ML040130538

Response to AIF Generator Survey

ML040130538
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/17/2003
From:	Jablonski S State of TX
To:	Gauch D, Paul Goldberg, Harrison P, Salomon S, Tadesse R Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, State of OH, Dept of Health
References
Download: ML040130538 (5)

Text

Survey of Generators of Low-Level Radioactive Waste for Interest in an Assured Isolation Facility The Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with a rulemaking plan that explores interest in the assured isolation concept for the storage of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and provides a foundation for a Commission decision on whether to develop a rule. The rulemaking plan should include Agreement State interaction and participation (SRM-SECY-02-0127, 9/5/02, ML022480322). This decision was made in conjunction with the Commission's approval of the staff's proposed response to a letter from the State of Ohio requesting NRC's views on a proposed Ohio regulation for licensing an assured isolation facility. (See 9/12/02 letter to Robert Owen, ML022560082.) Accordingly, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Suggested State Regulations Committee on Part L, chaired by Robert Owen, State of Ohio, are jointly developing basic information on the projected need for disposal or storage of LLW and projected disposal capacity.

As an important aspect of this basic information, we are interested in knowing the extent of need for and interest in an assured isolation facility that would provide long-term, centralized storage of low-level radioactive waste, including material regulated under the Atomic Energy Act, naturally-occurring material, accelerator-produced material and technologically-enhanced material (discrete sources only for this last). The facility would be open to multiple generators.

We exclude mixed radioactive and chemical waste from this inquiry. We realize that not all this information is readily available even for past activities and that any projections for the period of ten years are very uncertain, so we would appreciate rough estimates or ranges, with any qualifications you think appropriate. For purposes of this survey, we do not define an assured isolation facility other than to describe it as an engineered facility that would provide long-term, centralized storage of LLW to multiple generators. The facility could be designated as: 1.

Exclusively for storage, with no option for disposal at the AIF; 2. For storage, with the expectation of disposal of the waste at the AIF; or 3. For storage, with the option of disposing of waste at the AIF. The tables below are our preferred format for information but if it is more convenient to use another format, please feel free to provide the information in the most complete form you can. There are no formulas in the tables.

Company: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - TX Utilities For ten years, beginning in 2003:

1. How many cubic feet and how many curies of low-level waste material in Classes A, B and C and non-Atomic Energy Act radioactive waste (ARM, NORM, TENORM) that your company generates do you expect to require disposal? If you don't have a breakdown by category, please provide a cumulative figure.

2. How much disposal capacity do you expect to be available to your company for the various categories of waste?

3. Are there any other options for storage, disposal, or processing, not presently in use, that you expect to be available to reduce the quantities of low-level waste without a designated disposition (e.g., extended storage, segregation of wastes, volume reduction)?

Comanche Peak Estimated Generation of LLW by Category (thousands of cubic feet) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Class A 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 106 Class B 0.22 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.22 2.01 Class C 0.12 0

0 0

0 0.12 0

0 0

0.12 0.36 NARM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 10.3 10.2 12.2 10.2 10.2 12.3 10.2 10.2 12.2 10.3 108.4 Estimated Generation of LLW by Category (curies) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Class A 4

4 4.5 4

4 4.5 4

4 4.5 4

41.5 Class B 172 86 172 86 172 172 172 86 172 172 1462 Class C 210 0

0 0

0 210 0

0 0

210 630 NARM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 386 90 176.5 90 176 386.5 176 90 176.5 386 2134 Estimated Disposal Capacity of LLW by Category (thousands of cubic feet) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Net*

ClassA 10 10 12 10 1 0 12 10 1 0 1 2 1 0 106 0

Class B 0.22 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.22 l 0 0

0 l 0 1.19 0.82 ClassC 0.12 0

0 0

0 0.12 0

0 0

0 0.24 0.12 NARM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 10.3 10.2 12.2 10.2 10.2 12.3 10 10 12 10 107.4 0.94

• Amounts generated minus disposal capacity

Comanche Peak Estimated Disposal Capacity of LLW by Category (Curies) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Net*

Class A 4

4 4.5 4

4 4.5 4

4 4.5 4

41.5 0

Class B 172 86 172 86 172 172 0

0 0

0 860 602 Class C 210 0

0 0

0 210 0

0 0

0 420 210 NARM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 386 90 176.5 90 176 386.5 4

4 4.5 4

1322 812

• Amounts generated minus disposal capacity Estimated Total Generation and Disposal of LLW and NARM (thousands of cubic feet)*

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Total 10.3 10.2 12.2 10.2 10.2 12.3 10.2 10.2 12.2 10.3 108.4 Generated Disposal 10.3 10.2 12.2 10.2 10.2 12.3 10 10 12 10 107.4 Capacity Disposal/

0 0

0 0

0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1

Storage Needed (n e t)_

• If information is not available for both LLW and NARM, please indicate which material you are providing information for.

Estimated Total Generation and Disposal of LLW and NARM (curies)*

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Total 386 90 176.5 90 176 386.5 176 90 176.5 386 2134 Generated Disposal 386 90 176.5 90 176 386.5 4

4 4.5 4

1322 Capacity

I Disposal/

0 O

0 0

0 0

172 86 172 382 812 Storage NeededII (net)

• If information is not available for both LLW and NARM, please indicate which material you are providing information for.

-'
i5a-u-1G
db-erg - One more generator rLsponse I

Paul Goldberg ~- One ~ more generator response

-Page 1

From:

"Susan Jablonski" <SJABLONS tceq.state.tx.us>

To:

<ROWEN@gw.odh.state.oh.us>, <DMG5@nrc.gov>, <PFG@nrc.gov>,

<PMH~nrc.gov>, <RXT~nrc.gov>, <SNS~nrc.gov>

Date:

Thu. Apr 17, 2003 3:54 PM

Subject:

One more generator response FYI - Attached is another Texas generator response to the questionnaire. To give a little perspective, the University of Texas System includes the following individual facilities throughout Texas:

9 general academic universities 6 health institutions Within these institutions, there are:

>4 medical schools

>2 dental schools

>9 nursing schools CC:

<CEA2@nrc.gov>, <JEK1 @nrc.gov>, <PKH@nrc.gov>