ML20035B172

Directors Decision Re 920929 Petition by Sc Latourette Re Plant

ML20035B172
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/28/1993
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20034D496	List: ML20034D495 ML20035B172
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9303310295
Download: ML20035B172 (24)

Text

--

1 I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (Thomas E. Murley, Director)

In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 50-440 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING

)

License No. NPF-58 COMPANY, ET AL.

)

(10 CFR 2.206)

)

(Perry Luclear Power Plant

)

Unit 1)

)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 i

I.

INTRODUCTION On September 29, 1992, Mr. Steven C. LaTourette submitted a Petition on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners (the Petitioners),

requesting that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take

{

certain actions with respect to the proposed construction of an onsite, low-level radioactive waste storage facility at the Perry Nuclear. Power Plant (Perry). The Petition specifically requested that (1) a public hearing be

- i held prior to the licensee's construction of such a facility and (2) the construction of the facility be suspended until (a) either the NRC or the

[

licensee produces an environmental impact statement assessing the risks of

-i onsite storage of low-level waste and (b) the NRC promulgates regulations for i

storing low-level radioactive waste at nuclear power plant' sites.

By letter dated October 21, 1992, the NRC acknowledged receipt of the Petition and indicated that the staff would take action on the requests within a reasonable time. The NRC further indicated that the portion of the Petition requesting f

t i

9303310295 930328 PDR ' ADOCK 05000440 P

PDR

~

?

t i l t

the NRC to promulgate regulations for storing low-level radioactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites was subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.802 governing petitions for rulemaking. Therefore, that portion of the Petition i

will not be directly addressed in this Decision.

However, as discussed later, 5

the NRC has recently published in the Federal Reaister a proposed rule on this subject.

i In support of the requested actions, the Petitioners assert that (1)

I the period for temporary storage of radioactive wastes in the proposed facility will have to be extended beyond the current 5-year limit for temporary storage, necessitating licensing approval under 10 CFR Part 30,-thus triggering the need for an environmental impact statement and a public l

hearing; (2) the risk of storing low-level radioactive waste on site was not r

envisioned in the original environmental. impact statement for Perry; and (3) the construction of a storage facility is a fundamental change in the operating license of the plant and a more significant change than anticipated i

by the 10 CFR 50.59 procedures.

The NRC staff has reviewed the Petition and my formal decision in this matter follows.

i l

II.

BACKGROUND t

I 1

In August 1992, the licensee for Perry announced plans for the-l construction of an interim onsite low-level radioactive waste (LLW) storage and processing facility, in anticipation of possible. loss of access to the three disposal sites currently in operation in the United States.

I'n response to concerns expressed by some' local citizens groups regarding the facility, I

l

r h l t

f f

the NRC held a public meeting near the Perry site on October 1,1992.

In September 1992, the NRC staff performed a preliminary review o'f the licensee's.

10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for the facility and requested more detailed l

infccmation. The licensee provided a revised evaluation to the staff in October 1992, and the staff has completed its review of that evaluation.

j i

NRC Generic Letter (GL) 81-38, " Storage of Low-level' Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites," provides the NRC staff's current guidance on the

{

design and operation of interim onsite LLW storage facilities. This guidance l

I

states, I

t For proposed increases in storage capacity for low-level waste l

generated by normal reactor operation and maintenance at power reactor sites, the safety of the proposal must be evaluated by the licensee under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

If (1) your existing license conditions or technical specifications do not' prohibit increased storage, (2) no unreviewed safety question exists, and (3) the proposed increased storage capacity does not exceed the generated waste projected for five years, the licensee may provide the added capacity, document the 50.59 evaluation and report it to l

the Commission annually or as specified in the license.

If a licensee determines that an unreviewed safety question exists, or

}

(

if the design capacity or intended duration of storage exceeds 5 years, the generic letter specifies that a 10 CFR Part 30 license is required. The generic letter provides detailed radiological safety guidance and criteria j

t i

-4 used by the NRC staff in judging the adequacy of a licensee's safety evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59. A number of licensees have constructed facilities in accordance with this guidance.

On February 2,1993, the NRC published a proposed rule' in the Federal Register entitled " Procedures and Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste" (58 FR 6730).

The proposed rule would establish a I

regulatory framework, consistent with the goals of the Low-Level Radioactive l

l Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), for procedures and criteria j

i applicable to onsite storage of LLW beyond January 1,1996. The proposed rule I

reiterates the Commission's longstanding position that protection of the i

public health and safety and the environment is enhanced by disposal, rather than by long-term indefinite storage, of LLW. However, the NRC does

{

acknowledge that State and compact efforts to establish regional LLW disposal sites are in many instances behind the schedular milestones established'in the LLRWPAA. The LLRWPAA further states that the operators -of the three existing l

disposal facilities could set additional restrictions on receiving LLW from j

outside their regional compacts, effective January 1,1993. Therefore, the NRC recognizes the potential need for some licensees to store their LLW on site until additional access to disposal sites becomes available.

Tne proposed rule would preclude a licensee from storing LLW on site l

after January 1, 1996, unless the licensee could document that it had i

'i exhausted other reasonable waste management options.

The proposed rule would l

i supplement, but not supersede, existing regulations and guidance.

Generic-I Letter 81-38 will continue to provide the NRC staff guidance and criteria regarding interim onsite storage of LLW before January 1,1996, and also

(

)

. beyond that date for licensees who have adequately demonstrated and documented that all other reasonable waste management options have been exhausted.

III. DISCUSSION The Petitioners' first and primary assertion in support of the requested actions is that the licensee's proposed interim onsite LLW storage facility i

"will definitely have to be extended beyond the five (5) year limit for temporary storage." This assertion is supported only by the Petitioners' assumption that, because of the departure of Michigan from the Midwest Compact l

I and the subsequent designation of Ohio as the host State for a disposal site, l

delays have resulted making it " inconceivable" that a permanent LLW disposal i

i facility could be operating in the Stata of Ohio in less than 7 years.

While it is possible that the State of Ohio will not have an operational LLW disposal site in 7 years, no further information is presented to support

~t i

the certainty of the Petitioners' assertion. The Petitioners fail to address i

t other possibilities for disposal of LLW generated by the licensee; in fact, l

they acknowledge that the Barnwell, South Carolina, site has agreed to accept i

LLW generated at Perry through June 1994.

If the licensee does not begin to t

store LLW on site until that time, 5 years of temporary storage would last j

until June'1999, more than 6 years from now. Within that time frame, it is f

entirely possible that an existing disposal facility will contiaue to accept j

i LLW from Perry, or that new disposal facilities outside _the Midwest Compact l

will become operational and accept waste from Perry under the " contract" provisions of the LLRWPAA [rection 5(e)(1)(F)].

It is also possible that Ohio i

l l

l.

. will have an operating disposal facility by that time. Thus, there is reason to believe that disposal cptions will be available to the licensee. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation concerning the onsite interim storage and processing of LLW and has confirmed that the licensee has committed to follow the guidance of GL 81-38 regarding a 5-year limit on temporary storage.

Further, the licensee will continue to ship LLW to the Barnwell facility under existing contracts through mid-1994.

Therefore, I find that the Petitioners have not provided a sufficient basis for the NRC to conclude that a 10 CFR Part 30 license is required at this time, based on their contention that the proposed facility will be operated for longer than 5 years.

If the licensee subsequently chooses to request a Part 30 license, the NRC staff will evaluate the request at that time.

The Petitioners also contend that the risk of low-level radioactive waste storage on site was not envisioned in the original environmental impact statement for Perry. During the operating license review, the staff did consider in the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0884, August 1982), the possible radiological impact of LLW temporarily stored on site.

Although the I

specific details of the proposed interim storage facility were not known at that time, the staff anticipated the existence of outdoor low-level radioactivity storage containers, which were estimated to make a dose contribution at the site boundary of less than 0.1 percent of that due to direct radiation from plant operation (Section 5.9.3.1.2).

Similarly, in its i

Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0887, May 1982), the NRC staff concluded.that the l

w

i j i

licensee's program for the processing, packaging, and storace of radioactive wastes before shipment off site was acceptable (Section 11,4.1).

Therefore, the temporary onsite storage of LLW was an activity considered by the staff r

as part of its review leading to the issuance of an operating license.

Should the licensee be required to seek a Part 30 license because of a longer than expected need for onsite LLW storage, both the safety and environmental aspects will be evaluated in accordance with applicable requirements.

The licensee's operation of the proposed interim storage facility could i

result in changes in the quantity of LLW stored on site and in the physical location and duration of storage. The licensee has evaluated these changes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

Generic Letter 81-38 establishes specific guidelines to ensure that the radiological impact from temporary onsite storage of LLW will not result in a significant increase in the overall radiological impact due to plant operation. The generic letter specifies that the design and operation of a temporary onsite storage facility for LLW should ensure that radiological consequences of accidents do not exceed 10 percent of the 10 CFR Part 100 dose criteria used in reactor sitir.g and that the projected contribution to offsite doses from onsite storage under non-accident conditions is less than 1 millirem / year. The NRC staff has reviewed the.

licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and has found that the proposed design and operation of the facility will conform with the GL 81-38 guidance. The licensee has appropriately evaluated the radiological risks to account for changes in the way LLW will be stored on site.

1 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, i

requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for a major P

~

l

'{ !

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

l The Commission's regulations in-10 CFR 51.20 also specify criteria for and j

identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements.

The Commission actions identified in Section 51.20.

r-esent those actions which the Commission believes could-significantly ll affect the. quality of the human environment. The construction and operation of the LLW storage facility on the Perry site are not activities of the type.

j identified in Section 51.20-requiring preparation by the NRC of an environmental impact statement.

Further, as a result of its review of the I

licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, the staff has determined 'th'at the construction and operation of the proposed facility does not represent a major j

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Therefore, I conclude that the Petitioners have not-provided a f

sufficient basis for the NRC to require the preparation of an-environmental impact statement for the proposed facility.

The Petitioners further contend that the construction of the proposed l

facility is a fundamental change in the operating license of the plant and a more significant change than anticipated by the 10 CFR 50.59 procedures. - A'sa result, they question how the licensee is able to determine that the operation j

of the proposed facility does not involve an unreviewed safety question,' a l

requisite finding for 10 CFR 50.59 to apply.

To support these assertions, the I

I Petitioners state that the proposed facility will expand the storage of the

-j L

waste, in addition to expanding the physical location and site of the waste; j

f however, they fail to address the sig'nificance of these changes.

Although the licensee's intended use of the proposed facility will I

4 l

9-I likely result in more LLW temporarily stored on site for longer periods and in a different location than current practice, the significance of these changes must be assessed in determining whether an unreviewed safety question exists.

The standards in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) specify that a proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question (i) if the l

probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety. analysis report may be increased; or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety i

analysis report may be created; or (iii) if the margin of safety as defined in

}

the basis for any technical specification is reduced. The NRC staff has f

reviewed the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, including the bases on which the licensee has determined that construction and operation of the proposed facility does not involve an unreviewed safety question, and has found that i

determination to be sound.

The construction and operation of the proposed i

facility will not affect safety-related systems or equipment or the capability l

t to safely shut down the plant; therefore, the probability of occurrence or the i

consequences of accidents or malfunctions of equipment important to safety t

will not be increased. The processing of LLW will not change significantly j

from that described in the safety analysis report.

Facility design and f

controls will ensure that the radiological impact of potential accidents and normal operation will be kept within the guidelines specified in GL 81-38; I

these guidelines are bounded by the potential impacts due to plant operation l

previously evaluated by the staff. Therefore, the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the safety l

i w

.n

.i

?.

' i

~

analysis has not been created. Also, as the construction and operation of the I

proposed facility will not-affect safety-related systems or equipment or the capability to safely shut down the plant, the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is not reduced.

I therefore conclude that the Petitioners have not provided a sufficient basis for the NRC staff to find that an unreviewed safety question is involved in the j

i construction and operation of the proposed facility and, consequently, I find

[

in accordance with the provisions of GL 81-38 that a Part 30 license is not needed.

1

?

The Petitioners further assert that the GL 81-38 guidance is not mandatory and that an evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 61.50 should be conducted.

[

t It is true that the GL 81-38 guidance is not mandatory; however..the licensee l

has committed to follow that guidance in its 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, which the staff has found acceptable.

If the licensee subsequently revises that commitment, the supporting 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation must also be revised and will be subject to further NRC review. The staff will.take appropriate action

{

at that time. With respect to 10 CFR 61.50, that regulation applies to t

permanent near-surface disposal of wastes generated by other persons and is-

[

not applicable to the licensee's proposed facility.

-I IV.

CONCLUSION On the basis of the foregoing discussion, I have determined that the Petitioners' requests concerning the proposed temporary onsite low-level j

radiological waste storage and processing facility at the Perry Nuclear Power i

t h

t 4

i Plant are not supported and do not present any substantial health and safety issues. Thus, the Petition provides no basis for the NRC to require a public hearing for the construction and operation of the facility, or for the NRC to produce (or require the licensee to produce) an environmental impact statement I

related to the use of the facility. The institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 is appropriate only where substantial health and safety issues have been raised. See Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 175 (1975); Washinoton Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, DD-84-7, 19 NRC 899, 924 (1984). This is the standard that I have applied to the concerns raised by the Petitioners in this decision to determine whether any action in response to the Petition is i

warranted.

For the reasons discussed above, no basis exists for taking the specific actions requested in the Petition with respect to the Perry facility, as no substantial health and safety issues have been raised by the Petitioners.

Therefore, no action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is being taken in this matter. The recent publication, however, of a proposed rule on

" Procedures and Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste" addresses, in part, one of the concerns expressed in the Petition.

1 i

e i

I

+

. 4 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be I

filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0

E kA*

Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March 1993

6730 Proposed Rules r e er Vol 58. No. 2o Tuesday. Farbnaary 2.1593 i

Tre 56c >on of to FEDERAL REGISTER a DD84 ESSES: Submit written comments its LLW after January 1,1993. genuatoes contar.s no'scas e r4 putAc of r>e proposed to:The Secretary of the Commission, can regaest the State to take title to, and n.ance of ras and reguta:>ons. Trie purpcse of these nceces is e give interas *d U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, possession of the generated waste.The ;

P* "' "" * "8' D ***C'P*

Washington,DC 20555 Attention:

State also becomes liable for dam *E*5 85 Docketing and Service Branch. Hend-a consequence of failure to take ruas dehrer comments to:11555 Rockville possession of the wasta. In 1993. States Pike. Rock vil;e. Maryland, between 7.45 may avoid taking title and possessien cf a m. and 4;15 p.m. Federal workdays.

the waste and assuming liabihty, but NUCLEAR REGULATORY Copies of the regulatory analysis, will forfeit the surcharge tsbates CCMMISS60N environmental asseas:nent and finding established by the Act.

of no signifiant impact, e.nd the e January 1.1996-If a State cr 10 CFR Parta 30. 40. 50,70, and 72 comments received on the rule may be compact cannot provide for disposal ci examined and copied, for a fee, et the its LLW after January 1.1996, the States sHN 3150-AE22 NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L upon proper notice by the Eenerefor or Street NW. flower Level). Washington.

owner, shall take title to, and be Procedurea and Crsteria for On S;te DC. telephone (202) 634-3273.

obligated to take possession of. LLW.

Storage of Low-Level Radioactive FOR FURTHER e4FORMAftON CONTACT:

The State will also be liable for all Waste Robert Nelson Offim of Nuclear damages directly or indirectly incurred AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatcry Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

by the generator or owner ifit fails to Commission.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

take possession as soon after January 1 Washington. DC 20555, telephone 1301) 1996, as the generator or owner notifies acT)ON: Proposed rule.

505 2004, the State that the waste is available for SuuuARY:The Nuclear Regulatory SUP91DrENTARY INF0FaAAT10*c The Low-shipment.

q-Commasson proposes to amend its level Radioactive Waste Policy De section of the Act requiring the regulations for reacter, matenal, fuel Amendments Act of 1985 (Act)[ Pub. L.

States to take title to, and possesasort of.

i 99-240) establisbos a series of the generated waste by January 1.1996 cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees.De proposed rule milestones, penalties, and incentives to (often referred to as the "take-title" would establish a regulatory framework. ensure that regional compacts and provision), was held to be contammg the procedures and critena States make adequate progress toward unconstitutional, by the Supreme Court that would apply to on-site storage of being able to manage their LLW.by on June 19,1992. in a lawsuit brought low-level radioactive waste (LLW).

1993. Section 5(a) of the Act requires by the State or New York (a non-beyond January 1.1996. The the sited States of Nevada. Soutti compact State) and two ofits counties.

Commnsion has determined, under the Carolina, and WashinEton to male De constitutionality of the take-title authonty of the Atomic Energy Act of disposal capacity available to LLW provision, as applied to compact States, generators until December 31.1992, was not before the Supreme Court. Even 1954, as amended, that these changes subject to: The States and compacts though the take-title provision was held are appropnate because of potential meeting the other milestones of the Act, unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the health and safety concerns associated te the sites remaining operational, and LLRWPAA is the development of new with the increased rehance upon on-si storage of LLW.The proposed rule is received waste being within site-speci5c LLW disposal facilities by January 1 volume limitations.

intended to support the goals that have 1993, and in no case later than January been estsblished by the Low Isvel To help ensure that the States make 1.1996.

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments adequate progress toward developing Because no new LLW disposal Act of 1985 (Act) and is consistent with new LLW disposal facilities, the Act facilities were operational on January 1 the June 19.1992. United States established six milestones by which the 1993, and the compact commissions States should make decisions and that control the existing LLW disposal Supreme Court (Supreme Court) dwision. in New York v. United Stores. commit to certain actions. De majority sites either closed their site or set of the States met the requirements of the restrictions or conditions on receivits Comments are requested on this three milestone dates that had passed.

LLW from outside their regional proposed rule and on strategies and by January 1990.Only the Central, compacts effective January 1.1993.

options that the Commission might Central-Midwest, and Southwestern some licensees who generate LLW may pursue,in addition to this proposed rulemaking, that would encourage the Compact States met the January 1,1992, be forced to store their LLW on-site, milestone requirement, because their until disposal capacity is available, States and compacts to move forward host States. Nebraska. I!!inois, and unless other arrangements for storage or with development of LLW disposal Califomia, respectively, submitted a disposal can be made. Nearly all the facilities.

facility license application to their State Governors' Certifications submitted to DATES: Comment period expires on regulatory authorities before that date.

meet the 1990 milestone of the Act April 5.1993. Comments received after The State of Texas conformed to this indicated that the State planned on that date will be considered if it is milestone on March 2.1992.The interim storage by waste generators from practical to do so, but the Commission remaining milestones of the Act, as it 1993 through 1996. Ilowever, many is able to ensure consideration only for was enacted, are:

States do expect o have access to the comments received on or before this e January 1.1993-If a State or Bamwell LLW disposal facihty from

date, compact cannot provide for disposal of January 1.1993 through June 30.1994.

. -j y I,

Federal Regist:r / Vol. 58. No. 20 / Tuesday February 2.1993 / Proposed Rules -'8731

~

s Early in 1990, the Commission directed the NRC staff to provide the public bezlth cod sahty and the Commission with information on the environment is enhanced by disposal..

repackaged er otherwise procmssed, iuues conceming the waste title.

rather than by long term, indefinite again, as e result of waste form fa!!ure t

or to meet waste scaptance criteria for i

transfer end posa.ersion p'ovisions set storage oh.m.. Disposal of weste in a a new disposal facility, oncs one hmited number of facilities, bcensed forth in the Act, so that the Comtr.ission under the requirvments of 10 CFR Part becomes available. This additional mkht determine what role. if any, the 61 or compatible Agreement State handling by workers will also cause i

NHC shou d play with regard to inese regulations, will provide better increased exposures. ne site 4pecfic protection of the public health snd conditions at a new disposal facility prosisions. The Commission was also mterested in the adequacy ofits existmg safety and the environment than long-criterie and these criteria may not be may necessitate these new waste form regulatory framework for implementing term storage at hundreds or thousandsknown when LLWis placed into i

the title-transfer provision. On Septembar 12.1990, the NRC staff sent of sites around the country. Stored storage. Third. radiation surveys and the Commission ar. analysis of the waste packas;es ne.ed to maintain inspections of LLW in storage will result i

issues associated with the waste t2tle-sufficient integnty to prevent dispersal in potential additional doses to those -

transfer and possession provisions of of the weste during storage, transport.

involved in performing these activities.

the Act (SECY40.-318). Majori6 sues and handling,up to and including related to these provisions included emplacement for disposal. Because of For these reasons and to support the States taking possession of commercial the variability of certain storege Foals of the Act.the NRCis proposing this rulemaling, which makes atorage of LLW sher 1993 or 1996, and licensing environments, waste packages may LLW an option oflast resort.no of this possession by the NRC and suffer degradation over the extended Commission specifically invites Agreement States.

storage period. Amor:g the ways in comment on the above public health The Commission discussed the issues which a storage environment can cause and safety rationale as well as on the associated with th 3 waste tJtle-transfer waste pa kage d* gradation are comparative risk of potential releases as and possession provisions of the Act temperature fiuttuations (in heated a result of an event or accident at

{

and the recommendations presented in facihties in areas with cold winters) and numerous LLW storage sites around the SECY40-318,in a public meeting, on corrosive atmospheres (e g., industrial country. as opposed to the potential October 29.1990. In response to a and marine atmospheres as well as acid release from a limited number of request from the Low Level Radioactive deposition). Other waste package disposal sites designed to meet the Waste Forum the Commission decided concerns *during storage include siting and design requirements in 10 ta solicit public and State comments on extemal and intemal corrosion.

CTR part 61 or cxampatible Ag eement the NRC staffs recommendations radiolytic generstion of gases State regulations.

provided in SECY40-318 and on eight (predominantly hydrogen) and corrosive The proposed rule, as a,t was originally quertions addressing the title-transfer substances. radiation induced drafted and act to the Agreement States provision of the Act. The Commission embrittlement of polyethylene for comment, included a requirement rvguested that the NRC staff provide the containers. and biodegradation of I r the licensee to request th t the State Commission with an analysis of the institutional wastes. These processes take title to, and possession of the comments received in response to the may accelerate intemal corrosion and waste, pursuant to section 5(d)(2)(C) letter dated November 28.1990, from failure of common storage containers.

(the"takertitle"pmvision)of the Act.

Samuel J. Chilk. Secretary of the even if the waste is stabilized prior to before LLW could be stored on-site after Commission, to Mr. Jerry Criepentrog.

storege. Waste form degradation could January 1.1996. The text of the rule has i

result in 7ar disposal.if the degradation teen revised to delete the r ills or releases during Convenor. Low-level Radioective Waste handling im the generator to request the State to Forum and from the Feders! Register take title o.and not,re sohating pubhc comments; goes undetected. In addition, weste T he Commission solicited pubhc package deterioration prior to disposa!

E*"'#8'"{* #postession of, the I"

ccmmer.t on the NRC staffs will r*9uire repackaging of the LLW and Supreme Court deca."I'* of the rec sion m New York v.

reccmmendatic ns provided in SECY-CI'8tmP CIany spills. As a result

• 11mted Stores, the Commission will not W31e and the eight questions in the w riers will be potentially exposed t require this action as a prerequisite for federal R'8 ster notice published additional doses of radiatson. The NRC storing LLW cn-site after January 1 i

December 4.1990 (55 FR 50064). The contractor document. Extended Storage 1996.

commer.1 period expired on March 2.

of Low-level Radioactive Waste:

Coordination With NRC Agreemerit PmntialProblem Areas."NtJREG/CR-States i

r a.Ei a [onss nde 4062. provides a detailed discussion of The commenters raised many these concerns.5 The NRC Agreement States were i

snecified issues. Most can be grouped Steage also inv Ives a number of informed of the NRC*a intent to issue a inder the single, broad issue of NRC's activities that could increase radiatson proposed rule and were provided the role in implementing the Act. The eight doses to the public. First, storage of draft regulatory text by letter dated questions, a comment summary, an LLW will result 8n Potentialincreased February 7.1992. The letter explained analysis of those comments, and

• rker exposures, from unloading the that the Commission is taking this conclusions are rovided as appendix A waste frma stwage, for disposal ection in view of the potential health and safet concems associated with an I

to this proposed rule. In response, the Sec nd, waste forms may need to be increa relianca upon on-site storage Commission directed the NRC staff to develop a propcsed rulemaking that ecope of N11 REC documents may to purr.h.s.d and in light of the framework that has would establish a regulatory framework trom th sop rsnised.n or Docum.ois. Lt.s.

been established by the Act. This initial Governm nt Pnnung Osca P.O. Box 37082.

notification re!!erated the Commission's containing the procedures and criteria waamsim.oc2coisros2. cope m atse position that it will not look favorably applicable to on-site storege of LLW ada* l'

• • • • Naa3 la'*'**'""

a'ter January 1.1996.

s" emes, s a"s" Port Royal Road, sprms eld. YA on generator on-site storage of LLW.

n Although LLW can be safely stored, 2:152. A cory '8 aJao wada* tar insp.ctice mov after January 1.1996. Su lementary or appyms at do. NRC Putdsc Docum.ct Room.

information, whlCb Inclu a summary NRC believes that the protection of the 2120 L sowi wwatw.r imell, waetr.ron oc of the related provisions of the Act and i

1 i

6732 Federn! Repst:r / Vol. 58. No. 20 / Tuesday. February 2,1993 / Proposed Rules a d;scussion of the proposed revisions, to section 5(d)(2)(C) of the Act, because operating LLW disposal facilities for was forwarded to the Agreement States the Act gives licensees the option not to 11 Wit prohibits from on-site storsge.

e on February 14.1992. The Agreement request the State to take possession.

Response.no NRCla not pursuing a States were asked to provide comments Comment. One State has a different "no on-site storage" option. no NRC by Marnh 14.1992.

law regarding title: ** Title to any 11W recognizes that some generators will The Agreement States of Arizona.

shall at all times remain in the generator have to store 11W on site. He NRC Arkansas. California. Colorado. Illinois, of such waste * * *."The proposed seeks to minimize the amount of11W Kansas. Kentucky. Nevada. New York, rule conflicts with State law.

placed in storage.by requiring North Carolina. Oregon. South Carolina.

Response. The text of the rule, which Benerators to exhaust all other Texas, and Washington, and the had been provided to the Agreement reasonable waste management options.

Midwest Interstate low level States for mmment, has been revised to De guidance governing implementation Radioactive Wsste Commission delete the requirement for the generator of the emergency-accesa provision, of responded to the NRC staffs uest for to request the State to take title to, and the Act, contained in Information Notim ccmments. One State support the possession of, the generator's 11W. In 91-65. " Emergency Access to Low-Level proposed rulemaking, and three States view of the remot Supreme Court Radioactive Waste Dispoul Facilities."

opposed it.Two Stetas, ahhough not decision in New York versus United will remain in effect. The NRC does not opposing any provisions of the rule.

Stores, the Commission will not require anticipate any situation whem the stated that the rulemrimg should not this action as a prerequisite for storsng provisions of this rule,in addition to a proceed until the Supreme Court 11W on-site ther January 1.1996.

lack of access, would create a serious decides on the constitutionality of the Comment. What legal suthority does and immediate threat to the public Act and the title-transfer provision.

the Commission have to impose the health and safety or common defense Three States and the one commission prohibition of possession of 11W. by the and security.thereby requiring provided comments and questions State, at a Eenerator's facility?

emergency access.

without taking a position on the Comment. How can "the prohibition" Comment A more immediate proposed rulemaking. One State of State possession of11W. at the concem, directly related to the storage reserved comment and four States had generator's facility, be reconciled with of waste. is the authority of e Eenerator no comments.Fineen Agreement States the language of the Compact Act. which to ax.ept its processed waste aner this did not respond.

authorizes "* *

• manegement of waste waste has been sent off-site for Response to NRC Agreement State on the site where it is generated 4f such treatment.

Comments is otherwise lawful?"

Response.The NRC has amended its Response. it is not envisioned that a regulations governing the mndition of Comment.no revisions do not State would take pmwuton of11W at licenses for production and utilization appear to be based on protection of a generator's facility.

facilities to allow a reactor licensee to public health and safety or any Comment.It is inappropriate for NRC receive back byproduct and special technical arguments.

to require, as a condition for on-site nuclear material that is produced by Response. As previously discussed, storage, that limnsees exhaust the operating the reactor aner the material the potential risk to the public bealth contract opuon of section 5(e)(1)(F) of has been sent off-site for processing.

and safety, from on-site storage of LLW. the Act as a condition for on. site such as compaction or incineration. The is greater than for disposal, because storage.This section of the Ad applies final rule was published or. October 21 storege involves a number of conditions to States, not licensees.

1992 (57 FR 47978).no rule became and activities that could increase Response.The NRC agrees that effective on November 20.1992.

radiation doses to the public. Although section 5(e)(1)(F) of the Act app!Ies to Comment. Any rulemaking on this LLW can be safely stored, the NRC States but not licensees. ne text cf the issue must incorporate maximum believes that the protection of the public rule, which was provided to the flexibility, consistent with the health and safety and the environment Agreement States for comment, has been protection of the public health and will be enhanced by disposal.

revised to eliminate the reference to this safety and the environment.

Comment.There appears to be no section of the Act.

Response. Maximum flexibility has substantive rationale for prohibition of Comment. De rule is silent with been considered. The proposed on-site storate after January 1.1996.

regard to financial surety aspects of rulems, king does not preclude on-site Response. The proposed rule would extended storage, and " totally ignores" LLW storage, as long as other waste prohibit on-site storege aner January 1 the requirements that would be placed management ootions are exhausted.

ms, only if the Eenerator had not on States that take title to. and/or Comment. f&C's guidance would be exhaustod other waste management possession of.LLW after January 1 expected to be consistent and options. As discussed in response to the 1995.

compctible with NRC actions taken with previous comment, disposal is preferred Response. Financial assurance respect to indermite storage of high-over storage, to enhance the protection requirements for the affected licenses level radioactive waste (HLW).

of the public Dealth and safety and the are contained in to CFR 30.35,40.36.

Response. The LLW situation is environment. Derefore, generators 50.75. 70.25, and 72.30. Financial significantly different from that of HLW.

should exteust all disposal options assurance guidance for fuel cycle and Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of before stonng their 11W on-site.

materials licensees is provided in 1982, as amended, the Federal Comment.The proposed revisions Information Notice 90-09." Extended government is developing a facility for would improperly establish NRC as the Interim Storage of Low. Level disposal cf HLW. In the LLW program, enforcer of the "take-title" provisions.

Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle and it is the Commission's judgment that the contrary to the Act.

Materials Licensees."

NRC's reculations will encoursEe Comment. It is inappmpriate for NRC Comment.If NRCcontinues to pursue disposal Ly requiring generators to seek to require, es a condition for on-site the "no on-site storege" option past available disposal options. Furthermore.

storage, that licensees uest the State January 1.1996 as the NRC staff unlike HLW. commercial LLW disposal in which they are locat to take title to, proposes. it will be NRC's responsibility sites are currently operational, and and po r.ession of,the waste pursuant to provide for emergency access to development of new LLW disposal

t Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 58. No. 20 / Tuesday. Rbruary 2,1993 / Proposed Rules 8733 l

1 i

fr.cilities continues. with two nIw

72. As discussed in reponse to an earlier identical to that in NRCrules is not facihties schedule to be operational by comment, the text of the rule, which ne==ry, provided that the underlying January 1.1996. The risk to public had been provided to the Agreement principles are the same.The Agreement t

health and safety fmm hundreds or States for comment. has been revised to States may adopt more restriaive thousands of temporary storage facilities delete the requirement for the generator requirementa.

is greater than that from a limited to request the State to tale title to, and The Commission la currently i

number of well-controlled disposal sites possession of, the generator's Lt.W.

considering a re evaluation ofita in the country.

Comment. Will NRC licensees be compatibility policy and may decide to Comment. There should be a required or encouraged to ship all revise its general requirements regarding e

definition that desenbes when wastes before January 1.1993, that will mmpatibility for the Agreement States.

i radioactive material becomes waste.

reach fwe years in storage, between he Commission's compatibili Response.The term " waste"is January 1.1993, and January 1.19967 determination, on this

rule, t

defined in to CFR 61.2. Weste is Response. Guidance on storsge, which may be re-examined in tofany considered to be any material or is optional. in Generic Letters 81-38 and change to the general pobey.

I component for which the licensee 85-14. and Information Notices 89-13 foresees no further use. De NRC and 90-09, includes consideration of E8C"**IO" N"_C-,

I'**

continues to believe that the licensee is keeping storage to limited periods of The proposed rule would establish in the best position to determine the time (i.e.. five years or less) and procedures and cpterit, foi on-site continued utility, of radioactively emphasizes shipment of LLW for final storage of LLW. that would apply to all contaminated material and components, disposal. It is the NRC's policy that categories of LLW generators. On-site i

to its operstions. The NRC will continue licensees should continue to ship LLW.

strc age of LLW would not be permitted i

to rely on the licensee to determine for disposal, to the maximum extent after lanuary 1.1996 (other than wben material and components become practicable. Although the NRC has not reasonsble short-term storage necessary waste and will periodically review the set specific dates or deadlines for LLW for decay, or for collection or licensee's conclusions. to determine if shipments. Generic Letter 81-38 states consolidation for shipment off-site.!n they are reasonable and appropriate, that a part 30 license should be obtained the case where the licensee has accesa Comment. Does any provision of the if the time in storage exceeds five years. to an operating EW die facility).

Act prohibit a State from exercising its unleu m nace u n cument that h powers of eminent domain, and thereby Issue of Cornpatibility With Agreement S**

has exhausted other reasonable waste moving to condemn existing licensee management options. The NRC's facilities, to establish a EW Opinion varied among the 14 proposed regulations would require that management program for generators at Agreement States that responded, on the the licensee attempt to contract, either the site.

issue of compatibility. Two States directly or throu6 the State, for the h

Response. Although the NRC knows commented that this rulemaking should disposal ofits waste. In additjon, reactor of no sucn provision, any exercise of a not be a matter of compatibility; one licensees would have to document that State's power of eminent domain would State recommended Division 1 on-site atorage activities would be have to comply with applicable law.

(reguladon must be adopted verbatimh consistent with, and not mmpromise.

Comment. There should be a two States recommended Division 2 the safe operation of the licensee's i

maximum time limit for "short-term.-

(language identical to that in NRC rules ecdvities, and would not decrease the that would apply equally to all forms, is not necessary, rovided that the level of safety provided by appliomble including decay-in-storage. This underlymg pnn les are the sameh one regulatory requirementa. In view of the mmmenter recommends a maximum State recommend Division 3 (States recent Supreme Court decision in New storage time of one year. This are encouraged to adopt the regulatory York versus United States,the commenter also states that this will approach taken by the NRC but are not Commission will not require the i

allow sufScient time for isotopes with required to do soh and eight States did generator to request that the State take short half. lives to decay sufficiently for not comment on compatibility.

title to, and possession cf. the waste, as disposalin a sanitary landfall.

The NRC considers the proposed a prerequisite for storing LLW on-site Fesponse. Generally, for non medical implementation of there amendments to after January 1.1996. Even though the LLW.radioacuve material with a half.

its licensing conditions to be directly take-title provision was held life ofless than 65 days can be held in related to the basic regulatory function unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the storaEe before disposal as non-DI rotecting the public health and LLRWPAA is the development of new P

radioactive material. If a!! owed by the safety and the envirt.nment. Unless the LLW disposal facilities by January 1 iicense. LLW disposed ofin this mr.nner proposed rule is made a matter of 1993. and in no case later than January must be held for decay a minimum of compatibility, the waste management 1.1996. To support the goals of the 10 half. lives. Decay in storage for practices in both Ag eement States and 11RWPAA and its legislated preference medical waste is govemed by to CFR non-Agreement States could be for disposal over storage of LLW.the 35.92. Re proposed rule would not inconsistent, and the Commission's goal NRC has concluded that action is affect this practica.

to encourage disposal would be necessary to require licensees to exhaust Comment.To whom does the revision frustrated. Derefore, the amendments other reasonable management options apply 7 As the State is required by the contained in this proposed rule would before on-site storage of LLW will be Amended Act to take possession. is the be a matter of compatibility for NRC permitted after January 1.1996.

proposed language intended to cover Agreement States.The additional no exempdon for collection or that time interval between the licensee license conditions for LLW on-site consolidation for shipment off-site is requesting the State to take possession storage, after January 1.1996. in 10 CFR limited to those licensees that have and the State actually taking 30.34,40.41, and 70.32, are considered access to an operating LLW disposal i

possession?

to be Division 2 categories of facility. Without this limitation.

Response.%e proposed rule would compatibility. Although Agreement limnsees not having amess to a disposal apply to all LLW generators licensed States must adopt Division 2 rules in facility could avoid or delay the actions under 10 CFR parts 30. 40,50,70, and their regulations, the use oflanguage required by the proposed rule,by

6734 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 20 / Tuesday. Febury 2.1993 / Proposed Rtdes "co lecting or consolidating far management options would consist of require.nents applicable to on-site l

sh;pment off site." when disposal copies of all cor*espondence to LLW storage.

incihty access becomes avai!sbl,e.

disposal facility operators and responses The Commission continues to hold i

The proposed rule would maae these to these requests. This documentation the position that it will not look recutrements standard license shall be retained for at least three years.

favorably on generator on-site storage of conditions for every license issue'd for The NRC will verify compliance, by LLW after January 1.1996. It considers reactor, materia!s, fuel cycle, and reviewing this documentation. during the on-site storage of11W to be a last-irdependent spent fuel stori3*

periodic mspections, and at other times. resort measure. The Comrnission's I;censees. The rt.lemslang would amend as rney be necessary, to determine preference is that 11W be permanently to CFR 30.34. 40.41. 50.54. 70.32, and whether additional inspections or other ansposed of as soen after it is generated 72 44. These sections of the regulations regulatory attention is required. Absent as ossible~

sdentify standard conditions for reactor

• a willful act, any non-repetitive This prcposed rule would materials. fuel cycle, and independent violation of these requirements would supplement, but not su rsede. the spent fuel stcrage licenses. The hcanwe normally be considered a Severity Imvel emung mgulatam an N dance weeld not be r-. quired to make e formal IV viohtion under the Commission's r

submittal to tne NRC. to show applicable to storage of LLW.The Er.forcement Policy, contained in cadham in themsehes wald, net compt ance with tbyse conditions. The Appendix C to 10 CFR part 2.

euthorize on-site storage.The ensting pruowed rJe would require that all relevant dcomentation of the steps On-site storeEe of LLW resulting from regulatory and licensing framework will tot en to satidy the rvquirements of this reactor operations can be undertaken continue to be applicable.The following rt.!vmaking be maintained by the pursuant to the existing authorities and seven documents. in conjunction with heensee, an'J be made avsilable to the procedures, such as 10 CFR 5039, and the regulations in 10 CR parts 20,30 NRC. for inspection.

all relevant licensing and regulatory 40,50,70, and 72, provide this To show corr pliance with this rtquirements applicable to on-site f amework for LLW storage. However, proposed rule, the NRC would e rpect storage. Material, fuel cycle, and note that the generic letters and ti.e iicensee to make an annual request independent spent fuel storage licensees information notices are infortnational iar access to each operating commercial may store LLW on-site if storage:(11Is and not binding.These documents are LLW disposal facihty, for disposal of the authorized under the existing license available, for inspection and copying.

ficensee's LLW. Adequate conditions: and (2) is consistent with for a fee, et the NRC Puble Document ciocumentation of the licensee's efforts

. existing authorities and procedures, and Room. 2120 L Street.NW. (Lower to exhaust other reasonable waste all relevant lianaing and regulatory Imvel). Washington, DC.

APPUCABLE IXENSING-FRAuEwoRK DOCtNENTS FOR ON-S!TE LLW STORAGE Tpe tesmrer Time Genenc taner e1-38 _

awasnm Storege of thsey LxanseeGenerated Lov4evel R=** e.e Weene at Reactor Saee".

Genanc Loner a5-14

" Comme <oal Soorspe et Power Reecor Snes of Loudsvol RectoscsNe Wnene feat Generated t y eie LMef.

trdormahan teoece e9-13._.-

"AnemetNo waste Manageme a Procoarse m Case of Deneel of Acomes to Lov4evel wame DeponeJ Snes*.

Worewoon meance IKhoe

• Emierced Wenm Storage of 1.oudeved Re&sec2Ne Wesse by Fuel Cytse end lastense LJoaneses".

Re9macy Guos 1 143

" Des.gn Gadance ear R=***ve Waste Menegemart Sysimet. Structwas and Cornponorus metahed m Llgre-

[

water-Coo ed Nemer Power Pteres".

S.anciard Review Plan Sec.114 "SoGd Waste SAaropemers Sysnems*

3 (vsAE G-oE00).

rspection e c Erdo cormet 8o-18

• 10 CFR So *9 Evauanons for Changee as Pa*wvve Wasie Management Srsaarm*.

Cwer.

Finding of No SigniScant production and utilization facilities.

leve!). Washington.'DC. telephone (202)

EnvironmentalImpact: Availabiliry special nuclear material, and 634-3273.

The Commission has determined.

independent spent fue! storage. The Paperwork Reduction Act Statement under the National Environmental proposed rule would encourage disposal Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the as opposed to storage, and this should his proposed rule amends Commission regulations in subpart A of have beneScial environmental effects.

Information collection requirements that i

10 CR part 51, that this rule, if The proposed rule would not result in are subject to the Paperwork Reduction adopted, would not be a major Federal any increase in radiation exposure from Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seg ).

action significantly affecting the quality transportation of LLW. compared to that This rulemaking has been submitted to of the human environment and, expected from the ultimate disposal of the Office of Manegement and Budget therefore, an environmental impact LLW envisioned by the Act. Any for review and approval of the statement is not required.This proposed environmental impact of operating an paperwork requirements.

rulemaking would supplement,but not on-site LLW storage facility willbe The public reportmg burden for this supersede, the existing regulatory addressed, as required, as part of the collection ofinformation is estimated to framework applicable to the storage of licensing action for that facility, under sve 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per tesponse, LLW.The additional conditions of this previously established regulatory inclu

• g the time for reviewing rulemaking, in themselves, would not requirements. The environmental instructions. searching existing data authorize on-site storege.nese assessment and finding of no significant sources, gathering and maintaining the amendments would add administrative impact, on which this determination is data needed, and completing and and verification requirements to exis:ing based. may be examined and copied, for reviewing the collection ofinformation.

regulations governing the li&nsing of a fee, at the NRC Public Document Send comments regarding this burden byproduct material, source material.

Room. 2120 L Street.NW (Lower estimate or any other aspect of this 4

1 Inse-j g

T'ed; rid Register / Vol. 58. No. 20 /. Tuesday, Rbruary 2.1993 / Proposed Rules 6735 collection ofinformation. including Bccifit Armly:Is requirem:nts. Security measures. Spent smesdas { r reducing this burden.to The proposed rule does not constitute fuel, the informanon and Records

....

• the modification of or addition For the reasons set out in the ManeEement Branch (MNBB-714). U.S-Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

to systems. structures, components, or Preamble and under the authority of the Washington. DC 20555: and to the Desk design of a facility; or the design Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended.

Officer. Office of Information and epproval or manufacturing license for a the EnerEy Rewgenizatan Act of 1974 faciht3 : or the pro dures or as amended, and 5 U.S C. 553. the NRC Regulatory A!! airs.NEOB-3109 (3150-organiz.ation required to design 18 Proposing to adopt the followmg 0017.3150-0020,3150 0011.3150-amendments to 10 CFR parts 30,40.50 construct or operate a facahty.

0009. and 315G4132). OfSce of Therefore, the proposed acuon is not e 70 and 72.

ManeFement and Budget. Washington, backfit as deEced in to CFR 50.109.

The proposed rule primanly addresses P ART 30-RULES OF CENERAL DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis the cH-site disposal oflow-Isvel APPUCABluTY TO DouESTIC UCENSING OF BYPRODUCT radioactive waste, generated as a result MATERIAL The Commission has prepared a disft of reactw opersumme existing regulatory analysis on these proposed regulatory framework, applicable to

1. The authority citat,on for part 30 is amendments. The analysis examines the assuring the safety of on-site storage of revised to read as follows:

costs and benefits of the attematives I w-level radioactive waste generated Antherity: Secs. e1. 82, u t. t 82.163.166 censidered by the Commission. The by reactor opersuons, remams 68 Stat. 935. G48,953. 954. 955, as amended.

draft analysis mey be examined and unchanged. The NRC is seeking public ecc. 234,83 Stat. 444. as amended (42 U.sn copied, for a fee, at the NRC Public c mment on the backfit analysis.

2111.2112.2201.2232.2233.2236.2282):

Dacument Room. 2120 L Street NW.

Comments should be sent to the e*cs. 201, as amended. 202. 20s. se Stat.

flower Level). % ashington. DC.

Secretary of the Commiss;on U.S.

1242. as amended.1244:1246 (42 U.Sc te;ephone (202) 634-3273.

Nude %latory Commission.

5641,5542.5846).

Washington. DC 20555. Attn: Dock etmg Section 30.7 sho inued under Puh. L 95-The Commission requests public e.nd Service Branch.

601, sec. ta. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S C 5851).

comment on the draft regulatory Section scL34[b] also issued under sec.164, analysis. Comments on the draft List of Subject Terms 68 Stat. 954. as amended (42 U.Sc 2234).

Section 30.34[i) also iuued under Pub. L 99-enalysis rnay be subtnitted ta the NRC.

20 CFR Porf 30 as indicated under the " ADDRESSES" 240. sec.102,99 Stat.1642 (42 U.Sc 20211.

Byproduct material. Criminal penalty. Section 30.81 also issued ender sec.187. 68 heading.

Qvemment contracts.

Stat. 955 (42 U.Sc 22371 F

Regulatory Flexibility Certi5 cation InterEovemmental relations. Isotopes, M.S

, am 73 3

3 o.

Nuclear matenals. Radiation protection.

As required by the Regulatory Reporting and recordkeepina (c). and 30.53 are issued under sec.161b. 68 30.34 (b). (cl. (f), (g). [i) and (j). 30 41 (a) and Flexibility Act of1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). requirements.

StaJ4a.as amended (42 U.Sn 2201(b)h the Commission certifies that this rule.

if promulgated, will nof have a 20 CFR Parf 40 5 30.1o is issued under sec.1sti. 6e Stat 049 as amended (42 U.Sc 2201(21); and 5 5 30.6 significant economic impact on a Criminal penalty. Governtnant 30.9. 30.34 (g) and (il. 30.36. 30 50. 30.51 substantial number of small entities, contracts. Hazardcus rnatorials--

30.52,30.55 and 30.56 (b) and (c) are issued The proposed rule affects approximately transportation. Nuclear materials, under sec. te ;o. 6s Stat. 950, as amended (42 6200 NRC licenses under 10 CFR parts Reporting and recordkeeping U.S C 2201(o)).

30,40,50,70, and 72. Of this total, requirements. Sourte metena1.

2. In 5 30.34, paragrsph (j)is added to approximately 2000 are small entities.

Uranium.

read as follows:

The proposed rule will require licensees 20CHIParf 50 g 30.34 Terms and conditions of scenees.

planning to store LLW beyond January

)

1,1996 (txtept for other than reasonable Antitrust. Classified informat.on.

short. term storage necessary for decay Criminal penalty. Fire prevention.

(j) The following conditions are or for collection or consclidation for Inc rpwatim by reference, contained in every license issued under shipment off-site m. the case whers the Interg vernmental relabons. Nuclear the regulations in this part.

bcensee has access to an operating LLW p r plants end reactors. Radiation (1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW)

,t disposal facility) to document that other protection. Reactor siting criteria, may be stored on-site, provided it is reasunab.e waste management options Reporting and recordkeeping authorized under existmg conditions of have been exhausted. The required requirements, the license, and storage is consistent l

with existing authorities and documentation and maintenance of 20 CFR Part 70 procedures, and all relevant limnsing these records will require minimal Crin inal penalty. Hazardous and regulatory requirements applicable admmistrative resources. Licensees will materials-transportation. Material to on-site stor:Ee. LLW mey not be need to prepare and mailletters to control and accounting. Nuclear stored on-site by the Eenerator beyond appropriate LLW management materials. Packaging and containers.

January 1.1996, except as speci5ed in authonties, retain all relevant Radiation protection. Reporting and parsgnph (j)(2) of this section.

3 documentation, and ruske these records recordkeeping requirements. Scientific (2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond atailable for NRCinspection. The equiprnent. Secunty ineasures. Special January 1.1996 (other than reasonable annual recordkeeping burden imposed nuclear material.

short-terrn storeEe necessary for decay by the proposed rule is estimated to be or for collection or consolidation for 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> for the averere licensee. The 20 CFR Part 72 shipment off-site. in the case where the

{

NRC does not 1+1ieve that this burden Manpower training programs. Nuc! car licensee has access to an operating LLW will have a significant economic impact materials. Occupational safety and disposal facility), the licensee shall on small entities.

bealth, Reporting and recordkeeping document that it has exhousted other

e r

a.

6736' Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 201 Tuesday. February 2.1993 / Proposed Rules

-i reasonable waste management options this part appearin $$ 40.25,40.26, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.SC 4332). Sectione 50.34 -

I which would include taking all 40.31,40.35,40.36. 40.4L 40.42. 40.43, and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, as Stas.

I reasonable steps to contract, either 40.4 4. 40.60. 40.61. 40.64. 40.65, and 1245 (42 U.SC 5644). Section 50.54(f!) also l

directly or through the State, for Appendix A.

isrued under Pub. L 99-240. sac 102. 99 l

dis I of EW.

Stat.1842 (42 U.Sc 2021). Sections 50.5s.

() he licensee shall retain all S. In $ 40.41, paragraph (b)is added

~

tat 20 3 (

~

rekvant documentation regarding the to read as follows:

15

.S C 2 )

actions taken pursuant to paragraph Section 50Js also issued under nec.122. se (1)(2) of this section, for at least three i 40.41 Terms and condes6 ens of Blooneen.

Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C 2152). Sectione 50.a0-50 at also issued under est 164. 68 Stat. 954.

years, and shall make the ma amended (42 U.SC 2234) Section 50.103 i

documentation available for NRC (h)The following conditions are also issued under sec.10s. 6s Stat. e39. ne inspection, contained in every license issued under amended (42 U.SC 2138). Appendia F also the ulations in this part, issued under sec.187. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.SC PART 40-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF (1) w-level radioactive waste (Lt.W) 2237).

SOURCE MATERIAL may be stored on-site., provided it is For the purposes of sec 223,6a Stat. 958

(

3.The authority citation for part 40 is authorized under existing conditions of as amendod (42 U.SC 2273). 66 50.5. 50.46 revised to read as follows:

the license, and storage is consistent (a) and (b). and 50.54 (c) and (ff) are leaued with existin under we.161b. 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 pmcedures,g authorities and

- U.S C 2201(b)h 66 50.5. 50.7(a). 50.10(aHc).

A uthority: Secs.62.63,64,65.a1.161 and all relevant lioonalng 50.34 (a) and (e) 50 44[aHc). 50.46 (a) and 182.183.156. 68 Stat. 932. 933. 935. 94 8 953. 954. 955. as amended. secs.11e(2). 63, end rogulatory tequirements applicable ib) 50.47(b) 50.44 (a).(c),(d).and (et

-(

84. Pub L 95-604,92 Stat. 3033, as to on-site storage. LLW may Dot he 50 49(a). 50.54(a)(i). fi)(1),(IHn). (pl. (ql (t).

8 amended. 3039. sec. 234. 83 Stat. 444. as stored on-site by the generator beyond (v), and (y). 50.55(0. 50.55a la). (cHe). (a).

{

amended (42 U.S C 2014fejl2). 2092,2093, January 1.1996. excepi as specifled in and th) 50.59(c). 50.60!a). 50 62(b). 50.64(b)

]

2094.2095.2111.2113,2114,2201,2232 paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

50.65. and 50.80 (a) and (b) are issued under" -

]

2233. 2236. 2282). sec. 274. Pub. L 66-373.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond sec.1611. 6a Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.SC v

l 73 Stat. 688 (42 U S C. 2021h secs. 201. as Jandary 1.1996 (other than reasonable 2201[ilh and 65 50.49 (d). (h). and (ih 50.54

. I a;nended. 202,206. 68 Stat.1242. u short-term storage necessary for decay (w). (t). (bb) lec). (dd), and !!!). 50.55(e)..

amended.1244.1246 (42 U.S C 5841.5842, or for collection or consolidation for 50 59(bh 50.61[b). 50.62(b). 5010(a). 50.71 E

(aHc) and (a). 50.72(a) 50.73 (a) and (b).

5846L sec. 275. 92 Stat. 3021 as amended by shipment off-site,in the case where the 50.74. 5038, and 50.90 are issued under sec l

Pub. L 97-415. 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.SC 2c22L licensee has access to an opereting Lt.W 161o. ss Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.SC.

disposal facility) the licensee shall 2201(o)L Section 40 7 alm issued under Pub. L 95-document that it has exhausted other

7. In S SO.54 para 601. sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC 5851).

to road as follows graph (fflis added Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec122 reasonable waste management options which would include taking all

'~

0 a so sru nde 99-240 teasonable steps to contract. either.

$ 50.54 Constions onloonses.

sec.102,99 Stat.1842 (42 U.SC 2021).

directly or through the State,for f

Section 40 46 also issued under sec.184,68 disposal of LLW.

(ff) (1) On-site storage oflow-level i

Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.SC 2234).

(3) The licensee shall retain all radioactive weste (LLW) may be -

Section 4031 also issued under sec.187. 68 relevant documentation regarding the undertaken pursuant to existing Stat. 955 (42 U.SC 2237).

actions taken pursuant to paragraph authorities and procedures (such as 10 For the purposes of set 223. 68 Stat. 958 (h)(2) of this section, for at least three CFR S0.59) and all relevant licensing -

3 as amended (42 U.SC 2273t M 401 years, and shall make the and regulatory requirements applicable 40.25(dift) (3). 40.35 (a Hd) and IG. 40 41 (b). documentation available for NRC to on-site atorage. LLW may not be (c),and th) 40.46 40.51.(a)anc fol and inspection.

stored on-site by the generator beyond 9

p p)(

ofthis si su nde i

Sa PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF amended (42 U.S.C. 220tli)h and il 40 5 PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION or on-site storage of LLW beyont!

40 9. 40.25 (c). (d)(3). and (4). 40.26(c)f 21.

FACit.! TIES January 1.1996 (other than reasonable 40.35(e). 40 411ts). 40.4 2. 40 61. 40 62. 40.64 and 40 65 are issued under sec 1610,68 Stat.

6. The authority citation for part 50 is short-term storage neces for decay 950. as amended (42 U.SC 2201(o)).

revised to read as gollows,.

or for collection or consoli atton for r

shipment off-site.in the case where the i

4. In 5 40.8. paragraphs (a) and (b) are Authority:Sace.102.103.104.105.161, licensee has access to an operating Lt.W

* ' ******* ' 8'**~ '36* '** 838-revised as follows-94 8.' 95J.' 954. 955,' '956,as amendod', sec.

disposal facility), the licensee shall l

d 6

e1icen 5 40.8 information collection 2

' ' (*

has exhausted other -

equirementa: OMB approval 2 13 134 2 2201 2232 2 (a) The Nuclear Regulatoev 2236. 2239. 2282); secs. 201, as amended.

reasonable waste management options 202. 206. 88 Stat.1242, as amended.1244.

which would include taking all Commission has submitted the 1246. (42 U.SC 5841. 5842. 5846).

reasonable steps to contract, either -

information collection requirements Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-directly or through the State, for the contained in this part to the Office of 601. sec 10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC 58511 dis osalofLLW:and Management and Budget (OMB) for Section 50.10 also issued under sea.101

( i) On-site storage activities will be approval as required by the Paperwork 185. 68 Stat. 936. 955 as amended (42 U.SC consistent with, and not compromise.

Reduction Act of1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 2 j$h a 2 sg 9

1 j Stat. safe operation of the licensee's

{

et seg 1. OMB has approved the ns 50.54(dd) also issued under sec 108,6s Stat. activities, nor decrease the level of anformation collection eeguirements 939, as amended (42 U.SC 2138). Sections safety provided by applicable regulatory j

s contained in this part under control 50 23. 50.35. 50.55, and 50.56 also issued requirements.

i number 315D-0020.

under sec 185,68 Stat. 955 (42 U.SC 2235). - (3)The licensee shall retaa,n all (b) The approved information Sections 50.33a.50.55s.and Appendix Q relevant documentation regarding the collection requirements contained in also issued under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190 actions taken pursuant to paragraphs i

eh

'd a

l e 2eoeral Register / Vol. 58. No. 20 / Tuesday. Fdnary 2, wg3 / Nc=d 5 tules a

y

^

6737 (ff)(2)(i) cnd (ii)cf this sectirn forc.t least three years, and shall mab tb (2) For on-sits storage of EW beyond 72aeO. 72166. 72368. 72.170. 72a 72 I

documentation arailable for NRC J:nuary 1.1996 (other than reasonable 72.176. 72.160. 723 64.72.186am issued insEection.

shott-term storage necessary for decay under ecc.161b. 68 Stat. 948 ea amended (42 or for collecdon or consolidadon for Us C 2201(b]h H 7240(a).(e) 72.12. 72.22 FART 70-OOMESTIC UCENS8NG OF shipment off-site. in the case where the 72.24. 72.26. 72.28. 72.30. 72.32. 72.44(a)*

(bX1 SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATE. RIAL licensee has access to an operating RW 72.55) e()4) 15). (c). IdK1).

.M,-

disposal facility), the licensee shall 72.52(b). 72 90

"(

72 2*

8. The authority citaden for part 70 is document that it has exhausted other 72.94. 72.98. 72.100. 72.102(c). (d). (f).

revised to read as follows:

reasonable waste management options 72aw. 72aO6. 72.120. 72.122. 72.124 l

A uthority:Se~s. 51. 53,161.182,183. 68 mhich would includa tding all 72.126. 72.128. 72.130, 72.16afbl. ic). 72.142 724 44. 72.146, 72a 48. 72.150. 72 a 52.

Stat. 929. 930. 948. WN 954, as amanded, reasonable steps to contract either 72.154,72.156.72.158.72.160.72.162 sec 234. 83 Stat. 444, as mended (42 U.S C d rect)f or through the State, for 72a 64. 72a 66,72468. 72a70. 72T72.

2071. 2073. 2201,2232,2233,2282); secs.

disposal of LLW.

72 t re. 72.180. 72.182. 72154,72.186 201, as unended. 202. 204. 206,68 Stat.

(3) The lamasee sh,all stain all 72a 90. 72.192. 72a E4 an issued under sec. 1242. as amended. 1244.1245.1248(42 1

U S C $641. 5642,5645. 5646).

relevant documentation regardmg the 1611,68 Stat 949 as amended (42 U.SC actions talen pursuant to pengraph 220M and H 716 7L11. 72.18. 72.22.

Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20 afb) also issued (1)(2) of this section for at les.st three 7244. 7126. 72.28. 72.30. 72.32,72M(bX1).

under sea. 135.141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. yeart, and shall make the (c)(5). (d)(3) (e). (fl. (h). 72 48fb),(ct 2232. 2241 (42 U.SC 10155.101E1). Section 70.7 alsoissued under Pub. L 95401, sec.

documentation available for NRC 72.50ib). 72.54(st (bh (c). 72.56. 7210. 72.72.

10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC 5851). Section inspec2 ion.

72.74(a), (b). 72.76fa). 72.76(a). 72.80. 72.82 72.92lbl. 72.94(b). 72.160'bl. (c). (dL 70 21(g) also iuued under sec.122,68 Stat.

939 [42 U SC 2152). Section 70.31 also FART 72-UCENSING 3 44(a). 72.146. 72a a8. 72.150. 72.152, l

L154(a). (bl. 72456. 72360. 72362. 7216s.

issued under sec. 57d. Pub. L 93-377. 88 REQUIREVENTS FOR INDEPENDENT tiro. 72.172. 72.174. 72.176. 723 60.

Stat. 4 75 (42 U.S C 2077). Section 70.32(1) STORACE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

m. 72a 66. 72.192. 72.212N. 72.216 aho issued under Pub. L 99-240, sec.102, AND HICH-LEVEL RADICACTIVE

.218,72.230. 72.234(s) and (s) are tamed 99 Stat.1842 (42 U.SC 2021). Sections 70.36 WASTE t

der sec.161o. 68 Stat. 950, as amcoded (42 and 70.44 also issued under sec.164. 68 Stat U LC 2201(c)).

954, as amended (42 U.S C 2234).Section

10. He authority citation for part 72 70 61 also isrued under sas.186.187. 68 is revised to read as follows:

1. In 5 72.64 pcregraph (h)is added Stat. 955 (42 U.SC 2236. 2237). Section to ud as follows A uthorsey: Secs. St.53.57,62.63.65. G.

70.62 also larued under sec.108. 68 Stat. 939, as smended (42 U.SC 2138).

81.161.182,1&3.164,166.187.189. 68 Stat.

$1 M Ucens.e co@ons.

For the purposes of sec 223. 68 Stat. 958 s29. 930. 932. 933 s34. 935. 94a,953. 954 as amended (42 U.SC 2273); 65 70.3. 70.10.

955. as amended, sec. 234. 83 Stat. 444, as 7019:c). 70 21(c). 70.22(a), (b). (dHkk amended (42 U.Sc 2071. 2073. 2077. 2092 b) D.e followinIcondidons are 70 24(al and (b). 70.32la K3), (5) and (6), (dL 2093.2095.2099.2111.2201.2232.2233 O

n in W cem MM der th wgulations in th{as pam 2234. 2236. 2237,2238. 2282h sec. 274

)

0), and (1). 70.36,70.39(b) and (c). 70 41(a).

Public law 66-373. 73 Stat 6&8. as amended 1

70.5 &la)-(g)(3), and [hk-(j) are Isrued under (42 U.SC 2021h sec. 201, as amended,202, (1, ' ~ 'evel radioactive waste (RW) 70 42fa) and (c). 70.56. 70.57(h). (c). and (d).

sec.161b. 68 Stat. 948 as amended (42 U.SC 206. 88 Stat.1242, as amended.1244.1246 may be stared on-alte. provided it is 2201(blL $ $ 70.7,7040,70.20a(s) and (d).

(42 USC 5641. 5642. 5646L Public Lew 95-euthorized under existing conditions of 70.20t(c) and (et 70.21(c). 70.24(bt 601, sec.10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC 5851h the license, and storage is r-Went with exfstin 70.32f a1(bL (c). (dL (e), and (gk 70.36 sec 102. Pubbe law 91-190. 83 Stat. 653 (42 Procedures,g authorities and 70 51IcHgh 70.56. 70.57(b) and (dt and U.SC 4332); onca.131.132.133,135.137 and all relevant licensin8 141. Public law 97-425. 96 Stat. 2229,2230 and regulatory requirements applicable 70 58f aHg1(3) and (hHj) are issued under sec.1611. 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S C 2232. 2241, sec.148 Public Law 100-203, to on-site storage. RW may not be 2201(0); and 56 70 5. 70 9. 70.20Md) and (el 1C1 Stat.1330-235142 U.SC 10151.10152.

stored on-site by the generator beyond 70.32(!). 70 38, 70 50. 70 51(b) and (i). 70.52 10153.10155.10157.10161.10168).

70 53. 70 54,70 55. 70.56;g){41. (1) and (1).

Section 72.44(g) also isrued under sacs.

january 1.1996, except as speofed in 70 59. and 70 6Dfb) and (c) are isrued under 142lb) and 148 (cl. (d). Public Law 10%203 paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

et 161o. 68 Stat 950.as armendsd (42 U.SC 101 Stat.1330-232.1330-236 (42 U.SC (2) For on-sitw atorage of RW beyond 7201(on 10162(b).10164ct (d)). Section 72.44(b) als January 1,1996 (other than reesonable issued under Pubbc law 99-240. sec.1~,. 99 abort. term storepe neces'*U.or decay f

9. In $ 70.32. paragraph (1) is added to [c' 42 USC 2021)[68 S t 955j2 1 64 Sect or for col}ection'or CrtnSolidat20n for "8 d

U*C

,9 Shi ment off. site,in the case where the P

U.S C 2239); sec.134, Public law 97-425.96 licensee has acmss to a.n operating RW 57032 Condit;ona of rm Stat. 2230 (42 USC 10154). Section 72 94d] disposal facility), the licensee shall also issued under sec 1451). Public iaw t!) The following conditions are 100-203.101 Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S C document that it has exhausted other centained in every license issued under 10165(g)). Subpart I also issued under oca.

reasonable waste management options the terulations in this part:

2:2). 2(15). 2(19).117(a).141(t) Pubhc Law which would include taking all (1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW)97-425. 96 Stat. 2202. 2203. 2204. 2222. 2244 reasonable steps to contract. either 142 U.SC 10101.10137(a).101H[b]).

directly or through the State,ior may be stored on-aste, provided it is Subparts K and L are also issued under sec.

disposal of the RW.

authorized under existing conditions of $ 33. 58 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S C 10153) and sec (3)The licenses shall reain all the license, and storage is consistent 21afat 96 Stat. 2252 (42 USC 10198L relevant documentation rPEarding the with existing authorities and P r the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958.

procedures, and a!! relevant limnsing as amended (42 U.SC 2273L il 72.6. 72.12 actions taken pursuant to paragrrph and regulatory requirements applicable 72.22. 72.24. 72.26, 72.24d) 7230, 72.32

[h)t2) of this section, for at least three 7

I years. and shall make the to on-site storaEe. RW may r>ot be

$.'7hfskf.*7 72 52 27

'l ; documentation available for NRC stored on-site by the Eenerator beyond

)

January 1.1996, except as specified in 72.74 tat (bt 72.7s 72.78. 72.104. 72.106,

• N "-

paragraph (f)(2) of this section.

72.120.72522.724 24,72.126.72328, Deted at Rock vine. Maryland, this 26th dev 72a 30. 72.140M. (c). 72a,4 t. 72454, 72a 56 of January.1993.

e 6738 Fedtral Register / Vol. 58. No_ 20 / Tursday February 2.1993 / Proposed Ruhs For the Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn that misce!!aneous factors. such n the efforts NPC taka and what would these Samuel J. Qalk.

of individual generators in cooperating with acomplish?" De options range from taking Secretary of the Commission.

the Staies. the time needed to "do the Job no new actions, to encouraging disposal as nghr'. and tune for develo we have in the past, to formally considenng Appendix A-Summary and Analysis waste disposal technology,pment of new be considered in disposal plans and progress in the licanting of Comments in R.esponse to the Federal any Comrmssion storage authonsationa.

of stcrage facilities (See responses to Register Notice of December 4,1990 (55 The only significant trend in the comments Question 7 for a discussion of these FR 50064) was that individue.ls and public interest additaonal assurances for disposall.

groups tended to favor on-site atorage beyond Other factors for sto age licensing Summary. Analysis, and Conclusions of 1996. Many of these commenters also beheve suggested by commentere go beyond the Responses to Le.ht Ouestions Conwning the that waste generation activities abould be emnaiderations that normally apply to Low-Isvol Radroactm Waste Policy stopped until disposal capecify is available.

licar. sing. Included in these are forecasting Amendments Act of19ES Their favoring of on-site storage at a the availability and benefits of new generator's facihty was an outs owth of the technology for waste disposal and

'"'*d"CI **

bel;rf tt.at States should not be respensible consideration of generators cooperating with During a pubhc meeting of the Commission for LLW management. States, compacts.

States in developing disposal capacity.

on October 29.1990, the Commission ut:hties. and other geterators showed no With respect to the suggestion that the cecided to schcit the views of too public on clear pmference for any NRC role.

Commission consider suspending any waste the staff ecommendations in SECY-90-316.

pmducing activities if disposal capacity is

" low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy g13

not available, storage could be safely i

Arnendments ActTitle Trsosfer and With respect to whether NRC has the accomphshed until disposal capacity Possession Pmvisions." dated September 12.

authorny to " enforce" the provisions of the becomes avallable. There is no public health 1990. Pubhc comment was solicited in a LLRWPAA. NRC could take actions to and safety reason for stopping waste f ederal Register notice (FRN1 published on encos. rage disposal. NRC has bmod authonty pmducing activities.

December 4.1990 (55 FR 500641. This notice under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,as In summary, the principal factor in the also requested responses so eight related amended ( AEAl. for rules and orders as it Commission's decision to authonae on-site questsons. A sumrnary and an analysis of the "rr.sy deem necessary or desirable to * *

• storage is what consideration needs to be responses to ttus FRN m pmvaded below.

protect health or to minimiza danger to life given to ultimate disposal plans. Question 7 Because of the U.S. Supreme Couro decision and property "The public health and safety (assurances NRC should require for disposal) in New York v. Unned Stores, the summary is enhanced by disposal. rather than by lor.g*

discusses what actions the Commission can and analysis related to the take-title term, indefinite storage c' ws6stes. Disposal of tale if it chose to consider disposal plans.

provision of the Low-Level Radioactive wastes in facihties licensed under th' Question 2. What an the potential beahh Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requirements c jart 6t or its equivalent will and safety and envimnmental impacts of (LlJtWPAAl wees rendered moot and provide better protection of the public health increased reliance on on-site stomge of low-consequently have been omitted.

and safety and environment than long-term level waste?

Question L What factors abould the storage at perhaps hundreds or even Commission consider in deciding whether to thousands of sites throughout the country.

Summary of Comments authorize on-site storage of low level waste Fu ther. a nexus was establisbod between Although some commenters believe there iother than storage for a few months to disposal and public heahh and safety and would be neither health and safety nor aanmmodate operational needs such as envimnment and long-term storage whh the environmectal effects from storage of LLW.

consolidating shipments or holding for passage of the LlJtWPAA.%us. NRC has the other cornmenters believe that risk or treatment or decay) beyond 1996?

broad rdonty to encourage disposal over exposures to workers would increase.

storage, if it feels that specific measures Vanous concems were raised by some Surnmary of Comments would t e beneficial.

commenters regarding the risk associated ne principalissue raised by the To date, the need for extended storage of with multiple storage sites, with fire hazanis.

commenten was *hether NRC can and low-level waste has been small to almost and with enhanced cormsion of waste should consider ultimate disposal as a factnr non-existent because low-level waste has packages. Others pointed out that an its storage authonzations. Some i een shipped to the saisting waste disposal oxupational exposures would be incrased cornmenters bel eve tttet NRC should sites in operation. As a result, industry by maintenance and surveillance activities, consider only pmtection of the public health experience end staff reviews and guidance and the possible repackagir.g of waste for and safery, without any preference for have not eddressed longer-term storage, disposal.

disposal over storage in its hmnsing Many of the commenters on this question Several commenters believe that a risk dac>sions. In this mle. NRC would sunply pointed out specifk hazards and technical assessment should be performed to better carry out its normal licensing and inspect 2on wnside stions that need to be addressed if define the risks associsted with storage. Tbe functions for either the storage or disposal long-term storage is to be used. For example. risk assessment should include a comparison option Others suggested that NRC consider container degradation from storage in humid of centralised storage vs. on-site storage by not just public health and safety, but also environments. and gas generation fmm generators. Finally, several commenters evidence of progress in developing a disposal radiclysis we, two conums that were pointed out that storage on-site would highh hted and which would need to be eliminate any risk imm transportation facihty as a condition for issuing a storage 6

hcense. Commenters characterized this role addressed Addressing allof these conarns hazards and would take advantage of already for NRC as the "enforcar" of the LLRWPAA.

wsth indefinite long-term storage could contaminated sites.These commenters Others agreed with the staffs appmach in require safety measures analogous to those favored long-term. indefinite, on-site storege SEI'W90-318 m hich stated that the for permanent disposal. An above gmund over near surface disposal Commission "does not look favorably upon vault meeting the performance requirements long-term on-site storage a Mer 1996." but of part 61 is an exar=ple of the type of facility Analyris which acinowledged that at least some short-that could be justified if a licensee were to NRC sgrees with commenters wbo believe term storage will hkely be required aner need esplicit authorization for lor _g-term that the public hoahh and safety and the 199C. In this role, NRC would " encourage" stontge. Guidance for scoeptable low level environment could be adequately protected disposal (or not look favorably on storage).

waste storage practims for periods with on-site storage of LLW. Although the but would not make disposal plans an significantly beyond 5-years may need to be safety measures for long-term storage explicit condition for authorizang stcrage.

reviewed and assessed as noted in SECY facilities will be greater than those employed Many spac2fic technical or administrative 318. to assure safety.

now for short-term storage. measures can be issues such as waste container degradation Civen that the NRC has authority to undertaken to prevent or mitigate the effects end NRC resourus to perform storage license encourage disposal but at the same time of the various intemal and external hazards reviews. were also mentioned in response to beheves that LLW could be safely stored, the at a storage facility. However. potential this question. Commenters also surs,ested quesuon becomes "What actions could the exposures to workers will be reduced if

-.-.~

k Fed:rJ-Register / Vol. 58. No. 20 / Tuesdsy, Fsbruary 2,1993 / Proposed Rtd*

6739 I

l djsposal is accomplished. Permanent I

disposal of uw has always been the No, there would not be an edverse impact.

Question 4. What specific odministrative, prefened option for managing wastes. The Many individual commente s or public te:hnical and legal tesues are raised by the

{

LLRWPAA reflects this prefersom. The interest groups believe that storage was the requirements for transfer of titlet t

design features of a disposal facility.

preferred option over disposal and stated that

[

meluding the natural features of the site.

there would be no adverse impact. They SummaryofComments 7

protect eEainst a wide range of events and believe that current disposal technology is The comments in response to this question phenomena over a long period of time. in not adequate for protecting public health and addressed the take. title provisions of the contrast, and as a nurnber of commenter5 safety. Several others beheve that allowing LLRWPAA. Because of the U.S. Supreme noted storage would mvolve incensed for storage would help in schleving disposal Court decision in New Yori v. Unned States worker esposure from unloading the waste capacity by allowing time for contracting and the revision to the proposed rule, these from storage for disposal, sible waste from among States, thereby reducing the number comments and the associated analysis are processmg (such as solida cation or of sites that are oceded in the country. They moot and consequently are not included.

also beheve that storage would provide the Guestion 5.What are the advent sand en fa sal fa I wbe time needed to do the job right. The question disadvantages of transferof title an became availab, and radaation surveys is met. A few commenters pointed out that Po sess on as separate steps?

the mahty of the national weste disposal use of the U.S.Su

(

d t

in c de o a'dequately protect public health situation is that storage beyond 1996 will be

'Ci8IO.n,in New York v. preme Court c

Unifmf Stores and and safety, existing storeEe facilities may necessary and therefore the question is moot.

• "?8882 to d' propoud rule, the -

need to be substantially arnproved to store Several recognized that storage will be questam is moot en, consequently the j

wastes safely for long periods of time. Actual necessary, but at the same time er.couraged as tod with th,s i

storage conditions in use now ranSe fmm the NRC to permit storage only when sheet = teel buildings on a concete pod to necessary. Another commenter pointed out a

e w om! aws rooms in hospitals and universitars to several that the LLRWPAA contains ample foot thicL concrete modules. These structures incentives to promote disposal without Poswssion og may or may not have bumidity and D*eding to consider the effect of NRC's Because of the U.S. Supreme Court ternperature control systems and could be storage policy. Commenters cited the cost to decision in New York v. Unned Stores and subject to changmg environmental generators or States for storage, the resources the revision to the proposed rule, the

(

conditions. The possibility for deg adation of (space and personnel) which would coed to question is moot and consequently the the wpste containers will eaist and will be a be devoted to on-site storage at a generator summary and analysis associated with this l

function of the materials used and the site.'the possible loss of jobs in a State if question are not included.

environment in whath they are located. As a companies move to areas which have Questson 7.What assurances of the bounding condition, a storage facility with an disposal capacity, and the political impact in availability of safe and sufficient disposal indefinite penod of storate for its design could need controls similar to those in part a State if LLW must be stored in inceasingly caperity i r low-level weste should the larEer quantities at numerous sites Commission require and = hen should it 61 for a disposal facihty, because the design throughout a State.

tequire them? What additional conditions, if hie would be the same.

The NRC should not consider any adverw any, should the Commission consider in Increased waste form requirements may be irspects of storage. As noted in the responserevimng such assurams?

particularly important for Class A waste to the first question on factors the NRC - - Summory ofCommersts which normally is not stabilized prior to shipment for disposal, and for any stable should consider in authorizing storage, a waste forms which degrade as a result of the number ofcommenters beheve that NRC's No assurances were needed according to I

storage environment. This waste may contain role is one of only licensing and overseeing seven of the 27-anters on this question ~

quantities of absorbed liquid which, when storage or disposal facilities, without having The NRC lechs the authonty and its role is I

alone or in the presence of radiation and a preference for one or the other.These same limited to facility limasing of either disposal ceganic rnatenals, may produce organic acids commenters therefore believe that it was or storage. in their view. Other commenters I

ar.d/or other species. These species may inappropriate for NRC to ask this question.

indicated that if NRC believes that such essurances are needed. it should seek an accelerate intemal corrosion and failure of Analys2s amendtnett to the LLRWPAA or initiate a common storage containers.

Sescral cornmenters pomted out the need Commenters who stated that storage would for nsk assessments of storage options.NRC have an adverse impact provided little or no storage in to CFR part 51 in which the l

as unaware of any quantitative comparisons bases for their position. This is not surprisin& Commission made a finding that there was confidence that ultimate disposal of spent 5

cf the risks and exposures associated wnh Eiven that the question calls for prediction of fuel would be achieved at a future date the future which often must be based on

[e$r jlhe ev iQle judgment rather than hard data and scientific For those commenteri who believe that i

sto RC i nnulae-assurances were appropriate,the kinds of

{

information fmm other programs on storage (such as the NY State storage study and DOE Canmenters who believe that there would essmances vened. One recommended that studies) and will use this information in its be no adverse impact on disposal pointed to storage beyond 5 years should require a State plannart Addstional NRC work may be the incentives that will remam for a State to or compact plan on how the State or compact intends to dispose of the waste so that storage develop d,sposal capacity, irrnpective of the is not de facto disposal. The commenters also needed m tha area depending on i

developments between now and 1996.

relief provided by storage. In panicular, there believe that, while a State lacks disposal Questson 1 Would low-level waste storage are c sts [to the State and/or generators), the far c:her than operational needs beyond possible loss of jobs if a generstarmoves to capacity. there should be no licensing between now and January 1.1996 of acy January 1,1966. hase an edverse impact on a State with disposal availshihty; and.if facility that may generate si nificant amounts 5

the incentive for timely development of generator storage as common, the political of waste after that date. Others believe that permanent disposal capacityy impact of a large numberof LLW sites with the generator should project weste vclumes Summary ofComments ever growing amornts of LLW.

accurately and that demonstrated pmg ess At the same time, NRC agrees with some towards issuance of a liwnse to operate a j

Comments in response to this question can commenters that short-term storage may be regional disposal facitity would be sufDesent.

be put into the following categones:

necessary in some States. especially those One commenter suggested that a governor's l

t Yes. there would be a adverse impact-which have made a good faith effort and certiScation be required that would be somewhat less than half of those who gave continue to do so into the future.

a yes or no answer beheve that storaEe would Nevertheless, on balance. the NRC believes similar to those sheedy submitted as part of i

the 11RWPAA milestone compliance of adversely affect timely development of that an NRC policy which placed no January 1.1990.7be requirements of the disposal capacity. Generally these sesponses disincentives on extended orinedequate certifiution should be simple and available mere prended 14 host States e compact or storage would hkery tend to discourage to licensees to submit with the license to ir.duruv.

deposat store or witn the application to amend the i

d6

y 6740 Federal Register / Vol 58. No. 20 / Tuesday. February 2.1993 / Proposed Rules possession limit. In addition. they believe

1. Sume comrnenters mentioned NRC action actively supports the goals set for.h la shat the NRC should regnire that the storage policy and whether or not it will be the LLRWPAA.

governor's certificabon include estimates nf a ruatter of mmpatibthty with Agreement II *

" " "*I f

the costs for disposal capacity for waste States was mentioned by some commenters.

" " " * * * * * * ' * * ~ " '

rnanagement decision maling-If not. Ag eement States willlicanse s*orage With re6ard to w hen the Commission in accordance with their own storage policies

_=

[

should require the assurances, two and procedures.

cnmmenters addressed the timing issue and

2. De failure of some States to resolve DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION focused on the 5-year storage time hms. De legal economic, and/or politicalissues will Federal Avletion Administration urher commenters presanably beheve that ca use additional delays.

the assuranms should apply at any time the 1 Anidents that generate large amounts of 14 CFR Part 39 hcensee would apply for a storage license.

waste not previously planned for could cause Annther recommended action by NFC "in the a s gnificant disposal problem.

Pockst h. 92-W-@bM]

"'*"Y'"'5-

4. NRC and Ag sement State resourtes, as A nulp, well as personceltrained in storage Airworthineas Directives; Boeing nsing. need to be in place.

Model 767 Series Airplanea Like Questen 1 (concerning the factors the

5. Orphan waste and naturally occurn,r4 Commission could consider in authorizing and acenlerator produced radioactive AGDeCY: Fed,eral Avtation j

ntura6el. this question also addresses the rule matenals (N ARMI waste need to be Administration. DOT.

of the NRC in irnplementing the LLRWPAA addressed.

ACToc Notice of proposed rulemaking it presumes that the NRC has both the authnnty and the wdlingness to seek Anotyus th7RM).

NRC has not attempted to resolve each of SUhihAARY:This document proposes the r

m ers o en d not a with I5288 8 CORD D**

8 888I " odeption of a new airworthiness Y

%s premise, as noted in the analyses of nf public comments Many go beyond the directive (AD) that is applicable to carber questions. they siso believe that this smpe of the NRC's responsibilines and will certain Boeing Model 767 series was not an appropriate question for the NRC in asL However.the NRC. under the AEA.

rejv by S es and 8*"' '

a rplanes.This proposal would require n

o 9,, dris on n rbes have broad authonty to promu! gate the mle of b NRC in encoureging disposal dye penetrant inspection and proof r

and others will need to be followed up at a pressure testing lo detect cracks or rules and regulations to pmtect the pubh.c 1 ter time.

ruptures of the crossover pneumatic health and safety and minimize danger to the Two of the above comments deserve ducts, and repair or replacement, as A. amber of tummenters Eave enamples of attention here. however. The first is that necessary.This proposal would also the types of assurances that could be Ag eement States, which will perform much require stress reh,evmg of the crossover furnished by the States. Examples would of the licensing for storage, should adopt the duct assemblies.his proposalis include s " plan ~ for disposal or a govemor's same or similar storage policy as NRC prompted by several reports of ruptured wrtification.both of which would be meant hse conditions for storage beyond 1996 engine bleed air crossover ducts.The to demonstrate that a State has an active, are not currently compatibility requirements, actions specind by the proposd AD viable program for the development of The second issue concems the scope of the are intended to prevent failure of the i

i!!sposal capability.

waste for which the State is responsible.

g g gg With respect to the question of whether the as e a ng w Sta mp i

could result in loss of pneumatics and MC has assurance that LLW disposal p

d T cap.ecity will be available m the future, such decommissioning waste or waste from dsmage to adjacentstructure.

assurance is available, as indicated in th, cWaminated sites that is removed in os der DATES: Comments must be received by analysis saction of Questions 1 and 2. and Ars not require a formal rulemaking. as was tu aflow sites to meet the unrestricted,use March 29,1993.

suggested by several commenters and criterion in decommissioning ADDRESSES: Submit comments in performed for HLW. Unhke the HLW Conclusions triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Transport program, whe e no repository has yet inn in following coulusions can W rmhed opera (ion, disposal sites have been m resu!r of h fwegoing analyses.

Airplane Directorate. Ah%103, Attention: Rules Docket No. 02-NM-at Bamwelf.

ri rd. W and

1. Although LLW can be safely stored.

d disposal would echance the protection of the 201-AD 1601,Lind Avenue.SW.,

& atty. NV. Additional disposal capacity is

.i espected soon. Some States may have their public health and safety and the Renton Washmgton 98055-4056.,

environment Comments may be mspected at this f.alities in operation before 1966. There 2.The LLRWPAA has estab!!shed the location between 9 a m.and 3 p.m..

amtmued to be other options,locludmg preference for disposal over storage and Monday through Friday, except Federal l

erage until a disposal site is located or established national goals for achieving holidays.

contracting with another State.or rentinuing to pursue development of a site within the adequate disposal capacity:

The servim informatior, referenced in i The NRC has broad authonty under the State or compact. Thus. the question is not Atomic Energy Act to advance the goal of the proposed rule may be obtained from m hether LLW will be safely disposed of. but Boemg Commercial Airplane Group.

raactly where and when it will take place.

disposal pursuant to the LLRWPAA.

p-

• g, 7

Question 8. Are there any other specific

4. On-site storage by many LLW generators E

mues that would complicate the transfer of wdl likely be necessary due to the lack of 98124.This informat2on may be title and possession. as well as on-site progress by States and compacts in examined a,t the FAA. Transport unrege. of low. level waste and mixed developing sufficient disposal capacity.

Airplane Directorate.1601 Lind in.dmactive and chemical hazardousl waste' The NRC has concluded that a rulemaking Avenue. SW., Renton, Washington.

should be in!tiated to ensure that LLW FOR FURmER NFORMN CDsMCT Mr.

Summary of Comments generators exhaust all other reasonable Timothy Dulin. Aerospace Engineer, i

A wide variety of comments was provided management options before onsite stwage Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, a response to this question. A number of wdl be permitted beyond January 1.1996.

ANM-130S; FAA.Trensport Airplane them were discussed in connection with One such option is to pursue a contract for Directorate.1601 Lind Avenue. SW nrenous questions. Comments strictly disposing of waste.This action will reinforce

'aJdressing transfer of title and possession are the Commission's position that it will not Renton, Washington 96055-4056; not included t,ecause they are moot.

luok favorably on on-site storage by telephone (206) 227-2675: fax (206)

Hemaining issues include the fo!!owing-generators. aher lanuary 1.1996, and the 227-1181.

1 J

i

q,. < /

• #p2 Larug'o UNITED STATES g

8 8

(

p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssincion,o c.20sss je

,3 y

?,

v4l EDO Principal Correspondence Control j ju j,

' ilf j

[l1\\.3 D U J u FROM:

DUE: 10720 92 EDO CONTROL: 0008130

/

DOC DT: 09/29/92 FINAL REPLY:

Kimberly A.

Mahaney, Attorny for the Lake County Board of County Commissioners TO:

James Partlow, NRR FOR SIGNATURE OF:

• • GRN CRC NO:

DESC:

ROUTING:

2.206 PETITION FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE THE UNDUE Taylor RISK POSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOW LEVEL Sniezek RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE AT THE PERRY PLANT Thompson (The Cleveland Electric Illuminatin9 Company)

Blaha Bernero, NMSS DATE: 09/30/92 Murley, NRR Davis, RIII ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT:

, CGC Scinto gIpA M

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

/0/at/%

,/jc :< i:/ea: scAhi /s, /9%

,4 hh,:

.2wAv/sh g/d /kS-ja A%Q Mgh ACTION rhstoJ DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFF:CE 4,xa%

/004 d BY Nde 9A ff just

-. Mie

_,,~a,.n u e f * ~ 2.-

gjg },Jgggryn/

/

t

'