
(,) 1 concerns were that evening, if you will.
2 So I think there is room to accommodate any 3 comments you have. The earlier we get them obviously the 4 better.
5 But this is a* unique approach. We didn't do this 6 during the draft SCP. Someh,ow or other we managed to get 7 through that process without al this additional agony.
8 I hope this additional agony is going to be 9 beneficial.
10 MR. STEINDLER: Did I see you waving your hands 11 about the size of your current document, about half of what 12 the original SCP is?
13 MR. BROWNING: Yes. In fact, that's misleading,
() 14 because one person's comment is on a page. So it may be a 15 paragraph or two.
16 By the time it gets edited and adjusted and 17 integrated, it's going to go down considerably.
18 But that is not the kind of thing that would be 19 useful to have you guys look at.
20 MR. MOELLER: Okay. Martin, you are the main one.
21 What would you like to hear?
22 MR. STEINDLER: Not a thing. I think I would be 23 remiss if I said with a sr.iling face that I am looking 24 forward to the month of June.
25 But I understand what's going on. I don't have a
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y --
4 255 1 problem.
2 MR. MOELLER: _Right. The May 11~ meeting, since 3 the drafts will come out May 8, there is not much we can do l l
4 ahead.of time.
5 However, I wobld gather that by May 8, or May 11, 6 when we meet, you will be in,a much more, you will have 7 approached much more close-to what you consider to be your 8 major points?
9 MR. BROWNING: kes.
10 MR. MOELLER: And you'll share them.
11 MR. BROWNING: I think then you will have a much 12 more satisfying --
13 MR. MOELLER: Right. ,
() 14 MR. BROWNING: -- because you will be able to talk 15 to technical people.
i 16 MR. MOELLER:' Right.
17 MR. BROWNING: I want to make sure we are all 18 ready.
19 MR. STEINDLER: I have to reiterate, I think the 20 problem that the Committee is going to have has nothing to ,
21 do with either their schedule or their product. I think the 22 first problem we have is trying to figure out what it is 23 that we are doing and why we are doing it.
24 It is not totally obvious that I could sit down 25 and write out a draft of a review plan for the ACNW.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
m ,,
256 m
(,) 1 And if we don't do anything else between today and 2 tomorrow afternoon, we ought to address that issue l
3 somewhere.
4 MR. MOELLER: Right. Right.
5 And I think wb are beginning to think it through.
6 But there is work to be done,.
7 All right. I guess my final comment in bringing 8 this then to a close is that -- and I know you will do this 9 -- is that you will do as'before, to really consolidate your 10 comments. And obviously I am not telling you anything, 11 because you've told it to us.
12 But consolidate them, and rank them according to 13 priority or importance. And I think that way your final
/~ 14 advice and your final conclusions are very clear to C}
15 everyone, including us, and we can do a good job in 16 assessing them.
17 King, did you have anything you wanted to say?
18 MR. STABLEIN: This is King Stablein.
19 And I think Bob has covered what we are trying to 20 accomplish in the next few weeks. We appreciate your 21 special efforts. We know the schedule is going to be tight 22 for you.
23 Believe me, it is extremely tight for us also.
24 MR. MOELLER: Well, then, what we will do is on 25 May 11, we will make those assignments that we are talking
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
257 (g,) 1 about in terms of the consultants in the different sections 2 and then we will, between now and our adjournment tomorrow 3 afternoon, we will work out together a definitive plan of 4 what we are going to do.
5 MR. BROWNING: If you do have certain technical 6 areas or certain issues, for. example if there are any issues 7 on the State of Nevada on this, if we knew what those were 8 sufficiently in advance, when we come down on the lith, we 9 can make sure we have the right people there to focus on 10 those whether they are our own staff or any of our technical 11 consultants that need to bring that to bear, so we can make 12 sure that that meeting is as effective technical interchange 13 as we possible can have.
(} 14 If it is just broad and you want an overall broad 15 briefing, that would be all right, too. But if you do want 16 us to focus this, any insight you can give us on what you 17 would like us to focus on would be very helpful.
18 MR. MOELLER: Okay.
19 Any other comments?
20 (No response) 21 MR. MOELLER: Let me thank the staff for being 22 here, and I apologize for being late. But I want to thank 23 you again for the briefing, the half day briefing last week 24 which I found to be very, very helpful.
25 And with that I think we will bring this portion
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
258 I
' 1' of today's meeting to a close.
o 2 The Committee will take a break and then will go ,
3 into Executive Session, to I hope - .here is what I hope we-4 'can do: quickly go over the two draft reports that we have..
5' But the most important item we have is to set down 6 what it is we are going to s,ay about' mixed waste. Because I 7 think-we do want to issue a report at this meeting.
8 So thanks to one and all and this brings our 9 meeting to a close.
1' l
'10 (Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. the formal session of the 11 meeting recessed, to be followed by an unrecorded Executive 12 Session, and to reconvene on the record at 8:30 a.m. the 13 following day, Friday, April 28, 1989.)
(
15 16 17 18
'19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l i
_. . _ - _ ____-___-_-________--Q
- l y y
1 CERTIFICATE' 2
3' This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5 of:
6 Name': 9th AONW Meeting, Day Two 7
8 Docket Number:
9 Place: Bethesda, Maryland 10 Date: April 27, 1989 11 were held as herein appears, and.that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by ne and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 15 direction of the court reporting company,'and that the-.
16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings.
18 /s/ ArN, Y 97 44U 19 (Signature typed) : Irwin Coffen
/ /
20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {
W O
1
)
THE MANAGEMENT I MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE 1 IN THE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY 6
PRESENTED TO :
ACNW PRESENTED BY :
NUMARC 4/27/89 O
s eto e na rn c
rdel eo uegu gr h
t oe ofi sinea e nor e ra l t
oi r R uhac l
,p a c c or d s aiN n o n u )C erhe Rp a dpchNp n ti nvpet( a i
o eoatr mprynwis dt hn i
o s
a o s e g) s t a ssi s e i
s aCulati nRdnn cmn a
c M aAior i e me o g MMe rt at rn a .
rUweiCt a
e (N pon o pd y n e reu s
l c l uirr atomss Nneeeucaaslani r e
eulccugv l e s ho uu seo ho TCnnis R gt o
I
~
. t n
_ r 5
e m 9 t e 8 t g s /
e ade 3 ir l nncn.
O eaaio D nM vi e n grt
) ol nea N g saiSc O n ri s o I eca .l T it Pnhse A c aceR R A nnri T ( iiutd S . fPi n I n s .l a N i e , i I v cngcg M l ionan c
g . D o viiFi n n p A C rtt t r n ea n .i I
ir o o . srusu
, e C i F t ot r g e t esccc n n c a . dicae i r e inArR irygi . r o o vi t ednr t p t J omdnd c y r rdnon eeEJ x e g o n PAaCa nn ,o r C a
i nr l ytt rgeerc E e asn e enKtol syine nar li e wE El e asd e .brWrse rw t si - , l .
rnLeP eufrao 5As a' s a s e Bo W .&tol
.itJ&Wk Shoec gWl al acP .er e nd in e
c yc i
ei
- e h t
cen cZe AvPi da i re rt Ts S r v tp ai h umesorimu yb a n e c o t a N n h t tt e N os r ss wv t ac ruh O on e u ai i b mi l oltraoetEie olb d s r ect I r coi s dd t w be T o nn yc eClSaBeWrGrB h h e d oxo A t dt t I a ra s h i ret L c na n t e S WC T B A E e az a hs sd c R r i p tp un a i en i iu da f .
ry r T D ca ag c wor n in et e N - i sg o ti E e f r t nn m ic M N f t ro .s e a r e is ni is iu e f R r t ye P td as t
s k
r f
O E P nri ir va ti nm em vo y o V i t c S Y r g O . sn id i aC i c e n G J yue r tn t y y w c i icdg e ca . mR cl ea y i & s na b at s A n l e t sp dM f n a p N r na f f
a Y
a m
lI o phn t m
e e u nU f o p p y e O r R o M tdo aN ei m u f n w p e anr t l o S o a p P o mo e O p T S
h T eim t e e inag ef ea C v U t o dn S E E t r
e oC o
. m r
C i f D id wnr i d v
dse reu o
ms ive r
R T h w C a t .t n e N vne os O T g o e h r u i I oov or od s oos re ot rn C T C
I I
i L
P n n o o l
c i g J c e iv h C
Pr 't og P Cci P n PI x
R E R N e s is N u L e.E l
o O & C d e e i
I C
l thd d & e n o e e A
OH f
D nr E e a eeruabtE t s de r . ,
n ie E F n F l V dwuPrd hnk e I h
t l a o U O I T
l oz Ge tan uPanctdl ga w
o oC r e n e c h D 8 a M o M a e ai Y yP v n d i it t N t r n c R
A O
C E
Msa .t deee g .iRwWtoa n
d nod H dn a
Jise t o h c
a ei c id wna D X .sWnRl ol oyoWi r c e , d t r ae . s E Ln i r t P e t n nns l ,adheslsnnemarrm.o n e e S i r
re s a iee mgu el ce an
,.AraaeodoGeOl kn lW gC r C .V .F d
i ic E
U D.
ou t s s
n e s f n ro aD o uE o C J C s S n is r sns e V S ni e soi es .
cos n .
t o i t rs r e I s nen P v L R a mng dnl oa ipo i
i t I- A &i ceu &ic ti eyt u C . s vca c I H we ys ean ini N rs zmh e
x H m ied ti s
yrc l oe tec cgo E C a vd aft eas y E i en ul nn f s n y T l ra da aiy f ya a n l nc iI r eroy i
p a W ye n ,yo
. m p f r rh trt etr c o mo i a oc ct a dat il s n n C C t w te it esl l uu vuu nta I nd ahm m gr rii s n r ti c
i c r
-. er da ih n
on one Mo ldg Cir o gd ren PrI iLa e o t .
a h c i c e h&C I r t e ce .
e e e C
r e yI o r I u
.a l E l t d .
,ecn ,sro l wia esp l s E n e
n a i l o V ph R r aid m p g e s eP mg ,odrtn ee ol o r n h b , o u yk C a e a a ge he l e t yanCagr l ne at ss r od r l id nie nrarbens nt in & o in o tl ca wna anwrael adGaa ai Bu t dast an CaOevnCen v
MGid Mm o
.C y T N
c e
a rt aa r o s
.l .oC waE .lcLn . c so V r ES r nhe &i el ce K yH P mRu aAi eC l a ME i recp sa t
an s
tnneat p se Nml atet f u tat rre EC D.
ocuo nr f n rnekt siUirgc s
s eer GI AV n t es ig , re ro eeru1 yl P l ora bnc IN R o na ,s ep es .
i oee co t rs bPrD1SiGlPoP %E t onss nen R
o a WW 1 h P
i e W G RGS 1S
,T ip T &
maee mun sdc
. n od cna I po i
, set e yt SR y vca NO . wli re a rl ini OP E ea i nep , ta t ec IP sc cgo TU s vocen eirro ui eas AS a dg f s R m rt upi f ya E o ao t Inoo eroy O P h ,rsya l O T yeecc ri . et r f prni dat c ef ods il s t ae it n
n gi
,arl iru vuu o gd el mea n s d aumu ons ren _
icheq Mei PrI e e e
Ill l lll
l\1\\1l 1 l I :;1 l
~ -
S o S S
P N
O R U I S
E I
T O
D N
E V
S M
R I
G O
R S
YZ R I TN T
A S
L A
I F R S A R C L S E U G E I I S E N D R H N -
T S / W NO T H U N A O I O C E
T N D N
A L
A N
o O
I T
A C R R E A P M O U S N C E I U RS E S NI E
G Y R
GO N T I A TL AU NG I E DR R
C O R O o N C 1\ll\ll! l . l
C E
N A C T
N E
E M g N g I
N R g E g A V p O p E G a E
^ T T
I .
M .
M L O
O C A E
I C
N D O
I E C T
P L L k N A N C
I E C S U I N
A U O U F U Y C M
M
\ P F C O C
I \
A L G T A N S R C I M O E I D S A L D P N P E
N N N H A E R
G C I A U S
C T C C O R C N O L R T E T
I L P R A N I A T C AI ~
M U A I MM U O L
U N
H U MO N C G
E C
E N C R T O
O PURPOSE l
O EXAMINE PRACTICES OF LlW {
GENERATORS IN THE AREAS OF GENERATION, MANAGEMENT AND i DISPOSAL OF MIXED llW; O EVALUATE IMPACTS OF EXISTING !
) REGULATIONS AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE ON THOSE PRACTICES; AND 0 PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE BY BOTH GENERATORS AND REGULATORS IN ESTABLISHING A TECHNICALLY SOUND AND COST EFFECTIVE MIXED LLW PROGRAM.
O
I $
O MIXED WASTE TASK FORCE ,
UTILITIES 15 CONSULTANTS 10 O. LIAISONS 3 OTHER INDUSTRY ,
ORGANIZATIONS 3 l
i s
O
iI il ! i J JIl a
o _
9 6
5 S 2 U S 0
. L O E E? 1 _
wO RE IAT HTS T E D E T O A _
L L RHS RETSC ET AI N R A T A TS F T DZ eA OW xH i
uE R T T B OC N E A V I
3 p
e t
AA OWS MWYSR A E AOT E H NUE A T T DC I
Oy N
E T
S A _
OY A S I RA V NA E TO NEI BAR %
S M SD I
OSHZA E NUXAl i
- f. l i
i TAA AEHC T TI i T WR OC D
U B
" > S E
Y o
O , O N N S
W L
UN I L 7 O D D W D E E L R N X L AI I 2
r 1 S ZA M E E A TW p T S Y f p H OL NL S I
e A I
e D S E E CE t E T t W Y S E S TS H S SE T A LT i I l
T S W
S EA E I
RW H A T o _
I O
HAZARDOUS WASTE DEFINITION O MIXTURE OF LISTED WASTE AND OTHER SOLID WASTE:
1 LISTED FOR SUBPART C CHARACTERISTICS ONLY LISTED FOR OTHER THAN SUBPART C CHARACTERISTICS O FORMULATED SUBSTANCES C) i f
O CLOTHS CONTAINING SPENT SOLVENTS l
0 WASTE OIL i O SCINTILLATION COCKTAILS O WASTE TREATED IN THE ACCUMULATION CONTAINER WITHIN THE GENERATOR'S ACCUMULATION TIME -
MIXTURE RULE APPLIES IF LISTED WASTE IS INVOLVED l O
.l
.O HAZARDOUS WASTE DEFINITION O WASTE SAMPLES O MANUFACTURING PROCESS UNITS RESIDUES IN CONTAINERS O
0 DISCHARGES REGULATED UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT l
l O
1 O
l MIXED WASTE DEFINITION O ONLY RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ARE REGULATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF AEA O OTHER NON-RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS CONTAMINATED BY OR CONTAINING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ARE NOT l
()- REGULATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF AEA -RATHER UNDER RCRA AND HSWA-
, O MATERIALS REGULATED UNDER AEA '
(I.E., RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS) {
ARE NOT REGULATED UNDER RCRA AND HSWA 1
() !
l I
E E E T
T T S S S A A A E W W E E T T E
T W
T S S S D S D D A A A E A E E W X X WW W X I
M I I D M M D E
DE D E T E T T X X X O X O O I I I
I M N N MM M N s
u s u
A TS R E 7 BU I
DT HO? E I
XDC R NC ERT I
UUA T
EAI S XDR RZR IEE UAET MGT A THC '
ER X
ICA M TR m HAW THN la ir ERA NCA ASE toe nta HAH I em TPC CDLC n (G SB EU E od dl e ek OS B dr e oh D > ct s
> d isd e
n e re s
n hd o p
wre s b g e r v loI r e te Dev i v
at ta mc g d o e e n 8 S felo s s E k s m
" Y fIohe r
n u fi n
nt s o c
E R ios e o E 7 R EE C '? taln t g
RE UTS E
T U TDET 7 RHD UT ? '? T C d
t u me in W. T S XNS TON E ET E WR STI r t ts e
R XAA I MAA X AT E S TS LAUIS LP fosa law t
S M s A E lc u lo A'3Wm *w HUDT m" feo I
E E
AEUDD Y M A S'3A0Wm uWW TSRC S: md w T
S v W0R L0E WWFD 0 ' E ED SAAA E mo oa r
r k
y a
A WSTO LU S LFH L U HT E ZR T OCh M W L EFT L DNO E TS OITAA BH H NI 2 E EAA HOO ETAS HSH SU DI H HFD S T
TUT IA H C X
T TON S A I
SF E I
IO m* u
)
q
O METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING M1X.ED WASTE GENERATION RATES o FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
- ARE NOT CREATED IN THE POWER PLANT O SUPPLEMENTARY PREMISE HAZARDOUS WASTE IS GENERATED ONLY WHEN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE DISCARDED OR THROUGH CONTACT WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE POWER PLANT l
l l
- HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IS ANY MATERIAL 1
WHICH WOULD BE A HAZARDOUS WASTE WHEN l DISCARDED OR INTENDED FOR DISPOSAL C)
I)
LIMITATIONS AND CAUTIONS q
l O THE. ESTIMATES ARE PRESENTED TO ILLUSTRATE THE METHODOLOGY, NOT TO l DECLARE THE ACTUAL MIXED WASTE GENERATION RATE FOR ANY POWER PLANT j OR FOR THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE.
i O POTENTIAL SOURCES OF MIXED WASTE WERE IDENTIFIED. THEREFORE, l
() CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADL TO IDENTIFY THE LARGEST REASONABLE NUMBER OF SOURCES.
]
O REASONABLE PRACTICES AT INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES WILL GENERALLY CAUSE THE GENERATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER VOLUMES OF MIXED WASTE.
I C3
+
C) METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING ,
MIXED WASTE GENERATION RATES O DETERMINE SUPPLY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TO POWER BLOCK O IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES WHICH CONSUME HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE POWER BLOCK i
O DETERMINE WHAT WASTE IS PRODUCED BY l EACH SUCH ACTIVITY
() O DETERMINE WHETHER EACH WASTE IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE l 0 DETERMINE WHETHER EACH WASTE IS RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED 0 ESTIMATE ANNUAL MIXED WASTE VOLUME GENERATION RATE O CHARACTERIZE MIXED WASTE IN TERMS OF HAZARDOUS AND RADIOACTIVE CONTENT i l
O l
O ESTIMATED MIXED WASTE GENERATION RATE !
WITH CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS AS-GENERATED VOLUME:
BWR 4,200 FT3/yn PWR 3,600 FT3/yn O AS-DISPOSED VOLUME:
BWR 2,100 FT3/ya PWR 1,500 FT3/yn O
E _ - ----_
I I) REASONABLE CHANGES TO ASSUMPTIONS O IT IS POSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE WASTES CONTAINING F003 SPENT SOLVENTS FROM OTHER SPENT SOLVENTS O CHARACTERISTICALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES CAN BE PROCESSED TO RENDER THEM CHARACTERISTICALLY NON-HAZARDOUS C) O PROCEDURES CAN BE IMPLEMENTED TO PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF RADIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION O CADMIUM CONTENT IN WELDS AND WELD RODS MAY BE SHOWN NOT TO EXHIBIT THE EP TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC l
O EXPLICIT ACCOUNT CAN BE MADE OF THE TIMING OF INFREQUENT EVENTS l O
1 - -- _ _ _-
l O
REASONABLE CHANGES TO ASSUMPTIONS l
O SCINTILLATION COCKTAILS MAY BE j SHOWN NOT TO EXHIBIT THE I IGNITABILITY CHARACTERISTIC l
O CHROMATE-BEARING ION EXCHANGE
]
RESINS MAY BE SHOWN NOT TO EXHIBIT THE EP TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC 0 DECONTAMINATION RESINS MAY BE l SHOWN NOT TO EXHIBIT THE CORROSIVITY CHARACTERISTIC 0 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS MAY HAVE ;
DESIGN AND OPERATING FEATURES WHICH DO NOT PRODUCE THE MIXED WASTE STREAMS ASSUMED IN TH1S ESTIMATE i
O l
. i O
ESTIMATED MIXED WASTE GENERATION RATE WITH REASONABLE ASSUMPTION ES-GENERATED VOLUME:
O AS-DISPOSED VOLUME:
750 FT3/yn l 1 0
jl1 . .
)l
~.
) .
p( t Y
9 E
O A
P E
D -
G PL 1U O A N A C T E C DC i
A P n O O n E
R P
E E N N D H D Y8 A A A NT P P P AND EE k E E EMT D O D CfA N T N AALU A A A RE cn C C C C C OTRC A Q A R A T E H N H N N N S R.
D E
T AS D D D LA U E X
E X
E X W W W C
E M M M L L
L L u R
w*
s i*
g E E NTS E Nl5
' f iAA sI TAA SH ADW l ATW l
?
C WRC E 7
C WRC E H
E T
TEA 5DL f
f BR S
A 1GC $
A GO W -
W E
- r-ft H I T si 5 1
H, E' :
L
+r
,F 3 L L t -
V F N S
t O
- f I T
- ADA J N S
?
GAFI RAC7 ADEf5 I
t a
DINA C L HCSM Pl 4 N D
EAU I
CD
- 1 T
SI S LU * -
SNMEM 5SA - M A
0EC f
E e COUDE T g E D w OCCEC CV EPH DNt VNAORA m NN -
IOEMA N CE OO
- E1 BI HEt A T Il Tf A
IRiC C AA L w g -
W NOS L -
Uu 3 ee L HTU Mm_ SU
- W E jO U*
- 1 i
N KTA Z D K-A N A AAA ? 0 6
9 CEA E(Z .
H T T H HtAC iHit 99 C
y -
R 1 NRN S l
a _ t em
- NO - *
- .I
- DitfID
!fE i
T R?l EWVEC 3
5 A +
e w GOR K n A CNMA E C ? MC R OAEH DI RC a e m n-RM C DE PQ0 Uf TA XP MBU5 I
t s
a r
E NEA E
I W
N EO1 8
KR"4
-m_
(A CRA T .u. H T
N A
f
% tEf LNi l
t t t EIA SI T
A A C C DT EB I H E NN OH'C EH AO OX E BT CC s
w
-' m_
e m
ll .
l E ?
E E
R EE RHD R
? C [$ ._ 4 D
f m
nE U ? a W. T E n C U*SS Tg? E tut ON E WrSIT M m XAA LPAUS L T X Y AT L
MgA pS T
ME{ L L
E MWW a S3 A ^W .
DO AyW **
- HUOE
. de t
E T h A EL w g AAMW jY D T 3D AC I
e 5
A WSO T
wgE R WWFO LD L
- f E
SA ZA PW W L!S Lt ugh (ENO AR EgT EfA$ OIIRHA
( t AA HgO t 5H A DI H H F
T tFO FOP I5 iUT 3F X C E
5 A 1 1O
) l
,( e. +-
f! t 6l,
()
l l
AVOIDING MIXED WASTE GENERATION O EXCLUDE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FROM THE ;
POWER BLOCK
~
O CONTROL USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE POWER BLOCK (I.E., PRECLUDE RADIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS) o SUBSTITUTE F003 SOLVENTS FOR OTHER SOLVENTS
)
o PROCESS CHARACTERISTICALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE TO REMOVE THE CHARACTERISTIC o FILTER WASTE OIL TO REMOVE RADIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION o RECLAIM SPENT SOLVENTS O ELIMINATE USE OF CHROMATE-BASED MATERIALS FOR CORROSION CONTROL 1
0
d
< MANAGING UNAVOIDABLE MIXED WASTE O MINIMIZE MIXED WASTE GENERATION u VOLUME REDUCE l
O TREAT IN ACCUMULATION CONTAINER OR l TANK WITHIN GENERATOR'S ACCUMULATION l TANK O CENTRAL MIXED WASTE STORAGE FACILITY O PETITION FOR GENERAL RULE CHANGE O PETITION FOR INDIVIDUAL RULE CHANGE O DISPOSE AS BRC WASTE O MANAGE AS GREATER-THAN-CLASS C WASTE O
I
_ = - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C)
OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES O MIXED WASTE SAMPLING SHIELDING APRON REPLACEMENT =
,' 17 PERSON-REM SAMPLING WITH APRONS IN PLACE =
0.5 PERSON-MREM /YR
^
C) -
SAMPLING WITHOUT APRONS IN PLACE:
2.5 PERSON-REM /YR O MIXED WASTE INSPECTION = I 3 PERSON-REM /YR O MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL =
2 PERSON-MREM /CI i
l l
O .
DISPOSAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT O CRITICAL PATHWAY IS GAMMA EXPO'SURE TO ONSITE RECLAIMER (INADVERTENT INTRUDER)
NRC/ EPA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (10 CFR 61 AND 40 CFR 264) 130 MREM /YR
)
BELOW-GRADE, DOUBLE LINER (40 CFR 264 ONLY) 120 MREM /YR SHALLOW LAND DISPOSAL (10 CFR 61 ONLY) 26 MREM /YR 1
C) l
~
L:
O l SCHEDULE DRAFT FINAL REPORT TO NUMARC MID-MAY TASK FORCE COMMENTS DUE TO NUMARC END OF MAY O CAMERA-READY MID-JUNE FINAL REPORT ISSUED END OF JUNE O
.f I
~7
/
V-p l
- 8 l
5 Z
8 m a il e
m g e e b g
i b p
5 2
c
=
g g
.O.
~ ~
s 8 i h $
3
= am 0 M e
= s @
.c -
e g a g {
1 hW m ,e - 8 b
a O
j
T8
- S9 A1 W ,
D7 E2
- X
- IL
- MI
- R P
WA C
A 9
8
/
6
/ E 4 S N
E O E 9 S P C 8 N S N E / O E A C 8 P R D N / S I E S" 3 E C U D U R R G N " T E N O S A S C N P U T N R O O S T S O N N I E A P T R T M S , ,
A R
R S I E ) Z R E E O O R I C M E L T R I f C A T E E R f l R Y E T T E I N ( L C S T " A A N , R S R W I N R E L A H
" O E T A T C D T T E N R E
T E
E E A X O L P I T L P M N T N R E R E D A A T F L A M E T N R E L F E A C L L C A C P R A 0 U R E E N C H N D R
8 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 9
/ / 8 / 8 8 3 4 / 0 / /
2 2 2 2 6 6
/ / / / / /
9 0 2 3 4 4 1
O l ' l i i , < l
ll l. i
- I
~
o E9-T8 S9 A1 W,
D7 E2 X
IL MI P
ER C
A A
N O
L A
I T
C E
S S S F A T O I S R P I E N ,
J H O R
O C
Z I
O I
E L
0 t P S T R C C t A C O D E T E I F
, E V A L R R , C I D P T W S E . N T I S L G V H A A E A E L N N S D L T S R I E A I S S ,
l D W U I A M N D t G G W A A A a , , F R B R P P P T I D G - L o
O O N E - D A E H H I I X 0 N C T S S O E I 0 A S K K J E M 1 L C
A R R W O O N N N N N R 3 W W O O O O O A D
E E E G G G G G N t
X T T N N N N N N I S S I I I I I M A A l ! l l l ,
T W W t t i t t S E
i i t t a N D D P P P P P T A
E E E C X X C C A C C D E I I R R I R R R M M N N E N N S
/ / / / / U A A A I E A A O P T P E O P P I E O E E D E E R A
V 8 8 ,
8 8
/ / 9 9 O 0 6 9 9 9 8 8 S 2- 1 8 8 8 / / L
- / / / 0 6 A 9 5 9 3 6
/
1
/
2
/
1 1 / /
/ / 3 4 4 4 4 7 2 1
o 1l: !l;1I' '
_ S9 A1 W ,
D7
- E2 X
_ IL
_ MIR WP C
A A
N ) N A O 9 O G I 8 I T / T N T A 3 A O P Z 2 Z I E I / I T C R 3 R A X 0 ( 0 Z E I
1 1 I
U A
Y L
WDS E T
U A
R O
H D
E E
T C H A
, S A
R T
U Y A K E
P.
T S EO P C R E A
W I
D A I E
I E T
S U T
E I
O D E
X I
S E
T A
D I
A D
L E
S A
B A
W D W E
, D A A L
M T D E E D S , V X ,
E I S A I N S T ) H U H M T U A 8 T T Y T ( ,
A S E ,
A K S T T E V C T A S S D T C S T D I A H N N
A G
I A M
I T
S S A M A I
E C R E G R ,
S E ) T E T U
U S , T 2 A , T T E K N 4 T D N A T A I ( S C I T A S L O )
U N 7 M G T (
I R
E E Y-T N
E T A R V N P O E S
I E F O
S9 A1 W
_ D7
_ E2 X
IL
_ MI
_ R WP
. NA C
A
) S E E R I U ) T D S s Y I E T ' B L C N C I O E O 0 CA R V H '
D P L lA F E P O V L G S S , T I C N 1 0 S N E T R E C
R N 0 1
O F
U 0
l T
I E
T A F S A R I E
E L
S N O P
L E S Z O C A T E I C I S O I S
S I
S E S L
I T
I T C C
I R
I N
A G
OO P
S A I
I P RE T D E E P S R G T A l E O T A S S C R A R A A D O W N I
R A
E G T E G T N S D F i A A I E I O R N T E X N O E S T I I M
Y T G E S M T S O T A I L W R M C N A D O A A H J R I
X B E DXE A
M G- 0 T D 0 l
I U I 0 ( N A QM A
0 1 L E O
l
S9 A1 W ,
D7 E2 X
IL MIR P
WA C
A
=
R A
S E E N Y C A -
A L 1 F P X R R T O N E N N F A H
T N
I I
E I
D A E A C
T T E S E A F E AP T R S P I R D E E 5 L P T / C , E O C 0 N ) R N R N T I E N OF o
(
E A Y ,
T T T L A P
E S X D I I T A E E L E S W N T E
I B
N I YW A
D R G A B E O D P S 7 X F U A E D 3 B C T I I
M A D E L S E
I 1
S R N C A F C E N S L E
T G
A N G A D
O P
A S
S A EE O I I 1 S O W A S N T U 9 I P S O E G Y D S I N B E F O C B E N T
E T D E D T
S I
P S
S L S N SW D G I A I A A A L E N V WC W W L I A D N L D 9 0
D R O R D D O E O E Y E O E T T X C X F X F L S A I I I O M M M T o
i'
- # o UNITED STATES (j 8' ~
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ;p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OCT 2 41988 TO ALL NRC LICENSEES
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION BY EPA 0F REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITIES THAT TREAT, l STORE OR DISPOSE OF RADI0 ACTIVE MIXED WASTE TO OBTAIN INTERIM STATUS PURSUANT TO SUBTITLE C 0F THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND REC 0VERY ACT (RCRA)
Enclosed for your information is a September 23, 1988 Federal Register notice issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and an explanatory i letter from EPA dated October 5, 1988. The notice clarifies requirements for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of radioactive mixed waste to obtain interim status pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Mixed waste is waste which is subject to regulation by the NRC because of the presence of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material, and subject to regulation by the EPA because it is hazardous under RCRA regiiTations. In States where RCRA hazardous waste prrprams are administered by EPA, facilities inust submit a RCRA Part A permit application to EPA by March 23, 1989 to q qualify for interim status. These States are AK, CA, CT, HI, ID, IA, OH, and b WY. This also applies to facilities in American Samoa, the Marianna Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
In authorized States, (states authorized to administer the Federal hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA), mixed waste facilities are not subject to RCRA regulation until the State revises its authorized program to include specific authority to regulate mixed waste. Four States have already obtained mixed waste authorization (CO, SC, TN and WA). In these States deadlines for obtaining interim status were previously set and have already passed.
As the other authorized States become authorized to regulate mixed waste under the Federal hazardous waste program, they will establish deadlines for submittal of the Part A permit application necessary to qualify for interim status. In these States, mixed waste f acilities are not subject to RCRA regulations until specific authority to regulate mixed waste is approved.
However, until that time mixed waste facilities must still comply with applicable State requirements.
The notice also discusses joint regulation of mixed waste, and the problem of j
complying with RCRA while still maintaining radiation exposuYes ALARA, and invites comments to form the basis of future action. Comments for EPA should be directed to Ms. Betty Shackleford, Office of Solid Waste (WH-5638), U.S.
Environmental Protection A 3ency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
You are encouraged to read the notice carefully and evaluate your own situation (q) to determine whether or not you must file a RCRA permit application now or in the future. If a RCRA Part A permit application is not timely filed in order L _-_ _ _ ._
l
-c.
to qualify for interim status, . mixed waste activities requiring a. permit must be terminated until a full permit application has been submitted, reviewed,'and approved.
Should you. have questions on NRC regulatory requirements, please call your i appropriate NRC licensing office. Should you have questions on the EPA RCRA l program or requirements you may call your State RCRA-implementing authority or i the U.S. EPA.. The EPA RCRA /Superfund Hotline telephone number is (800) 424-9346.
Sincerely, Jh4 W4tsww+p Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
O As stated I
e
9 to qualif for interim status, mixed waste activities requiring a permit must be terminv i:d until a full permit applic:-tion has been submitted, reviewed, and approved.
Should you have questions on NRC regulatory requirements, please call your appropriate NRC licensing offica. Should you have questions on the EPA RCRA program or requirements you may call your State RCRA-implementi7g authority or the U.S. EPA. The EPA RCRA /Superfund Hotline telephone number is (800) 424-9346.
Sincerely, c
}MalcolmR.Knapp, Director}A /Ys hswws Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards As stated O
jgo %j ,
L- 4- 'b /)
- ,'L. A. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20160 L
oFF6CE of ScLID . VAST! AND EVERoENCY MESPONSE .
OCT - 5 G33 Subiect: Clarification of Interim Status Qualification Requirements for ERC Licensees Managing Radioactive Mixed 'Jaste
Dear NRC Licensee:
I am writing this letter to you because as a NRC licensee it is possible that your. facility generates or otherwise handles radioactive mixed wastes (i.e.,. wastes that are both radioactive and chemically hazardous). Facilities that handle mixed wastes are subject to regulation by both the NRC (or the Department of Energy) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Consequently, your facility may need to comply with EPA standards and requirements, including obtaining a permit granted by EPA.
The permit process can be quite lengthy. As a result, EPA has created provisions and requirements for facilities awaiting ^1nal decision on their permit application. The main provision is one of q tifying for interim status. Under interim status, you may continue your hazardous waste (i.e.,
mixed waste) activity until a final decision is made on the permit. Applying i for a permit and gaining interim status is an important step in complying with l EPA regulations regarding mixed waste.
Below, I describe the requirements for obtaining interim status in !
unauthorized States. Please read this material to determine if and how your l facility may need to comply with interim status requirements. j Backcround On July 3,1986, EPA issued a notice in the Fede al Register (51 EB 24504) clarifying the applicability of the Resource Conservation and Recovery I Act (RCRA) to the management of radioactive mixed waste. (Mixed waste is ,
defined as waste that satisfies the definition of radioactive waste subject to i the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and contains hazardous waste that either (1) is ]
listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or (2) exhibits i any of.the hacardous waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. The hazardous component of mixed waste is regulated under RCRA.)
Since that time,. EPA has become aware that many handlers of radioactive mixed waste have been subvantially confused about the regulatory status of G C01005 "O'.C.4 49e=
2-O their facilities, because EPA's Federal Registar, nctice addressed only RCRA's applicability to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDF's) handling rad'.sactive mixed waste, and not the issue of interim status. Consequently, many owners and operators of these facilities are uncertain about how to qualify for interim status if they are handling radioactive mixed waste, Therefore, EPA issued another notice in the Federal Register on September 23, 1988, (53 EB 37045) that clarified the requirements for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of radioactive mixed waste to obtain interim status j pm uant to Subtitle C of RCRA. I have enclosed a copy of that notice uith
! th.s letter and summarized below its key points. 1 EPA Identification Number All treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and persons generating or transporting radioactive mixed wastes must obtain an EPA Identification l Number. This number is obtained by completing an EPA Notification Form 8700-12 and forwarding it to the Regional EPA Office serving the area in ',chich the relevant hazardous waste activity is located (see enclosed map and list).
TSDF's, in addition, must obtain interim status to continue handling mixed waste until a final permit is received, Interim Status lh Section 3005(a) of RCRA prohibits treatment, atorage, or disposal of hazardous vaste without a RCRA permit after November 19, 1980. This same section of RCRA, however, allows a facility to continue treatment, storage, or l disposal under interim status pending a final decision on its permit l application.
State Authorization The RCRA program is designed to be implemented by the States, and EPA has established an authorization process by which individual State agencies may take responsibility for the RCRA program in their State. Currently, 44 States and Territories are authorized for EPA's base RCRA Program.1 Authorized State regulations must be at least equivalent to the Federal RCRA regulations, and may be more stringent. For States that are not authorized to implement the 1
The authorized States and Territories are: AL, AZ, AR, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA , Guam, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MN, MS, MT, 'C. ND, NE.
NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY , OK , OR , PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, 'i A , WI, and .
WV, Also, four of these States, CO. SC, TN, and WA, have authorization for their mixed waste programs.
m
_Y i j
RCRA program, EPA implements the Federal RCRA program direct'ly.'
Consequently, requirements may be different for facilities in authorized and non-authorized States.
NRC licensees in RCRA authorized States need to check with their State authorities to determine the exact requi rements they must comply with in order to initiate a permit application and obtain intsrim status. The interim status requirements facing NRC licensees in non-authorized States are summarized below.
l Interim Status Reautrements for Facilitias in Non-Authorized States and Trust Territories
. Facilities must be in existence as of July 3, 1986. (EPA considers any facility in operation or under construction to be in existence.)
e Owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must submit Part A of their permit applications (as described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 270, Sections 270.10 to 270.73) or a modification to an existing Part A permit application no later than March 24, 1989, in order to obtain interim status.
r- s Owners and operators of land disposal facilities handling
(_j) radioactive mixed waste must submit Part 3 of their permit applications as well as a certificate of compliance with applicable RCRA ground-water monitoring and financial assurance requirements by September 24, 1989, a Facilities other than land disposal facilities must comply with their Regional EPA Office's deadline to submit Part B of their permit applications.
2 Currently, 12 States and Territories de not have authorization by EPA for their hazardous waste program: AK, American Samoa, CA. CT, HI, IA, ID,
[)
s_-
Marianna I= lands, OH, PR, VI, and WY.
0 I hope this letter eliminates much of the confusion regarding interim status requirements for TSDFs handling radioactive mixed waste. I encourage each of you to read the enclosed Federal Recister notice carefully, as it explains each of the above requirements in detail. Please do not hesitate to {
contact EPA with any questions regarding this matter. Questions should be '
addressed to your EPA Regional Office or Ms. Betty Shackleford, Office of Solid Waste (OS-342), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 382-2210.
1, Sincerely yours,
} c , f . k - ( ::. w u c -
,/ J o e ph Carra, Director l
Permits and State Programs Division Enclosures e
1 0
O EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
" R
\
W }'" '-
. .g
..... ... , i . . . .
L m
. . . .2 ....x . -
.a'.
. . . ,,, ,'.... c ... . .. , , . .
... :i
,,y;y~
....l..,
w..--. ..., ,- ....
- l. . \. . c . ,, .-
g ....
3y g ...
Io .........
'.tyt"
. . . .. o dbd-O Reglons Roglons Rogions 4 - Alabama 1 -Maine 3 - Pennsylvania 10 - Alaska 3 - Maryland 1 -Rhode Island 9 - Arizona 1 -Massachusetts 4 -South Carolina 6 - Arkansas 5 -Michigan 8 -South Dakota 9 -California 5 - Minnssota 4 -Tennessee 8 -Colorado 4 -Mississippi 6 -Texas 1 -Connecticut 6 - Missourl 8 -Utah 3 - Delaware 8 - Montana 1 -Vermo.
3 - D.C. 7 -Nebraska 3 - Virginia, 4 -Florida 9 - Nevada 10 -Washingu n 4 -Georgia 1 -New Hampshire 3 -West Virginia 9 - Hawaii 2 -New Jersey 5 -Wisconsin 10 -Idaho 6 -New Mexico 8 -Wyoming 5 -Illinois 2 -New York 9 - American Samoa 5 -Indiana 4 -North Carolina 9 -Guam 7 -lowa 8 -North Dakota 2 -Puerto Rico 7 - Kansas 5 -Ohio 2 -Virgin Islands 4 - Kentucky 6 -Oklahoma 6 - Louisiana 10 - Oregon O
i O EPA REGIONAL ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS i
j i REGION 1 - John F. Kennedy Federal Building -- Room 2203 Boston, MA 02203 FTS -- 8-223-7210 DDD -- (617) 223-7210
{:
REGION 2 -- - 26 Federal Plaza-- Room 900 New York, NY 10278 FTS -- 8-264-2525 DDD -- (212) 264-2525 REGION 3 -- - 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 FTS -- 8-597-9800 DDD -(215) 597-9800 REGION 4 - -- 345 Courtland Street NE Atlanta,GA 30365 FTS -- 8-257-4727 DDD -- (404) 881-4727 )
REGION 5 - - 230 South Dearbom Street Chicago,IL 60604 FTS -- 8-353-2000 DDD -- (312) 353-2000 REGION 6 - ---- 1201 Elm Scret Dallas,TX 75270
$ FTS -- 8-729-2600 DDD -- (214) 767-2600 REGION 7 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 FTS -- 8-757-2800 DDD -- (913) 236-2800 REGION 8 --- - One Denver Place -- Suite 1300 99918th Street Denver, CO 80202 2413 FTS -- 8-564-1603 DDD -- (303) 2931603 REGION 9 - --- 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 FTS -- 8-454-8153 DDD -- (415) 974-8153 REGION 10 - - - 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 FTS -- 8-399 5810 DDD -- (206) 442-5810 4 1
O H
M
s- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ _ _
~ ~ .
1 1
Fedsral Register / Vol. 53. No.185 / Fnday. Septemcer 23, 1968 / Notices 37045 u'tenden Cos.. VT. Due. Apn115.1989. its eustmg autherneo h4zardous waste render the facdity subject to the
{ ":t: Ralph Abele. Jr. (617) %5-5100 pra2:am tu incbde authonty to regulate re quirements to nave a per nit .:nder
{ rad.oactae mned wasie. Owners aod section 3005h (2) the owner or operator j s ished FR 11-13-a?-Review i
comphes with the notification ud extended. operators must then comply with l apphcable State requirements regarding requirements of section 3010 of RCRA.
21S No. 880152. Draft. l'S A. PRO. and (3) the owner or operator submits a NAT. Nationw'da Biological Defense intenm status, To date, four States (i e.. Colorado. RCRA Part A permit application f 40 CTR Research P-ostam. Continuation.
Implementation. Jue; October 4.1988- South Carchna. Tennessee, and 270.70). Intenm status is retamed untd
Contact:
Charles Desey (301) 663-2732. Washington) have been authonzed to the Agency or authonzed State makes a formal decision to issue or deny the fino Published FR 5-20-88-Review pened regulate radioactive mixed wastes. In eeended- those States, owners and operators must TSDF permit.
EIS No. 880287. DSuppl. AFS. OR. ID. comply with the applicable State law As provided by section 3006(bl of RCRA. States may apply to EPA for Wallowa Whitman National Forest. govern ng ntertm status for radioactive authonzation to administer and enforce l
.and and Resources Management Plan- mixed waste facdtties if it ts more Additional Alternative, implementation. sinngent than the otherwise applicable a hazardous waste program pursuant to l Baker. Union. W allow a. Crant. Malheur provisions of this notice. Subtitle C of RCRA. Authonzed Staie and Umatilla Counties. OR and Adams, ron ruman supoannow comen programs are carned out m lieu of EPA.
To date. forty.four States have received l Nez Perce and Idaho Counties. ID. Due: Betty Shackleford. Office of Sohd Weste final authonration to admimster the I December 12.1988.
Contact:
Bruce (WH-5638). U.S. Environmental basic hazardous waste program. Of ,
..tcMillan (503) 523-6319. Protection Ageocy 401 M Street SW these fotty.four States, only four (i e .
Published FR 9 9-88--Review oeriod Washmaton. DC 20400. (202) 382-2221.
n d. incorrect date published in 9- Colorado. South Carolina. Tenneseee.
sureumammy inconnnom and Washington) have received the A. Background additional authorization needed to Deted; September 2o,1988. regulate radioactive mixed waste. In William D. Dickerson, in 1976, the Resource Conservation these States, which had base program and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended, Deputy Derector. Office of federo/ Acu rices. authorization by July 3,1986. the State's {
was passed to provide for developmef
= [FR Doc. 86-21862 Filed 9-22-a8 Les amj regulations on intenm status for mixed i
- and implementauon of a comprehensive I seuses caos seaw.as program to protect human health and waste facilities control.
The other forty States with base the environment from the improper program authonzation must still revise y m -3a52 + management nf hazardous waste, their existing programs to include ]
Specifically. Subutie C of RCRA creates authonty to regulate the haza dous j
] tartfication of intoftm Status a managment system mtended to ensure , ,
ualtftcetion Requirements for the that hazardous waste is safely bandled component of radioactive mixed waste.
Hazardous Cofnponents of from se point of gerauon to nna) & Wu Sam ad trust wenn Radioactive Mixed Waste y(i.e.. Alaska. Amencan Samoa.
disposal. To acomplish this. Subutie C requires the Agency first to define and California. Connecticut. Hawati. Ida ho.
acawcy: Environmental Protection lowa. Marianna Islands. Ohio. Puerto Agency (EPA). charactenze hazardous waste. Second. a Rico. Virgm Islands, and Wyommg) hazardous waste mamiest system was acTiom Clanfication notice. unauthonzed to carry out their own implemented to track the movement of RCRA hazardous waste program.
suwwant The Environmental Protection hazardous waste from the potnt of radioactive mixed waste is subject to Agency (EPA)is today publishmg a generation to ultimate disposal. Federal hazardous waste regulations notice which c!anfies requirements for Hazardous waste generators and adminis,ered by EPA.
facilities that treat. store or dispose of transporters must employ appropnate Historically, substantial confusion radioactive mixed waste to obtain management practices and procedures and uncertainty have surrounded the mtenm status pursuant to Subtitle C of to ensure the effective operauon of the marufest system. Third, owners and applicability of RCRA to hazardous the Resource Conservation and wastes containing certam radioactive Recovery Act (RCRA). Radioactive operators of treatment. storage or matenals (i e. source. special nuclear or mixed wastes are wastes that contain disposal facilities (TSDF's) must comply with standards the Agency established byproduct material as defined t;y the both hazardous waste subject to RCRA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended
, and radiactive waste subject to the under section 3004 of RCRA that "may (68 Stat. 923)). This uncertamty Atomic Enenry Act(AEA). Additionally- be necesary to protect human health stemmed, to a large extent, from the this notice addresses " notification" and the environment." These standards exclusion of source, special nuclear and requirements for handlers of radioactive are implemented exclusively through byproduct matenal from the defirunon mised waste. permits issued to TSDF owners and of sohd waste under secuon 1004(27) of eart: Owners and operators of facilities operators by the Agency or authonzed RCRA.
treating. stonng. or disposmg of States. Until final permits are issued, treatment, storage. and disposal To clanfy State responsibihties with radioactne mned waste in States not regard to the hazadous components of authonzed by September ':3.1988 to facihties must comply with the interim radioacuve nuxed waste, the EP A status regulations found in 40 CFR Part administer the Federal hatardous waste published a nonce in the Federal program m heu of EPA must submit a 265. which were promulgatd mostly on Register of July 3.1986 l51 FR 24504).
RCRA Part A pernui apphcation to EPA May 14 1980. That notice recognized that States had Uncer RCRA intenm status, the owner not previously been authonzed under O bystatus.
March :3.1989 Facilities treating, stonng or to quahfy ; e mtenm or operator of a TSCF may operate RCRA to regulate radioactive mixed wahout a final permit af. (1) The facdity disposing of radioactive mixed waste in waste because of contmutng debate S'ates that received authanzanoin by eusted on Novernber 19.1980 (or surroundmg the extent of RCRA eusted on the effective date of statutory September 23.1988 are not subject to juttsdiction over this category of weste.
RCRA regulations untd the State restses or regulatory charges under RCRA that
" " " ' ~ - " - ' - " " - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
37046 Fedeest Register / Vol. 53. No.165 / F iday. September 23. 1988 / Notices Through that notice. epa clar fied its term byproduct matenal as it applies to they are handlmg radioactive mixed position that the hazardous DOE owned wastes (i e . any waste.
componential of mixed waste was rsdioactne matenal except special The luly 3.1986 notice addressing cubl ect to RCRA ragulatun. nuc! ear matenal yielded m or made RCRA's applicability to TSDFs hanohnu Accordingly. States were required to radioactive by exposure to the radiation radioactive mixed waste did not addren revise their eustina hazardous waste incident to the process of producing or the issue of intenm status. Caen that programs and appiv for RCRA utilizmg spec:al nuclear matenal) refers omission and subsequent definmonal authorization to regulate radicactae only to the actual radionuclides clarifications on which radioacm e mixed waste m accordance with the d;spersed or suspended in the waste waste streams are subject to RCRA ceadlines set forth m 'he July 3.1966 substance. That interpretation is regulation. EPA has determined that rotice. SimilarS %ch it'nority Tust consistent with the position issued on substantial confusion about mtenm now be sought by States init:aily January 8.1987 by the EPA and the status requirements existed. The cubmitting an applicanon for RCRA Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pnmary purpose of this notice. thc.efore, final authoncation. in a document entitled " Guidance on the is to clanfy RCRA mtenm status Since publication of the July 3.1986 Definition and Identification of requ.rements with respect to TSDFs notice the Agency promulgated new Commercial Mixed Low l.evel managing radioactive mixed waste. The dead!mes for State hazardous waste Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and requirements are discussed below.
program modifications (the " Cluster Answers to Anticipated Questions."
Rule." September 22.19a6. 51 FR 33712).
Therefore, as DOE clanfied in its May 1. EA#W"'T### I# " ## .#
This subsequent rulemaking established 198 byproduct rule, any matnx "##
annual deadlmes for States to submit contaming a RCRA hazardous waste as Intenm status provides temporary program changes m groups or clusters defined in 40 CFR 261 and a radioactive authonzation to contmue hazardous when seekmg Agency authonzation. For waste subject to the AEA is a waste management activities at State prograrn changes occurnng after radioactive mixed waste. Such wastes facilities engsgmg in such actmties at June 1984 the groups or clusters were to are subject to RCRA hazardous waste correspond to successive twelve month the time that they first become subiect regulations regardless of further to RCRA regulation. Without iritenm penods begmnmg each July 1 and status, the activities would have to subclassification of the radioactive endmg June 30 of the followmg year. In weste constituent as high. level, low. cease until a permit application was level, transuranic, etc. filed and reviewed and final permit e tab she b th lus er ule. States '
which applied for final authonzation C. Inter'm Status before July 3.1986 were required t n of the conditions for qualifying As discussed previously. RCRA
^
for intenm status under section 3005(el regra a cue e autho y to secnon 3005(a) prohibits treatment, is that the facility be "ln existence
- it rage, or disposal of hazardous wasta either on November 19,1980 of on the regulate the hazardous component of radioactive mixed waste by july 1.1984 without a permit after November 19. date of the regulatory or statutory (nr by July 1.1989 if a statutory 1980. However, section 3005(e) of RCRA change which first subjects the fact! ty provides that facilities m existence on to RCRA permitting requirements. Under amendment is necesserv). States mitially seekmg fina; honzation after November 19.1980 or on the date of EPA regulations at 40 CFR 260.10 and July 3.1987 were req. .d to seek statutory or regulatory changes which 270.2. to be "in existence' (i e., to be an authonzation for radioactive mixed subject the facility to RCRA existmg hazardous waste management waste as part of their application for requirements. may continue treatment, facility or ex2stmg facility) means that fmal authonzation. Any State applymg storage, or disposal under "intenm the facility is either operating or for HSWA corrective action must status" pendmg a final decision on its construction of such a facility has concurrently seek authonty for pernut application.S To qualify for commenced on the relevant date.
radioactive mixed waste. The July 3. intenm status under section 3005(e), the As applied to facilities handling 1986 notice addressing RCRA's owner or operator of a TSDF in radioactive mixed waste in States applicability to TSDFs handling existence must submit a part A permit unauthonzed to implement a hazardous radioactive mixed waste did not, application and meet applicable waste program (i.e. without base howes er. address the issue of mterim notification requirements under section program authonzation) as of the date of status. 3010 of RCRA. this notice. EPA believes hat facilities EPA has become aware that many in operation or under construction as D. C!artfication of the Definition of TSDPs handling radioact2ve mixed radioactive mixed waste treatment.
Bypmduct Mated storage. or disposal facilities on July 3.
waste. both in authonzed and At the same time that EPA's rules unauthonzed States (EPA. administered 1986 may qualify for intenm status governing State programs for hazardous waste programs). have been under section 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) of RCRA.
radioactive mixed waste were being substantially confused about the The Agency interprets this provision as des eloped a?d implemented. regulatory sta;.4 of their particular mix applymg to such facilities in existence controversy arose over which wastes of hazardous waste. Furtbr. these on july 3,1986 because the july 3.1986 l are mixed and therefore subject to owners and operators are uncertain notice was EPA's first official RCRA and which wastes are pure about how to qualify for intenm status if pronouncement to the general public l ' by product matenal" and therefore that RCRA permitting requirements are I exempt from RCRA regulations as , g,,,,,, ,, , focnay has pr.wousiy had its applicable to radioactive mixed waste.
l provided by seenon 1x4(2'). To in, nm u s. iwnmai.4. on. facitay i. earna by In view of the level of confusion J delineate RCRA applicability to their eieiute fmm queuyms for mienm smus for a newly surrounding regulation of radioactne bvproduct matenal waste streams, the l'eted waste iRCRA section 30064eHill if only mixed waste pnor to that time. EPA will D'epartment of Energy (DOE) issued an c" a ** * ' ** f
- c'l"? h* " P"" " h
- d treat the July 3.1986 notice as the mterpretive rule on May 1.1987 (52 FR '"$,
o 'n',"'y
. $,'N."jn"o*,','$.) ml f. ,,, relevant regulatory change for l 15937). In that rule DOE stated that the a .o mt tw establishmg that facilities in existence f
--- - - l
y --- i I
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.185 / Fnday. September 23.198a / Notices 37047 on that date may qualify for intenm which is the tngger for i 27010(e)in required f. certifications within twelve status if other appi: cable requirements normal circumstances. As a result, months of the effective date of the are met. owners and operators m unautho ized State's authonzation to reguta:e Facihties treaung stonng. or States could legitimately have been radioactive mixed waste. Fadure to disposing of radicactise mixed waste confused as to whether (and when) they submit the Part B permit application or but not other hazardous waste m a State were required to submit a Part A permit the required certificahons will result m with base prcram authonzation are not application. IJnder i 27010(e)(2). EPA loss ofintenm status for the affected sublect to RCRA regulation until the finds that the confusion is substantial units and possibly for the facility.
State program is reused and authonzed and is attnbutable pnmanly to (1) Facilities other than land dispesal must to issue RCRA permits for redtoactive ambiguities surrounding the 40 CFR submit the Part B permit application in mixed waste. The effective date of the parts 260-265 regulatory status of mixed accordance with deadlines established State s receipt of radioactne mixed waste. (2) the narrow scope of the July 3. by the authonzed State program.
}
waste regulatory authonzation from 1988 notice and (3) uncertainty regarding 2 Requeement to Co@y wah Seccan EPA will therefore be the regulatory DOE's final definition of byproduct
' change that subjects these TSDF's to material which had direct beanns on
- 'S###### l The final condition for obtaining i RCRA permitting requirements. Any RCRA applicability to Federally owned facility treating, stonng, or disposing of radioactive mixed wastes and indirect intenm status under section 3005(e) of radioactive mixed waste. or any such beanns on commercial radioactive RCRA is notification of hazardous waste facility at which construction mixed wastes. activity under section 3010(a) of RCRA.
commenced by the effective date of EPA. therefore. is exercising its Section 3010(a) requires persons authonzation for the State's radioactive authonty today under i 270.10(e)(2) to handling hazardous wastes at the tm.e mixed waste program revision may extend the Part A permit application of publication of EPA's inttial hazardous qualify for intenm status if the other filing dates for owners and operators of waste regulations (on May 19,1980}to requirements desenbed below are met. facilities handling radioactive mixed notify EPA of their hazardous waste However, owners and operators of waste in unauthonzed States. Owners activity withm 90 days (i e.. by August
' b ect and operators of radioactive mixed 18,1980). Section 3010(a) also allows the o al applica le Sta e la s A Stat , waste facilities in perati n r under Admmistrator discretion on whether to establish its own date for qualifying for e nstruction as of July 3.1986 (See 45 FR requtre persons to provide such intenm status but. m order to be no less 33066. May 19.1980) in unauthonzed notification not later than 90 days afte-stnngent than the Federal program. that States must submit RCRA Part A permit promulgation or regulations identifying a j date mo. y not be after the effective date applicadons or modifications withm six st'bstance they handle as hazardous g to months of the date of publication of waste thereby providing EPA with a egula e radios i mixe a t day's notice to quahfy for interim current picture of the hazardous waste Some facilities in States with base status. Diis is predicated on the unn erse.
program a athonzation as of July 3,1986 Agency's determination that the time Although many facthties currently may alrea dy have intenm status under penods specified in i 270.10(e) are treating. stonng, or d2sposing of RCRA because they handle other RCRA tnggered as of the date of publicauon of radioacuve mixed waste were doing so hazardos.s wastes. These facilities this notice given the circumstances in May 1980. EPA believes that the should subnut a revised Part A permit presented herein. It should be noted. status of radioactive mixed waste was application reflecting their radioactive bowever, that radioacuve mixed waste sufficiently unclear that no notification mixed waste actit : ties within six land disposal facilities must also submit under section 3010(a) was required by months of the State's receipt of August 18.1980 for tacihtles handhng a final (Part B) peruut application and authonzation for radioactive mixed certification of complianco with such waste (See 45 FR 76631-33.
w a s t e. November 19.1980). Nor has notification applicable ground. water morutonng and
- 2. Requirement.: to file o Permit financial assurance requirements withm subsequently been required as part of Application twelve months from the date of this EPA promulgauon of additional RCRA notice pursuant to secuan 3005(e)(3) of regulations. Therefore. EPA has To quahfy for mienm status under determmed that it is unreasonable to RCRA. Faalure to do so may result in RCRA section 3005(e)(1). the owner or penahze owners and operators of operator of an " existing" facility must loss of intenm status for the affected units and possibly for the facihty. facthties currently handling radioactive submit a Part A permit applicauon. mixed waste for any failure to file l!nder 40 CFR 370.10(e), exjsting Facilities other than land disposal must submit Part B of the permit applicauon notification under Secuon 3010.
facilities m ecutheraed States must Further. EPA finds that TSDF's have submit Part A of their permit application in accordance with deadhnes estabhshed by the EPA Regional Office. " complied with the requirements of no later than six months after the date section 3010(al" for purposes of section of " publication or regulations"which Mixed waste TSDF's m States with first require them to comply with base program authonzation must 3005(e)intenm status under 40 CFR comply with apphcable State 2?0.70(s)(1).This finding is predicated technical standards, or thirty days after requirements and deadhnes for largely on the fact that radioactive t, hey first become subject to the mixed waste will not be subject to techt ical standards. whichever is first. obtammg mtenm status as prescnbed in Although me bly 3.1986 notice clanfied authonzed State law. Radioscuve mixed hazardous waste regulations in the vast RCRA jur sdiction over radioactne waste land disposal facihties obtammg maionty of States until they revtse their mixed weste. tt specifically addressed intenm status m authonzed States are programs to include such authonty Sonly the issue of State authorization.nevertheless subject to the secuan These program revisions could take unni Apphcanon of the t'ime penods specified 3005(e)(3) one. year provision on loss of luly 3.1989 for States need;ng a intenm status for newly. listed wastes. statutory amerl dment. Because in 40 CFR 010(e) to facihties located m unauthonzed States was not Thus. the owners or operators of such notification would be hnked to addressed. Furthermore. the July 3,1986 facihties must submit the State analogue radioactive mixed waste authonzation of the Part D permit apphcstion and the for these States. receipt of this notice was technically not a regulation.
37048 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.185 / Friday. September 23. 1988 / Nottces mformation would be fragmented. waste is,achiesed. The Agency urges EPA recognizes ihat implentaticy Moreover, the Agency has been aware States authonzed to regu! ate radioactive of the dual regulatory program hr of the magmtude of the potent:al mixed waste to adopt a comparable radioactive mixed waste w.gment redinactive mned wasta uniserse for practice when implementmg its might result in instances where some time since each NRC and NRC hazardous waste program. compliance with both sets of ras:' er s E. Consistency with the Atomic Energy is n t cnly Weasible but undemW
.pgreement State Imcensee is a potential Thmfore. EPA urges the requied
..ardler of racioeme mned w as e. Act Thus no further r.edcation of EPA community to bnng to out attention all under i 2 0 70lalli)is required m order Pubhcation of the clanfication notice cases of actualinconsistency which may for facthties treat:ng. stonng or addressing RCRA appheabthty to form the basis for future rulemakmg d:spos;ng of mised waste to cualify for radioactive mixed was.e precipitated a and/or technical or pohcy guidance inter r, status. However TSDF owners variety of concerns from the regulated ~
Dated Septerr.ber 16.19o8. ;
and operators. hke generators and commumty, most of which reflected confusion about the RCRA program. L**
- N'5d*-
transporters of radioactive mned waste. Admestictor. Enurann entalP-oter on must obtam an EPA identification Howeser two issues were commonly raised. namely. (1) the appropriateness AF'CY Number in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 285.11 tf of RCRA hazardous waste regulations (FR Doc. 88-22n6 Filed 9-Ld8 8 45 rni they do not a! ready have one. The for managing waste containmg s e acoosseem us identification Number may be obtamed radioactive components and. (2) by completing EPA Notification Form compliance with RCRA would result in violatinn of a basic tenet of radioactive [ OMS-51714; FRL-3452 91 8~00-12 and submitting it to the EPA Regional Office servmg the area where waste management. that of keeping radiation exposures as low as Toxic and Hazardous Substances:
the hazardous waste activity is located. CertaJn Chemicata Remanufacture reasonably achievable ( ALARA).
D. Joint Regulation of Radioactive These concerns prompted the EPA NotJces MLxed Waste and the NRC to jointly review their Acawcy: Environmental P otection As stated previously, a single respective regulations in an effort to Agency (EPA).
radioactive mixed wcste stream is delineate the extent ofinconsistencies between EPA's hazardous waste and Acnose Notice.
subiect to regulation by two separate Federal agencies (i e.. EPA and NRC. or NRC's radioactive waste management suuuAny: Section 5(a)(1) of the Toxic EPA and DOE). This dual regulatory requirements. No inconsistencies were Substances. Control Act (TSCA) system requ;*es handlers of waste identified as a result of this companson requires any person who intends t formerly regulated excNsively by NRC although RCRA was more presenptiva manufacture or import a new chem or DOE to also comply with RCRA in some instances and differences in substance to submit a remanufacture regulations for hazardous waste stnngency were observed. Diffenng or notice (PMN) to EPA at least 90 days management. EPA is committed to more stnngent regulations do not before manufacture or import minimizing the impact of RCRA necessarily constitute inconsistent commences. Statutory requirements for regulations by developing a strategy for requirements. For example, the section 5(a)(1) remanufacture notices loint regulation of radioactive mixed companson of container management are discussed in the final rule published wastes that will effect progtam regulations (See 10 CFR Parts 61 and 71 n the Federal Registar of May 13.1983 implementation in the least burdensome and 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 1) revealed that they covered different aspects of (48 FR 21722). This notice announces manner practicable. receipt of forty-etght such PMNS and One area of the radfonctive mixed container management. NRC regulations provides a summary of each.
waste regulatory process which may provide requ;rements for packagtng and lend itself to streamiming occurs when placement for land disrcsel(including oArts: Close of Review Penods:
regulatory requirements for hazardous the use of fill and hquid absorbent P 88-1878. 88-1879. 88-1880. November and radioactive waste management are matenals)(See to CFR 61.51 and to CFR 22,1988.
duphcative. When this occurs. 40-44) while EPA regulations provide P W1881. BMB82. November 23.1988.
compliance with regulations governing presenptive provisions for the design. P 88-1883. 8& 1884. 88-1885. W1886, 88-radioactive waste management may use and irispection of centamers at 1887. 88-1888. 88-1889.8& 1890. 88-accomplish a level of environmental storage facilittes and desenbe how spills 1891.88-1892.88-1893.88-1894.88-protection that may be commensurate Dom storage arens are to be mitigated. 1895.88-1896. November 25,1988.
mth that required under RCRA fc: Both agencies have regulations on p 88-1897,88-1898. 88-1899 88-1900. 88-hszardous waste management or vice packagmg and waste transport. Here. 1901, 88-1902. B&-1903. 88-1W ue-sersa. In such mstances. EPA will the regulatory requirements were found 1905,88-1906,88-1907.88- N %-
accept. to the extent peasible. to be complementary rather than 1909. 88-1910. 8Mo11. Nos emLer 27 information already subtrutted to the confhcting. 1983, NRC when processing the RCRA permit. Although NRC and EPA waste P 88-1912. 88-1913. 88-1914. Nosember Marcoser. EPA and NRC are assessmg management regulations differ m ,
a 3933, the feasibihty of deseloping a lomt stringency and scope the technica! P 88-1915. 88-1916. 88-1917. 8&-1918. 88-permitt.na/hcenong guidance that will requirements were not found to be 1919.88-1920.88-1921,88-1922.88-4ddress these concerns. Suggestions inconsistent. Section 100tHa) of RCRA 1923. 88-1924, 88-1925. Nov em * '9.
from the regulated commumty regarding precludes any sohd or nazardous waste 1988' duphcotive requirernents and regulation by EPA or a State that is Wntten comments by:
l 5.mphfication of the hcensing'permittmg " iinconsistent" with the requirements of l process are welcome. Corments should the AEA. In sucn mstances. the AEA P 88-1878. BM879. 88-1880. October 23 would take prececence and the 1988 be specific and should document how equaalent protectior of human health incons: stent RCRA requirement would P W1881. 88-1881 October 24.1988 and the environment fro'm hazardous beinapphcab4c. P 88-1883. 881884. 88-1885.
UNITED STATES nast etAss unit NUCLEAR REGULAYORY COMMISSION Po8'^o',*y'8 y P^'D WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 PERMIT No C OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 6300 1
G O -
7
) -
4 4 1 1
/ /
0 t 7 7 3 - (
0 -
_ ) 3 .
t 0 /
_ 3 6 i
/ (
_ 6 a
_ 2 A
/ C
_ 6 S
(
a _ f o
)
) _ A I
2 C e 7
/
/ _ S c 4
6 n t - _ f a
- 7 o u 2 / . s t / 4 w s
(
1 ( - ' e I i
I P . - v d C
e n S . A - R a E
I S C I
f . S - n g T 0I o o n I
V 2
w
. f o- i s
s i
t n
I T
I i
e -
w-e -
i m
i r
C v A e i m P I
R
- v - o W e C E I l
- R -
I V
a - W -
E c N I i R s ) n - C -
A OP C
S k
w e
e I
7 2
/
1 h
T c
e I - -
R 2 -
O ) / A J I 6 1 C
- W-A / ( S -
N M 1 C-F I
2
- P C
f o - A-O / S -
f
- I 1 w o-E ( f e - g-L U 0 o i n
D 1 t p v i-E 1 w e f e
i R - e-H i e i C c v t i S e e n s n - r-a r 'R e o- b-m i C
P e c
e g tc - P C-a S n a
a n a -
r S-f E a
o t
p M a
t e- O-a n e
c d I n- D- s u
o c n A- t i
t A a a - t a
a a .
A da - - s c Q v - -
i i e t f l N - - n i a e i t o r n f o- - r r
u i
N t
e n
e-t -
c I a 01 t - -
S Y O
.