ML20247G883
| ML20247G883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1989 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247G889 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8909190162 | |
| Download: ML20247G883 (7) | |
Text
, _ _ _ _ .
}' 1 SEP I 8 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard L. Bangart Director, LLWM/D FROM: Paul H. Lohaus Branch Chief, NMSS/LLOB
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
_ MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF NORTHEAST LLW COMPACT - AUGINT 16, 1989 Attached is a summary of the discussions between NRC staff and members of the Northeast LLW compact on August 16, 1989.
Attachment:
As stated cc: G.Pangburn, IMNS P.Loysen, IMNS C. Thomas, NRR D.Nash, NRR R.Fonner, OGC F. Combs, SLITP S.Salomon, SLITP DISTRIBUTION:
Centrai F11e1 '"00.7,- ,Gs.31 JGreeves PLohaus MBell R.Starmer RMacDougall JJSurmeier HMSS r/f JShaffner PDR Yes /T/
PDR No {/ Reason: Proprietary / / or CF Only /~ /
ACNW Yes /T/ No /~~/
SUBJECT ABSTRACT: MEETING WIT MELLFCOMPACT Al\// fY /
DFC :LLOB Q b..__: .... 4.M ..... : __ _.......{ : .. 4..p
- LLOBg4' :LLOBW : :
NAME :JShaffner/la:RMacDougall :PLohaus : : : :
2....:.....__ ....:...___....__: ____...___:.........___:_.......____:____....____:___....____
DATE:y/g/89 :D(/89 :S_/6/89 : / /89 : / /89 : / /89 : / /89 ,g 3 8909190162 890918 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY NO f 62)
l l
I l
Meeting Among Members of the Northeast Compact and NRC Staff On August 16,1989 nine representatives of the Northeast LLW Compact met with representatives of NMSS, NRR, OGC, Region I, and GPA in Rockville, Md to discuss several issues related to compliance with the 1990 milestone of LLRWPAA. Among the topics of discussion were storage of non-reactor generated LLW at reactors, contents and acceptability of governors' certifications, NRC guidance on amending Part 30 licenses for interim storage, and compliance with EPA mixed waste requirements. NRC staff also took the opportunity to initiate a dialogue on potential interaction with New Jersey and Connecticut regarding LLW siting and licensing activities. (See attached attendance list and meeting agenda.)
R. Bangart, Director LLWM, welcomed the participants and outlined the agenda and objectives of the meetingi After introducing themselves, mE:eting participants first discussed the feasibility of storage of waste generated offsite at power reactors. Both NMSS and NRR staff suggested that such a scenario was possible. Such storage would need a Part 30 license, to be processed by NMSS with input from NRR related to possible impacts on reactor operation and safety. Depending on how close the LLW storage facility is located to the reactor, there may also be a need to modify the reactor's Part 50 license. R. Fonner, OGC, discussed some of the administrative and procedural mechanisms necessary in processing either a Part 30 license request or a Part 50 license amendment. Part 2 administrative requirements call for a notice of proposed action with an opportunity for public hearing. Part 51 requires, in most cases, at least an environmental assessment and possibly an EIS. While there is no precedent for a license for offsite generated byproduct material stored at reactor sites, there is precedent for a Part 30 license for extended storage of reactor generated waste. P. Loysen, IMNS, said processing such a license application would take one year absent a hearing. Fonner said that a hearing would add a year to the process. Participants were given copies of Generic Letters 81-38 and 85-14 which offer guidance on the subject of reactor storage of LLW.
The meeting then turned to the issue of on-site generator storage.
G. Pangburn, IMNS, said that NRC would issue guidance related to modification of existing Part 30 licenses to allow for additional and/or extended storage of LLW by January 1990. Several of the technical considerations that would impact a licensing decision were discussed including volume and activity, physical form, duration of storage, financial assurance, and liability.
The meeting reconvened after lunch to discuss NRC staff's current guidance on compliance with the 1990 milestone. P. Lohaus, NMSS, handed out and discussed the August 9th letter of clarification. He emphasized the state's role in working with generators when on-site storage is to be the method of compliance with the 1990 milestone. He suggested that the process of state and compact
y --- - - - - - - - -
r
)
l l
l I
interaction with generators, employed by the Midwest Compact, helpeu the Midwest States gather generator information and to increase generator awareness of the importance of this matter. A similar process might be of use in the NE compact. {
Lohaus discussed the clarifying language related to the submittal of a complete LLW facility application. He emphasized that the discussion was not particularly relevant to any states or compacts that were going to comply with the 1990 milestone with a governor certification rather than a LLW waste site application. He stressed that the application must address all types of LLW .
including mixed waste. However, NRC would make a completeness determination j based on the requirements of Part 61 (NRC requirements) and the radiological components of mixed waste only.
Lohaus said that, while we encouraged individual state governor certifications, joint certifications were permissible so long as they clearly delineated individual responsibilities of parties to a joint certification. D. Drace, NE Compact Executive Director, described the proposed format for the NE ccmpact joint certification. NRC staff suggested that the approach was reasonable but emphasized that the sited states will make the final determination regarding the adequacy of governor certifications. Lohaus stated that the sited states expressed a willingness to review draft governor's certifications and comment on their adequacy.
Regarding proposed letters to LLW generators, Drace asked if NRC could suggest any points of emphasis that should be considered in potential Part 30 applications. J. Greeves, Deputy Director LLWM, suggested emphasis on the health and safety impacts of storage and financial assurance. He referred also to the guidance provided in IN 89-13, February 16, 1989.
Drace asked if governor's certifications would be acceptable which certified that most, but not all, generators were prepared to manage their LLW and then went on to identify the process by which a State would "close the loop" with any such generators. Lohaus said that the approach seemed reasonable but suggested they also discuss this issue with the sited States.
Next, discussion turned to the topic of storage of mixed LLW, particularly in light of the EPA " land ban" amendments. Greeves discussed NRC progress in trying to arrange a dialogue between EPA staff and state representatives who perceive the land ban amendments as an additional impediment regarding compliance with the LLRWPAA. NE compact representatives thanked the NRC staff for its efforts in this regard and suggested that such a meeting between state representatives through the LLW Forum and EPA was inninent. Drace said that the representatives were proposing a National Agreement on Storage to EPA.
However, she considered that such an agreement would not be in place by January 1990 and that the NE compact governors certification (s) would so stipulate.
b L
l I
Lohaus then explained the NRC regulation and implementation process for )
emergency LLW site access. He explained that it was a procedure to be viewed )
only as a last resort alternative and in no way a substitute for implementation 1 of individual state or compact responsibility. The NE Compact representatives j were concerned that, af ter their sites were operational, they could be forced by the NRC to accept out of compact waste. In response, Lohaus handed cut and discussed the attached background paper on emergency access prepared by staff in response to questions raised by Connecticut. He highlighted the steps and difficult process a licensee would have to go through to demonstrate need before NRC could grant a request for emergency access. He further noted that, !
once emergency access was granted, a state or compact could not refuse to {
accept the emer.c,ency access waste. Greeves also noted that LLRWPAA has built ]
into it a rather strong sanction against compacts which fail to cooperate with the emergency access program after due process.
R. Bangart introduced H. Denton, Director GPA. Denton welcomed the NE compact representatives, praised them for their work in this difficult area, and requested feedback from the representatives regarding NRC help in the process.
The NE compact representatives suggested that the NRC staff was being responsive to their needs and that meetings such as this were examples of state /NRC cooperation. K. McCarthy, Commissioner NE Compact, described for Denton the process by which Connecticut and New Jersey became a two state compact. He went through the dissolution of the 11 state CONEG compact and the process by which other small northeast states either opted for other compacts or decided to "go it alone".
The NRC staff asked if there were any NRC published technical documents that could facilitate the LLW management process. B. Chase, Alternate Commissioner NE Compact, stated that there was a need .o establish local credibility.
Therefore, NRC documents were useful reference tools but that the states needed to tailor their program documents to be responsive to local needs.
Lohaus then turned the attention of meeting participants to LLW siting issues and the concept of relicensing consultation. Policy office representatives of both Connecticut and New Jersey suggested that the primary emphasis over the next several months would be compliance with the 1990 milestone and that siting issues would be addressed as resources hilowed or were being handled by other entities within each state.
L. Spitznagle, Chairman of the New Jersey LLW Siting Board, was present and suggested that New Jersey's siting process could make use of the site !
1 characterization data which was collected as a result of the numerous hazardous waste sites in the state. He went on to say that the site selection process i may possibly be relatively straightforward given the limited number of potential sites in the state. :
J. Lipoti, NJ DEP, inquired about the feasibility of limited Agreement State status related to the inspection of LLW disposal activities otherwise regulated by NRC. Lohaus said that there were several precedents for such agreements through section 2741 of AEA and that we would provide copies of M00's with states which currently have such authority. Spitznagel asked abcut the possibility of local participation in the inspection program. It was stated that the AEA does not specifically provide for such participation and that enforcement responsibility cannot be delegated by a state to a local entity.
However, the state can, of its own volition, allow for local participation in the inspection process.
Lohaus introduced J. Starmer, LLWM Siting Se:: tion, who discussed the potential for interaction between NRC and the states during the sitir.g process. Starmer suggested that relicensing consultation with state officials or authorized designees would be appropriate in the areas of site selection and site characterization, performance assessment methodology, design, and quality assurance from a regulatory perspective. Requests for assistance could come directly from the state agency (or designated developer) to LLWM. Copies should be provided SLITP and the RSLO by LLWM for information. Spitznagle suggested that we may soon be hearing from NJ personnel regarding site selection and characterization issues in that state.
Following some incidental wrap up questions related to the review of the document, Living Without Landfills, and contractor liability insurance, Bangart adjourned the meeting by thanking everyone for their participation. He anticipated and welcomed subsequent dialogues with compact representatives on various issues. He suggested that such meetings could be held in the states cr NRC offices as appropriate given the meeting representation. NE compact representatives thanked the NRC staff for the opportunity to meet with them and for the assistance in responding to their questions.
l 1
Y a. c. /A/AC u ,. r/L 4 J 7es a b ~S*~N , / k , 0 4: /6,/f87 A]hM$ 0/EGAA//'Z4-7/04/ 7'E L & #A AI W
/.f/cye S/smo n [L /7P/GPA pot.TM9% N26 crWP&z l- N7/&jo/l 2, kEVJA b!?^0NTW GT $18!?92Mk0 6901RDL- hteco V.bW b3 ~.GW5U W J. %t c4n~ n t. c~f r - c r cr. e,- .. . . i ., su u,.
- 4. --g - y ocw a w o~:n, w -u czmosu-8g
- r. 4- J 6 A ySfiinyA 0Amd /JIT ALR>a p Cmh r2./ A
- 7. Janes 0lawy 6Jeay 6/adfd4sckeokle '
l 1)nvc St dyr/F /Y) L.c.te v Sm.a. f$ m zoo - 2 o 9- 7ms 9- A edA' -- M] NE Q c.o q g g.g g o a ,
-1 e Lu . k for y chej%cecck.~,mky(so92g.:m
- n. / % e fli/L- g ya./ 344 /-)<,in - m a (ass-)an-s m J L 90A L ohw %rhm &mcw p_v. e, r(RC. (300%u-?Tys
/3 ZsL r c i-evs.c r z.u,, m ,/ w c- n 2-gz n
/4 kluudL,3Mcnr lL.t ht/dlc (Db .yD -as %
- 15. '3~iis u p ak abep/Luww 6.,J so,. w .asoo
/S. Fred Cou& , SLt7P/GPA NllC
- n. ge, n yna , t w m /Nxc 18- Ges<s e. R ray 6m, )MS/NMSs/AIKC
- 11. h<re/ pa's4 A/24,NC&
M. Ceci/ 76 ~ Nd(,NLC xi. Lha' Gr><er O&c, NEc
> v- Pder Loysen AIMSS,pfC as. HanN' bedn G 'R4 NEC-i
. cover,
V 2f. 3 bellyScAwufz gps /AllC
,2[ John Sfa.rmer L L WM /AIKC-
~-
_