ML20154Q758
Text
i
,I. f 87151 JS/87/08/27 SEP 8 27 MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs FROM: Paul H. Lohaus, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Deconrnissioning
SUBJECT:
LLWM REVIEW 0F NEW YORK LOW-LEVEL WASTE REGULATIONS In response to your August 14, 1987 letter to Malcolm Knapp, we have reviewed the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's draft site and method selection regulations.
We reviewed the regulations somewhat out of context because large portions of the material contained in 10 CFR 61 was omitted from the New York State draft regulations. Technical information related to operations, monitoring and closure, needed to support licensing analyses, has not been explicitly required in the draft regulation. Because 10 CFR Part 61 represents a systems approach to low level waste disposal, it is difficult to comment on the adequacy of a l regulation which is based on only specific pieces of it. l The regulations also appear to be a combination of administrative, procedural, I environmental and radiation protection regulations all in one, but with major pieces missing.
Regarding site perfomance objectives, siting and design, the regulations are much more conservative than 10 CFR Part' 61. Regarding waste classification, waste fom and labelling, the regulations appear to be identical. It should be noted that New York chooses to include Ra-226 in its classification system.
In addition, the draft New York siting regulations seem to be inconsistent in both context and scope. For instance, 382.20(g)(6) prohibits facility location on Indian lands, but the regulation provides no mechanism for tribal input in making this determination. Further, the regulations suggest submittal requirements and characterization studies consistent with near surface disposal I (in this case above and below ground vaults) yet in other parts of the 1
1 l
8806070112 880527
$NI 08-135 PDR [d/bdh*/35 A///
87151 JS/87/08/27
_2 regulations New York has allowed for deep geologic repositories as a possible disposal method.
Attached are our detailed coments on the draft regulations.
Paul M. Lohaus, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning
Attachment:
As stated DJSTRIBUTION:
v1.LWM s/f NMSS r/f LLOB r/f JShaffner, LLOB OMartin, LLOB PLohaus, LLOB JSumeier, LLTB MKearney, LLRB JGreeves LLWM MXnapp, LLWM 0FC: LLOB .J :LLOB g :LLT : : :
j
....... ......q.g{7.__...............______...
NAME:JShaffner/dfw : tin :JStarmer:ff, fey: :
' ~ ~
bkTEbh/bh) bh)bh[$bh)b9)[$ hf[o(([h $
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
87151 COMMENTS LLWM COMMENTS ON 6NY CRR PART 382: REGULATIONS FOR LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 382.2 Definitions Staff review of definitions which are common to 10 CFR Part 61 indicates that New York is consistent in defining those terms.
However, we do not know the purpose of defining health physics terms and terms of other scientific disciplines where it is not the intention of the State to alter the definition (e.g., curie, sillirem, subsidence, soil).
Page A-4 & A-5: Defining both "disposal facility" and "land disposal facility" is confusing and redundant. The former is defined to fit a broad universe of disposal technologies the latter is defined, we assume, for compatibility with 10 CFR Part 61.
Page A-5: The definition of major natural phenomenon should include floods.
l l
Page A-6: Correct spelling of nanocurie.
Page A-7: The definition of "mixed waste" should be consistent with the recent definition proffered by EPA and NRC in their joint guidance docucent.
l Page A-10: Apparently, the definition of shallow land burial is j provided because the regulation strictly prohibits this technology. l That being the case, the definition should be more descriptive and less "editorial" in nature.
4 I
87151 COMMENTS Page A-11: We suggest changing the term "underground mined repository" as it has high-level waste connotations.
382.4 VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS We assume that item (c) is aimed at Federal activities at West Valley, New York. It is not appropriate to call out NRC in this item '
as NRC will not be disposing of waste in New York State.
382.6 CERTIFICATION OF DISPOSAL SITES AND METHODS This section seems to be more procedural than necessary. It contains elements of 10 CFR Parts 2, 20, 51 and 61. l Page B-3: Item (a)(1)(vii) - Given the need for an EIS, this item l should be supplemented with more substantive guidance as to the EIS contents.
Page B-5: Item (c)(3) - A fif teen day turnaround on a scoping decision seems very optimistic.
Page B-6: Item (1)(ix) - The requirement for the information specified in NRC's Standard Format & Content Guide for a License i Application for a low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility -
Safety Analysis Report is ambiguous. The subject NRC document contains a comprehensive list of applicant submittal requirements per 10 CFR Part 61. The NY regulation would be improved, in referring to the document, by being more prescriptive in its application if possible.
Page B-8: Item (2)(i)-(2)(vii) - The technical analyses called for herein parallel those required in Part 61; however, technical information related to operations, monitoring and closure needed to
87151 COM4ENTS support these analyses has not otherwise been required by the regulation.
Subpart C - Performance Objectives Generally, the performance objectives appear to be more conservative than those in 10 CFR Part 61. Individual dose limits for unrestricted areas appear to be consistent with 20.105.
Subpart 0 - Siting Criteria Siti'ng Criteria, with one exception, are more conservative than 10 CFR Part 61. We found no requirement that upstream drainage areas be minimized (10 CFR 61.53(a)(6)). The "exclusion" criteria, over and above those in Part 61, may make it extrerely difficult to find a suitable site. Otherwise acceptable sites may be eliminated because of such exclusion criteria.
NRC has yet to develop siting criteria for deep (>30 meters) disposal of low-level waste. Consequently we have no comment on the adequacy of deep disposal siting criteria.
Subpart E - Disposal Method Criteria It is noted that the regulation bans shallow land burial. It should be more definitive, if possible, as to what is meant by shallow land burial (see consent on SLB definition). We suggest a definition which does not specifically preclude 10 CFR Part 61 near surface disposal to the extent that this is consistent with State law.
The regulation adopts 10 CFR Part 61 design criteria. In addition, it requires recoverability and structural stability of the disposal unit itself. These concepts go beyond the 10 CFR Part 61 4 requirements, c
I l
l
87151 COMMENTS Page E-4: item 382.33 (a)(i) - It should be noted that the concept of inadvertent intruder protection in 10 CFR Part 61 (61.7(b)(a)) is applied to wastes which exhibit an unacceptable hazard beyond the 100 year institutional control periods. .The reviewer considers that the incorporation of inadvertent intrusion resistance during the 100 year institutional control period is unnecessary.
Page E-b: item 382.35 - We have no comment on the criteria for Mined Disposal since NRC has no similar criteria for comparison.
Subpart J - Waste Classification The Waste Classification procedure specified is essentially consistent with Part 61. It was noted that Ra-226 was included in the classification system, 382.81, 382.82, 382.83:
Sections related to Waste Characteristics, Labelling and Alternstive Requirements appear to be consistent with 10 CFR Part 61.
-l l
l I
1
--+e- - - ,, , -ww- , - - -- w -r s n --
-- + ~ - - --