[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26463-26465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12241]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40-8989]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
Exemption From Certain NRC Licensing Requirements for Special Nuclear
Material for Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Background
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an Order pursuant to Section 274f of the Atomic
Energy Act that would exempt Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) from
certain NRC regulations. The exemption would allow Envirocare, under
specified conditions, to possess waste containing special nuclear
material (SNM), in greater mass quantities than specified in 10 CFR
Part 150, at Envirocare's low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility
located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license pursuant to 10
CFR Part 70. A description of the operations at the facility and
staff's safety analysis for the exemption are discussed in the
companion Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
Staff proposes to exempt Envirocare from the licensing requirements
in 10 CFR Part 70. The exemption would permit Envirocare to possess SNM
without regard for mass. Rather than relying on mass to ensure
criticality safety, concentration-based limits are being applied, such
that accumulations of SNM at or below these concentration limits would
not pose a criticality safety concern. The methodology used to
establish these limits is discussed in the SER. The exemption is
contingent on Envirocare complying with specific conditions in the
exemption. These conditions are as follows:
1. Concentrations of SNM in individual waste containers must not
exceed the following values at time of receipt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Measurement
Radionuclide concentration uncertainty
(pCi/g) (pCi/g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-235 a..................................... 1900 285
U-235 b..................................... 1190 179
U-235 c..................................... 160 24
U-235 d..................................... 680 102
U-233....................................... 75,000 11,250
Pu-236...................................... 500 75
Pu-238...................................... 10,000 1,500
Pu-239...................................... 10,000 1,500
Pu-240...................................... 10,000 1,500
Pu-241...................................... 350,000 50,000
Pu-242...................................... 10,000 1,500
Pu-243...................................... 500 75
Pu-244...................................... 500 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For uranium below 10 percent enrichment and a maximum of 20 percent
MgO of the weight of the waste.
b For uranium at or above 10 percent enrichment and a maximum of 20
percent MgO of the weight of the waste.
c For uranium at any enrichment with unlimited MgO or beryllium.
d For uranium at any enrichment with sum of MgO and beryllium not
exceeding 49 percent of the weight of the waste.
The measurement uncertainty values in column 3 above represent the
maximum one-sigma uncertainty associated with the measurement of the
concentration of the particular radionuclide.
The SNM must be homogeneously distributed throughout the waste. If the
SNM is not homogeneously distributed, then the limiting concentrations
must not be exceeded on average in any contiguous mass of 145
kilograms.
2. Except as allowed by notes a, b, c, and d in Condition 1,
waste must not contain ``pure forms'' of chemicals containing
carbon,
[[Page 26464]]
fluorine, magnesium, or bismuth in bulk quantities (e.g., a pallet
of drums, a B-25 box). By ``pure forms,'' it is meant that mixtures
of the above elements such as magnesium oxide, magnesium carbonate,
magnesium fluoride, bismuth oxide, etc. do not contain other
elements. These chemicals would be added to the waste stream during
processing, such as at fuel facilities or treatment such as at mixed
waste treatment facilities. The presence of the above materials will
be determined by the generator, based on process knowledge or
testing.
3. Except as allowed by notes c and d in Condition 1, waste
accepted must not contain total quantities of beryllium, hydrogenous
material enriched in deuterium, or graphite above one percent of the
total weight of the waste. The presence of the above materials will
be determined by the generator, based on process knowledge, physical
observations, or testing.
4. Waste packages must not contain highly water soluble forms of
uranium greater than 350 grams of uranium-235 or 200 grams of
uranium-233. The sum of the fractions rule will apply for mixtures
of U-233 and U-235. Highly soluble forms of uranium include, but are
not limited to: uranium sulfate, uranyl acetate, uranyl chloride,
uranyl formate, uranyl fluoride, uranyl nitrate, uranyl potassium
carbonate, and uranyl sulfate. The presence of the above materials
will be determined by the generator, based on process knowledge or
testing.
5. Mixed waste processing of waste containing SNM will be
limited to stabilization (mixing waste with reagents), micro-
encapsulation, and macro-encapsulation using low-density
polyethylene.
6. Envirocare shall require generators to provide the following
information for each waste stream:
Pre-Shipment
1. Waste Description. The description must detail how the waste
was generated, list the physical forms in the waste, and identify
uranium chemical composition.
2. Waste Characterization Summary. The data must include a
general description of how the waste was characterized (including
the volumetric extent of the waste, and the number, location, type,
and results of any analytical testing), the range of SNM
concentrations, and the analytical results with error values used to
develop the concentration ranges.
3. Uniformity Description. A description of the process by which
the waste was generated showing that the spatial distribution of SNM
must be uniform, or other information supporting spatial
distribution.
4. Manifest Concentration. The generator shall describe the
methods to be used to determine the concentrations on the manifests.
These methods could include direct measurement and the use of
scaling factors. The generator shall describe the uncertainty
associated with sampling and testing used to obtain the manifest
concentrations.
Envirocare shall review the above information and, if adequate,
approve in writing this pre-shipment waste characterization and
assurance plan before permitting the shipment of a waste stream.
This will include statements that Envirocare has a written copy of
all the information required above, that the characterization
information is adequate and consistent with the waste description,
and that the information is sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with conditions 1 through 4. Where generator process knowledge is
used to demonstrate compliance with conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4,
Envirocare shall review this information and determine when testing
is required to provide additional information in assuring compliance
with the conditions. Envirocare shall retain this information as
required by the State of Utah to permit independent review.
At Receipt
Envirocare shall require generators of SNM waste to provide a
written certification with each waste manifest that states that the
SNM concentrations reported on the manifest do not exceed the limits
in Condition 1, that the measurement uncertainty does not exceed the
uncertainty value in Condition 1, and that the waste meets
conditions 2 through 4.
7. Sampling and radiological testing of waste containing SNM
must be performed in accordance with the Utah Division of Radiation
Control License Condition 58.
8. Envirocare shall notify the NRC, Region IV office, within 24
hours if any of the above conditions are violated. A written
notification of the event must be provided within 7 days.
9. Envirocare shall obtain NRC approval prior to changing any
activities associated with the above conditions.
Need for the Proposed Action
In May 1997, the State of Utah determined that Envirocare had
exceeded the SNM possession limits in its State of Utah license.
Consequently, NRC Region IV conducted an inspection of the facility in
June 1997. The findings of the inspection are discussed in an
inspection report and demand for information dated May 21, 1998. As a
result of the inspection, NRC issued a Confirmatory Order (Order) on
June 25, 1997, which required Envirocare, in part, to reduce its
possession of SNM and to submit a compliance plan (CP) to NRC for
approval. As part of the approved CP, trucks containing SNM waste can
proceed to the disposal cell (assuming the conditions stated in the
Order apply) without counting the SNM waste in Envirocare's possession
inventory. This waste is considered ``in-transit,'' under the exemption
of 10 CFR 70.12, because the carrier is still present.
In a letter dated October 14, 1997, the State of Utah informed NRC
that SNM waste was being transferred from rail cars to trucks in the
Salt Lake City rail yard and then taken to the Envirocare site either
directly or after storage in transit at a transport facility. To
evaluate this practice, the NRC and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) conducted an inspection. The inspection concluded
that applicable NRC and DOT regulations were being followed. (The
inspection is documented in a report dated April 21, 1998.)
Before the Order and CP, rail shipments were transported directly
to a rail siding adjacent to the site. Rail cars were staged on the
siding until the waste could be moved onto the site within licensed
limits. Subsequent to the Order and CP which, as noted, provide for
trucks to proceed directly to the disposal cell without being counted
in the SNM possession inventory, it has been operationally advantageous
for Envirocare to receive SNM waste via truck. In addition, transfer
from rail to truck in Salt Lake City is more economical for the
shippers because rolling stock rental fees are reduced. Thus, the Order
and CP may have led to a practice of transferring of SNM waste from
rail cars to trucks in Salt Lake City. Some trucks and SNM waste are
staged at a nearby industrial facility and do not go directly to the
disposal site because of the SNM possession limit. Staff concludes that
this process has resulted in a change in the mode of transportation of
waste to the site (i.e., more truck shipments), leading to a slightly
higher probability of a transportation accident. Moreover, the
increased waste handling has increased the possibility of container
rupture and resultant spillage in a metropolitan area. In addition, SNM
waste is being staged while in transit at nearby unlicensed industrial
facility. Thus, the current practice--while conforming to applicable
NRC and DOT regulations--might be regarded as less safe and may be a
direct result of conditions in the CP.
To resolve this issue, staff explored ways in which rail cars could
be allowed to proceed directly to the site. Staff considered that if
the SNM waste was shipped in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71, and
applicable DOT regulations, that these conditions were sufficiently
protective while the waste was on the rail cars, regardless of being
located inside or outside the site boundary. Staff further evaluated
whether concentration limits could be established to prevent an
inadvertent criticality. Considering that concentration limits could be
established, an acceptable rationale, therefore, exists for allowing
above-ground storage of similar material in a comparable or more
dispersed configuration. This rationale, in the staff's view, supports
NRC taking action
[[Page 26465]]
to alleviate the regulatory constraint that appears to have led to the
less than optimal practice, described above, for transporting SNM waste
to Envirocare.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Envirocare is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement
State, under a 10 CFR Part 61 equivalent license for the disposal of
LLW. Envirocare is also licensed by Utah to dispose of mixed-
radioactive and hazardous wastes. In addition, Envirocare has an NRC
license (SMC-1559) to dispose of waste containing 11(e)2 byproduct
material. NRC has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS)
(NUREG-1476), SERs, and environmental assessments (EAs) for its
licensing action. The State of Utah, in support of its licensing
activities, has also prepared SERs. The proposed actions now under
consideration would not change the potential environmental effects
assessed in these documents.
The regulations regarding SNM possession in 10 CFR part 150 set
mass limits whereby a licensee is exempted from the licensing
requirements of 10 CFR part 70 and can be regulated by an Agreement
State. The licensing requirements in 10 CFR part 70 apply to persons
possessing greater than critical mass quantities (as defined in 10 CFR
150.11). The principal emphasis of 10 CFR part 70 is criticality safety
and safeguarding SNM against diversion or sabotage. The NRC staff
considers that criticality safety can be maintained by relying on
concentration limits, under the specified conditions. These
concentration limits are considered an alternative definition of
quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass to the weight limits
in 10 CFR 150.11; thereby, assuring the same level of protection.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that this proposed exemption will have
no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The NRC staff considered two alternatives to the proposed action.
One alternative to the proposed action would be to not grant the
exemption (no-action alternative); therefore, increased handling of SNM
waste would continue to occur in Salt Lake City, Utah, and at a nearby
industrial site. Although the incremental dose increase to
transportation workers and to the public may be small, it is greater
than if the shipments continued to the site via rail. The current
practice is considered less desirable.
Another alternative would be to grant the exemption without
condition. This option would not provide sufficient protection of
health, safety, and the environment.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
Officials from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Radiation Control were contacted about this EA for
the proposed action and had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based
upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed action of
granting an exemption from NRC licensing requirements in 10 CFR Part 70
will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to prepare an EIS for the proposed
exemption.
For Further Information Contact: Timothy E. Harris, Decommissioning
Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6613. Fax.: (301) 415-5398.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of May 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John T. Greeves,
Director, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 99-12241 Filed 5-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P