ML20127P535

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR72, Licensing Requirements for Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel & high-level Radwaste.Estimated Respondent Respondent Burden Is 21,431 H

ML20127P535
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/27/1993
From:	Cranford G NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127P443	List: ML20127P440 ML20127P486 ML20127P507 ML20127P513 ML20127P535
References
FRN-58FR6730 AE22-1-137, OMB-3150-0132, OMB-3150-132, NUDOCS 9302010311
Download: ML20127P535 (98)

Text

<

1 83 7 Request for 0MB Review important si3 -

. se n. e c c a et ng torrn Do ret ase tne sa e SF E3 Send th'ee c orues of this inim. the matena' to be revened enc br te te; nt Nts en ieetut e Doe

• 12291 vereo ano aprova unde' paperwora-tnree cop'es of the suppotng statement, to t he F'c '+ ' e , 41/ tc rA;t A 1.m. on nem s m part i if ina eewest a for rene* unce' L 0 Office of Information and Regulaton A?f aas 1 ? ? M. er p de Pr n ene Sr the reguiatory (e t Acation if tw Office nf IAanagement and badge rec et- 5 fy we at uncer the Paper *or Reduct<on A:t arc t cr p Attent on Don et Lib'ary. Room 3201 132 o : 5 rt n c " pe*e Pe1 hl and s gt the papef wC4 C ert b: ate WasM 6* ton _ DC 20503 PAR 11.-Complete This Part for All Hequests.

~

1. b ; - 4

. v.  ; e : E e ,., m : e cae at v eneu TTgener tore U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

3 1 5 0 3 v., 2 < .. a w t . ,4 ,.... % eu. m ,eg.o.t ems,e, m k- epsene n_o_t.e, Ro,ber,t,.Nel an _ . y. ,7 . _ . _ _ - - _ - _

f 301 )5042 2004_ _ .-

4- -

, . c i e n. .

10 CFR Part 72 - Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste s.,. .c >

-r - ee , e rs Ju x pre c a r - ioa w l .e:me 6seo 42 2201(c) ,

on . ,,. . , < n : ' , - 5 :i n 3,f y ,.,s,,u. ,m po, ,s

o. . e 3 _ r.m s 0 a ten prv t mt tatora r~-+

o n.+ -ce t t 4 3 bas < euei e w ' c' ve+ ' 7 _; sman to reues e o on,zat.4,es PART li,-Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291

'c,,,e ae. * * , 6 ? pe, @*n

_- _. _ _ . - __. _-. . , _ . - V' h %tilM aStd 6*, r t ,,s u ' o ca ce t .1 . res , % Type of revoen reevestest C:,wf,c a r.o n State of petelopment 1 ] Stan%'d

. t** 1 2 F*r:w (6' m c a*: 2 Fendof.

. e

. Nv #-  : - F.

.  %.*a uthp.epam w 3 J [rnergency 3 1 % cr nen~ W a-Pout vor p'otw 4 C Stat to'r o' ydic;a! deodune t

9 tium' ec .te:

- 'l

• r _ . . . _ _ . __ _

10 i + '

• i. ' ' ' * ' i ' * ; * ' "' l ' A ' # ' '" ' "'W'*N'*

y >

3 ,: . , Y'S h

_ . - . . - . ,.....,.-.,.-.-.--..,~n.. - . . - _.__n. . . . . - ._ n i1 '4 .e  ; t + e t e t e,_ ; .i t : ", c ;-a . t r 3 .

• 5 a' u c + e f ' 1 mC Vel 2 [ Pc -

N. M *: m t y g .8y L _

3Ovs ea Nc Ce't:fication for Aegulatory Submissions

, - e :. . e s ' + . .~4.'h e ea t * .e 4. < : er. p , , * ' a :

• e+ t

• ya+. c" :w tr t $ t* at t*,e rea . t a e-ts c' E D 12241 and 4 % av t eb,e

, v e -

a t+

.ese orc &e-("# 't[*i j 'j' l 150 hdte l

p,ea  :, . .w n. , c m, D3te li- (O MS v5e c% J

• ' $tsn6 pre f orm 4 3 Ae. 9 b A

_ ki pg s-. 9

• y, r t *[

~

$ CIk 1340 &M [ o 46a3' 9302010311 930127 EUSO PDR ORQ

0 ART lil -Cempl:te This Part Only if ths R:qu:st is ftr Approval cf a Collectisn cf Infermetlen Und$r the Paperwork Reductbn Act and 5 CFR 1320.

s " Radioactive Waste 13.Tbstrut-courweeci e proposed ruleuses wouanof d not+ee+ea[aonc permit on-sm'.n.oreio"elte storage ofvel low-le LLW, On-si radioactive te Storace" waste a fter January 1,1996 (other than for reasonable storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW facility) unless the licensee could document that it has exhausted other reason-

_ able management options, i

14. ',n sf M %t v a-er s leeck only ere) lor ormat cn colles tions not centainedin tkles

__, %g v se sw ly Dregenc, LON t rM r sa w e'tachect Herrration c oHec tiona c or tamed in tuft s o

J C E a su g repa%n f"o es,4e prNord) E F ca: r i * ?tm f N A

• n ' e at WA 7. [nter cate of espected or a:t ,al Fede'al 4 3 'ntce W ge;n e: N e m 'g P W V; & [ keg,,srs.te*ssna beg' ster p,0htation at tNs stage ci ru'etavg C i.o w asV,e m , a seea e a s e e c, w s w w ury , w eo; (mom aaner> 2/4/93 _

l5 ! 009 of 'en e n o e; seVeQh fi en v% re)

• 1 a Ne couect rm 4 J Re'nstaterr ent cf a precously approved col ectror eor #th approval 2 3 Fev+or M a w"tet'y acpreved co"ed.cn 3 U bte"s4on u tee enra' c9 Me of a (s"tridy aDDroved c%ect'on b [ D:stmg collect't.n m use ethout an OMB controi rwmter w%t_aEay " tre sattWe of n the method of toPert$n 16 brenc y *>%rt *cm v Lens 1yc %de stesdard. cet onal fora numbeTs)) r

\ 22. Pu pnse of mforr'atson covect*0n (check as many as apply) 1 C appbcationior beetfits l

J /A _ _ -

' u Neam eraut+n

17. Anna: m;Wg o' J w we ta0e" i 3 C br.rar pu pose r statistics 1 N et,e' v reworte ss '

4 3 Regsstory or comphance 2 Narrter ef mspnes :er mpcrcent  ! > C Peyram planrung or tranegernent 1 1o fL3 3 Totai ama' uscmes (ac 1 la es we 2) [__._ P 6 U Research a % rsper*esari.e  ! 165ALJ 7 0 dvdt

'a bra! hours OfJymy 4)  !

it. Annua:'etorperp r-g butdeo j $J83_ ! . F'equency of rMorcaceping of reporting (checa allthat a

{ 23 i Np f+t t f rewicheews _

8, j 13 Recordkeepirg 2 Annua)kovs per 'erorpeeper y 756__) Reporting 3 4'ai 'eW,eep+g houn,0-"e ' omes I ne ti 6.,048 2 2 on occasion 4%2rese g et;ong q Varies 3 yr,s Lo [t fears' 3rj w ,,,9

19. htal awa tseen durM 100 o M ) Cense 4 O Mont oy 1 Reovested pne ! ? 5 p/vs hne 18 3) ' 5 C Quarterly 2 urmm ove #etx, PLd1L_ '

o fi! semrannuany 3 D#erenr.e ;' te ] ;en nre 2) O 7 5 Annually (splanarfon of difference 8 C Sientuady 4 Pr'.. cam c' ante 9 C other(descret+).

5 Adjustment 20 Current (rmt recent) oMB contrui rWenber or comment number 24 Responcerts' obligatioM:t cornpry(chec4 the strongest obitgaf'on that apphes)

_3150-01V J I C voiuntar,

21. %nteo e9, mon case  ! 2 O Requirea to ootain or retein a benefit 5/31/95 >

t 3m ea,3,y

-n.%.

25. are t*e respecerts primardy educebonal agencies or institutions or is the ormiary purpose of the conectiori related to Federal educatan programs? C Yes 3 No

26. Oces tee agerev ue samphr g to select responder'ts or does tre agency recommend r[prescnbe the vie of samphng or statistical anahsis cy 'esponcentst . O Yes O No

(([ Regiatory avtnut, for the enformation couect,on in --- CFR Edr1.-.72 , cr y FR  ; or. other (speedy).

Faperwork GrtTfication in 5utmtteg this aegvest 4r oMB approval. the agency heat the ser'ior offoat or an author:Jed representatrve. Certif>es that tne requirerrents of 5 CFR 1320. the Pr:<acy Act stat st:cai stanca'cs et c 'e:taes. and an, other apphcabie mtormation pcecy Stechves base Deen comphed eth.

Sesatore y prop 3m cit.c.ai 'Date

/

A

~

5 rasieuta r , ead se' x em ' or an a ect; ec *e.; rue 9at,ve Date

~

Gerg . t /o ci, O(fgohtionResourcesManagement ( 47 )

, ( v 1

+ m%: - e,

r 9 0 OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT TOR THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING, 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 70, AND 72 PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE STORAGE Of LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE (3150-0017 0020, 0011,-0009, and -0132)

Descriplion of tce In{ormation Collection The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing specific changes to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, its regulations containing licensing requirements for byproduct materials, source materials, production and utilization facilities, special nuclear materials, and independent spent fuel storage, respectively. The rulemaking would amend $630.34, 40.41, 50.54, 70.32, and 72.44, which are those sections of the regulations that identify standard conditions for reactor and materials licenses. Identical changes are proposed for each of these sections.

The added @@30.34(j), 40.41(h), 70.32(1), and 72.44(h) would not permit on-site storage of low level radioactive waste (LLW) after January 1,1996 (other than for reasonable storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation for shipment off site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), unless the licensee could document that it has exhausted other reasonable management options. Under 950.54(ff), reactor licensees would have to meet identical conditions, as well as document that on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's activitier, nor decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements, finally, 6930.34(j), 40.41(h), 50.54(f f), 70.32(1), and 72.44(h) each would require that all relevant documentation of the steps taken to satisfy the requirements of this rulemaking be retained by the licensee for at least three years and be made available for NRC inspection.

A. JUST!FICATION

1. Need for Collection of Informati2n The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) (LLRWPAA) establishes a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives to ensure that regional compacts and States make adequate progress toward being able to manage their LLW. To help ensure that the States make adequate progress to develop new LLW disposal facilities, the LLRWPAA established six milestones by which the States should make decisions and commit to certain actions. The majority of the States met the requirements of the three milestone dates that had passed by January 1990. Only the Central, Central-Midwest,- and Southwestern Compacts met the January 1, 1992, milestone requirement where their respective host States of California, Illinois, and Nebraska submitted a facility license application. The State of Texas conformed to this milestone on-March 2, 1992,-

by submitting a disposal facility license application. However, no State had a new LLW disposal facility operational on January 1,1993, as envisioned by the LLRWPAA. The remaining milestones of the LLRWPAA, as it was enacted, are:

• January 1,1993 - If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its

LLW after January 1,1993, generators can request the State to take title to and possession of the generated waste. The State also becomes liable for damages as a consequence of failure to take possession of the waste.

In 1993, States may avoid taking title and possession of the waste and

assuming liability, but will forfeit the surcharge rebates established by the LLRWPAA.

1

\

• January 1,1996 If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1,1996, the States, upon proper notice by the generator or owner, shall take title to and be obligated to take possession of LLW.

The State will also be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner if it fails to take possession as soon after January 1, 1996, as the generator or owner notifies the State that the waste is available for shipment.

The section of the LLRWPAA requiring the States to take title to and possession of the generated waste by January 1,1996 (often referred to as the "take-title" provision), was held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 19, 1992.

Since new LLW disposal facilities are not expected to be operational by January 1, 1993, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites either closed or set conditions on receiving LL'W from outside their regional compacts on January 1, 1993, some licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available, unless other arrangements for storage or disposal can be made. Nearly all the Governors have indicated that their respective States plan on interim storage by waste generators during the 1993 through 1996 period. Storage is planned to include individual licensee facilities. Although some compacts and States are scheduled to open an LLW disposal facility before January 1996, others are expected to miss the January 1, 1996, deadline.

Because of potential public health and safety concerns associated with the increased reliance upon on-site storage of LLW, NRC has concluded, under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that regulations should be amended to require licensees to exhaust other reasonable management options, before on-site storage of LLW will be permitted, after January 1,1996, the final milestone of the LLRWPAA. Licensees would be required to document and maintain records of these actions for at least three years for later inspection. The proposed rule is intended to support the goals that have been established by the LLRWPAA.

2. Aaency Use of Infor_mati_on Information on the requirements imposed by specific sections is provided Section 30.34Li) requires byproduct material licensees to document that the licensee has exhausted other reasonable waste management options before storing LLW on-site af ter January 1,1996. The licensee will be required to retain the information for at least three years and make it available for NRC inspection.

NRC will verify compliance by reviewing this information during periodic inspections, and at other times as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulatory attention is required. No formal reports are required.

Section 40.410d requires source material licensees to document that the licensee has exhausted other reasonable waste management options before storing LLW on-site, after January 1, 1996. The licensee will be required to retain - the 2

F information for at least three years and make it available for NRC inspection.

NRC will verify compliance by reviewing this information during periodic inspections, and at other times as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulatory attention is required. No formal reports are required.

Section 50.54(ff) requires production and utilization facility licensees to document that:

• the licensee has exhausted other reasonable waste management options, and

• on-site storage will be consistent with, and not compromise, safe operation of the licensee's activities, nor decrease the level of safety, provided by applicable regulatory requirements, before storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996.

The licensee will be required to retain the information for at least three years and make it available for NRC inspection. NRC will verify compliance by reviewing this information during periodic inspections, and at other times as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulatory attention is required. No formal reports are required.

Section 70.RLll requires special nuclear material licensees to document that the licensee has exhausted other reasonable waste management options before storing LLW on-site, af ter January 1,1996. The licensee will be required to retain the information for at least three years and make it available for NRC inspection.

NRC will veri fy compliance by reviewing this information during periodic inspections, and at other times as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulatory attention is required. No formal reports are required.

Section 7L 44fh) requires independent spent fuel storage licensees to document that the licensee has exhausted other reasonable waste management options before storing LLW on-site, after January 1, 1996. The licensee will be required to retain the information for at least three years and make it available for NRC inspection. NRC will verify compliance by reviewing this information during periodic inspections, and at other times as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulatory attention is required. No formal reports are required.

3. Reduction of Burden Throuah Information Technoloav The amendments do not specify the method or form of information collection or recordkeeping and thereby provide flexibility for the use of improved information technology.

4. Effort to identify Duplication The Information Requirements Control Automated System (IRCAS) was searched '

3

to determine duplication. No duplication was found.

5. Vse of Similar Information Under the proposed rule,10 CFR Part 50 licensees would be required to document that on-site storage will be consistent with, and not compromise, safe operation of the licensee's activities, nor decrease the level of safety, provided by applicable regulatory requirements, before storing LLW on site after, January 1, 1996. The licensees may have similar information available in the form of evaluations conducted by the licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

This section of the regulations requires that these evaluations be documented and reported to the Connission annually, or as specified in the license. NRC will use these evaluations to satisfy this recordkeeping requirement if the evaluation substantiates the actions required of the licensee by the proposed rule.

6. Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden Because the information needs are the same for both large and small entities, it is not possible to reduce the burden on small businesses for less complete recordkeeping procedures.

7. Consecuences of Less frecuent Collection The information collection requires the creation and maintenance of records to document licensee efforts to seek alternatives to on site storage of LLW.

Once the records are created, the licensee will simply be required to keep them for three years. To show compliance with this proposed rule, the NRC would expect the licensee to make an annual request for access to each operating commercial LLW disposal facility, for disposal of the licensee's LLW. An annual frequency is needed to ensure that licensees contact new disposal facilities as they become operational, in addition, access criteria for operating disposal facilities may change af ter a request for access has been made. Therefore a generator, which had been denied access, may be permitted to dispose of LWW at a later date, if a subsequent request is made.

8. Circumstances That Justify Variation from OMB Guidelines There is no variation from OMB guidelines.

9. Consultotion Outside NRC A draft of these amendments was provided to the NRC Agreement States for comment during the development of the proposed rule. The proposed rule will be

! published in the Federal Reaister. This Federal Reaister notice will include a summary and analysis of the initial Agreement State comments and request public comment.

10. Confidentiality of Information None.

4

+

,.-r-% -- ,, ..-s -s4.-- ,,,,-r_,..,_

e- ...,m.,,o,, e, ,-.,,,.,_,,,,,,.,,pw,n.,, ..._Y, , . . . - ,3 . , . ~ , . . . , y.m.,y- ., 2,.., , . _ , - , ,,,-s,,w,<

,-y mc..

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions There are no sensitive questions associated with this requirement.

12. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Fedg_al Government No additional cost is expected. No formal reports are required, and therefore there are no costs associated with report review and maintenance.

Records will be reviewed during periodic inspections; however, these reviews are not expected to appreciably increase NRC in.tpection resource requirements.

13. Estimate of Burden The recordkeeping requirements unique to 10 CFR Part 50 licensees at 650.52(ff)(2)(ii) are negligible because of the availability of similar information from evaluations conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, no additional burden will result from this requirement.

The recordkeeping burden imposed for the remaining requirements in

@$30.34(j), 40.41(h), 50.54(ff), 70.32(1), and 72.44(h) is expected to- be the same for each licensee regardless of the applicable regulation. Each licensee must investigate contract options with operating LLW disposal facilities. Based on current State plans, three LLW disposal facilities are expected to be operational on January 1,1996. Therefore, each licensee will be required to prepare three records, consisting of one letter to each of three operating LLW disposal facilities. It is estimated that the burden associated with each record will be four hours. Therefore, the burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per respondent. The burden is itemized in Table 1, below.

A reporting burden will be imposed upon each LLW disposal facility because of the need to respond to inquiries about availability of its disposal capacity.

Each licensee must investigate contract options with operating LLW disposal facilities, so it is expected that each LLW disposal facility will receive and respond ta one letter from each licensee. The burden is itemized in Table 2, below.

14. Eitimated Cost to-Licensee Regional compacts, consisting of 23 States, are expected to have access-to an LLW disposal facility by January 1,1996. This analysis assumes no paperwork impact on the NRC licensees located in these States. The remaining States account for 6,186 NRC licenses (including 68 power reactors). The analysis assumes that all licensees are LLW generators and that all generators ship their waste off-site for disposal. These assumptions build a degree of conservatism into the analysis because, for example, some _ generators store for decay rather than dispose of LLW, and some do not generate LLW on a regular basis. A summary of the burden estimate by NRC license is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of Recordkeeping Burden Estimate, by NRC License 5

Records Annually Total Number of Per Number of Hours Total Record. Record. Records Per Annual Cost keepers keeper Annually Record Burden (9 $123/hr) 30.34(j) 5,771 3 17,313 4 69,252 $8,517,996 40.41(h) 147 3 441 4 1,764 216,972 50.54(ff) 68 3 204 4 816 100,368 70.32(1) 198 3 594 4 2,376 292.248 72.44(h) 2 3 6 4 24 2,952 Agreement State Licensees 7,100 3 21,300 4 85,200 10,479,600 Total 13,286 39,858 159,432 $19,610,136 Table 2 Summary of Reporting Burden Estimate, by LLW Disposal facility (Part 61)

Number Responses Total of LLW Annually Per Number of Hours Total Disposal LLW Disposal Responses Per Annual Cost facilities facility Annually Response Burden (9 $123/hr)

Total 3 13,286 39,858 .5 19,929 $2,451,267 10TAL ANNUAL BURDEN: 179,361 hours0.00418 days <br />0.1 hours <br />5.968915e-4 weeks <br />1.373605e-4 months <br />

15. Reasons for Chance in Burden There is no change in burden until the effective date of the information collection requirements, January 1, 1996.

16. Publication for Statistical Use None planned.

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS Statistical methods are not used in the collection of this information.

6 A

i- , ,-i-,,-- ,-,,,-r-,3,..m,m---,----.r,----,r--,-,----ew,-_-a-,,- - - - ,,nm -,,-,i-- #-, -, . . , . ,

- _. _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .__._ __-... _ _ _ -

1 e e r

i (7590-01)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 t RIN 3150-AE22 Procedures and Criteria for On-Site Storage of i Low-Level Radioactive Waste AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. +

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

-The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes-to. amend its regulations for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and-independent spent fuel storage licensees. The proposed rule would establish '

a regulatory framework containing the procedures and criteria that would apply to on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste (LLW), beyond January 1, 1996. The Commission has determined, under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of.1954, as amended, that these changes are appropriate because of ,

potential health and safety concerns associated with the increased reliance upon on-site storage of-LLW. The proposed rule is intended to support the goals that have been established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of.1985 (Act) and is consistent with the June 19,-1992,' United States Supreme Court (Supreme court) decision,.in New York v. United? *

, r States. Comments are requested on this proposed rule and on strategies and options that the Commission might pursue,.in

+

addition to this' proposed'rulemaking, that would encourage the States and compacts to move forward with development of LLW-

-i 1

C W wW N-='s -it-'d m 'nt

. i disposal facilities.

DATE: Comment period expires (60 days after publication).

Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand-deliver comments tot 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

Copies of the regulatory analysis, environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, ar.d the comments received on the rule may be examined and copied, for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC, telephone (202) 634-3273.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Robert Nelson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-2004.

I 2

l l

i

l l

SUPPLEMENTAM INFORMATION:

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Act) (Pub. L.99-240) establishes a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives to ensure that regional compacts and States make adequate progress toward being able to manage their LLW, by 1993. Section 5(a) of the Act requires the sited States of flevada, South Carolina, and Washington to make disposal capacity available to LLW generators until December 31, 1992, subject to: the States and compacts meeting the other milestones of the Act, the sites remaining operational, and received waste being within site-specific volume limitations.

To help ensure that the States make adequate progtess toward developing new LLW disposal facilities, the Act established six milestones by which the States should make decisions and commit to certain actions. The majority of the States met the requirements of the three milestone dates that had passed, by January 1990. Only the Central, Central-Midwest, and Southwestern Compact States met the January 1, 1992, milestone requirement, because their host States, Nebraska, Illinois, and California, respectively, submitted a facility license application to their state regulatory authorities before that date. The State of Texas conformed to this milestone on March 2, 3

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - " - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

_ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . - - ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ .

. i L

1992. The remaining milestones of the Act, as it was enacted, i-ares t January 1, 1993 - If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1993, generators can  !

request the State to take title to, and possession of, the generated waste.

The State also becomes liable for damages I

as a consequence of failure to take possession of the wasto.

In 1993, States may avoid taking title and possession of the wasta and assuming liability, but will forfeit the surcharge rebates established by the Act.

• January 1, 199_6 - If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its-LLW after January 1, 1996, the States, upon proper notice by the generator or owner, shall take title to, and be obligated to take possession of, LLW.. The State will also_be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner if it falls to take possession as soon after January 1, 1996, as the generator ,

or owner notifies the State that the waste is'aval'lable-for ,

shipment,

i. ,

l

[ The section of the Act requiring the States to'take title

to, and possession of, the generated waste by January 1, 1996 (often. referred to_as the "take-title" provision), was held to_be unconstitutional, by.the Supreme. court on June 19, 1992, in a 4

lawsuit brought by the State of New York (a non-compact State) and two of its counties. The constitutionality of the take-title provision, as applied to compact States, was not before the Supreme Court. Even though the take-title provision was held unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the LLRWPAA is the development of new LLW disposal facilities by January 1, 1993, and in no caso later than January 1, 1996.

Because no new LLW disposal facilities were operational on January 1, 1993, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites either closed their site or set restrictions or conditions on receiving LLW from outside their regional compacts effective January 1, 1993, some licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available, unless other arrangements for storage or disposal can be made. Nearly all the Governors' Certifications submitted to meet the 1990 milestone of the Act indicated that the State planned on interim storage by waste generators from 1993 through 1996. However, many States do expect to have access to the Barnwell LLW disposal facility from January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.

Early in 1990, the Commission directed the NRC staff to provide the Commission with information on the issues concerning the waste title-transfer and possession provisions set forth in the Act, so that the Commission might determine what role, if 5

any, the NRC should play with regard to these provisions. The commission was also interested in the adequacy of its existing regulatory framework for implementing the title-transfer provision.

On September 12, 1990, the NRC staff sent the commission an analysis of the issues associated with the waste title-transfer and possession provisions of the Act (SECY 318). Major issues related to these provisions included States taking poemassion of commercial LLW after 1993 or 1996, and licensing of this possession by the NRC and Agreement States.

The Commission discussed the issues associated with the waste title-transfer and possession provisions of the Act and the recommendations presented in SECY-90-318, in a public meeting, on October 29, 1990. In response to a request from the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, the commission decided to solicit public and State comments on the NRC staff's recommendations provided in SECY-90-318 and on eight questions addressing the title-transfer provision of the Act. The Commission requested that the NRC staff provide the Commission with an analysis of the comments received in response to the letter dated November 28, 1990, from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the commission, to Mr. Jerry Griepentrog, convenor, Low-Level Radioactive Wasta Forum, and from the Federal Register notice soliciting public comments..

The Commission solicited public comment on the NRC staff's recommendations provided in SECY-90-318 and the eight questions 6

l in the Federal Register notice published December 4, 1990 (55 FR 50064). The comment period expired on March 2, 1991. Seventy-four individuals or organizations responded.-

The commenters raised many specific issues. Most can be grouped under the single, broad issue of NRC's role in implementing the Act. The eight questions, a comment summary, an analysis of those comments, and conclusions.are provided as Appendix A to this proposed rule. In response, the Commission l

directed the NRC staff to develop a proposed rulemaking that l

would establish a regulatory framework containing the procedures 4 and criteria applicable to on-site storage of LLif af ter January 1, 1996.

Although LLW can be safely stored, NRC beliaves that the-protection of the public health and safety and the environment is enhanced by disposal, rather than by-long term,- indefinite storage of waste. Disposal of waste in a limited number of facilities, licensed under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations, will provide better protection of the public health-and safety and the environment than long-term storage at hundreds or thousands of sites around the country. Stored waste packages-need-to maintain sufficient-integrity to-prevent dispersal of the vaste during storage, +

transport, and handling, up to and including emplacement for- .

disposal. Because of the variability of certain storage 7

environments, waste packages may suffer degradation over the extended storage period. Among the ways in which a storage environment can cause waste package degradation are temperature fluctuations (in heated facilities in areas with cold winters) and corrosive atmospheres (e.g., industrial and marine atmospheres as well as acid deposition). Other waste package concer.s during storage include external and internal corrosion, r 'iolytic generation of gases (predominantly hydrogen) and corrosive substances, radiation induced embrittlement of polyethylene containers, and biodegradation of institutional wastes. These processes may accelerate internal corrosion and failure of common storage containers, even if the waste is stabilized prior to storage. Waste form degradation could result in spills or releases during handling for disposal, if the degradation goes undetected. In addition, waste package deterioration prior to disposal will require repackaging of the LLW and clear.up of any spills. As a result, workers will be potentially exposed to additional doses of radiation. The NRC contractor document, " Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Potential Problem Areas," NUREG/CR-4062, provides a detailed discussion of these concerns.1

' Copies or NUREG documenu may be purchued from the Superintendent of Documents. U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013 7082. Copies are also available from the National Techn!cd Information Service, $285 Pon Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection ancor copying at the NRC Public Docurnent Room, 2120 L rrect NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

8

Storage also involves a number of activities that could increase radiation doses to the public. First, storage of LLW will result in potential increased worker exposures, from unloading the waste from storage, for disposal. Second, vaste forms may need to be repackaged or otherwise processed, again, as a result of waste form failure or to meat vaste acceptance criteria for a new disposal facility, once one becomes available.

This additional handling by workers will also cause increased exposures.

The cite-specific conditions at a new disposal facility may necessitate these new waste form criteria and these criteria may not be known when LLW is placed into storage.

Third, radiation surveys and inspections of LLW in storage will result in potential additional doses to those involved in performing these activities.

For these reasons and to support the goals of the Act, the NRC is proposing this rulemaking, which makes storage of LLW an option of last resort. The Commission specifically invites comment on the above public health and safety rationale, as well as on the comparative risk of potential releases as a result of an event or accident at numerous LLW storage sites around the country, as opposed to the potential release from a limited number of disposal sites designed to meet the siting and design requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations.

The proposed rule, as it was originally drafted and sent to the Agreement States for comment, included a requirement for the 9

licensee to request that the 3 tate take title to, and possession of, the waste, pursuant to Section 5(d)(2)(c) (the "take-title" provision) of the Act, before LLW could be stored on-site after January 1, 1996.

The text of the rule has been revised to delete the requirement for the generator to request the State to take title to, and possession of, the generator's LLW. In view of the I

recent Supreme Court decision in t(g)LJpdd. Unit ecL;itat_ch , the Commission will not require this action as a prerequisite for storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996.

Coordination with 11RC Agreement 9tates The 11RC Agreement States were informed of the llRC's intent to issue a proposed rule and were provided the draft regulatory text, by letter dated February 7, 1992. The letter explained that the Commission is taking this action in view of the potential health and safety concurne associated with an increased reliance upon on-site storage and in light of the framework that has been established by the Act. This initial notification reiterated the Commission's position that it will not look favorably on generator on-site storage of LLW, after January 1, 1996.

Supplementary information, which included a summary of the related provisions of the Act and a discussion of the proposed revisions, was forwarded to the Agreement States on February 14, 1992.

The Agreement States were asked to provide comments by March 14, 1992.

10

l The Agreement States of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington, and the Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission responded to the NRC staff's request for comments. One State supported the proposed rulemaking, and three States opposed it.

Two States, although not opposing any provisions of the rule, stated that the rulemaking should not proceed until the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of the Act and the title-transfer provision. Three States and the one commission provided comments and questions without taking a position on the proposed rulemaking.

One State reserved comment and four States had no comments. Fifteen Agreement States did not respond.

Response to NRC Agrooment State Commenta Comment. The revisions do not appear to be based on protection of public health and safety or any technical arguments.

Resoonga. As previously discussed, the potential risk to the public health and safety, from on-site storage of LLW, is greater than for disposal, because storage involves a number of conditions and activities that could increase radiation doses to the public. Although LLW can be safely stored, the NRC believes that the protection of the public health and safety and the environment will be enhanced by disposal.

11 l

Comeent.

There appears to be no substantive rationale for prohibition of on-site storage after January 1, 1996.

Response.

The proposed rule would prohibit on-site storage 3k after January 1, 1996, only if the generator had not exhausted other waste management options. As discussed in response to the previous comment, disposal is preferred over storage, to enhance the protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Therefore, generators should exhaust all disposal options before storing their LLW on-site.

Comment. The proposed revisions would improperly establish NRC as the enforcer of the "take-title" provisions, contrary to the Act.

22maiah. It is inappropriate for NRC to require, as a condition for on-site storage, that licensees request the State in which they are located to take title to, and possession of, the waste, pursuant to Section 5(d) (2) (C) of the Act, because the Act gives licensees the option not to requect the State to take -

possession.

Comment, one S' tate has a different law regarding title:

" Title to any LLW ehall at all times remain in the generator of such vasta...." The proposed rule conflicts with State law.

Resoonce. The text of the rule, which had been provided to the Agreement States for comment, has been revised to delete the requirement for the generator to request the State to take title to, and possession of, the generator's LLW. In view of the 12

i 1

recent Supreme Court decision in New York v._ United States, the 1

Commission will not require this action as a prerequisite for storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996.

Comment.

What legal authority does the Commission have to impose the prohibition of possession of LLW, by the State, at a generator's facility?

g g g.p g . How can "th's prohibition" of State possession of LLW, at the generator's fa::ility, be reconciled with the language of the Compact Act, which : authorizes ". . . management of waste on the site where it is genersted if such is otherwise lawful?"

Resconse.

It is not envisioned that a State would take possession of LLW at a generator's facility.

Comment. It is inappropriate for NRC to require, as a condition for on-site storage, that licensees exhaust the contract option of Section 5(e) (1) (F) of the Act as a condition for on-sito storage. This section of the Act applies to States, not licensees.

Resoonse. The NRC agrees that Section 5(e) (1) (F) of the Act applies to States but not licensees. The text of the rule, which was provided to the Agreement States for comment, has been revised to eliminate the reference to this section of the Act.

Comment. The rule is silent with regard to financial surety aspects of extended storage, and " totally ignores" the 13

requirements that would be placed on States that take title to, and/or possession of, LLW, after January 1, 1996.

Resoonse. Financial assurance requirements for the affected licenses are contained in 10 CFR 30.35, 40.36, 50.75, 70.25, and 72.30. Financial assurance guidance for fuel cycle and materials licensees is provided in Information Notice 90-09, " Extended Interim Storage of Low-Lovel Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees."

Comment. If NBC continues to pursue the "no on-site storage" option past January 1, 1996, as the NRC staff proposes, it will be NRC's responsibility to provide for emergency access to operating LLW disposal facilities for the LLw it prohibits from on-site storage.

Resoonse. The NRC is not p'trsuing a "no on-site storage" option. The NRC recognizes tt.at some generators will have to store LLW on-site. The NRC seeks to minimize the amount of LLW placed in storage, by regAiring generators to exhaust all other reasonable waste management options. The guidance governing implementation of the taergency-access provision, of the Act, contained in Informat.on Notice 91-65, " Emergency Access to Low-Level Radioactive WeAte Disposal Facilities," will remain in effect. The NRC dres not anticipate any situation where the provisions of thi's rule, in addition to a lack of access, would create a seriouc, and immediate threat to the public health and safety or comron defense and security, thereby requiring 14

emergency access.

Comment. A more immediate concern, directly related to the storage of waste, is the authority of a generator to accept its processed waste after this waste has been sent off-site for treatment.

Re2D9113q.

The NRC has amanded its regulations governing the condition of licenses for production and utilization facilities to allow a reactor licensee to receive back byproduct and special nuclear material that is produced by operating the reactor after the material has been sent off-site for processing, such as compaction or incineration. The final rule was published on October 21, 1992 (57 FR 47978). The rule became effective on November 20, 1992.

Comment. Any rulemaking on this issue must incorporate maximum flexibility, consistent with the protection of the public health and safety anc the environment.

pesconse. Maximum flexibility has been considered. The proposed rulemaking does not preclude en-site LLW storage, as long as other waste management options are e/hausted.

Comment. NRC's guidance would be expected to be consistent and compatible with NRC actions taken with respect to indefinite storage of high-level radioactive vaste (HLW).

Resconse. The LLW situation is uignificantly different from 15

. . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . ~ . . _ . _- . . - _ _ ._ _ . . _ . _ . _ . .

4 that of HLW. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the Federal government is developing a facility for disposal of HLW.

In the LLW program, it is the Commission's judgment that the NRC's regulations will encourage disposal by requiring generators to seek available disposal options.

Furthermore, unlike HLW, commercial LLW disposal sites are currently operational, and development or new LLW disposal facilities continues, with two new facilities scheduled to be operational by January 1, 1996. The risk to public health and safety from hundreds or thousands of temporary storage facilities is greater than that from a limited number of well-controlled disposal sites in the country.

Comment. There should be a definition that describes when radioactive material becomen waste.

Etaponse.

The term " waste" is defined in 10 CFR 61.2.

Waste is considered to be any material or component for which the licensee foresees no further use. The NRC continues to believe that the licensee is in the best position to determine the continued utility, of radioactively contaminated material and components, to its operations. The NRC will continue to rely on the licensee to determine when material and components become wasta and will periodically review the licensee's conclusions, to determine if they are reasonable and appropriate.

l 16 '

l

Comment. Does any provision of the Act prohibit a State from exercising its powers of eminent domain, and thereby moving to condemn existing licensee facilities, to establish a LLW management program for generators at the site.

Egsoonse.

Although the NRC knows of no such provision, any exercise of a state's power of eminent domain would have to comply with applicable law.

Cgement. There should be a maximum time limit, for "short-term," that would apply equally to all forms, ir.cluding decay-in-storage. This commenter recommends a maximum storage time of one year.

This commenter also states that this will allow sufficient time for isotopes with short half-lives to decay sufficiently for disposal in a sanitary landfill.

Response. Generally, for non-medical LLW, radioactive material with a half-life of less than 65 days can be held in storage before disposal as non-radioactive material. If allowed by the license, LLW disposed of in this manner must be held for decay a minimum of 10 half-lives. Decay in storage for medical waste is governed by 10 CFR 35.92. The proposed rule would not affect this practice.

Comment. To whom does the revision apply? As the State is required by the Amended Act to take possession, is the proposed language intended to cover that time interval between the licensee requesting the State to take possession and the State 17 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __m

actually taking possession?

Egananam. The proposed rule would apply to all LLW generators licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72.

As discussed in response to an earlier comment, the text of the rule, which had been provided to the Agreement States for comment, has been revised to delete the requirement for the generator to request the State to take title to, and possession of, the generator's LLW.

Comment.

Will NRC licensees be required or encouraged to ship all wastes before January 1, 1993, that will reach five years in storage, between January 1, 1993, and January 1, 19967 Response.

Guidance on storage, which is optional, in Generic Letters 81-38 and 85-14, and Information Notices 89-13 and 90-09, includes consideration of keeping storage to limited periods of time (i.e., five years or less) and emphasizes shipment of LLW for final disposal. It is the NRC's policy that licensees should continue to ship LLW, for disposal, to the maximum extent practicable. Although the NRC has not set specific dates or deadlines for LLW shipments, Generic Letter 81-38 states that a Part 30 license should be obtained if the time in storage exceeds five years.

18

Issue of Compatibility with Agreement States opinion varied among the 14 Agreement States that responded, on the issue of compatibility. Two States commented that this rulemaking should not be a matter of compatibility; one State recommended Division 1 (regulation must be adopted verbatim); two States recommended Division 2 (language identical to that in NRC rules is not necessary, provided that the underlying principles are the same); one State recommended Division 3 (States are encouraged to adopt the regulatory approach taken by the NRC, but are not required to do so); and eight States did not comment on compatibility.

The NRC considers the proposed implementation of these amendments to its licensing conditions to be directly related to the basic regulatory function of protecting the public health and safety and the environment. Unless the proposed rule is made a matter of compatibility, the waste management practices _in both Agreement States and non-Agreement States could be inconsistent, and the Commission's goal to encourage disposal would be frustrated. Therefore,-the amendments contained in this proposed rule would be a matter of compatibility for NRC Agreement States.

The additional license conditions for LLW on-site storage, after January 1, 1996, in 10 CFR 30.34, 40.41, and 70.32, are considered to be Division 2 categories of compatibility.

Although Agreement States must adopt Division 2 rules in their 19

regulations, the use of language identical to that in NRC rules is not necessary, provided that the underlying principles are the same. The Agreement States may adopt more restrictive requirements.

The Commission is currently considering a re-evaluation of its compatibility policy and may decide to revise its general requirements regarding compatibility for the Agreement States.

The Commission's compatibility determination, on this proposed rule, may be re-examined in light of any change to the general policy.

Discussion of Proposed Revisions The proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria, for on-site storage of LLW, that would apply to all categories of LLW generators.

On-site storage of LLW would not be permitted after January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has acccas to an operating LLW disposal facility), unless the licensee can document that it has exhausted other reasonable vaste management options. The NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract, either directly or through the State, for the disposal of its waste. In addition, reactor licensees would have to document that on-site storage activities 20

would be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's activities, and would not decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements. In view of the recent Supreme Court decision in E,ew York v. United states, the Commission will not require the generator to request that the State take title to, and possession of, the waste, as a prerequisite for storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996. Even though the take-title provision was held unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the LLRWPAA is the development of new LLW disposal facilities by January 1, 1993, and in no case later than January 1, 1996. To support the goals of the LLRWPAA and its legislated preference for disposal over storage of LLW, the NRC has concluded that action is necessary to require licensees to exhaust other reasonable management options before on-site storage of LLW will be permitted after January 1, 1996.

The exemption for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site is limited to those licensees that have access to an operating LLW disposal facility. Without this limitation, licensees not having access to a disposal facility could avoid or delay the actions required by the proposed rule, by " collecting or consolidating for shipment off-site," when disposal facility access becomes available.

The proposed rule would make these requirements standard license conditions for every license issued for reactor, 21 i

__ ___m _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - '

s materials, fuel cycle, and independent spe.it fuel storage licensees. The rulemaking would amend 10 CFR 30.34, 40.41, 50.54, 70.32, and 72.44.

These sections of the regulations identify standard conditions for reactor, materials, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licenses. The licensee would not be required to make a formal submittal to the NRC, to show compliance with these conditions. The proposed rule would require that all relevant documentation of the steps taken to satisfy the requirements of this rulemaking be maintained by the licensee, and be made available to the NRC, for inspection.

To show compliance with this proposed rule, the NRC would

' pect the licensee to make an annual request for access to each operating commercial LLW disposal facility, for disposal of the licensee's LLW. Adequate documentation of the licensee's efforts to exhaust other reasonable waste management options would '

consist of copies of all correspondence to LLW disposal facility operators and responses to these requests. This documentation shall be retained for at least three years. The NRC will verify compliance, by reviewing this documentation, during periodic inspections, and at other times, as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulatory attention is required. Absent a willful act, any non-repetitive violation of these requirements would normally be considered a Severity Level IV violation under the Commission's Enforcement Policy, contained in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2.

22

on-site storage of LLW resulting from reactor operations can be undertaken pursuant to the existing authorities and procedures, such as 10 CFR 50.59, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. Material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees may store LLW on-site if storage: (1) is authorized under the existing license conditions; and (2) is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage.

The Commission continues to hold the position that it will not look favorably on generator on-site storage of LLW,-after January 1, 1996. It considers the on-site storage of LLW to be a last- rescrt measure. The Commission's preference is that LLW be permanently disposed of as soon after it is generated as possible.

This proposed rule would supplement, but not supersede, the existing regulations and guidance applicable to storage of LLW.

The conditions in the'aselves would not authorize on-site storage.

The existing regulatory and licensing.. framework will continue to be applicable. The following seven documents, in conjunction with the regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72,

-provide this framework for LLW storage. However, note that the generic letters and information notices are informational and not bindirg. These documents are available, for inspection and 23

copying, for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Applicable Licensing-Framework Documents for On-Site LLW Storage 11Rt Eb. Tit 1e Generic Letter 81-38

" Interim Storage of Utility Licensee-Generated Low-Level Radioactive Waste at Reactor

' Sites" Generic Letter 85-14 " Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Not Generated by the Utility" Information Notice 89-13 " Alternative Waste Management Procedures in Case of Denial of Access to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites" Informatior Notice 90-09 " Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste by-Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees" Regulatory Guide 1.143 " Design Guidance for-Radioactive Waste Management Systems, Structures, and Components Installed in Light -

-Water-cooled Nuclear Pows -

Plants" ,

Standar1 Review Sec. 11.4 " Solid Waste Management-Plan (NUREG-0800) Systems" Inspectien and- 80-18 i Enforcement "10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations for Changes to Radioactive Waste Circular Management Systems" P

24

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This proposed rulemaking would supplement, but not supersede, the existing regulatory framework applicable to the storage of LLW. The additional conditions of this rulemaking. in themselves, would '

not authorize on-site storage. These amendments would add administrative and verification requirements to existing regulations governing the licensing of byproduct material, source material, production and utilization facilities, special nuclear material, and independent spent fuel storage. The proposed rule would encourage disposal as opposed to storage, and this should have beneficial environmental effects. The proposed rule would not result in any increase in radiation exposure from transportation of LLW, compared to that expected from the ultimate disposal of LLW envisioned by the Act. Any environmental impact of operating an on-site LLW storage-facility will be addressed, as required, as part of the licensing action for that facility, under previously established regulatory requirements. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, on which this determination is based, may be l 25

examined and-copied, for a fee, at the NRC public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, telephone. (202) 634-3273.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and ,

approval of the paperwork requirements.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is_ estimated to average 12' hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. _ Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspectiof this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information~and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555;'and to the Desk Officer, Office of' Infor.zation and-Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3109 (3150-0017, 3150-0020, 3150-0011, 3150-0009, and 3150-0132), Office of_ Management and Budg<st, Washington, DC'20503, t

i k 26 i

- - r - _ - . . ~ . - . e

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on these proposed amendments. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis may be examined and copied, for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC, telephone (202) 634-3273.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC, as indicated under the " ADDRESSES" heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification l

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule affects approximately 6200 NRC licenses under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72. Of this total, approximately 2000 are small entities. The proposed rule will require licensees planning to l

l store LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (except for other than reasonable short-term storage necessary f',r decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal 27

facility) to document that other reasonable waste management options have been exhausted. The required documentation and maintenance of these records will require minimal administrative resources. Licensees will need to prepare and mail letters to appropriate LLW management authorities, retain all relevant documentation, and make these records available for NRC inspection.

The annual recordkeeping burden imposed by the proposed rule is estimated to be 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for the average licensee.

The NRC does not believe that this burden will have a significant economic impact on small entities.

Backfit Analysis The proposed rule does not constitute "...the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organitation required to design, construct or operate a facility...." Therefore, the proposed action is not a backfit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109. The proposed rule primarily addresses the off-site disposal of low-level radioactive waste, generated as a result of reactor operation. The existing regulatory framework, applicable to assuring the safety of on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste, generated by reactor operations, remains unchanged. The NRC is Jeeking public comment on the backfit analysis. Comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear 28 e

- ._ . . _ _ . . . _. . ~ . _ _ - - - _ - . . __ . _ - . _ . _ . _m Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attna Docketing and Service Branch.

List of Subject Terms 10 CFR Part 30 Byproduct material, Criminal penalty, Government co'ntracts, Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Radiation protection, h'eporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 40 Crimina penalty, Government contracts, Hasardous materials'-

- transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, source material, Uranium. -

"*to CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire prevention,' Incorporation by reference,-Intergovernmental.

relations, Nuclear power plants.and reactors, Radiation l-l protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping.

requirements.

29

. _ . - . . . .. .- - - _ . . - . - - . . - . . . - - . . . . . ~ . . _ - -_. ..

10 CFR part 70 Criminal penalty, Hazardous materials - transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.

10 CFR Part 72 Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

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, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the KRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72.

30

PART 30 - RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 1.

The authority citation for Part 30 is revised to read as follows:

Authority:

Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, ss amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued undag sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.34(j) also issued undar Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat.

1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Section 30.61 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2737).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 l U.S.C. 2273); 5S30.3, 30.10, 30. 34 (b) , (c), (f), (g), (1), and (j), 30.41(a) and (c), and 30.53 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (.42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); S30.10 is issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (4 2 U. S.C. 2201(1)); and SS30.6, 30.9, 30.34(g) and (j), 30.36, 30.50, 30.51, 30.52, 30.55, and 30.56(b) and (c) are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat.

950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

31

\

1 L__ h ____h__ A____m ..____..w___.____m___m_C___. _ _ _ .M _____-____A.__ _ _ _ .___ - -"'

'hh.

2.

In 530.34, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:

530.34 Terms and conditions of licenses.

(j) The following conditions are contained in overy license issued under the regulations in this part. 4 (1) Low-level radioactive vaste (LLW) may be stored on-site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (j) (2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), the licensee shall document that'it has exhausted other reasonable vaste management options which would include taking all reasonable Steps to contract, either directly or through the State, for disposal of LLW.

(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (j)(2) of this section, for at least three years, and shall make the 32

documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 40

- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL

3. The authority citation for Part 40 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sees. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs.

11o(2), 83, 84, Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (4 2 U.S.C. 2021);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (4 2 U.S.C. 2022).

Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.41(h) also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C.

2021). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); SS40.3, 4 0. 2 5 (d) (1)-( 3 ) , 40.35(a)-(d) and (f),

33

40.41(b), (c), and (h), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(b)); S40.10 is issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and 5540.5, 40.9, 40.25(c), (d)(3) and (4), 40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.41(h), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64, and 40.65 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

4. In 540.8, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised as follows:

S40.8 Information collection recuirements: OMB aceroval.

(a) The Nuclear Regule. tory 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 3150-0020.

(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in 5540.25, 40.26, 40.31, 40.35, 40.36, 40.41, 40.42, 40.43, 40.44, 40.60, 40.61, 40.64, 40.65, and Appendix A.

34 i

5.

In 540.41, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

530.41 Terms and conditions of licenses.

(h) The following conditions are centained in every license issued under the regulations in this part.

(1) Low-level radioactive vaste (LLW) may be stored on-site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, and all relevent licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (h) (2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), the licensee shall document that it has exhausted other reasonable wasta management options which would include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly or through the State, for disposal of LLW.

(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation 3S

regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section, foe at least three years, and shall make the documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 6.

The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.13 and 50.54(dd) also issued under sec. 108, 60 Stat.

939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a, and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.

36

1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Section 50.54 (ff) also issued under Pub.

L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96-Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (4 2 U. S. C. 2152). Sections 50.80 81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2234). Section 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), SS50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) and (ff) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201 ( b) ) ; SS50.5, 50.7(a), 50.10(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e),

50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 5 0. 4 7 (b) , 50.48(a), (c), (d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50. 54 (a) (i) , (i) (1) , (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v),

and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c) -(e) , (g), and (h), 50.59(c),

50.60(a), 50. 62 (b) , 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(i)); and SS 50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50. 54 (v) , (z), (bb),

(cc), (dd), and (ff), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50. 62 (b) ,

t 50.70(a), 50. 71( a) -(c) and (e) , 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b),

l 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, l as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

1 37

7.

In S50.54, paragraph (ff) is added to read as'follows:

$50.54 conditions of licenses.

(ff) (1) On-site storage of low-level radioactive waste ._

(LLW) may be undertaken pursuant to existing authorities and procedures (such as 10 CFR 50.59) and all relevant licensing and 4

regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may '

not.be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (ff)(2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access'to an operating LLW disposal facility), the licensee shall documentLthat---

(i) The licensee has exhausted other reasonable waste management options which would include taking all reasonable steps to contract,.either directly or through the State, for the disposal of LLW; and (ii) on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, safe operation of the-licensee's activities, nor

- decrease the level of safety providedEby applicable regulatory requirements.

(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation 38-I

I regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraphs (f f) (2) (1) and (ii) of this section, for at least three years, and shall make the documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 70

- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL 8.

The authority citation for Part 70 is revised to read as follows:

Authoricy:

Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948, 953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).

Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C.

10155, 10161 . Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L.93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Section 70.32(1) also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

39

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273); S$70.3, 70.10, 70.19(c), 70.21(c), 70.22(a), (b),

(d)-(k), 70.24(a) and (b), 7 0. 3 2 (a) (3 ) , (5) and (6), (d), (1),

l I

and (1), 70.36, 70. 3 9 (b) and (c), 70.41(a), 70. 4 2 (c) and (c),

70.56, 70.57(b), (c), and (d), 70. 58 (a)-(g) (3) , and (h)-(j) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948 as amended (42 U.S.C.

22 01 ( b) ) ; SS70.7, 70.10, 70.20a(a) and (d), 70.20b(c) and (e),

7 0. 21 ( c) , 7 0. 2 4 ( b) , 70. 32 (a) (b) , (c), (d), (e), and (g), 70.36, 7 0. 51 ( c) -(g) , 70.56, 70.57(b) and (d), and 70. 58 (a)-(g) (3) and (h)-(j) are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as anonded (42 U.S.C.

2201(i)); and $$70.5, 70.9, 70.20b(d) and (e), 70.32(1),

70.38, 70.50, 70.51(b) and (1), 70.52, 70.53, 70.54, 70.55,

70. 58 (g; (4 ) , (k) and (1), 70.59, and 70.00(b) and (c) are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

9. In S70.32, paragrr.ph (1) is added to read as follows:

S19. 32 Conditions of Licences.

(1) The following conditions are contained in every license issued under the regulations in this parts (1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) may be stored on-site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and 40 A

- am.. . - - ----. w , . sn a v -

,-w, ,n. x , -- w . ,--

procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (1) ( 2 ) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), the licensee shall document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options which wo,ild include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly or through the State, for disposal of LLW.

(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (1) (2 ) of this section, for at least three years, and shall make the documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

10. The authority citation for Part 72 10 revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sacs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as 41

, amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2021); sec. 201, as amtAded, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.

t 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.

2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Secs. )~ .,

132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c),

(d), Pub. L.

100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C.

10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.44(h) also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021).

Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under seca. 2(2), 2(15), 2 (19) , . 117 (a ) , 141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a),

10161(h)). Subparts X and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42  :

U.S.C. 2273); S572.6, 72.12, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28(d),

l 72.30, 72.32, 72,44(a), (b) (1) , (4), (5), (c), (d) (1) , (2), (o),

4 42 ,

1 I

I

__._..._.m. _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . .

(f), (h), 72.48(a), 72.50(a), 72.52(b), 72.72(b), (c), 72.7t(a),

(b), 72.76, 72.78, 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 7 2.14 0 (b) , (c), 72.148, 72.154, 72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2 201 (b) ) ; SS72.10(a), (e), 72.12, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a), (b) (1) , (4). (5), (c), (d) (1) ,

(2), (c), (f), 72.48 (a), 72.50(a), 72. 52 (b) , 72.90(a)-(d), (f),

72.92, 72.94, 72.98, 72.100, 72.102(c), (d), (f), 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 7 2.14 0 ( b) , (c),

72.142, 72.144, 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154, 72.156, 72.158, 72.160, 72.162, 72.164, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.186, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(1)); and S S72.10(e) , 72.11, 72.16, 72.92, 72.24, 72.24, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72. 44 (b) (3) , (c) (5) , (d) (3 ) , (e), (f), (h),

7 2. 4 8 ( b) , (c), 7 2. 50 (b) , 72.54(a), (b), (c), 72.56, 72.70, 72.72, 72.74(a), (b), 72.76(a), 72.78(a), 72.80, 72.82, 7 2. 9 2 (b) ,

72.94(b), 72.140(b), (c), (d), 72.144(a), 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154(a), (b), 72.156, 72.160, 72.162, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.174, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186, 72.192, 7 2. 212 ( b) , 7 2. 216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.234(e) and (g) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

43

. - . ~ . - . - . -- . - . . - . - c.- . .- - -- - - . - - , . . . . . . . ., - ,,

s

11. In 571.44, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

52L fA_LiseMe conditim.

(h) The following conditions are contained in every license issued under the regulations in this part:

(1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) may be stored on-site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, t.id all relevant licensing and regulatory

, requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility 5, the licensee shall document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options which would include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly or through the State, for disposal of the LLW.

(3) The licensen shall retain all relevant documentation regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section, for at least three years, and shall make the l

j 44 I

(

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - .._ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . = . - - . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . ,

P i

t documentation available for ifRC inspection, t

i t

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this- day of , 1992. l t

For the !{uclear Regulatory Commission. i Samuel J. Chilk, i Secretary of the commission.

i I

+

I I

l ,

I-45 t

l l

l i

- . . . . . . , _ . , _ . . . , , , ~ . , , , _ _ _ . . . . . _ , , . - . . . _ _ _ . . . , _ . , _ , - . _ . . _ . _ . . , _ , _ . . . ., . . . . . _ . . . . . . . - . _ _ , . , . . . . . . _ . _ , . . _ . , - .

,p .,-4 , 4 m. .dE.m&M4As,4 S4,u M: E4W~.E h.M ,4.-da.5J6%4 A A a .A 3 4 JA+4_%4_AA--A

M,4_h-43..e#A.M 4sM.44 m e ia4_he,*e=#n6 A 3A 4 m w h3_*J=.W heAJMAaw JAa.m-A AA m.-+A. h A AM.k..,4 i

e APPENDIX A

^" ALYSIS OF COMMENTS IN RES 0 E To g g ornuma4.Eiss%5/ggfnu 1

SUMMARY

, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSES TO EIGHT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1 jntroduction During a public meeting of the Comission on October 29, 1990, the Comission decided to solicit the views of the public on the staf f recomendations in SECY-90-318, " Low-level Radioactive Waste policy Amendments Act Title Transfer and Possession Provisions,' dated September 12, 1990.

Public coment was solicited in a Federal Reaister notice (FRN) published on December 4, 1990 (55 FR 50064). This notice also requested responses to eight relate 1 questions.

provided below. A sumary and an analysis of the responses to this FRN are Because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York v.

United Shus, the sumary and analysis related to the take-title provision of the low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) were rendered mont and consequently have been omitted.

Question 1. What factors should the Comission consider in deciding whether to authorize on-site storage of low-level waste (other than storage for a few months to accomodate operational needs such as consolidating shipments or holding for treatment or decay) beyond 1996?

Sumary of Coments.

The principal issue raised by the comenters was whether NRC can and should consider ultimate disposal as a factor in_its storage authorizations.

Some comenters believe that NRC should consider only protection of the public health licensingand safety, without any preference for disposal over storage in its decisions, in this role, NRC would simply carry out its normal licensing and inspection functions for either the storage or disposal option.

Others suggested that NRC consider not just public health and safety, but also evidence of progress in developing a disposal facility as a condition for issuing a storage license.

Comenters characterized this role for NRC as the

" enforcer" of the LLRWPAA. Others agreed with the staff's approach in SECY-90-318 which stated that the Comission "does not look favorably upon long -

term on-site storage after 1996," but which acknowledged that at least some short-term storage will likely be required after 1996. In this role, NRC would " encourage

• disposal (or not look favorably on storage), but would not make disposal plans an explicit condition for authorizing stonge.

Many specific technical or administrative issues, such as waste container degradation and NRC resources to perform storage license reviews, were also mentioned in response to this question. Comenters also suggested that miscellaneous factors such as the efforts of individual generators in cooperating with the States, the time needed to 'do the job right', and time for development of new waste disposal technology, be considered in any Comission storage authorizations.

The only significant trend in the coments was that individuals and public interest groups tended to favor on-site storage beyond 1996. Many of these comenters also believe that waste generation activities should be stopped until disposal capacity is available. Their favoring of on-site

i storage at a generater's facility was an outgrowth of the belief that States should not be responsible for LLW management. States, compacts, utilities.

and other generators showed no clear preference for any NRC role.

Ana l y s i_s With respect to whether NRC has the authority to " enforce" the provisions of the LtRWPAA, NRC could take actions to encourage disposal. NRC has broad ruthority under the Atomic Energy Act of 19$4, as amended (AEA), for rules and orders as it "may deem necessary or desirable to... protect health or to minimize danger to life and property." The public health and safety is enhanced by disposal, rather than by long term, indefinite storage of wastes.

Jisposal of wastes in facilities licensed under the requirements of Part 61 or ]

)

its equivalent will provide better protection of the public health and safety and environment than long-term storage at perhaps hundreds or even thousands )

of sites throughout the country. Further, a nexus was established between )

disposal with and public the passage health of the and safety and environment and long-term storage LLRWPAA. Thus, NRC has the broad authority to encourage disposal over storage, if it feels that specific measures would be beneficial.

To date, the need for extended storage of low-level waste has been small i

to almost non-existent because low-level waste has been shipped to the existing waste disposal sites in operation. As a result, industry experience i and staff reviews and guidance have not addressed longer-term storage. Many of the comenters on this question pointed out specific hazards and technical 4

considerations that need to be addressed if long-tern storage is to be used. i For example, container degradation from storage in humid environments, and gas generation from radiolysis were two concerns that were highlighted and which would need to be addressed, Addressing all of these concerns with indefinite long-term storage could require safety measures analogous to those for permanent disposal. An above ground vault meeting the performance requirements of Part 61 is an example af-the type of facility that could be justified storage.

if a licensee were to need explicit authorization for long-term Guidance for acceptable low-level waste storage practices for periods significantly beyond 5-years may need to be reviewed and assessed as noted in SECY-90-318, to assure safety.

Given that the NRC has authority to encourage disposal but at the same time believes that LLW could be safely stored, the question becomes "What actions could the NRC take and what would these accomplish?" The options range from taking no new actions, to encouraging disposal as we have in the past, to formally considering disposal plans and progress in the licensing of storage facilities (See responses to Question 7 for a discussion of these additional assurances for disposal).

Other factors for storage licensing suggested by commenters go beyond the considerations that nomally apply to licensing. Included in these are forecasting the availability and benefits of new technology for waste disposal and consideration of generators cooperating with States in developing disposal capacity.

2 ves.-..mm. - _..,- - ..-,c--' + -----s v

_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ .m __ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ _

l i

With raspect to the suggestion that the Comeission consider suspending l

any waste producing activities if disposal capacity is not available s couldbesafelyaccomplisheduntildisposalcapacitybecomesavailable.torage There I

is no public health and safety reason for stopping waste producing activities.

In summary, the principal factor in the Commission's decision to authorizeplans.

disposal on-site storage is what consideration needs to be given to ultimate Question 7 (assurances NRC should require for disposal) discusses disposal plans. what actions the Connission can take if it chose to consider Question 2. What are the potential health and safety and environmental impacts of increased reliance on on-site storage of low-level waste?

Sumary of Comments.

l Although some commenters believe there would be neither health and safety  !

nor environmental effects from storage of LLW, other commenters believe that risk or exposures to workers would increase. Various concerns were raised by some comenters regarding the risk associated with multiple stora with fire hazards, and with enhanced corrosion of waste packages.ge sites, Others pointed out that occupational exposures would be increased by maintenance and survelliance aethities, and the possible repackaging of waste for disposal.

Several comenters believe that a risk assessment should be perfomed to better define-the risks associated with storage. The risk assessment should include a comparison of centralized storage vs. on-site storage by ger.erators.

Finally, several commenters pointed out that storage on-site would eliminate any risk from transportation hazards and would take advantage of already contaminated sites. These commenters favored long-term, indefinite, on-site storage over near surface disposal.

Analysis.

NRC agrees with con 3 enters who believe that the public health and safety and the environment could be adequately protected with on-Ote storage of LLW.

Although the safety measures for long-term storage facilities will be greater than those employed now for short-tern storage, measures can be undertaken to prevent or mitigate the effects of the various internal and e::ternal hazards at a storage facility. However, potential exposures to workers will be reduced if disposal is accomplished. Permanent disposal of LLW has always been the preferred option for managing, wastes. The LLRWPAA reflects this preference. The design features of a disposal facility, including the natural features of the site, protect against a wide range of events and phenomena over a long period of time. In contrast, and as a number of commenters noted, storage would involve increased worker exposure from unloading the waste from storage for disposal, possible waste form processing (such as solidification '

or repackaging) to meet the waste acceptance criteria of a disposal facility .

when one became available, and radiation surveys during storage.

In order to adequately protect public health and safety, existing storage facilities may need to be substantially improved to store wastes safely for  ;

3 w , - - . , . . - + . - . ,.~n. -- , -e s -- ..,w .w.- - - - -e- .-.

7 ,,- - , - - . -,

long periods of time. Actual storage conditions in use now range from sheet steel buildings on a concrete pad to rooms in hospitals and universities to several foot thick concrete modules. These structures may or may not have humidity and temperature control systems and could be subject to changing environmental conditions. The possibility for degradation of the waste containers will environment exist and in which they will are be a function of the materials used and the located.

facility with an indefinite period of storage for its design could needAs a boun controls similar to those in Part 61 for a disposal facility, because the design life would be the same.

Increased waste form requirements may be particularly important for Class A waste which normally is not stabilized prior to shipment for disposal, and for any stable waste forms which degrade as a result of the storage environment. This waste may contain gaantities of absorbed liquid which, when alone or in the presence of radiation and organic materials, may produce i organic acids and/or other species. These species may accelerate internal corrosion and f ailure of common storage containers.

options. Several commenters pointed out the need for risk assessments of storage NRC is unaware of any quantitative comparisons of the risks and exposures associated with storage vs. disposal and on-site storage vs.

centralized storage. NRC will have available information from other programs on storage (such as the NY State storage study and DOE studies) and will use this information in its planning. Additional NRC work may be needed in this area depending on developments between now and 1996.

Question _1. Would low-level waste storage for other than operational needs beyond January 1, 1996, have an adverse impact on the incentive for timely development of permanent disposal capacity? ,

Summary of_ Comments.

categories: Comments in response to this question can be put into the following Yes, there would be an adverse impact--somewhat less than half of those who gave a yes or no answer believe that storage would adversely affect timely development of disposal capacity. Generally these responses were provided by host States, a compact or industry.

No, there would not be an adverse impact. Many individual commenters or public interest groups believe that storage was the preferred option over disposal and stated that there would be no adverse impact. They believe that current disposal technology is not adequate for protecting public health and safety. Several others believe that allowing for storage would hglg in achieving disposal capacity by allowing time for contracting among States, thereby reducing the number of sites that are needed in the country. They also believe that storage would provide the time needed to do the job right.

4

.-r-- - - . . -- ~- , - ,,,- r . nr- - n ms- ,,--.,n,. -

,+m- - , - --w- v-. - -o---.o ,

The question is moot. A few coronenters pointed out that the reality of the national waste disposal situation is that storage beyond 1996 will be necessary and therefore the question is moot. Several recognized that storage will be necessary, but at the same time encouraged the NRC to permit storage only when necessary. Another commenter pointed out that Be LLRWPAA contains ample incentives to promote disposal without needing to consider the effect of NRC's storage policy. Commenters cited the cost to generators or States for storage, the resoc*ces (space and personnel) which would need to be devoted to on-site storage at a generator site, the possible loss of jobs in a State if companies move to areas which have disposal capacity, and the political impact in a State if LLW must be stored in increasingly larger quantities at numerous sites throughout a State.

The NRC should not consider any adverse impacts of storage. As noted in the response to the first question on factors the NRC should consider in authorizing storage, a number of corpenters believe that NRC's role is one of only licensing and overseeing storage or disposal facilities, without having a preference for one or the other. These same commenters therefore believe that it was inappropriate for NRC to ask this question.

Analysis.

Comenters who stated that storage trould have an adverse impact provided little or no bases for their position. This is not surnrising given that tMir question calls for prediction of the future which often must be based on judgment rathat than hard data-and scitattfic -feesulaec

. a..:.

Commenters whe believe that thert, would be'no adverse iniact on disposal pointed to the incentives that will remain for a State to develop dispesal capacity, irrespective of the relief provided by storage. In particular, there are costs (to the State and/or generators); the possible loss of jobs if a generator moves to a State with d'sposal availability; and, if generator storage is common, the political impact of a large number of LLW sites with ever growing amounts of LLW.

At the same time, NRC agreet with some connenters that short-term storage may be necessary in some States, especially those which have made a good faith effort and continue to do so into the future. Nevertheless, on balance, the NRC believes that an NRC policy unich placed no disincentives on extended or inadequate storage would likely '.end to discourage disposal.

5

Qugstion 4. What specific adt.inistrative, technical and legal issues are raised by the rea lirements for transfer of title?

Sumary of Comenti.

The coments provisions in response tt this question addressed the take-title of the LLRWPAA.

York v. United State 1 and the revision to the proposed rule, these comentsB and the associated analysis are meot and consequently are not included.

Question 5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of transfer of title and possession as separate itepst Because of the U.S. Supreme Coart decision in Mew York v. United States -

and the revision to the proposed rule. the question is moot and consequently the sumary and analysis associated w th this question are not included.

Question 6. Could any state or local inws interfere or preclude transfer of title or possession of LLW?

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court lecision in New York v. Unittd States and the revision to the proposed rule, the question is moot and consequently the sumary and analysis associated with rhis question are not included.

Question 7. What assurances of the availab lity of safe and sufficient disposal capacity for low-level waste should the Comission require and when should it requ:re them? What additional conditions, if any, should the C1 mission consider in reviewing such assurances?

Sumary of Comenti.

No assurances were needed according to sean of the 27 comenters on this question.

The NRC lacks the authority and its cole is limited to facility licensing of either disposal or storage, in their view. Other comenters indicated that if HRC believes that such assurantes are needed, it should seek an amendment to the LLRWPAA or initiate a rulemaking similar to the one for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR Part 51 in which the Comission made a finding that there was confidence that ultimate disposal of spent fuel would be achieved at a future date.

For those comenters who believe that assuranct s were appropriate, the kinds of assurances varied. One recomended that st.irage beyond 5-years should require a State or compact plan on how the Sttte or compact intends to dispose of the waste so that storage is not de facto :lisposal. The comenter also believe that, while a State lacks disposal capac'.ty, there should be no licen between now and January 1, 1996 of any factlity that may generate signi t amounts of waste after that date. Others telieve that the gener or should project waste volumes accurately and t1at demonstrated progress towards issuance of a license to operate a reg.onal disposal facility would be sufficient.

6

.- - - _ - .- . - - _ - - - _ _ - - . - _. .. . _ _ ~

. . ~

One commenter suggested that a governor's certification be required that would be similar to those already submitted as part of the LLRWPAA milestone compilance of January 1,1990. The requirements of the certification should be sinals with t w available jcation to licensees to amend to subeltlimit.

the possession with the license to store or that the In addition, they believe Aeuld require ths.t the governor's certification include estimates making.

of the costs for disposal capacity for waste management decision With regard to when the Commission should require the assurances, two commenters addressed the timing issue and focused on the 5-year storage time frame. The other cosmenters presumably s. leve that the assurances should '

apply at any time the licensee would apply for a storage license. Another recomended action by NRC 'in the next few years.'

Analysis.

Like Question 1 (concerning the factors the Commission could consider in authorizing storage), this question also addresses the role of the NRC in implementing the LLRWPAA.

It presumes that the NRC has both the authority and the willingness to seek additional assurances for ultimate disposal. Because commenters often did not agree with this premise, as noted in the analyses of earlier questions, they also believe that this was not an appropriate question for the NRC to ask. However, the NRC, under the AEA, does have broad.

authority safety to promulgate and minimize danger to the rules public. and regulations to protect c _&P.the pu .

2 Y;; grung ad

j. hC'd

' ' ar. s.

dauenetnrte t w ,.

acState has ne active, viable y

preyant

. mmmu  ??& ,

disposal capability. ~ '

~ .the M a ./-

With respect to the question of whether the NRC has assurance that LLW disposal capacity will be available in the future, such assurance is available, as indicated in the analysis section of Questions 1 and 2, and does not require a formal rulemaking, as was suggested by several commenters and performed for HLW. Unlike the HLW program, where no repository has yet been in operation, disposal sites have been in operation and safely isolating waste for decades at Barnwell, S.C., Hanford, WA, and Beatty, NV. Additional disposal capacity is expected soon. Some States may have their fact 11 ties in operation before 1996. There continae to be other options, including storage until a disposal site is located, or contracting with another State, or continuing to pursue development of a site within the State or compact. Thus, the question is not whether LLW will be safely disposed of, but exactly where and when it will take place.

7

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

Question 8. Are there any other specific issues that would complicate the transfer of title and possession, as well as on-site storage, of low-level waste and mixed (radioactive and chemical hazardous) waste?

$_qya ry of Coments.

A wide variety of coments was provided in response to this question. A number of then were discussed in connection with previous questions. Coment s strictly addressing transfer of title and possession are not included because they are moot. Remaining issues include the following:

1. Some connenters mentioned NRC storage policy and whether or not it will be a matter of compatibility with Agreement States was mentioned by some comenters. If not, Agreement States will license storage in accordance with their own storage policies and procedures.

2. The failure of some States to resolve legal, economic, and/or political issues will cause additional delays.

3. Accidents that generate large amounts of waste not previously planned for could cause a significant dinosal problem.

4. NRC and Agreement State resources, as well as personnel trained in storage licensing, need to be in place.

5. Orphan waste and naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) waste need to be addressed.

.A_nal y s i s .

NRC has not attempted to resolve each of these issues in connection with this analysis of public coments. Many go beyond the scope of the NRC's responsibilities and will need to be resolved by States and generators as they proceed. Others require a decision on the role of the NRC in encouraging disposal and others will need to be followed up- at a later time.

Two of the above comments deserve attention here, however. The first is that Agreement States, which will perform much of the licensing for storage, should adopt the same or similar storage policy as NRC. License conditions for storage beyond 1996 are not currently compatibility requirements.

The second issue concerns the scope of the waste for which the State is responsible. Wastes falling within State responsibility include some Federal waste and any decommissioning waste or waste from contaminated sites that is removed in order to allow sites to meet the unrestricted use criterion in decomissioning.

8

CONCLUSIONS.

I following conclusions can be reached as a result of the foregoing

1. Although LLW can be safely stored, disposal would enhance the-protection of the public health and safety and the environment;

2. The Lt.RWPAA has established the proference for disposal over storage and established national goals for achieving adequate disposal capacity;

3. The NRC has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act to advance the goal of disposal pursuant to the LLRWPAA.

4.

On site storage by many LLW generators will likely be necessary due to the lack of progress by States and compacts in developing sufficient disposal capacity.

The NRC has concluded that a rulemaking should be initiated to ensure that LLW generators exhaust all other reasonable management options before on-site storage will be permitted beyond January 1, 1996. One such option is to pursue a contract for disposing of waste. This action will reenforce the Commission's position that it will not look favorably on on-site storage by generators, after January 1, 1996, and the action actively supports the goals set forth in the LLRWPAA.

• l l

l l

9

pa *%

,J 0, f* .c f

% UNITED STATES s i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINGTON. O C. 2064i6 s

.~

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chainnan Subcomivee on Energy and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is proposing to amend its regulations applicable to reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees, to establish a regulatory framework setting forth the procedures and criteria that will apply to on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste beyond January 1, 1996, based on the legislative intent of the low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule that will be published shortly in the Fed _eral Reaister, Under the proposed rule, on-site storage of low-level radioactive wasta will not be per.attted after January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-ter;u storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation, forshipmnt off-site, in the case where a licensee has access to an operating low-level radioactive waste disposal facility), unless the licensee can document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options. NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract, either directly or through the State, for the disposal of its waste. In addition, reactor licensees will have to document that on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's activities, nor decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements. The rulemaking will make these requirements standard license conditions for every license issued for reactor, caterial, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees. The rulemaking will amend 10 CFR Parts 50.54, 30.34, 40.41, 70.32, and 72.44, which are those sections of the regulations thtt identify standard conditions for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licenses.

1

_ - - - - --- U

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp This action is being taken because of potential health and safety concerns associated with the increased reliance upon on-site -

storage of low-level radioactive waste, and to support the goals that have been established by the LLRWPAA.

Sincerely, Dennis Rathbun, Director I Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosures:

l. Public Announcement

2. federal Reaistjtt Notice cc: Representative Carlos / Moorhead t

1

., . . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ _ .- - - . _ _ . _ . - - - , , -- _ _ .. . .~ ._ . - . _ . - - . _ . _ . . . . , . . _

/pn % .%

'"  % UNITED STATES 3 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1  !

w AssiNotoN. o e un

'n

=,

l The Honorable Peter J. Kostmayer, Chainnan Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is proposing to amend its regulations applicable to reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees, to establish a regulatory framework setting forth the procedures and criteria that will apply to on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste beyond January 1,1996, based on the legislative intent of the low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule that will be published shortly in the Eqderal Register.

Under the proposed rule, on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste will not be permitted af ter January 1,1996, (other than reasonable short-tens storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation, for shipment off-site, in the case where a licensee has access to an operating low-level radioactive waste disposal facility), unless the licensee can document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options. NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract, either directly or through the State, for the disposal of its waste. In addition, reactor licensees will have to document that on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's activities, nor decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements. The rulemaking will make these requirements standard license conditions for every license issued for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees. The ruiemaking will amend 10 CFR Parts 50.54, 30.34, 40.41, 70.32, and 72.44, which are those sections of the regulations that identify standard conditions for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licenses, l

i

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- - ~ ~

1he Honorable Peter This action is being taken because of potential health and safety concerns associated with the increased reliance upon on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste, and to support the goals that have been established by the LLRWPAA.

Sincerely, Dennis Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosures:

1. Public Announcement

2. federal Reaister Notice ec: Representative John J. Rhodes 1-

gge mich 4 .

j' f t UNITED STATES

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINoTON, D C 20de$

t The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is proposing to amend its regulations applicable to reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees, to establish a regulatory framework setting forth the procedures and criteria that will apply tn on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste beyond January 1, 1996, based on the legislative intent of the low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule that will be published shortly in the Federal Reaister, Under the proposed rule, on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste will not be permitted after January 1, 1996, (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation, for shipment off-site, in the case where a licensee has access to an operating low-level radioactive waste disposal-facility), unless the licensee can document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options.- NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract, either directly or through the State, for the disposal  !

of its waste. In addition, reactor licensees will have to document that on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's activities, nor decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements. The rulemaking will make these requirements standard license conditions for every license

. issued for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees. The rulemaking will amend 10 CFR Parts 50.54, 30.34, 40.41, 70.32, and 72.44, which are those sections of the regulations that identify standard conditions for reactor. .

material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licenses.

4 m , ~.. , , . . . . , . . . - _ _- . , . , , , .y,

_ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ~ . _ . _ . _ . _ - . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ . . _

The Honorable Bob Graham

This action is being taken because of potential health and safety concerns associated with the increased reliance upon on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste, and to support the goals that have been established by the LLRWPAA.

Sincerely, Dennis Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosures:

1. Public Announcement

2. federal Reaister Notice -

cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson

NRC CONSIDERS CHANGES TO REGULATIONS FOR ON-SITE STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its regulations to establish requirements for on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste by licensees, after January 1, 1996.

Under the proposed rule, the current regulations would continue to be used for on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste, until January 1, 1996. Current rules permit on-site storage, if all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements are met.

After January 1, 1996, the proposed regulations would not permit on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where a licensee has access to an operational low-level radioactive waste disposal facility), unless the licensee could document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options. The NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract, either directly or through the State in which the llconsee's facili.ty is located, for the disposal of the waste.

The proposed regulation would make these requirements standard license conditions for reactor, materials, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licenses. Licensees would not be required to make a formal submittal, to NRC, to show compliance. However, they would have to document steps that show hev they have complied with the requirements and make the documentation available to NRC, for inspection.

Low-level radioactive waste is a general term for a variety of radioactively contaminated waste generated by nuclear power plants and related industries, hospitals, medical and educational research institutions, private and governmental laboratories, and other commercial activities that use radioactive materials as a normal part of their operations.

Low-level radioactive waste is currently disposed of using near-surface land disposal at privately operated facilities located in the States of South Carolina and Washington. However, the commissions that control these sites have established restrictions or conditions on receiving LLW from outside their regions, effective January 1, 1993.

On December 4, 1990, the Commission published a Federal Realster notice seeking public comments on issues regarding low-level radioactive waste disposal, including whether to permit temporary storage of the waste after 1996. The proposed rule takes into consideration the comments received.

t I

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on i I

the proposed changes to Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, at:d 72 of the Commission's regulations by (60 days after  !

publication of a notice in the f.ederal Reaister on Comments are requested both on the proposed rule and on ).

strategies and options that the Commission might pursue, in addition to this proposed rule, that would encourage States and compacts to move forward with development of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities.

The comments should be addressed to Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

l t

r r

a

-m-ee m -m-. . _ e --o-- , w -vr r e wesw we e w wm v.w,,w s -r, v e,v, w m. w- ww w m-m-y&g--ee--,-u-+te--.rr-m-<e+-twY * - ete ew+ w m - *v sr r e -w w w =--- er e er'r e t r- y m- t--g

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TOR THE RULEMAKING TO REVISE 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 70, AND 72 FOR ON-SITE STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Ihe Proposed Action The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing specific changes to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, containing licensing requirements for byproduct materials, source materials, production and utilization facilities, special nuclear materials, and independent spent fuel storage, respectively. The rulemaking would amend 5530.34, 40.41, 50.54, 70.32, and 72.44, which identify standard conditions for reactor and material licenses.

Identical changes are proposed for 5530.34, 40.41, 70.32, and 72.44. The amendments of SS30.34(j), 40.41(h), 70.32(1), and 72.44(h) would not permit on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) after January 1, 1996 (other than for reasonable storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility),

unless the licenses could document that it has exhausted other reasonable management optior.s. The NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract with operating LLW disposal sites, either directly or through the State, for the disposal of its waste. Under 550.54(ff), reactor licensees would have to meet identical conditions, as well as document that on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's I

activities, nor decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements. Finally, 5530.34(j),

40.41(h), 50.54(ff), 70.32(1), and 72.44(h) would require that all relevant documentation of the steps taken to satisfy the requirements of this rulemaking be maintained by the licensee for three years and be made available for NRC inspection.

These proposed amendments would serve to ensure that a41 licensees exhaust all options before storing LLW on-site, and that these changes in the regulations encourage the national goal of obtaining LLW disposal capacity.

Need forJrocosed Rule The Low-Level Radiosctive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) (LLRWPAA) establishes a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives to ensure that regional compacts and States make adequate progress toward being able to manage their LLW by 1993. Section 5(a) of the LLRWPAA requires the sited States of Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington to make disponal capacity available to LLW generators until December 31, 1992, subject tot the States and compacts meeting the other milestones of the LLRWPAA, the sites remaining operational, and received vaste being within site-specific volume limitations.

2

l To help ensure that the States make adequate progress to develoa new LLW disposal facilities, the LLRWPAA established six milestenes by which the States should make decisions and commit to certain actions. The majority of the States met the requirements of the three milestone dates that had passed by January 1990. Only the Central, Central-Midwest, and Southwestern Compact States met the January 1, 1992, milestone requirement, because their host States, Nebraska, Illinois, and California, respectively, submitted a facility license application to their State regulatory authorities before that date.

The State of Texas conformed to this milestone on March 2, 1992. The remaining milestones of the LLRWPAA, as it was enacted, are:

January 1, 1993 -

If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1993, generators can request the State to take title to and possession of the gennrated waste. The State also becomes liable for damages as a consequence of failure to take possession of the waste.

In 1993, States may avoid taking title and possession of the vaste and assuming liability, but will forfeit the surcharge rebates established by the LLRWPAA.

January 1, 1996 - If a. State or compact cannot provida for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1996, the States, upon proper notice by the generator or owner, shall take title to 3

and be obligated to take possession of LLW. The State will also be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner if it falls to take possession as soon after January 1, 1996, as the generator or owner notifies the State that the waste is available for shipment.

The section of the LLRWPAA requiring the States to take title to and possession of the generated waste by January 1, 1996 (often referred to as the "take-title" provision), was held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1992, in a lawsuit brought by the State of New York (a non-compact State) and two of its counties. The constitutionality of the take-title provision, as applied to compact States, was not before the Supreme Court. Even though the take-title provision was held unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the LLRWPAA is the development of new LLW disposal facilities by January 1, 1993, and in no case later than January 1, 1996, h Because no new LLW dispowal facilities were operational on January 1, 1993, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites either closed their site or set restrictions or conditions on receiving LLW from outside their regional compacts effective January 1, 1993, some licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available, unless other arrangements for 4

storage or disposal can be made, some licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available, unless other arrangements for storage or disposal can be made. Nearly all the Governors have indicated that their respective States plan on interim storage by waste generators during the 1993 through 1996 period. Storage is planned to include individual licensee facilities. However, many States do expect to have access to the Barnwell LLW disposal facility from January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994. Although some compacts and States are scheduled to open an LLW disposal facility before January 1996, others are not expected to do so.

Although LLW can be safely stored, NRC believes that the protection of the public health and safety 'nd the environment is enhanced by disposal, rather than by long term, indefinite storage of wastes. Disposal of wastes in a limited number of facilities, licensed under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 or conapatible Agreement State regulations, will provide better protecti-a of the public health and safety and the anvironment than long-term storage at hundreds or thousands of sites around tbs country. Stored waste packages need to maintain sufficient integrity to prevent dispersal of the waste during storage, transport, and handling, up to and including emplacement for-disposal. Because.of the variability of certain storage environments, waste packages may suffer degradation over the extended storage period. Among the ways in which a storage 5

environment can cause waste packane degradation are temperature fluctuations (in heated facilities in areas with cold wintert) and corrosive atmospheres (e.g., industrial and marine atmospheres as well as acid deposition). Other waste packaga concerns during storage include external and internal corros ion, radiolytic generation of gases (predominantly hydrogen) and corrosive substances, radiation induced embrittlement of polyethylene containe rs, and blodegradation of institutiona, -

wastes. These procerses may accelerate internal corrosion and failure of common storage containers, even if the waste is stabilized prior to atorage. Waste form degradation could result h in spills or releases during handling for disposal, if the degradation goes undetected. In addition, westo package deterioration prior to disposal will require repackaging of the LLW and cleanup of any spills. As a result, workers will bi:

potentially exposed to additional doses of radiation. The IRC contractor report, " Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactisa Waste: Potential Problem Areas," NUREG/CR-4062, provides a detailed discussion of these concerns.1 3 Storage also involves a number of activities that could increase radiation doses to the public. First, storage of LLW 1

Copies of NUREGS may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7032., Copies are a1.so available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC. _

6

(

5 - ae .w_. .:4++-w 4 a .4.m; 4 - -i_A a 2 will result in potential increased worker exposures, from unloading the waste from storage, for disposal. Second, waste forms may need to be repackaged or otherwise processed, again, as a result of waste form failure or to meet waste acceptance critoria for a new disposal facility, once one becomes available.

This additional hendling by workers will also cause increased exposures.

The site-specific conditions at a new disposal facility may necessitate these new waste form criteria and these criteria may not be known when LLW is placed into storage.

Third, radiation surveys and inspections of LLW in storage will result in potential additional doses to those involved in performing these activities. For these reasons an. to support the goals of the LLRWPAA, NRC has concluded that regulations y should be amended to require licensees to exhaust other reasonable management options before on-site storage of LLW will be permitted, after January 1, 1996. The Commission specifically invites comment on the above public health and safety rationale, as well as on the comparative risk of potential releases as a result of an event or accident at numerous LLW storage sites l

around the country, as opposed to the potential release from a limited number of disposal sites designed to meet the siting and design requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations.

l l

(

l 7

t I

_ _ . . _ _ _ _- . _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ ~ . . _ _

kligrpatives Procom ed_ _Act i on : Proceed with a regular, but expedited, rulemaking, including the publication of a proposed rule for public comment, then conclude with the publication of a final rule that considers any comments received.

Alternative 1: No action. This alternative is non-responsive to the emerging situation and does not further the disposal goal of the LLRWPAA. Therefore., this alternative is rejected,

&ligrnative 2: Issue guidance to licensees and Governors as issues and needs are identified. This alternative would enable NRC to continue to monitor national progress in the development of new LLW disposal capacity, and to develop and issue additional guidance, as needs are identified. However, this action would not codify NRC's position, and thus the guidance would not be enforceable. Therefore, this alternative is rejected.

Alternative 3: Publish a policy statement providing $

information similar to that provided in Alternative 2. _Although this approach supports the LLRWPAA, it is not as strong a regulatory action. A policy statement is'only informational and has no binding effect. This approach is subject to greater challenges and uncertainty than a rulemaking. Tharefore, this i

8

alternative is rejected.

Environmental Innact of ProDosed Action The Commission has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, addressing licensing of byproduct materials. source materials, production and utilization facilities, special nuclear materials, and independent spent fuel storage, respectively, provide requirements for the possession and use of these materials, with LLW simply being a material form within these categories of radioactive material. .

}

This proposed rulemaXing will supplement, but not-supersede, the existing regulatory framework applicable to the storage of LLW, and the conditions in themselves will not authorize on-site storage.

These amandments add administrative and verification requirements to those regulations governing the licensing of byproduct material, source material, production and utilization facilities, special nuclear material, and independent spent fuel storage. The proposed rule will encourage disposal as opposed to storage and this should have beneficial environmental effects.

The proposed rule would not result in any increase in radiation exposure from transportation of LLW compared to that expected from the ultimate dispcsal of LLW envisioned by the LLRWPAA. Any 9

environmental impact of operating an on-site LLW storage facility will be addressed, as required, as part of the licensing action for that facility, under previously established regulatory requirements.

Environmental Imoact of Alternativec Because the alternatives proposed do not affect regulatory requirements, there would be no environmental impact.

Acencies Consulted No other agencies or persons were contacted in connection with this environmental assessment. The text of the proposed rule was provided to the NRC Agreement States.

l Findina of No Slanificant Imoact l

Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed rulemaking will not have a l significant incremental effect on the quality of the human environment and therefore, an environmental impact statement la not required.

10

I I

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Commission regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This proposed rulemaking will supplement, but not supersede, the existing regulatory framework applicable to the storage of LLW, and the additional conditions of this rulemaking, in themselves, would not authorize on-site storage.

These amendments would add administrative and verification requirements to existing regulations governing the licensing of byproduct material, source material, . production and utilization facilities, special nuclear material, and independent spent fuel storage. The proposed rule would encourage disposal as opposed to storage, and this should have beneficial environmental effects. The proposed rule would not result in any w y" increase in radiation exposure from transportation of LLW compared to that expected from the ultimate disposal of LLW envisioned by the 11SWPAA. Any environmental impact of operating an on-site LLW storage facility will be addressed, as required, as part of the licensing action for that facility, under previously established regulatory reqairements.

11 l.

i

?

.J REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR THE HULFMAKING TO REVISE 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 70, AND 72 FOR ON-SITE STORAGE OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Statement of the Problqm The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) (LLRWPAA) establishes a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives to ensura that regional compacts and States make adequate progress toward being able to manage their low-level radioactive waste (LLW) by 1993. Section 5(a) of the LLRWPAA requires the sited States of Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington to make disposal capacity available to LLW generators until December 31, 1992, subject to: the States and compacts meeting the other milestones of the LLRWPAA, the sites remaining operational, and received waste being within site-specific volumn limitations.

To help ensure that the States make adequate progress to develop new LLW disposal facilities, the LLRWPAA established six milestones by which the States should make decisions and commit

( to certain actions. The majority of the States met the

[ requirements of the three milestone dates that had passed by

j. January 1990. Only the Central, Central-Midwest, and Southwestern Compact States met the January 1, 1992, milestone requirement because their host States, Nebraska, Illinois, and California, respectively, submitted a facility license application to their State regulatory authorities before that i

l l

l

date.

The State of Texas conformed to this milestone on March 2, 1992. The remaining milestones of the LLRWPAA, as it was enacted, are:

January 1, 1993 - If a Jtate or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1993, generators can request the State to take title to and possession of the generated waste. The State also becomes liable for damages as a consequence of failure to take possession of the waste.

In 1993, States may avoid taking title and possession of the waste and assuming liability, but will forfeit the surcharge rebaten established by the LLRWPAA.

January 1, 1996 - If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1996, the States, upon proper notice by the generator or owner, shall take title to and be obligated to take possession of LLW. The State will also be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner it it fails to take possession as soon after January 1, 1996, as the generator or owner notifies the State that the waste is available for shipment.

The section of the LLRRPAA requiring the States to take title to and poscession of the generated waste by January 1, 1996 (often referred to as the "take-title" provision), was held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1992, in a I

l

. . - - - _ . - - . . . ~ - .. - . - - - . . .. . _- -

lawsuit brought by the State of New York (a non-compact State) and two of its counties. The monstitutionality of the take-title provision, as applied to compact States, was not before the Supreme Court.

Even though the take-title provision was held unconstitutional, clearly a goal-of the LLRWPAA is the development of new LLW disposal facilitiec by January 1, 1993, and in no case later than January 1, 1996.

4 Because no new LLW disposal facilities were operational on January 1, 1993, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites either closed their site or set restrictions or conditions on receiving LLW from outside their regional compacts effective January 1, 1993, some-licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity 4.s available, unless other arrangements for

. storage or disposal can be made, s'o m e licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available, unless other arrangements for storage or disposal can be made. Nearly all the Governors who do not expect to have access to operating LLW di:spos sl facilities within the next few years have indicated that their respective States plan on interim storage by waste generators from 1993 through 1996. Storage is planned to include individual licensee facilities. Although some compacts and States are scheduled to open an LLW disposal facility before January 1996, others are not expected to do so.

l 3

l

- . - - . . - - - -. - - . . .. -~. - .. . . - .

I Although LLW can be safely stored, NRC believes that the protection of the public health and safety and the environment is enhanced by disposal, rather than by long term, indefinite storage of wastes. Disposal of wastes in a limited number of facilities, licensed under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations, will provide better protection of the public health anr} safety and the environment than long-term storage at hundreds or thousands of sites around i i

the cour. cry. Stored waste packages need to maintain sufficient l

integrity to prevent dispersal of the waste during storage, transport, and handling, up to and including emplacement for disposal. Because of the variability of certain storage environments, waste packages may suffer degradation ever the extended storage period. Among the ways in which a storage environment can cause waste package degradation are temperature fluctuations (in heated facilities in areas with cold winters) and corrosive atmospheres (e.g., industrial and marine atmospheres as well as acid deposition). Other waste package concerns during storage include external and internal corrosion, radiolytic generation of gases (predominantly hydrogen) and '

corrosive substances, radiation induced embrittlement of polyethylene containers, and blodegradation of institutional wastes. These processes may accelerate internal corrosion and failure of common storage containers, even if the waste is stabilized prior to storage. Waste form degradation could result in spills or releases during handling for disposal, if the 4

l

. ~- - ' '

l l

l degradation goes undetected. In addition, vaste package deterioration prior to disposal will require repackaging of the '

LLW and cleanup of any spills. As a result, workers will be potentially exposed to additionat doses of radiation. The NRC contractor report, " Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Potential Problem Areas," NU1EG/CR-4062, provides a detailed discussion of these concernt.1 Storage also involves a number of activities that could increase radiation doses to the public- First, storage of LLW will result in potential increased worker exposures, from unloading the waste from storage, for d,sposal. Second, waste forms may need to be repackaged or otherwise processed, again, as a result of waste form failure or to meet vaste acceptance criteria for a new disposal facility, once one becomes available.

This additional handling by workers will also cause increased exposures. The site-specific conditions at a new disposal facility may necessitate these new waste form criteria and these criteria may not be known when LLW is placed into storage.

Third, radiation surveys and inspections of LLW in storage will result in potential additional doses to those involved in performing these activities. For these reasons and to support 1

Copies of NUREGS may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. . Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Strect NW.

(Lover Level), Washington, DC.

S I

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~~ -~~~-~ ^~

(

the goals of the LLRWPAA, NRC is proposing this ruletaking, which makes storage of LLW an option of last resort. The Commission specifically invites comment on the above public health and safety rat.ionale, as well as on the co: arative risk of potential teleasea s a result of an event or accident at numerous LLW sterage sites ar,und the country, as opposed to the pottntial relesse from a limited number of disposal sites designed to meet the s! ting and design requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 or compat ble Agreement State regulations.

Even though the take-title provision was held unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the LLRWpAA is the development of new LLW Cisposal facilities by January 1, 1996.

To support the goals of the LLRWpAA and its legislated preference fcc disposal over storage of LLW, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that action is necessary to require licensees to exhaust other reasonable management options before on-site storage of LLW will be permitted after January 1, 1996.

Ob.htet ives The objectives of this regulatory action are to support the goals of the IIRWPAA and enhance the protection of the public health and safety and the environment by ensuring that:

On-site storage of LLW is an option of last resort; 6

a O on. site storage is authorized under existing conditions of the 11cansa and is consir. tent with existing authorities and procedures as well as all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements; and In the case of production and utilization facility licenstes, on-site storage activities are consistent with and do not impact safe oparations, nor decrease the level of safety provided by regulatory requirements.

Alternatives NRC has considered the following alternatives.

1.

Take no action at ti.?.c time, but rather continue to monitor states' prograss in establishing r.ew disposal capacity and react to specific circumstances demanding NRC action.

2. Issue guidance to licensees and Governors as issues and needs are identified. It would address the LLRWPAA, and place a particular emphasis on storage. It would include copies of the current guidance documents and regulations that NRC would apply in licensing of storage..

3. Publish a policy statement providing information similar to Alternative 2. It would note that NRC recognizes that 7

l l

1 licenses authorizing storage for limited periods of timo (i.e.,

five years or less) and for very limited periods of time beyond 1996, may be necessary, while new disposal capacity is <..eveloped. This statement would emphasize ERC's concerns regarding the States' commitment to disposal and problems with longer-term storage of LLW.

I 4.

Conduct a regular, but expedited, rulemaking, to amend 13  !

CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, to codify NRC's position establishing procedures and criteria applicable to all LLW generators, for on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996.

Analysis of Alternatives F

The no-action alternative (Alternative 1) is non-responsive to the emerging situation. It does not make known or emphasi;:e NRC's policy and existing guidance. Furthermore, it does not actively support the national goals of the LLRWPAA.

Neither issuance of guidance (Alternative 2) nor publication of a policy statement (Alternative 3) would formally codify, :tn a rule, NRC's position on on-site storage of LLW, beyond January 1, 1996. These alternatives fall short of establishing the regulatory framework needed to set forth procedures and criteria <

that will apply to on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1!)9 6.

8

. a Alternative 4 to amend 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, to codify NRC's position, establishing procedures and criteria applicable to all LLW generators, for on-site storage of LLW, beyond January 1, 1996, is the recommended action. KRC would initiate a proposed rulemaking allowing for a 60-day comment period, potentially reaching a broader audience than the guidance or policy statement alternatives, and allowing for consideration of public comments in the development of the proposed rule. The effects of the proposed rulemaking on States, licensees, and NRC are addressed below.

l Imoact on Stateg NRC is aware that Agreement States will incur costs in t

developing corresponding compatible regulatitessIin liccordance l with a:clating agreemer;ts between NRC and Agramment States.

l However, NRC does not consider these costs to be a significant impact on the Agreement States.

1 1

Imoact on Generators Tha only new costs that will be incurred by the LLW generators or ownert as a result of this proposed rulemaking are those associated with the generation of letters to State and/or LLW disposal facilities and the associated recordkeeping requirements. If the generator is successful in contracting for 9

f

o ..

disposal as a result of the proposed rule, the costs associated with such disposal would not be new, because costs would have been incurred for ultimate LLW disposal, in the absence of this rule.

Contract costs, incurred as a result of compliance with this rule, may differ from ultimate disposal costs. However, insufficient data exists to estimate what cost c2fference, if any, may occur.

Recordkeeping requirements unique to productiert and utilization facilities (550. 54 (f f) (2) (ii)) are negligible because of the availability of similar informaticn from evaluations performed pursuant to $50.59. Therefcre, there will be no additional burden on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees from this requirement.

, The recordkeeping burden imposed regarding the remaining requirements in SS30.34 (j) ,_ 40.41(h) , 50. 54 (f f) ,

70.32(1), and 72.44(h) are expected to be the same for each licensee, regardless of the applicable regulation.

This regulatory action will affect approximately 13,300 licenses consisting of 7100 Agreement State licenses and 6200 NRC licenses (including 68 power reactors). The following burden estimate assumes that all licensees are LLW generators and that all generators ship their waste off-site for disposal. These assumptions build a degree of conservatism into the analysis because, for example, some generators store their waste for decay, rather than dispose of LLW, and some do not generate LLW 10

4 0 on a regular basis.

The burden estimate in Table 1 is based on these assumptiens.

Table 1 General Burden Estimate Burden per Action _ Licensee Disposal Site Requests 8 Follow-Up 2 Record Maintenance 2 Total per Licensee per Year 12 Number of Licenses 13,300

?

Total Burden Estimate per Year 159,600 Hours 'f

, .. a.

~

(

The total estimated ocet to each licensee" foe thmee ~

recordkeeping requirements is $720 ($60/hr X 12 lirs) per yerr.

The burden and cost estimates are based on NRC staff analyses.

Costs are estimated based on a $60 hourly rate.

Imoact on Federal Government No additional cost to NRC or any other agency of the Federal government is expected. No formal reports are required,_and therefore there are no costs associated with report review and maintenance. Records will be reviewed during normal inspections.

However, these reviews are not expected to appreciab'y increase 11

NRC inspection resource requirements.

Qgcision Rationale The proposed rulemaking is recommended because it will codify NRC's position establishing procedures and criteria applicable to all LLW generators for on-site storage of LLW, beyond January 1, 1996. NRC has concluded that,_to support the goals of the LLRWPAA and to enhance the protection of the public health and safety and the environment, action-is appropriate to require licensees to exhaust other reasonable management options before on-site storage of LLW will be permitted after January 1, 1996.

12

. 4

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULAT0".Y COMMISSION Documents Containing Report +n! or Recordkeeping Requirements: Office of Management and Budget Review AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Notice of the Office of Management and Budget review of information collection. i

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) has recently submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review the following proposal for the collection of information unoer the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revised, or extension: Ret'sion.

2. The title of the information collection:

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72: Procedures and Criteria for On-site Storage of-Low-level Radice:tive Waste.

3. The form number, if. applicable: Not applicable.

4. How often the collection is required: Annually,' whenever low-level radioactive waste (LLW) -is stored af ter January 1, 1996.

-4 5 I

[7590-0))

5. Who will be required or asked to report: Approximately 13,286 NRC and Agreement State licensees storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996.

6. - An estimate of the number of annual responses: 79,716 (approximately 39,858 records kept by licensees storing LLW on-site after January 1,1996, and approximately 39,858 ,

responses by LLW disposal facilities).

7. An estimate of the total number of hours-needed to complete the requirement or request: 179,361 (an average _of 0.5

's per response for LLW disposal sites and an. average of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per record for licensees storing waste on-site).

8. An indication of whether Section 3504(h), Pub. L.96-511 applies: Applicable.

9. Abstract: The amendments to_10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 would require licenseas to-document and maintain a record showing that they have exhausted other reasonable management options in order to be permitted to store LLW on-site after_ January 1, 1996.

Copies of the submittal may be inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC Public Document Rcom, 2120 L Street NW. -(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

.- -- ~. . . - . .

. t Comments and questions may be directed by mail-to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-30:9-(3150-0017, -0020, -0011, -0009, -0132)

Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 Comments may be communicated by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

...r The NRC Clearance Of ficer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 07d-day,of'm g l 99'3.

F the Nuclear Regulatory Commission C /

Q j .

=

[GeraldF.Chanford [

Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management t

. _ . _ ,