ML20248J232
| ML20248J232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/25/1989 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Husseman T WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8910130154 | |
| Download: ML20248J232 (4) | |
Text
a - - - _
W
},_..,s 9/89 WA-HANFORD-
- ~ -l'~ SEP 15199f
' Mr. ' Terry Husseman, Assistant Director
-Waste Management State of WashingtonL Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11
. Olympia, Washington. 98504-8711
Dear Mr. Husseman:
'Thank you for your letter dated August 15, 1989, transmitting the State of
~ Washington's comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approach for classifying waste presently stored in the Hanford double-shell tanks. Your letter contained four specific comments that I would like to address in order.
1.. Continued NRC Oversight at Hanford Our involvement at Hanford must reflect the responsibilities and authority
.that have been assigned to NRC by law. As you know, for defense activities, NRC authority is limited-to facilities for the disposal of
- high-level waste (HLW). In.the past, we have made inquiries to determine whether NRC has jurisdiction under Section 202(4) of the Energy
. Reorganization Act, 42'U.S.C. 5842(4). Having'done this, however, and having concluded on the basis of the representations made by the Department of Energy _(DOE) that the fraction of the double-shell tank waste'that -is to be grouted is not HLW, there would be no basis for our undertaking a . continuing oversight role. We anticipate though, that under the Tri-party agreement between DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Washington, the State would be able to identify any changes of circumstances that warrant a review of our position. Should this occur, NRC stands ready to consult with the State and to reconsider the matter as may be appropriate. While we are unable to assume an oversight role, we'will request certain:information from DOE to assure that the wastes being grouted are not HLW. This limited monitoring activity is discussed more fully in item 3 below.
- 2. Criteria for Isolating HLW Your letter requests an explanation of the rationale for selecting the criterion of 90 percent of total site activity separated for disposal as HLW. This statement does not accurately express the criterion proposed by NRC. The NRC criterion is that DOE demonstrate that the largest practical amount of total site activity, attributable to HLW, be isolated for disposal-in a deep geologic repository. This criterion reflected the language and policies of NRC regulations as well as prior interpretations published by the' Commission. Although the staff had indicated that it anticipated that DOE would remove at least 90 percent of the total site activity for disposal as HLW, this was not in and of itself a criterion.
-./ Rather, this percentage reflects our judgment on what represents a
/ minimum level for demonstrating that the NRC criterion has been met. In
- other words, we are suggesting that any separation of less than 90 percent v
g g9o925 9910%5TE PDB PDC O l. 6 es l_]L \ a4 ,
r
(
9/89 WA-HANFORD is inadequate for classifying the residual as " incidental."
In addition, it is also necessary to demonstrate that the largest practical amount beyond the 90 percent is separated. In our view, the burden of making this determination lies with DOE, which has both the necessary information concerning the characteristics of the waste and the responsibility for evaluating waste processing operations and the costs and benefits thereof. DOE's March 6, 1989 letter which states that "only two to three percent of the key radionuclides originally present in the tanks will be disposed as low-level waste when the double-shell tank wastes are grouted" satisfies the NRC criterion.
- 3. Uncertainty in DOE's Estimate of Radionuclides Inventory to be Grouted Your letter indicates that there is considerable uncertainty in DOE's estimate of radionuclides to be disposed of in grout, and that this is in part due to the lack of analytical data for the wastes to be grouted. We agree with your observation and therefore endorse DOE's plan (page 4 of enclosure to DOE's March 6,1989 letter) to sample and analyze all grout feeds before they are processed. In addition, the DOE letter provides an estimate of the total activity of key radionuclides to be grouted (Table 1), and indicates that the concentration of key radionuclides in the grout will not exceed the 10 CFR Part 61 Class C limits. With this information, it should be possible to confirm that the concentration of waste and inventory of key radionuclides to be grouted are within the limits proposed by DOE. The staff is requesting that DOE provide copies of this analytical data to NRC, as well as other affected parties, in a timely manner. NRC will consider this information and take appropriate action if necessary.
- 4. Solicitation of Public Comment We have given careful consideration to your recommendation that additional opportunity be afforded for public comment. We are declining to follow this suggestion for three reasons. First, the issue with respect to our licensing role has been raised in public forums repeatedly over the past several years. We articulated our concerns about licensing during DOE's NEPA process, and we are aware that such concerns were raised by other commenters. NRC extended further opportunities for review of its approach both in recent rulemakings and in the meeting notices and minutes that were distributed from time to time. Second, in our view, DOE's plans regarding the classification of waste have already been considered in their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (D0E/EIS-0113, December,1987).
The volumes, concentrations, and other characteristics of wastes to be grouted are essentially the same as those presented in DOE's EIS. Third, the issues you are raising are essentially matters of legal interpretation---
as to the proper construction of terms in the Energy Reorganization Act---rather than matters involving the exercise of discretion in carrying out delegated responsibilities.
+
, )
if -
i 9/89 WA.HANFORD In conclusion, I.wish to thank you for your comments on this important matter,
' - and stand ready to consult with the State in the future. We are prepared to meet with the State on other matters raised in your July 17, 1989 letter concerning vitrification plant quality assurance, waste acceptance criteria,
. and cesium capsule storage and disposal.
If you should have any questions or comments about this letter, please contact me or Dr. Michael J. Bell, Chief, Regulatory Branch, of rqy staff at (301) 492 0560.
Sincerely, Dignad) Robert E Bernero Robert M. Bernero, Director-Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards cc: William Don Tahkeal Yakima Indian Nation Jeff Breckel Oregon / Washington Liaison Ron Gerton U.S. Department of Energy l Distribution:
CentraRFIle S $ NMSS r/f LLRB r/f CGlenn RBoyle . MBell JGreeves RBangart Directors r/f JLepre CJenkins LLRB t/f DFehringer RVirgilio DKunihiro MBridgers PDR Yes / No / / Proprietary or CF Only / /
ACNW Yes / No / /
SUBJECT ABSTRACT: CLASSIFICATION AND DISPOSAL 0F HANFORD DOUBLE-SHELL TANK WASTES
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE (NLO = No Legal Objection) 0FC :LLRB* :LLRB* :LLRB* :HLWM* :GPA* :0GC* :0GC*
NAME:CGlenn/es :RBoyle :MBell :RBrowning: :JWolf : NLO DATE:09/12/89 :09/12/89 :09/12/89 :09/13/89 :09/15/89 :09/15/89 :09/14/89 0FC :LLWM* :LLWM* :NM S :NMSS
...__...__.........___.....J ..o_..___ . ..__...............__....__......__
NAME:JGreeves :RBangart:) o :RBernero :
DATE:09/I5/89 :09/15/89 ~/ /89 : f////89 :
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
l 9/89 WA-HANFORD 3-In conclusion, I wish to thank you for your comments on this'important matter, and stand ready to consult with the State in the future./We are prepared to .
meet with the State en other matters raised in your Ju,1y' 17,1989 letter concerning vitrification plant quality assurance, waste acceptance criteria, and cesium capsule storage and disposal. ,/
If you have an questionsregardingthisletter,!pleasedonothesitateto contact me on 301)492-3352, or Michael Bell ff nty staff on (301) 492-0560.
Sincerely,
/
Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety j' and Safeguards cc: William Don Tahkeal Yakima Indian Nation Jeff Breckel Oregon / Washington L aison Ron Gerton Departnent of Ene/ rgy Distribution: /
Central File # / NMSS r/f LLRB r/f CGlenn RBoyle MBell JGreeves RBangart Directors r/f JLepre CJe6 kins LLRB t/f DFehringer RVirgilio DKunihiro MBridgers
/
PDR Yes No / / Proprietary or CF Only / /
ACNW Yes No / /
SUBJECT ABST CT: CLASSIFICATION AND DISPOSAL 0F HANFORD DOUBLE-SHELL TANK WASTES ,
I?
- P \ :0GC :0GC/ /
0FC :LLRB
- LLRB
._.... 4. 9 :.....
LL g :HLWM s ...... q2. .. ......... _..,...../.....
.[b!$"."$I.[$5....[$$.....[I._5."$![.... .[. $ ... . .. 2 DATE: f //t/89 : h/gv/'89 :f //~L/89 : 'T/ Q89 :]/g/89 : % /d /89 : f/p//89 0FC:LLyN :LLWN :NMSS :NMSS :
...... L ^ ..... 442......__......._.........._...............___..........
HAME:J h vglY : RB[hya'rt:GArlotto:RBernero:
DATE:((j/[/89 :cfj/(/89 f : / /89 : / /89 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _