ML23156A055

PRM-060-004 - 55FR51732 - Definition of the Term High-Level Radioactivewaste (Submitted by States of Washington and Oregon)

ML23156A055
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/17/1990
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-060-004, 55FR51732
Download: ML23156A055 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 12/17/1990 PRM-060-004 - 55FR51732 - DEFINITION OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVEWASTE" (SUBMITTED BY STATES OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON)

PRM-060-004 55FR51732 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 04/12/1990 PRM-061-001 - 55FR13797 - SIERRA CLUB, NORTH CAROLINA CHAPTER: FILING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PRM-061-001 55FR13797 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PRM-060-004 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULB NAME:

DEFINITION OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" (SUBMITTED BY STATES OF WASHINGTON AND ORE GON)

PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

55FRS1732 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

12/17/90 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 12/11/90 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

12 FINAL RULB FED. REG. CITE: 58FR12342 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/04/93 NOTES ON PETITION REQUESTS THAT COMMISSION AMEND 10 CFR 60.2 TO CLARIFY THE TATUS DEFINITION OF "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND THE DEFINITION OF F RULB WASTE FACILITY. PETITION DENIED ON 2/26/93.

FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

TO FIND THB STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGB DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PRM-060-004 RULE TITLE:

DEFINITION OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" (SUBMITTED BY STATES OF WASHINGTON AND ORE GON)

ROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:

SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 92-391 SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: MICHAEL T. LESAR MAIL STOP: P-223 PHONE:

CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP:

PHONE:

12/11/70 02/26/93 492-7758

DOCKET NO. PRM-060-004 (55FR51732)

In the Matter of DEFINITION OF THE TERM *HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE*

(SUBMITTED BY STATES OF WASHINGTON AND ORE GON)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 12/11/90 12/12/90 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 03/07/91 03/05/91 COMMENT OF M. JOHN PLODINEC (

1) 03/18/91 03/15/91 COMMENT OF HANDFORD EDUCATION LEAGUE (HEAL)

(JAMES THOMAS, RESEARCH DIRECTOR) (

2) 03/18/91 03/12/91 COMMENT OFF. ROBERT COOK (

3) 03/18/91 03/10/91 COMMENT OF J. COHEN (

4) 03/18/91 03/09/91 COMMENT OF ORA MAE AND FLOYD E. ORTON (

5) 03/18/91 03/13/91 COMMENT OF LEILANI SCOTT (

6) 03/18/91 03/18/91 LTR ANDREW WALLO, III, DOE TO S. CHILK, NRC RE: PLANS TO PROVIDE COMMENTS WITHIN A FEW DAYS 03/20/91 03/15/91 COMMENT OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (S. A. GREEN, MANAGER) (

7) 03/22/91 03/15/91 COMMENT OF MISCODED AND NUMBER WILL NOT BE REUSED (DUPLICATE OF COMMENT #2) (

8) 03/25/91 03/15/91 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY,INC (SUSAN L. HIATT, REPRESENTATIVE) (

9) 03/25/91 03/14/91 COMMENT OF PAT HERBERT (

10) 03/27/91 03/27/91 04/01/91 03/15/91 POST CARD - J. MACE TO SECY/NRC RE: REQUEST HOLD PUBLIC COMMENT HEARINGS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON AND IDAHO COMMENT OF U.S. EPA (RICHARD W. SANDERSON, DIRECTOR) (

11) 05/08/91 04/25/91 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (PAULL. ZIEMER, PH.D.) (

12)

DOCKET NO. PRM-060-004 (55FR51732)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 02/26/93 03/01/93 03/01/93 03/01/93 03/01/93 03/01/93 02/26/93 02/26/93 02/26/93 02/26/93 02/26/93 02/26/93 DENIAL OF PETITION PUBLISHED ON 3/4/93 AT 58 FR 12342.

LITTER FROM THE SECRETARY TO CECIL SANCHEY, CHAIRMAN, RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMITTEE, YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, ADVISING OF PETITION DENIAL.

LITTER FROM THE SECRETARY TO DAN SILVER, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON ADVISING OF THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION.

LITTER FROM THE SECRETARY TO DAVID STEWART-SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY, OREGON DEPT. OF ENERGY, ADVISING OF DENIAL OF PETITION.

LTR. FROM SECRETARY TO TERRY HUSSEMAN, ASSISTANT DIR., WASTE MANAGEMENT, DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, ADVISING OF DENIAL OF PETITION.

LETTER FROM SECRETARY TO DAVID YADEN, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ADVISING OF DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING.

DOCl<ET NUMBER f c*; 1 :1.J ' ULE PRM 6 0 _LJ UNITED STATES

( f;S F fl_ f /132:)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'i*/ AS HINGTON, D.C. 20555 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Mr. Cecil Sanchey, Chairman Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948

Dear Mr. Sanchey:

February 26, 1993

,i__ ~'. :_; ~

,; ~~ @

• 93 ~

AlO :07

. FF!L : '*.

~,..,[ I t, \'

lJOCK i f1N(i ;, * :, VICf l>t-t4NC 1; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon.

The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S.

Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

The petition was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment.

Twelve comments were received.

The majority of the comments opposed the petition.

After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied.

The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.

A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Register within the next few days.

cc:

Mr. Russel Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948 the Commission

DOC:<i:T NUMBER r'-" p.R REG<,/

0v

'1)-

/¥'\;

-°1'.<.

~. t'-:::_s

'2, Pt7 1,CN F1ULE PRM 6~ -'f UNITED STATES (SSFR 5113i)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

o...,;.

• '. J

~/ 1, -,:..... ~. 1,, I).,;.

0 ~V)

-?

OFFICE OF THE SECRETA=!Y Mr. Dan Silver Office of the Governor Insurance Building AQ-44 Olympia, Washington 98504

Dear Mr. Silver:

\'VASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 February 26, 1993

"' l I\ t. ; i... L' LJ'.:) Ni{C @

/I.A /rt!. I

• 93 ~

A10 :07

'. rric:

• .- __.;._r 1 :_1

?

t10CKi :,;,

.;,.. v1r.:

!:-~*~/. NL~:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon.

The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S.

Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

The petition was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment.

Twelve comments were received.

The majority of the comments opposed the petition.

After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied.

The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.

A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Register within the next few days.

~

~

Ch~ll<

~

of\the Commission cc:

Mr. Russel Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948

>C,_ T t !UMBER t--j LE PRM b O-uN1TED ST TES' iv, J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (f"SFflSI"? J,::1 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 February 26, 1993 Mr. David Stewart-Smith, Administrator Division of Nuclear Safety & Energy Facilities Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310

Dear Mr. Stewart-Smith:

i ;

'. /\ '.

t*1 ul-r\ t 1

• 1 *

• f, -.* i r f

~*.f\A:1l. },

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon.

The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "hi gh-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S.

Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

The petition was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment.

Twelve comments were received.

The majority of the comments opposed the petition.

After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied.

The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.

A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Register within the next few days.

cc:

Mr. Russel Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948

L OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY I

• 1

~ 1_

UNITED STATES (G ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 February 26, 1993

'.,.-- -----=a-r r'

~ 11.JCK~. iN{i

1.

.. ; t* / 11*

~

Mr. Terry Husseman, Assistant Director Waste Management, Department of Ecology State of Washington, Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington, 98504-8711

Dear Mr. Husseman:

• ~f,/\,\t....

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon.

The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S.

Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

The petition was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment.

Twelve comments were received.

The majority of the comments opposed the petition.

After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied.

The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.

A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Register within the next few days.

Sincerel,

cc:

Mr. Russel Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948

~

h1lk ~

f the Commission

[)r'l':'.('::T NUMBER

• • • • 1.UL':; PRM 60.,,.'-/

UNITED STATES (fir 19 73~)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~Fr-SI "'

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Mr. David Yaden, Director Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street, NE.

Salem, Oregon 97310

Dear Mr. Yaden:

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 February 26, 1993

~.. :_:

>* ~* '..,i *. : ; !'..t*

~,

i:,iJCKi:; i'i *,. ;,, ' I! f

!:. ~-A N1., :

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition for rulemaking (PRM 60-4) that was received on July 27, 1990, from the States of Washington and Oregon.

The petition requested the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S.

Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level waste and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

The petition was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1990, with an opportunity for the public to comment.

Twelve comments were received.

The majority of the comments opposed the petition.

After reviewing the petition and the comments received, the NRC has concluded that the petition should be denied.

The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well estab-lished and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.

41 A notice of this denial will be published in the Federal Register within the next few days.

cc:

Mr. Russel Jim, Manager Environmental Restoration of Waste Management Program Yakima Indian Nation Post Office Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, Washington 98948

~

C ilk

~

of the Commission

p C

i

- *. ~s*0\\\\

~ I.' }. l I,--,,, I

.... l

,j

')

v_~ p1Jh1 - ---

cs 5 Ffl 5173V NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 60 Docket No. PRM-60-4

• 93 Fr 26 States of Washington and Oregon:

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Denial of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Convnission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-4), submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon, which deals with the process and criteria for classifying radioactive waste materials at defense facilities as high-level radioactive waste (HLW) or as non-HLW.

(As noted in the petiti on, certain facilities for the storage of HLW are subject to NRC l icensing authority.) The petition is being denied because the NRC concludes that the principles for waste classification are well established and can be applied on a case-by-case basis without revision to the regulations.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for publ ic inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

1

I I

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Convnission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3878.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Petition The States of Washington and Oreg~n, and the Yakima Indian Nation, initially submitted a petition for rulemaking on this subject on January 2, 1990.

On February 7, 1990, the NRC staff conferred with the petitioners as contemplated by Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 2.802.

In response to suggestions by the NRC staff, the petition was clarified and resubmitted {by the States of Washington and Oregon) on July 27, 1990.

On December 17, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Convnission published a notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking (55 FR 51732).

The petition requested that the Commission revise the definition of "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW) so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S. Department of Energy's {DOE) site at Hanford, Washington, is HLW and, therefore, subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

The petitioners request that the Convnission amend 10 CFR 60.2 to clarify the definition of HLW and the definition of "HLW facility." The petitioners specifically request that the Commission:

2

1.

Establish a process to evaluate the treatment of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such wastes will not be considered HLW if, prior to disposal, each tank *is treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity; and

2.

Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology), will be within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms.

The petitioners state that the petition for rulemaking is based, in part, on Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 {ERA), which provides for the Commission to exercise licensing and related regulatory authority over "facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive wastes generated by [DOE] which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities."

According to the petitioners, the legislative history of the ERA reveals that Congress intended the Commission to license defense reprocessing tank wastes at the point of long-term storage or disposal.

The petitioners note that "low-fraction wastes" resulting from pretreatment of tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted and disposed of in land-based grout vaults on the Hanford site in accordance with regulations developed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act {RCRA).

The petitioners believe that if these wastes are HLW, they clearly fall under the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 USC 5842(4)).

The petitioners acknowledge that the present definition of HLW in the Commission's regulations is based upon the source of the waste, and that 3

"incidental waste" generated in the course of reprocessing is not HLW.

{The latter point is evident from the proposal to amend 10 CFR 60.2 to provide that a residual fraction would be "considered an incidental waste and, therefore, not HLW.")

The petitioners claim, however, that wastes stored in tanks at Hanford cannot practicably be classified as incidental waste {as opposed to HLW) because the tanks contain a mixture of wastes from a number of sources, including reprocessing of reactor fuel. Moreover, the petitioners state that radionuclide inventories are estimates subject to substantial uncertainty, owing to lack of accurate records.

Further, the petitioners assert that neither DOE, the Commission, nor the petitioners have adequate information regarding the source and composition of the tank waste.

Hence, the petitioners believe that the Commission needs to establish both a procedure and a standard for making an evaluation as to whether wastes are HLW on a tank-by-tank basis.

The petitioners assert that the proposed amendment is essential to provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest.

II. Classification of DOE Reprocessing Wastes At Hanford and other sites, questions have arisen regarding the classification of reprocessing wastes for which DOE must provide disposal.

In the long-standing view of the Commission, these questions must be resolved by examining the source of the wastes in question.

The reason for this is that when Congress assigned to NRC the licensing authority over certain DOE facilities for "high-level radioactive wastes," the Congress was referring to 4

those materials encompassed within the meaning of the term "high-level radioactive waste" in Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50.

(For a full statement of this position, see the discussion presented in the Commission's advance notice of proposed rulemaking, "Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste" (52 FR 5993, February 27, 1987).) Accordingly, any facility to be used for the disposal of "those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent **. " as HLW is defined in Appendix F to Part 50, must be licensed by the NRC.

Most of the waste storage tanks at Savannah River (South Carolina), West Valley (New York), ~nd Hanford contain wastes that meet this definition, and the facilities to be used for disposal of these wastes are, therefore, potentially subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.

However, when the Appendix F definition was promulgated, the Atomic Energy Commission specifically noted that the term HLW did not include "incidental" waste resulting from reprocessing plant operations, such as ion exchange beds, sludges, and contaminated laboratory items, such as clothing, tools, and equipment.

Neither were radioactive hulls and other irradiated and contaminated fuel structural hardware encompassed by the Appendix F definition. Under the same reasoning, as the Commission has previously indicated, incidental wastes generated in further treatment of HLW (e.g., salt residues or miscellaneous trash from waste glass processing) would be outside the Appendix F definition.

In the cases of Savannah River and West Valley wastes, DOE plans to retrieve the wastes from their storage tanks and to separate essentially all of the radioactive materials for eventual disposal in a deep-geologic HLW 5

repository. 1 Accordingly, the projected recovery of HLW from the wastes in tank storage at those sites will be sufficiently complete that the decontaminated salts and other residual wastes are classified as "incidental" (i.e., non-HLW).

The NRC will have no regulatory authority, under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act, over DOE's facilities to be used for processing and disposal of the incidental waste.

At Hanford, DOE plans to process the wastes presently stored in double-shell tanks in a manner similar to that planned for the wastes at Savannah River and West Valley.

Such processing would separate most of the radioactive constituents of the wastes for eventual deep-geologic repository disposal and, the residual salts would be disposed of onsite in a shallow, near-surface concrete-like grout facility.

(Plans for processing of single-shell tank wastes have been deferred.) However, classification of the Hanford double-shell tank wastes has proven more difficult than classification of Savannah River and West Valley wastes.

At Hanford, many of the primary reprocessing wastes were generated using older separation technologies, which resulted in substantial dilution of those wastes with nonradioactive materials.

In addition, many of the tanks at Hanford contain mixtures of wastes from both reprocessing sources and other sources.

Finally, recordkeeping at Hanford was not always thorough enough to allow precise determinations of the origins of the wastes now present in specific tanks at 1see 52 FR 5992, February 27, 1987 (definition of "high-level waste"), n. 1, where the Commission characterizes as "incidental waste," the decontaminated salt with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nCi/g Cs-137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2nCi/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy's FEIS on long-term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, DOE/EIS-0023, 1979.

Although an EIS has not yet been published for the West Valley Demonstration Project, preliminary estimates indicate the likelihood of an equivalent degree of separation.

6

Hanford.

For these reasons, some of the Hanford tank wastes cannot be readily classified as either HLW or incidental wastes using only the definitions and concepts discussed above.

Taking into account these uncertainties and their implications with respect to NRC jurisdiction, the NRC and DOE staff held several meetings to explore the situation in detail. A principal objective of these meetings was to ascertain, to the extent practicable, whether some or all of the wastes should be regarded as HLW and whether, on the other hand, some or all of the wastes should be classified as non-HLW.

Several things became clear as a result of these meetings.

First, management records were adequate for DOE to determine that two double-shell waste tanks do not contain wastes from reprocessing of reactor fuels. Therefore, these wastes clearly do not contain HLW within the Appendix F definition. The NRC agreed with DOE that any disposal facility intended exclusively for these wastes would not be subject to NRC licensing authority.

Second, DOE has carried out a "material balance" analysis of waste management activities at Hanford. This analysis estimated the total amount of "first cycle reprocessing wastes" generated at Hanford and, to the extent practical, the current location of those wastes.

The DOE proposed onsite grout disposal of the residual waste from the double-shell tank waste processing would be only a small fraction of the reprocessing wastes originally generated at the site.

Finally, DOE studied possible technologies for additional waste processing, and agreed to remove the largest practical amount of radioactive material from double-shell tank wastes prior to disposal in onsite grout 7

facilities. This commitment by DOE, coupled with the material-balance study indicating that most of the originally-generated radioactive material would be recovered, led the NRC staff to conclude that the residual waste material should be classified as incidental waste, since they are wastes incidental to the process of recovering HLW.

With this classification, DOE could proceed with onsite disposal of such incidental wastes in a grout facility without licensing by the NRC.

It should be noted that if the DOE processing operations go as planned, the residual activity of these incidental wastes would be below the concentration limits for Class C wastes under the waste classification criteria of 10 CFR Part 61.

Following its review, the NRC staff, by letter dated September 25, 1989, from R. M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, endorsed DOE's plans to sample and analyze the grout feeds before disposal in an effort to control the final composition of the grout feed.

However, the staff indicated that if DOE were to find, in the course of conducting the sampling program, that the inventories of key radionuclides entering the grout facility are significantly higher than previously estimated, DOE should notify the NRC and other affected parties in a timely manner.

It should be noted that the appropriate classifi~ation of some Hanford wastes remains to be determined -- specifically, any s~ngle-shell tank wastes, and any empty but still contaminated waste tanks DOE might dispose of in-place.

For both types of wastes, a case-by-case determination of the appropriate waste classification might be necessary.

8

III. Discussion The petition for rulemaking presents two basic issues.

The question is not whether "high-level waste" should be interpreted by reference to the source-based concepts derived from Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50.

The petitioners agree that this is proper.

Nor is there any fundamental challenge to the concept that "incidental wastes" are excluded from the definition of "high-level waste." The issues are much narrower ones.

The first issue is a substantive one -- the criteria to be applied in differentiating incidental waste from high-level waste.

The second issue is a procedural one -- the process that should be employed by the Commission in arriving at a judgment whether or not it has jurisdiction over particular facilities. These will be addressed in turn.

A. The Standard for Classification We first address the standard that should be employed in distinguishing high-level waste from incidental waste.

In doing so, we strive to apply the policies that underlie the adoption of Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 (and, hence, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act).

The petitioners suggest that the proper standard, to be applied on a tank-by-tank basis, is to consider all processing streams to be high-level waste unless they have been treated, prior to disposal, "to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity." Adoption of such a criterion would certainly serve the goal, which had been contemplated by the Convnission, of removing the hazardous process streams to a geologic repository for 9

permanent storage. It is not the only standard, however, that would suffice for this purpose, particularly when it is viewed in a broader regulatory context.

The clearest expression of the overall regulatory objectives is the Atomic Energy Convnission's (AEC's) explanatory statement when it promulgated Appendix F -- namely, "that the public interest requires that a high degree of decontamination capability be included in such facilities and that any residual radioactive contamination after deco11111issioning be sufficiently low as not to represent a hazard to the public health and safety." 35 FR 17530, November 14, 1970.

As we read the AEC's intent, the reference to "a high degree of decontamination capability" leaves a substantial degree of discretion. It certainly does not rule out consideration of economic factors as well as technical ones.

It was the AEC's contemporaneous practice to consider fi~ancial impacts as, for example, in controlling releases of radioactive materials from licensed facilities to the lowest levels "technically and economically practical."

AEC Manual Chapter 0511.

When the AEC spoke of a "high degree" of decontamination capability, we believe that it was guided by similar considerations. Moreover, from a policy standpoint, this makes good sense, for so long as there is adequate protection of public health and safety, it would not be prudent to expend potentially vast sums without a commensurate expectation of benefit to health and the environment.

Achieving a "high degree of decontamination capability" implies, then, that the facility should separate for disposal as much of the radioactivity as possible, using processes that are technically and economically practical.

In addition, however, as the AEC's statement indicates, the residual radioactive 10

contamination should be sufficiently low as not to endanger public health and safety.

These principles -- high decontamination capability and protection of health and safety -- are the essential benchmarks that have influenced the development of NRC's position vis-a-vis DOE on the question of the proper classification of the tank wastes and grout at Hanford.

When the question regarding classification of wastes was first raised, the NRC staff identified to DOE some approaches that might be used in

~istinguishing HLW from incidental waste.

One approach was expressed as follows: 2 As an alternative approach, we suggest that DOE attempt an overall

. material balance for HLW at the Hanford site, using the source-based meaning of HLW.

It is hoped that this approach might provide a more efficient means of identifying those wastes subject to licensing by NRC under terms of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act.

Under this approach, if DOE could demonstrate that the largest practical amount of the total site activity attributable to "first-cycle solvent extraction" wastes has been segregated for disposal as HLW, then NRC would view the residual as a non-HLW.

We would anticipate that at least 90 percent of the activity would have been separated in this way.

Thus, if it can be shown that DOE has processed the waste with the intent to dispose of the HLW in a repository or other appropriate licensed facility, leaving 2Letter from Michael J. Bell, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to Ronald E. Gerton, Director, Waste Management Division, Richland Operations Office, DOE, November 29, 1988.

The letter included some "suggested criteria" involving a "good faith" effort to achieve isolation of HLW from nonradioactive salts, such an effort to be judged, as a practical matter, by considering {among other things) alternative separation processes.

11

behind only a small fraction of only moderately radioactive material, then the goals stated in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix F and incorporated in the Energy Reorganization Act would have been satisfied; and the disposal of the residual would accordingly not be subject to NRC licensing.

In response, DOE considered the practicality of various waste processing alternatives and presented the results of its study by letter dated March 6, 1989. 3 The results were also presented at a meeting among interested parties, including the petitioners, held on August 4, 1989.

(Minutes of the meeting are available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room)

DOE's "baseline" disposal plans would have recovered all but about 12-13 million curies of cesium-137, together with lesser activities of strontium-90, transuranics, and other radionuclides. 4 DOE's study indicated the practicality of removing an additional 6 million curies of cesium-137 for repository disposal.

DOE proposed to remove this additional 6 million curies of cesium-137.

DOE also identified additional treatment alternatives, with their associated costs, which it viewed as not being economically practical.

DOE's material balance showed that, after the residue from the double-shell tank wastes is grouted, 2 to 3 percent of the key radionuclides which originally entered all Hanford tanks would be disposed of as LLW in near-surface vaults. The concentrations of radionuclides in the grout would be letter from A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, to Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, NRC, March 6, 1989.

4DOE noted in the March 6, 1989 letter from Rizzo to Bernero that, based on limited available analytical data, the total cesium-137 could be as much as 20 million curies versus the 12-13 million estimate.

12

comparable to Class C for cesium and transuranic wastes, and to Class A or B for the remainder. 5 DOE also noted certain engineering and institutional factors that might compensate, especially as to potential intrusion hazards, for the possibility that the total amount of waste that would be grouted would be greater than the amount of Class C waste that might be contained in a typical convnercial burial ground.

Based on its review of DOE's March 6, 1989 submission, the NRC staff concluded that DOE's proposed processing would remove the largest practical amount of total site activity, attributable to HLW, for disposal in a deep geologic repository. This finding was based on (1) past and planned treatment of the tank wastes; (2) radionuclide concentration and material balance; and (3) cost-effectiveness of additional radionuclide removal.

These conclusions reflected DOE's undertakings both to achieve a high degree of separation and to provide protection of public health and safety.

As a result, the staff concluded that the expected residual waste would not be high-level waste and would thus not be subject to NRC licensing authority.

The staff thereupon advised DOE that NRC agreed that the criteria used by DOE for classification of the grout feed are appropriate and that the grout facility for the disposal 5NRC understood this statement to connote that cesium-137 and transuranic radionuclides in the residual waste would be less than the concentration limits for Class Clow-level waste, as defined in NRC's requirements in 10 CFR Part 61, and that the concentration of other radionucl ides would be less than the concentration limits for Class A or Blow-level waste.

13

of the double-shell tank waste would not be subject to NRC licensing authority. 6 At a meeting in Richland, Washington on July 16, 1992, DOE staff presented more detailed double-shell tank waste processing options and, based on recent analyses, summarized available information on the characteristics of waste within the tanks.

DOE's current estimate of the total amount of radioactivity proposed for disposal in grout in near-surface vaults is within earlier range estimates but is now believed to be nearer the upper end of the range.

DOE also clarified its intention to apply criteria comparable to the Performance Objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61.

Among other things, these performance objectives include numerical radiation exposure limits for protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity and requires a design to achieve long-term stability of the disposal site.

DOE intends to complete a reassessment of the tank waste processing opt i ans by March 1993. This reassessment, th'e NRC staff understands, wi 11 include a reexamination of the practicality of achieving higher degrees of separation, particularly with respect to those tanks that contain substantial quantities of key radionuclides.

Assuming implementation of DOE's plans as described above, the Commission concludes that any radioactive material from the double shell tanks that is deposited in the grout facility would not be high-level radioactive C,,.etter from Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to A. J. Rizzo, Assistant Manager for Operations, Richland Operations Office, DOE, September 25, 1989. The letter also called upon DOE to advise NRC periodically of the analytical results of samples of key radionuclides entering the grout facility, so that the classification of the waste might be reconsidered if the inventories were significantly higher than DOE had estimated.

14

waste subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction. The responsibility for safely managing those wastes rests with the Department of Energy.

The basis for the Commission's conclusion is that the reprocessing wastes disposed of in the grout facility would be "incidental" wastes because of DOE's assurances that they: (1) have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; (2) will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class Clow-level waste as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) are to be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, so that safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied.

The petitioners also requested that the Convnission exercise oversight to assure that the grout meets temperature requirements for low-level waste forms.

They acknowledge that DOE's vault design is protective of human health and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during the grout process, is kept within defined limits. They present no technical data to suggest that achievement of these temperature controls presents any unusual engineering challenge.

In any event, inasmuch as the*Commission does not consider the grout produced in accordance with DOE's plans to be high-level waste, it does not have the authority to carry out this oversight function.

15

B. Procedural Issues

1. Whether Rulemaking Is Necessary and Desirable The petitioners urge that the Co11111ission initiate rulemaking procedures that would result in the establishment of substantive criteria for determining whether particular radioactive wastes either are or are not high-level waste.

Generally, a decision whether to proceed by rulemaking (as requested) or to make determinations in individual, ad hoc litigation lies within the informed discretion of the cognizant administrative agency.

Rulemaking is most appropriate where an agency seeks to establish a general principle, having prospective effect, to be applied in a wide variety of factual contexts.

Where the issue before an agency involves the application of law to a very specific exi~ting fact situation, especially where that situation is not representative of other matters that may need to be decided by the agency, then it is clearly more efficient and more to the point to decide by a process of adjudication (i.e., on a case-by-case basis).

Applying these principles to the petition at hand, the Commission has little difficulty in concluding that rulemaking is neither necessary nor desirable. Reprocessing wastes are located at only four principal locations in the United States. The Commission has previously determined that the residual contamination anticipated from proposed operations at Savannah River should be characterized as incidental waste and not high-level waste (see 52 FR 5993, Feb. 27, 1987, cited above, at footnote 1.) Wastes generated at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant are markedly different from those at Hanford and Savannah. Therefore, if questions about classification of the 16

Idaho wastes should arise, precedents established at Savannah River and Hanford might be difficult to apply.

Any wastes at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center will require treatment in accordance with the applicable provisions of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act.

The limited practical effect of the decision -- i.e., restricted to the Hanford tanks -- is reason enough to proceed by way of adjudication instead of rulemaking.

The Convnission is persuaded further by the need to avoid making premature decisions with respect to the wastes stored at Hanford in single-

~hell tanks that are not the subject of pending treatment plans. If the Commission were to establish rules to apply to the waste*s remaining in those tanks, our inquiry would have to be greatly broadened; and it might become necessary to consider a wide range of situations that might or might not ever come to pass in the future.

2.

Whether the Commission Is Adequately Informed Petitioners suggest that their proposed procedures, which include detailed tank-by-tank assessments, are necessary to ensure confidence in the treatment process employed by DOE and to build confidence that the treatment standard is being met.

The issue to be decided by the Co1M1ission is a much narrower one: it is merely to determine whether the activities being undertaken by the Department of Energy fall within the NRC's statutory jurisdiction. As in the case of other persons whose activities may fall within our regulatory sphere, the Commission may from time to time demand information so as to be able to determine whether or not to initiate an enforcement action.

The NRC staff has 17

acted in this manner in its inquiries to DOE.

It has obtained and evaluated information that is relevant and material to a determination whether or not the proposed activities of the DOE are subject to NRC licensing jurisdiction.

All the information obtained and evaluated has been made available contemporaneously to the public.

Moreover, as a practical matter, NRC recognized the uncertainties associated with the projected radionuclide inventories in the tank wastes and endorsed DOE plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feeds before disposal.

The objective of these efforts is to control the final composition of the grout wastes.

If DOE finds that it can no longer assure that these wastes will be managed in accordance with the criteria previously discussed, DOE should notify NRC.

If a standard of "largest technically achievable amount.... will be isolated" were to be applied, then the facts submitted by DOE might not be sufficient to conclude that NRC lacked jurisdiction. However, the proper standard includes considerations of economical practicality as well.

As indicated in an earlier part of this decision, the Commission has obtained information that is sufficient for this purpose.

3.

Future Adjudications The petitioners contemplate that if a rule were to be adopted in accordance with their proposal, particular determinations of how specific wastes would be characterized would be "left to individual adjudicative proceedings." The NRC infers that the "proceedings" contemplat~d by petitioners are licensing activities of the kinds specified in Section 189 of 18

the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 USC 2239. Adjudications in this type of proceeding are in some cases to be conducted in accordance with the hearing provisions of Subpart L of 10 CFR Part 2.

These procedures are often appropriate with respect to activities that are subject to NRC regulatory and licensing authority.

However, the NRC is reluctant to employ them in the context that is proposed -- to determine whether NRC has jurisdiction in the first place.

To do so would entail the conduct of an adjudicatory proceeding in order to see whether another adjudicatory licensing proceeding must be held.

More importantly, the Commission considers that the existing record contains all the factual information needed for a decision and that no unresolved material factual issues remain that would require further proceedings.

4. Other Considerations While both NRC and DOE have focused their attention upon the meaning of the statutory term "high-level waste" and its application to the materials in storage at Hanford, other considerations might come into play in determining whether or not DOE activities are subject to licensing.

In particular, it should be recalled that NRC exercises licensing authority under Section 202(4) only as to "facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of [DOE-generated] high-level waste." The content of individual waste tanks is by no means dispositive of the question whether the facilities for storage of the treated waste are subject to licensing. A number of other factors may be relevant and material as well:

(1) what are the limits, geographically and functionally, of "facilities"; (2) have those facilities 19

been "authorized" (and by whom is such authorization required); and (3) have those facilities been authorized "for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level waste" where those who may authorize the facility make no express mention of high-level waste? It is not necessary for the Convnission to address these questions at length in order to dispose of the pending petition.

IV.

Public Convnents on the Petition The NRC received letters from 12 convnenters.

Two letters were from other Federal agencies, two were from public interest groups, one was from a nuclear industry corporation, and seven were from private individuals. Most comments were opposed to the petition.

A.

Process and Standards Proposed in Petition Several comments expressed concern that granting the petition would have an adverse effect on the timely disposal of radioactive waste at Hanford.

This was a concern because many of the Hanford waste tanks were seen as nearing or exceeding their design life. The provisions of the rulemaking proposed in the petition were viewed as limiting DOE's flexibility in selecting the most effective processes for waste treatment and disposal.

The petitioner's request that "best available technology" be used in removing HLW material from the tank wastes was seen as ignoring costs of disposal, exposures to workers, and environmental impacts.

20

Some convnents disputed the petitioner's claim that the rulemaking proposed in the petition would offer a better process for classification and disposal of the Hanford tank wastes. These co11111enters did not see any advantage in the proposed process over the process for classification and disposal currently in use.

One co11111ent suggested that the Convnission's rulemaking requiring disposal of Greater-than-Class C waste in a geologic repository or Convnission-approved alternative (53 FR 17710, May 19, 1989) might force DOE to allocate resources to handle the hazards, rather than to waste further time fruitlessly searching for ways to remove more and more activity from one part of the waste.

The action proposed by the petitioners was viewed as not increasing the safety of disposal of the waste.

The Convnission believes that adherence to the standard of technical and economic practicality generally reflects agreement with these comments.

B.

Creation of a Risk-Based Classification System Several comments, while noting that the rulemaking proposed by the petition would not do so, favored creation of a risk-based system of radioactive waste classification.

The Commission has previously addressed the costs and benefits of creating a new system of radioactive waste classification. Its rationale for not doing so is outlined in the statement of considerations to the proposed Part 61 rulemaking on disposal of Greater-than Class C waste (53 FR 17709, May 18, 1988).

Further consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this proposed rulemaking action.

21

L C.

NRC Licensing Authority Some comments focused on the licensing authority of NRC over the Hanford tank wastes.

DOE stated that the rulemaking suggested in the petition would involve NRC in regulation of DOE's predisposal waste treatment and processing activities, which would be inconsistent with NRC authority to license specific DOE facilities under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Another commenter stated that the proposed rulemaking was inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of DOE and NRC.

These arguments have already been discussed, and require no further response.

It may be emphasized, however, that even if the Commission were found to have jurisdiction over the disposal facilities, it would not regulate either the tanks themselves or the facilities being used to process the wastes in these tanks; and there is reason for concern that implementati-on of the petitioner's proposal might draw the Convnission improperly into regulation of those facilities.

A commenter concluded that DOE was currently in violation of 10 CFR Part 30 requirements for a license because various near-surface waste disposal facilities at Hanford are being used for "long-term storage" of high-level radioactive waste.

The issue is not pertinent to the subject matter of the petition. However, in any case, the comment does not take into consideration the judicial interpretation of the term in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 606 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir., 1979).

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in this case in support of NRC's position that the tanks have not been authorized for use as 22

long-term storage or disposal and are, therefore, not subject to NRC licensing.

D.

Public Input A number of comments stressed the importance of adequate public input into decision making regarding disposal of the Hanford tank wastes.

Some called for public hearings on this subject to be held in the Pacific Northwest.

One commenter noted that ttie EIS which -wa's done for Han-ford provided the opportunity for public comment. Another commenter believed that the Commission's rulemaking procedures did not offer the public a better opportunity for input than does the current licensing procedure.

As indicated in the Discussion above, the NRC's review of the situation with respect to the double-walled tanks has been carried out publicly from the start. Meetings with DOE have been open, and at least one of the petitioners (the State of Washington) has been provided advance notice and an opportunity 9

to attend.

Documents have been placed in the Public Document Room and have been made available for public inspection. It appears to the Commission that the essence of the issue concerns the appropriate standard for evaluating whether certain wastes should be regarded as high-level waste or not.

Sufficient factual information is available to carry out these evaluations.

Also, the petition for rulemaking has afforded an opportunity for views to be expressed with respect to the appropriateness of the standard.

A decision'that NRC lacks licensing jurisdiction does not mean that opportunities for public input will be denied.

As DOE undertakes its waste 23

management activities, it will afford opportunities for public participation to the extent required by its own enabling statutes, regulations, and orders.

E.

Other Co11111ents One convnenter took exception to the petitioner's claim that the radioactive inventory of the Hanford tank wastes was inadequately known.

The commenter believed that the contents of the tanks can be bounded well enough to judge the relative safety of various disposal options.

The Commission considers the available information to be sufficiently bounded to enable it to conclude that DOE's proposed operations {with respect to the material stored in the double-shell tanks) can result in the removal from the Hanford double-shell tanks of as much of the radioactive waste as may be technically and economically practical, and that the applicable regulatory objectives have been satisfied. Once these judgments are made, it is not the NRC's role to judge the relative safety of various disposal options, and we 41 decline to do so.

One comment stated that while the petition was aimed solely at the Hanford tank wastes, its provisions could potentially affect all radioactive wastes from reprocessing, including those at Savannah River, West Valley, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

As the waste management programs at these other sites are in different stages of implementation, the impacts of the provisions would vary from site to site. As indicated above, the Commission is sensitive to this consideration yet believes that the specific case at hand only needs to be addressed at this time.

24 L

Some comments urged the Commission not to change the present definition of HLW.

The Commission is not changing the present definition.

V.

Conclusion For the reasons presented in this document, the petition for rulemaking is denied.

~

~

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this &,.(c, day of~.~'-*'-'<<

, 1993.

\

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ommission.

25

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM ~tJ - ¥ Department of Energy { Ss Fte..517 3 2 )

Washington, DC 20585 April 25, 1991 Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (Attn.:

Docketing and Service Branch)

Dear Secretary Chilk:

"91 MAY -8 A1l :54 In a Federal Register notice dated December 17, 1990 (55 FR 51732), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced a petition from the States of Washington and Oregon requesting that NRC amend its regulations to establish a procedure for determining whether treated defense reprocessing tank waste is high-level radioactive waste (HLW) (Docket No. PRM 4).

The proposed amendments would affect the Department of Energy's (DOE) environmental restoration and waste management programs.

For the following reasons, we recommend that NRC deny the petition, which is contrary to law and impracticable:

1. The amendments would involve NRC in regulation of DOE's predisposal waste treatment and processing activities.

Therefore, we believe that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with NRC's l imited authority to license specifi c DOE facilities under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (EM).

2. The proposed amendments neither constitute a definition of HLW nor provide useful guidance for determining if waste is high-level.

3. The requirement to remove the "largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity on a tank-by-tank basis" does not provide a means for balancing and optimizing considerations such as impacts from waste disposal, public and worker exposures, and costs.

Beyond the specific matter of the petition, DOE recognizes the need to ensure that possible short-and long-term impacts from management of high-level and incidental wastes are reduced to levels as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

To this end, DOE will ensure that plans for separation of tank waste into high-level and incidental waste are developed on the basis of an ALARA analysis that considers public health and safety, environmental impacts, worker exposures, technology, costs, and other factors.

DOE will continue to provide information to the NRC, the

~ I 1991 Acknowledged by card.............. "..................

u.c:. ~ ~C-L:.:AR Rtuu l OHY COMMISSION DOCICTING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Postmari(

Copies R Add'I Copi Special Di LZSR OF THE COMMISSION OoaJ'llent Statistics

2 petitioners, and others to ensure full public disclosure of its activities involving the disposal of all radioactive waste.

As the Department looks forward to future plans and decisions for other DOE wastes, we continue to believe that the best approach for establishing standards for waste management would be one that is based on risk.

NRC development of a risk-based definition of HLW would assist DOE in developing future programs and procedures for managing wastes containing wide ranges of radioactivity.

We would be happy to provide more detailed comments if you require additional information about any of these issues.

The contact on my staff is Mr. Gary Roles (202-586-0289).

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.

Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health ged by card................................,..

DOC~(ET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM &,D - J./.

(t:5F~-5/?3d--)

0 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY~ L l\t.. ~. u

{ I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 U~t{i-<C AP~ r

• 91

-1 p):38 WR 15 1991 Mr. Michael T. Lesar Regulatory Publications Branch Office of the Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Lesar:

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the petition for rulemaking on the definition of the term "high level radioactive waste" and has no comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the petition.

Should you have further need to contact EPA regarding this rulemaking, please have your staff contact Ms. Susan Offerdal of my staff at (202) 382-5059.

Richard E. Sanderson Director Office of Federal Activities APR 2 4 1991 Acknowledge by car **********************************

Printed on Recycled Paper

'u,:-*

,.,,r; fi':GULATORY COMM!

lO

,.1:.:KET!N'.J & ERVICE SECTION

-.,fflCI: OF THE SECRETARY OF-THE COMMlvSION Cocu:n"nt Stati tics Postma *Dab 3pt /3.!. (4~.)

Ccpies R::iceksd__.. ______ _

Add'I Co,..:s.-.. RerrodLiced 3 Spcciai Distr,t:1~,on }31 C:f:>.> PDF?, ~aui_.,

r-r'

'1.

m~*

\ \.

/\1/4 I

i.

' I j.'

the 'f'stamPrate I I. -

.I DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM ft;O- ~

{'55 FR-5(73:J)

~

~~

.,,. _ _---~-;~*~ *.*. ~-..

. ;pr-, ,> (:,C,* -.,::-s:w~

r

.*,i**.,,.,.* ~

(

~ -.~.~*if/-../

4(

1

.', *.J.*~-~~ *),.. *.-

I I

I f**1**_'?1* **gF'

_1/2_.LJ. _..*

,.._~~i_;....

I,,.. *, g~ *

,I >

'.: h _a I

' 1

~.;.;.'-"-1.J~. __ _;,7 ii~

.s~~

()i!.!ckai.e ~~

Co,n/Y14sS,e:-,;

tJssbn:,ltni, L), (!_. o26 555

/lh7J: Md~ t'lk';*v/ce boJ1JcJ N\

MAR 2 7 1991 DOCKETING&

SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NRC Id b/2thl 'Jl iJtJr (Jmcer,J RE: 1Ja:-1AJ111otJ or Mb1AnoAJ:

Z. f?y-e_fir l'o/)'erf jlJU ho Id ;-@/4c C!.ommed-

/Jedrtllf5 tf1.

b.J3/4_h,o/lon, OeqoYJ a,..d :Idaho

[

W e£(Ject~ !!J IM-Q¥efl..S 0d:Ju.i,i the \Jo1AJnw.wd 1

r tiv1.d o/Dwh f<.),t/e/2_ 0-.K'eos-There lYl of tfa.rfcv--~ )

U\ c,rd er fv see-k. cu..A U':J e 6'ACV\

(!_,() MM uJ-lYl y'ovr vpM~ f'e-defi-vichbn d ec.-t*s*cbY) of h<gh-- (e>>~ ra.&Lo~Ut'.- wac;t"e.

0tf1cerey

J

<,;)fuiU ~

'T}u(!.,r__

1~~6 c3S1/ L!A'ta111 rlAt. 012, CJ 1.5(,, 7

l_;.,,, ~ ~--

• ;.I.JULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETIN3 f, SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR¥ OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 3 /11 / q I ( C. fµcitMc( \

Copies Aeceived._1 ______ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced _3c...---...----

Special Distribution KI t;)$; ~f?; aeLW,.11_.-

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM /pD~ if-Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Brance March 14, 1991

Dear Secretary:

( 56-FR 5 17 3d)

• 91 MAR 25 P4 :35 This letter is in regard to Washington state trying to change the definition of high-level radioactive waste around some of its disposal at Hanford.

Basically, I feel this would be an injustice to the people of our state to label as "incidental waste" the waste going into the grout vaults if it included high-level radioactive waste.

Liquid from high-level radioactive waste has to be treated differently from low-level radioactive waste.

The DOE at Hanford is perhpas afraid or doesn't want to take the time to separate them for proper treatment.

Maybe if we hadn't spent and are continually spending so much money on our w?r in the Middle East we wouldn't even be considering this question.

And, we do need to be licensing these processes (for example, grout vaults).

The public has a right to know when and what is being dumped in their state.

Also, in this decision, we need to be considering the effects of increased radioactive levels of cesium and other elements getting into the ground water around Hanford and contaminating it and the Columbia River.

Please keep me on your mailing list.

/ incerely, / ~

P_

erbert P.O. Box 95966 Seattle, WA 98145 Acknowledged by card.

tlUS.NWtll16~8H9~~ ~l~&,1PN

~,-S&~iiJE~1j1~

<mRRfelE.(01Flllt!a:~~

(OJF1llt!IE~-1

~

. *~

PW.m31k0:!l9 3/J ift';ll (<:1--1 (J7::J,5e, tjg91t,~)

Co~esReceived __, ________ _

Add'! Copies Reproduced =3 _____ _

Special Distribution Rms, ff>RJ $,1-a 4.../

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM t,C> -f

( 5'5 FR. '5 ( 7 3.').)

March 15, 1991 COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. ("OCRE")

SS ON PRM-60-4, "DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'HIGH-LEVEL RADioJ.l:TM~25 p):

WASTE, ' " 55 FED. REG. 51732 (DECEMBER 17, 1990) vf'-H'L

,. -* l,1 I l I*

nocKi.., ti G

• i t, 1cr OCRE is not taking a position in favor of or in oppositionB

• L1*

PRM-60-4.

With regard to the definition of "high-level radioactive waste," it is OCRE's position that the current definitions of "high-level " and " low-level " wastes are arbitrary and artificial.

In particular, the term " low-level" waste implies " low-hazard," which may not be the case for many

" low-level " waste streams.

The protection of the public health and safety and the environment would be enhanced by abandoning the current terms "high-level " and " low-level " and devising different radioactive waste classification schemes which are commensurate with the risks posed by the waste materials.

The goal of radioactive waste management must be the isolation of radioactive wastes from the biospher e for the duration of their hazardous lives.

This can be done in the most cost-effective manner if waste streams are segregated, as they are generated, as much as possible.

It is not clear that PRM 4 will achieve the goals stated above.

It may be more appropriate to classify the entire contents of the tank wastes as "high-level " wastes than to declare a portion of them as " low-level."

However, the waste characterization requirements in the petitioners

• proposed Appendix A to Part 60 are essential for beginning to solve the legacy of poor waste management practices at the DOE 1 s Hanford, Washington site.

OCRE also believes that NRC oversight and regulation of the DOE facilities, both for their cleanup and operation, is essential.

The l ack of any independent regulation of the DOE facilities is the root cause of their vast environmental contamination and general poor performance.

Respectfu l ly submitted,

Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 APR 2 4 1991 Acknowledged by card........... "....................

.;. 1,UCLEA!lt REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docum nt Statistics Copies Received.____. ______ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced _.3~----

Special Distribution DS PDR ~

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM UJ-,j-(55 Ft<.5/73i) er: ;L~

DOCKETED

• *u:)Ni<C usN:>C

• 91 MAR 20 P4 :l O

Westinghouse Building 1

Gateway Center (j)

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15222

• March 15, 1991 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: NRC Docket No. PRM-60-4

Dear Sir:

Enclosed herewith are an original and two copies of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation's comments on the Petition for Rulemaking regarding the definition of the term "High Level Radioactive Waste".

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this important petition for rulemaking. If you have any questions on this information, please call Jim Bearden at 412-642-3990 or me at 412-642-2455.

S. A Green, Manager GOCO ES&H Programs Environmental Affairs Westinghouse Electric Corporation APR 2 4 199\

Acknowledged by card.............................. -

Introduction WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION COMMENTS ON THE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE DEFINffiON OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" 10 CFR PART 60.2 On December 17, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published and requested comments on a petition, submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon (Petitioners), to amend the definitions of "high-level radioactive waste" (HL W) and "HL W facility" as defined in 10 CFR 60.2. The following are Westinghouse Electric Corporation's (Westinghouse) comments on the petition for rulemaking.

Comments The Petitioners' concern appears to be with the Hanford Site, yet the request is to clarify the NRC definition of HL W for "defense reprocessing waste in tanks". The petition should be assessed for its national ramifications rather than the sole affect on Hanford waste management programs. The petition would could impact not only the reprocessing of HLW at Hanford but similar efforts at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the West Valley Demonstration Project and Savannah River. The waste management programs at these sites are at different stages of implementation, and therefore the proposal would have varying impacts. At no site will the proposal measurably increase safety if adopted, however it would delay waste treatment and disposal, increase costs and potentially hamper safe management of tank wastes.

The Petitioners propose to add to the definition of HL W in 10 CFR 60.2 the statement "provided that if, prior to disposal, defense reprocessing... remove the largest technically achievable amount... and therefore not HLW." Because reprocessing tank wastes are not defined and HL W is not clearly separated from other low-level waste, adding this statement, along with the new proposed Appendix A, would have the net effect of defining all defense "tank waste" as HLW regardless of the level of radioactivity. The waste could only be classified as non-HLW after being treated by the approved method and meeting established criteria for each tank of defense waste.

The procedures for determining "largest technically achievable amount" outlined in the proposed Appendix A would require, at least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing waste is treated, pre-treated or blended, that DOE publish in the Federal Register all data concerning that waste. Also, the NRC would be required to license DOE, under section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act 42 U.S.C.

5842 ( 4 ), at least six months prior to any processing of any waste unless the NRC determines on a tank-by-tank basis the following:

"1)

The DOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank will be isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal; and

2)

That the use of permanent shallow land disposal for the tank waste will be limited to the incidental waste portion, which is the activity remaining after the largest technically achievable amount of activity has been removed; and

3)

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal will achieve the stated separation and/or recovery efficiencies; and

4)

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal are proven, cost effective, state-of-the art processes, which are capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity."

This process of publishing data in the Federal Register and making treatment determinations on a tank-by-tank basis is not compatible with efficiently selecting, designing and constructing treatment facilities due to the extraordinary cost of these facilities and the time required to implement any modifications or construct new facilities. In addition, many of the tanks of waste are scheduled to continue to receive waste for a number of years; consequently they are not presently ready for the proposed tank-by-tank evaluation process. Determining treatment required on a tank-by-tank basis could require setting aside tanks of waste for several years until treatment is provided and possibly requiring the construction of additional waste storage tanks which otherwise would not be necessary.

Presently HL W is managed in tanks which are interconnected to minimize storage volumes by evaporation or calcination, thereby reducing the potential for migration of liquid wastes into the environment. These management practices would potentially have to be stopped until a detailed characterization of the waste is conducted and approval is obtained from the NRC because they could be considered blending or pre-treatment of HL W.

The definition of HLW and the subsequent classification of defense "tank waste" have been the subject of extensive rulemakings as well as correspondence with the NRC. As a result of comments received on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (51 FR 5992 and 53 FR 17709 respectively), the NRC rejected any attempt to define "sufficient concentrations" numerically or otherwise. This was based on the concern that a definition would be an invitation to dilute or fractionate waste solely to alter its classification. The NRC has already acted within its authority to determine which defense reprocessing tank wastes at the Savannah River site, the West Valley site and in the double shell tanks at Hanford are incidental wastes (not HLW) per the definition in 10 CFR 50 Appendix F, (54 FR 22581, May 25, 1989, and a letter from R. M. Bemero, NRC to A J. Rizzo, DOE, dated September 16, 1989).

Westinghouse supports the concept of a risk-based quantitative definition of HLW since such a definition would distinguish HLW from non-HLW. However, the Petitioners' proposal to define "sufficient concentrations" in terms of the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity which may be removed from each tank is not a "concentration" definition and is not quantitative. It does not clarify the definition of HLW, nor does it provide an objective basis to distinguish HLW from non-HLW. The Petitioner's proposal would also require that technology development and implementing processes be subject to regulatory evaluation by the NRC, the Petitioners and others. In fact, the Petitioners have stated that determinations of how specific wastes will be characterized under the standards proposed by them would be left to "... individual adjudicative proceedings." This process is neither technically feasible nor consistent with the statutory responsibilities and authorities of the NRC and the DOE.

The Petitioners also request that the public be given adequate opportunity to comment on the disposition of these wastes. Savannah River, West Valley and Hanford have prepared Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for these waste management programs. Also, an EIS is being prepared which will address changes proposed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. These EISs received extensive public review and comment before they were issued. Additional public review would be redundant and would unnecessarily delay waste treatment. As these programs proceed, large amounts of data and information on waste composition, treatment and disposal will continue to be made available to the public.

Conclusions While Westinghouse appreciates and is fully aware of the concerns of the Petitioners, the proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of the NRC and DOE, and the proposed change to the definition of HL W and HLW Facility would not add any significant measure of protection of public health and safety or the environment. The proposed rule would instead delay waste treatment and disposal, increase costs and potentially hamper safe management of tank wastes. The NRC has previously considered, through extensive rulemaking processes, the appropriate definition of HL W and concluded that its current definition of HLW is satisfactory for the purposes of 10 CFR 60.2.

Public participation as to the final disposition of the waste has been facilitated through the various rulemakings as well as the EIS process.

be:

S. R. Pitts J. L. Gallagher J. S. Moore - WSRC T. M. Anderson - WHC J. J. Buggy - WVNS W. C. Moffitt - WINCO J. R. Bearden R. J. Bliss - WHC C. L. Dalcanton V. A. Franklin J. P. Hogan - WINCO D. K. Ploetz - WVNS E. L. Wilhite - WSRC B. D. Williamson - WHC D. D. Wodrich - WHC

Introduction WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION COMMENTS ON THE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" 10 CFR PART 60.2 On December 17, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published and requested comments on a petition, submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon (Petitioners), to amend the definitions of "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW) and "HLW facility" as defined in 10 CFR 60.2. The following are Westinghouse Electric Corporation's (Westinghouse) comments on the petition for rule making.

Comments The Petitioners' concern appears to be with the Hanford Site, yet the request is to clarify the NRC definition of HLW for "defense reprocessing waste in tanks". The petition should be assessed for its national ramifications rather than the sole affect on Hanford waste management programs. The petition would could impact not only the reprocessing of HLW at Hanford but similar efforts at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the West Valley Demonstration Project and Savannah River. The waste management programs at these sites are at different stages of implementation, and therefore the proposal would have varying impacts. At no site will the proposal measurably increase safety if adopted, however it would delay waste treatment and disposal, increase costs and potentially hamper safe management of tank wastes.

The Petitioners propose to add to the definition of HL W in 10 CFR 60.2 the statement "provided that if, prior to disposal, defense reprocessing... remove the largest technically achievable amount... and therefore not HLW." Because reprocessing tank wastes are not defined and HL W is not clearly separated from other low-level waste, adding this statement, along with the new proposed Appendix A, would have the net effect of defining all defense "tank waste" as HL W regardless of the level of radioactivity. The waste could only be classified as non-HLW after being treated by the approved method and meeting established criteria for each tank of defense waste.

The procedures for determining "largest technically achievable amount" outlined in the proposed Appendix A would require, at least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing waste is treated, pre-treated or blended, that DOE publish in the Federal Register all data concerning that waste. Also, the NRC would be required to license DOE, under section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act 42 U.S.C.

5842 (4), at least six months prior to any processing of any waste unless the NRC determines on a tank-by-tank basis the following:

"l)

The DOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank will be isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal; and

2)

That the use of permanent shallow land disposal for the tank waste will be limited to the incidental waste portion, which is the activity remaining after the largest technically achievable amount of activity has been removed; and

3)

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal will achieve the stated separation and/or recovery efficiencies; and

4)

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal are proven, cost effective, state-of-the art processes, which are capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity."

This process of publishing data in the Federal Register and making treatment determinations on a tank-by-tank basis is not compatible with efficiently selecting, designing and constructing treatment facilities due to the extraordinary cost of these facilities and the time required to implement any modifications or construct new facilities. In addition, many of the tanks of waste are scheduled to continue to receive waste for a number of years; consequently they are not presently ready for the proposed tank-by-tank evaluation process. Determining treatment required on a tank-by-tank basis could require setting aside tanks of waste for several years until treatment is provided and possibly requiring the construction of additional waste storage tanks which otherwise would not be necessary.

Presently HL W is managed in tanks which are interconnected to minimize storage volumes by evaporation or calcination, thereby reducing the potential for migration of liquid wastes into the environment. These management practices would potentially have to be stopped until a detailed characterization of the waste is conducted and approval is obtained from the NRC because they could be considered blending or pre-treatment of HL W.

The definition of HLW and the subsequent classification of defense "tank waste" have been the subject of extensive rulemakings as well as correspondence with the NRC. As a result of comments received on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (51 FR 5992 and 53 FR 17709 respectively), the NRC rejected any attempt to define "sufficient concentrations" numerically or otherwise. This was based on the concern that a definition would be an invitation to dilute or fractionate waste solely to alter its classification. The NRC has already acted within its authority to determine which defense reprocessing tank wastes at the Savannah River site, the West Valley site and in the double shell tanks at Hanford are incidental wastes (not HLW) per the definition in 10 CFR 50 Appendix F, (54 FR 22581, May 25, 1989, and a letter from R. M. Bernero, NRC to A. J. Rizzo, DOE, dated September 16, 1989).

Westinghouse supports the concept of a risk-based quantitative definition of HLW since such a definition would distinguish HLW from non-HLW. However, the Petitioners' proposal to define "sufficient concentrations" in terms of the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity which may be removed from each tank is not a "concentration" definition and is not quantitative. It does not clarify the definition of HL W, nor does it provide an objective basis to distinguish HL W from non-HLW. The Petitioner's proposal would also require that technology development and implementing processes be subject to regulatory evaluation by the NRC, the Petitioners and others. In fact, the Petitioners have stated that determinations of how specific wastes will be characterized under the standards proposed by them would be left to "... individual adjudicative proceedings." This process is neither technically feasible nor consistent with the statutory responsibilities and authorities of the NRC and the DOE.

The Petitioners also request that the public be given adequate opportunity to comment on the disposition of these wastes. Savannah River, West Valley and Hanford have prepared Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for these waste management programs. Also, an EIS is being prepared which will address changes proposed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. These EISs received extensive public review and comment before they were issued. Additional public review would be redundant and would unnecessarily delay waste treatment. As these programs proceed, large amounts of data and information on waste composition, treatment and disposal will continue to be made available to the public.

Conclusions While Westinghouse appreciates and is fully aware of the concerns of the Petitioners, the proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of the NRC and DOE, and the proposed change to the definition of HLW and HLW Facility would not add any significant measure of protection of public health and safety or the environment. The proposed rule would instead delay waste treatment and disposal, increase costs and potentially hamper safe management of tank wastes. The NRC has previously considered, through extensive rulemaking processes, the appropriate definition of HL W and concluded that its current definition of HL W is satisfactory for the purposes of 10 CFR 60.2.

Public participation as to the final disposition of the waste has been facilitated through the various rulemakings as well as the EIS process.

Introduction WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION COMMENTS ON THE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" 10 CFR PART 60.2 On December 17, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published and requested comments on a petition, submitted by the States of Washington and Oregon (Petitioners), to amend the definitions of "high-level radioactive waste" (HL W) and "HL W facility" as defined in 10 CFR 60.2. The following are Westinghouse Electric Corporation's (Westinghouse) comments on the petition for rule making.

Comments The Petitioners' concern appears to be with the Hanford Site, yet the request is to clarify the NRC definition of HLW for "defense reprocessing waste in tanks". The petition should be assessed for its national ramifications rather than the sole affect on Hanford waste management programs. The petition would could impact not only the reprocessing of HLW at Hanford but similar efforts at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the West Valley Demonstration Project and Savannah River. The waste management programs at these sites are at different stages of implementation, and therefore the proposal would have varying impacts. At no site will the proposal measurably increase safety if adopted, however it would delay waste treatment and disposal, increase costs and potentially hamper safe management of tank wastes.

The Petitioners propose to add to the definition of HL W in 10 CFR 60.2 the statement "provided that if, prior to disposal, defense reprocessing... remove the largest technically achievable amount... and therefore not HL W." Because reprocessing tank wastes are not defined and HL W is not clearly separated from other low-level waste, adding this statement, along with the new proposed Appendix A, would have the net effect of defining all defense "tank waste" as HL W regardless of the level of radioactivity. The waste could only be classified as non-HLW after being treated by the approved method and meeting established criteria for each tank of defense waste.

The procedures for determining "largest technically achievable amount" outlined in the proposed Appendix A would require, at least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing waste is treated, pre-treated or blended, that DOE publish in the Federal Register all data concerning that waste. Also, the NRC would be required to license DOE, under section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act 42 U.S.C.

5842 (4), at least six months prior to any processing of any waste unless the NRC determines on a tank-by-tank basis the following:

"l)

The DOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank will be isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal; and

2)

That the use of permanent shallow land disposal for the tank waste will be limited to the incidental waste portion, which is the activity remaining after the largest technically achievable amount of activity has been removed; and

3)

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal will achieve the stated separation and/or recovery efficiencies; and

4)

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal are proven, cost effective, state-of-the art processes, which are capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity."

This process of publishing data in the Federal Register and making treatment determinations on a tank-by-tank basis is not compatible with efficiently selecting, designing and constructing treatment facilities due to the extraordinary cost of these facilities and the time required to implement any modifications or construct new facilities. In addition, many of the tanks of waste are scheduled to continue to receive waste for a number of years; consequently they are not presently ready for the proposed tank-by-tank evaluation process. Determining treatment required on a tank-by-tank basis could require setting aside tanks of waste for several years until treatment is provided and possibly requiring the construction of additional waste storage tanks which otherwise would not be necessary.

Presently HL W is managed in tanks which are interconnected to minimize storage volumes by evaporation or calcination, thereby reducing the potential for migration of liquid wastes into the environment. These management practices would potentially have to be stopped until a detailed characterization of the waste is conducted and approval is obtained from the NRC because they could be considered blending or pre-treatment of HL W.

The definition of HL W and the subsequent classification of defense "tank waste" have been the subject of extensive rulemakings as well as correspondence with the NRC. As a result of comments received on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (51 FR 5992 and 53 FR 17709 respectively), the NRC rejected any attempt to define "sufficient concentrations" numerically or otherwise. This was based on the concern that a definition would be an invitation to dilute or fractionate waste solely to alter its classification. The NRC has already acted within its authority to determine which defense reprocessing tank wastes at the Savannah River site, the West Valley site and in the double shell tanks at Hanford are incidental wastes (not HLW) per the definition in 10 CFR 50 Appendix F, (54 FR 22581, May 25, 1989, and a letter from R. M. Bemero, NRC to A. J. Rizzo, DOE, dated September 16, 1989).

Westinghouse supports the concept of a risk-based quantitative definition of HLW since such a definition would distinguish HLW from non-HLW. However, the Petitioners' proposal to define "sufficient concentrations" in terms of the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity which may be removed from each tank is not a "concentration" definition and is not quantitative. It does not clarify the definition of HL W, nor does it provide an objective basis to distinguish HL W from non-HLW. The Petitioner's proposal would also require that technology development and implementing processes be subject to regulatory evaluation by the NRC, the Petitioners and others. In fact, the Petitioners have stated that determinations of how specific wastes will be characterized under the standards proposed by them would be left to "... individual adjudicative proceedings." This process is neither technically feasible nor consistent with the statutory responsibilities and authorities of the NRC and the DOE.

The Petitioners also request that the public be given adequate opportunity to comment on the disposition of these wastes. Savannah River, West Valley and Hanford have prepared Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for these waste management programs. Also, an EIS is being prepared which will address changes proposed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. These EISs received extensive public review and comment before they were issued. Additional public review would be redundant and would unnecessarily delay waste treatment. As these programs proceed, large amounts of data and information on waste composition, treatment and disposal will continue to be made available to the public.

Conclusions While Westinghouse appreciates and is fully aware of the concerns of the Petitioners, the proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities of the NRC and DOE, and the proposed change to the definition of HL W and HLW Facility would not add any significant measure of protection of public health and safety or the environment. The proposed rule would instead delay waste treatment and disposal, increase costs and potentially hamper safe management of tank wastes. The NRC has previously considered, through extensive rulemaking processes, the appropriate definition of HL W and concluded that its current definition of HLW is satisfactory for the purposes of 10 CFR 60.2.

Public participation as to the final disposition of the waste has been facilitated through the various rulemakings as well as the EIS process.

Mr. Samuel Chilk DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM lt/J-Jf (55FR.5l?.3:2.)

Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 MAR 18 1991 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.DC 20555 (Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch)

Dear Secretary Chilk:

DOCKETED I

-'.f MA 18 1991 In a Federal Register notice dated December 17, 1990 (55 FR 51732), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced a petition from the States of Washington and Oregon requesting that NRC amend its regulations to establish a procedure for determining whether treated defense reprocessing tank waste is high-level radioactive waste (HLW) (Docket No. PRM 4).

In accordance with telephone conversations between G. Roles of my staff and members of NRC staff, we plan to provide comments within a few days.

If you have questions, Mr. Roles' telephone number is 202 - 586-0289.

()_,L 0~......;;,._

.* JI/_

Andrew Wallo III Acting Director, Air, Water, and Radiation Division Offi ce of Environmental Guidance

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFlCE OF TH~ SECRETARY OF THE cm~MISS'O Docu,11rnt St tislics Postmark 0 te ~bo:..-::;.. _____ _

Cop;e RiJ i *ed_l _______ ~_

Add'I Co s Reprc Spec, Dis bubon.-1l.!~w.::.~,,,.a~~

-to: St"CREl"iltR..Y DOCKET NUMBER

,,1 PETITION RULE PRM /;D -,,- a,:\

(ss ;:£ 517.g t l!

"91 MR 18 P4 :2B N\.A C. L t.7\-R ({£ G U.L 4-TD RY 00 MM l S Sf l>,0 lA.>~~l-\-,...OGTOI\.)

D.C.

205.SS

~A): 00 CKE.T\,uG

¢ SERulC..E..

&R_~,vC...f-(

rovZMA-L, J.\,E:A-~.JA)GS

\,v

-r~E.

A)OR.i""~wt~t

-5~0U..L.D 6E-H-£.LD -to

~E-E.K_ ~u.R..,HE/(__

fU6L\C...,.

0OM.M_ E..0T REG ~R_D 1,t.)G r-H -

C l-lA-NG E 0~ PE.~lNl-t"lO,v OF-l-\-l6H-l.EVEl....

-wAsTE.

~U0LtC..,

IA.)V OLV EM.ENT

\:5 A)E CE SS /JrR...Y 6t0 Arv 1ssu£ A--S PA;1.)GER.ous As,44rs.

l stLAsvt -s-c.o-rt lll:l( £.

M ~ AA)D REL0S ME-D~ORD OR. <{?SOC{

APR 24i i~~1 A ti

~

... it t,\\\\J r~td.-,n,..........................

\

U.S. t, UCLEAA REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO Document Statistics Postmark Date A

-13........,...,_I ___ _

Copies Received._-'--/ _____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced ~~:=:..-----

Special Distribution I< ID$, '[?DR, ~

DOCKET NUMBER

/;;\

5 -

PETITION RULE PRM t.o-4. \

~

(5~ Fl!.5113':/... -,

,_,l, r,L, l l *

• U'::> f<C Acknowledged by card..................................

DOCKET NUMBER

~

PETITION RULE PAM,o-,f c.!/;;

(55M S11,z_).ul *;L*

March 10, 1991 u~ kC

• 91 MA 18 P4 :27 To whom it may concern;

• r... *r u~ ::r.CKI Tt.ti..,

boc L i.lt G,<:.~ I Cf I am appalled at attempts by Washington and Oregon to ~

CH the definition of high-level radioactive waste. It is what it is, and calling it "incidental waste" is a lie and a blatant attempt to distort.

'Ihe deceit invil.ved in this distorting of what it is called so those entrusted with disposing of these toxins can continue to weasel out of their responsibility without regard to human or planetary degradation, is sad and sick. It is an attempt to perpetrate a ruse on the public, for the sarre purpose as any con man, to make a buck.

I think there should be criminal negligence charges filed against those who have dunped radioactive wastes in the ground, and those who wrote regulations allowing it, and those who seek to continue this egregious and irresponsible act till 1995.

'Ihere should be a halt to anything which generates nuclear waste until the problem of disposal is solved, and the present level of blatant poisoning of land and water has been eradicated.

Attempts by the federal goverrurent to delay the vitrification plant, show a gross lack of awareness and concern for the enonnity and seriousness of the problem.

I am totally opposed to any exemption from NRC licensing for the OOE grout vaults.

Further, I am opposed to the OOE disposing of waste water in Z-20 cribs.

'This totally perpetuates every problem \\\\hich currently exists.

'Ihe gove:rrurent has lost its credibility with the public over its history of deception, stonewalling, and grossly ineffective managaoont, problem-solving, and prioritizing. There has been no accountability to date.

I am very concerned.

Sincerely,

~

J. Cohen East 1010 20th Spokane WA 99203 A

APR 24 1991 cknowledged by card..................................

Samuel J. Chilk Secre~ary.

U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20SS5 Att: Docketing and c*

....,er vice DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM '1)-i (ss F.

5/ ?J~

2552 Har1is Avenue Richland, Washington March L?. 19'31

['GCl'.E 1 [Q USNi.C

'91 HAR 18 P 4 :O 7 Branch

SUBJECT:

FR Vol 55, No.

242, 12117/90, NRC Docket No. PRM SO-~,

Definition of the Term "High-Level Radioactive

~11aste", Petition for Rulemaking.

Dear Sir:

INTRODUCTION I

am a

Richland, WA resident, receiving drinking water from the Columbia River below the Hanford Reservation and living within 25 miles of e>~istlJ:lg_

high-level radioactive waste long-term storage facilities and disposal sites of the Department of Energy (DOE>, as well a&

the proposed new high-level radioactive waste disposal facility, referred to as the "land-based grout vaults" by the petitioners in the subject petition for rulemaking.

BACKGROUND It ism~ conclusion that the DOE is currently in violation of 10 CFR 30 requirements for a license since various near surface geologic repositories, referred to as cribs, ditches and single shell tanks, but meeting the definition of "geologic repository" in 10 CFR GO have received and currently hold in

"'long-term storage" or "disposal" "high*-level radioactive wastes."

In come cases the specific activity of such wastes is low compared to much of the "high-level radioactive waste" at Hanford; however, the source of the wastes I refer to is consistent with the source-based definition intended by Congress in Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act CERA) and reviewed by the petitioners.

Definitions in Attachment A, a portion of the 1973 AEC Manual, further illuminate the source-based definition in use at the time the ERA was enacted.

A l,ey fact contributing to my conclusion is that

DOE, ERDA or the AEC expressly authorized the "long-term storage" or "disposal" of

1. It has been suggested that the Congress by Section 202 (4),

regarding long-term storage facilities, in specifying "authorized for the express purpose" meant authorization by Congress.

However, the more logical meaning is authorization by a Director of a

Division of Waste Management and Transportation as provided by Chapter 0511.032 (c) of the AEC Manual in 1973--see Attachment A.

It should be noted that Congress did not routinely authorize specific long-term storage facilities, but authorized general funding £or waste management.

APR 2 4 1991 Acknowledged by card

aj13/q1 I

3 f2 ff)51 P DR)

these wa~tes by operations contractors.

The operational definition of long-term

storage, established by the

AEC, is contained in ATTACHMENT A.

This definition was being used by the AEC contemporaneously with the writing of the ERA and it can logically be concluded that this was the definition intended by Congress, consistent with the logic described by the petitioners in deducing the intent of Congress with respect to the source based definition for "hi9h-level radioactive waste."

As with the definition of "long-term storage",

"storage" entails the capability to readily retrieve wastes.

Disposal is defined as an operation that does not provide for recovery.

<There was no concept of interim storage expressed in the AEC Manual in 1973.J

<This can be seen from the definitions of Attachment A.>

The DOE and its predecessor entities have long recognized that the "stabilization" and "interim stabilization'" of in-tank single shell wastes and the "storage" of waste in soil columns. and otherwise in non-retrievable earth and ground water is long-term storage and/or disposal.

This can be seen from various historical documents concerning the decision in the early 1960's to proceed with solidification of wastes in single-shell tanks at Hanford in contrast to General Electric recommendations for a sound program of waste management at Hanford involving the calcination of tank wastes with storage in bins similar to the scheme currently used by the Idaho Chemical Reprocessing Facility.

The current immense problems associated with safely sampling, much less retrieving, waste, in single shell and some double shell tanks at Hanford attest to the "disposal" of the waste accomplished by DOE and its predecessor entities in the past.

COMMENTS

1. The NRC should not attempt radioactive waste" since this Only the courts can embellish interpreting laws.

The original maintained and compliance with the to redefine the term "high-level term was established by Congress.

this term in their roll of source based definition should be spirit and intent of the law achieved.

Therefore, the issue which NRC should be concerned with is the regulation and/or licensing of the Administration's

<DOE's) long-term storage and/or disposal facilities.

In this regard a

definition of "long-term storage facility" should be incorporated into Part SO or part 30

<see comments below) as a.subcategory of "HLW facility".

The definition of "long-term storage" in Attachment A should be used in developing the new term.

2.

The Purpose and Scope of Part 60 does not apply to all DOE facilities for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste, but only those subject to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Thus, if the.subject petition is considered as a change to Part 60, the Purpose and scope must be changed.

For example, this Section might be revised to the wording originally used in Part 60 to cover licensing at a geologic repository operations area.

Other major changes would also be necessary.

3. Anticipating the modified scope indicated in comment 2. above, and reviewing the significant changes to Part 60 from the original version as a result of the NRC's action to implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it appears unwarranted and potentially confusing to attempt to revise Part 60 to re-institute its previous general coverage for the licensing of DOE activities, stemming from authority of the Energy Reorganization Act alone.

4.

The Purpose and Scope of 10 CFR 30 clearly applies to the licensing of DOE long-term storage <including disposal> facilities

£or high-level radioactive waste.

Section 30.12 points out that such facilities are not exempt from the requirements of Part 30.

It appears that modification of Part 30 and/or the addition of a new Part 36 pertinent to the near surface long-term storage and disposal facilities at Hanford and other DOE sites is more reasonable than modifying Part 60 to accommodate the subJect petition request for regulation of DOE at Hanford.

This conclusion reflects the limited scope of Part 60 to deep geological repositories as a

result of changes to invoke the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which applies only to deep geological repositories. 2

5. A substantive standard for near surface disposal of waste is required, particularly for those long lived and short-lived mobile isotopes such as I-129, Tc-99, Se-79.

C-14, Cs-135, Cs-137, Sr-90, Co-60 and the actinides.

Even small quantities of I-129, if it pollutes ground water at concentrations of lOxE-12 ci/1 or greater, would render the water resource useless.

Much of the Hanford groundwater already exceeds this EPA limit for drinking water, and cleanup of the affected aquifers will be very expensive.

For example, for any given site out to the accessible environment or boundary of the site, the inventory of any given long-lived isotope disposed of in that site, if mixed with 1/10 of the volume of water determined to exist in the unconfined aquifer or first confined aquifer, whichever is highest, under the specified surface area of the site, should not exceed the drinking water standard for that isotope.

For example, if the first aquifer under a disposal site were determined to have 10xE13 liters of water, then 1 curie of I-129 could be disposed of in that site, assuming the drinking water standard of lOxE-12 ci/1.

As an alternative, performance based criteria such as those specified in 10 CFR 60 for a deep geological repository could be specified for the near surface long-terms storage site or disposal

2.

The term "repository" as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act includes systems for the permanent dee_g geological disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.

Thus, shallow land disposal such as that accomplished and planned at Hanford and are not covered by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and hence outside the Purpose and Scope of Part 60.

site.

In such a

case the engineered barrier system would necessarily have long term performance requirements out to 10,000 years.

Given the near surface disposal of the waste, substantial waste forms would be necessary and various land use scenarios, including nearby farming and other human activities, would necessarily have to be considered in determining hydrologic conditions for the wastes.

Containment for a 1000 years or more would be indicated, since in contrast to a deep repository, geologic isolation is not provided with the near-surface placement of wastes.

I would agree with the petitioners desire to minimize the amount of waste to be incorporated in grout.

However specific design requirements should be specified with an ALARA type criterion applied in addition to the specific requirements.

If grout is an insufficient waste form to accomplished specified design requirements for the waste form performance, then a better waste form should be developed.

6. Licensing proceedings should be conducted to obtain public input and adjudication of technical issues as suggested by the petitioner in his conclusions.

In addition, for existing facilities subject to licensing, DOE should submit license applications with all due haste, since they and some of their contractors are in violation of 10 CFR

30.

The NRC should notify DOE of this requirement to submit license applications for existing facilities.

NRG should establish licensing conditions that assure safety of the facilities and otherwise protect the environment, the public and the workers from undue risk.

For critical safety issues such as those associated with single shell tank wastes that are not readily retrievable, an ongoing licensing proceeding should be conducted to allow for continued adjudication of design issues and access by the public of pertinent technical information.

All operations at the applicable facilities should be subject to NRG regulation.

For example, the sampling of wastes and geologic media and the mitigation of existing radioactive pollution should be subject to licencing and subsequent NRC oversight.

Implementation of other environmental

laws, for example. RCRA, CERCLA and SARA should be a condition of the license.

7.

Construction and operation activities, including design activities and site characterization, should be subject to NRG oversight and regulation.

Therefore, the requirement for submitting a license application, or a separate construction permit before the initiation of any of these activities, should be established.

Such formal interaction with DOE and its contractors will allow effective and timely resolution of technical issues associated with long-term storage and disposal.

8. I would point out that the petitioners conclusion that the definition of high-level radioactive waste must derive from NWPA is incorrect.

In fact the operative definition of high-level radioactive waste pertinent to the DOE facilities at Hanford derives from the ERA as suggested above.

The use of the term in the NWPA only applies to deep geologic repositories which are the subject of NWPA.

Thus, as suggested by foot note

1. 4 on page 5173 2 of the Federal Register

Notice, the petitioners discussion of the NWPA is not relevant to delimiting NRC's authority to license and otherwise regulate the D0E's long-term storage and disposal facilities at Hanford.

The concept of "sufficient concentrations" although applying to the determination of waste for disposal in a deep repository, does not exempt dilute high-level radioactive wastes from NRC's regulatory authority.

Sincerely, F. Robert Cook

< 50'3-375-3207)

ATTACHMENT:

A U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission AEC Manual. Chapter 0511, Radioactive Waste Management, September 19, 1973. <10 pages)

(

U..S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AECMANUAL Votumc 0000 Gerwal Adminiflraion Part

0500 HaJth and Safeiy AEC0511-01 WMT Chapter 0511 RADIOACTIVE WASTc MANAGEMENT 0511-G'I POLICY 1,*1s tbl policy of the AES: to mamge*r21lioacaw wate in such a manner as to minintize the ndiadon exposun and associated risk. to mm and bis*

amroamem Oftl' tbe U(...ime o( the ridionuclides.

0511-C OBJECTIVE To assure safe lo1119term mamgem~t o( aJl ndloacit,e waste aenemed by A.EC operuions and of that radiaactt,e waste which is delivered to the AEC by licemed opentions as required by rqulatioas.

0511~ RESPONSIBUTIES ANO AUTHORmES 031 Tbe Geneal M:mager lppr0'!U the AEC ndioactmt wute management plan submitted by the OmsiOA of Waste Management and Tramporuuon (WM'l1 and determines compatibility of field otru::e wme mampmem ;um wuh the AEC plan if quesciaas as to compatibility aiscd by WMT are not resolTed by the Assistant Caien1 Mampn co==-d.

032 The Director, Dmion of Waste Ma:nq.ment and Tr.mspon::acioa:

L is responsz"ble for program direction :md fiscaJ caatrol of the lang-<erm management llf high-lnel 12.dioactive wanes 2' AEC (2dlities..

b.

Is. responsible for progmn clircction and fiscal control or all ncar~ac: radioactive solid waste burial grounds at AEC f ac:ilities.

and of ffl!ineered storage nults u AEC (Jdides for interim storage or solid.

ndioac1iff waus Crom licemad ac:tmties.

c.

is responsible for propni dlrection and fJSCZt-control of operations of Federal repositories for. the disposal or long-term nanp of radioaaive wastcS. to include:

dneiopin1, performing studies for.

desip,iog, construainJ, dcmonsm~. and obtaining necessary external nmews and aJ2PIO'IUS.

203 cl.

coordinates the developmelit and annual updadnc of an O¥erall -plan for the management of radimctm waste from A.EC aper.wans.

e.

calls for field office waste management plans. m;ews them with advice of prasnzn dmsioas. and detmnmes their comptibWty with tbe O¥enil plan.

(.

exercises overall cnprinnc:e. caardlnation.

and review of wur.e management ac::Mties.

includula the ciezree of prcsress in. meeting sc:hed11les and objectives. to assure compliance with A.EC pow:ies and requirements: coordimtes with appropriate propm di\'isions to assure that fieJd office wasu mzmpment pwuun1 and budgetifll are consistent with the AEC ovenll plan.

1-develops. recammemis.. and pramulptes policies. Juida. mi requirements r or t:eauncnt and stor2ge o( liquid. ~lid. and pseous wanes at AEC faclities. induding the definition o( categories o{ waste: assists the Divisiaa of Opeaaaml Safery in the deYeloprneat of safety poiides.,mdes.

swuwds. and requiremmu for the reiuse of :ad!oadYe efiluems to the mvironmenL

h.

determines or approves r.:iteri:a and spedfie1uons. includiq those reJatint to p,dc*ptg a.ad tnmport. for wanes whici are to be stored in near-surface land burizl grounds or enpne:red stonp vaults at AEC (2c:ilities., or ue to be stared in Fede~

l'2dioac:tive wute repositories.

i.

prepares in a,oper:ation with appropriate field offices and contr:ac:tor sutr.

mvironmentaJ messments and statements for m:ajor AEC waste management facilities.

in accordance with IADOSl0-29.

j; maintains:

(1) c:aurll records of t.'11 capabilities md =pacues of ASC fac11ties and Federal repositories for ac=pting.

~oc:essmg. noring. buryinc. and disposing of radioaaive wute: and (1) ccnu:aJ inventories of radioactin waste beint stored, buried. or

~

of 2t AEC facilities and Fedmi rei,osnories.

le. prm;des propm direction and fisc:al control of a reseuch and dneio~ment program ror Approwed; Se;,tember 19. J 973

,:(?)..

-*)

I i,

I I

, I

' l I l

I i I

• v

• • .. 1.

.~*f::::~.-

<, f

.AEC' 0'11-033 (1) techniques for long-term SU>r:ace or dlspcmj of c:ommerc:iaJ md A.eC hi!fl-levd wute: (:) compaction. incineration. or other

...... lmpaowem.nts in handllnc pnc:ic:a for contaminated solid wute: and (3) bnpmemenu in air da.ninl or liquid e{fluent treatment.

• -L.. drtelopi and defends budpt estimues for its wute management responsibilities and acdmies. induding.facility requirements.

md exercises rw::u control over such actJvtties: provides stuT mistanc: to other.

dlYisiuns in the budget submissions of wuta manapment items for which th~ are

-responsible.

m. provides idvice on al'l'licability or interpretation of *the provisions of _this c:mpter and ipproves ac:ptions. where warranted. coordinating these actions with appropriate He:idquanen divisions.

n.

sponsors and caordinates testinc and dewlopment of improved i:roducu ind systems ( such as ffish Effic:iency Particulate Air Filters) for reducing ta the lowest economic:llly and technic::uly pr2c:tial I level radioactive mareriai rele:iscs to the tfflironment.

o.

with regard to the ibave misned usponsibilides. ac:u u the Gtnen.l M.anqer's suff liaison and point o( c:onw:t with the Offlce of ~ation md with other Fedenl. state. or loc::11 groups with reprd to activities canc:ming (1) AEC-sener:ued wmtes and (2) carnmetci2Uy pneated wasus to be delivered co the AE~ u required by regulations.

033 The Director.

Dmsio:s of Opendanu Sa!ery:

a.

develops. recommends. and promuJptes policy, standards. and requirements relennt to ( J) tbe protection a( man and

• the environment from ridiation or c:onwniaation. and (2) safety o( syne-ns and system components used for cantrollint radioactive maurw dbcharge to the enYironment.

~-b* exerdses OTenil surveillanc::. e-r.uuation. and appraisal of A.EC site eifluent mi enYironmenu.l inonitonn, prov,ims to assure compliance witb. AfC safety sandards Uld paiicy rei:uin11 to :,rotection oi man Uld ltis environment in ~c:c:ardanc:e with AEC\4 0513. and coordinates such monitoriffll programs with com~bfe pro!fUM oi other ~enc:es.

Approved: Scl,tember 19, l 97j RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT c:.

in cooperation with WMT,. evaluates radioactive wane manapment pro,nms to assure that the AEC policy oi r.ontroUiq the lenlsi tec:hnic:aJly *and economially pnc:tfaj is being impianented.

refasit of r;dlaac:me-nmm:us to-the-lowest- --- --* *- *~

4. appraises the-s~i*tY-aspects-o( field offic:e.-. ----*

wute mimcment pt01fU15 ind activities.

• • reviews wute man:11emenc plans in relation to their impact on man and the emironmmc and recomm*nds any appropriate modlfiadans ta the Oirec:ar. Division oi

(.

Waste Manqemmt and Truispomtion.

c:aordinates with appropriat* dlrecton o(_

prov.am divisions prior to establisJtin1 poUi:y standards which may have a programmatic impact.

034 Directors of Pr*~inm Divisions, ffesdquartezs:l

a. consistent with proarammatic responsibilities md the provisions of sections 032 above and 044 below. provide direaion of operations mYolvin1 radioactive wure pnetated in their prosr:ms.

b.

witbm propmunatic responsibilities. m31 pronie dincrlon and SU,idance -:onsiste:nt with q,pendix pan II for th* prepandon of

• ace manqemcnt plans to be submitted by field office rnamprs under 038(c).

c:.

review w:iste mmapmcnt plam submitted

• by rield office managers relative to e:ic:h site at wbic:h they hue progrimm::itic respcnsibilities. includinc rebted comments o( Offill! pr0!Rffl divisions whic:n 11:ive activities at those same sites. and consult with the Oire::or, WMT, concmunc his rmew function described in 032( e).

d.

as requested* by the Director, WMT, re"liew inqumes on the applicability or iJltefi1RC2tioa of the provisions of this cha17cer ind requacs for e,:empdons.

e.

camu1t with the Oir:ctor. OS. in m:uim relatin1 to policy, standards.

and requirements relennt co tbe protection of mm md the environment from r:uilation or conwnmatioa.

035 "'Ibe Director, OiYisioa o{ Naft! Rc:1ct0rs.

USUfflD the same r~bilities as mana~ oi fieJd oifica for its respective progr2m :c:mties.

036 The Director.

Off"ic:e of Information Sa vices. assumes reS'COrwbilities ior waste gmer.ued in c:onnection with nuceu uh.ibics not under direction of :iny rieid oific: rnana~.

204

R.ADIOAcnVE WASTE M.ANACE.\f.ENT 037 n. Director. Omsioa o( Comtructioa:

a. : deYelops. or approves in conjunction with

_______ WMT, __ and ocher concerned HQdquaners I **...,.....

I..

dmsiom. design criteria for facilities to be cansuucted or modified (or the JN11)0SII of proc:esmlc or staring r.ulicame wastes or m conualllna the release o{ adio:active Y.IStCS to thl cnTU0mncnt.

b.

m'icws* waue mamgemem ~

,clauft to their pwmed camuuction xtiviaer and adYbls tha Dlrectot, Division of Waste Mampmcu md Tr:msporutioa. on thl estimated costs and sdlcdwes and cmfannuce wiih design c:ritcria.

038 Mampn of F'Je!d Offices:

a.

mute that the rel~ c:ri~eri:l in 044, below, are* ronowed in dnetuping pracuces tor routine md emerg~* operations u AEC insullatiom under their jurisdic:tians and that current pnctic:s. where d.iff eriq.

are rmsed to coffll)iy with tlt: criteria.

b.

ref er. questions as to appjic:abillry, interpm2tion. or exemption from the criteria (see 044, below) to the Director.

OITision of Waste ~men, and Tnnsponation.

• through the appropriate prognmdmsions.

c.

prepare and subntit to WMT, with copies to the ll'PfOpnate ~

divisions., aru;uaily upd.aled wute mmagemcnt pwu for their sit.a. following the generzl guidance in appendix OS 11, part IL

d.

maintain suiuble approval control over key wasie m~cnt decisions of opemq contnctors. such as the esublishment or majcr modification of:

(1) oper2ting limits for quantities or coac:ntntiom of adioactive materials released to the environmmt.

(l) release locations and tir:u111 of reieues.

(3) memods of tre:aancnt of effluents lO mini min release of radioacti-4 mautrials..

( 4) methods of c:caveaiou 1Jf bigh-ir,el UquiJ wute for interim s&arap or disposal.

(5) procas flowsheea. to the ~en, that they determine the quality or quamity ofvnstcs.

( 6) medlods of interim st0r21e oi solid wastes.

e.

assure th.a, (or A.EC 0per2tional situations.

calculations related. to burial/st0f21e 205

... ** -.c.... -----.USO

~--

--~--- - -- *- -

AEC 0511-037 opentions mclude full c:ost. exclusive of.

I and.

dq,reci~uon.

added f:ictor. mi

'::°:~

perpetual arCL..cosu..... For. _purposes of ____.* <:/..

c:ompandve cost e,:Jwations of solid waste buml or nonge ~th and without additional __... _____. _.-

pro.:essinf (or volume reduction. all c:csu are induded. e.c.. depreciadon of fadllties. cost of land. ind present worth or perpenm can cosu.

C.

mainwn records of ndioacti'fe waste stored or buried at their siteS.

J.

conduct a propm of annual appraisals of ccnmetor ridioacme wme manqemem

tetivtties *.

• 0511~ BASIC REQUIREMENTS.

041 Appw::abilicy.

This chapter applies to dm1ions and offic:es. Headquarters. 'field offices. and contracton who operaie AEC~wned or -controlled facilities and whose contractS contain the Standard Safety, Health. and Fire Protection Clause (see AECPR 9-7.500647).

042 C09er2we-This chapter and Its appendix s!'ecify the responsibilities.

requirements. and prac:=iures which shall govem the management of radicactive waste.

043 Appendix 0$11. Appendix 0Sl l contains dermiticns ( pan 1) and JUidance (pan ll) for use in implc:ne:sting the policies and re:sporm"billdes of this chapter. The dewl of the appenm is not lo be taken*

as ~-ir.clusiw nor should it prem1pt the use of good j udgment by lcnowledfeab le fidd offic: and conmc-.or staff in the deTelopment of saie pr:acuc=

am c:cnirols in the management oi r.uUoacuve waste.

044 Opet:ltin1 Criteria. To ~

an effective program for the management of ndioactive waste, the following criteria shall be observed:

a.

Genenl

{ 1) Field omces and their conm~.crs shall candw:t their openticns and dispose of and nore adioa.ctift wute in such a manner u to assure that present and future t3dlation e~

to individuals md population p-oups will be at the lowest lenls technically and economically pnctiaJ fft't exc:ediq llmits established in AEOt 0S24 al'l'ffldix pans I 1nd n.

(2) C0ntinuin1 etToru shall be made ta develop 2nd me improved technology for reducing the ridioac:tivity reieucs to AJ)proved: S~tember 19. l 973 I

I

AEC 0511-0Qb.

die lowa, technically =d cc:onomicaily

. pr:ctii;,l lc-;m.

(Jl ffi1h-lnt1l llquid r:idJoacdvc 'f!'ute shall not be tnmponcd. offsite.

( 4') The maze md dqree* of ndJoacme camamim:ioa of bad by ~C r.ste mana11mezu acUYiUes shall be arinimized.

b. Hip,l.ffa ~

Wam (1) Hlp*lnel liquid w:isus sha.l1 be cannned to suitable physic:3l and chemic:! forms md confined in a f!tanner whic.'1 smil pro-ride hip

osun~t 1Ji isolation. from man's mvironment with minim

u retwu:e on p,rpenw maintmanct and surmlbnc:e by man under conditions of credible polC)!ic:. s.ismu:. and othsr naturally occ:".lrfinl nenu.

(2) Hip*lnel liquid r=ioac:tiYe wastes may be initially stored in arefully en;ineffed systffllS equipped with

• adequate provision for le:zk detection md control. T3nks and tnmfer systems stwl be dcsiined to remi c:ediolc intcmal md exwm.1 fore=. TechngJoa sba.O be developed mi eml'foyed as saan u pnc:uc::u to reduce the volume md mobility of the bigb-lcm llquid wastes placed in iniaal stor.zp fadlilies.

(J) Hip-lnet liquid wuas in iniml stonp iUld hi§h-levei wastes in long*tmn sicrap. or in pilot pl.ant facilities shall.

in each =se. be amained ind emoJac:ad so as to be retrinable far remava! ind

• innsfer e!sawhere. The method of Stonp md the physici and chemic::u farms of the stored w:me shall be predicated on saf ery and not on possible retrieval for recovery off mioa products for beneficw uses.

( 4) The raciloa1.-tiY'ity and the c:hemicJ and physic::u dt:uac:uristics of ail high-Ind wastes in initi:ll. lon!-(enn. or pilot

. plant nonp sh:ul be determineq for ads condition of uorap.

(5) Spare tanks mail be maintained providln1 'VOiume in aa:ss o{ inid:al uorite requimnena for higb-lnei liquid w:is,es. ~

unk farm hol~

hitb-hnt liquid wuie shall have

~able. in tanJcs empty uc:pt for a miduaJ heeJ. ~" ~uivaient ro the larpst vo&ume or' such wastes stored in my one t2nk. ~-= tank farm hold!q Approftd: ~tember 1.9. 1973

-===

206 RADIOACTIVE WASTE M.ANAGE?rf.ENT low-bu, liquid wme sb:a.11 haw inshble rc.c"e ff""'IC ~ty to accommodate l!M> coounu of the laqat tank. IA w ~

When llltercoaaected tank farms an saafflcimcly dose t!m tbt tima required to tnmfer t1llk =ruma bcfllec fmm are smu1ar ta tile dmes required to tnmfer tank ccntcm withm a farm.

such faca=anected tmk fanm may be consfdcred as a siqie tmJc tum for purposes of the a.bo.. requiremalts.

c.

Other Uqaid lbdiaacm. Waste (1) I.lquid r2d!oactive waste =c mfflinl me definiti011 o(.. h:igh-tnel WU111" sh.all

-be comerted Into cwo f zic:dans. one consmm1.

• of liquids_. which c:an be dlscharpd to the fflrironment pursuant to AEOI 0524 (Le.. pascas in.

imcontrolled ueu will aot be exposed *..

to cancmu::niom in e:ic:u

• of thdSe

~esc:n"bed in t3ble Il, mnu A. *.

~

0524) and the other consiszine of either: (a) high-Ind liquid waste, which wou!d be b:andJed in =:ordance with the paUc:::es of b.. ab°"~ or (b) solid waste which wau1d be m.adled in

~

with ma polica 1n d..

below.

(2) As sooa as technic::aily and econcmuc:zlly

~

the use oi mnzal..soil calumm (such as at~ seepage ponds, mi sinu1u facilities) for liGuid urams that aceed esublished swid.uds for rei=se of r2dioac:tivity to unconualled ue:u shall be replaced with other treatment systems. It sbou!d be rec:::¢z:d thac liquid which meets. emblished sundards and is reiased to soil =lw:ms still may remit in a buildup (at a slower r2te) of 12filc:activity in the sail c:ahmm. Thus. it

~4 be mnn~us to ~

soil c:alumn ttrw:mres so.either the sail =n be retrined am reioated or the T>Oina of re!ase ue set:a.r21ed to the mmi mat tbe buildup of r:idioadmty in the so ii caiumn will not ac:ed an ac:apcable lrrel.

(3) Ad.equate dtYersian systems sbail be pr0¥ided to mure tbat

• aonmily rele:uable stre:um.

,mich.

lS i

consequence oi ac::::dent or ope12acmi

~et. w::ed estabwhed sunduds (deed in AfOt 05:4) for reitma to uncamrolled areu. ue JWnmado lly

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT deter:ted and drtfflld to com.rolled

• - --hotdlftl areas ind are ret:ycled at JSocessed to yidd a rdeasahle suam.

d.

Raciollcriwe Sorld w~ Othc:r Than That Ceneraced by Solidifac:adon o( Higli-l.4wj 1Jqaid Wasae

( l) Technic::aJ :ind adminisintlve eff ons sbaD be direcled toward a mazxed reduc:uoa of (a) the FQSS volume of aid WISU pnmted in AEC opcndom and (b) the amount of ridicactJmy In such waste.

• (l) Volume-red*action technology, such as compacrioa and incinention. shaJl be adapted roe use with r:adioacuve solid waste and placed in oper:ation wherner pncti=i.

(3) Except as dlc:uted by (4). beJow, solid r:adioacthe waste may be stored in comentional burial,rounds ipprOYed by the A£C.

(4) Solid waste Jener:lted at A.EC sites mi containinc significant U-233 or trmsur:mium nuclide contamination shall be stored ~, A£C sites. sep-cpted from other ru"oac:tivdy cont2fflinatcd sclid wuie ~ad with combustible and noncombustible transuranium*

conuminated wasu packa1ed

.-parateiy. The pac:lagmc and norap conditiom shall be such that tbe packages an be radily mrined in m intact. contamimtion-irce :ondition for 20 years. The pac!cages shall be suitably labeled so th* waste they ccnwn an be identified by cross-reierence* to pmnmcm re=rds.

e.

Airbome R.adioacme Effluents. G~us and other airborne r:ulioactive effluents shall be controlled at the lowest leTei below the UmiU of A.EOS 0S24 consistent with the state of the technolozy lad good economic practices.

(.

Other.

Ra.dloactive waste genenled by underground nw:Jar 1em.. znd remaining underground shaJl

• be a>nsidercd u a special c:ase.

207

==---=:.._--=----..!!!-=-=*-=--e:.._ -

-'-=".::..C..

AE.C OSJ J-045 045 R.eferenca. __ ____ __

a.

A.EOf 2401.

• "Physic:aJ Protec:uon o(

Classil'* Maner and ln(orma&ion." for additiorw protteiion reqwm. (or c:bssillc:d r:adloactive waste.

b.

AECM 05 J 0, '"Prnention. Conual, and Abalefflmt of Alr and Wu.r PoUuuan."

c.

AEOI 0Sll,.. Eflluac and Emtronmental Monitoring and Reponms."

cl.

AECM 0524, ""Scandania for Radbdm Protection."

• • A£CM 0Sl9, ""Safety SWlduds

• for tht hdcapq af Fissile md Other Judiaac:me Materia.ls."

f.

AECM 0530, ""Nude:ar C:iticiity Safety."

1-AEOt 0~. "Pbnninc. for £merpnc:ia in AEC Opndam...

h.

A.£0( 6301, "Gcncal DcsiJII Criteria."

- L AEC4 7.-01, ""Safquards Conual mi Mamgement of Nuclar Matemls...

j.

WASH,1102,.. l'!an fer t!w Mana,mmu of AEC-Ccnerated Radioactive Wastes."

k.

A.EC Property Managi:ment lmuw:-.ions Subpart 10945.50,.. Excas and Surplus Radioactively Conumimted P:noml Property."

0511.Q!S NATIONAi. EMERGENCY APPUCATJON In the cvat of a national emerpncy, u defmed in

• AECM 0601-04, the pro"lisions of th.is chapter and iu app<<Ddix shall contizwe in eff'ec:..

1 ln tha caatat. ol the polil:y sutffllalt in AEOC 0514-0ll.

11a the caauu of dl9 ?DliCT samman

• 1n AEOt 0514-0ll.

a For pufllOMI of ttus Cla'918f, ;irasrus dirisiollt are tboN Hmdqaaners dmsioas tat rsowie fmscuaml direclilan of actiriua whidl,-neat* ndJaacu,e -.:aft&.

At,,1,rowd: September I 9. I C)iJ

f *....

RADIOACTIV! WASTE MANAcatENT

• • • 1:<;,_::.~

. (:.

... "--~*

PARTI TERMINOLOGY A. PURPOSI tlda pan pr09fdes tmniaolc&Y to be Uled ia lmerpredzls md Jmpamcrmnc um dl.tpc.r. For CIC'asfstexy, its use ls reccmmeaded In other cammullications coac:e:mng rad1aactift wuie manqnllllL I. USAG!S L

Airborne Radfoactin Etnueats-

!ucloactmt particwates. miffs. Tlpon,

=-. and/or p.scs. contained or emtaiaed in a.ir effluents. (Note: The special cua o(

macem!s such as X.r-85 mn<<m!d Crom emuenu and pacx.:i.gcd (or retention. sb.ouLd be dn:ribed as '"Com?"ased

• e2cilaac::m pses" or.. Adsorbed ~e gases. j

2.

Combasu"ble (!or puposes of A.EC(

0$11.444 d.{4)-0rpnjc matem.l apabla of beinc bumtd. exc:pc that iC the only combastibta comem of a p:acage is pbsdc llmq or. wr:lp'ping used for contamizwioa coaual i:ur1'0ses uaund incombustible objects or mtcmls. the contents of th*

pacbp u a wbo1e may be comid.ered aanc:omausahlc.

3. Caatamimtion-Fne (for purposes of AEOI 0$11-044 d.(4)-A conditica of the outer surf2c=s o{ siared conumers. a detemmied

~ appropriate swipe surreys or. direct rad!anca insuumcnt survey,. swlL::!endy Cree of ccaumimtion so th:&t under staadard nl[dfau011 work procedures for the site in question ~ccry protection will 110c be required during canam:r 1w1dliDg.

4.. Cri'b-Aa unde~ fnmcwork or

. mucture inro wbidl liquid. wastes ue dJscbarpd. loc:ued so that the ndioactivity (other than tritium) is screed oa the soil

.. before the liquid reaches groundwater.

!. Dispiaai-The pl.a.ancd rd=se of r:id.ioacme waste in, manner that preciud.es recovery, or !a piac=mcm in i manner which is comldered penmnem so um n=cowery is not prowled for. (Note: If reco,eay is plumed.

or cawd ~* prcmded for e:tSily 11 in the c:m 1

o( coamldom.1 surface burial sroands, the tam.. stonp,. should be mtd.)

Dlnnfo11-As applied

• to aamimily 1111canwm11:ued Ruid sueams. the c:a~billiy o( automatically det<<:r1q cca:essi,.

. ~

md dhat1zii the mam to a ncemtaa. system for trauncm.

1. E!fluems-AJrbome and liquid strams dbcurged from a fadlity after all engimered precess... ttacmear and tffluem contra1s haw been cffec-..ed.

R.dases off:site or into groundwater and surface stre:lms which leave the site or JO to tbt atmosphere from e!l.lineered systems such as ~

lagcons. retention ponds. or injection wells are ta be comide:ed JS tfflueDU. the term does llOt indlll1I solid wute or other waste which is conuined

( e-i-. anct.r;round auc!ar tac debris),

stared (e.g.. m lagoons, retention ~ds.

tr==a, t:mks), or _shipped ol!sue.

8. ~Retention oC ~

w.uu in some type. of mm-made drrice. such u a Wik or 'lllWt. m a a.aner ptl'l2'Utl'ml r=-.ffll.

9.

Loag*Term Stonp-The status o(

r2dioactm1 wuas under control and

~

md radily relrinable. bui in ma a form and loc:ui011 that aio further prcc:es.mig or manipubdon is considered nee: m,y for a period o( time which is very lca1 00111~ to odwr periods of dme in tha mu:= fuel cycie; IA example would be SrDnfl in a lqb,quality nar-mrfaca UCJnllt ?&Wt with Ul.expected dur2biliry oi many decades.

10. Fedem Repositor,-A Feder:uly owned U1d

~ed facility for storap or dlsposa! oi tpeeific types o( mticac=m W'IIIII from A.EC sites :md/or 11cemees.

11: Feda:d Reserndon-AD AEC site r~

l011t-term caamoi and re:saicdom bec:wse oi stored or buried 'nSle or dccommimoned rzc:inties 208

.~EC ~endix OS 11

-~n I I!. Hiah-Har Liquid Waste-Liquid waste

\;Ont.muns suftic:ient thermal energy to require some supplemc:nt:21 mans of c:oolln1, such 21 cooling c:uils.

tl. Hip-1.fffl Uqwd Waste-The aqueous waste resultine from the opention o( the fmt,-yde extraction system. or equinlent concentrated wastes fmm subsequent exu:sction cyc!es. or equivalent wastes from

& process not usin1 solvent ex:r:iction. in a

. fxftlry for procmq irridiated mctor fuets.

14. ~

Wute-(a) high-lCYei liquid waste.

or (bl the producu from solidlfation o(

hipH~ liquid waste. or ( cl imdiated f uef elemans if disc:arded without processing.

l!. 0th* Liquid Waste-Liquid wwe~ no, within the definitions ttf hlgb-lnei liquid watt.

J6. Liquid Radioactive Wute-Soluuons.

suspensions.

&nd mobile slud1es.

conwninaied with radioactive materials.

17. Manasemear (W:ute)-The planning (incJudiq desicn and process improvement).

aecudon. and s~eillance of eswntial functions related to c:onuol o( radioactive waste. including tre:itment. solidification.

ini1 i:u or lon1-cmn stor:lge. ~d disposal

18. Radioac:tiYW W:aste-Matmals of no val~

cunsisting of. including. or c:0nt:unina1cd wich radio:ictive materfai in exc::ss of the lnels. or c:onc:entntions permitted in A£C Pro peny Mamgm,ent Instructions for unconditional relnse of exc:=s property.

This includes (a) siored liquid. solid. or 1aseous residues from chemial or me ta llurgic.-:d processing of r:adioactive m:neri:ls: *(bl disc:rded

• items such u defective equipment and building rubble.

not r:idioactive in themseives but i:anwninated with radioactive m:ueri21s: 2nd

( 1:)

discarded items c::ont:lining induced r=ioactivity. Tre:ued u a separace c:acqory ue: (I) irradiated fuels nared far possible processing: (Z) radioactive scrap stored for possible recOYery oi useiui vaJues: and ( 3) rnateri:lls :znd equipment stored for possible iuture use following decont:unination.

209 RADIOACTJVE-W ASTE MANAGEMENT

19. Retention Basin-A watertight basin in which liquid waste is held for any OM or more of the followinJ reasons: (a) the decay of shon-lived radioactivtty: (b) analysis to verify activity levels permiwng rcle:uc: (c) recycle for treatment: (d) evapcntion.

20. SeeJatt Basin-A basin in permeable earth*

thro\Jlh which liquid percolates and la which r.dlcactivity, except for tritium. is sorbed.

11. Senliq Basin-A watertight basin da:ipled for separ:&tinJ sludges :znd sedimenu as a layer on the bottom. The wuer is disposed of by overfluw or sew-evaporation.

22. Solid Radioactive Ware-Material chat is essentially dry bui may contain sorbed r:ad:ioactive fluids In suff"Jdendy small amounu to be immobile when buried in dry soil.

13. Trans11rani11m-Contamiaared Solid Waste-Those contaminated with cert2in alpha-emitting r:idianuclides of lon1 halt*Hfe and high specific: r:adiotoxidty to Fetter than 10 nanocuries/gram llO microcurie.s/kilognm),

subject to the f oJlowing conditions and undemmdinp:

a.

The rmionucUdes included ue U-!33 (with its daugruer products), j:iutonium.

and trinsl'lutonium nucJides excq,t Pu-:.38 utd Pu-241. (Note that Pu-238

md Pu-241 waste shouid be handled as transunnium<entaminated waste when so indiaced by Pu-:?39 impurities or when required by loal burial aiteria.)

b.

The value of 10 n<;i/g is derived from the upper range of concentr:ations o(

radium-1:6 in the e:irth and is subject to modlficuion based on long-term studies or nuclide mim':ation in soil.

c.

The activity density may be aver:zged over the contents of individual shipping i:>ntainers. such u SS~on drums.

inc:iudin1 materws added for shielding or sorption of liquids. uce discovery (for e.umple. on reclc:ulation of data) that an individual container is above th.is :

level will not be c:onsi'1ered as necessitatin1 its retriCYai provided :here

~ r=sonable assur:ince that the :iver:ige or the container :snd the balance of the moci:zted containers is below the !CTeL

_)

r-

~ --*~

\l~'::C{;f ;;:

,;.-~

!.< (

e-~~

~:~ ~.1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

. _.. d._For typica1 Pu-239 waste at this a.c:tmty dimity, it is recopmed that iadireci measurem.anu or estimates and

admmiscraiw conuols mun be used imcad ol dlrecl mtma1 me::umemmu.

AA aample o{ m:h adnunistnd¥e comrols ii the emblbhment o{ specific ID-piaal wcr.ldnc area from wb.idl typic:11 wastes haw bea escabUshed by mitabla studies u being euher aboft or baaw tbl C01lUOl 'falue.

e.

It II rm,pizeci that lmder present tedusa1oa ceraiJ1 wuie. priJmri1y bulky disc:uded proc:as eq_uqnnclt.

with tnmun!lium ccatent abaft tlus

_. may aat lend t!:lemseh'es ta pncticd neap ill full ccmplwlce whh AEOl 0511-044. d(4). Hc-.,crer, thiitse i c ems should be recorded u trmsunniwn wastes.

3 210 A.EC Aw,-;,Gidlx 0511 PanI

f.

Requests for ex.c~don for applytnc. tbe..

10 rtCda,atue Oft a pacbp-oy1'1dQ.p basis. with submtudoa o( an equiffl,m qummy Omit appilc:abl* ta a burial fxillty, or requaa for aempdoa fer sptdf!c short baU'-Uwd tnmpiuicmimn wastas. wil be c:omidered on a case-by-cut basis.

11 per AEOI OStl.on(m).

I-

'Iba 10 flCl/1 nlu is a c:meriaa for c:hoosmc d.lff'enm metbods o( haadHnc diff'ermt ldnds o( radlcaeuft wme; it shawd not be cammed whb a 'fllue befaw which ucess mattriaJs may be uncaadldonally released. as per A.EC Property &bnqemcnt lmuuc:foas 109-45.S0.

Approftd: Sepumber 19, 1973

RADiOACTIVE W-ASTE M.ANAGa,tENT PARTII WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS A. PURPOSE This i:wn: prcmdcs paidar.ce on tJ-.c development of a radloac:iiYe wac. manllffl!CDt plan for each site, u required by AEOt 0511-0l&c.

B.

DISCUSSION Existiq conditions at the '4riout facilities will require different types and deirees of effon: to meec tht operating c:meria of* AECM 0511-044.

Accordingly, tba plans submitted under AECM 0511.038c need not be Identical in deJree or deuil.

Appropriate references to supplement ar substantiate the mfonnauoa or candusiom sutcd in the plan should be prcmded. The outlins of a waste m:ampmcnt pan in C, bdow, is to be followed.

e FORMAT FOR THE SITE WASTE.

MANAGEMENT Pt.ANS L

Prosam Mminim2tioa l.l Site 1.2 Office Responsible l :

1.3 Ccntncton

~......

1.4 Lad Respomibilizy for Site Plans 1.J Source of FY 197'2 Funds for Waste Mampment Description ol Wuie Gena:auq Proc=ses 2.1 Procas f'lowc:!ma

3.

Oes:npdon oC Waste Management Facilities 3.1 ldaltificadon and Lcation of F2c:ilities 5

211 3.;: Oescri ption of W:iste Tre:itmmt Facilities 3.J Descripciun of W~e Stot'ip Fi'11tics 3.4 Oesc:riprion o{ Effluent Control Sysums 3.5 Site Administrative Umiu on EmU81SU 4'.

Radioac:rift Wasta Stond 4.1 High-Leve!

Wute From Chemic:Ll Prac:essin1 Operations 4.,: Solid Radioactiw Waste Other Than Solidified High-Le-tel Waste 4.J Other Radioactive Materials S.

P1ans and Buqet Projections S.J lnterim Storap of Hiah-1.efll Uquid Waste

5. I.J M ilesione Cham S.l.:? E.'tper::ted A"°mplishments in FY 19TI 5.1~ Proposed Proinm for FY JCJ73 S.1.4 Proposed Prognm for FY 1974 ind Beyond 5.1..5 Fm*Yeu Budpt Projects for FY 1974 and Beyond 5.:? Lcng*Term Stonge of High*Lrtel Waste 5.J Management of Low-

~ Inter*

mediate-Le-re! Uquid Waste 5.4 Man3gement of Solid Wasit Contaminated With Radioactivity S..5 Management of Airborne R.:dioac:in Waste S.6 Recapitulation of Budget Projection Detailed [nstructions for site waste mana,ement plans will be forwarded periodiclly to field oific:

managers.

Approved: September 19. 1973 I

f I

• . I i,.J

(IJHEAL DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM fpt;-f

( 55 FR. 5 /13.2-j

{j) cacKEi rn USHRC Hanford Education Action League March 15, 1991 Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555 Jg

• 91 MAR pi. A11 :34 Re : Docket No. PRM-60-4, Definition of High-Lev.el Radioactive Waste

Dear Secretary Chilk,

I have enclosed the comments of-the Hanford Education Action League on the Petition for Rulemaking by the states of Washington and Oregon (Docket No. PRM-60-4). This concerns the creation of a new waste category, "incidental waste," and has an important bearing on the cleanup of the contamination present at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

Thank you for your serious consideration of HEAL's comments. If you have any questions concerning them, please contact me directly (the address and telephone number are printed below). I look forward to the Cormnission keeping HEAL informed as to the progress of your deliberations concerning this important matter.

Sincerely, d~~

James Thomas Research Director enclosure APR 2 4 1991 Acknowledged by card.............................,....

1720 N. Ash

• Spokane, Washington 99205 * (509) 326-3370

• FAX (509) 326-2932

'UClr V

c<;:

vl R¥

Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 60 Petition for Rulemaking

[Docket No. PRM-60-4]

Definition of the Term "High-Level Radioaotive Waste" by Hanford Education Action League 1720 North Ash Street Spokane, WA 99205 Maroh 15, 1991 The Hanford Eduoation Action League (HEAL) is a nonprofit, researoh and public education organization concerned with the Department of Energy's operations at Hanford.

Established in 1984, HEAL has approximately 400 members dedicated to public openness and a government which is accountable to its citizens.

As HEAL reviewed the petition for rulemaking submitted by Washington and Oregon, it was frustrating that the petitioners included scant information to support their many broad claims.

Two of their olaims caused HEAL particular concern.

First, Washington and Oregon alleged in their petition to the C~rnmission that "the proposed amendment is essential to provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest. "1 The states have failed to provide any scientific or objeotive rationale to support this olaim.

More importantly, the states have failed to establish why their proposed procedure is any better than the current NRC licensing process.

Given that the petitioners' proposed amendment is based on the AI.ARA principle (best technology that is cost effective}, the public has no 1 Enolosun with l*tt*r trom Donni* H. Grimsby, nc, to Tctrry Hussa1.n,. d1.ted n.o*mb*r 10, 1990, p. 5.

• _ ____J

HEAL Comments on Dooket No. P:RM-60-4 page 2 aBBurance that thiB will be an adequate protection of their health and safety or of the environment.

The Commission must keep in mind that the Hanford grout is not a proven waste form.

Even if the grout facility is oerti fied as meeting RCRA requi rements, it is not at all olear whether it will be able to suffioiently prevent the migration of radionuolides, espeoially those whioh are water soluble (e.g. I-129 and Tc-99).

By only proposing best available teohnology and oost effectiveness as the criteria, the public has no assurance that any comments it might submit based on environmental or health criteria would have to be considered by the Commission. Additionally, the states' petition is not at all olear on how the publio should be involved nor if the public would have any rights to appeal a decision by the Commission.

Whi le the t ank-by-tank basis has some technical and practical merit, there is the danger that the public will not be presented with sufficient information to understand the total potential impact and risk associated with the aggregate amount of radiation (from all the tanks) disposed of to grout.

In their petition, the states have failed to present any information to support their claim that the proposed amendment will "provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Paoifio Northwest. "2 This information needs to be supplied before the public will be able to evaluate whether the proposed amendment or the existing licensing process is better at protecting the Northwest.

The second olaim about whioh HE.AL is concerned is that the Commission' s rulemaking procedure would be the best way to involve the public.

Nowhere do the states offer any justification that their proposal 2 ibid. 1 p. s.

HEAL Comments on Dooket No. PRM-60-4 page 3 would grant the citizens of the Pacific Northwest a greater access to the decision-making process.

The states only dismiss the current licensing procedure with the following disparaging remark: "the rule amendment would allow... the avoidance of the admittedly cumbersome licensing process. "3 HEAL regrets that the states of Washington and Oregon oonsider effective public involvement as "cumbersome. " Upon this basis, HEAL is e:*:tremely skeptical that the proposed amendment will lead to effective involvement by the public in the decisions affecting Hanford tank wastes.

HEAL finds it a gross deficiency that the proposed amendment only mentions the double-shell tanks at Hanford.

If the Commission adopts the petition, it would affeot the high-level radioaotive wastes in Hanford's single-shell tanks.

It is quite possible that a significant proportion of these wastes will also be grouted in the future.

The petitioners' serve only the interests of the Department of Energy by not considering the impacts to public health and the environment from the possible grouting of all these other high-level radioactive wastes.

HEAL must also take exception to the petitioners' olaim that NWPA, 42 USC 10101 (12)(A), enables the Commission to create an incidental waste category, 4 HEAL contends that the NWPA is not applicable to Hanford's grout situation.

The NWPA introduces the concept of a concentration-based definition.

Whereas this is applioable to the deep-geologio repository and the regulations governing the repository take it into account, the Commission would be in direot oontradiotion with the Energy Reorganization Aot (ERA) of 1974 if it adopted this as a basis for "incidental waste" concerning the Hanford grout vaults.

3 P*tition for iul.enkinq, July 27, 1990, p. 7.

4 ibid., p. 3.

HEAL Comments on Docket No. PRM-60-4 page 4 The petitioners* proposal is contrary to the intent of Congress when it drafted the ERA in 1974.

The reason Congress adopted a source-based definition was to prevent the Department of Energy and others from diluting high-level radioactive wastes so as to meet a concentration-based definition.

The proposed grouting of tank wastes at Hanford will signifioantly dilute the tank wastes.

At this point, it is important to state for the reoord that there is some agreement between HEAL and the states of Washington and Oregon.

HEAL agrees with the petitioners that "under existing law, defense reprooessing waste, inoluding Hanford double-shell tank waste, is HLW... Consequently, long-term storage or disposal of suoh tank waste is currently subjeot to licensing by the Commission."5 There are enormous oomplexities involved with this issue.

More information is needed {perhaps the only point that all parties aoknowledge).

More publio involvement is a neoessity.

The current federal law does not provide a suffioient prooess to address the Hanford situation.

However, the petitioners' amendment is perhaps even more problematio than the current situation.

Therefore, HEAL urges in the strongest terms that the Commission seriously oonsider the following recommendation.

HE.AL"s Reoo-endat ion to the Co-ission In order to have an informed oitizenry effeotively participate in the deoision of how to properly dispose of the low-activity wastes from the Hanford underground high-level nuolear waste storage tanks, HEAL urges the Commission to undertake a public deoision-ma.king process that would inolude (at a minimum) :

5 ibid. I p. 6.

HEAL Comments on Dooket No. PRM-60-4 page 5

1) A series of publio information workshops to eduoate interested oitizens as to the issues at stake; inoluding, but not l imited to, the proper role of the Conmission and other regulatory agenoies, the limited knowledge of the tank wastes, and the possible safety, health, and environmental oonsequences of each of the options.

2) After a short amount of time to allow the publio to reflect on the information presented at the workshops (2-4 weeks), the Commission should hold a series of official hearings to receive public comment on the proposal.

3) The series of informational workshops and official hearings should be held in at least the four major metropolitan areas of the Paoific Northwest (i.e. Seattle, Portland, Spokane, and the Tri-Cities).

Conolusion Even though HEAL has numerous problems with the current petition, HEAL is reticent to recommend that the Commission totally reject it. This would leave the citizens of the Paoific Northwest right back where we were several years ago when the Commission's staff were meeting secretly with the Department of Energy and looking for ways of skirting the law to allow the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in the grout vaults at Hanford.

HEAL i s willing to consider that good and sufficient reasons do exi s for uniquely addressing the disposal of low activity wastes to the Hanford grout.

How ver, such reasons have not been presented in this petit ion. Therefore, HEAL urges the Commission to undertake our recommendation for an extensive publio prooess that would develop an adequate basis upon whioh a wise deoision oan be based.

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM ~Z>-f

(_55 p,e 5/732)

Jt *u rn M. J. P 1 odinec USN RC 14 Caw Caw Court Aiken, SC 29803 "91 MAR - 7 P 2 :22 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Re:

Definition of the Term "High-Level Radioactive Waste" Docket Number PRM-60-4

Dear Sirs:

e As noted in 55 FR 51732, the states of Oregon and Washington have petitioned the Commission to alter the definition of high-level waste (HLW), to establish a process to determine whether particu-lar defense reprocessing wastes fit that definition, and to place certain restrictions on the solidification of wastes which do not meet the proposed definition.

The purpose of these comments is to urge the Commission to reject the petitioners ' proposal because it is unnecessary, and, indeed, is not in the best interests of the petitioners' constituents.

SUMMARY

OF PETITIONERS' PROPOSAL The petitioners' propose that the Commission do the following:

1)

Redefihe HLW so that removal of the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity from any waste will render it non-HLW.

2)

Establish a process to determine whether defense HLW meets that definition, specifically:

One year before processing waste from any tank, DOE must provide data on the physical characteristics of the waste,

its radiochemistry (e.g., determination of the radionuclide inventory), its volume and the anticipated change in volume due to processing, a flowsheet for each treatment process, and any formulations for grouting residues from treatment.

Then, at least six months before processing of waste in any tank is to begin, DOE must either obtain a license for pro-cessing, or a waiver from the Commission based on DOE ' s demonstrating that it will remove the greatest amount of radioactivity from the waste which is technically achieva-ble.

The Commission must agree that the separation pro-cesses to be used are technically correct, proven, cost ef-fective, and state of the art.

Shallow land disposal shall

(!)

Af>R 9. A. 1991 Acknowledged by card.......................... _,....

US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COi. !.,:!!;~:,;_; '

DOCKETING & SERVICE S=:*:~:ON OFFICE OF THE SECP.: T ~RY OF THE CGM~1ll~SiC;

be allowed only for the residues of such processing.

3)

Establish a limit on the heat from residual activity in the waste plus the heat of grouting to ensure that grout meets the long-term stability criteria for Low-Level Waste.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The specific comments below reflect the following general consid-erations.

Many of the waste tanks in the DOE complex are nearing or have exceeded their design life.

Thus, any proposed changes to dispo-sal regulations should not inhibit the expeditious immobilization these wastes.

While the plethora of panels and committees now looking at all aspects of DOE ' s waste management programs may prevent mistakes, they are also impeding progress.

The Commission should decide the worth of the petitioners' proposals by balancing any incremental safety factor added by the additional review against the delay in stabilizing the waste.

Review of the proposed procedural steps indicates that the only thing certain to be accomplished is fur-ther aging of the waste tanks, and thus further diminution of their safety.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REDEFINITION OF HLW The proposed redefinit ion is unnecessary.

The Commission has already taken a substantial step in the right direction by deciding that any waste with activity greater than that defined as the upper limit for Class C must be disposed of in a repository, or in another manner acceptable to the Commission.

This salutary approach looks toward the risk associated with the waste, rather than the source.

This forces DOE to allocate re-sources to handle the hazards, rather than to waste further time fruitlessly searching for ways to remove more and more activity from one part of the waste.

As the Commission noted in its amend-ment of 10 CFR 61 (53 FR 17710), "the Commission sees little prac-tical importance or significance in proceeding with a precise def-inition of HLW. "

• The proposed definition will not increase the safety of dispo-sal of the waste.

Some of the wastes of concern to the petitioners appear to have been converted to mineral forms in the storage tanks at Hanford.

It may well be that the only possible method to mobilize and re-duce the activity of this material is to treat it with strong ac-ids.

However, this would compromise the containment afforded by the waste tanks.

Therefore, strict application of the proposed definition would potentially force DOE to perform extremely dan-gerous actions, with potentially grave consequences to the peti-tioners ' constituents.

The proposed definition also could be counterproductive in another way.

In order to comply with the "as low as technically achieva-ble" standard, DOE might be forced to treat the waste with chemi-cals which would not be compatible with immobilization processes for the radionuclides.

As an example, arsenophosphates are excel-lent complexing agents for technetium, and are capable of removing even trace amounts from wastes.

However, phosphates are not com-patible with borosilicate glasses.

As another example, alkali tetraphenylborate salts are excellent means of removing cesium from even concentrated alkaline wastes; however, they are not com-patible with crystalline ceramic waste forms.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PROCESS The waste tanks at Hanford have already exceeded their design lifetime.

There are major concerns about the safety of the waste in the tanks at Hanford.

Several panels have been established to look at different facets of the problem.

Although no single concern may be reason enough for decisive action, the citizens of Washington and Oregon are ill-served by any process which needlessly delays the immobilization of the waste.

And yet, the petitioners propose to add two new steps to the tortuous path being followed toward eliminating this hazard to thei r constituents, which will not add to the safety of disposal.

• rs the information on the radionuclide inventory of the waste in the tanks at Hanford inadequate?

One of the reasons the petitioners advance as motivation for their proposal is their opinion that the radionuclide inventory of the waste in the tanks at Hanford is inadequately known.

Unfortunate-ly, the petitioners never come to grips with the question of "in-adequate for what? ".

It is a fact that the contents of the waste tanks at Hanford have not been as thoroughly characterized as those at Savannah River.

However, the contents of those tanks can be bounded well enough to judge the relative safety of various disposal options, and to direct DOE toward an environmentally safe solution.

The petitioners would do better for their constituents if they attempted to move DOE to take this approach and then im-plement the solution adopted in a conservative manner, one which would be relatively immune to the effects of the uncertainties in waste characterization.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON LIMITS ON HEAT OF FORMATION OF GROUT While I disagree with the petitioners about the definition of HLW, it appears that the concept of limits on the heat of formation of grouts are good.

However, it appears that the appropriate place for this limit would be in a plan for a solid waste processing fa-cility, and, thus, should be included in its "Process Control Plan."

I suggest that the Commission consider inclusion of this concept in its guidelines for preparation of the "Process Control Plan."

In closing, I strongly urge the Commission to serve the citizens of Oregon and Washington better than those who should be repre-senting them.

The proposals advanced will not benefit those citi-zens, and by slowing progress toward immobilization of the wastes at Hanford, actually places those citizens at greater risk.

Respectfully,

~

Plodinec

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM w/J-Jf

( 5"~Fll5173:i_)

[7590-01]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 60 DEC 12

[Docket No. PRM-60-4]

Definition of the Term "High-Level Radioactive Waste" AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The States of Washington and Oregon request that the Commission revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" so as to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether reprocessing waste, including in particular certain waste stored at the U.S. Department of Energy's site at Hanford, Washington, is high-level radioactive waste and therefore subject to the Commission's licensing authority.

DATE:

Submit comments (90 days after publication in the Federal Register).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.

1

ADDRESS:

Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

For a copy of the petition, write: Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301 492-7758 or Toll Free:

800-368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners' Request The petitioners request that the Commission amend 10 CFR 60.2 to clarify the definition of "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW) and the definition of 11 HLW facility." The petitioners request that the Commission - -

1. Establish a process to evaluate the treatment of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such wastes will not be considered HLW if, prior to disposal, each tank is treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity; and

2. Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology), will be within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms. 1 1Grout is a fluid mixture of cementitious materials and liquid waste that sets up as a solid mass and is used for waste fixation and immobilization.

2

The petitioners seek clarification that the disposal of wastes treated to this standard is not disposal in a "HLW facility" as presently defined in 10 CFR 60.2.

The petitioners state that should the Commission regard 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Fas the controlling regulation to determine whether a waste is HLW, that the Commission also modify that definition as proposed in the petition.

Basis for the Petition The petitioners state that this rulemaking is based, in part, on Section 202 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which defines Commission authority over retrievable surface storage facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by DOE which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities. The petitioners further state that the Congressional definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) 42 U.S.C. 10101 (12) gives the Commission the authority to define whether wastes are "highly radioactive material" or "solids derived from [liquid reprocessing wastes] that contain fission products in sufficient concentrations. 112 According to the petitioners, legislative history reveals that Congress intended the Commission to license defense reprocessing tank wastes at the point of long-term storage or disposal. The petitioners note that low fraction wastes resulting from pretreatment of tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted and disposed of in land-based grout vaults on the Hanford site in accordance with regulations developed under the Resource Conservation and 2For an analysis of this prov1s1on 1 see "Definition of 'High-Level Radioactive Waste'" (advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 52 FR 5992, February 27, 1987) and subsequent rulemaking documents (proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 61, 53 FR 17709, May 18, 1988; final amendments to 10 CFR Part 61, 54 FR 22578, May 25, 1989).

3

Recovery Act (RCRA).

The petitioners believe that if such wastes are HLW, they clearly fall under the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under Section 202 (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.3 Reasons for Petition The petitioners point out that the present definition of HLW in the Commission's regulations is based upon the source of the waste. According to petitioners, while HLW may be differentiated from "incidental waste,"

the legal basis for doing so must derive from NWPA, specifically 42 U.S.C.

10101 (12) (A), which refers to a "sufficient concentrations" criterion for classification.4 The petitioners claim that incidental waste source is impossible to ascertain due to mixing in defense tanks and the unavailability of accurate records.

They point out, in particular, that over the last 45 years, mixing of wastes from different sources has complicated the classification of Hanford tank wastes, including double-shell tank wastes. Moreover, the petitioners state that radionuclide inventories are estimates and subject to substantial uncertainty.

Variables contributing to the uncertainty include incomplete and inaccurate records, the lack of actual fuel and/or waste analyses, and an incomplete understanding of the chemistry and pathways in reprocessing and waste treatment processes.

The petitioners assert that neither DOE, the Commission, nor the petitioners have adequate information regarding the radioactive portion of the double-shell tank waste.

The petitioners believe that the Commission needs to establish both a procedure and a standard for making an evaluation as to whether waste are HLW on a tank-by-tank basis.

31t should be noted, however, that the Commission has jurisdiction only if the facilities are of the types described in Section 202(4).

4Note, however, the Commission's statement, at 52 FR 5995, February 27, 1987, that classification under the cited provision "would be irrelevant in determining whether such wastes must be disposed of in licensed disposal facilities."

4

The petitioners assert that the proposed amendment is essential to provide protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest.

Petitioners' Proposal The petitioners suggest that the definitions of "High-Level Radioactive Waste" and "HLW Facility" in 10 CFR 60.2 be revised and a new Appendix A be added to 10 CFR Part 60.

The specific language suggested by the petitioners reads as follows:

1. _In§ 60.2, the definitions of "High-Level Radioactive Waste" and "HLW Facility" are revised to read as follows:

§ 60.2 Definitions.

"High-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means: (1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) Liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) Solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted; provided that if, prior to disposal, defense reprocessing tank wastes are treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity on a tank-by-tank basis (as provided in Appendix A), the treated residual fraction shall be considered an incidental waste and therefore not HLW.

5

f "HLW facility" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244).2

2. A new Appendix - A is added to Part 60 to read as follows:

Appendix A - Procedures For Determining Largest Technically Achievable Treatment At least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing wastes containing high-level waste components is treated, pretreated or blended prior to permanent disposal, DOE shall submit the following to the Commission and the affected state and publish in the Federal Register:

1.

Data on physical characteristics of the waste, including density and percent solids, inorganic and organic constitutents, and radio-chemistry (e.g., gamma energy analysis, total alpha, total beta);

2.

Volumetric data on untreated waste, on volume changes expected as a result of treatment, pretreatment or blending activities and the expected volume of the final waste form (grout,sal.trir~te. or vitrified waste);

2These are DOE "facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act [the Atomic Energy Act]

11 and "Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive wastes generated by [DOE], which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities".

Facilities for the long-term storage or disposal of incidental wastes resulting from treatment of defense reprocessing wastes are not HLW facilities.

6

f

3.

A description of the treatment processes, including an estimated mass balance for each process, and estimated percent recovery for each separation, and concentrations of major waste components before and after treatment;

4.

The proposed grout or saltcrete formulation, together with heat transfer calculations for the waste form; and

5.

To the degree possible, treatment system models similar to the attached grout system model should be used to present data and describe processes.

At least six months before a tank of defense reprocessing tank wastes containing high-level waste components is pretreated, treated or blended prior to permanent disposal in near-surface or deep geologic facilities, the Commission shall require a license under Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5842 (4) unless the Commission, on a tank-by-tank basis determines the following:

1.

The DOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank will be isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal; and

2.

That use of permanent shallow land disposal for the tank waste will be limited to the incidental waste portion, which is the activity remaining after the largest technically achievable amount of activity has been removed; and

3.

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submit ta 1 wi 11 a chi eve the stated separation and/or r~ __ covery efficiencies; and

4.

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the DOE submittal are proven, cost effective, state-of-the art processes, which are capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity.

7

Petitioners' Conclusions The petitioners state that rulemaking procedures are necessary to determine the nature of the incidental, lesser radioactive fraction of wastes and that rulemaking is appropriate to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which particular wastes will be assessed.

The petitioners contemplate that particular determinations of how specific wastes will be characterized under these general standards can be left to individual adjudicative proceedings.

The petitioners believe that the amendments suggested by their petition would protect human health and the environment, would facilitate meaningful Commission involvement in the ultimate disposal and/or long-term storage of Hanford double-shell tank waste, and would support implementation of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

Request for Comments Commenters are invited to address, among other things, the desirability and appropriateness of (1) the proposed substantive standard ("remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity on a tank-by-tank basis"), (2) the proposed procedure for applying that standard, and (3) an amendment to 10 CFR Part 60 (in view of the scope defined in 10 CFR 60.1) vis-a-vis the adoption of a new Part or amendment to some other existing Part of NRC regulations.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this fl~ day of~

1990.

Regulatory Commission.

Commission.

8

STATE OF WASHINGTON DOCKETED USNRC DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

• 90 JUL 31 P 3 :05 Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 (206) 459-6000 July 27, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 ATTENTION:

Chief, Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Enclosed for your consideration and for action by the Commission is a petition for rulemaking (under 10 CFR, part 60.2) regarding the classification of high-level radioactive wastes at U.S. Department of Energy facilities.

Note that this petition constitutes a resubmittal by the parties following discussions with NRG staff.

Please also refer to our initial submittal dated January 2, 1990, and to my November 17, 1989, notice of intent which was addressed to Chairman Kenneth M. Carr of the Commission.

Please note that the enclosed petition represents the combined views of both Washington and Oregon.

We look forward to working with you and Commission staff on this very important issue.

Enclosure Sincerely, I~\-\~

Terry Husseman Assistant Director Waste Management cc:

Oregon and Washington Congressional Delegation Dan Silver John Wagoner David Yaden Cecil Sanchey

(

11.s * ti_'* A.. REGl.Ju rni.::y vMl.1 < S

• I Dv, E. TING & SERV'Cf: '"

OFFICE OF TIIE:

C OF THE COM MIS 0 Pos1mark Date.'-'l,,..._-+------

Co~es Received__,_/ _____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced ___ _

Special Distribution __

7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AND REQUEST FOR INSTITUTION OF A RULEMAKING PROCEEDING The states of Washington and Oregon ("Petitioners") hereby respectfully request and petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its rulemaking authority, offer adequate opportunity for public comment, and adopt a regulation concerning classification of Hanford high-level radioactive wastes currently stored in retrievable, surface, storage facilities.

Procedures governing the rulemaking process are found at 5 u.s.c. Section 533 and 10 C.F.R. Section 2.800-2.809.

I.

PROPOSED RULES The petitioners ask that the Commission amend 10 C.F.R. part 60.2 to clarify the definition of "high-level radioactive waste"

("HLW") and the definition of "HLW facility."

The petitioners request the Commission to:

1. Establish a process to evaluate the treatment of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks so that such wastes will not be considered HLW if, prior to disposal, each tank is treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity.

2. Require that the heat produced by residual radionuclides, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing (if employed as a treatment technology), will be within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long-term stability for low-level waste forms.

The petitioners seek clarification that the disposal of wastes treated to this standard is not disposal in a "HLW facility" as presently defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 60.2.

The proposed text of this amendment is attached as Appendix 1.

Should the Commission regard 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix F as the controlling regulation to determine whether a waste is HLW, the petitioners request that the Commission also modify that definition as proposed herein.

The Commission has, on different occasions, suggested that this petition for rulemaking address

both of the definitions contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

This petition is intended to address the definition of HLW applicable to the determination of whether a waste should be considered HLW for licensing purposes at the time of disposal or long-term storage.

II.

GROUNDS AND INTEREST This rulemaking petition is based, in part, on Section 202 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which defines Commission authority over retrievable surface storage facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration, (now Department of Energy) which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.

This petition seeks clarification as to whether certain wastes are defined as high-level radioactive wastes under various regulatory definitions and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, thereby subjecting such wastes to the Commission's licensing authority.

The grounds and interests of the state are based on the following facts and issues.

1.

HLW was first defined in 1970 by the Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC") in terms of the source of the material rather than by its hazardous characteristics.

The AEC defined HLW as:

those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels.

35 Fed. Reg. 17530, 17532, Nov. 14, 1970.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F.

2.

The present definition utilized by the Commission in determining whether a waste to be disposed of in a geologic repository is "high-level radioactive waste" is found at 10 CFR Part 60.2.

This rule provides:

"High-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means:

(1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

2

reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted.

6 HLW facility" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of thei Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244).

3.

The Congressional definition in the NWPA states:

4.

The term "high-level radioactive waste" means--

(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.

42 u.s.c. § 10101(12).

The Commission thus has the authority to define whether wastes are "highly radioactive material" or are 6 solids derived from [liquid reprocessing wastes) that contain fission products in sufficient concentrations. 6 42 U.S.C.

§ 10101 (12).

Legislative history reveals that Congress intended the Commission to license defense reprocessing tank wastes at the point of long-term storage or disposal.

H. Rep. No.

785, pt. 1, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 38, Aug. 20, 1982.

Low fraction wastes resulting from pretreatment of tank wastes are scheduled to be grouted and disposed of in (RCRA regulated) land-based grout vaults on the Hanford reservation.

If such wastes are HLW, they clearly fall 1

These are DOE "facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act (the Atomic Energy Act]" and "Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of HLW generated by DOE, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

3

under the the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under

§ 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

5.

Over the last 45 years, mixing of wastes from different sources has complicated the classification of Hanford tank wastes, including double-shell tank wastes.

Moreover, radionuclide inventories are estimates, and subject to substantial uncertainty.

Variables include incomplete and inaccurate records, the lack of actual fuel and/or waste analyses, and incomplete understanding of the chemistry and pathways in reprocessing and waste treatment processes.

Thus, neither USDOE, the Commission, or the petitioners have adequate information regarding the radioactive portion of the double-shell tank waste.

6.

USDOE plans to pretreat the majority of Hanford double-shell tank waste in order to partition wastes into a "high-level" portion for vitrification and a low-level or "incidental" portion which will subsequently be disposed of at the Hanford Grout facility (currently under construction).

USDOE estimates that from a minimum of 13,000,000 curies to more than 21,000,000 curies will be disposed of at the Grout facility.

7.

The petitioners have a strong vested interest in the safe, permanent disposal of Hanford high-level tank wastes.

There is great uncertainty at this time, concerning the ability of USDOE to demonstrate that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from each tank can be or will be isolated for vitrification.

This is evidenced by USDOE's exceptionally large uncertainty (between 13,000,000 and 21,000,000 curies) concerning residual activity scheduled for surface disposal via grout.

(Table 1 from Enclosure 1 of a March 6, 1989 letter from Mr. A.J. Rizzo to Mr. Robert M. Bernero.)

8.

To date, incidental wastes have been deemed appropriate for disposal in grout, as provided in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order and consistent with RCRA, due to lower hazard from radioactivity.

Grout vault design is protective of human health and the environment if heat produced by residual radioactivity, together with heat generated from reactions during grout process, is kept within defined limits which ensure that grout vaults meet temperature standards for long-term stability for low-level forms.

9.

The present definition of HLW in the Commission's regulations and the NWPA is source based.

Incidental waste source is impossible to ascertain due to mixing in defense waste tanks and unavailability of accurate records.

Radioactive contamination in incidental waste may be from a "HLW" source, even though the amount of activity is PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

4

comparable to LLW, and human health and the environment protected adequately by grout disposal.

Thus, unless the Commission modifies the present definition of NHLww and NHLW facility,w incidental wastes must be considered HLW because of their source and would be required to be disposed of according to§ 8 of NWPA.

42 u.s.c. § 10107.

10.

The petitioners believe the Commission has the legal authority and obligation to promulgate regulations concerning the classification of defense reprocessing wastes in tanks and that Commission staff are uniquely qualified to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of various pretreatment processes.

The rule amendment suggested above would authorize the Commission to ensure that such wastes, including Hanford double-shell tank wastes, are subjected to safe and appropriate methods of e

pretreatment.

11.

Because the definition of HLW has heretofore been based solely on the source of waste, the legal basis for finding that incidental wastes resulting from the treatment of defense high-level wastes in tanks would not be HLW, must derive from 42 u.s.c. § 10101 (12) (A), the NWPA definition of HLW.

The NWPA definition combines a source-based definition and a quantitative-based definition for solid wastes derived from liquid reprocessing wastes.

Characterizing incidental waste disposal in grout vaults as non-HLW is legally supported only if such wastes would not be HLW under the NWPA definition.

Thus, if solid, grouted wastes which are derived from defense HLW do not contain

1. fission products in sufficient concentrations,w they could be considered incidental wastes and not HLW.

The petitioners believe that the Commission needs to establish both a procedure and a standard for making this evaluation on a tank-by-tank basis.

These are provided for in the petitioners' suggested rules.

12.

The petitioners have an interest in and a prevailing responsibility for the protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest.

The rule amendment suggested here is essential to provide this protection.

III.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT A.

Radioactive Wastes From Defense Reprocessing Operations are High-Level Wastes The term HLW is not defined in the Energy Reorganization Act (NERAH).

The starting point in defining HLW for ERA purposes is found in existing regulations adopted by the Atomic Energy PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

5

Commission in 1970.

In this regard, Congress can be presumed to have been aware of the existing regulatory definition when it used the term HLW in Section 202 of ERA.

The existing definition adopted by the AEC in 1970 {10 CFR Section 50, Appendix F),

focuses on the process by which HLW is produced.

The definition in 10 CFR Part 60.2 also focuses on the process by which HLW is produced.

It is clear that defense reprocessing tank wastes, including double-shell tank wastes at Hanford, were considered HLW when the ERA was passed.

The legislative history of the ERA reveals Congress' intent at that time to subject defense facilities to NRC oversight.

In fact, the Congress recognized that HLW was leaking from temporary AEC tanks at various facilities and intended to subject such wastes to NRC licensing at the point of application of a permanent waste management solution.

Moreover, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce found that "existing law with respect to atomic energy defense activities is unchanged by this Act, and facilities for the disposal of waste from defense activities remain subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

H. Rep. No. 785, pt. 1, 97th Congress, 2d Sess., 38, August 20, 1982.

This issue was considered in USDOE's Final EIS on defense wastes at Hanford.

The Environmental Impact Statement considered various alternative methods for dealing with these defense wastes.

USDOE recognized that:

Further, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act requires Commission licensing of those DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste which are not used for, or are not a part of, research and development activities.

Therefore, to the extent that any decision based on this final EIS requires defense high-level waste to be placed in a repository constructed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, or a facility subject to licensing under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act such a repository or facility would be subject to licensing by the Commission.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, vol. I, 6.11.

December 1987.

In summary, we, the petitioners, find that under existing law, defense reprocessing tank waste, including Hanford double-shell tank waste, is HLW.

A letter from the Commission cannot change the status of these wastes under the law.

Consequently, long-term storage or disposal of such tank waste is currently subject to licensing by the Commission.

However, the rule PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

6

amendment suggested here would authorize and require appropriate Commission oversight of the management of Hanford double-shell tank wastes, but would allow, under certain circumstances, the avoidance of the admittedly cumbersome licensing process.

Petitioners believe that the rule amendment suggested would protect human health and the environment, would facilitate meaningful Commission involvement in the ultimate disposal and/or long-term storage of Hanford double-shell tank waste, and would support implementation of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

B.

The Commission Has Historically Supported a Tank-by-Tank Analysis to Determine Whether Residual Wastes Are HLW The decision on treatment and disposal of tank wastes at Hanford has been discussed between DOE and the Commission for several years.

Through these discussions, the concept of an "incidental waste" was identified.

Moreover, both DOE and the Commission have attempted to demonstrate how the incidental waste concept would be applied to the tank wastes at Hanford.

Early in these discussions, DOE and the Commission recognized that the heterogeneity of Hanford tank wastes prevented a determination of whether the wastes were from the first cycle solvent extraction process.

In 1988, DOE and the Commission began an evaluation of 28 DST tanks.

DOE and the Commission agreed that two DSTs contained phosphate sulfate waste (PSW), which does not arise from reprocessing and is clearly not HLW.

See letter from Hugh L. Thompson to Michael J. Lawrence, 7/11/88.

DOE and the Commission also agreed that neutralized current acid wastes (NCAW) in two DSTs are HLW.

Id.

Finally, the Commission and DOE agreed to characterize the waste in tank 106AN, containing double shell slurry feed wastes (DSSF).

See Meeting Minutes, DOE-the Commission meeting, 9/22/88.

The Commission recognized that it would be inappropriate to generalize the findings of this specific tank to an entire waste category.

In a letter dated November 29, 1988, the Commission stated:

As a more fundamental comment on DOE's proposed approach, the staff had hoped that a determination of the classification of DSSF waste in tank 106AN might apply to the entire DSSF category.

We no longer believe that this is practical.

Information provided by DOE in our June 9 meeting indicates that individual DSSF tanks contain different suites of wastes.

Therefore. the documentation and determination of waste classification would need to proceed on a tank-by-tank basis."

Letter from Michael J. Bell, NRC, to Ronald E. Gerton, USDOE, dated November 29,1988.

(Emphasis added).

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

7

The materials balance approach suggested by the Commission and DOE does not eradicate the problems caused by mixing of wastes in tanks and poor recordkeeping.

It merely glosses over the classification by attributing some wastes (destined for HWVP) to the solvent extraction process and attributing others (destined for grout) to non-HLW sources.

The petitioners do not believe that this attribution should be made without an amendment to the applicable definition of HLW, which formalizes a process for identifying those wastes which are inappropriate to classify as HLW.

This process must be done in a public manner to ensure confidence in the treatment process fully employed by DOE.

Public scrutiny is essential to building confidence that the treatment standard suggested by the Commission and the petitioners is being met.

The petitioners' proposed treatment standard closely resembles the alternative approach suggested by the Commission.

See letter from Michael J. Bell to Ronald E. Gerton, 11/29/88.

It refines that approach by applying the concept on a tank-by-tank basis to reflect the admitted problems associated with mixtures of wastes in these tanks and uncertainty caused by poor recordkeeping.

Both the Commission and petitioners share the goal of ensuring that after the proposed treatment of tank wastes the maximum amount of radioactivity possible be routed to HWVP and ultimate geologic disposal.

c.

The Standards to Evaluate Residual Wastes Should be Determined by Rulemaking Procedures Rulemaking procedures are necessary to determine the nature of the incidental, lesser radioactive fraction of wastes.

Rulemaking is appropriate to establish a procedural framework and substantive standards by which the Commission will determine whether a particular waste is or is not HLW.

Such a determination necessarily will require interpretation of statutory language in the NWPA and the formulation of agency policy.

Both of these tasks are well suited to rulemaking procedures where an agency seeks to approach foreseeable problems of general applicability.

See SEC v. Cheney Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202 91947); NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 {1969); see also NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 {1974).

This proposal is particularly appropriate because it establishes a process and general standards by which particular wastes will be assessed.

Particular determinations of how specific wastes will be characterized under these general standards can be left to individual adjudicative proceedings.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

8

Rulemaking procedures are appropriate to provide the maximum degree of public involvement and scrutiny to HLW treatment and disposal decisions.

The controversial evolution of the defense waste program and the equally controversial history of the deep geologic repository program demonstrate a keen public sensitivity and awareness of HLW issues.

The public's interest and concerns should be addressed in a constructive, open fashion, which rulemaking is specifically designed for.

The initiation of rulemaking procedures will demonstrate to the public the regulatory agencies' commitment to accountability.

Decisions regarding how HLW should be handled and disposed of have direct impact upon the public and the environment.

As an agency charged with upholding the public interest, the Commission should avail itself of the opportunity to demonstrate that its actions are consistent with its statutory mandate, well reasoned and benefit the public interest.

Rulemaking proceedings are the optimal vehicle by which the Commission can satisfy the public that treatment and disposal of defense HLW in tanks is being carefully scrutinized in a protective manner.

PETITIONERS:

For the State of Washington

-\

\-\~

Terri?usseman Assistant Director Waste Management Washington Department of Ecology Dated:

I \ A '- l 9 ()

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

9 For the State of Oregon L _jDa(Cvi~d -=-Y*a_!_d_/1,

....L.--=-~~-~~ f;,

rt. Director Oregon Department of Energy Dated: zbe:> L,9'-P

APPENDIX 1 The petitioners suggest adoption of the following language to resolve the concerns expressed in the foregoing Petition for Rulemaking:

Amended 10 C.F.R. Part 60.2:

"High-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means: (1)

Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted; provided that if. prior to disposal. defense reprocessing tank wastes are treated to remove the largest technically achievable amount of radioactivity on a tank-by-tank basis (as provided in Appendix A). the treated residual fraction shall be considered an incidental waste and therefore not HLW.

"HLW facility" means a facility subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the E~ergy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat 1244).

2 These are DOE "facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act [the Atomic Energy Act]" and "Retrievable Surface storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive wastes generated by (DOE],

which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities." Facilities for the long-term storage or disposal of incidental wastes resulting from treatment of defense reprocessing tank wastes are not HLW facilities.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

10

NEW SECTION APPENDIX A PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING LARGEST TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE TREATMENT 10 C.F.R. Part 60 Appendix A, Waste Classification Procedures for Treated Defense Reprocessing Tank Wastes.

At least one year before a tank of defense reprocessing wastes containing high-level waste components is treated, pretreated or blended prior to permanent disposal, USDOE shall submit the following to the Commission and the affected state and public in the Federal Register:

1.

Data on physical characteristics of the waste, including density and percent solids, inorganic and organic constituents, and radiochemistry (e.g., gamma energy analysis, total alpha, total beta);

2.

Volumetric data on untreated waste, on volume changes expected as a result of treatment, pretreatment or blending activities and the expected volume of the final waste form (grout, saltcrete or vitrified waste);

3.

A description of the treatment processes, including an estimated mass balance for each process, an estimated per cent recovery for each separation, and concentrations of major waste components before and after treatment;

4.

The proposed grout or saltcrete formulation, together with heat transfer calculations for the waste form; and

5.

To the degree possible, treatment system models similar to the attached grout system model should be used to present data and describe processes.

At least six months before a tank of defense reprocessing tank wastes containing high-level waste components is pretreated, treated or blended prior to permanent disposal in near-surface or deep geologic facilities, the Commission shall require a license under Section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 u.s.c.

§ 5842(4) unless the Commission, on a tank-by-tank basis, determines the following:

1.

That USDOE has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from the tank will be isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal; and PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

11

2.

That use of permanent shallow land disposal for the tank waste will be limited to the incidental waste portion, which is the activity remaining after the largest technically achievable amount of activity has been removed; and

3.

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the USDOE submittal will achieve the stated separation and/or recovery efficiencies; and

4.

That the treatment, pretreatment and blending processes described in the USDOE submittal are proven, cost effective, state-of-the-art processes, which are capable of removing the largest technically achievable amount of activity.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING -

12

CHRISTINE 0. GREGOIRE Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 (206) 459-6(X)(J Mr. Samuel J. Chill:, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 January 2, 1990 ATTENTION: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The purpose of this letter is to transmit to you our petition for rulemaking (under subpart Hof 10 CFR Part 2) regarding the classification of high-level radioactive wastes at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford site. Please also refer to my November 17, 1989 notice of intent which was addressed to Chairman Kenneth M. Carr of the Commission.

Note that the enclosed petition represents the combined views of both Washington and Oregon, and of the Yakima Indian Nation. We each look forward to working with you and Commission staff on this very important issue.

TH:kji Sincerely, I --rl-1 ~

Terry Husseman Assistant Director Waste Management cc:

Oregon and Washington Congressional Delegation Dan Silver Michael Lawrence David Yaden Cecil Sanchey

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AND REQUEST FOR INSTITUTION OF A RULEMAKING PROCEEDING The states of Washington and Oregon, and the Yakima Indian Nation ("Petitioners") hereby respectfully request and petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its rulemaking authority, offer adequate opportunity for public comment, and adopt a regulation concerning classification of Hanford high-level radioactive wastes currently stored in retrievable, surface, storage facilities.

Procedures governing the rulemaking process are found at 5 U.S.C. Section 533 and 10 C.F.R. Section 2.800-2.809.

I Proposed Rules The petitioners ask that the Commission amend 10 C.F.R. Part 50 to add language clarifying that all Hanford double-shell tank wastes are high-level radioactive waste, unless the Commission on a tank by tank basis determines the following:

1.

That the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) has demonstrated that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from each tank has been isolated for vitrification prior to permanent disposal.

2.

That the heat produced by residual radionuclides, together with the heat of reaction during grout processing, will be within limits established to ensure that grout meets temperature requirements for long term stability for low-level waste forms.

3.

That any other pretreatment processes (e.g. TRUEX) have undergone appropriate evaluation by the Commission prior to implementation.

II Grounds and Interest This rulemaking petition is based, in large part, on Section 202 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which defines Commission authority over retrievable surface storage facilities and other facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the Administration, (now Department of Energy) which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities. The grounds and interests of the state are based on the following facts and issues:

1.

The USDOE publication titled Integrated DataBase for 1988: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics states that high-level waste (HLW) which is generated by the reprocessing of spent reactor fuels and irradiated targets, generally contains more than 99 percent of the nonvolatile fission products produced in fuel or targets during reactor operation. The HL W from a facility that recovers uranium and plutonium contains approximately 0.5 percent of these elements. The inventories of HL W that is in storage in the 28 Hanford double-shell tanks at the end

Petition for Rulemaking Page2 of 1987, contained 116,000,000 curies in 19,400,000 gallons (73,400 cubic meters) of waste. Thus, it is clear that even USDOE now recognizes that the double-shell tank waste is HL W.

2.

HLW was first defined in 1970 by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in terms of the source of the material rather than by its hazardous characteristics. The AEC defined HL W as:

"those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels."

35 Fed. Reg. 17530, 17532, Nov. 14, 1970. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F. This definition of HLW has not been changed and both USDOE and the Commission currently utilize this definition.

3.

Over the last 45 years, mixing of wastes from different sources has complicated the classification of Hanford tank wastes, including double-shell tank wastes. Moreover, radionuclide inventories are estimates, and subject to substantial uncertainty. Variables include incomplete and inaccurate records, the lack of actual fuel and/or waste analyses, and incomplete understanding of the chemistry and pathways in reprocessing and waste treatment processes. Thus, neither USDOE, the Commission or the petitioners have adequate information regarding the radioactive portion of the double-shell tank waste.

4.

USDOE plans to pretreat Hanford double-shell tank waste in order to partition wastes into a "high-level" portion for vitrification and a low-level or "incidental" portion which will subsequently be disposed of at the Hanford Grout facility ( currently under construction).

USDOE estimates that from a minimum of 13,000,000 curies to more than 21,000,000 curies will be disposed of at the Grout facility.

5.

The petitioners have a strong vested interest in the safe, permanent disposal of Hanford high-level tank wastes. There is great uncertainty at this time, concerning the ability of USDOE to demonstrate that the largest technically achievable amount of activity from each tank can be or will be isolated for vitrification. This is evidenced by USDOE's exceptionally large uncertainty (between 13,000,000 and 21,000,000 curies) concerning residual activity scheduled for surface disposal via grout. (Table 1 from Enclosure 1 of a March 6, 1989 letter from Mr. A. J. Rizzo to Mr. Robert M. Bernero.)

6.

The petitioners believe the Commission has the legal authority and obligation to promulgate regulations concerning the classification of Hanford tank wastes and that Commission staff are uniquely qualified to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of various pretreatment processes. The rule amendment suggested above would authorize the Commission to ensure that Hanford double-shell tank wastes be subject to safe and appropriate methods of pretreatment.

7.

The petitioners have an interest in and a prevailing responsibility for the protection of the future health and safety of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest. The rule amendment suggested above is essential to provide this protection.

Petition for Rulemaking Page3 III Statement in Support HLW was first defined in 1970 by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in terms of the source of the material rather than by its hazardous characteristics. The AEC defined HL W as:

"those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels."

35 Fed. Reg. 17530, 17532, Nov. 14, 1970. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F.

The term HL W was first used by Congress in the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

P.L.92-532, as amended by P.L.93-254 (1974), codified at 33 U.S.C. Section 202 of ERa. See 52 Fed. Reg. 5992, 5993.

The term HLW is not defined in the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA). The starting point in defining HL W for ERA purposes is found in existing regulations adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1970. In this regard, Congress can be presumed to have been aware of the existing regulatory definition when it used the term HL W in Section 202 of ERA. The existing definition adopted by the AEC in 1970 (10 CFR Section 50, Appendix F) as noted earlier, focuses on the process by which HLW is produced to define HLW.

It is clear that defense wastes at Hanford, including double-shell tank wastes, were considered HL W when the ERA was passed. The legislative history of the ERA reveals Congress' intent at that time to subject defense facilities to NRC oversight. In fact, the Congress recognized that HLW was leaking from temporary AEC tanks at various facilities and intended to subject such wastes to NRC licensing at the point of application of a permanent waste management solution. Moreover, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce found that "existing law with respect to atomic energy defense activities is unchanged by this Act, and facilities for the disposal of waste from defense activities remain subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." H. Rep. No. 785, pt. 1, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 38, Augu. 20, 1982.

This issue was considered in USDOE's Final EIS on defense wastes at Hanford. The Environmental Impact Statement considered various alternative methods for dealing with these defense wastes. USDOE recognized that:

"Further, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act requires Commission licensing of those DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste which are not used for, or are not a part of, research and development activities. Therefore, to the extent that any decision based on this final EIS requires defense high-level waste to be placed in a repository constructed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, or a facility subject to licensing under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act such a repository or facility would be subject to licensing by the Commission."

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, vol. I, 6.11, December 1987.

In short, under existing law, Hanford double-shell tank waste is HLW. A letter from the Commission cannot change the law. Consequently, long term storage or disposal of double-shell tank waste is currently

Petition for Rulemaking Page 4 subject to licensing by the Commission. However, the rule amendment suggested above would authorize and require appropriate Commission oversight of the management of Hanford double-shell tank wastes, but would allow, under certain circumstances the avoidance of the admittedly cumbersome licensing process.

Petitioners believe that the rule amendment suggested would protect human health and the environment, and would facilitate meaningful Commission involvement in the ultimate disposal and/or long term storage of Hanford double-shell tank waste.

PETITIONERS:

For the State of Washington T

H~

Ter~sseman Assistant Director, Waste Management Washington Department of Ecology For the Yakima Indian Nation Cecil Sanchey Chairman, Radioactive Hazardous Waste Committee Yakima Indian Nation David Yaden Director Oregon Department of Energy Dated:

JAN O 2 100n

ATTJID--ffiIT TABLE 1 ESTIMATED RADIONUCLIDES DISPOSED TO GROUT Nuclide MCi C-14 0.0027 Tc-99 0.016 - 0.028 I-129 33 X 10-6 Sr-90*

1 - 8 Cs-137*

12 - 13 TRU 0.002 - 0.01 Total Activity**

13 - 21

• The Sr-90 and Cs-137 curies are decayed to the end of CY 1995

• • Total activity taken as sum of Sr-90 plus Cs-137 since these two nuclides (and their daughter products) dominate the total inventory.

CHRISTINE 0. GREGOIRE Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

-,7

'7f/v,1t'c_

Mail Stop PV-11 Otymp,a, Washington 98504-8711 (2CX,) 45'MOOO The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman November 17, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Carr:

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the state of Washington intends to petition the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission (USNRC) on a matter of great importance. Specifically, this petition for rulemaking (under subpart Hof 10 CFR Part 2) will address the USNRC's approach to the classification of high-level and "incidental" wastes. Through it, we intend to stress the need for a credible definition of "incidental" waste, one which is based on a thorough and sound technical evaluation, and which is subjected to independent peer review and close public scrutiny.

This action is being prompted by a number of discussions and correspondence between our respective staff. Most recently, on August 4, 1989, Washington Department of Ecology staff met with USNRC staff to review a March 6, 1989 U.S. Department of Energy (USOOE) proposal concerning the classification of high-level wastes as it relates to USOOE's Hanford double-shell tanks.

Following this meeting, Terry Husseman of my staff summarized our major conclusions, comments, and concerns in an August 15, 1989 letter to Robert M.

Bernero ( USNRC).

Mr. Bernero's response was contained within letters dated September 25, 1989 to Mr. Husseman and to Mr. A.J. Rizzo of the USOOE.

In summary, Mr Bernero declined any USNRC oversight role at Hanford, and changed the classification of some Hanford double-shell wastes from high-level to low-level waste (letters enclosed).

Our request that the USNRC define its actions through publication within the federal register, and through appropriate opportunity for public comment was also denied.

It is our feeling that the USNRC, as the agency responsible for the licensing of high-level radioactive waste disposal, should reconsider this action.

I want to emphasize that USDOE's noted approach to the management of its tank wastes (March 6, 1989) is generally consistent with the terms of the Hanford Federal Facjlity Agreement and Consent Order.

As such, moving ahead with the grout disposal program is essential to Hanford cleanup, and care should be taken in order that this program not be delayed by legal challenges or because of a lack of public participation.

I The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr November 17, 1989 Page 2 We believe that issues relating to; the classification and management of these wastes, the appropriate level of USNRC involvement, and associated public participation, are too important to be implemented by letter from Co11111ission staff.

I have consequently asked my staff to prepare appropriate petition documentation, and hope to submit it to you no later than January 1, 1990.

If you have questions or comments regarding this issue, please contact me or Mr. Terry Husseman at (206) 459-6168 and 459-6029 respectively.

Enclosures cc:

Samuel J. Chilk Dan Silver Hike Lawrence Robie Russell Sin~ i._.:..

Christine 0. Gregoire../<7~

Director L

UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 Mr. Terry Husseman, Assistant Director Waste Management State of Washington Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711

Dear Mr. Husseman:

SEP ts t9IID Thank you for your letter dated August 15, 1989, transmitting the State of Washington's connents on the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) approach for classifying waste presently stored in the Hanford double-shell tanks.

Your letter contained four specific coumients that I would like to address in order.

1.

Continued NRC Oversight at Hanford Our 1nvolvement at Ranford IIUSt 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, HRC 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 D10nitoring activity is discussed D10re 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 ;solated 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 C01111ission.

Although the staff had indicated that it anticipated that DOE would re110ve 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 mini11111 level for demonstrating that the NRC criterion has been met.

In other words, we are suggesting that any separation of less than 90 percent

Mr. Terry Husseman 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 detennination 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 61 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 Radionuclide Inventory to be Grouted Your letter indicates that there is considerable uncertainty in OOE'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 ot 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 reconnendation that additional opportunity be afforded for public conment.

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 coanenters.

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) (DOE/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.

Mr. Terry Husseman In conclusion, I wish to thank you for your co111nents 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 acteptance criteria, and cesium capsule storage and disposal.

If you should have any questions or coD1nents about this letter, please contact me or Dr. Michael J. Bell, Chief, Regulatory Branch, of ll1Y staff at (301) 492-0560.

cc: William Don Tahkeal Yakima Indian Nation Jeff Brecke 1 Oregon/Washington Liaison Ron Gerton U.S. Department of Energy Sincerely.

obert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHl~QTON, D. C. JOJN Hr. A. J. Rizzo Assistant Manager for Operations U.S. Oepartment of Energy Richland Operatfcns Office P.O. Box SSO Richland, Wash;ngton 99352 Oe&r Mr. Rizzo:

IEP IS !989 We have reviewed your letter dated March 61 1989 concerning the class1f1cat1on and disposal of the Hanford double-shell tank w1ste.

Your letter and supporting infor1n1t1on assert that the double-shell tank waste planned for disposal by grouting in near-surface vaults 1s not high-level waste (HLW) 1 and that U.S. Nuclear Regu11tory C01111fssfon (NRC) licensing 1s not requ;red.

Your letter requests HRC concurrence fn this position.

As you know, our staffs have met on several occasions over the past year fn an effort to detenn1ne whith of the Hanford tank wastes are properly c11ss1fied as HLW.

We consider that the applicable definition of HLW, for purposes of classifying the Hanford tank wastes, 1s that set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F. Spec1f1ea11y 1 HLW is defined 1s *those aqueous wastes resulting fro,n the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system or equivalent, ind the concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, fn a facility for reprocessing irradiated re1ctor fuels.*

The rulemaking record for Appendix F spec1f1ca11y recognizes a number of

• 1ncfdent11,* non-HLW waste strea~s associated wtth reprocessing plant oper&tions. These include cladding hulls, ton exchange aned1a, sludges, and mfscell1neous trash generated during reprocessing operations. Not 111ntioned 1 however, are wastes resulting from further processing of HLW (e.g ** voluae reductfon) or removing non-radfoactfve aaterfals that were added to the HLW for improved processing and/or storage (e.g., the addition of alt1lfne *t1rf1l to neutralize ac1d1c HLW).

At Wist Valley and the Savannah Rfver Plant, NRC has agreed that such wastes are not HLV.

At Hanford, tM question of waste class1ffcat1on (and NRC 11cens1ng 1uthor1ty) has bNn complfcated by the fxing of wast* fro~ various sources over the past,s years. Thfs mfx1ng has changed the orfg1na1 chiracter1stfcs of the wastes 1nd has resulted, in some cases, fn the txtng of HLW and low-level waste (LLW). Consequently. ft is now dffffcult to df~ctly differentiate between HLW and LLW, usfng the source-blsed definition of Appendix F.

106 P04 Mr. A. J. Rizzo

- z -

In earlier meetings of our staffs, criteria were suggested for determining when such wastes s_hould be classfffed as *1ncidentaP wastes rather than as HLW. and these criteria were docuinented 1n our letter of.

Noverlber 29, 1988.

Your March 6, 1989 1etter records U.S. Department of Energy's (OOEtsJ application of these cr1ter1a. Spe_c1f1ca11y, your letter p_roposes that the bulk of the key rad1onucl 1des ( 1.e., stront1uri, cesium and transuranics) wou1d be separated for disposal fn a geologic repository, so that only three to five percent of the*or1g1na1 inventories of those radfonuclfdes would be disposed by grouting in near-surface vaults. Your 1etter I lso states that the concentration of radionucHdes 1n the grou.t w111 be coznparab le to Class C LLW as defined by 10 CFR Part 61 for cesiu 1nd transuran1cs. and to Class A or B for the remainder.

Finally. your letter evalu1tes the pr1cticab1l1ty and cost-effectiveness of additional rad1onucltde retn0val.

An additional separation process, beyond those originally conte111Pl1ted, was found to be cost-effective for.reax:,v1l of an 1dd1tion1l six m111fon curies of cesium.

Thfs*step would further reduce the total acttvtt,y disposed fn the grout f1c11fty to two to three percent of the inventory of HLW that originally entered the tanks.

DOE 1s now proposing to perform this add1t1onal radionuclide re110v1l to f11prove the fsol1tion of HLW.

The NRC agrees that the criteria used by 00£ for class1f1eat1on of the grout feed as LLW are appropriate. Therefor., the grout factltty for the disposal of the double-shell t1nk waste would not be subject to our licensing authority.

Your letter indicates that the radfonuc1fde inventory fs an estimate based on exfstfng c01aputer 110dels, rather than actual analyses of tank waste.

Given the uncertainty in the actual radionuclide inventory. we endorse your plans to suiple and analyze the grout feeds before disposal 1n an effort to control the final composttton of the grout feed. If in the course of conducting this saq,ling progra~, you ftnd th1t the inventories of key radfonucltdes entering the grout f1c111ty are sfgn1ffc1ntly h1gher than you now est1*te, you should nottfy us so that the classiftc1tion of the w1ste can be reconsidered. Th* NRC requests that DOE per1od1eally subllft su1m1rt1s of the analyttcal results of all the s111pl1s to HRC tnd other affected p1rttes tn I tfNly *nner.

Our posttfon on the doubl1-sh111 tank waste should not be interpreted to reflect & decision on disposal of stng1e-sht11 unk waste or to esub11sh

~ precedent fn any other context.

We intend to defer Judgment on the class1f1catton of single-shell unk waste until after DOE his c011pleted fts progr1m of ch1r1cter1z1ng this waste.

We anticipate thtt ffnal documentation will be tssued for public coanent b1for1 1 decision 1s made on the d1spos1l of single-shell t1nk w1ste.

. -=.~;--,.~.... -_,.;-, --;7 OCT 02 '89 15:53 106 P05 l

Hr. A. If you should have any questions or comnts about thfs letter. please contact me or Dr. M1chae1 J. 8111, Chief. Regulatory Branch, of~

staff 1t (301) 492-0S60.

cc: Terry Husseman WA Oepartnnt of Eco logy.

1U 1111111 Don Tahkea 1 Y1kf111 Indfan Nation Jeff Bred~e 1 Oregon/Washington Ltatson

• Sincerely, fl~ tif~~----

Robert M. Bernero. Director Off1ce*of Nuclear Material Safety and Safegu1rds

11/06/89 13:20 DEPT. OF ECOLOGY HQ OFFICE

~TATE OF \VASi-411',jGTQ's; DEP~RTlv1ENT OF ECOLOGY

'.JJ11 :::roo,..._,. P 1J!vmc,1.a. \ V.asmnero,,..:.5504..;;;- i ;

__..,,...,--(1:*;

August 15. 1989

~r. Robert~- Bernero. Director Office of ~uciear Material~ S.fety anci Safeguarcis r.;. S. S1.lC:leAr Reg,.1lar:0~1 Comm:i.ssion

~asnington. J.C.

20~55

ear ~r-Berr.ero:

002

r.c ;,;-0 sn1r,gcon Stol..i! Depart::.ent of !Zc:olo5y appreciated :::-.e C??cr:::-..;-...:.;:*: :c cons1,,1lt wi;h your staff c:oncerning the :,;'uclear Re5ui.:i:::or:.- C:om.-:iissi..:;,n, :;p,c :

~pproach to classification of hi5h-levei wast:e and ::::-:e :.~cicer.ta1 *..:,:Jste

~oncept.

~f~er ~Qviewing the Jul~ lJ correspondence pac~a~e ~nd ~eeti~; ~;i~~

-:te L;. S. :Jepartmenc of !nen:,y (USDOE)... *e part::..cipat:cci :.::.:.. *.*er:: ~ roci.:cti*.-e

.:...ugus.:

~ consulc~tion *..rith :,our :.caff.

Although chc ~c-:-.:::=.:il cpprc~ch C\.t ~:.:-:eci

.~ :~e March 6. :~89. ~SDOE p~op~sal i.s consistent ~ic~ :he chrcc*?Ar=v a.~reemenc *..:e do have several colDI:lents -nic:.h *..;e belie-.*e ::-:ust *::,e acici;-e.s.seci.

he

oi:cwing.ire our :::ajor conclusions and con:mcntc:

.:e Ceiitrtv~ i ~ !.s i.:i~o-r~a.nc that :;Re main~ain c..:.o~c.:..:-:'"..;.~:-.~

oversi5ht ~ul~ a:: E~niord.

7he ciassificat~on ~:-:ci ciis?osa_ ~=

Hanford douoi~*sin:.i.l c.;.ni< *..rastes :..s a coc:-pii.ca:::ec =echnic.:-:.

process :,..;i1ich ~eol.!i=e ~art::.ci?acion of ~ffcc-:Eci ~,=.~~i..s

_:: ~o~ :-.

?rcsram pl... nnin~.1n0 ?t"o5r.am ii:.:-plementat::..on.

.:..f:::sctcci ?-=-rci.:;.;

can:-:.oc be t:f=c::cci*:e i: !.:-:*.*olvcr:i.cr.c er.cs a:--.a ~e- :..:-.vol*,*.c::::cr.;:

be!i~s cnlv ~icer serious problems deveio?,

USCCE *nd ~RC ~hculd provide~ ~*ti~:-:aie for =c~cc:::it.i :he criteria oi 90 percen~ of cotal site accivicy ~£par~:::ad for disposal ~s hi~h-ievel ~~see.

~ill ~e 50me =~~e hei::c ~~:::

is oble to reduce the analytical. pre-creaccenc ~~ci processi:-:;

uncercaintie~.

rmc staff ha~ considerable anaiycicai. ?re-tre a r..menc..ind pt'occs.sing knowlecige and e:xper ienc:e *~*hicr-. *.;,;u i.6 assist c.he s.:a.te and USDOE to red1.1ce unc:er~:.ineies and :1:ai<::c,:.n

.pp=opri~~e uecer-ciina~ion conccrr.in~ -hae is :he i~r;esc prac~ical a~ounc oi activity to be sepArateo for cisposal ~s high-level ~asee.

The ~arch tS~OE cscimAce of radionucl~des t:o ~e ~i~?o~cc of-**

5roL~ ~an5ed :ro~ 13 million c~rie.s to 21 ~i:::=.:-: c~=i~~-

Recen~ data intlicaces thae ~~e uncerc~incy may be even freaccr.

This wide ran~e reflec:::s noc onlv anal,cicai ~nccrcAincies. ~uc

e J.J./ ILJO/ o;;,

~r. Roberc ~- Sernero

.:...ugust 15. 1989 Fage 2 also uncertain:ie~ aoout prc-tre3c.ment, -nd processing.

At ~his t1~e. USDOE c4nnoe demonstrate that the large*C ~ract~:al A!llount of ~ocal ~ice activicy attributable to "firsc-cycle" solvent

@xtraction" -.a*te...,ill be segr*~*t*d.$0 chac otily r.he residu~ls

.will be grouced.

~oving fcrwarG with the grouc disposal program i.$ vical ~o Hanford cleanup an~.,... would not like to see the progr~ held *.1p because of lack of pubtie ?articipation.

we recommend c~ac ::-Re give nocice in che federal Register so chat.ffected parties ~~ci che public will have an opportunity co commenc on chis significanc technical and jurisdic:ional issue.

7han~ you for delaying the Commission's.ccion uncil ~e had an opporc~ni:~~ ~~

consul: and co1J1Z11ent.

~e look for-ard to concinuing our close ~or~i~~

el~cionship.

Please contacc me at 206/459-6029 if you have quescion~.

c: ien Bracken. USDOE

~on Ger:on. [5D0£

eiano Saluskin. Y!~

~avid £:cvar~-~mith. Ore~on

~r:~s Eschels. EFSEC Sincerely,

'-"?- H vo4* -~

Terry Husseman Assiscant Director

~asce Management