ML19305B766
| ML19305B766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR49811, RULE-PR-61 NUDOCS 8003200283 | |
| Download: ML19305B766 (17) | |
Text
~awe en NRC Staff Analysis of Public Comments to Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on LLW Disposal Regulation (10 CFR Part 61)
In an October 25, 1978 Advance Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (43 FR 49811), the Commission requested advice, recommendations, and comments on the scope and content of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to guide and support the development of a regulation,10 CFR Part 61, for the management and disposal of low-level waste (LLW).
Specific comments were requested on the following questions:
1.
Proposed new 10 CFR Part 61.
The Commission has cnncluded that an en/ iron-mental impact statement should be prepared pursuant to the National Environ-mental Policy Act on its actions to develop more explicit criteria and regulations for low-level waste management.
The Commission plans initially to consider the enc /ironmental impact of low-level waste disposal alternativos and of technical criteria for disposal of radioactive wastes by shallow land burial.
An environmental impact statement will be prepared to provide an essential part of the informational and decisional base for the criteria and rulemaking action.
What significant issues should the Commission consider and analyze in-depth in the environmental impact statement? What issues are not significant, or are covered or may be covered in another environmental review, and therefore may be eliminated from analysis in this environmental impact statement? Within this statement, what should the criteria be to distinguish among viable and nonviable alterr.atives?
Do we know enough about certain disposal options to make an informed decision at this time?
Should waste segregation be applied to low-level wastes (e.g., separate disposal sites for nonfuel cycle wastes)?
8003200
2.
Is it desirable to aevelop explicit criteria and standards for the disposal of low-level wastes?
If so, what should be the general' format snd content of the criteria and standards?
3.
What should be considered in developing the criteria for waste performance; site suitability, design, and operations; site monitor g; site decommis-sioning, post-operational maintenance, and funding? Are there other areas where criter,ia are needed?
4.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the four alternatives described above? Which of the alternatives should be given the greatest priority in development of regulations?
5.
Are there viable alternatives, other than the four alternate methods identi-fied above, which should be further considered in the development of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's program?
(Those which have been considered were noted earlier in this Notice and are discussed in greater detail in NUREG/CR-0308.)* If so, what is the basis (technical, economic, social, etc.) for considering an additional alternative as a potential candidate?
~
I
^Nuit:
in NUREG/CR-0308 (" Screening of Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes"), a number of potential alternative disposal methods to shallow land burial were considered.
Those methods considered to be the most viable for further study included ocean disposal, engineered structures, mined cavities, and intermediate depth burial (disposal with an increased depth of cover e.g., about 30 feet - over the disposed waste.
A followup to this report, in which these alternative disposal methods were analyzed l
in further detail, has also been publisned as NUREG/CR-0680 (" Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes").
2 l
.~
6.
What should be the extent of each State's responsibility for management of the low-level wastes generated by operations within its borders?
A total of 34 formal comments were subsequently received on the Advance Notice.
These comments have been docketed (Docket Number PR - 61) and may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room located at 1717 H 5treet, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
A summary of the comments received by the Commission is included below, f,ollowed by a list of the commenter's names and organizations and an analysis of comments received on each.pecific question of the Advance Notice.
Summary of Comments The respondents to the Advance Notice strongly supported NRC's decision to develop specific criteria and standards for the disposal of LLW.
There was also support among the commenters (about 90% of the 22 responses that addressed this issue) that an EIS should be prepared to provide an essential part of the informational and decisional base for the development of the criteria and standards and for the rulemaking action.
Two commenters, however, did not agree with the NRC conclusion that an EIS should be prepared on its actions to develop more explicit criteria and regulations for LLW management.
The commenters were divided on the fors and structure of the criteria and standards to be developed by NRC.
Some commenters stated that criteria and standards should be specific and detailed.
Others suggested the criteria and standards should be minimal and basic and should emphasize the performance objectives to be met by LLW disposal facilities.
The commenters also stated 3
_ =
that as part of the development of LLW disposal standards and criteria, a system was needed for classifying or segregating the waste based on' hazard.
A number of comments were received on NRC's questions regarding alternative disposal methods to shallow land burial.
Although the comments in this area were mixed, the most often expressed opinion was that primary consideration should be given to developing requirements for shallow land burial and emplace-ment of waste int,o mined cavities.
The disposal of wastes into ocean waters was given the lowest priority.
Four commenters felt there was no need to estab-I lish a priority list of the alternative waste disposal methods.
The most often expressed disadvantage to any alternative method was the potential for increased cost.
Approximately 60% of the respondents suggested other potentially viable methods for low-level waste disposal.
The methods mentioned most frequently were volume reduction and other advanced processing techniques.
A clear consensus of the extent of the State's responsibilities did not appear in the responses.
The issue that appeared in agreement was the need for inter-agency and state cooperation and negotiation.
Approximately half of the commenters added that LLW disposal sites should be designated by regions and there was no need or desire for one-site per state.
~
Petition Commenters Abbreviation 1.
Wells Eddleman WE i
2.
Bureau of Land Management BLM 3.
Conn. Dept of Environmental Protection CDEP 4
Abbreviation 4.
Portland General Electric Company PGEC 5.
Armadillo Coalition of Texas ACT 6.
Calif. Dept. of Health CDH 7.
Penn. Dept. of Environmental Resources PDER 8.
Donald B. 5tal DS 9.
Center for Law and Social Policy CLSP 10.
Utility Waste Management Group UWMG 11.
Louise Gorenflo LG 12.
Environmental Policy Institute EPI 13.
Stark Country (Illinois) Zoning and Planning 5ZP 14.
Exxon Nuclear Company ENC 15.
Township of Lower A110 ways Creek LAC 16.
Six Power and Utility Companies PUC i
17.
Toulon (Illinois) United Methodist Church TUMC 18.
Texas Department of Health TDH 19.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CEC 20.
Kentucky Dept. for Human Resources KDHR 21.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company YAEC 22.
Commonwealth Edison CE 23.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
NRDC 24.'
O.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 25.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency OEPA 26.
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
CNS 27.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation WEC 28.
Tennessee Valley Authority TVA 29.
Ohio Department of Health ODH 5
Abbreviation 30.
N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation NYDEC 31.
Pennsylvania State University PSU 32.
HYRE Enterprises, Inc.
HE 33.
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
AIF 34.
Conf. of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
RCPD Analysis of Responses to Specific Questions 1(a).
What significant issues should the Commission consider and analyze in-depth in the environmental impact statement?
The responses to this question were widely varied.
The issues most frequently identified by the commenters and the number of times these issues were identified were:
Cost-benefit analysis 12 Potential effluent releases 10 Geography and geology 9
J Ground and surface hydrology 8
Alternative disposal methods 8
Adv'erse environmental effects 7
Long-term care 5
State, local, and regional conflicts 5
Demography 4
l Transportation 4
Monitoring programs 4
6
Socio-economics 3
Irreversible and irretrievable commitments 3
Other issues that were mentioned at least twice by the commenters included seismology, ecology, radiological background, potential mitigating measures, occupational exposures, onsite accident analysis, alternative siting, need for disposal facilities, short-term vs. long-term productivity of disposal site land, and socio political issues.
1(b).
What issues are not significant, or are covered or may be covered in another environmental review and therefore may be eliminated from analysis in this environmental impact statement?
The issues most frequently identified by commenters as either insignificant or should be addressed in other environmental reviews include:
Transportation routing and accidents 3
Radiation exposures during transportation 2
Site-specific issues, including local ecology 3
Meteorology and climatology 1
Air, quality 1
One commenter (LAC) expressed the opinion that "no issue should be dismissed as a priori insignificant."
l l
7 l
1(c).
Within this statement, what should be the criteria to distinguish among viable and nonviable alternatives?
Comments were sparse on this question (less than one-third of the 34 responses) and a clear consensus of criteria could not be obtained.
One possible explanation was a problem with interpretation of the question -- e.g., alternatives to be addressed in the EIS vs. the NRC study of alternative disposal methods.
The issues that were, mentioned most frequently were that disposal sites should be consistent with public health and safety, site operation be an economic benefit, and a comparison should be made of long-term effects and costs of different alternatives.
Three commenters (UWMG, PUC, WEC) stated that the EIS should not attempt to develop such criteria.
One of these commenters (WEC) also stated that "such a decision would discourage innovation and improvement of the alter-native disposal methods."
l 1(d).
Do we know enough about certain disposal options to make an informed decision at this time?
Of those who commented on this question (about one-third of the total), about 40% stated that most of the available information was on shallow land burial and,an informed decision could probably be made on this disposal method.
Three com' enters (KDHR, YAEC, TVA) stated that there was sufficient information on m
f all four' alternatives to shallow land burial (intermediate land burial, mined cavities, ocean disposal, engineered structures) to make an informed decision f
after a careful review of each option.
yn commenters (LG, LAC, TDH, OEPA) felt that there was not enough information available to make an informed decision on any of the four options.
One of these responders (LG) stated "I believe 8
i
nobody knows this answer for sure.
The history of waste management has not been a glorious one.
Much of our behavior has been to get the low-level waste out-of-sight and out-of-mind rather than to determine the consequences of our behavior."
1(e).
Should waste segregation be applied to low-level wastes (e.g., separate disposal sites for nonfuel cycle wastes)?
Of the responders who commented on this question (about 60% of the u.tal), all i
but one commenter (OPEA) stated a need for development of a waste classification or segregation policy.
2(a).
Is it desirable to develop explicit criteria and standards for the disposal of low-level wastes?
Comments received on this question reflected general support for developing explicit criteria and standards for disposal of low-level waste.
Three commenters 8
(TOH, YAEC, CNS) stated that either explicit criteria are not required or that the criteria and standards should be kept to a minimum.
2(b).
If so, what should be the general format and content of the criteria and standards?
The major issues identified by commenters for which explicit criteria and standards were needed included (1) characteristics and performance standards of the waste to be buried, and (2) performance of the disposal method.
Other criteria needs frequently mentioned by the commenters include criteria for public
~
9
health and safety, the ALARA concept, radiation monitoring, recordkeeping, security and safeguards, and environmental studies of specific disposal sites.
Several commenters expressed a need for flexible criteria to allow the use of future technologies.
Finally, at least two commenters (tJWMG, CE) stated that 4
the criteria should stipulate performance standards to be met by disposal methods rather than stipulating specific requirements (e.g., depth of groundwater table, amount of rainfall) for individual disposal methods.
t 3(a).
What should be considered in developing the criteria for waste performance; site suitability; design and operations; site monitoring; site decommissioning, post-operational maintenance, and funding?
The responses to this question were somewhat sparse and scattered, making it difficult to perform a conclusive analysis.
Waste Performance.
There were several comments regarding the importance of specific criteria for waste form and packaging for disposal, but few comments on the considerations important to formulating these criteria.
Considerations suggested included the chemical stability of the waste as well as the half-lifc of the radioactive material contained in the waste.
Sit'e Suitability.
A majority of those who responded to this question (about one-third of the t.otal number of comments received) stated four important considerations to site suitability:
remoteness, geologic stability, surface and groundwater hydrology. and the ability to enhance containment.
Other considerations mentioned by commenters include meteorology. seismology, and radiation background.
The commenters were divided on whether population density 10
should affect site suitability Finally, one commenter JEPI) stated that site suitability must be weighed against other hazards such as transportation.
Desion and Ooerations.
In response to this question seven commenters stated that the criteria for site design and operations should be one that requires a high degree of containment of the waste.
Other considerations mentioned by the commenters included proper packaging (three commenters), provisions for security and safeguards (four commenters), provisions for leakage monitoring (two commenters), and well-defined duties of site personnel.
i Site Monitoring.
Seven commenters suggested that criteria for site monitoring should include criteria for equipment for detection of potential radionuclide migration by various pathways.
Other considerations mentioned by commenters included redundant monitoring systems (four commenters), a system for waste accountability at the site (five commenters), and the need for precise instru-q mentation (one commenter).
Decommissionina, Post-Operational Maintenance.
Four responses were received from the public.
Of these responses, unanimous support was expressed for a criterion that would state that a disposal site, following closure, would meet a preexisting radiation level with minimal maintenance required.
Three com'menters (UWMG, OEPA, AIF) suggested that the term " site closure" should be used in place of the term " site decommissioning."
Funding.
Three commenters (LG, LAC, NRDC) responded to the question regarding specific funding criteria.
All of these commenters suggested that funding should be on a user's fee basis.
i l
11 t
.c-.-
3(b).
Are there other areas where criteria are needed?
Six responses were received which stated that specific radiation dose guidelines need to be established.
Other areas where specific criteria were suggested include recordkeeping, waste acceptance criteria, retrievability and isolation, and public acceptance of a disposal site.
4(a).
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the four alternatives described above (the four alternative disposal methods to shallow land burial -- intermediate land burial, mined cavities, ocean disposal, and engineered structures -- identified as most viable in NUREG/CR-0308)?
Fewer than half of the 34 respondents offered comments on all the tour alternative disposal methods.
A majority of these commenters simply stated a preference for or against a particular disposal method and did not comment on the advantages or disadvantages of the method.
Enoineered Structures.
Of those who commented on this question (one-third of the total), 60% stated a favorable opinion to the emplacement of wastes in engineered structures.
The major advantages perceived by the commenters appeared to be (1) ease of recovery, and (2) monitoring capability and safeguard mechanisms can be designed into the structure.
As expressed by one commenter (UWMG), the
~
disadvantages are "above ground structures appear to be an interim rather than a permanent solution and below ground structures would entail an unnecessary complication and expense for use for low-level waste."
12
Ocean Dumping.
Half of the respondents offered a comment on ocean dumping.
90% of the comments were against ocean dumping as an alternative method of low-level waste disposal.
The major perceived disadvantages are the probability of severe ecological damage, international repercussions, and the issue of i
dispersal versus containment.
The only advantage seen by the respondents appeared to be the comparatively lower cost and ease of disposal.
- Finally, one commenter (CLSP) stated, "I believe it would be illegal and duplicative for the Commissio.n to develop any regulatory program for this alternative disposal method."
Mined Cavities.
The comments on this issue were very sparse; thus, a firm conclusion on the commenters' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of mined cavity disposal is difficult.
Of the 13 commenters on the potential emplacement of wastes in mined shafts, 90% supported this disposal method.
i f
The major advantage appeared to be the retrievability of the waste.
- However, i
many commenters felt that the method of mined cavities would involve unnecessary expense for use of low-level wastes.
Intermediate Land Burial.
The 13 commenters who offered an opinion on this potential disposal method were divided.
Approximately half were for and half were against this disposal method.
The comment offered most frequently was tha't the bulk of the waste would be contained longer, but the increased cost would not be justified by the relatively insignificant benefit, s
~
13
4(b).
Which of the alternatives should be given the greatest priority in development of regulations?
Sixty percent of the respondents offered comment on the question of setting priorities.
The majority of these commenters stated that primary attention at this time should be given to establishing criteria for shallow or improved shallow land burial.
Approximately one-fourth of the commenters supported the emplacement of wastes in mined cavities and only one commenter felt that priority should be given to ocean dumping (HE).
Finally, four commenters (PGEC, LAC, PUC, AIF) generally agreed with one commenter (PUC), who stated that "the under-lying objective of any method of disposal is to keep the waste from entering the biosphere. There is no reason to believe that more than one disposal method 3
l could not satisfactorily perform this function."
4 5(a).
Are there viable alternatives, other than the four alternative methods identified above, which should be further considered in the development of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's program?
Approximately two-thirds of the commenters commented on this issue.
The three alternatives most frequently mentioned were volume reduction and other advanced processing methods, segregation and classification systems, and a de minimus category of wastes.
However, none of these three options were mentioned by more than 25% of the commenters.
Other potential alternatives mentioned included (1) solidifying waste into_ concrete within stainless steel welded liners which are than buried in impermeable clay: (2) reprocessing; (3) shooting rockets filled with waste into the sun; (4) mines sited in desert areas; (5) deep well injection and hydrofracturing; (6) mixing, dilution and dispersion; (7) ocean 14
_ ~ -.
disposal with reinforced concrete vessels; (8) the use of an increased number and kind of man-made barriers; and (9) a combination of two or more methods.
Three commenters (CDEP, TVA, AIF) felt that there appeared to be no other viable alternatives to the four previously mentioned alternatives.
5(b).
If so, what is the basis (technical, economic, social, etc.) for considering an additional alternative as a potential candidate?
The comments received were sparse on the basis for the other viable alternatives.
One commenter (PDER) felt that a combination of advanced processing techniques and disposal on Federal lands ("which are badly contaminated and beyond the possibility of cleanup") would have the advantage of utilizing the most advanced processing techniques, have the capacity to handle other forms of hazardous wastes, and most importantly would spare public lands.
Another commenter (LAC) stated that the development of transmutation procedures, solar technologies and sending waste rockets into the sun should all be con-sidered long-term options.
Two commenters (TDH, WEC) suggested that (in the words of TOH) " volume reduction and a definition of radioactive waste plus a prohibition of burial of material which is only suspected of being contaminated would tend to reduce the volumes of burials." One commenter (PSU) stated that d
" incineration appears to be the best disposal method for flamable and toxic organic solvents and such waste could be used as a fuel source for large incinerators." Another commenter (HE) stated that ocean disposal with reinforced concrete vessels offers a more secure means for collection and transport of low-level wastes.
15
6.
What should be the extent of each State's responsibility for management of the low-level wastes generated by operations within its borders.
A clear concensus of the exten+ sf the State's responsibility did not appear in the responses.
About 60% of the commenters responded to this question.
Of t
these, about one-third felt that each State was responsible to pay for the disposal of the waste their State's utilities have generated.
Approximately half of the commenters stated that the low-level waste burial sites should be located regionally and not on a state-by-state basis.
Several felt that safe disposal of low-level waste was the responsibility of the Federal government.
Half of the commenters stated the necessity for interagency and State cooperation and negotiations.
Several of the commenters felt that licensing and management, siting, environmental monitoring, operations and decommissioning of the burial facility should reside with the State.
Most felt the States should also have an option to transfer regulatory control to the government if and when desired.
However, approximately the same number of commenters stated that the government should control licensing, siting, monitoring, and operations of the low-level waste burial facilitie.5.
- Finally, one commenter (LG) stated that "NRC is responsible for every bit of nuclear 4
waste generated in this country."
Miscella'neous Comments In reference to the Federal Register Notice, several of the commenters suggested (in the words of one; UWMG) "it is important for NRC to make clear that these
'recent developments' do not reflect that any hazard to public health and safety 16
~
has resulted from shallow land burial operations." One commenter (ACT) stated that low-level waste is very dangerous and small amounts of ' radiation can be carcinogenic.
Finally, one commenter (EPA) expressed a concern that "the NRC schedule for the development of a regulatory program for shallow land burial by 1980 and one alternative by 1981 may be premature in view of the amount of research necessary.
Much critical technical information onsite selection, waste treatment and packaging, possiblities for segregating wastes, etc., preser.tly being conducted by DOE, USGS, NRC, and EPA will not be available at an early enough date."
e O
n 17 2-_