ML20127B762
| ML20127B762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/21/1991 |
| From: | Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-91-047, SECY-91-47, NUDOCS 9103060192 | |
| Download: ML20127B762 (31) | |
Text
g Oooo00eooooeeooooooooo00 RELEASED TO THE POR
,? m t/,2 V/9 5 Cl f j\\
j
'dato iNtes a
see.eseseosasessnesosees V
. ?[j#
g u
POLICY ISSUE ~
(Notation Vote) sccY-9l-o47 February 21, 1991 Eqt:
The Commissioners from:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Su_ble_c1:
DRAFT PROPOSAL FROM PENNSYLVANIA FOR A LlHITED AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 274b TO REGULATE LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to request a policy determination by the Commission on the approach to take on the application of the Atomic Energy Act requirement of " compatibility" to State programs regulating low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facilities, specifically Pennsylvania's low-level waste regulatory program.
In SECY 91-039 " Evaluation of Agreement State Compatibility Issues," we presented these issues in the generic context of Agreement State compatibility. This paper provides the details relating to the proposed limited agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Summary:
Pennsylvania :s the first State to submit a draft request for a Limited Agreement for low-level waste disposal under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Pennsylvania has clearly indicated by its regulatory framework that it will license an alternative method of LLRW disposal--above land grade disposal. The State's statutes and regulations have been developed in a manner to reflect the State's preference for an above land grade facility; consequently, they are different from these of the NRC. These differences and certain other parts of the Pennsylvania program have led to a question whether the Commonwealth has a compatible regulatory program for entering into an Agreement with NRC. Six LLRW compacts and four unaffiliated States will also use alternative methodology.
Therefore, NRC's decision on this issue will impact other State LLW programs.
Staff recommends a flexible approach to compatibility so that the Pennsylvania program can be approved.
CONTACT:
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Vandy L. Miller, GPA X20326 WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE Cardelia H. Maupin, GPA, X20312 AVAILABLE
-_29 0 0 0 3 >' A
$h N
_ NMN M
. b
4 2
Backaround:
Under section 274d.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission may enter into an agreement with a State for the assumption of State regulatory authority only if "the Commission finds that the State program is in accordance with the requirements of subsection o. and in all other respects compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials, and that the State program is 1
adequate to protect the public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed agreement."
The focus in this paper is on the term " compatible". This paper does not address the question of the adequacy of the Pennsylvania program. This will be covered in detail when the staff evaluates the formal Pennsylvania request for a Limited Agreement.
To date, based on program reviews to establish the Agreement and meetings with Commonwealth officials, staff fully anticipates that an adequate program will be established in Pennsylvania.
The term " compatible" has not been defined statutorily; the Commission has no legally binding definition of this term.
Generally, the term " compatible" in section 274 has been considered in practice to encompass a range from total state flexibility in some matters to essentially identical for other matters such as basic radiation protection standards.
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1961 published l
criteria for the guidance of States and the Commission relating to discontinuance of Commission authority and assumption of State authority under the terms of an Agreement. These criteria, which are in the form of a policy statement "are intended to indicate factors which the Commission intends to consider in approving new or amended agreements. They are not intended to limit Commission discretion in viewing individual agreements or amendments...." These criteria provide that State regulatory programs shall " strive for uniformity in technical definitions and terminology, particularly as related to such things as units of measurement and radiation dose," and that there "shall be uniformity on maximum permissible doses and levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity,..." (26 FR 2536-2539, March 24, 1961, especially Criterion 3 at p.2537.)
!These criteria, which were revised in 1981 and 1983, are more fully described at pp. 8-10 of the General Counsel's memorandum of November 14, 1989 to the Commissioners on "The Commission's legal Authority Under The Compatibility Standard
.. To Require Agreement States to Adopt Criteria That Are ldantical To Those Set Forth in The Commission's
.. BRC Policy Statement... "
lo l
l
1 3
On July 21, 1983, the Comission revised Criterion 9 of the NRC's policy statement on Discontinuance of Authority (Appendix 1) which_ deals with radioactive waste disposal.
The purpose _of the rev.ision of Criterion 9 was-to point out those portions of 10 CFR Part.61 and Part=20 (manifest system) which must be adopted by a State.to enter into'an 1
Agreement in the area of low-level radioactive waste disposal. The July 1983 policy statement provided the following:
9.
Radioactive Waste Disposal.
(a)
Waste disposal by material users....-
L Requirements for transfer of waste for the purpose of-ultimate disposal at a land disposal _ facility (waste transfer and manifest system) -shall be in accordance i
with 10 CFR Part 20.
'The waste disposal standards shall _ include a waste classification scheme and provisions for waste form, applicable to waste generators, that is equivalent to that contained in 10 CFR Part 61.
~
(b)
Land disposal of waste received from other persons. The State shall promulgate regulations containing licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste received from other_ persons which' are compatible with the applicable technical definitions, performance objectives, technical requirements and applicable supporting sections set -
forth in 10 CFR Part 61.. Adequate financial i
arrangements-[under terms established by regulation) shall.be required of _each waste. disposal site licensee-H to ensure sufficient funds for decontamination, closure and stabilization of-a disposal site.
In addition,' Agreement-State financial ' arrangements for long-term monitoring and maintenance _of a specific
' site must be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to relieving the site operator of licensed responsibility (section 151(a)(2), Pub. L.97-625).
While Criterion 9 uses the term " compatible," it does not indicate precisely whether,' as applied to Part-61's substantive licensing standards, the term means strict' conformity with NRC requirements.
However,.in order to provide-guidance to-the staff and to better implement-the.
term " compatibility " the State Programs staff adopted' internal written procedures, " Internal Procedures, B.
Policy, B.7 -Criteria for Compatibility Determinations."
See Appendix 2.
In the B.7 internal procedures, State-Programs categorized pertinent NRC rules according to the
C 4
degree of uniformity recessary between NRC and Agreement State requirements.
Four categories were established as follows:
Djvision 1 Rules constitute th5se provision, of the NRC regulations that States are required to adopt, essentially verbatim, into their regulations.
For example, these rules include maxiraum permissible dose limits, definition of basic radiation terminology, radiation sign and symbols, and legal definitions.
Division 2 Rules are other provisions in N'C rules that States must address in their regulati:ns because these rules include basic principles of radiation safety and regulatory functions. Huwever, the use of identical language to that of the NRC is not necessary provided the underlying principles are the same.
The States may adopt more stringent or restrictive-rules than the NRC in this area.
Qhilion 3 Rules are thase provisions in NRC regulations which would be appropriate for Agreement States to adopt, but which do not require any degree of uniformity between NRC and States rules.
Division 4 Rules are certain regulatory functions which are reserved to the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CFR Part 150.
Appendix A to these internal procedures contains a
" Categorization of NRC Rules by Compatibility Type." This Appendix lists the following sections of 10 CFR Part 61 as Division 1 Re' is:
61.2 Definitions (Exceptions - Commission, Director, Gov't Agency) 61.41 Protection of general population 61.55 Waste classification Discussion:
Pennsylvania's draft request for a Limited Agreement for the regulation of LLRW disposal clearly reflects the State's intent to license an alternative method of disposal--above land grade disposal.
Pennsylvania's LLRW statutes and regulations have been developed in a manner to reflect this preference.
Although this type of disposal is dcscribed in an NRC Branch Technical Position, (NUREG-1241, " Licensing of Alternative Methods of Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste," December 1986), it is not covered literally by
e 5
Part 61.8 On the other hand, nothing in Part 61 orohibits this kind of disposai which in theory could be licensed by HRC itself in a non-Agreement State under the general standards of 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.
In practice, NRC would likely apply technical and performance objective requirements of Part 61 in a review of an above land grade disposal facility application.
Because of this 2 reference for above land grade disposal, Pennsylvania's LLRW regulatory-program differs from that of the RRC in a number of respects. The most notable differences are as follows:
(1)
State statutes and regulations prohibit the use of shallow land burial.
(2)
With limited exceptions, state statutes and regulations direct the State to use an above land grade facility. One purpose appears to be to facilitato retrievability, a concept not recognized by 10 CFR Part 61.
(3)
Pennsylvania has several more stringent regulatory requirements, e.g., a longer period of institutional control. Also, although not directly related to the choice of disposal technology, Pennsylvania has sought to reserve general authority to impose requirements on LLRW disposal that are more stringent than NRC's.
ImLL1:
IS THE PROHIBITION OF SHALLOW LAND BURIAL COMPATIBLE WITH URC'S REGULATORY PROGRAM 7 In two laws, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has clearly prohibited the use of shallow land burial as a method of low-level waste disposal.
These statutes are Section 305 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act of 1988 (LLWA) and Article 3 Section (F)(h) of the Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Act (ALLWA), which was consented to by Congress on May 19, 1988.
In addition, Section 236.311 of Pennsylvania's regulations provides, " Shallow land burial, as defined in Section 236.2 is prohibited." The State regulations define " shallow land
' Staff recognizes this inconsistency and plans to amend 10 CFR Part 61 to broaden the definition of a " land disposal facility" so that the alternative of above land grade disposal will clearly be covered by 10 CFR 6 61.54.
This amendment would reflect the intent of staff members who drafted 10 CFR Part 61 with the view that it could apply to a range of facility der,igns, including above land grade facilities.
a 9
6 burial" as "The disposal of law-level radioactive waste directly in subsurface trenches without additional confinement in engineered structures and in proper packaging as determined in the act."
As Pennsylvania's definition illustrates, the term " shallow land burial" describes a method of waste disposal, formerly in common use, which involves, without more, digging a I
shallow trench, dumaing the waste into the trench and then covering the waste by filling the trench with earth.
This term is not included in 10 CFR Part 61, which, for regulatory purposes, uses more general terms (i.e., *near-surface disposal" and "near-surface disposal facility")
instead. The terms "near-surface disposal" and "near-surface disposal facility" are broad enough to encomp:ss
" shallow land burial." At the same time, they are also associated with specific regulatory requirements applicable to the siting, design, operation and closure of near-surface disposal facilities (m, e.g.,10 CFR 61.50(a),
61.51(a) and 61.52(a) b_U1, m, 10 CFR 61.54 which provides that "[t]he Cnmmission may, upon request or on its own initiative, authorize provisions other than those set forth in il 61.51 through 61.53 for the segregation and disposal of waste and for the design and operation of a land disposal facility on a specific basis, if it finds reasonable assu ance of compliance with the performance objectives of Subpart C of this part ")
Thus, contrary to the situation in Pennsylvania, " shallow land burial" is not by its terms prohibited by Part 61.
However, the NRC permits disposal by
" shallow land burial" only to the extent thht it is carried out in accordance with the Commission's regulations, including, among others, those in 10 CFR Part 61.
As a result, this aspect of the Pennsylvania program is more stringent than NRC's, i.e., it prohibits a practice which Part 61 may, at least in some cases, allow.
The NRC staff's (OGC, SP, and LlWM) preliminary review of the Pennsylvania statutes and regulations in 1988 did not indicate any difficulty with the " prohibition of shallow land burial" provision.
This issue surfaced only during'the review of the Pennsylvania draft Limited Agreement application as a matter to be approved by the Commission.
There.are six Compacts-arj four unaffiliated States which have banned the use of shallow-land burial (see Appendix 3,.
August 16, 1990 mtmorandum from Carlton Kammerer).
Included are'several-Agreement States, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, Texas and North Carolina. This prohibition has not been an impediment to making continuing compatibility determinations in those States in the past.
l 7
Moreover, the Commission did not object to this prohibition of shallow land burial in entering into an Agreement with the State of Illinois. The Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act of 1983 (ILLRWA) was reviewed by NRC-offices as part of the 19861111nois application for a full Agreement. The ILLRWA in Section 241-6(c), " Waste f acilities-Requirements," provides, "Such regulations adopted for the requirements and performance standards of a disposal facility shall not provide for the shallow land burial of low-level radioactive wastes."
In addition, this Act states in Section 241-8(e), " Waste facility licensing-Requirements," "No person shall operate and the Director shall not issue any permit under this Section to operate any disposal facility for the shallow land burial of low-level r:dic:ctive w:stes in Illinois."
!ilinois defined shallow land burial in Section 241-3(m) as "a land disposal facility in which radioactive waste is disposed of in or within the upper 30 meters of the earth's surface.
However, this definition shall not include an enclosed, engineered, structurally re-enforced and solidified bunker that extends below the earth's surface."
While these provisions in other State laws have not been objected to by NRC, it is fair to say that until now this past practice.nay not have been the focus of Commission review.
Issue 2:
ARE PROVISIONS FOR AN ABOVE LAND GRADE FACILITY COMPATIBLE WITH THE NRC'S LLRW PROGRAM 7 Pennsylvania statutes and regulations only allow an above land grade disposal faci'..ty.
Pennsylvania statutes in Section 305 of the low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act provide, "An above land grade facility is required unless other designs provide significant improvement in recoverability, monitoring, public health and environmental protection."
In addition, Section 236.311 of Pennsylvania's regulations, which sets out general design criteria for a regional disposal facility, states:
(b)
Waste emplaced in the disposal facility shall be above the natural grade of the land which shall be known as above-grade dissosal. An above-grade disposal facility shall 3e used unlass the applicant can demonstrate that other designs provide-significant improvement for recoverability, monitoring and-protection of public health and the environment.
Part 61 as written is not literally applicable to the type of above land grade disposal facility specified by l
8 l
Pennsylvania's law and regulations.3 Therefore, NRC in CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.]y the very general criteria in 10 theory would need to app Thus, this aspect of the Pennsylvania draft program presents a variation on Issue 1 above - is the Pennsylvania program compatible even thoegh a i
particular disposal technology is preferred and insofar as 10 CFR Part 61 criteria would not apply, Pennsylvania's I
criteria are more fully developed and specific than NRC's.
Jnitd:
ARE PENNSYLVANIA'S PROVISIONS FOR MORE STRINGENT REGULATIONS COMPATIBLE Wi1H THE NRC7 Issue 3 presents still another variation on issue 1 -should a State be able to reserve a aeneral right to impose more stringent requirements on LLRW disposal.
Several of Pennsylvania's LLRW disposal regulations impose specific requirements that are more stringent than NRC's.
for example, section 236.301 establishes zero release of radioactive material as a design goal and containment requirements to meet this goal are saecified in section 1
236.314.
Section 236.315 requires t1at the waste be recoverable and section 236.2 provides for a " passive j
institutional control period" to continue for the hazardous life of the radioactive waste.
i in addition to specific regulatory requirements which are more stringent than those established by NRC, two Pennsylvania laws contain language which purports generally i
to allow the State to adopt more stringent regulations to the extent authorized or allowable by Federal--law.
These statutes are the Pennsylvania low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act (LLWA) and the Appalachian States Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Act (ALLWA)._ Article 3, Section (F)(b) of the Pennsylvania ALLWA states, "To the extent authorized by Federal law, a host State may adopt more stringent laws, rules or regulations than required by Federal law."
In additio4, Section 301 of the LLWA provides, *The department shall have the power and its duty shall be to:... Develop and implement a comprehensive program for the regulation...and disposal of low-level 3Part 61 authorizes the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in a " land disposal facility " which is defined in 10 CFR 61.2, as "the land, buildings, and equipment which is intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes into the subsurface of the land...." In addition, Part 61 contains technical requirements for disposal in a "near surface disposal facility" which is defined in 10 CFR 61.2 as "a land disposal facility in which-radioactive waste is disposed in or within the upper 30 meters of the earth's surface "
'In practice, NRC would likely apply requirements from Part 61.
+
y---e-wr,
-%e---
e 7
w w
-.-c.
- + - *.--
=
=
i 9
i radioactive waste to the extent allowable under Federal law or State law, whichever is more stringent." Moreover, some of the specific Pennsylvania LLRW disposal regulations, for example, the disposal site performance objectives, are expressly characterized as " minimum" requirements (see 1
I section 236.11).
Alternatives:
Based upon the staff's analysis of the Pennsylvania proposed regulatory program, staff notes the following options available to the Commission in the application of compatibility:
OPTION 1 - Allow the State some flexibility in all three areas:
(1) prohibiting a particular disposal technology, c.g., shallow land burial which may be acceptable to NRC; (2) requiring the use of technically and economically feasible approach, such as an above land grade disposal facility; and (3) more stringent or restrictive regulations.
PROS:
(1)
This option affords reasonable flexibility to States which by Federal law are responsible for r
developing LLRW disposal capacity, and arguably should be able to tailor their programs to suit local considerations.
(2) This option is generally consistent with the way I
NRC has evaluated Agreement States in the past and will not be disruptive of ongoing programs in Pennsylvania and other States. - Disruption would detract from-some States' ability to meet the Federal 1993 and 1996 deadlines for developing disposal capacity.
(3) Some innovative and more stringent regulatory programs by Agreement States have been a laudatory aspect of the Agreement State Program.
Examples are, the Texas program for examination of industrial radiographers and _the inspection policies of many Agreement States which-call for more frequent inspections than those of HRC.
Additionally, most Agreement States require licensees to annually inform radiation workers of their exposure to radiation; whereas, NRC regulations stipulate that radiation workers must request this information.
Strict conformity will discourage innovative programs and experimentation with alternative regulatory structures.
i
10
~
(4) Affording flexibility will enable the Commission to avoid some difficult and contentious issues of preemption and States' rights and lessen the chance for. legislation which would significantly curtail federal preemption.
CONS:
(1)
By allowing States to be different and more stringent NRC will lose some of its leadership role in setting LLRW disposal requirements.
(2)
Non-uniformity could lead to public confusion about what is safe; one State will prohibit what NRC or another State will allow.
(3)
Proliferation of different techniques and standards could strain public and private technical resources and discourage transfer of experience and " lessons-learned" from one j
program to another.
(O Allowing States to be more stringent is conceptually inconsistent with the NRC's recent BRC policy.
(S)
States could impose unnecessarily strict requirements and thereby cause unnecessary expense for LLRW waste generators.
in the extreme case, waste disposal technologies could be archibited for reasons having little to do wit 1 objective safety considerations.
QPTION 2 - Determine that the proposed Pennsylvania low-level waste regulatory program is incom)atible with the NRC program, based on (1) the State's prohiaition of shallow land burial; (2) the State's intent to require an above land grade disposal facility; and (3) the State's assertion of authority to adopt more stringent regulations than NRC. The pros and cons of this option are essentially the reverse of the pros and cons of Option 1 above.
==
Conclusion:==
This paper aresents an important policy issue concerning the degree to w1ich States, under consideration for or with Agreement State status, should have the authority and flexibility to promulgate regulatory programs for LLRW disposal which differ from 10 CFR Part 61.
The Commission's policy from the earliest days of the Agreement State Program was to maintain some degree of uniformity among the various regulatory programs and still recognize that States must be allowed some flexibility to accommodate local conditions.
11 A decision which does not allow some flexibility in the area of LLRW regulation could have an impact on other States which are developing low-level waste, disposal capacity.
As discussed in the August 16, 1990 memorandum from Carlton Kammerer, many other States could be potentially impacted by the Commission's decision on the proposed Pennsylvania regulatory program.
The proposed Pennsylvania regulatory program is similar to regulatory progra'ns of other Agreement States such as Nebraska and Illinois which are planning to use alternative methods of disposal. A finding of non-compatibility in this area might lead to a reevaluation of the acceptability of other Agreement State low-level waste regulatory programs and radiation control programs and impact the implementation of the LLRWPAA.
Recommendations:
It is in light of these considerations that staff proposes to find the Pennsylvania proposed LLRW program compatible with that of the NRC and recommends Option 1.
((g.h:
The staff recognizes that a policy determination on compatibility by the Commission as a result of SECY 91-039 would affect this specific case.
ligic:
If this recommendation is adopted, it will be necessary to make appropriate revisions to Criterion 9 and to State Programs internal procedures. Some minor changes to 10 CFR Part 61 will also be required.
(See footnote 2, supra.)
Coordination:
This paper has been coordinated with and concurred in by the Office of the Executive Director for Operations and the Office of General Counsel has no legal objection.
/
~
Office of Gove,an, Director arold R. Dent 1
rnmental and Public Affairs Attachments:
As stated f
.,e
,-,..n.-.,
,.n..
c
_ _ _ _..... ~.... _ _ _ __.. _ _ _. _ _ _. _.
12 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by CCD Wednesday, March 6, 1991.
Commission Staff Offico comments,.if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 27, 1991, with an 1
information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requiress additional review and comment, the Con.missioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION.
+
LSS GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACNW SECY t
i k
Ine.
,.o m-a--
.,,,,,w rE,
-,c,..
w.
,-.ya
,.,... + -,i,,
-n,,,,,
,yy y,--
-ry,,..,
~
CY STATAMitra b
APPENDIX 1 d
Therefere 6eISCisseeisang l
Cr6 w6en e er hetede esissenes to to podeemanes ehessemens teshmeal segeWmeme and massehl asewomme i
segets**mte sostained in pen a and Ebe weets tremele and needset system easteleed be pen ah svensies else eensflee the p4,Is6 ems of to plusieer
- F# 8ept Weste pol 6cy Aes of test. Cheerles e
='
euneseuf strues,
wG be used h he adegeoey
" thesy of f
l Seesenthuones et IWIC Aedhoney tend '
,,ed g,P,',g,*a aag,,g=o a g
apeum..en vi.orow by =stes weetc. C,,e"ed..s.
~*r - o a' = =
eai se,leisse to.e eutdanse et eache and NAC
.ng,g, aussidend essenewy at this asaser.Nueteer "; '7 ene to enter tota se sysseset enth a r_ i.. i guw wWebineledes esterpy w setuse Sunemmet af pebey Revision, seguietesesN w elsnessesse weste
- ct,es.ent e e.een.,RC
- Cr,te,tse. e,.e,8C.e seenlessg speeang betal sites.P polier fee thessatteessee of Astener
+
dated lenury 35.tsel oppsertse et 46 bais been and wW assesseIs west one
=
FR 76e6 76es deels with weets seposal es suies toimplement penet m euwe *ei se etandus ese sepaul ises me e esse %. nee besse, to kle alt. weter and aswet and banal to eatset prestiesbie.The weste ~
uit shall be la asserdamse with to CFR transfer esat maalleet system to CFR pen m The Commiselen's reguisese to BJtt bessese eSeptwo W6 p, CrR Port M.wblah breams effesthe tem.Os en biene basie, eneessesses Deeseber W. teal provides bosnahg are being made with he Aposesset l
Pewdemo.putmmmei e6 even.
suies ageleues the seleues banal sites tethascal mguiremente and I
to implement he weste eissonnesere sentence segelvemenu let the h pretes and weets tonelw and maadest of beenees by NRC fet the lead disposal erstem through he beNal este beemasse.
of most wastes thol are==mmas#
ese nuevowe goesosaviam esortaert niemd to as new4evel weHe.le Kathlees N.Sehee6 der.OEse af Seats addities, the Nealeer Weste policy Am proyama,UA peesteer teruistsey of test requime shel the NRC and the Consdesise.W DC sensa.
Aywment seesee psevide and oppreso r -
eensta eleled Amenetal ervengoosets any erasen4 Ties thereas pn.r. 3. sessense of a hasnee sur low-
- e. le enhed h seed as leHouru level todiseettee weste esposal er t.s
. the sese of besMee le eSeel.@ W anennaties of such basesse.Tae GL Raasessee Weste Disposal a
I Anasc6al arrsagement ase to e""
la)Weets esternal usare.
esopleten of allrequirensete he tio Th puedes to d
d"'"i4*l** 8"
" M 8"'
semeseeve metadale hee the at, water and sewW.Md buial D 8e seu dall be e8N8'"'" **d 4'W ""4 8" h sessedness with se tyR pen a seahmet6es seleuNuel weste pleidese Wsensesow meurtel deelshg
,, h Y 7,de beheses6atStatse i
enklag so spoement purosest to k mese d base eau be i
g,, n,,,,,,,,,,enal pmaineles Secties 3feb et the Atenda Emevey Act -
sagdred h op W tus, se amended, to segulaieland
,,,3,,,,,
dispetalof redsesseve weses should
,,,g,,yy, setabl6eb siendards ter espaani wheek 6 e
,,g,,,,,,,g,,g,,,,p,,,g,,,,,,g,,
g, i
of ehemete e,spe,nal et,,a are to nessed wie t.o e.a.u-t 4. nan.<-
g g,haB be to ebtesttves, techniset seteiramente. and and s
sneasiel ensurnaies segeirvesem of to asserdamse wieno a
i CTR pan et and the weses someter and The weste hopenal eiendesde shab mentfoot eyones peesenbod is ne UR knelade e meets eleasineense sehene Pan a For es weste seenisse system and psestolene ter weste term.
to fonettee effesegly en e escenal apphenble to ereen pseersises tot is bula,it to esenopy est e5 basesses, ege#,elsoise hatassenteed bete (FR bos NRC med Ayoomem Gaste,to peg gg, sellow the name presse.Thee, One -
k land hopeselaf emete seenhed
. Ayeement suin are empeewd to adsyt 6e(m)een pemThe Suu shna and imp'ement this symen fut thstr to go9eiseses aestateem, Dirt **' vet.
.,_ _- -^- let lead espenal 4
w..
1 t
s*
e s4 4
g h
m..
...-m.
_..,--.m c...._.,,.~-...__.m___,m.,,,,
,_mmm-%,,,,y,,,,ym-,-
c.o,.
., em
.~w...
- - win. ear 2,w e
em---%4a 4-3 ~4 nusL-A%w A
44J ->
1MLA
--m A usnm FAam.a s
A-
~asa--am,-
o _ g
[,,...
=
. *j POUCY STATEME8tr$
w ses.se.es.e rees ed ese e.e,
')
pessoas wWeb ese esempshie unit the
.d oppuseble techniaal doenHises.
pedasmesse C c eeshnisel mguimmene and oppheeW essenene setisnh le se tra pen Adegeene Annassel r-
- i lander teres establiebed by shot be sessed eteesh week een Beseems le casare settlesse Amade for desentamineWen, eleswe end MeWheeWee of a diepeest she.b admisse. Ayounesi sw= amenshi esseeemesis serimeine meanerter and massiemense era speans asw meet be sovlewed and a by the r - = w== pMer so the esse opefelW of M FespWW
'F (sectee 18tle)(fl. Pwk L stes)
Cseedealsest heborts,le diseppeweing, elated EM,en he gestes' and the pubia's htwoot a all espeew af our waste dispoetf ropJetlene and
=
goldanne, shne metales cheidd se est ist
,p -u -
e b
e 0
0 e
e e
9
- u-
,.e e *,
- \\
s
.f.,
4 k
e 9
- 1 8
=
a 9
ev...
e.
s G
e'
.h f
e e
4 e
4 e
gm er7 t a-m 7-y.--M9*
m**z9t-w e+rta-w
.y r
< 7 ry y
w
,a
, w aw
- ce q$---iw fu-.?---er-g,e m
e a9 gv.~s-
-g-g-
,-retwyD-sw-*-w my e
APFENDlx ;
l e
STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM DIVISION I Internal Procedures B. Policy B.7 - Criteria for Compatibility
.Deteminations 1.
gekground Section 274d.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires that before entering into an agreement with any State, the Comission shall make a detemination that the State's program is Section 274 authorizes compatible with the Comission's program.
9 and directs the Cemission to cooperate with the States in the fomulation of standards to assure that State and Comission programs will be coordinated and compatible.
Section 274j(1) requires that the Comission periodically review such agreements and actions taken under the agreements to ensure compliance with Section 274 Sections 274d(2) and 274g. are the only sections of the Act that address the concept of compatibility, it should be noted that both sections refer to the compatibility of " programs."
It is evident that Congress intended that the Comission address more than just regulations in its review, and since the earliest days of the State Agreements Program the Comission has used the term " compatibility" in relation to not only regulations, but also to such program areas as licensing and compliance. This procedure, however, will address compatibility only as it affects regulations.
The Comission has never fomally defined compatibility or provided more than ninimal guidance as to how the term should be interpreted.
The basic objective has been to achieve unifomity among the various regulatory programs to the maximum extent practicable recognizing that the States must be allowed some flexibility to accommodate local conditions. With regard to reculations, it has been more or less understood that certain regulations such as 10 CFR Part 20 were considered to be " matters of compatibility" and that States were required to have regulations that had essentially identical language. With respect to other parts of the regulations it was less clear what requirements were considered " matters of compatibility" and why.
In 1961, the Comission published criteria for the guidance of States end the Comission relating to the discontinuance of Comission authority under the terms of the agreement. The criteria require that "The State regulatory program shall adopt a set of standards for protection against radiation... It is important to strive for unifomity in technical definitions and terminology, particularly as related to such things as units of measurement and radiation dose. There shall be unifomity on maximum pemissible doses and levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity, as fixed by Part 20 of the [Comission] regulations based on officially approved radiation protection guides." However, questions re'nain as to how precisely State regulations must reflect NRC regulations.
1/25/84 i
___- In addition, NRC has always encouraged unifomity in regulations other than those listed above, but no specific guidance has been
- provided, it should be noted that the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the Nuclear Weste Policy Act require Agreement States as well as NRC to incorporate certain elements in their regulatory programs (e.g., environmental assessments, land ownership, financial assurances). These requirements have been appropriately included in the categorization.
In light of the above, this procedure establishes criteria for better defining compatibility and detemining the degree to which States regulations must show unifomity with Comission regulations, 11.
Rule Categorization Historically, the notion of degrees of compatibility has always been implicit in compatibility deteminations. This notion, however, has never been given substance,in the fom of policies or procedures.
Under this procedure pertinent NRC rules are categorized according to the degree of unifomity necessary between NRC and Agreement State requirements.
Four categories are established as follows:
Division 1 Rules There are certain provisions in NRC regulations that States must adopt, essentially verbatin, into their regulations. These provisions include those that form the basic language of radiation protection essential for effective comunication between regulatory agencies and the regulated comunity.
These provisions have been fomulated and egreed to by national and international organizations, from consensus' standards followed by industry and government.
They include technical definitions such as " curie,"
"dese," and " rad," radiation protection standards such as occupational exposure limits, effluent release limits, and legal definitions such as for " byproduct material," " restricted area" and
" occupational dose." These provisions are so basic to the regulatory programs that their modification by a State would result in numerous and difficult problems including interference in interstate comerce. These provisions are collectively referred to as Division 1 rules and Agreement States are required to adopt essentially identical provisions.
Division 2 Rules There are other provisions in NRC regulations that address basic principles of radiation safety and regulatory functions.
Such principles include generally applicable safety requirements such as personnel monitoring and ALARA, and procedural requirements such as detailed in Part 19. While States must address such principles in their regulations, the States may adopt requirements more 1/25 /84 I
- 3 a.
restrictive than NRC rules. The use of language identical to that in NRC rules is not necessary provided the underlying principles are the same. For example, 10 CFR 19.11 addresses the posting of certain notices to workers. While we believe that it is inportant that Agreement State licensees be re:uired to make available to workers certain documents, the manner, location and time constraints under which they are posted may differ somewhat from the corresponding NRC provisions. Local circumstances may dictate more stringent requirements than those of 19.11. Other rules that would be included in this category include basic procedural requirements necessary for licensing, inspection authority, incident reporting, and radiation safety requirements for industrial radiog' hers.
Such provisions are designated Division 2 rules.
, Division 3 Rules There are a great number of provisions in NRC regulations which would be appropriate for Agreement States to adopt, but which do not require any degree of uniformity between NRC and States rules.
For example, NRC has found group medical licensing to be an improved method of licensing the medical uses of radionuclides.
States utilizing a different procedure in licensing medical uses of radionuclides would not be hindering interstate comerce or deviating in any manner from basic radiation protection standards or procedures.
Such rules, some of which relate to areas which are strictly matters between the regulatory agency and the regulated connunity within its jurisdiction are designated Division 3 rules.
Such rules include administrative requirements as well as technical criteria which the agency feels the licensee nust address in order to meet the basic radiation standards.
In all cases States are encouraged to adopt the regulatory approeth taken by NRC in such rules, but are not required to dn so.
Division 4 Rules There are certain regulatory functions which are reserved to NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CFR Part 150.
Rules pertaining to these areas are designated Division 4 rules. Such rules include those concerning reactor regulation, distribution of consumer products, exports and imports, and high level waste disposal.
State regulations should not address these areas.
Ill. Listing of Pertinent NRC Rules Atte:hed as Appendix A of this procedure is a listing of a'll pertinentNRC. rules (Parts 19, 20, 30, 31. 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 61,-
70, 71, and 150) by compatibility type. The corresponding section of the Suggested State Regulations can be found in Internal Procedure A.2.
1/25/84
l f
s APPENDIX A CATEGORIZATION OF NRC RULES BY COMPATIBILITY TYPE Division 1 Rules 19.3 Definitions (Exceptions - Act, Comission, license) 20.3 Definitions (Exceptions - Act, Comission, Gov't Agency, license) 10.4 Units of radiation dose 20.5 Units of radioactivity 20.101 Dose limits 20.102 Prior dose 20.103 Concentrations in restricted areas 20.104 Exposure of minors 20.105 Levels in unrestricted areas 20.106 Radioactivity in effluents 20.203 Caution signs, etc., except (c)(6)&(7) 20.403 Notifications of incidents Part 20 Appendix B and Appendix C 30.4 Definitions (Exceptions - Act, Comission, Gov't Ag)ency, license, production facility, utilization facility 30.11 Specific exemptions 30.12 Contractor exemptions 30.14 Exempt concentration 30.15 Exerpt items 30.16 Sc-46 resins exemption 30.18 Exempt quantities 30,19 Self-luminous products 30.20 Gas and aerosol detectors 30.70 Exempt concentrations schedule 30.71 Exempt quantities schedule 31.3 Certain devices and equipment 32.2 Definitions 40.4 Definitions (Exceptions - Act, Comission, Gov't Agency, Phamacist, physician) 40.11 DOE & NRC contractor exemptions 40.13 Unimportant quantities 40.14 Specific exemptions 40.22 Small quantities of source material 61.2 Definitions (Exceptions - Comission, Director, Gov't Agency) 61.41 Protection of general population 61.55 Waste classification 70.4 Definitions (Exceptions - Act Atomic Weapon, Comission, Comon defense and security, Gov't Agency) 70.11 DOE & NRC contractor exemptions 70.14 Specific exemptions 71.4 Definitions (those relating to materials transportation) 71.5 Transportation of licensed material 71.10 Exemptions for low-level naterials 1/25/84 A-1 l
l Part 71 Appendix A 150.3 Definitions (b), (c), (9), (1), and (j) 150.11 Critical mass 150.20 Reciprocity Division 2 Rules 19.11 Posting of Notices 19.12 Instructions to Workers 19.13 Notifications 19.14 Presence of worker representatives 19.15 Consultation with workers 19.16 Requests for inspection 19.17 Inspection not warranted 20.1(c)
ALARA 20.108 Bioassay Services 20,201 Surveys 20,202 Personnel Monitoring 20.203 (c)(6) and (7) 500 rem /hr rule 20.205 Picking up, receiving, and opening packages 20.207 Storage & control in unrestricted areas 20.301 Waste Disposal - General Requirenents 20.302 Approval of disposal procedures 20.303 Sewage disposal 20,311 Transfer for disposal 20.402 Reports of Thef t or loss 20.405 Reports of overexposures 20.408 Monitoring Reports on termination Part 20 Appendix A 30.3 Activities requiring license 30.13 Carrier Exemption 30.31 Types of Licenses 30.32 Application for specific license 30.33 General requirements 30.34 Terms & Conditions 30.41 Transfer of byproduct material 30.55 Tritium reports (to be deleted) 31.5 Certain measuring, gauging and controlling devices 31.6 Installation of GL gauges 31.7 Luminous safety devices for use in aircraft 32.11 Introduction of exempt concentrations 32.12 Material transfer reports 32.13 Prohibition of introduction 32.51 Manufacture of GL gauges 32.51a Manufacture of GL gauges 32.52 Transf3r reports - GL gauges 32.53 Manufacture of luminous safety devices 32.54 Labeling of luminous safety devices 32.55 QA - luminous safety devices 32.56 Transfer reports - luminous safety devices 32.57 Manufacture of Am-241 reference sources 32.58 Labeling of Am-241 sources 32.59 Leak testing of Am-241 sources 32.61 Manuf acture of Sr-90 ice detection devices 1/25 /B4 A-2 I
. ~.. _ ~ - - - - - -
4
)
32.62 QA --ice detection devices 32.70 Manufacture of Medical GL material 32.71 Hanufacture of in vitro kits 32.72 Manufacture of radiophamateuticals 32.73 Hanufacture of generators and reagent kits 32.74 Manufacture of sources for medical use 32.101 Schedule B - tests for luminous safety devices 32.102 Schedule C - tests for Am-241 sources 32.103 Schedule D - tests for Sr-90 ice detection devices 32.110 Sampling procedures 34.2 Definition 34.11 Specific licenses for radiography 34.21 Levels of radiation 34.22 Locking of devices 34.23 Storage precautions 34.24 Survey Instruments 34.25 Leak testing, etc.
34.26 Quarterly inventory 34.27 Vtilization logs 34.28 Inspection and maintenance 34.31 Training 34.32 Operating and emergency procedures 34.33 Personnel Monitoring 34.41 Security 34.43 Surveys Part 34 Appendix A 40.2a Inactive tailings sites 40.12 Carrier exemptions 40.20 Types of licenses 40,26 GL - passession & storage of tailings 40.31(f)
& (h)
License for' source material milling 40.32 General requirements 40.34 Manufacture of depleted uranium products for GL 40.35 Manufacture of depleted uranium products for GL 40.41 Terms and Conditions 40.51 Transfer of source material 1
40.65 Effluent-monitoring Part 40 Appendix A 61.3 License required 61.10 Content of application 61.11 General information 61.12 Specific Technical information 61.13 Technical analyses 61.14 Institutional infomation 61.15 Financial information 61.23 Standards for issuance 61.24 Conditions of licenses 61.27 Application for renewal or closura 61.28 Contents of application for closure 61.29 Post-closure observation 61.30 Transfer 61.31 Temination 61.40 General requirement 1/25/84
+
A-3
61.42 Protection of individuals from intrusion 61.43 Protection of individuals during operations 61.44 Stability of site after closure G1.50 Site suitability requirements 61.51 Site design 61.52 Facility operation and site closure 61.53 Environmental monitoring 61.54 Alternative requirements 61.56 Waste characteristics 61.57 Labeling 61.59 Institutional requirements 61.61 Applicant qualifications 61.62 Funding for closure and stabilization 61.63 Financial assurances 61.81 Tests at disposal facilities 61.82 Comission inspections 70.12 Corrier exemption 70.18 Types of licenses-70.23(a) Requirements for approval 70.39 Manufacture of Pu calibration sources 70.42 Tri isfer of SNM 71.12 Gt for NRC approved packages 71.13 PNviously approved Type B packages 71.14 GL: 00T containers 71.16 GL: foreign approved packages 71.81 Operating controls and procedures 71.05 Preliminary determinations 71.87 Routine determinations (except fissile related) 71.88 Air transport of Pu 71.89 Opening instructions 150.31 UMTRCA 150.32 UffTRCA Division 3 Rules 19.1 Purpose 19.2 Scope 19.4 Interpretations 19.5 Comunications 19.20_
Employee protection 19.30 Violations-19,31 Applications for exemptions 19.32 Discrimination prohibited-20.1 (a) & (b) Purpose 20.2 Scope 20.6 Interpretations-20.7-Comunications 20.107 Medical diagnosis & therapy 20,204 Posting exceptions 20.206 Instruction of personnel 20.305 Disposal by incineration 20.306 Biomedical waste rule 20.401 Records 1/25/84 A-4
7 20.407 Personnel Monitoring reports 20.409 Notifications and Reports to Individuals 20.501 Applications for exemptions 20.502 Additional Requirements 20.601 Violations 30.1 Purpose & Scope 30.2 Resolution of conflict 30.5 Interpretations 30.6 Comunications 30.7 Employee protection 30.36 Expiration of licenses i
30.37 Applications for_ renewal 30.38 Applications for amendment 30.39 Cornission Action to renew or amend 30.51 Records 30.52 Inspections
^3.53 Tests-
+
30.61 Modification and revocation of licenses 30.62 Withholding of byproduct material 30.63 Violations 3
1.1 Purpose and Scope
31.2 Terms and conditions 31.8 Am-241 reference sources 31.9 GL to own material 31.10 Sr-90 ice detection devices 31.11 In-vitro GL-32.1 Purpose and scope 33.1 Purpose and scope 33.11 Broad license requirements 33.12 Broad license requirements 33.13 Broad license requirements 33.14 Broad. lice'nse requirements 33.15 Broad license requirements 33.16 Broad license requirements 33.17 Broad license requirements 33.100 Schedule A 34.1 Purpose and scope 34.3 Applications for specific licenses 34.29 Pe nnanent - ra diogra phic - i ns tall a tions 34.42 Posting
-34.44 Supervision of radiographer's assistants 34.51-Applications for exemptions 35.1 Purpose and scope 35.2 Medical license requirement 35.3(a)
Definition of " Human Use" 35.3(b)
Definition of_" physician" 35.4-Application form 35.11 Licenses for human use 35.12 Licenses for individual physician's 35.13 Human use of sources 1
35.14
-Group medical. licensing -
L 35.21 Teletherapy calibrations i
35.22 Teletherapy spot-checks 35.23 Instrument calibration 1/25/84-l A-5
[_
l
35.24 Qualified expert 35.25
. Teletherapy room monitor 35.26 5-year inspection and servicing 35.27 Records 35.31 Medical GL 35.41 Misadministratien reporting 35.42 Misadministration reporting 35.43 Misadministration reporting 35.44 Misadministration reporting 35.45 Misadministration reporting 35.100 Medical Groups 40.1 Purpose 40.2 Scope 40.3 License requirements 40.5 Comunications 40.6 Interpretations 40.7 Employee protection 40.21 GL-title to source material' 40.25 GL-depleted uranium 40.31 (a)-(e), (g) applications for specific licenses 40.42 Expiration 40.43 Renewal of licenses 40.44 Amendment of licenses 40.45 Comission action to renew or amend 40.46 Inalienobility 40.61 Records 40.62 Inspections 40.63 Tests 40.64 Reports 40.71 Modification, etc.
40.81 Violations 61.1 Purpose and scope 61.4 Communications 61.5 Interpretations 61.6 Exemptions 61.7 Concepts 61.9 Employee protection 61.20 Filing application 61.21 Repetition 61.22 Updating of application l
61.25 Changes 61.26 Amendinent of license 61.80 Maintenance of records 61,83 Violations 70.1-Purpose
- 70.2 Scope 70.3-License requirements 70.5 Communications-70.6 Interpretations 70.7 Employee protection 70.19'
- GL for plutonium reference source 70.20 GL to own:SNM 70.21 Filing) Applications (a),(b,(c),(d),(e) Contents of applications 70.22 1/25/B4 A~-6 y
y-e wy,,..
r y-
.+-~,v---
.,,-vv--,
---,,-,--3,,---,
, 'm,,,u
.-,w
+,m.,-
a,.m
70.31
!ssuance of licenses 70.32 Conditions of licenses (Except statements strictly applicable to strategic quantities of SNM) 70.33 Renewal of licenses 70.34 Amendment of licenses 70.35 Comission Action to renew or amend 70.36 Inalienability 70.37 Disclaimer of warranties 70.41 Authorized use of SNH 70.55 Inspections 70.56 Tests 70.61 Modification and revocation 70.71 Violations 71,0 Purpose and scope 71.1 Comunications 71.2 Interpretations 71.3 Requirement for license 71.7 Specific exemptions 71.9 Exemption of physicians 71.91 Records 71.93 Inspection and tests 71.95 Reports 71.99 Violations 71.101-71.137 QA 150.1 Purpose 150.2 Scope 150.4 Comunications 150.5 Interpretations 150.30 Violations Division 4 Rules
~
32.14 Manufacture of exempt items 32.15 QA - exempt items 32.16 Transfer reports - exempt items 32.17 Manufacture of Sc-46 resins 32.18 Manufacture.of exempt quantities 32.19 Conditions of licenses - exempt quantities.
32.20 Transfer reports - exempt quantities 32.22 Manufacture of self-luminous products 32.23 Safety criteria - self-luminous products 32.24
. Table of organ doses - self-luminous products l
32.25 Transfer reports - self-luminous products L
32.26
_ Manufacture of gas and atrosol detectors t
32.27 Safety criteria - gas and aerosol detectors 32.28
-Table of organ doses - gas and aerosol detectors 32.29 Transfer reports-- gas and aerosol detectors 32.40 Schedule A 61.8 Reporting: OMB approval 61.16 Other infomation 61.58 Alternative requirements i
61.70
' Scope _
l 61.71 State and Tribal consultation L
61.72 Jiling of proposals 1/25/84 L
j-A i.
...,-y,_-.,----.-e-
, - -....,,.. ~ - _,
_,m,
_ _. -.. -, -, _, - - - - - - ~ - -
~ - _ - - _ - -.
. - -... _ - -. - -. -. -. ~.... -
61.73 Commission approval 70.13 000 70.13a Foreign aircraf t i
70.20a-Strategic quantities of SNM 70.20b Carriers of SNM 70.22 (f),(g),(h),(1),(j),(k)and.(1) 70.23(b) Requirements for approval - Pu processing 70.24 Criticality 70.44 Creditor regulations 70.51 Material balance, etc.
70.52 Reports of criticality 70.53 Material status reports 70.54 Transfer reports 70.57 Measurement control program 70.58 Nuclear material controls 70.59 Effluent monitoring 70.62 Suspension and operation in war 71.18 - 71.24 Fissile material 71.31 - 71.77 NRC package approvals 71.83 Assumptions -unknown properties 150.7 Persons in offshore waters 150.10 Persons exempt 150.14 Physical Protection 150.15 Persons not exempt 150.15a Continued Commission authority 150.16 Material transfer reports 150.17 Material transfer reports 150.17a US/lAEA Safeguards requirements 150.19 Tritium reports 150.21 SNM by aircraf t i
l-l.
l 1/25 /84' A-8 t-l.-
. ~..
APPENDIX 3 AUG s s 1993 HEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director
~
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs AfIMA&lUtntd by Carltonmmerer '
FROM:
Carlton Kannerer; Director State Programs
SUBJECT:
STATES WHICH COULD BE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED ON THE LICENSABILITY OF ABOVE-GROUND DISPOSAL FACILITIES UNDER PART 61 This is in fesponse to your above subject request.
The nurber could be as high as 32 States, which include 6 Compacts and 4 unaffiliated States.
In examining this issue, note that on Table 1 that 6 of the 9 Compacts have banned shallow-land burial (SLB)--Northeast, Appalachian, Southeast, Central, Central Hidwest, and Midwest.
In addition, of the 9 States not affiliated with a compact, 5 have banned SLB. This fact is significant because 11 States will.be using some type of enhanced technology, such as above ground vault or earth-mounted concrete bunker.
Texas proposes using a below-ground technology, concre(The State of te canisters).
The host States of Pennsy)lvania (Appalachian Compact), Illinois (Central Hidwest Compact, North Carolina (Southeast Compact),
7 and Nebraska (Central Compact), are all planning to use either i
an above-ground facility (AGF) or an earth-mounted concrete bunker (EMCB). Copies of the renceptual designs for these facilities are attached. The host States for the Northeast and Midwest have not detertnined their f acility design yett neither have 4 of the unaffiliated States that have banned SLB--New York, Maine, Massachusetts,logies is shown in Table 2.A list of the States using the and Vermont.
various techno Attachments:
As stated e
I il l
t-r
i ichh I INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS CONSENTED TO I
BY CONGRESS A5 0F AUGUST 1990 i
Northwest j Rocky Mountain Central Midwest Central-Midwest Southeast Northeast Appalachian Alaska Colorado Arkansas Indiana Illinois-RS Alabana Connecticut-HS Delaware Hawall i
Nevada-HS Kansas Iowa Kentucky riorida New Jersey-HS Maryland Idaho New Mexico Louisiana Michigan-HS (SLB banned)
Georgia (SLB banned)
Pennsylvanta-I Montana Wyoming Nebraska-HS Minnesota Mississippi West Virginia ',
i Oregon (SLB)
Oklahoma Missourt N. Carolina-HS-2 (SLB banned)
(SLB)
(SLBbanned)
Ytrginia t
(SLB banned)
Unaffiliated States i
l District of Colus6f a Maine (1)(SLBbanned) i Massachusetts (1) (SLB banned) i l
New Hagshire Southwestern NewYcrk(1)(SLBbanned)
Puerto Rico Arizona Rhode Island l
California-HS(SLB)
Texas (Il [5LB banned)
N. Dakota S. Dakota
^
VermontI,1)(SLBBanned) 3 l
i Notes:
i HS: Host State (1=first: 2-second) i Source: State Programs 1
Office of Governmental and I,
(1) ME, MA, NY TI, and VT are each planning to dispose of their own LLW.
Public Affairs, MRC L
- i i
I Table 2 4
States using.AGY EMCB or.
Some Other Inhance,d TacI11ty AGY or EHC8 1.
Illinois / Central - Midwest 2.
Nebras ka/ Central 3.
North Carolina / Southeast J.
Pennsylvania / Appalachian-Erihanced Facility not SLB 5.
Nichigan/Hidwest 6.
Connecticut / Northeast r
t 7.
New Jersey / Northeast a.
liaine - Unaffiliated 9.
Massachusetts - Unaffiliated
- 10. New York - Unaffiliated
- 11. Vermont - Unaffiliated Below-Ground racility
- 12. Texas 4
e e
t
- 9.,
4
- V$
ep +
= J 'u b.
%.=.....+.
-+
e l
l' pw
. esp a e w
~.--m
w-e T
+- -.
.. -e----r.
_.._._.____.____m.._.._._
-V Engineered Safeguards e.
e s,,e.o
- Best technology 1
y Co, Lore s u. %.,
u.
M e Multiple layers of
~;
NNN\\\\\\\\NC1%
protection N
g gj e Environmental e
N p'. q monitoring 4
4
\\
'ql +
N t
y o
NNNNNNN rn p:
J, s..
h'#,
c., i.,-
e s<
- e,
--~
Y......-::::.L'.~.:.~~
7:., 4
.. y,-
~
. ~,.m a.~.m N
.. ' ' </
- m
~?.
97 :;.
- m;..
..:::r' r: r.-
neterenc.
.. x. ~;... n.. :
- ~
v esmy
..T M.
' r J,QE:.4'i'.W;
.m
=
..g. f g..,.
.'t..= S L :,,,. 4,. W*,,, t v..,,
.m
.. - - e.--
/
..c
.. e
- r. h.. ~....e p
l l x
4 [,, f. il x-l s
e m
t
~
l i, i L DT_M
$M$$8555#$ lid I
l m -w
=u 1.-
% 4., /hEdst, t iw Diosasiceiiermerr >
L. _
_._..u. m en suaaeAg um symm
.. conwn.,..
i.
Test Cell Monitoring System Access I
- * ~.
-i c c m
j e
e Il L L' y e g p.
ig
,j-M 1
s
,b{.
W M'
tJ L
8 3m r.
i
?
5 S$$( k g.g;l(
2 S
~
~
n i
t
!E P
k.
a
. %$ 4
..l igBqig,hlp l
4 9
s..
L
~ '
M,
.-e,
...-.-.,-.%',,.e...-
.-..,_c'
,. - ~. 'rrm'E',E,~,,-
v
,*~ ~ ',,.-,._,-w
...u-',
.u
,m--
'r.
~~~'r w
v
>, ~ <
- pt _
.~.
Des}gn for H.Co low 4evel radiosctive-wasta factDiyg,,
C.',
eA*,
0
=
. 6,sh., 7anqub,,.,..
f x-
_ [
.. _M,'. w% ^
p m.,Y M**
sy 4,
Ke 6- ~S ---
s.,
3.'h - -
3
- U,hw
? 5
..a s.,y r,,,,, A,., ~A....
.-.ax M.
Y
,7 N 1
r- -
y, y
Q._
n,[, nn[. [q pyg;w?Qmy,y
. g-y4-n%
\\ p+',,._. -
.w-rf' y.,_
p, :t :.,..#y i. y,g w
,Ie ym:.tmg p ;wwnlunipL v
r y
c 3
as
- p. s 2.. c.. w% y $. " ' %, f d.a,(' M 1
g C,p a;;- ^ B E S. '.y v
s x
w.r.e e
h< e.
,,s
,Q 0,d -~;*---:A g
.-r.--.
o
'~"L e+ -
? TPm yw h, "%
u==a
\\
- f
\\
.g.::_t W, A
m Es N.;
( ' ~ ~a
= ~.. - m.w u - -,
w.
g u 1
.s
,,> p'i ll g - n
' % -._. '.,..: {. x,:h "*"** *
- M.
p, 4
, j *4,
1 s
r L,;3 "L U d=6 alO f Q'. '
ij
?_u%
., g..
=. -
a=====
g aC m
- >,4.+ ad -, eme=========e=i-gy w-q g
y 4
~
o d e rwe,as j;(
Jershne bMg '
-4 M oo# terw owfiam ese k
ad eswam ad on aan c== e.w m earneme we b.mp,_
m essaams re owe e ewomed Cau arene er s,e ans org ne men wwese=
e
+
e==*,*4
- j -.ianges==
em -m i.e eq **e e a===-i emes *** can,3 pe - -
(_ i-WMD.WSUMh7. CIdddf((CFD'-
~
i i
=
ew - e,a e
ami e
l 1
2 I
I i
1 e=-m=*'
M D
0
,y e*--+ad""
..-.-a
,,_, ---"~
,