ML20045F938
| ML20045F938 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045F937 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR8093, RULE-PR-61 CCS, PR-930616, NUDOCS 9307090200 | |
| Download: ML20045F938 (24) | |
Text
s' i
s.
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 61 RIN 3150-AE00 Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations containing licensing requirements for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities.
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 s 61.12(j) with the phrase " quality assurance program," tailored to LLW disposal; (3) update the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in G 61.8, and (4) identify the correct NRC recipient I
of copies of the licensee's annual reports. The changes are intended to simplify LLW disposal facility licensing interactions for NRC, the NRC Agreement States, and potential applicants for LLW disposal licenses.
l 4
EFFECTIVE DATE: ( 30 days after publication in the Federal Register).
1 w
I 9307090200 930618 PDR ORG NRCC l
l i
ADDRESSES:
Copies of the regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and the comments received on the rule may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington,DC.
1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mel Silberberg, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 492-3810.
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 sets out licensing requirements, licensing procedures, and performance objectives for the land disposal of LLW waste.
A review of Part 61 against the backdrop of current State and Compact efforts to site and develop LLW disposal facilities identified the need to modify the regulations as follows:
(1) 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) 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 received from six respondents.
2
~
Summary and Analysis of Public Comments Two of the letters came from States, one from a citizens group, one from an environmental consulting company, one from a LLW facility developer, and one from a private citizen.
Three of the respondents provided no actual comments but only wrote to indicate their support for the proposed rulemaking.
l l
Two of the actual commenters, the State of Illinois and the consulting i
company, objected to certain provisions of the proposed rule and provided comments on those provisions.
The objections raised by these two commenters focused on the change which clarifies that Part 61 also applies to above-ground LLW disposal facilities.
The developer commented on a part of the rule I
that was not being revisec. One of the commenters raised a concern about shallow land burial that was not germane to this rulemaking.
i Issue:
Abandonment of the systems approach.
The State of Illinois and the consulting company expressed concern that the proposed amendments to clarify the applicability of Part 61 to above-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 the foundation of Part 61 and referred to as the " systems approach."
The 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.
i i
performance of engineered features decreases over time, reliance on the site must increase over time in order to compensate." The same commenter stated that the site would play a significantly less important role in assuring the 3
l t
icng-term isolation of the waste for above-ground disposal facilities without j
s::1 covers than it would for disposal facilities built into the ground with j
soil covers.
The commenter stated that there would have to be :verwhelming j
reliance on the above-ground engineered structures not only to c:ntain the i
wastes over the short-term, but to provide long-term isolation as well.
The commenters argued that this situation is an abandonment by NRC cf the system accroach to LLW disposal.
l l
Pmon s e.
I 1
The systems approach to safe disposal of LLW was and still is the f:undation of licensing under Part 61.
The NRC is not abandoning that.
j regulatory concept in the process of clarifying that Part 61 can De used to license above-ground disposal facilities.
In pursuing the concept of the i
systems approach during the development of Part 61, NRC assumea that for LLW
?
disposal facilities to meet the performance objectives in Subpart C, there i
would have to be an integrated performance of all of the disposal system ccmoonents (i.e. the site, the waste form, the engineering or f acility design, l
the operation, and the closure of the facility).
Each component of the discosal system would make some particular contribution to the containment or t
isolation of the waste, albeit dependent upon the particular design.
As an l
integrated system the components would work with each other to protect the public health and safety.
This assumption applies to any LLW disposal f acility, whether it is in the ground or above-ground.
As noted in the Statement of Considerations for the proposed rule, technical criteria, I
analogous to those presently in 10 CFR 61 but specific to above-ground ciscosal, do not exist.
Nor is the NRC providing either technical criteria or guidance for above-ground disposal designs in this ruiemaking.
It is expected
l l
i that should NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal. criteria will be develcoed on a case-by-case basis.
i In any case, whether an LLW facility is in the ground or abcVe ground, it 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.
Issue:
NRC cromotion of an unproven and ouestionably safe disposal technoloov.
The public health and safety implications of the proposed action were also a major concern to the consulting company.
That commenter cojected to the proposed rule on the grounds that the NRC could not ensure that the public health and safety would be protected because the Agency had not evaluated the safety of an above-ground disposal facility over the 500 years during which there would be a radiological hazard at such a facility.
The cor: enter also t
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, t
meet the performance objectives of Subpart C, as such a facility would be i
required to do before an LLW license could be granted.
In addition, the f
commenter stated that above-ground disposal technology was not specifically evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the existing Part 61 and noted that no additional assessment was offered as part of the proposed rulemaking.
From this commenters perspective, by proposing the changes to I
authorize the use of above-ground disposal, NRC is promoting an unproven and questionably safe disposal technology.
l 5
Response.
The structure of Part 61 is that all land disposal facilities must meet the performance objectives of Subpart C.
The Subpart C performance objectives are the safety objectives, intended to protect the general population from releases of radioactivity, to protect individuals from inadvertent intrusion, i
and to protect individuals during facility operations.
The license i
application for any LLW land disposal facility must demonstrate compliance l
with these objectives.
If NRC received a license application for an above-ground facility, NRC would perform a safety evaluation as a necessary part of the licensing process to determine if the required performance objectives would be fulfilled.
NRC's analysis and evaluation for such a facility would be based on site-specific information and data obtained during the licensing i
process to assess compliance with the performance objectives.
Additionally, f
in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.80(a), the NRC will prepare an EIS for the i
facility as it is required to do for any LLW disposal facility license issued f
under 10 CFR Part 61.
i Issue:
Lack of technical reauirements for above-cround disposal - more complicated licensino process.
1 The two commenters who objected to the proposed rule also objected j
because it did not contain technical requirements for above-ground disposal.
r Part 61 contains detailed technical requirements specifically for near-surface disposal facilities but no equivalent technical requirements for above-ground
{
facilities are present in the existing Part 61, nor were any proposed through the rulemaking.
The commenters maintain that it is not desirable to 6
promulgate a rule extending the applicability of Part 61 to above-ground disposal facilities without appropriate technical guidance.
The consulting company also objected to the proposed rule because the commenter believes that NRC's intentions to develop technical requirements after an application is received would increase uncertainty and complicate, f
rather than simplify, the licensing process.
The commenter stated that developing the requirements at the same time a license application is under review would expose the license review to undesired debate about the adequacy 1
of the regulations and the manner in which they were developed.
The commenter i
argued that NRC should develop the technical requirements for above-ground disposal now, as part of this rulemaking.
t l
Response.
l l
The NRC continues to support its earlier decision not to issue technical criteria for above-ground disposal with this rulemaking. While some States have considered above-ground disposal, no State has actually decided to build i
such a facility.
Thus, NRC may not even receive an application to license an above-ground facility.
Therefore, NRC believes that it is a more efficient use of NRC resources to develop technical criteria when there are actual plans j
for an above-ground facility rather than speculate at this time as to how such a facility might be designed.
Although the decision to defer development of the technical criteria for an above-ground disposal facility will introduce some uncertainty into the licensing process, the Commission does not believe that this deferral will substantially interfere with the development of a license application for such i
a facility or the NRC review of such a license application.
As noted i
previously, the performance objectives of SJbpart C must still be met, and 7
1
furtnermore, the near-surf ace disposal requirements currently in i 61.50, i
s 61.51, and 5 61.52 may be useful to a potential license appli:Ent in preparing a license application for an above-ground disposal fac:lity.
issue:
Increased regulatory uncertainty for above-around discosal.
The consulting company expressed concern that if an Agreement State receives an application for above-ground disposal and NRC has not developed technical requirements, the Agreement State will have to develoo its own tecnnical regoirements which could be different from those develcoed by anoiner Agreement State or by the NRC.
The commenter's view is :*.at the differences in requirements could raise issues that would ultima:ely have to be resolved by NRC or by the courts.
Response.
i NRC recognizes that different States and the NRC might utilize differr's technical criteria appropriate to the particular design proposec to them.
The NRC will provide assistance to the extent practical to facilitate States' efforts in developing and utilizing criteria.
In any case, as noted previcasly by the Commission, the performance objectives of Subpart C must still bt met.
Any differences in technical approaches should not give rise to I
proceedings before NRC or the Courts.
Issue:
LLW licensina on an ad hoc basis.
8 I
i l
l.
According to one of the commenters, the proposed changes wnich include f acility review and criteria development on a case-by-case basis, raise the specter of above-ground disposal facilities that are designed, licensed, constructed, operated, and closed, on an ad hoc basis.
The commenter believes such licensing would be a retreat to the method of licensing used before the promulgation of Part 61.
Resconse.
The NRC does not believe that the term "ad hoc" accurately describes the licensing decisions it will make on above-ground disposal.
NRC nas oealt with and will continue to deal with many specific licensing issues cn a case-by-case basis. However, since the promulgation of Part 61, the licensing process for LLW disposal is directed at attaining reasonable assurance that the 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 past, making sure that adequate conservatism has been incorporated in the design or the siting of the facility to ensure the public safety.
i Issue: Not discosal but lona-term storace.
One of the commenters objected to the concept of above-ground disposal as nothing more than a 500-year hold-for-decay, storage facility.
The commenter notes that long-term storage of LLW is inconsistent with Commission policy.
The ccamenter urged NRC to make a clear case that an above-ground disposal facility without an earthen cover is substantially different from a 500-year storage facility.
9 i
l 1
Response.
l The NRC would not treat an above-ground disposal facility as a storage facility. A performance assessment would need to demonstrate long-term performance and stability as required by Part 61.
The facility would be licensed as a permanent disposal facility anc would be evaluated for compliance with the Performance Objectives in Subpart C.
I i
Issue:
l.ack of public role in the reaulaterv process.
1 j
Another issue raised was that the approach NRC intends to use to license I
l above-around 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 1
case-by-case basis.
The commenter assumed that such an approach would not 1
afford the public the opportunity to be actively involved in the development and review of such requirements.
Response.
There has been opportunity for public participation in the establishment of the performance objectives in Subpart C, onich were established by i
rulemaking.
In addition, there will be opportunity for the public to be involved in the regulatory process related t: licensing an above-ground disposal facility.
As discussed previously, the technical review criteria for l
an above-ground disposal facility will be developed on a case specific basis 10
l l
after a license application is received for such a facility.
On a case specific basis the Commission will determine what mechanism to use to establish the technical requirements for the facility license and the method for involving the public in the development of such requirements.
In similar I
situations where the technical criteria for licensing has not been established j
i by rule, the Commission has provided an opportunity for parties to the hearing i
on the license application for the facility, the opportunity to comment on the l
licensing criteria.
This occurred in the Envirocare license application for a specialized high-volume, low-activity thorium and uranium waste disposal facility (56 Fed. Reg. 2959) 1991 and in the Louisiana Energy Services license application for the design, construction, and operations of unique uranium i
enrichment facilities. (56 Fed. Reg. 23310) 1991.
Participation by a member of the public in the licensing process is described in NUREG-1274 including procedures for compliance with 10 CFR Part i
t 2, NRC's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders." Federal Register Notices (FRN) are published when an application is tendered, when an application is determined to be acceptable for docketing, when the Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are completed, and when public hearings are scheduled.
NRC i
will also publish a Notice of Intent to issue a license and a Notice of j
Issuance.
The public, States, tribes, and local governments can petition to l
participate in the licensing process and can request hearings to provide l
further involvement.
Issue:
Shallow land burial facilities could be considered oeoloaic i
repositories.
11
The developer commented that the second sentence of the definition land disposal facility" which reads, "For purposes of this chapter, a geologic repository as defined in Part 60 is not considered a land dispcsal facility" might be construed to preclude shallow land burial as a permissible method for l
LLW disposal.
The commenter noted that while the exclusion of ceologic l
t l
repositories is supposed to decouple LLW facilities from deep geologic facilities for high-level waste (HLW) disposal, the definition of geologic l
repository in Part 60 (t1RC's HLW disposal regulations) is very general, and j
that a " shallow land burial facility" for LLW could be considered a geologic repository under the Part 60 definition.
i
- Response, i
f1RC staff believes that this comment reflects a misunderstanding regarding f1RC's proposed changes to the definition of " land disposal I
facility," and it addresses an issue which is outside of the intended scope of i
r the rulemaking.
From the developer's comments, it could be that the developer t
incorrectly believed that the second sentence of the definiton was being i
added, or at least changed, as part of f1RC's proposed revision to Part 61.
I However, neither was the case. The language identified in this comment is
[
already part of the definition of " land disposal facility" in Part 61 and has I
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 t1RC staff included the second sentence in what was referred I
i to as the proposed definition for " land disposal facility" for the proposed rulemaking.
Even though f4RC was not proposing to add or change that sentence, NRC staff considered the developer's comment to determine if the wording of l
i 12
__,._--,r_-,,...
s-..-. m
l l
i the second sentence could be used to exclude typical shallow lanc burial as an accettable cesign for disposal of LLW.
The staff does not believe that there should be any difficulty in differentiating between a geologic repository that is licensea un:er the requirements of Part 60 for disposal of HLW and a land disposal facility licensed under the requirements of Part 61 for disposal of LLW. The i
definition of a geologic repository must be read within the context of the purpose and scope of 10 CFR 60.1.
This section applies to a geolcgic
+
I repository that is only licensed to the U.S. Department of Energy (00E) in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Moreover, section 60.1 specifically states that Part 60 "does not apply to any activity 'icensed under another part of this chapter." Therefore, a shallow land brial facility licensed under Part 61 would not come within the scope of section 60.1, but instead would fit within the scope of Part 61 The staff concludes 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 4
i staff has prepared this final rule. As described below, there are some editorial differences between the proposed definition for " land disposal
[
facility" and the definition to be promulgated in the final rule.
Discussion of the Revisions i
1.
Amend the definition of " land disposal facility" in s 61.2 to.
clarify that the term refers to LLW disposal facilities which are on or i
protrude through the earth's surface and do not have an earthen c:ver, in addition to those that are in the ground and have an earthen cover. The 13 l
~
1 purpose of this change is to clarify the regulatory applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of "above-ground" disposal designs like the "above-ground and vault," in particular,/the applicability of the performance objectives of Part 61 to these designs.
The definition of " land disposal facility" of fered in the proposed rule read " land disposal facility 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 repository' as defined in Part 60 is not considered a ' land disposal i
facility'."
For the final rule, the wording of the definition of " land disposal facility" nas been modified 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 l
radioattive 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 the 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 l
definition is not a substantive change but a modification to simplify the l
defintion so that it is easier to understand.
At this time, the NRC is not issuing specific technical criteria for above-grounc disposal facilities that are analogous to the near-surface 14
disposal requirements of h 6 61.50(a), 61.51(a), and 61.52(a) of Subpart D because of the special technical characteristics of above-ground disposal facilities. Only those portions of the regulation that apply generically to
" land disposal facilities" are directly applicable to the licensing of above-ground disposal f acilities, Specifically, this means that the overall performance objectives of Subpart C will apply to above-ground disposal facilities, as well as the Part 61 administrative and procedural requirements, the environmental monitoring requirements, the financial assurance requirements, the waste transfer and manifest requirements, and the general institutional requirements.
Establishing the acclicability of the Subpart C performance objectives to above-ground disposal is particularly important.
Any applicant for a license for an above-ground disposal facility under Part 61 will have to demonstrate to the NRC that the proposed facility can meet the same safety requirements and dose limits that apply to any LLW disposal facility that has an earthen cover.
The demonstration of compliance will have to address the unique features of the above-ground design, the special technical considerations l
associated with those features, their potential health and safety i
consequences, and reconcile them with the Subpart C performance objectives.
Even though some of the requirements in Subpart D are only applicable to near-surface disposal, the Commission still believes they would be useful to a i
prospective license applicant as guidance for planning an above-ground facility and to the NRC or Agreement States in the development of technical requirements for such facilities.
To provide further clarification regarding the applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of above-ground disposal facilities, NRC also is amending the
" Disposal Facility" discussion in the Concepts Section - 61.7.
The change to 15
_~
J 1
1 i
{
j h 61.7(a)(1) clarifies the distinction made by the NRC between near-surface
~
l disposal and above-ground disposal, to emphasize that near-surf ace LLW 1
disposal facilities built partially or totally above-grade have rotective 4
arthen covers, while similar facilities constructed without earthen covers are considered to be "above-ground disposal facilities."
l NRC is not providing either technical criteria or guidance for above-j j
ground disposal designs with these amendments.
It is expected that, should 1
i NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal, criteria will be j
]
developed on a case-by-case basis.
II.
Replace the term " quality control program" in H 61.12(j) with the I
term " quality assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal." The purpose of 1
i
]
this change is to clarify what steps an applicant for an LLW dis:osal facility 1
j license must take in order to assure that the facility will perform as 1
intended, and also to assure that the necessary records and documentation are i
4 available for evaluation and performance assessment by NRC or an Agreement
]
State at the time of license submittal.
Quality assurance is a broad term i
{
that encompasses quality control and also includes managerial controls and i
f audits.
i Ill.
Revise 5 61.8 to indicate that the NRC requested ano obtained OMB j
approval for the information collection requirements in Part 61. Under the i
l OMB guidelines that were in effect when the original.Part 61 was issued, OMB 4
l approval of the Part 61 information collection requirements was not necessary I
because the regulation was expected to affect less than 10 licensees.
i Subsequently the OMB guidelines changed, and Part 61 was no longer exempt from I
the OMB approval requirement.
Accordingly, NRC submitted Part 61 for OMB i
review and obtained the OMB clearance that is required by the Paperwork i
}
i 16 4
- - - - l
Reduction Act.
The purpose of this change is to update 5 61.8 to c:rrectly reflect this approval.
IV.
Revise 6 61.80(i)(1) to identify the correct NRC headquar:ers recipient of copies of the annual report.
i' Issue of Compatibility for Agreement States Under existing NRC policy and guidelines, two of the changes 2:: opted ie this rulemaking would be matters of compatibility for the NRC Agreement States. The change 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
@ El.12(j) is a matter of Division II compatibility.
This means that those Agreement States that have assumed NRC's regulatory authority for tne 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 tecnnology and adopted a more narrow regulatory definition of " land disposal facility" to reflect that selected technology, will not be required to amend their l
regulatory definition to conform to tSis revision, provided the selected technology falls within the scope of 10 CFR Part 61 and the definition is not inconsistent with the NRC definition.
The incorporation of the Division 11 change is also required; however, the Agreement States nave more flexibility than for the Division I change.
For tne Division 11 change, the language adopted need not be identical to the NRC regulations, but the effect canr.ot be less stringent.
l l
17 i
1
.0 l
i Eased cn the existing guidelines, the changes would have to ce incorccrated within 3 years after this final rule is issued.
l Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability l
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 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, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
Three of the proposed changes - the " quality I
control" to " quality assurance" change in 5 61.12(j), the update of the i
Paperwork Eeduction Act Statement in % 61.8, and the correction of the organizational inconsistency in 9 61.80(i)(1) are the types of actions described in categorical exclusion 9 Sl.22(c)(2).
As such they are considered by the Commission to be corrective and nonsubstantive in nature and 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 l
disposal, also will not have an impact on the environment in that these
\\
amendments do not change the required level of overall performance for LLW disposal facilities.
Furthermore, any environmental impact of operating such a facility will be addressed as a part of the licensing action for that specific facility under 10 CFR Part 51.
The environmental assessment and 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 tne fincing of no significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, 18
Office of tJuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. i4uclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3877.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and j
Budget, approval number 3150-0135.
I i
Regulatory Analysis l
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final I
regulation. The analysis examines the alternatives t.andidered by the Commission and explains the decision to revise Part 61.
The analysis is f
available for inspection in the f4RC 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification i
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic 1
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 apply for a license to build and operate an LLW disposal facility.
In the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) and the Low-level Radioactive 19
l Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), Congress mandateo that the l
\\
individual States or groups of States called compacts should provide the LLW 4
disposal capacity for the LLW generated within each of their borcers. Thus the licensees for LLW disposal facilities will either be States or private l
operators which are not small entities under the size standards established by l
i i
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56671).
In j
addition, this rule will not have a significant economic impact because the changes to Part 61 are clarifying in nature, and only a small number of i
d i
licensees are likely to be affected.
{
i i
Backfit Analysis i
1 The NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not f
apply to this final rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because these amendments do not involve any I
provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
i t
List Of Subjects 1
Part 61 - Criminal penalty, Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Reporting l
and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, t
I as amended and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the folicwing amencments to 10 CFR Part 61.
t l
1 PART 61 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR 20 2
i LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIDACTIVE WASTE i
l l
1.
The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:
i AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 53, 65, 81,161,182,183, 68 Stat. 930, i
932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, s
2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat.1244,1245, (42 U.S.C.
l 1
5842, 5846); secs.10 and 14, Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851).
+
2.
In s 61.2, the definition of land disposal facility is revised to read as follows:
f 61.2 Definitions.
As used in this part:
l j
I land disposal facility means the land, buildings and structures, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive 4
i wastes.
For purposes of this Chapter, a " geologic repository" as defined in l
W Part 60 is not considered a " land disposal facility."
{
l.
1 s
3.
In s 61.7, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
i l
21
-7
--i+
- ge-w-e ae%e
_--wg ee w
- +----
-ep---
w>-
61.7 Concepts (a)
The Disposal Facility.
(1) Part 61 is intended to apply to land disposal of radioactive waste and not to other methods such as sea or i
extraterrestrial disposal.
Part 61 contains ;rocedural requirements and performance objectives applicable ta any method of land disposal.
It contains specific technical requirements for near-surface disposal of radicactive waste, a subset of land disposal, which involves disposal in the u;permost portion of the earth, approximately 30 meters. Near-surface disposal includes 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, i
w a
=
w 4
Section 61.8 is revised to read as follows:
% 61.8 Information collection reouirements: OMB approval (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0135.
22
i 4
1 j
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this i
j part appear in 59 61.3, 61.6, 61.9, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12, 61.13, 61.14, 61.15, i
61.16, 61.20, 61.22, 61.24, 61.26, 61.27, 61.28, 61.30, 61.31, 61.53, 61.55, l
61.57, 61.58, 61.61, 61.62, 61.63, 61.72, and 61.80.
r i
i 5.
In s 61.12, paragraph (j) is revised to read as follows:
I 1
9 61.12 Specific technical information.
3 I
1 j
(j) A description of the quality assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal, developed and applied by the applicant for the determination of natural disposal site characteristics and for quality assurance during the design, construction, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility and the receipt, handling, and emplacement of waste.
i i
I 6.
In 9 61.80, (i)(1) is revised to read as follows:
9 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers.
e (i)(1)
Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materials received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual reports to the appropriate Commission regional office shown in Appendix D of Part 20 of this 23
O *,
e chapter, with copies to the Director, Division of low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC, 20555. Reports must be submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the preceding year.
e a
n Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this thj e -,$'m 3
, 199..
For the Nuc1mv.e,alatory Com.ission.
Lt d ;
\\
Din %
lk7 amuel J. Chi,$he Commission.
ecretary of i
l l
24 y
l CONGRZ8810NAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEX DOCCKINT PRZPAAATION CHECKLIST This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of Q3/As) sent for.
ing into the CCS.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (5)
I NA i k~
.Ib, d-r
>~
2.
TYPE OF-DN s'
Correspondeason.
Estringam (Qs/ Ash
/
/ Won-sensitive 3.
DOCUMENT CCNTROL sensitive (NRC Caly) t V
4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOXXITTEES (if applica.ble) l Congressional Committee Subcommittee i
5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b) scan-(c)
Atlachments (d)
Rakey (a)
Other j
7.
SYSTEX LOG DATES (a)
~ND Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Data CCS Escalvees document (c)
Data returned to oCA for additional information (d)
Data resubmitted by-CCA to CCS
~
(a)
Data entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.
COMMENTS 080044
-