ML20258A145
| ML20258A145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07007032 |
| Issue date: | 09/23/2020 |
| From: | Lloyd Desotell Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| To: | Stephen Koenick Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| Desotell L | |
| References | |
| Download: ML20258A145 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 23, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen Koenick, Chief Low-Level Waste and Projects Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Lloyd T. Desotell Digitally signed by Lloyd T. Desotell Date: 2020.09.23 15:55:51 -04'00' FROM: Lloyd Desotell, Project Manager Low-Level Waste and Projects Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 27, 2020 PRE-SUBMITTAL TELECONFERENCE WITH PERMA-FIX NORTHWEST REGARDING A PROPOSED EXEMPTION REQUEST RELATED TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGUALTIONS 150.11 (DOCKET NO.
07007032)
On August 27, 2020, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a Category 1 public teleconference at the request of Perma-Fix Northwest (PFNW). PFNW requested this teleconference to discuss pre-application matters related to a potential request for exemption from Part 70 licensing requirements to allow PFNW to possess, store and process wastes containing special nuclear material (SNM) in quantities greater than those specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 150.11.
The teleconference was noticed on the NRCs public Web site on August 13, 2020, and the notice is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML20226A099. The meeting agenda was included as part of the meeting notice, and the presentation material provided by PFNW are available at ADAMS Accession No. ML20233A913.
The NRC opened the meeting and reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a potential request for exemption from Part 70 licensing requirements to allow PFNW to possess, store and process wastes containing special nuclear material (SNM) in quantities greater than those specified in 10 CFR 150.11. NRC added that the NRC would review any prospective application on its merits, and that this was not a decision-making public meeting.
CONTACT: Lloyd Desotell, NMSS/DUWP 301-415-5969
S. Koenick PFNW explained its presentation material and that PFNW plans to request an exemption from Part 70 SNM licensing requirements. PFNW cited, as precedent, exemptions issued to two low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, EnergySolutions in May 1999 and Waste Control Specialists in November 2001. PFNW stated that potential waste streams coming to PFNW may originate from Department of Energy (e.g., Hanford) facilities and commercial fuel fabrication facilities and that PFNW is not looking to add waste streams other than those that they currently process, though in greater quantity. PFNW added that the proposed waste treatment processes are already authorized under existing state of Washington licenses.
PFNW also noted that the proposal would not include thermal processing of the wastes.
PFNW stated that significant improvements in waste processing efficiency and in keeping doses As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) may be realized through use of concentration-based, rather than mass-based SNM limits. PFNW stated that large gloveboxes sent to PFNW would not have to be cut into smaller pieces to reduce SNM levels for individual shipment and cumulative possession below those required by 10 CFR 150.11.
Following the PFNW presentation, NRC staff and PFNW personnel discussed the PFNW proposal.
NRC staff stated that an exemption from 10 CFR Part 70 licensing requirements would not alleviate the need to comply with other applicable regulations (e.g. 10 CFR 74).
NRC noted that PFNW is a waste processor and the exemptions, cited as precedent by PFNW, relate specifically to disposal sites. NRC asked how exemptions granted to disposal sites are applicable to PFNW, especially given that the Commission decision to issue such exemptions to waste disposal facilities specifically called out the important differences between waste disposal and waste processing facilities. PFNW responded that the precedent is that concentration-based exemptions have been granted in the past.
In response to a question from NRC staff, PFNW indicated that their proposed exemption request would affect both their State of Washington issued low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste licenses.
NRC staff asked how the subject exemption request would meet each of the necessary elements under Part 70. PFNW responded that this exemption would be an asset to disposal sites and expedite environmental restoration and decommissioning as some containers (e.g.
large gloveboxes) dont have a disposal pathway because their size puts them over the SNM mass limit. NRC stated that in addition to the safety case, exemptions must demonstrate that granting an exemption is in the public interest.
NRC staff noted that in its slide on National Environmental Policy Act compliance PFNW did not specify which specific categorical exclusion they believe would be applicable. NRC staff stated that any application should specify and provide the basis for the potential application of a categorical exclusion, as appropriate. NRC staff further noted that NRC had an Environmental Assessment for other exemptions related to special nuclear materials that PFNW stated they are using as the basis for their application.
NRC staff asked if PFNW has considered pursuing a 10 CFR Part 70 license rather than an exemption from Part 70 licensing requirements. PFNW responded that they believe their proposed operations are similar enough to other facilities that have received exemptions to warrant their exemption request, notwithstanding the language in previous NRC decisions.
S. Koenick In response to a question from NRC staff, PFNW stated that their proposed activities would not substantially change the number of radioactive material shipments they receive.
NRC staff asked if the application contained site-specific criticality calculations. PFNW responded that their concentration-based limits are based on existing NRC Technical Report Designation (NUREG) documents and they believe them to be conservative. NRC responded that any application should provide a technical argument that a criticality event is not credible.
In response to a question from NRC staff, PFNW indicated that processed waste would be stored onsite for a maximum of one year, but that the typical storage time would be less than a few months.
No comments from members of the public were offered when requested before the end of the meeting.
NRC staff stated that PFNW may request additional pre-submittal meetings as they proceed with their application preparation.
NRC staff reiterated that that it would review any prospective application on its merits, and that this is not a decision-making public meeting.
Enclosure:
List of Attendees
ML20258A145 *via email OFFICE DUWP/LLWPB OGC-NLO DUWP/LLWPB NAME LDesotell AGendelman* SKoenick*
DATE 9/16/20 9/21/20 9/22/20 List of Attendees:
NRC:
Adam Gendelman Bernard White Bo Pham James Rubenstone Lloyd Desotell Patricia Holahan Richard Chang Steven Koenick Steven Poy Harry Felsher Ty Naquin Duncan White Gary Purdy Jacqueline Cook James Park Jeremy Munson Lizette Roldan Otero Patricia Silva Patricia A. Jehle Robert Carpenter Washington State Department of Health:
Cheryl Rogers Earl Fordham Kirsten Schwab Perma-Fix Northwest:
Richard Grondin Curt Cannon ENERCON:
Tom Magette Phil Gianutsos Amy Hazelhoff Lori Tkaczyk Enclosure