ML20137L726
| ML20137L726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/21/1994 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007F933 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-60FR15649, FRN-60FR25983, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-61 AD33-2, AD33-2-008, AD33-2-8, NUDOCS 9704070295 | |
| Download: ML20137L726 (12) | |
Text
, -
hfh Y October 21, 1994 MEMORANDUM T0: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director /s/ Themis P. Speis for Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
(
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE: 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 61 -- LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING (RES-890326)
(WITS-8900066)
Attached for your signature is the Commission paper transmitting a final rule amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 that improve both the quality of the information contained in low-level waste shipment manifests and its utility for performance assessments.
Coordination: The Offices of Administration, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State Programs, Information Resources Management, and Enforcement concur in these amendments. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection. Resources to implement this rulemaking are included in the FY 1995-1999 Internal Program / Budget Review document and no tdditional resources would be required for its implementation.
Attachment:
Commission Paper w/atts.
Distribution:
RDB/SUBJ/RDG/ CENTRAL EDO R/F MBridgers (WITS No. 89000066)
MFato (RES-940051) LRiani Wlahs g(//ga f
(Document Name: G:\Haisfield\umedol *See previous concurrences 0FFC RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* DD:DRA D:DRA, Dh [ _D:R_ K)
NAME MHaisfield RAuluck SBahadur Ffoknzi P BhNts jh er ' ord dw DATE 10/18/94 10/18/94 10/18/94 1o/1o/94 lehe /94 le)SI /94 to /2l /94 COPY Yes - No Yes - No Yes - No Yes -K @- No Yes - No h - No 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY (RES File Code) RES 9704070295 970327 2 60 15649 PDR
p anero lt UNITED STATES g
g j- NUCLEAR REGULATORY (,OMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20N64001 t
% /
October 21, 1994 MEMORANDUM T0: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations FROM: r c S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE: 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 61 -- LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING (RES-890326)
(WITS-8900066)
Attached for your signature is the Commission paper transmitting a final rule amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 that improve both the quality of the information contained in low-level waste shipment manifests and its utility for performance assessments.
Coordination: The Offices of Administration, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State Programs, Information Resources Management, and Enforcement concur in these amendments. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection. Resources to implement this rulemaking are included in the FY 1995-1999 Internal Program / Budget Review document and no additional resources would be required for its implementation.
Attachment:
Commission Paper w/atts.
b
_. . ~_. __ ..,
').. /-(
z
% 4
)
STAFF PAPER FOR: The Commissioners
'FROM:: James M. Taylor, Executive Dit. nur for Operations
SUBJECT:
FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 61 ON LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING' PURPOSE:
To obtain approval to publish the final amendments to.10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 that improve both the quality of the information contained in low-level waste (LLW) shipment manifests and its utility.for performance assessments.
CATEGORY:
This paper covers a routine matter requiring Commission consideration.
SUMMARY
. All shipments of LLW, made directly or indirectly (e.g., through processors) to disposal sites, must' currently be accompanied by a manifest that describes
- the contentslof the~ shipment. Manifests are large, detailed documents containing information required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and State regulatory agencies. In addition, manifests are being considered by several LLW Compacts or States as the " vehicle" through which they can track LLW shipments and carry out their responsibilities, as defined in the Low-Level Radioactive
~
Waste Policy Amendmentt Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
CONTACTS:
W.~Lahs, NMSS, 415-6756
' N._Haisfield, RES, 415-6196 V
The Commissioners 2 The recommended amendments to Parts 20 and 61 (Attachment 1) will:
(1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests that are required to control transfers of LLW ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms, that serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, and captures the r information needed to meet NRC, DOT, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments will improve implementation of NRC and State regulations on LLW disposal by providing more accurate source-term information. This information will be used in performance assessments that can be evaluated against the performance objectives of Part 61. Using the Uniform Manifest ,
will not require generators to report information that is not readily and currently available. Rather, its use will improve the consistency and increase the level of detail over presently reported information, and will t require the reporting of other useful and currently available information (e.g., identity of high-integrity containers, when used). In addition, to ,
support the intent of the LLRWPAA, these amendments will facilitate tracking of LLW back to the original generator. ,
BACKGROUND:
NRC initiated this rulemaking to improve the quality and consistency of reported information that is on existing manifest documents. After a draft rule was provided to Agreement States, the Commission became aware that a significant improvement to the current manifesting system would be the development of a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. Thi:
was described in letters to former Chairman Carr from the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee and the LLW Forum. Subsequent letters to Chairman Selin from the LLW Forum continue to support this rulemaking activity.
In SECY-91-415 dated December 27, 1991, the staff proposed amendments to Parts 20 and 61 that included the use of a proposed set of NRC Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest Forms and instructions. The proposed forms were intended to: (1) capture the information collected en the existing manifest forms developed and used by the current disposal facility operators; (2) comply with D0T radioactive material transportation (: hipping paper) requirements in 49 CFR Part 172; (3) provide more detail on waste containers and their contents so as to provide more realistic source terms for performance assessments; and (4) facilitate electronic storage and transfer of manifest information.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Reaister on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500). The proposed rule references the forms and associated instructions. NRC received 40 comment letters on the proposed rule, forms, and instructions. Over two-thirds of the commenters specifically stated their support for the development of a Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest. None
The Commissioners 3 opposed the concept, although, as discussed below, some of the commenters did not see a need to change the existing manifest format. Many of the commenters identified specific areas that they believe could improve NRC's rulemaking proposal .
During the comment period, the LLW Forum members also received input from parties in their respective Compacts. As a result, the LLW Forum suggested that, to produce a more effective rule, NRC should sponsor
- public meeting to further discuss concerns raised by commenters, and thereby clarify the purpose of the rule. In response to this request, NRC held a public meeting (April 27, 1993; 58 FR 25578) with interested parties on June 15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland.
The most significant concerns expressed at the meeting and in the commen',.
letters involved NRC changing the current appearance and format of existing manifests that have been used for over 10 years and the fact that the proposed forms would result in duplication of some information. The duplication involves having to report radionuclides and their activity on both the NRC and DOT portion of the forms. Commenters did not object to the improved (increased) information requirements. Before the public meeting, 00T had agreed to cn NRC staff proposal that significantly reduced duplicative reporting on the Uniform Manifest forms. Specifically, DOT agreed that their requirements would be satisfactorily addressed if only radionuclide identity, along with the total package activity from all contained radionuclides, were reported on shipping papers. The revised manifest requirement was discussed at the public meeting and was considered a significant improvement. However, several commenters still did not believe that there was a need for a format change from existing manifests. As a result of suggestions at the meeting on the need for a written statement from D0T, NRC requested in a letter dated August 23, 1993, that DOT evaluate whether the existing industry manifests adequately satisfy D0T's radioactive material transportation (shipping paper) requirements. The request included statements from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
and US Ecology supporting their position as to the adequacy of their respective manifests in meeting DOT's requirements. On January 6, 1994, DOT confirmed that because the shipping paper information was commingled with other information, the existing manifests did not meet their requirements fo-priority and non-commingled placement of DOT transportation information.
Many of the commenters gave specific suggestions to improve the rulemaking package, and many of these comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and supporting instructions. The overall rule and associated forms, as presented in this final rule, however, are not substantially different in concept and context to those presented in the proposed rule.
DISCUSSION:
Three LLW disposal facilities are. currently in operation: the Barnwell, South Carolina, facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.; the Richland, Washington, facility cperated by US Ecology (both of these facilities are only
The Commissioners 4 accepting waste from their respective Compacts); and the facility near Clive, Utah, operated by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Waste may be shippau to these disposal facilities directly from a waste generator, or from waste collectors or processors. Waste collectors typically consolidate prepackaged waste from generating licensees, whereas waste processors receive waste or radioactive materials from licensees and produce waste with different chemical or physical characteristics. A single disposal container of waste from a waste processor may contain multiple waste types from several different generators.
Each year, operators receive thousands of shipments of LLW, accompanied by a manifest that contains information on the shipment's contents. Each corresponding manifest can consist of several to several tens of pages filled with detailed information about the waste, required by NRC in 10 CFR Part 20, and by DOT. In addition, the State agencies regulating the disposal facilities to which the wastes are shipped have required additional information on the manifests. ,
There are general provisions in the current regulations for obtaining LLW information from disposal site operators that would typically be used in performance assessments of LLW disposal facilities. However, the existing NRC j regulations do not provide specific requirements to ensure that the data on l quantities and forms of waste, such as those that would be required on the j Uniform Manifest, can be readily accessed by NRC or other regulatory bodies, j for independent analysis. Given this situation, NRC, to date, has obtained l information about LLW characteristics by purchasing microfiche copies of i shipment manifests from the disposal facility operators, along with limited l' data summaries generated by the operators' computer systems. A significant i
cross-checking effort between individual manifests and data summaries is required to sufficiently characterize the disposal site waste inventories for performance assessment purposes, and, even after this effort, uncertainties still remain as a result of vague or inconsistent descriptions.
1 When the rule was proposed, it was anticipated that several new disposal facilities would be in operation soon, with more to follow. This increasing nember of facilities, with the possibility of different manifest formats, i provided an additional reason for uniform reporting of information. The schedules for operation of most of these facilities, however, have been delayed or are uncertain; but the staff is still presuming that a number of '
new disposal facilities will eventually be in operation, and therefore, continues to support the need for a uniform manifest.
As discussed in SECY-91-415, the staff believes this rule will improve NRC and l State regulation of LLW disposal in the following areas: !
Upgraded data reauirements. As part of licensing new LLW disposal facilities, applicants and regulatory agencies will assess the expected performance of the disposal facilities. Similar assessments will be performed for disposal facility license renewals and closures. The chemical, physical, and ,
radiological characteristics of the disposed waste, the quantity disposed or, i and the waste retention capabilities of various disposal containers and waste i 1
i
_.7
'It i
The Commissioners -5 l r
i forms,will be considered in these assessments. The better the'information,. l the more accurately a quantitative source term can be' estimated which is -!
needed in conducting performance assessments. The improved data reporting requirements of this final rule will provide the consistency and detail of I information necessary to conduct more realistic performance assessment j evaluations.
Uniform Manifest. A uniform manifest will reduce paperwork, particularly for l j
LLW shipments traveling across State and Compact boundaries, by eliminating the need for various disposal facilities (Compacts) to each develop its own j
- unique form containing similar information. Because a_ uniform manifest will ;
reduce paperwork, it should promote more efficient operations in the movement i
of LLW from generators to processors, collectors, and disposal facilities. j Because manifests for all' LLW shipments would be presented in the same format, l
'a uniform manifest also will enhance the ability of first-on-the-scene- ;
responders to properly cope with any potential transportation incidents d
involving radioactive waste shipments. [
, I The staff has attempted to address the principal disadvantages of a uniform
l g manifest, namely, that: (1) it may not totally reflect all requirements
- - considered essential by the wide spectrum of State regulatory or Compact ,
i
- authorities and facility operators; and (2) it may take some time to get users familiar with the new requirements and format. The staff believes these disadvantages have been minimized in the development of the Uniform Manifest i through interactions with disposal facility operators, Compact authorities, f State regulatory agencies, Federal agencies, and others. The staff believes j that, because the Uniform Manifest and its supporting instructions
J
- (Attachment 2) indicate that additional information can be appended to the '
Uniform Manifest forms, the disadvantage cited in Item 1 is addressed. I However, the discussion in the final rule points out that requiring the transfer of unnecessary information dilutes a major purpose behind the
- development of a Uniform Manifest. To address the second point, an effort F . initiated through the Department of Energy's National LLW Program is underway to develop software to assist those that will have to complete the Uniform Manifest (see discussion under " Coordination" section).
Reportina and storace of manifest information. The rule would require that
,~
manifest information from NRC-licensed disposal facilities be stored and
- reportable on a computer-readable medium. The types of reports expected would
- require the disposal facility operator to be able to track the origin, transport, disposition, and characteristics of individual disposal containers of. waste. For example, disposal facility licensees must perform, and NRC or Agreement State regulatory authorities must review, approve, and be able to
. independently verify, safety and' environmental assessments for periodic license renewals and eventual facility closure. Regulators will need a detailed knowledge of the radionuclide inventories of disposed waste, as a function of specific waste streams, to ensure continued safe operation of the
-facility. Computer storage and electronic transmittal will better ensure both t the accuracy.and the utility of the data.
L' -
i
'k
_ _ ~ _ _ _ ._ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _
1
~ The Commissioners 6. ,
t
,~ -
~
Other manifest information needs. The Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste 2 Manifest has been developed to contain the necessary information needed to i satisfy DOT shipping paper requirements, as well as to implement the intent'of i the LLRWPAA (e.g., to identify original generators of LLW). As discussed above, and in the " Coordination" section, NRC has worked closely with DOT to ensure that DOT's shipping paper requirements are, incorporated into the NRC ;
j manifest (NRC Form 540). .,
similarly, the NRC manifest (NRC Form 542) has been developed to be consistent [
i with current practice of providing the ability to track LLW back, through ;
potential collectors and processors, to the original generator. Original
~
generator information not only furthers regulatory understanding of LLW source t
' terms, but also satisfies the need of States and Compacts to identify the ;
generator of wastes-being disposed of in the facilities they license, j
]
After considering the above, the staff is recommending to the Commission a h
- final rule-that would specifically define the LLW manifest information i
3 necessary to provide more realistic LLW source terms for use in independent !
performance assessments to support licensing actions. This specific information should also be useful in supporting future regulatory and policy !
decisions. For the reasons discussed previously, the rule also requires this t
information be reported within a prescribed uniform manifest format.
. COORDINATION:
{ The NRC staff has coordinated this rulemaking with DOT since the initiation of
- th concept of developing a uniform manifest. Before issuing the proposed rule, DOT concurred with the shipping paper' portion of the Uniform Manifest (NRC Form 540) that was developed to accompany the proposed rule. The information to be reported on the NRC Form 540 is based on DOT's current 4
shipping paper regulations, as well as amendments to its regulations proposed by DOT to their requirements in November 1989, but not yet finalized. NRC has
, been provided information on possible changes that DOT is considering in preparing its final rule. The staff has developed the NRC forms and
- instructions based on this input. Because the NRC final rule is similar to the proposed rule, in which DOT has already concurred, the NRC does not intend
- to seek DOT's reconcurrence on the rule. Further, any changes DOT might make i to.its final rule are not expected to affect this rulemaking, even if it were to impact the manifest forms. Because the forms are only referred to in the
- rule, minor format changes could be accommodated without further rulemaking o actions. The NRC will, however, seek DOT concurrence on the appropriate parts of the Uniform Manifest (NRC Form 540) after DOT finalizes its rulemaking, to
- ensure that' DOT shipping paper requirements are met. If necessary, changes to the form would then be made. This should not impact licensees, because DOT is expected to finalize their rule before'use of the Uniform Manifest becomes j mandatory on March 1, 1998.
The staff is also coordinating with DOE's National Low-Level Waste Management Program. As noted earlier, under this program, a task has been initiated to develop computer software capable of prompting the user to input applicable g - w y v - y w m m- --
v -
,---m t .j~3. - , _ . . . - . , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ,
The Commissioners 7 manifest information and providing acceptable manifest documentation. The Uniform Manifest, as referenced in the proposed rule, has been used as one of the baseline formats within this software. When the final rule and forms are completed, the software will be modified accordingly. The intent is to make this program available at little or no charge. The staff has been encouraging this effort and intends to review the capabilities of the software.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
RESOURCES:
Resources needed to implement the rule are included in the FY 1995-1999 Internal Program / Budget Review document. Costs to print and mail the forms and instructions for the waste generators and collector / processors are expected to be minimal and will be absorbed within existing resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
4 That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the Notice of Final Rulemaking for publication (Attachment 1).
- 2. Certify that this rule will not have a negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in order to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
- 3. Note:
- a. A final regulatory analysis will be available in the Public Document Room (Attachment 3);
- b. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act;
- c. This final rule amends information collection requirements that ,
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB approval will be obtained prior to publication in the Federal Register;
- d. A public announcement will be issued (Attachment 4);
- e. The appropriate Congressional committees will be informed (Attachment 5); and
l The Commissioners 8 1
- f. The effective date for implementation of this rule (March 1, 1998) is approximately 3 years from the estimated publication date. i This will provide time for Agreement States to amend their regulations. Earlier implementation is allowed (e.g., -if a new >
disposal facility became operational prior to the effective date).
- g. Copies of the Federal Register notice of final rulemaking will be distributed to all Commission licensees. The notice will be sent to other interested parties, on request.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Attachments: As stated (5) ,
1 l
l 1
l 1
l 1
I b
The Commissioners 8 '
i
- f. The effective date for implementation of this rule (March 1,1998) is approximately 3 years from the estimated publication date. :
This will provide time for Agreement States to amend their regulations. Earlier implementation is allowed (e.g., if a new i disposal facility became operational prior to the effective date).
- g. Copies of the Federal Register notice of final rulemaking will be !
distributed to all Commission licensees. The notice will be sent to other interested parties, on request. :
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Attichments: As stated (5) <
RECORD NOTE: A draft copy of the final rule was sent to 0IG for information on August 26, 1994.
- Document Name
- SECY2] *see previous concurrences OFFICE: DRA:RDB DRA:RDB DRA:RDB DD:DRA* D:DRA*
?
NAME: MHaisfield* RAuluck* SBahadur* FCostanzi BMorris
/Jw 8
4
_DATE: ./26/94 .. .
. 6/3/94- .. 6/30/.94 .. ../27/94.
_8/27/94 0FFICE: D:0E* 0:IRM* D:SP* D:NRR* D:NMSS*
NAME: JLieberman GCranford RBangart WRussell RBernero 1 l
DATE:- 9/15/94 9/12/94 10/17/94 9/7 94 9/21/94 l mummmmmme mummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmusiiiiseum ammmmmmmmmune D: S j EDO ;
0FFICE: 0:ADR* OGC:* DWRES __
NAME:' PNorry KCYR RVhr rd JMTaylor 10/11/94 /0 // /94 3 /7d/94 / /94 1
0 ATE: 9/15/94 0F FICIAL' RECORD CMY (RES File Code) RES
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N NRCFORM6 SECY-
$ o20 NR SECY PAPER DISTRIBUTION REVIEWED BY 1
CLASSIFIED TYPE OF PAPER ^'
POLICY AFFIRMATION Sp]jn (1) (1)
NOTATION Rogers (1) OGC (2) ,
RULEMAKING (1) SECY (3) ;
ADJUDICATORY ET }
INFORMATION de Planquill NTER III -
f MEETING j
DISTRIBUTION
' N (3) 3 ]
CHAIRMAN Selin (6) [ E T S yR7CTORS (2) 2 COMMISSIONER Rogers (4) .l I" ^ ~
COMMISSIONER' (4 ) ~
RUfEMAKG) 1 CONTROLLER (3) /
COMMISSIONER .de P1anque(3) i INFORMATION RESOURCES (3) #
COMMISSIONER ) '.
MANAGEMENT #F AULEMAK/NG/(4) l (10) ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF (3) / )
(30 80) i OPERATIONAL DATA SECY /FOR MEET /NG) -
- NUCLEAR MATERIAL (5) N C (12) ' SAFETY AND SAFEGARDS INSPECTOR GENERAL (2) /
E EAGOR g37) j NUCLEAR REGULATORY IIII /5-LICENSING SUPPORT III / RESEARCH SYSTEM GOVERNMENTAL AND OFFICE OF III /
(2) / CONSOLIDATION PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF III [
'I2I / ENFORCEMENT
, AFFAIRS I2I /
STATE PROGRAMS (2) 2 fNV l ATIONS INTERNATIONAL OFFICE OF III /
I2I 6 PERSONNEL PROGRAMS
' III SDBU/CR (1) /
AIRS / l OOCUMENT CONTROL ,
III /
DESK REGIONAL OFFICES: IC&R BRANCH,SECY) CON 8AITTEES AND PANELS (2) 2 R SA G DS II0I /
RI- KING OF PRUSSIA (2) 7 UC RW (6) /
Ril- ATLANTA e ATOMICSAFETY AND (2) g, r Rlli- CHICAGO (2) -
LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4 ATOMICSAFETY AND (2) t, RW - DAM (2) '
LICENSING APPEAL PANEL -
WALNUT CREEK / FIELD OFFl@
2 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPlES J) -
RETURN ORIGINAL TO:
_ _ _ . ._______:----___--