ML20205E182
| ML20205E182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/24/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-99-059, SECY-99-059-01, SECY-99-059-R, SECY-99-59, SECY-99-59-1, SECY-99-59-R, NUDOCS 9904050086 | |
| Download: ML20205E182 (6) | |
Text
.
g v}/
i, I fate
><>uesnesonen a ns u ,
irla:s I POLICY ISSUE February 24, 1999 (Notation Vote) szcy_,,_059 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
AGREEMENT STATE COMPATIBILITY FOR CRITICALITY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the staff's assessment that criticality requirements should be an item of compatibility for Agreement State programs that regulate low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities, and to request that the Commission approve staff's approach to consult with Agreement States.
BACKGROUND:
This paper responds to the April 29,1998, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) concerning SECY-98-010," Petition for Envirocare of Utah, Inc., to Possess SNM in Excess of Current Regulatory Limits" (Enclosed). This SRM directed the staff, in part, to investigate whether emplacement criticality requirements should be an item of Agreement State compatibility, in accordance with the Commission's policy on adequacy and compatibility and based on realistic scenarios, and to inform the Comm:ssion of its findings. SECY-98-010 stated that staff would O consult with the Commission before initiating discussion with affected Agreement States on this topic. In addition, the Commission approved staff's plan to develop guidance on emplacement /
criticality that could be used by Agreement States for existing and proposed LLW disposal facilities.
(JSly CONTACT: Tim Harris, NMSS/DWM (301) 415-6613 9904050086 990224 PDR SECY [~ Ef - 2 Nds~
99-059 R PDR Y /' IJl h X 0 QF-( Grnf - - - _ - - - - - - - - -
s
's.
1 The Commissioners The Commission's authority to regulate special nuclear material (SNM) is contained in Chapter 6 ($$ 51 - 58) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended. Section 57 of the AEA prohibits persons from transferring, delivering, acquiring, owning, or possessing SNM without a general or specific license issued by the Commission. Section 274(b) of the AEA authorizes the Commission to enter into agreements with States to regulate SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. This is codified in 10 CFR Part 150. Specifically, 10 CFR 150.10 exempts persons in Agreement States from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing for SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. Quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass are defined in 10 CFR 150.11 as enriched uranium not exceeding 350 grams, uranium-233 not exceeding 200 grams, plutonium not exceeding 200 grams, or mixtures where the sum of the fractions is less than unity. In both Agreement States and non-Agreement States, an NRC license is required, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70, for persons who possess quantities of SNM in excess of the Section 150.11 limits. As it pertains to disposal facilities, the staff has applied the possession limits to material above ground. Once the SNM is disposed of (i.e., placed in the disposal trench), the staff has not considered the SNM to be restricted by the Section 150.11 limits.
LLW containing SNM is currently disposed of at three facilities: Bamwell, South Carolina; Hanford, Washington; and Clive, Utah. A!i of these facilities are liconsed by Agreement States.
The NRC licensed the Bamwell and Hr.nford facilities under 10 CFR Part 70, to receive, possess, store, and dispose of kilogrr.m quantities of SNM. In 1997, these facilities requested that the SNM possession limits be reduced to the Section 150.11 limits, and that NRC licenses be transferred to the respective Agre ament States. These actions have been taken for both licensees. The State of Washington incorporated NRC criticality controls for emplaced waste in license conditions in its Hanford license. Although not in the license, the State of South Carolina has required the licensee to retain the SNM emplacement procedures that address criticality safety. These procedures cannot be changed by the operator without State approval.
The State of Utah license does not address criticality safety beyond the Section 150.11 mass limits.
Emplacement criticality safety is addressed in 10 CFR 61.16(b)(2), which states applicants shall describe proposed procedures, for avoiding accidental criticality, that address both storage of SNM before disposal, and waste emplacement for disposal. Because 10 CFR 61.16 is not a matter of Agreement State compatibility, there is no equivalent Agreement State regulatory requirement for Agreement State licensees of existing or future LLW facilities to evaluate emplacement criticality safety. Although the SNM mass limits in Part 150 limit above ground possession and ensure criticality safety above ground (during receipt and storage), they do not apply to waste emplacement and thereby the question of criticality safety below ground is left open (after disposal). There is no equivalent mass restriction or other controls which limit the amount of SNM that can be placed in a disposal trench. Therefore, greater than critical masses of SNM could be emplaced into disposal trenches in suberitical increments. Without control of placement, concentration, enrichment, and mass, etc., it is conceivable that SNM waste could be emplaced in such a manner that an inadvertent criticality could occur. Although such a criticality is theoretically possible, as noted above, license conditions and procedures at existing LLW disposal facilities practically limit the likelihood of a below-ground inadvertent criticality. j 1
~ - - . .- . - .- .- - - -.- .- . . . . . - - - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . .
j'b; The Commissioners i DISCUSSION: l To address the regulatory gap between NRC and Agreement States associated with the current j compatibility designation for 10 CFR 61.16(b)(2), staff used the procedures outlined in
- Management Directive 5.9 and concluded that the compatibility designation for
- Section 61.16(b)(2) should be revised from category NRC, requirements reserved to NRC, to i
^
category Health and Safety, required due to its health and safety significance. Health and Safetyapplies to activities that could result directly in an exposure to an individual in excess of basic radiation protection standards, if the essential objectives of the provision were not ;
adopted by an Agreement State. If procedures which ensured emplacement criticality safety i were not followed or if the licensee's radiation protection program did not address emplacement ;
criticality safety, an inadvertent criticality could occur, even though LLW disposal facility operational history indicates it is unlikely. If an inadvertent criticality were to occur at a LLW i
, disposal facility, it is likely that workers could receive doses in excess of the 10 CFR Part 20 l
- limits. Under the Health and Safety category, States would need to adopt program elements l l that embody the essential objectives of the NRC program elements within three years of the <
i change in compatibility.
- Prior to transferring the SNM licenses for the Barnwell and Hanford facilities to Agret, ment j States, criticality safety of greater than critical mass quantities of SNM was ensured through
- NRC license conditions. Moreover, the low license concentration limits for the Clive facility
- ensure criticality safety, although they were not developed for that purpose. Although the SNM emplacement requirements have been maintained by South Carolina and Washington, there is no regulatory requirement for existing or future licensees in Agreement States to demonstrate 4 criticality safety at emplacement. If the compatibility is changed to Health and Safety,
! Agreement States would need to revise their regulations to require licensees to demonstrate i criticality safety at emplacement.
To assist Agreement State personnel that typically do not have experience in criticality safety, j NRC staff is developing guidance that could be used by LLW facility licensees and Agreement State staff to prevent accumulations and configurations of SNM in a disposal unit from causing an inadvertent criticality. Staff has. contracted with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to prepare this guidance, which is expected to be completed by July 1999.
. . Given the Commission's direction in the SRM responding to SECY-98-010, staff has not requested Agreement State input on revising the compatibility of Section 61.16. After receiving
. Commission consent, staff plans to solicit State comment by issuing an All-Agreement States
- letter transmitting a Federal Reaister notice (FRN). This FRN would identify NRC's proposed change to the compatibility and NRC's plan to issue guidance on emplacement criticality safety.
j- RESOURCES:
! Resources to revise the compatibility and to develop the emplacement criticality guidance are
- included in the current fiscal year 1999 budget.
$ RECOMMENDATION:
J- Staff recommends that the Commission approve the staff's recommendation to request
- Agreement State review and comment on the proposal to revise the compatibility of 10 CFR e
-n. , , -
.a l
t,.
i The Commissioners ' 61.16(b)(2) from category NRC to category Health and Safety. Staff intends to obtain input from the public and Agreement States on the emplacement criticality guidance prior to pubiishing the final guidance. It is envisioned that publication of the guidance would coincide ;
with revision to the compatibility. category designation of Section 61.16(b)(2). After review and evaluation of State comments on the compatibility of Section 61.16(b)(2) and on the emplacement criticality guidance, staff will inform the Commission before publishing the final guidance and potentially changing the compatibility category for 10 CFR Part 61.16(b)(2).
COOF<DINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission Paper and has no legal objections. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and also has no objections.
i f g _
y Mn %
William D. Travers -
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated Commissioners'- completed vote sheets / comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Friday, March 12, 1999.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT March 5, 1999, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected. l DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners _
OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA ACNW CIO CFO EDO
' REGIONS SECY
Action: Paperiello, NMSS y
[ o n
UNITED STATES' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys: Callan Thadani
- ! j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 Thompson
- Norry
$ April 29, 1998 Blaha.
%*****,o Bangart, SP Knapp, RES OFFICE oF THE SECRETARY Larkins, ACNW Funches, CF0 L. Joseph Callan aa ,
MEMORANDUM TO: j N Executive Director for Operations u Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Anthony J. Galante Chief Infor ation Officer
(>
FROM: ohn .H le, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-010 - PETITION FOR ENVIROCARE OF UTAH TO POSSESS SPECIAL NUCLEAR :
MATERIAL IN EXCESS OF CURRENT REGULATORY LIMITS The Commission has not approved the staff's proposal to send a letter to Envirocare requesting additional information regarding Envirocare's 1992 petition and 1997 exemption request at this time. Instead, the staff should focus its limited resources on Envirocare's Part 70 license application and inform Envirocare of the Commission's decision on this matter.
(NMSS) 9800081 The Commission has approved the staffs plans to develop guidance on emplacement criticality safety which could be used by Agreement States for existing and proposed low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The staff should also investigate whether emplacement criticality requirements should be an item of compatibility, in accordance with the Commission's policy on adequacy and compatibility and based on realistic scenarios, and inform the Commission of its findings. 7/26/99 (EDQ) (NMSS) (SECY Suspense: develop guidance: -7/8969 9800082 compatibility determinations: -WBH99) 1/25/99 After the Oak Ridge report is issued in final, the staff should review it and inform the Commission of its findings and of the staffs recommendations for resolution of whether the NRC research work on post disposal criticality of LLW should continue.
(EOG) (NMSS) (SECY Suspense: -7/8498) 9800083 7/24/98 Based on the new policy and technical issues, the E <ecutive Council should consider program adjustments in FY 1998 and FY 1999 to commit resources for the LLW program to ensure that this program can meet its current demands. The Executive Council should inform the SECY NOTE: THIS SRM AND SECY-98-010 DISCUSS SENSITIVE INFORMATION AND WILL BE LIMITED TO NRC UNLESS THE COMMISSION DETERMINES OTHERWISE.
ENCLOSURE
9 Commission of the impact of this decision on the Strategic Plan, Strategic Goals, and existing programs.
(EDG/CFO/CIO) (SECY Suspense: -7M5/96) 9800084 NMSS 7/8/98 The staff should address any future year requirements in its FY 2000 budget submission.
(EDG). (NMSS) (SECY Suspense: 74 28) 9800085 7/8/98 The staff should consult with the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on generic issues associated witn the Envirocare facility and other LLW sites, and consult with and obtain the Commission's approval on policy proposals necessary to resolve these issues.
(NMSS) 9800086 cc: Chairman Jackson ~
l l
i l
.