ML20151G907
| ML20151G907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/12/1984 |
| From: | Hazle A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151G890 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-312 NUDOCS 8808010030 | |
| Download: ML20151G907 (12) | |
Text
,
,, /
406.3.1 LTR TO CDS--EPA ADV NOTICE 1
p 14 W i
Central Docket Section (LE-130)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW l ATTN: Docket No. R-82-1 l Washington, DC 20460 Gentlemen:
On August 31, 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on environmental standards for low-level radioactive waste disposal (48 FR 39563). The EPA requested input for use in developing the new regulation, 40 CFR Part 193.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is pleased to offer comments and to respond to the six specific areas of interest identified in the ANPRM. The specific areas are addressed in Enclosure 1.
The NRC staff celieves that establishment of a generally applicabit environmental standard for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal is unnecessary and actually may prove disruptive of an ongoing process to put in place a frantsork for safe disposal of LLW based on interstate compacts under the Low-level Radiaoactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. As you know, the NRC issued in final form 10 CFR Part 61 in December 1982, a copy of which is enclosed to become part of the record for this ANPRM.
This regulation establishes a national frrework for LLW disposal applicable to licensing by both NRC and tereement States, which provides ;
for assuring protection of the public heaIth and safety and the environment.
As part of the Part 61 rulemaking, an environmental impact '
statement was developed which laid out the bases for the overall performanceobjectives. Throughout development of Part 61, the NRC staff worked closely with EPA, to assure that the Commission established performance objectives compatible with EPA expectations for future standards for LLW.
The ANPRM now introduces considerable uncertainty regarding the status of these national licensing standards. The NRC staff is gravely concerned that the ANPRM, by introducing uncertainty in disposal standards, will act to stall by the the orderly implementation of the regional compact process States.
States may delay site development until final EPA standards are available. Industry may be reluctant to risk resources on OFC : : :
NAME : : :
DATE :84/01/16 : : :
n? Vo?? "" "DR FELTONBG-312 P fo/A- 87-3 /.% 1
406.3.1 LTR TO CDS--EPA ADV NOTICE IU ' '.h .
site development. If the compact process and site development stalls because of uncertainties in timing and content of a new standard, the development of needed regionally distributed disposal sites will be delayed and the States will not be able to meet their responsibilities established by the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. The need for a stable regulatory climate for developing new sites under the Low-Level Radioactivo Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the existence of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory framework for assuring safe disposal, are sufficient reason for EPA to defer its effort to produce a generally applicable standard.
However, NRC staff agrees with the need to address generally applicable environmental standards for wastes which can be disposed of by less restrictive means than those required by 10 CFR Part f'.. National policy and guidance are needed to assure that adequate contruis are exercised and that consistent approaches are taken in evaluating the potential impacts on public health and safety froe disposal of such "below ,
regulatory concern" wastes. EPA is in a unique position to spearhead development of this guidance. NRC staff recommends that EPA focus on a lower limit of environmental concern. Such a focus would address a pressing national need without being disruptive of the ongoing process.
This point is discussed further in response to No. 2 in Enclosure 1.
Should EPA decide to continue on its present course of providing overall guidance on LLV disposal, the NRC staff strongly urges EPA to follow a Federal Radiation Council guidance approach to meet any need fcr additional requirements for activities and materials not covered by 10 CFR Part 61. This point is addressec note fully in Enclosure 1.
If, however, EPA decides to proceed with its standards-setting, it is important to note that EPA does not have authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to ir.clude means of implementation in its general environmental standards. (The same point was made in Chairman Palladino's letter of May 11, 1983, to Mr. Lee Verstandig, Acting Administrator, a copy of which is enclosed for the ANFRM record.)
Accordingly, we ask that EPA not include in any of its standards any provisions pertaihing to implementation that would reduce or inhibit NRC's ability or flexibility in implementing 10 CFR Part 61 or any other NRC rules. What we would look f<er in EPA general environmental standards OFC : : : : : : :
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE :80 01/16 : : : . : :
406.3.1 LTR TO CDS--EPA ADV NOTICE 'q . . , ,
~
are limits on exposures or radionuclide concentrations released to the environment. This point is also addressed below and in Enclosure 1.
In this regard two points are important with respect te what is or is not low-level waste. As acknowledged in the ANPRM, the term low-level waste has evolved in law and regulation as to mean all wastes that are not specifically adcressed elsewhere. The first point refers to transuranic corcentration provisions in the cited proposed high-level waste standard (40 CFR Part 191). The proposed provisions in Part 191 would require that tt.9 same controls that apply to high-level waste apply to all transuranic waste exceeding 100 nanocuries per gram. The EPA proposed standard would limit NRC flexibility in applying 10 CFR Part 61 to provide for the safe disposal of wastes exceeding the 100 nanocuries per gram limit in accord with Part 61 performance objectives. The 100 nanocurie limit was developed in Part 61 as an appropriate value for routine near-surface disposal. Other land disposal methods or modified near-surface disposal may provide safe disposal for higher concentrations without requiring measures equivalent to a high-level waste repository.
The second point relates to the continuing need for eliminating or at least minimizing dual regulation. Overlapping authorities are not uniqua to low-level wastes and have been addressed for other activities such as transport of racioactive materials. NRC and EPA staff have been working on a memorandum of understanding to eliminate potential dual regulation l of facilities licensed under Part 61 which would result from application of EPA's hazardous waste permitting regulations to low-level radioactive wasto disposal facilities. How to eliminate or minimize State / EPA dual reg'.ilation of accelerator produced and naturally occurring radionuclides should also be a prime EPA goal. i l
EPA should take full advantage of the record establisned for 10 CFR Part
- 61. .The devele ment of Part 61 included extensive inout from all sectors on a wide range of issues related to low-level waste disposal. Input included comments on an advance notice, four regional workshops, and comments by 107 persons including 17 State groups on the proposed rule.
The supporting cocumentation includes a draft and a final environmental impact statement and data base documents. By reference, please incorporate NUREG-0782, "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61, ' Licensing lequirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive OFC :
NAME : :
DATE :84/01/16 :
405.3.1 LTR TO CDS RE EPA ADV NOTICE Waste,'" and NUREG-0945, "Final Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61, ' Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'" into the record for the ANPRM.
We appreciate the. opportunity to comment and are prepared to discuss car connents and their resolution with EPA staff. i Sincerely,
{ Signed) John G. Davis John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
- 1. Comments on Specific Areas
- 3. Ltr dtd 5/11/83 to L. Verstandig fm N. J. Palladino l
l l
1 i s. c. % y . t ' .x _ /c %~ i ru- [cj!,.
$7 .s a
, i ; .' ,y
- x Jm '.:. . : .. a , .
e . . ,, . l. !, v' '
. t * ' ^
v'b'!.
REFERENCE:
' c~C '/ cd t/ew/r+
la h ,* n w .
- n_ a_
s
~
KQ) 3FC .#.L U : WMLU : WMLU : WM . : NMSS :NMS NAME :Cragonette:jh PLohaus
................g ................:..... g...
- LHigginbotham REBrownin[: DMausshardt :JG 4...:...........
y' DATE : 33/11/22 :83/11/ : 83/11/ : 83/11/ : 83/1.T/
~
pT/jf7 :
g4 7, /g o .-
l l
. 406.3.1 I LTR TO ;;5 RE EPA ADV NOTICE Waste,'" and NUREG-0945, "Final Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61, ' Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'" into the record for the ANPRM.
We appreciate the. opportunity to comment and are prepared to discuss our comments and their resolution with EPA staf f.
Sincerely, l
l (Signed) John G. Davis John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
- 1. Comments on Specific Areas
- 3. Ltr :td 5/11/83 to L. Verstandig fm N. J. Palladino l
l l
NRC STAFF C0 F.NTS ON SIX SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST IN THE EPA ANPRM l
- 1. What is the appropriate form for Low-Level Waste Standards? 'he Agency currently believes that standards in the form of dose limits say be most suitable. We would particularly appreciate cosments on the a:oropriate-ness of dose limitations and suggestions regarding alternative forms that may have specific merits. Further, EDA would like to receive comments on the need for other actions in lieu of standards or actions that would supplement standards. For example, should general criteria be considered to augment specific environmental standards? EPA would also appreciate comments regarding the appropriate basis for selecting the level of stringency for Low-Level Waste Standards.
The appropriate form may depend on the scope of disposal activities to be T covered. EPA should explicitly state and consider activities any standards are intended to cover. Such explicit consideration would help assure that the standard would be applied to those activities intended and would nct be applied to activities which were not considered or intended. The standards might cover 1 de minimis or totally unrestricted disposal, ainimally controlled cisposal such l as sanitary landfill disposal, on-site disposal by individual licensees of residual activity or new disposals under 10 CFR 20.302(a), multiple commercial sector facilities under 10 CFR Part 61, or Federal reservation discesals. If new standards are issued, EPA is encouraged to cover a broad, range :f activities, but the most urgent need is the lower end of the spectr.a as indicated in the response to No. 2. Standards should not include implementation features which are the responsibility of the impleme1 ting agencies.
Standards in the form of dose limits would probably be the most appropriate.
Dose limits for the maximum exposed individual based on acceptable levels of risk are recommended. EPA should consider using the approach, femat, and simplicity used in establishing 40 CFR 190. 40 CFR 190 has worked :ut well in !
practice. For consistency in application, the dose limit standards could be .
supplemented with suggestions on acceptable dose models and the factors '
Enclosure 1 l 1
appro:*iate for use in making dose calculations but such suggestions must not I
be a part of the standard itself.
As an alternative to, standards, EPA should consider using its Federal Radiation Council (FRC) guidance authority to meet its objectives. An FRC guidelines approach would ensure that any further requirements necessary would be devel-oped under a consistent set of Presidentially approved recommendations, provide maximun coverage and flexibility, and still ensure public health protection.
l We believe that EPA has the option of not setting general environmental standaros and to pursue a guidance-only course since EPA has no legislativa mandata to develop standards for LLW. ;
1 l
l
'N l
1 l
I 9
2
- 2. Are there some types of classes of radioactive waste which do not need regulatory control to protect the public? Specifically, is there a suffi-ciently small concentration and/or likelihood of exposure from radioactive materials in some wastes, so that they can be considered to be of no radiation-related regulatory concern, or which can be disposed of with minimal controls? What should be the basis for determining a level below regulatory concern?
Establishing environmental standards in tems of off-site concentrations, or dose limits that establisn levels of no regulatory concern or needing minimal contrcls would be the mest beneficial area for EPA to focus its attention, particularly if it chose to use the FRC authority option. Based on comments submitted during the development of Part 61 on the need for de minimis levels and based on continuing input from scates and licensees, there is a clear need to address the lower boed of environmental concern.
Under NRC rules, primarily 10 CFR 20.306, wastes containing traces of H-3 and 'N C-14 may be disposed of without regard to their radioactive content. The NRC staff believe that other wasta streams can be sufficiently characterized and represent sufficiently minical radiological hazard to allow disposal by means less restrictive than a 8 art 61 land disposal facility. Based on generally applicable environmental standards, some waste streams may require some restriction on disposal, e.g. , only to sanitary land fills, and other streams may require no restrictions. The NRC declared its intent to follow this waste stream-by-waste stream a:proach in the preamble to final Part 61 and still believes that this is the approach that will be most productive in the near ters. The NRC views the identification of wast.e streams needing minimal or no restrictions as a matter of implementation of the standard.
2 As a separate issue and as a long-term goal, EPA could consider a more generic lower limit of regulatory concern for low-level waste management. Such a limit, expressed as a maximum individual dose limit for example, could be used to detemine when trace levels of residual activity are truly de minimis and require no regulatory control. Standards or guidance should be subjected to ,
real-world applications to determine that specified levels are useful and practical.
3
l l
- 3. What are the key factors in reasonably assuring that environmental -
protection standards will be satisfied? If we consider site character- l istics, engineered barriers, and administrative controls, which are the most important?
EPA shoula avail itself of the experience gained in developing 10 CFR Part 61.
In developing Part 61, NRC concluded that a systems approach is the best approach for considering low-level waste disposal. The components of the systee include the site characteristics, design, and operations; institutional controls; waste form; and intruder barriers. In developing the waste classifi-cation schame for near-surface disposal, we found that the potential dose to man from disposed waste was dependent in part on each component. The classi-fication scheme specifies the quantity and type of radioactivity based on the combination of components. No single componert provides complete assurance of safe disposal and all have a role to play to take full advantage of land disposal methodology. 3 NRC staff recognizes that EPA must consider the disposal system and how a standard might be implemented inside the site boundary of a facility, but would I enchasize that implementation must not be a part of the standard itself. The standard must reflect the respective responsibilities of our agencies in keeping with our current authorities and agreements. Specific site enaracteristics, engineered barriers, and adminirtrative controls needed to c:mply with an environmental standard are means of implementation tnat must be left to the discretion of the licensing agencies.
9 4
4 The Agency is currently assuming that authorities will di tain active institutional control at LLW disposal facilitiew fo$ 100 years after their closure, including maintenance and ushp of engineered control structures. Is this period reasonable, or should it be longer or shorter?
The length of time appropriate to rely on active insti.utional control was ar issue specifically addressed in the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking, and is an area in which EPA could use the record generated. After
. discussion in wortshops, public comment, and other avemes, a consensus on this issue emerged that 100 years is a reasonable upoer limit to rely on for active institutional controls for low-level wasta sites that would be licensed under Part 61. An important factor in the consensus was thtet active controls are an institutional burden that the landowner -
(probably State) sust assume and should be. limited. The 100 year consensus for Part 61 facilities does not mean that shcrter or longer periods would not be safe. Longer periods at DOE facilities where pre-existing institutional commitients already exist are reasonable and we so stated. Mcwever, for non-DOE sites, the States strongly supported an upper bound of 100 years. Shorter periods or no institutional controls might be suitable for disposal methods of less hazardous saterial than the full range covered by Part 61.
EPA should be awa e that the 100 year period is a significant parameter in determining the waste classification limits in Part 51. If the t:-e is changed, the concentrations would change in that lorger times would allow more decay and higher concentrations of certain mclides and conversely shorter times would result in lower concentrations. This illustrates how any revisit of issues could potentially disrupt Part
- 61. An environmental standard would be an additional parameter to f actor into the c'assification system regardless of the institutional -
control term. The latter should be viwwed as an implementing measure, ,
not as part of an environmental standard.
5
-s
- 5. The LLW standards being develo:ea under this rulemaking could be ap;1ied to a variety of types of facilities including new facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (lRC) and the States, existing facilities licensed by NRC anc the States, new facilities at Federai installations, and existing fa:ilities at Federal installations. What should be the basis for determining to which facili* des the standar:
should be applied. I i
The provisions of 10 CFR Part 61 are being applied to existing sites on a case-by-case basis. EPA should exe-cise care in any across-the-board applica-tion of standards. Future disposal at new sites can be planned to meet new standards but remedial action at existing sites and for previously disposed waste should not be required without providing flexibility for case-by-case review of feasibility and costs. Any standard should allow for different'ation and variance in its application to existing and future sites.
'N i
9 e
6
l
- 6. What metnocs should be employed to confirm that environmental standards l are being met? Consider such alternatives as predictive models, continuous monitors, and sampling programs.
l 10 CFR Part 61 requires that applications for new sites include technical analyses of radionuclide release pathways (predictive models) that demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that the exposure to humans will not exceed l the doses limits in the performance objective (e.g.,10 CFR 61.13(a)). Part 61 also requires pathway monitoring to confirm the analyses during operations, closure, and licensed post-closure care. Any standard or guidance developed by EPA in this area should include adequate flexibility for implementing agencies to exercise their authorities and responsibilities. Compliance is primarily the responsibility of the implementing agency.
'N l
I 1
l P
l 7
l dh uag$*g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
! J'y '
usectos, o. c. osss
' hsf j
, . m/
- "* May ll, 1983 CH AIRMAN Mr. Lee Verstandig Acting Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Verstandig:
In a letter dated May 10, 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) staff provided coments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed environmental standards for the mr.nagement and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transurar.tc radioactive wastes. 47 FedJRe . 58196 (December 29,1982). That 1etter stated that the Comission hTageneral concerns about sections of the proposed standards that deal with means of implementation and that these concerns would be addressed in a separate letter. For the reasons discussed below, the Comission believes that Section 191.04(b),191.14 and 191.15 address matters of implementing EPA's standards and, thus, are solely within the Comission's jurisdiction with regard to NRC licensed farilities. Accordingly, the Comission urges that these provisions be deleted from the final standards as being beyond EPA's authority.
Acency Authority Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred to EPA two functions regardirg(federal contr71 of radiation and radioactive materials.Section 2 Energy Comission (AEC): ,
... to the extent that such functions of the Comission consist of establishing generally applicable environmental standards for the protection of the general enviroriment from radioactive material.
As used herein, standards mean limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of raficactive material, in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of persons possessing or using radioactive material.'
Section 2(a)(7) transferred all functions of the Federal Radiation Council established under Section 274(h) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in his message to Cong ess transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the President stated that the "AEC would retain responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of radiation standards through its licensihg authority." The complementary responsibilities of the AEC and EPA are memorialized in two Memoranda of Understanding, one for
@!, d!!! &! 7 ? 3)Y
2 AEC-licensed facilities, 38 Fed. Reg. 24936 (September 11,1973),and l one for AEC facilities, 38 Fed. Reg. 32965 (November 29,1973). These responsibilities now apply to the NRC as the successor to the AEC's regulatory authority and to the Department of Energy as the successor to the AEC's programatic. responsibilities.
The limitation of EPA's authority to the setting of ambient standards was reiterated by Roy L. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Bucget, in a memorandum of December 7,1973. The Comission believes that those limits have been exceeded by Section 191.04(b), 191.14 and 191.15 of the proposed high-level waste standards. In the Comission's view, as explained below, these provisions are addressed to matters of I im;1ementation exclusively within the NRC's jurisdiction.
Variance Procedures - $191.04(b) ,
1 Section 191.04(b) specifies procedures for the Comission to follow prior to granting a variance that would temporarily authorize operations which exceed the standards in 5191.03. Within statutory limits, decisions on whther the public should participate in NRC determinations, and the procedural details for such participation, are clearly in the exclusive domain of the implementing agency. Neither )
Recrganization Plan No. 3 nor any statute modifies the Comission's auth:-ity to render any determinations on an application for a variance.
Accoroingly, the Comission believes that Section 191.04(b) is beyond EPA's authority and should be deleted from the final standards.
Assurance Requirements - $191.14 Section 191.14 contains several requirerents characterized as "assurance requirements" which will "provide the confidence needed for comp 1,iance with the containment requirements of $191.13." While some of these requirements may be good ideas, their promulgation as EPA standards raises fundamental questions regarding the regulation of waste repositories. EPA discussion of several of these provisions duplicates
^
NRC's work in developing 10 CFR P3rt 60 and some of EPA requirements are j
- . not entirely consistent with NRC rouirements in Part 60. More funda- !
mentally, confidence that the containment requirements will be complied
- with is the very essence of the licensing process conducted by the NRC. l Compliance is a matter of the implementation and enforcement of standards. As such, it is clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of I the NRC and beyond the jurisdiction provided for EPA by Reorganization Plan No. 3. Accordingly, the Comission believes that Section 191.14 is '
beyond EPA's authority and should be deleted from the final standards. ,
1 Precedural Requirements - $191.15 The procedural requirements in Section 191.15 specify limiting assumptions that the Comission is to use in mcking performance assessments to detemine compliance. These include limits on the length-d
- , - - , . - .- ,-..-..,n-....-,---,-----n, n,- -- w+-.-,-_,,,,.... ,-n . - , , - - . , , _ - , , , - , - _ - . ~ . - . , , , - , , , , _ - . - ,
l 3
i l
of tims for active irstitutional controls, the use of realistic !
projections, and the use of inform 6 tion regarding human intrusion. Such requirements are also clearly matters of implementation exclusively within NRC's jurisdiction. Accordingly, this provision also should be deleted from the final standards. ,
For the above reasons, the Commission urges that the prop; sed standards be amended as discussed above.
Sincerely,
, e i , l J
Nunzio aliadino ec: Central Docket Section (A-130) l 9
5 i
e G
e t