ML19241A649
| ML19241A649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241A648 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-20-7 SECY-78-613B, NUDOCS 7907090097 | |
| Download: ML19241A649 (31) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:L*4ISSION DCCKET NO. PR:1-20-7 NATURAL RESCURCES DEFENSE CCUNCIL, INC.
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn (NRC) has denied a petition for ruiemaking submitted by letter dated August 6, 1976 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NROC),.2345 Yale Street, Palo Alto, California, 94306. The petition requested that the NRC inediately adcot interim regulations setting standards for shallow land disposal of transuranic (TRU) and c-her icw-level radioactive waste as well as prepare a broad programmatic generic envirccmental imoact state-(GEIS) on low-level waste disposal.
ment
.ctice cf filing of the petition, Cocket No. PRM-20-7, was published in the Federal Recist2r on September 23,1976 (41 FR 41759) and the public was invited to file ccmments on the petition within 60 days of publication of the notice.
(The ccrent period was later extended to 90 days.) Fourteer of the fifteen responses frcm industry and the States that were received by the NRC recc= ended denial of the petition.
Il addition, the original petiticner (NRCC) filed an " analysis" and ccm ents on the other comments received by the Cccmission.
.inalysis of the issues and points raised by the petition was cerfor ed by the NRC staff when the petition was initially reviewed.
At that time, the NRC scaff concluded chat no ccmcelling cc:ential health and safe / hazart 311 093 7907090 edclosure 3
_2 existed to warrant imediate NRC reassumotion of regu atory authority l
from Agreement States, or i:~nediate implementation of interim regulations as proposed by the petitioner.
(NRC staff rationale for their decision regarding the need for immediate action as proposed by the petitioner is contained in the material presented in NRC Staff Position on Petition, which folicws in this Notice.) A broad, flexible program for the orderly develocment of comprehensive regulations governing the management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste by shallcw land burial or other alternative methods was initiated and subsecuently anncunced in the Federal Register on December 7,1977 (a2 R 61903).
This program is currently in progress.
The regulations and supporting environmental impact statements are scheduled to be issued within the next few years and will address disposal of all nuclides, including transuranic nuclides.
The Cctmission celieves that a separate GEIS on lcw-level waste ciscosal is neither required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (MEPA) nor necessary for the development of the NRC program.
It is intended that the environmental impact statenents and other technical documentation being developed to support the forthcoming regulations will be of suffic ient scope to make a separate GEIS as prcposed by the petitioner unnecessary.
/
The issues and points raised in tne petition and in the petitioner's croccsed GEIS outline are, hcwever, being considerec by MRC staff as in::ut to their develocrent of waste management regulations and succerting environmental imoac sta:ements.
311 094
a-disposal sites, minimum standards for environmental monitoring programs, and standards for long-term care with mechanisms to finance such care; Establishment of minimum fees to be paid (effective immediately) for each cubic foot of waste buried at existing sites to assure adequate funds for icng-term care; Solidification of Low-Level Radicacti./elaste Before Shi:renc "oc solidification of all radioactive waste before shipment to reduce the potential for release to the environment either through accident or sabotage.
The petitioner also requested that the Ccmmission immediately prepare a GEIS on the Cc :aission's program for disposal of Icw-levei radioactive waste.
The petition stated that a naticnal program for disposal of low-level waste by shallow land burial represents a major programatic decision that must be examined in an approcriately broad programmatic GE!S.
It also stated that secarate statements on individual sites would have difficulty considering the generic questions involved since the present need is to establisn criteria for adequate disposal cractices, for acceotable sites, and for the type of material that tne disposal sites can procerly handle.
b\\\\
. Procosed Interim Reculations.
The cc=ents received did not generally support the necessity of immediate adoption of interim regulations.
With exception of the NRDC analysis of the comments, little rationale was given to support interim regulations.
Ten ccmmenters stated that there was no demonstrated public health and safety risk with present practices and thus there was no justification or legal basis for the interim regulations.
Two of the c mmenters resconded favorably to NRCC's crocosed regul1:icns for establishment of an inspection, enforcement, and reporting system for the classification of TRU waste.
One stated that such a system is at least implicit in current regula* ions.
Another :cmmenter stated that the t
NRC alreacy has the authority to inspect against Stata licensed operations.
(As part of NRC revie.ts of Agreement State radiolacical health procrams, NRC-often accomoanies State inspectors in their review of State licensed ocerations.
However, NRC does not independently inspect State licensed ocerations)
The cc:menters were neutral or divided on NRCC's proposed regulations for an immediate end to non-retrievable TRU waste disposal, and for payment of fees by producers of waste for long-term care.
Two of the ccmrenters sucported the proposed regula' inns, with one ccmmenter nc ;i.;
the toxicity and long half-lives of TRU.
One other cc= enter suggn tec
)))
. not a major risk and is alreacy regulated.
They also stated that many factors should be considered before NRC requires solidifis;2 tion of all waste--i.e., concentrations, quantities, probabilities of release, consequence, packaging, costs and benefits.
NRDC " Allecations of Fact."
Each of the ten allegations of fact made by the petitioner in support of the petition generally received frca one to four ccmments. not including the petitioner's analysis.
The commenters remarked th'.: seven of the allecaticns of fact were inaccurate or distorted.
One allegation received no cctments.
Two of the allegations of fact - (1) ERDA has prohibited burial of government-TRU waste, and (2) the Atomic Energy Ccmmission (AEC) proposed but did not finalize regulaticas for commercial-TRU waste burial - were accepted as tree.
All tha c cc=ented
-7t 9at the on these two allegations of fact (except the petit actions discussed provided insufficient justificatw petition.
Low-Level Waste Generic _E_nvironnental Imcact Statement.
Ccmments on the necessity of a G5IS were. more balanced, with one cc= enter suppcrting and three opposing. The supcortive commenter felt that a GEIS *ould be done because icw-level waste has significant environmental imoacts and a comprehensive evaluation had not been done to date.
Those opoosing stated that there was no need or basis for a GEIS or thought that such a statement should be part of tne waste management GEIS being precared by the Energy Research and :evelacment Administra-ion (ERDA). (For the reader's infor~ation, 311 097 ground regulation and operation.
These reccmmendations incluced accelerated development of a specific regulatory program for icw-level waste disposal including regulations, standards, and criteria,
rna studies to identify and evaluate the relative safety and inpacts of alternative low-level waste disposal methods.
The staff subsequently published a program plan for low-level taste management entitled "NRC Lcw-Level Radicactive ':.'aste Management Program' (NUREG-C220, Septencer 1977), including technical studies to prepare a regulatcry base, development of regulations, criteria, and su;cortive EIS's, and develcpment of criteria and precedures for applicants to prepare license applications and for NRC to make uniform and timely licensing decisions. To formulate the orcgram, the staff considered the Task Force reccrendaticns; public ccmments en the Task Force Reccrt; data gleaned from review of technical dccurents and particicaticn in conferences, meetings, and discussions attended by industrial, state, and public organi::ations; and considerations of the points and reccmmendations contained in the petition, petition cc=ents, and other correspcr.ceitce and documents.
Periodic updates of NUREG-0240 are planned and the first update is expected in early 1979. The progress made to date in NRC's program of technical study and regulatica development will be summarized in the utdate and further refinements to the program discussec. 311 098 pro,lems (e.g., poor justification for the 10 nanocurie per gram limit, no cost-benefit analysis, no acccmpanying regulatory guides ) were identified by persons cc=enting cn the proposed rule, and the rule was never adopted by the AEC for cc=ercial waste.
A ten nanocurie cer gram TRU burial limit, however, was adopted by AEC in 1970 for government-produced radicactive waste and this limit is still in effect at sites ccerated by the Cepartment of Ener Jy (CGE).
An investiga ics is currently in crogress by CCE to redefine :: 1 concentration levels at which government-produced TRU nuclices may be discosed of by shallow land burial.
It is expected that scme modification of the interim ten nanccurie per gram limit will result based on this investigation.
In the current waste classification study con racted by 'RC, TRU waste is not classified as a seoarate waste category.
Insteac, concen-trations of individual radionuclides, including TRU nuclides, are classified according to the disposal recuirements of the radionuclide concentra tions.
In the study, it was determined that all radioactive waste disposal methods can be placed into one of three generic categories.*
'Furtner refinements to this basic conceat regarding radioactive aastes and discosal me:ncds are ceing acdressec in :ne stucy.
311 099 of the classification system, the ccmoletion of the study. and the develocment of the waste classificaticn regulation.
?n updated recor on the classification system study is planned for publication in March 1979.
With the present study as a starting point, NRC plans to develop a waste classification regulation, a succorting EIS, and a regulatory
~
guide providing assistance to waste genera:ces in ccm: lying with tre regulation. The EIS will emphasize the potential environmental conse-quences and cost-benefit relationships of alternative waste classification methocs and waste classes, and will guide NRC in decisions regarding the form and structure (e.g., number of waste classes, limiting radionuclide concentrations in the classes) c ~ the reguiation.
Rule Makina Actions. The liccasing requirements for management and disposal of the types of waste defined by the waste classification regulation as well as the technical requirements for varicus disposal methods will be addressed in two other rule making actions.
A proposed regulation (10 CFR Part 60:
" Disposal of High-Level Waste in Geologic Repositories")
pius a supporting EIS governing the managenent and disposal of hign-level waste are scheduled for publication in a draft frca during 1979.
(The acministrative and tecnnical parts of the regulation are scnedJled fCr puolicaticn in Marcn and Augus, res;ectively.) Additionally, NRC is now in tiating a con?" actual effce: to precare an EIS to guice and succcc:
i the deveiccnent cf a proccsec regulation 10 CFR Dar: 51, entitled
)))
0 Appendices to the low-level waste disposai regulation will specify the technical recuirements for licensing of shallcw land burial and alternative disposal methods, and for unlicensed confinement oy disposal to crdinary refuse channels or other options.
Scecifications regarding waste form / container performance, site selection and suitability, design and operation of sites, monitoring during and after site acerations, and deccmmissioning* will be included.
An EIS will. be prepared to support the regulation that will consider the environmental impacts of shallow lanc burial and alternative methods of low-level waste disposal.
NRC Staff Position on Petition To recapitulate and consolidate, the NRDC petition essentially recuests #ive kinds of actions frca NRC**:
1.
Reassert regulatory authority for TRU waste frca Agreement States and limit TRU waste disposal to a retrievable form.
2.
Invoke a moratorium on new or enlarced burial site licensing pending the establishment of certain recuirements.
3.
Establish a perpetual-care fund by regulaticn.
4 Restrict transportaticn of low-level wa te in liquid form.
5.
Prepare a generic environmental impact statement.
'NRC efforts to ceveico institutional arrangements and technical stancarcs "or site deccmaissioning and icng-term funding and care are further discussed in a following section.
- 'Althcugn the ten " allegations of fact" that acccmpanied the ::etition are not indivicually anc scecifically addressed in :his Notice, NRC staff ccmments cn tne allegations are containec in the material available in tne Commissicn's Puolic Cccument Room. "any of the issues raised in thece allecations are cis-cussed 1r the 1RC Task Force Recort(NUREG-C21e!, the NRC Low-Leve Waste
. anagement Program (NUREG-0240), and the forthccming program updats.
311 101
- la -
llonetheless, an interim snort-term pericd will elapse be#cre executiie and leaislative decisions are cace en the if sues of managemen; and cisocsai of radioactive waste and prior to the ccmcletion of the regulations currently under development by NRC.
The NRC staff notes the concern cf the petitianer, the public, and others regarding the safe disposal of TRU and other wastes and is CJrrently investigating the incremental envirCC cnt3l effects of continued short-term TRU burial' as v. ell as possible alternatives--sucn as retrievable stcrage--ta TRU waste burial,
'n any :ase, the staf# believes retrievable storage peccetures sinilar to prccedures ussd tccay 0;.
tna:
CCE for storage of TRS waste may be necessary for certain types of waste defined by the waste classification regulation when this regulation is adcoted.
Today, only the site ocerated by the lluclear Engineering Ccmcany, Inc. (NECO) and located in the center of tne Hanforc Reservation near Richland, 'dasningtcn, accects TRU-contamina:sc materials in ccncentra-tions greater than ten nanocuries per gram for burial in soil.
The disposal site is lcca:ed on land leasec frcm the Federal Government to the State of ',lasnington,,.ho then subleases a cortion of the leased land to the disacsal site cperator.
At the ccm:nercial site, the disposal of special nuclear material (SN4), including plutonium, is regulated by NRC. As 'dashingten is an Agree. ent State, the State of n
Washington regulates the dis;csal of source and bycreduct material (including TRU iso cces other than plutonium).
311 102 An alternative action is acceptance for storage of cer.mercia! TRU waste by the Federal government (e.g., CCE), with a charge levied on the
. aste generator to cuver costs of storage, retrieval, repackaging (if w
necessary), transport, and ultimate disposal.
MRC staff also notes that Federal government responsibility for waste management will be addressed in the report of the Interagency Review Group for Radicactive Waste ftanagement (IRG).
As noted earlier, the.;RC is now developing a aaste classification regulation to stipuicte the concentrations of particular radicnuclides that can be disposed cf by varicus generic disposal methods. This regula-ticn is scheduled to be published for public ccrent in early 1980. As a result of the regulation, certain types of waste will require retrievable It is stcrage pending transfer to a recository for final disposal.
expecced that retrievable storage of such waste would be acccmplisned in a similar manner as that used tcday for the storage of government-produced TRU waste.
Licensina of New or Enlarced Burial Sites.
NRCC intercrets the Atcmic Energy Act as requiring a moratorium on NRC and Acreement State licensing of new burial sites and expansions of existing sites ;ending prcmulga:icn of Ccmission regulations governing shallow land burial.
This recuest is based on NRCC's findings that current NRC and State regulation is inade-cuate as demons:rned by waste 'igra' ion and other incidents.
In acciticn, 3)\\
- 2? -
discosal of hazarcous ma:erials at the time the C:mmission enters in:o a State Agreement if the Ccmmissicn by regulation er crcer determines that continued Federal centrol is necessary.
Furthermore, MRCC's " dual authority" theory is centrary to the recent decision in MRCC v. NRC, 8 ELR 20163, 20164 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 6,1978), in which the Court held the Ccrmission retains no residual authority over individual licensing acticns taken by Agreement States.
Ccnsequently, the Ccmaission is not required to irpose en the Agreement States regulations 9thich it is not recuired to pecmt.lgate.
The staff believes that licensing new or enlarged burial grounds on the basis of need is an option which, for continued assurance of protecticn of the public health and safety, should nct be foreclosed. There is a continuing prcduction of low-level waste at hospitals, universities, laboratories, reactors, etc., that requires disposal and the only curren:ly available disposal method is shallcw land burial. Until the regulations governing shallow land burial and alternative disposal methods are estab-lished, applications for new or enlarged disposal sites will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Any new licenses that are issued by NRC will be qualified bythe provision that the licenses may be modified as new criteria and regulations are developed. Beccuse of MRC's close liaison with the Agreement States. NRC staff expects that the States will initiate similar actions.
Every Agreement State's radioicgical nealth crogram is reviewed annually to ensure that it is adecuate fce the crotection of :ne public nealth anc safety anc that it is ccmca:icle witn similar NRC programs.
311 104 estimate future financial needs for the deccmissioning of burial grounds and evaluate bases for the establishment of financial structures for long-tem care of burial grounds; 4.
evaluate potential record keeping needs; and 5.
evaluate the envircnmental monitoring needs.
Another study is new being centracted to investigate the alternative institutional arrangements necessary to ensure adequate icng-tern care and funding.
Also to be addressed in this study are alternative organiza-ticnal roles involving low level waste site regulation, site operation, site ownershio, financial liabilit/, decommissioning and inspection.
One of the alternative methcds to provide long-ter-funding is, as recc= ended by the petitioner, the establishment of a special fund based upon a cubic foot charge by NRC requlation.
(The NRC Task Force recc= ended a Federally-acministered icnq-term care fund in NUREG-0217.) However, the establishment by NRC of a long-ter care fund through fees based ucon volume of materials buried poses difficult questions of law. Although fees for use of property may be established between landlord and tenant, as is currently the case, to order a fee per unit volume of waste by Ccmission regulaticn and to establish an earmarked fund wcuid recuire Congressional au:hcriza:icn.
311 105
. _ Transacr:ation of Licuid Loa-Levei Waste.
In the request for regulaticas prohibiting transportation of all liquid waste, the petitioner observes that the liquid form increases the potential mobili,y of the waste material.
However, the existing regulaticos adopted by the NRC and the Department of Transportation (DOT)* specify the types and limiting concen-trations of all radicactive material, including liquids, acceptable for shipment as well as the packaging requirements. As would be expected, racerials of greater hazard or mcbility are regulated more stringently than matarials of lesser hazard or mcbility.
For example, licuid radicactive material in Type A quantities must be packaged in or within a leak-resistant and corrosion-resis: ant inner
- ::ainment vessel The packaging must be adecuate to prevent loss or dispersal of the contents of the inner container vessel if the package was subjected to a prescribed 20-fcat drop test. Either encugn absorben:
material must be provided to absorb at least twice the volume of the liquid contents or a secondary containment vessel must be provided to retain the radicactive contents under normai conditicns of transcorting, assuming the failure of the inner primary containment vessel. Cuantities of radioactive mate.-ial greater than Type A limits can be transccr:ed In the United States, the COT anc the NRC snare crimary requiatory authority for transacr and cackacinc for transcort of racicactive mater.iai.
The CCT and tre NRC c'.rti;.icn their overlaccing -escensibili-
~
emorandum of Uncerstancing, las: issuec in :'arcn 1^73,
- ies cy eans af a v between CCT and the Atcmic Energy Ccomission (AEC), the crecccessor of NRC.
311 i06
. Decencer 1977.
The statement covered tha transpor:aticn cf all types of radicactive material--frca spent fuel to Icw specific activity material--and indicated that transportation nf radioactive material is being conducted under the present regulatory system in r adequately safe manner.
Based on this statement and the staff's continuing re/iew of potential problems asscciated with transcort of radicactive material, the staff concludes that no healtn and safety prcolem currently exists to warrant the in.ediate establishment of regulaticns prchibiting transporation of liquid waste. Present practices for dispcsal of radioactive waste, including on-site solidifica:icn of small quantities of low-level liquid waste and disposal of special types of Icw-level waste such as scintillation vials, are being assessed as cart of the ongoing NRC Icw-level waste program.
Low-Level Waste GEIS.
The NRC staff believes that issuance of a separate crogrammatic GEIS as proposed by the petitioner is in this case neither required by NEPA nor necessary to conduct NRC's existing program for study and develorment of regulations for low-level waste disposal.
The arguments relied upon by NRCC do not comcel a GEIS.
The facts do not warrant it.
The Commissicn indeonndently licenses only one such facility located. ear Shef#ield, Illinois.
Five Agreement States license five other icw-level waste disposal sites cursuant to their can authcrities.
(A two of these five sites, Hanford,.iashing on and Barnwell, Scuth Carciina, NRC issues 311 107
. This provided by a MRC-contracted study of alterna-ive disposal methcds.
study is identifying viable alternative disposal metnads and submitting to further detailed study alternative methods determined on the casis of a preliminary screening effort.
Preliminary results of the study to date has been published in a status report entitled, "Screeninc of Alternative Methods for the Disposal of Lcw-Level Radioactive 'daste" (ML' REG /CR-03C3),
October 1973.
The a'ternatives study may yield severcl acceptable siternative methods for icw-levei ', taste dis;osal. As part of the NEPA crocess, shall;w land burial must be considered within the context of other alternatives and their technical uncertainties.
However, technical criteria and requirements for disposal by shalicw land burial are needed to meet regulatory requirements for existing and any new shallow land burial sites. As guided by the EIS, NRC plans to initially develop technical criteria and requirements for shallow land burial.
Develocment of criteria for identified viable. alternatives are programmed to follow shortly.
NRC staff are considering the issues raised in the petition and in the petitioner's procosed GEIS outline in their development of the procosed low-level waste discosal regulation and guiding EIS.
In addition to this input. NRC staff a e considering public incut frcm an Advance Notice of Procosec Rulemaking which aas ouolishec in the 311 108