ML20045F800

Final Rule 10CFR61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radwastes, Amending Regulations Containing Licensing Requirements for Low Level Radwaste Disposal Facilities

ML20045F800
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/16/1993
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
References
FRN-57FR8093, RULE-PR-61 NUDOCS 9307090027
Download: ML20045F800 (24)

Text

.

5}

( 5 7 F R. fry) cp[~

~93 _ JJ 17 '

13

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 61 RIN 3150-AE00 Licensing Recuirements for Land Disposal of Radioattive Wastes AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

AC110N:

Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations containing licensing requirements for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal fac lities.

These amendments (1) clarify that 10 CFR Part 61 also applies to the licensing of above-ground disposal facilities; (2) replace the phrase " quality control program" in 5 61.12(j) with the phrase " quality assurance program," tailorea to LLW disposal; (3) upcate the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in 9 61.8, and (4) identify the correct NRC recipient of copies of the licensee's annual reports.

The changes are intenced to simplify LLW cisposal facility licensing interactions for NRC, the NRC agreement States, ano potential applicants for LLW disposal licenses.

EFFECTIVE DATE: ( 30 cays after publication in the Federal Register).

{1fl('

9307090027 930616 h

PDR PR ggf f 62 57FR8093 PDR

i DDRESSES:

Copies of the regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment anc #incing of no significant impact, and the comments receiveo :n the rule ay be examined at the NRC Public Document Room at 212" L Street NW. (Lower t

Level), Washington, DC.

i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mel Silbercerg, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researtn, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 492-3810.

f SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 6, 1992, (57 FR 8093-8096) that proposed to make four specific changes to 10 CFR Part 61 (hereafter referred to as "Part 61" or "the regulation"). Part 61 i

sets out licensing requirements, licensing procedures, and performance cojectives for the land disposal of LLW waste.

A review of Part 51 against the Dackdrop of current State and Compact efforts to site and develop LLW disposal facilities identified the need to modify the regulations as follows:

0) clarify that 10 CFR Part 61 also applies to above ground disposal facilities; (2) replace the phrase " quality control program" in 5 61.12(j) with the phrase " quality assurance program," tailored to LLW disposal; (3)

I update the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in 5 61.8; and (4) identify the correct NRC recipient of copies of the licensee's annual reports. A 30-day comment period expired on April 6,1992.

Comments were receivec from six rescondents.

i 2

b Summary ana Analysis of Public Comments i

Two of tne letters came from States, one from a citizens gr;uo, one from an environmental consulting company, one from a LLW facility ceveloper, and I

one from a private citizen.

Three of the respondents provided no ' actual 5

comments but only wrote to indicate their support for the proposeo rulemaking.

Two of the actual commenters, the State of Illinois and the consulting a

comoany, objected to certain provisions of the proposea rule ano Orovided

{

comments on those provisions.

The objections raised by these two commenters j

tocuted on the change which clarifies that Part 61 also applies to above-grouna LLW oisposal facilities.

The ceveloper commented on a part of the rule that was not being revisec.

One of tre commenters raised a concern about shailow lano burial that was not germane to this rulemaking.

i Issue: Abandonment of the systems accroach.

i The State of Illinois and the consulting company expressed concern that the croposec amenoments to clarify the applicability of Part 61 to above-i ground disposal amounted to more than simple clarification.

These two commenters took the view that the proposed amendments constituted a 1

significant change in, or even abandonment of, the regulatory concept that was f

1 i

the foundation of Part 61 and referred to as the " systems approach."

The t

i consulting company stated that two of the basic concepts of the systems i

approach in Part 61 were that "the site should make a significant contribution to the long-term isolation of the wastes," and "as reliance on the long-term t

perf ormance of engineerea features decreases over time, reliance on the site t

must increase over time in order to compensate." The same commenter stated

+

that the site would piay a significantly less important role in assuring the

'i

)

3

(

i 1

m m..m

i:ng-term 1sc'.ation of the waste for above-ground. disposal facilities without i::i c: vers : an it would for disposal facilities built into the ground with i

soil covers.

The commenter stated that there would have to be Overwhelming i

reliance on : e above-grounc engineered structures not only to ::ntain the j

wastes over tne short-term, but to provide long-term isolation as well.

The:

i commenters argued that this situation is an abandonment by NRC f the system accroacn to L_W disposal.

.i i

Fesponse.

.}

The systsms approach to safe disposal of LLW was and still :s the

1. uncation cf 'icensing under Part 61.

The NRC is not abandon 1n: that i

regulatory c ncept in the process of clarifying that Part 61 can ce used to i

I license above-ground disposal facilities.

In pursuing the conceot of the r

systems apprcach during the development of Part 61, NRC assumed that for LLW t

disposal f acilities to meet the performance objectives in Subpart C, there i

f would have to be an integrated performance of all of the disposai system camoonents (i.e. the site, the waste form, the engineering or' facility. design, i

the operation, and the closure of the facility).

Each component of the i

aisposal system would make some particular contribution to the containment or isolation of the waste, albeit dependent upon the particular des;gn.

As an integrated system the components would work with each other to protect the.

puDlic health and safety.

This assumption applies to any LLW disposal facility, whetner it is in the ground or above-ground.

As notec in the Statement of :onsiderations for the proposed rule, technical criteria, anaiogaus to : nose presently in 10 CFR 61 but specific to above-ground I

ciscosal, do not exist.

Nor is the NRC providing either technical criteria or gmdance for icove-ground disposal designs in this rulemaking.

t is expected 1

4 i

,..y

V that should NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal, criteria will be developed on a case-by-case basis'.

i

)

In any case, whether an LLW facility is in the ground or above ground, it i

will have to meet the Part 61 performance objectives to be licensed for LLW disposal, and performance assessments will evaluate the interactions of the site, design, etc., to determine if they will result in'a safe facility.

.l 1

1ssue:

NRC promotion of an unproven and cuestionably safe disposal i

technoloov.

The public health and safety implications of the proposed action were also a major concern to the consulting company.

That commenter cbjected to the proposed rule on the grounds that the NRC could not ensure that the public l

health and safety would be protected because the Agency had not evaluated the i

safety of an above-ground disposal facility over the 500 years during'which f

there would be a radiological hazard at such a facility.

The commenter also asserted that the NRC had not demonstrated through the proposed rule that an I

[

overall disposal system of such a design could. with reasonable assurance, j

i meet the performance objectives of Subpart C, as such a facility would be f

required to do before an LLW license could be granted.

In addition, the i

commenter stated that above-ground disposal technology was not specifically l

evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the existing Part 61 I

and noted that no additional assessment was offered as part of the proposed rulemaking.

From this commenters perspective, by_ proposing the changes to authorize the use of above-ground disposal, NRC is promoting an unproven and auestionably safe disposal technology.

l 5

t e

5 b

Response.

I t

The structure of Part 61 is that all land disposal facilit.es must meet the performance objectives of Subcart C.

The Subcart_ C perforrance objectives r

are the safety objectives. intenced to protect the general popuistion from releases of radioactivity, to protect individuals from inadvertant intrusion, and to protect individuals during facility operations.

The license application for any LLW lano disposal facility must demonstrate :cmpliance with these objectives.

If NRC received a license application f:r an above-i ground facility, NRC would cerform a safety evaluation as a necessary part of the licensing process to cetermine if the required performance ::jectives i

would be fulfillea.

NRC': analysis and evaluation for such a fa:11ity would be based on site-specific information and data obtained during :ne licensing h

process to assess compliance with the performance objectives. Additionally,

[

in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.80(a), the NRC will prepare an EIS for the f acility as it is required to do for any LLW disposal facility license issued I

under 10 CFR Part 61.

i Issue:

Lack of technical reouirements for above-cround disposal - more r

corolicated licensino process.

j The two commenters who objected to the proposed rule also cojected l

because it did not contain technical requirements for above-grcund disposal.

1 Part 61 contains detailed technical requirements specifically for near-surface disposal f acilities but no equivalent technical requirements for above-ground I

1 f acilities are present in the existing Part 61, nor were any prcoosed through i

1 the rulemaking.

The commenters maintain that it is not desiracie to i

1

I i

-i

rcmaigate a rule extencing the applicability of Part 61 to ato.s-ground j

Sisc;sai f acilities without appropriate technical guidance.

The consulting ccmpany also objected to the proposed rule :E:ause the ccmmenter believes that NRC's intentions to develoo technical <s:uirements af ter an application is received would increase uncertainty ano ::mplicate, j

rather than simplify, the licensing process.

The commenter state: that l

ceveloping the recuirements at the same time a license applicati:n is under.

t review would expose the license review to undesired debate about the adequacy l

P af ine regulations and the manner in wnich they were developea. ~he commenter argued that NRC should develop the tecnnical requirements for a eve-ground

{

i ist: sal now, as cart of this rulemaking.

econse.

f i

The NRC continues to support its earlier decision not to issue technical i

i criteria for above-ground disposal with this rulemaking.

While some States have considered above-ground disposal, no State has actually decided to build

[

.i sucn a facility.

Thus, NRC may not even receive an application to license an 1

i above-ground facility.

Therefore, NRC believes that it is a more efficient

}

t use of NRC resources to develop technical criteria when there are actual plans i

for in above-ground f acility rather than speculate at this time as to how such a f acility might be designed.

f Although the decision to defer development of the technical criteria for i

i an i;ove-ground disposal facility will introduce some uncertaintj into the

-j licensing process, the Commission does not believe that this deferral will

[

i sucstantially interfere with the development of a license appii:ation for such j

I a f acility or the NRC review of such a license application.

As noted j

preitously, the performance objectives of Subpart C must still :s met, and i

f 7

?

i

I furthermore, the near-surf ace cisposal reoutrements currently in i 61.50, s 61.51. ano-161.52 may be useful to a potential license aoplicant in I

preparing a license application for an above-ground disposal facility.

]

i t

Issue:

Increased reculatorv uncertainty for aoove-around disrosal.

The consulting company expressed concern that if an Agreement State l

receives an application for ab;ve-ground disposal and fiRC has not developed

.t i

technical recuirements, the Agreecent State will have to develoo its own technical recuirements which could be different from those develeced by '

l another Aareement State or by tr.e TIRC.

The ccmmenter's. view is inat the s

differences in recuirements couid raise issues inat would ultimately have to

.)

be resolved by NRC or by the courts.

I i

1 Resoonse.

t

/

i l

r NRC recognizes that different States and the NRC might utilize different-technical criteria appropriate to the particular design proposea to them.

The NRC will provide assistance to the extent practical to faci.litate States' f

efforts in developing and utilizing criteria.

In any case, as noted f

previcusly by the Commission, the performance objectives of Subpart C must still be met.

Any differences in technical approaches should not give rise to I

proceedings before NRC or the Courts.

I i

Issue:

LLW licensino on an ad hoc basis,

?

i 1

i i

t i

t

~

i i

accoroir.g to cne of the commenters, the proposed changes wnicn include facility review ano criteria development on a case-by-case basis, raise the i

scetter of acove-ground disposal facilities that are designed, licensed, constructed, operatec. and closed, on an ad hoc basis.

The commenter believes sucn licensing wouic be a retreat to the method of licensing usec before the promulgation of Part 61.

r l

Pesponse.

i a

The NRC does not believe that the term "ad hoc" accurately cescribes the licensing cecisions it will make en above-ground disposal.

NRC tas dealt with i

and will continue to deal with many specific licensing issues cn a case-by-l case tasis. However, since the promulgation of Part 61, the licensing process for LLW disposal is directed at attaining reasonable assurance that the t

licensed facility will meet the performance objectives of Subpart C.

Granted there will likely be new and different issues associated with licensing an above-ground facility, but NRC will deal with these issues as it has in the i

past, making sure that adequate conservatism has been incorporated in the

-i design or the siting of the facility to ensure the public safety.

l issue: Not disposal but lono-tern storace.

t t

One of the commenters objected to the concept of above-ground disposal as k

i nothing more than a 500-year hold-for-decay, storage facility. The commenter i

notes inat long-term storage of LLW is inconsistent with Commission policy.

t The commenter urgeo NRC to make a clear case that an above-grounc disposal

[

f acility without an earthen cover is substantially different from a 500-year f

storage facility.

O

+

[

i I

Response.

t The NRC would not treat an above-grounc disposal facility as a storage facility.

A performance assessment would need.to demonstrate ler.9-term performance and stability as reautred by Part 61.

The facility would be licensed as a permanent disposal facility anc would be evaluated for

^

i compliance with the Performance Objectives in Subpart C.

i l

?

Issue:

Lack of public role in the reculaterv process.

i i

Another issue raised was that the approich NRC intends to use to ' license above-ground disposal will not ensure adequate opportunity for public involvement in the regulatory process.

The commenter noted that in the proposed rule NRC specified its intent to develop technical requirements for

[

above-ground disposal facilities after an application is received and on a r

h case-by-case basis.

The commenter assumed that such an approach would not L

afford the public the opoortunity to be actively involved in the development

{

and review of such requirements.

i Response.

i t

There has been opportunity for public participation in the establishment of the performance objectives in Subpart C, anich were established by 5

rulemaking.

In addition, there will be opportunity for the public to be 4

involved in the regulatory process related 10 licensing an above-ground i

disposal facility.

As discussed previously, the technical review criteria for an above-grouno disposal facility will be developed on a case specific basis 10

af ter a license application is.eceivea for sucn a facility.

En a case specific basis the Commission will determine wnat mechanism to.se to estatiish the technical recuirements for the facility license an: the method.

for involving the public in the development of such requirement:.

In similar situations where the technical criteria for licensing has not been established by rule, the Commission has provided an opportunity for parties to the hearing on the license application for the facility, the opportunity to comment on the.

licensing criteria.

This occurrea in the Envirocare license acclication for a specialized high-volume, low-activity thorium ana uranium waste disposal l

facility (56 Fed. Reg. 2959) 1991 and in the Louisiana Energy Services license appiitation for the design, construction, and operations of unicue uranium enrichment facilities. (55 Fed. Reg. 23310) 1991.

Participation by a member of the public in the licensing process is l

described in NUREG-1274 including procedures for compliance with 10 CFR Part 2, NRC's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of-Orcers." Federal Register Notices (FRN) are published when an aoplication is tendered, when an application is determined to be acceptable for docketing, wnen the Draf t Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) and Draft Envircnmental Impact Statement (EIS) are completed, and when public hearings are scheduled.

NRC will also publish a Notice of Intent to issue a license and a Notice of Issuance.

The public, States, tribes, and local governments can petition to participate in the licensing process and can request hearings to provide further involvement.

Issue-Shallow land burial f acilities could be considered ceoicoic recositories.

11

~he developer commented that the secono sentence of the definition " land cispcsai f acility" which reads, "For purposes of-this chapter, a geologic repos tory as defined in Part 60 is not considered a land disposai facility" might te construed to preclude shallow land burial as a permiss;;ie method for LLW oiscosal.

The commenter noted that while the exclusion of geologic repositories is supposed to decouple LLW facilities from deep geologic f acilities for high-level waste. (HLW) oisposal. the definition of geologic repository in Part 60 (NRC's HLW disposal regulations) is very general,- and that a ' shallow land burial f acility" for LLW could be considere: a geologic repository unoer the Part 60 definition.

Restense.

NRC staff believes that this comment reflects a misunderstanding regarcing NRC's proposed changes to the definition of " land disposal facility," and it addresses ant issue which is outside of the intended scope of i

the rulemaking.

From the developer's comments, it could be that the developer incorrectly believed that the second sentence of the definiton was being addeo, or at least changed, as part of NRC's proposed revision to Part 61.

f However, neither was the case.

The language identified in this comment is alrea:y part of the definition of " land disposal facility" in Part 61 and has

-f been since the original rule was promulgated in 1982.

For purposes of presenting the entire definition as it would appear when the revisions were promulgated, the NRC staff included the second sentence in what was referred to as the proposed definition for " land disposal facility" for the proposed ruleraking.

Even though NRC was not proposing to add or change that sentence, j

NRC :taff considered the developer's comment to determine if the wording of' I

12 1

P the second sentence could be used to exclude typical shallow lano burial as an acceptable cesign for disposal of LLW.

The staff does not believe that there should be any difficulty in r

differentiating between a geologic repository that is licensed uncer the requirements of~Part 60 for disposal of HLW ano a land disposal facility l

licensed under the requirements of Part 61 for disposal of LLW.

The l

I definition of a geologic repository must be read within the context of the i

purpose and scope of 10 CFR 60.1.

This section applies to a geologic l

repository that is only licensed to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). in accordance witti the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Moreover, section 60.1 specTfically states that Part 60 "does not apciy to any activity licensed under another part of this chapter." Therefore, a shallow land burial 4

facility licensed under Part 61 would'not come within the scope of section l

60.1, but instead would fit within the scope of Part 61.

The staff-concludes j

that no change is required to the second sentence in the definition for " land disposal facility" in Part 61 to address the developer *s comment.

Based on the analysis of public comments and further staff review, the staff has prepared this final rule.

As described below, there are some t

editorial differences between the proposed definition for " land disposal l

f acility" and the definition to be promulgated in the final rule.

Discussion of the Revisions i

1.

Amend the definition of " land disposal facility"- in 5 61.2 to I

clarify that the term refers to LLW disposal facilities which are on or protrude through the earth's surface and do not have an earthen cover, in

(

acdition to those that are in the ground and have an earthen cover.

The t

E 13

purpose of this change is to clarify the regulatory applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of "above-grouno" disposal designs like the "above-ground anc vault," in particular./ the applicability of the performance objectives of Part 61 to these designs.

The definition of "lanc disposal f acility" offered in the proposed rule read " land disposal f acility means the land, buildings, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes on the surface or into the subsurface of the land.

For purposes of this Chapter, a' ' geologic

-l repository' as defined in Part 60 is not considered a ' land disposal l

facility' "

For the final rule. the worcing of the definition of "lano disposal facility" has been mocified slightly from the language of the proposed definition in order to better clarify that Part 61 can be used by NRC to license above-ground LLW disposal facilities.

The final definition of land disposal reads " land disposal facility means the land, buildings and structures, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes.

For purposes of this Chapter, a " geologic repository" as defined in Part 60 is not considered a " land disposal facility."

In the final definition, the words

'"on the surface or into tht: subsurface of the land" have been deleted to eliminate confusion regarding the kinds of facilities to which these terms apply. The word " structures" has been added since that term better describes the types of engineered features likely to be constructed at an above-ground LLW disposal facility.

The Commission believes the final definition is not a substantive change but a modification to simplify the defintion so that it is easier to understand.

At this time, the NRC is not issuing specific technical criteria for above-grouna disposal facilities that are analogous to the near-surface 14

I

'I aistosal requirements of s s 61.50(a), 61.5](a), and 61.52(a) :# Eubpart D F

tecause of the special technical characteristics of above-greur: cisposal i

t facilities.

Only those portions of the regulation 'that apply ;snerically to 1

r

'lanc disposal f acilities" are directly applicable to the licstsing of = above-arounc disposal facilities.

Specifically, this means that the :verall j

i

erformance objectives of Subpart C will appiy to above-groun

:iscosal i

i f acilities, as well as the Part 61 administrative and proceduril recuirements,_

i l

the environmental monitoring requirements, the financial assurance recuirements, the waste transfer and manifest requirements, anc the general institutional recuirements.

Establishing the applicacility of the Subpart C performan:s objectives to-l acove-ground cisposal is particularly important.

Any applicant for a license i

for an above-ground disposal facility under Part 61 will have to demonstrate 4

-I to the NRC that the proposed facility can meet the same safety requirements i

and dose limits that apply to any LLW disposal facility that has an earthen L

cover.

The demonstration of compliance will have to address ibe unique features of the above-ground design, the special technical censiderations

{

4 associated with those features, their potential health and safety consequences, and reconcile them with the Subpart C performance cbjectives.

Even though some of the requirements in Subpart D are only applicable to i

near-surf ace disposal the Commission still believes they would be useful to a i

crospective license applicant as guidance for planning an above-ground i

i facility and to the NRC or Agreement States in the development of technical i

recuirements for sucn facilities.

To provide further clarification regaraing the applicability of Part 61

]

to the licensing of above-ground disposal f acilities, NRC also is amending the i

" Disposal Facility" discussion in the Concepts Section - 61.7.

The change to i

15 r,

_-.~.

.. _ m.

- t i

i I

% 61.~(a)(1) clarifies the distinction made oy the NRC between riar-surface i

disposai and above-grouno disposal, to empha' size that near-surf a:s LLW I

.f

-disposal f acilities built partially or totally' above-grade have :rotective

-f earthen covers, while similar facilities constructed without eartnen covers a

are considered to be "above-ground disposal facilities,"

.j NRC is "at providing either technical criterla or_ guidance 'cr above-i ground disocsai designs with these amendments.

It-is expected inat, should

[

NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal, criteria w;il be developeo on a case-by-case basis.

5 3

II.

Reclace the term " quality centrol program"-in 4 61.12f j) with the i

term ' u a l i t;. assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal."

The :urpose of

?

?

I this cr.ange is to clarify wnat steps an appi: cant for an LLW dis:ssal facility

-l license must take in orcer to assure that the facility will perfccm as intenced, and also to assure that the necessary records and documentation are t

available for evaluation and performance assessment by NRC or an Agreement i

State at the time of license submittal.

Quality assurance is a broad term that encompasses quality control and also includes managerial controls and i

audits.

111.

Revise h 61.8 to indicate that the NRC requested anc cbtained OMB 4

approval for the information collection requirements in Part 61. Under the 1

OMB guidelines that were in effect when the original Part 61 was issued, OMB approval of the Part 61 information collection requirements was r.ot necessary because the regulation was expected to affect less than 10 licensees.

i Subsecuently the OMB guidelines changed, and Part 61 was no longar exempt from

' t the OMB approval requirement.

Accordingly, NRC submitteo Part 61 for OMB

't i

review and cotained the OMB clearance that is required by the Pa:erwork' Mt 16

+

4 m

F

Reduction Act. The purpose of this change is to update s 61.8 to c:rrectly i

reflect this arproval.

t IV.

Revise s 61.80(i)(1) to identify the correct NRC headquarters recipient of copies of the annual report.

Issue of Compatibility for Agreement States Ur. der existing NRC policy and guidelines, two of the changes acopted in this rulemaking would be matters of compatibility for the NRC Agreement States. The cnange to the definition of land disposal facility in i 61.2 is a matter of Division I compatibility, and the "QC" to "QA" change in s 61.12(j) is a matter of Division II compatibility.

This means that those Agreement States that have assumed NRC's regulatory authority for the disposal of LLW under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, normally would be required to incorporate the new definition of " land disposal facility" essentially verbatim directly into their. State regulations for LLW disposal.

However, States who have already selected a disposal technology and adoptec a more narrow regulatory definition of " land disposal facility" to reflect that selected technology, will not be required to amend their regulatory definition to conform to this revision, provided the selected tecnnology falls within the scope of 10 CFR Part 61 and the definition is not incor.sistent with the NRC definition.

The incorporation of the Division II change is also required; however, the Agreement States have more flexibility thea for the Division I change.

For :ne Division II change, the language adopted need not be identical to the NRC regulations, but the effect cannot be less stringent.

17

4

)

i F

Based on the existing guidelines, tne changes would have to be i

- incorporated within 3 years af ter this final rule is issued.

r i

f Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:

Availability l

r The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act l

of 1969 as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, tnerefore, an environmental impact f

statement is not required.

Three of the proposed changes - the " quality control" to " quality assurance" change in 9 61.12(j), the update of the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in b 61.8, and the correction of the organizational inconsistency in b 61.80(1)(1) are the types of actions described in categorical exclusion 5 51.22(c)(2).

As such they are considered by the Commission to be corrective and nonsubstantive in nature and' l

l will not have an impact on the environment.

The remaining changes, which clarify the applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of above-ground LLW t

+

disposal, also will not have an impact on the environment in that these l

v amendments do not change the required level of overall performance for LLW j

disposal facilities.

Furthermore, any environmental impact of operating such l

a facility will be addressed as a part of the licensing action for that specific f acility under 10 CFR Part 51.

The environmental assessment and j

i finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the environmental assessment

[

and the finding of no significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, j

1 l

18 t

i

'I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '.;mmission, t

Jasnington, DC 20555, teleonone. <301) 492-3877, L

Paperwor<. Reauction Act Statement i

i This final rule does not contain a new or amended informati:n collection

[

reouirement subject to the Paperwork Recuttion Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et I

sea.).

Existing recuirements eere approved by the Office of Mar.agement and 4

Budget, approval number 3150-0135.

l

egulatory Analysis I

h The Commission has preparea a regulatory analysis on this final f

regulation.

The analysis examines the alternatives considered by the t

Commission and explains the decision to revise Part 61.

The analysis is

{

l available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield, (301) 492-3877.

i i

l Regulatory flexibility Certification

[

t As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

I the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic i

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The changes made to Part 61 in this rule will only affect those entities that decide to appij for a l

license to build ano operate an LLW disposal facility.

In the L:w-Level

?

Raaloactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) anc the Low-Levei Radioactive I

t 19

~,

e f

.f Waste clicy Amencments Act' of 1985 (LLRWPAA), Congress mandate: that the i

ina14 :uai States or groups of. States called compacts should pr:nde the LLW i

dispc:Ei capacity for the LLW generated within each of their ter:ers. Thus the ' :ensees for LLW disposal facilities will either be States.: private -

i operai:rs wnich are not small entities under the size standarcs Established by i

the N lear Regulatory Commission on November 6,1991 (56 FR 55f 71).

In I

addit :n, this rule will not have a significant economic impact :ecause the i

change: to Part 61 are clarifying in nature, and only a small r cer of f l

licen:Ees are likely to be affected.

i k

i Backfit Analysis

~5e NRC has determined that the backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109. does not apply o this final rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not j

requi ed for this final rule because these amendments do not involve any j

prov :1ons which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.:09(a)(1).

.{

4 t

List Of Subjects i

4 Lart 61 - Criminal penalty, Low-level waste, Nuclear mater ais, Reporting l

i and rscordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

r the reasons set out in the preamble and under the auth:rity of the Ato :: Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganizati n Act of 1974, as arenced and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the foilcwing i

amen: ents to 10 CFR Part 61.

i i

f PART 61 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR 20 f

n.,..-.

a

.-e.

LAND DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE ~ WASTE i

1.

The authority citation for Part 61 c:ntinues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, ' 51, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 930,-

932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, i

i 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sets. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C..

5842, 5846); secs.10 and 14, Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a 1

4 and 5851).

l i

2.

In s 61.2, the definition of lana disposal facility is revised l

to read as follows:

.]

9

% 61.2 Definitions, j

i As used in this part:

j Land disposal facility means the land, buildings and structures, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive i

wastes.

For purposes of this Chapter, a " geologic repository" as defined in Part 60 is not considered a " land disposal facility."

L 3.

In 5 61.7, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

i t

21 1

I

~!

-l 5 61.7 Conceots

~i (a)

The ' Disposal Facility.

(1) Part 61 is intended to apply to land l

disposal of radioactive waste and not to other methods such as sea or extraterrestrial disposal.

Part 61 contains procedural requirements and i

performance objectives applicable to any method of land disposal.

It contains specific technical requiremets' for near-surface disposal of radioactive waste, a subset of land disposal, which involves disposal in the uppermost' l

portion of the earth, approximately 30 meters.

Near-surface disposal includes 4

disposal in engineered facilities which may be built totally or partially above-grade provided that such facilities have protective earthen covers.

Near-surface disposal does not include disposal facilities which are partially or fully above grade with no protective earthen cover, which are referred to as "above ground disposal." Burial deeper than 30 meters may also be

{

satisfactory. Technical requirements for alternative methods may be added in the future.

4.

Section 61.8 's revised to read as follows:

I t

% 61.8 Information collection reouirements:

0:1B approval f

fa)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information f

collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and i

i Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

[

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seo.). OMB has approved the informatica collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0135.

j 22 t

v ---

(b)

The approved information collection requirements contair.so in this part appear in ss 61.3, 61.6, 61.9, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12, 61.13, 51.'.4, 61.15, 61.15, 61.20, 61.22, 61.24, 61.26, 61.27, 61.28, 61.30, 61.31, 61.53, 61.55, 61.57, 61.59, 61.61, 61.62, 61.63, 61.72, and 61.80.

6.

In 6 61.12, paragraph (j) is revised to read as follows:

i

@ 61.12 Specific technical information.

i (j)

A description of the quality assurance program, tailore: to LLW disposal, developed and applied by the applicant for the determination of g/

natural disposal site characteristics and for quality assurance curing the design, construction, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility and the receipt, handling, and emplacement of waste.

6.

In % 61.80, (i)(1) is revised to read as follows:

8 5 61.80 Maintenance of records. reports, and transfers.

Y (i)(1)

Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materiais received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual reports to the aapropriate Commission regional office shown in Appendix D of Par: 20 of this i

23

4 r

chapter, with copies to the Director, Division of low-Level Waste "anagement and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguar::s, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555.

Reports must.be

[

submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the l

prececing year.

[

d Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this

?

day of June

,.1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

/

i

/r

\\

-N-i

( i f e.J

\\ e sw f#rHFel J. Chi (lk'7 Secretary of t e Commission.

h i

t

+

4 h

1 4

[

4 k

24 F

-.